Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177

legal threats

Anyone who's not keeping an eye on the Derek Smart arbcom case, I'd like an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the personal attacks and especially the legal threats by User:Supreme Cmdr on that case. I understand there is an arbitration currently pending, but that does NOT allow them to be able to make personal attacks and threats against other users. Only a handful of diffs needed, the rest are perfectly clear from a browse down the Workshop page: Note: h e's been blocked EIGHT TIMES for (i believe 41 days) personal attacks....legal threat, legal threat, insinuates another editor is stalking and is committing crimes, personal attack "Liar",incivility, incivility, personal attacks, libel claims, incivility, incivility, disingenuous editing while claiming "weazel words" and "pov pushing" to protect his own POV, incivility, refusal to assume good faith amongst ALL other editors on wikipedia, more personal attacks and incivility against another person this time, uncivil edit summary usage etc....and even trolling for help on other user's talk with incivility such as "consensus by dolts" in effort to "game" the arbcom ruling.

This is sickening, and it's frustrating, and as I've mentioned before, it's stressing me to the point that I'm seriously considering leaving the project because absolutely nothing has been done about this.

He's been blocked EIGHT FREAKING TIMES, community banned from the article, which was never enforced other than a single block, and he's STILL around causing trouble. Why is this being allowed to continue, seriously? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, useful link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart/Proposed_decision#Supreme_Cmdr. In my understanding, the situation is currently being discussed by ArbCom and they should hopefully reach a decision shortly. Addhoc 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned the pending case above, but a pending Arbcom case does not excuse an editor from following the most basic policies of wikipedia, such as WP:NLT and WP:NPA, both blockable offenses, and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When a user like this is clearly out to disrupt, it become a huge time sink for people who volunteer to keep this encyclopedia running. For that reason alone he should be blocked. We cannot afford to lose good users by assuming good faith to malcontents. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this case certainly has been a time sink, however as this shows there is currently a discussion within ArbCom about whether he should be blocked for 2 weeks or a year. Addhoc 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• In my view, he should be blocked until the arbitration committee makes finalizes its decision. Bucketsofg 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another remedy at the workshop, regarding this little outburst of harassment and legal threats. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated Daniel.Bryant, Addhoc, and Bucketsofg, and David D. Thanks for the eyes. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If this situation ever comes up again, you also have the option of proposing a motion for a temporary injunction on the Workshop of the arbitration case. I don't recommend doing so in this instance as it could wind up just distracting the arbitrators from getting to the final decision in the case which is what is really needed here, but still, you should be aware of the option.

Please don't leave the project over any one user, however troublesome you may find him, especially when the situation is actively in the process of being addressed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

External links from User Vwollan‎ & unregistered user(s) on Atmel AVR, AVR Butterfly & unregistered user

There is a persistent problem with the Articles Atmel AVR and AVR Butterfly. A number of external links keep being added which violate WP:EL. The full list of links and reasons are discussed on the Talk:Atmel_AVR page. On the talk pages I was accused of being a Big Jerk and a Little-Hitler'.

As the edits were originally being done by an unregesited user I requested and was granted semi-protection for the articles. I did this in the hope that it would cause the offender to register and prompt a civil discussion. This stopped the annymous editing and the User_Talk:Vwollan to surafce and perform the same edits. However civilised discussion remained impossible. The User:Vwollan had already recived a 1 week ban for adding excessive links.

The article AVR Butterfly went to mediation over the same matter in September 06 (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-10_AVR_Butterfly). An unregistered user has recently modified the archive of the mediation.

As attempts at civilised discussion have lead nowhere (and both parties (myself included)are getting close to the thre-revert-rule) I am unsure what to do next. I don't really want to request full protection, and I fear another mediation case would lead nowhere. I would like to bring this to the attention of an Admin/Sysop as attempts at resolvoinng the matter appear to have failed. -- User_Talk:Rehnn83 --Rehnn83 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Update the issue appears to be resolved - Admin Robdurbar has blocked the offending user --Rehnn83 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a Problem with User:Fabartus

I had never had any contact with this editor.

He began by making this edit to a WP:AN/I archive [1] , and then followed by posting this [2] at no time approaching me.

After tried to send me a private email through a third party (which I felt was inappropriate and most peculiar, because my email is enabled and his email is on his user page openly.) I expressed my concerns on his talk page, here [3].

To which he responded as follows [4].

It seems to me to be no more than one long personal attack, with little or no basis in any facts known to me. I have asked him for diffs and he refuses to provide them, instead, continuing his personal attacks.

It seems to me that he shouldn't be doing that. It also seems to me that I shouldn't just let it go on without bringing it here. --Zeraeph 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy Fabartus has chosen to resolve the matter satisfactorily. --Zeraeph 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Linda Christas again

The last Linda Christas related AN/I issue was here, a new AfD brings to my attention the following edits ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and more here) which I have a hard time believing (for reasons explained here) without verifyable sources. Pete.Hurd 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the same piffle paragraph was spammed into John McCain [12] & Ted Kennedy [13] (and Talk:George W. Bush...) by similar IPs Pete.Hurd 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just indef-blocked Georgewstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); his contributions consisted entirely of spamming the same unverifiable paragraph into multiple articles or tweaking it post-anon-insertion, plus the creation of four articles (Shirley J. Neeley, William J. Moloney, Dr. Patti Harrington, Linda McCulloch) which were blatant cut-and-paste copyvios of their official biographies - again, with the IASC paragraph snuck into the middle. —Cryptic 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly approve these actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More possible Art Dominique socks

Here are a couple of likely socks of banned user Art Dominique (talk · contribs). Checkuser was inconclusive. Please review and block if it is determined that they are socks.

• Huckleberry Hugo (talk · contribs)
• R.T. Merck (talk · contribs)

Thank you. TheQuandry 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza once more

Esperanza is on deletion review. Specifically, one editor wants all the histories back. FYI. >Radiant< 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV is for reviewing controversial decisions. And I think that deleting histories of the subpages against consensus to remove said histories is controversial. DRV is fair in this case imo, the statement "Specifically, one editor... FYI" seems to give it a "We want this dead and buried already, and this guy's kicking this back up to the surface" feel. – Chacor 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the admin closing statement it specifically says not to delete the page histories, so I don't see why this should be controversial at all. "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages". How much less controversial and clearcut can you get? --tjstrf talk 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If only the deleting admins realised it. – Chacor 16:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not at all saying it's wrong or unfair to take it to DRV, in fact I fully agree it belongs there. It's just that, given the length of the MFD debate, I figured more people needed to know about it than just the DRV regulars. >Radiant< 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The note on the WP:MFD/EA page probably would have accomplished that, but fine. --tjstrf talk 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's a closed discussion—many people will not still have it on their watchlist or notice a change oti, and I don't see any note there about a deletion review being brought anyway. —Centrx→talk • 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's on the talk page. Or at least I assume that's what the thing on my watchlist from that page with the summary "DRV" is. Maybe some of you are better at pruning your watchlists than I am. --tjstrf talk 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bharatanatyam

I would appreciate it if someone could look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatanatyam&action=history where there are 11 new user accounts all being used to reinstate the same external links which have been taken out by a series of proper editors. The 11 accounts all look like sock puppets for someone, have a handful of edits each all on the same three articles and are all new but I don't think I can report it as such without being able to identify a puppet master. If they are all at the same IP address could we just block them all or something? --BozMo talk 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Gundam

If anyone wants an update on the Gundam mess, we're working things out moderately peacefully and consensually at WP:GUNDAM. Just so you know. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:147.31.184.58

This Ip has been vandalising rapidly, I've used the WHOIS tool on the talk page, and it says that it is registered to a university, making it a shared Ip, this needs to be sorted out.--Rasillon 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They've got a hard block, and based on the history of contribs I don't think that we need to change that - open to review of course (and might be worth someone checking that this isn't the subject of a bio blanking it - I suspect not, though I don't have enough subject knowledge). Thanks, Martinp23 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rich Wannen

I just blanked this user page, and indefinitely blocked the account. As background, I had some experience with this user before I was an admin. As a newbie, he attempted some very radical changes without understanding some basic things about how Wikipedia works, and then left the project. I've archived some of this at User talk:SamuelWantman/Rich Wannen. He was not blocked in the past. One of the big ironies of his experience here was that some of the things he wanted to happen, did actually happen after he left (like renaming all the "cinema" categories to "film"). His most recent post a short while ago, contains a legal threat, so I blanked the page, and blocked the account. Not sure what else I could do in the circumstances, and if it was appropriate to leave the page as he wrote it. I figured it could always be restored after discussion, which is what I'm asking for now. -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

An added irony, the legal threat was made by an anon. The anon is upset because the user page accused him of being a sockpuppet using IPs that are very close to the IP of the anon. It is probably a dynamic IP. -- Samuel Wantman 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has an opinion? -- Samuel Wantman 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone there? -- Samuel Wantman 18:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure the IPs were him, it's probably not an issue. Maybe you could leave a message on his talk page saying, "if this block was unfairly applied, because none of this was you, feel free to request unblock." Mostly, however, he hasn't edited for 1.5 years, so it probably won't be a problem. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

School's in

Is it just me, or are there are a lot of vandalism reports from school ips lately? I just handed out about 5-6 1 month+ blocks; I encourage others to handle similar situations similarly. Kids are just getting back to school after winter break, let's nip this vandalize-Wikipedia-at-school thing in the bud now, and hopefully these goofballs will find other ways to be destructive. Mangojuice^talk 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're dishing out long blocks, you might want to be sure that they're anonymous-only to reduce collateral damage. It's probably a more important consideration with highschools and post-secondary schools. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer hard blocks on disruptive high schools. We see a lot of logged-in disruption and it's hard to sort out good accounts from bad. I'd rather they edit from home; it's easier to figure out who's who (at least from a checkuser perspective). Besides, they should be paying attention to the instructor, not Wikipedia! Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can get them to pull up thier pants and cut thier hair! They need to stop smoking pot and join bootcamp! Back in my day we knew how to show proper respect... *walks off the soapbox mumbling incoherently* ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and noticed a bunch of chronic ones in the ones I blocked today so I had to deal out a few 6-months in there as well. Which, essentially, is a 7+ month block when you consider the 6 month block expires in July and most schools don't start back up until sometime later in August. Metros232 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what's going on. When it's a weekday and school is in session in North America, we have the maximum amount of silly vandalism. Anyone who has time to RC-patrol during this time, please do, and pay particular attention to articles which are likely to be subject of assignments (i.e. history, English, social studies, arithmetic ...) I've noticed this pattern for a couple of years now at least. Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And any article that has the word school in it. Metros232 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I have seen some persistant vandalism from Australian and UK schools, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. What I meant is that it's time-specific. Right now, morning in California, there's tons of vandalism from schools on my continent. When it's late afternoon-evening in the U.S., you get tons of silly vandalism from 203. addresses, and when overnight in the U.S., from 80.-89. Antandrus (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the "vandalism is out of session for the year" block until September 2007 (start of next academic year in USA). I'd agree with Mackenson, but I often get complaints after a hard block, so I've been avoiding them recently. alphachimp 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, [[[User:216.11.222.21]] is a cluster fudge, and I use it because it's my school's IP. Hardblocks are not by friend. ~ Flameviper 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MascotGuy demanding ArbCom case??

See User talk:Blaitho (now protected) for information. --SunStar Net^talk 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with him getting a hearing, although I do believe this is the first time that MascotGuy has ever written to a Talk page, which makes me wonder if he really is who he claims to be. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that it might be a hoax/impersonator account, but I'm not sure. --SunStar Net^talk 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I extremely doubt that this is MascotGuy based on the fact that he was the first to claim he was MascotGuy. Metros232 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ejército Rojo 1950

Ejército Rojo 1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editor makes contentious edits at Joseph Stalin and continues to delete sourced, NPOV facts from that page with edit summaries like this one [14]. Editor has been asked by me to discuss major edits like these on the talk page, and in response he blanked the request from his talk page [15]. I gave him a test3 warning for this, which he then also blanked [16]. This editor's actions are much like those of indef blocked users LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs) and Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), who both edit the same articles and make the same kinds of contentious edits (and are both well-established puppetmasters). TheQuandry 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

_{I moved this from AIV. alphachimp 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

Well, if it isn't our old friend Jacob, it's someone very similar. Recommend checkuser - is that appropriate here? Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed for this guy against Jacob Peters. I think it's unlikely it's the other one: this new one's pattern is very close to that of Jacob. The other one seems obsessive about one article: both this guy and Jacob are more general. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is out to get User:Chowbok

An anon which I just blocked has been posting what they claim is Chowbok's home address, phone number and email address in edit summaries (the edits themselves were valid minor edits). I have requested that the people at WP:OVERSIGHT remove them, but if somebody else sees these vicious edit summaries in Recent Changes, be sure they get taken care of. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One on AN now. Syrthiss 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked 88.198.5.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours as a preventive measure. If anyone wants to extend it, feel free. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you request that OVERSIGHT remove the summaries? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else do it please, I'm off to lunch. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it appears that the anon got this by following the link off of User:Chowbok to his homepage, where he pretty clearly posts his contact info... so it isn't like they did any kind of super sleuthing. FWIW, it should still probably be removed though.--Isotope23 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See this edit ... personal info in edit summary: [17] --BigDT 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy ... it's all of User:88.198.5.138's contribs --BigDT 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See also this thread supra... Joe 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardblocked for 48 hours. Let me know on my talkpage if it happens again under a new IP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, note it here. I'm off to lunch. 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See here too. Yikes. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have merged these two conversations ... sorry that I didn't see the one above when I posted. Can an admin delete these revisions? --BigDT 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really not a big deal, at least as far as I'm concerned. As Isotope23 pointed out, I make that info available on my homepage; I'm not a secretive person. More petty harrassment because of my image tagging. Thanks to all for watching out for this. —Chowbok ☠ 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I contacted OVERSIGHT and they took care of the second one, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

made-up material

for whatever reason - a user is constantly inserting hoax material into an articlewo (6 times in the last two hours). He takes no notice of other editors - can someone have a word in his ear? --Charlesknight 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The user in question has been blocked for thirty hours. -- tariqabjotu 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza protected

I've protected Wikipedia:Esperanza due to edits which look like edit warring to me in the recent history. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], The talk page is also protected so it'll likely end up somewhere else. I suggest User:Hiding/Esperanza as neutral territory. Hiding Talk 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oof... didn't intend to start an(other) edit war, but the paragraph doesn't belong there. DRV is running its course. —bbatsell ¿? 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not taking sides. If I could knock your heads together, make you all say sorry and shake hands and be friends again, I would, but I can't so I protected the page. I'd rather do that than start issuing blocks. Like I say, anyone who wants to discuss the issue is welcome to use User:Hiding/Esperanza. Hiding Talk 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:143.231.249.141 blocked again.

FYI: Blocked, anon only, for 48 hours for repeated vandalism. Posted to the notifications sub page of the communications committee over at wikimedia as well. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

JB196 (talk · contribs) sock?

DXRAW (talk · contribs) seems to have a very good track record. However, his latest edits are consistent with JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): nominating non-American wrestling related articles for (speedy) deletion over alleged non-notability. Because of this, I have for now declined the speedy nominations I have come across so far. I believe that DXRAW is a good faith user, but it's better to be safe than to be sorry. Please review my actions and the articles DXRAW (talk · contribs) has nominated for speedy deletion. Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the history of DXRAW (talk · contribs) I am sure that he is not JB196. He doesn't have any of the other signs of JB (spelling wise), plus JB/his socks arealways focused on wrestling articles only. Besides, JB's last two socks were ongoing, last I checked Machodawg (talk · contribs) and GaryGoingggg (talk · contribs) I have to request a CU on those two soon (plus I noticed there's a GaryGoinggg (talk · contribs) (one less G) with no edits. Probably registered around the same time. SirFozzie 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Like before, Sirfozzie, you are wrong, I'm not a sockpuppet and your continued harassment will be reported if it continues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GaryGoingggg (talk • contribs) 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

And Like Before, "Gary" you have all the signs of a JBsock, just like the 8 or so others that have been blocked after JB's accounts got banned. SirFozzie 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Twice on the board in one week, I'm going good been accused of being sockpuppets for two different people. Who's sockpuppet am i going to be next week? DXRAW 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You never know...you may even get lucky, in a weird kind of way :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth is THAT "getting lucky" ? 68.39.174.238 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke, hence the smiley... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd essay from a possible single-purpose account

I was patrolling Special:Newpages, when I noticed Wikipedia:ProtectionBot is bad created by an apparent single-purpose account, VerizonisthebestISPitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions seem to be to this. --SunStar Net^talk 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"I choose you, MfD! Delete-spam attack. It's super effective! WP:PROBOT fainted!" --Deskana (request backup) 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been terminated. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nick's CSD used Extremespeed!" --Deskana (request backup) 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• snicker* -M^ask 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels et al

Is there any way you can do an ip block for whatever other accounts he has before he takes it upon himself to do some damage somewhere it matters, or can you only do it on a name-by-name basis? HalfShadow 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the m:CheckUsers found the IP Willy on Wheels edits from and blocked it indefinitely. -- Steel 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of them, yes. Anyone who unblocks will be hung from the nearest lamp-post, By Order Of Mackensen. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Large expanding edit war, need admin assistance please

Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I come here reluctantly with a heavy heart. I was hoping that User:Mobile 01 and I could resolve this edit dispute amblicably, but that will not be the case.

Can a third party admin please review this users behavior?

I am the opposing party in an edit war with User:Mobile 01 on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was protected by User:Robdurbar today.

Instead of discussing this page protection today, User:Mobile 01 created Firestone and Firestone 100 Years of History (both earlier versions of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company)

User:Mobile 01 then redirected links (Bridgestone-Firestone, LLC, Firestone Liberian controversy, Firestone Tire) to his newly created page, essentially an older version of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

I feel it may be best of one admin handles all of these requests.

To stop this expanded edit war:

• Boot Boot this user for WP:POINT, Warn user of WP:PAIN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA violations on Talk:Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, which I have warned him about twice. He has said too me:

"Hypocrisy does not reflect well on your bias" "While your revisions seem intent on showing Firestone to be a wicked and evil monolith that should be tarred and feathered" "You claim you will respect the wishes of the Wiki community but in fact you do not" "Comprimises I can do, Respecting the global Wiki users POV I can do, Dictatorship; I have a problem with."

• Speedy deletion As per my Speedy deletion statment above, Delete Firestone International which User:Mobile 01 created immediatly after Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was protected, I have contacted the admin who protected this Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.
• Semi-Protect Semi-protect Bridgestone-Firestone, LLC, Firestone, Firestone Liberian controversy with the version immediatly before the page was protected.
• Review my {{checkuser}}, please see my checkuser request.
• Wikipedia:Third opinion review my request there.

Sorry to bother you all with this edit war. I sincerely wish it could have been avoided. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected Firestone International to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company , thanks/wangi 01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Wangi also was kind enough to delete Firestone 100 Years of History[23] Maybe it can be recreated as a redirect after this edit war is over. User:Mobile 01 you can Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, if you wish.

WP:TEA I won't pursue this any further tonight, except to link this section to the admin, User talk:Robdurbar/Miscellanious who page protected Firestone Tire and Rubber Company originally. I look forward to User:Mobile 01 input in the Wikipedia:Third opinion. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Note:   Active requests are normally cleared quickly on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Travb posted the WP:3O request to which he refers at 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (diff); it remained until 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (diff), quite a bit longer than the usual hours or even minutes.

It may be pertinent that LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006, Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing 20 November 2006. These two users, with prominent roles in the active disagreement as posted on WP:3O, may be the same person. Athænara ✉ 10:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Judge Judy and talk page

• I'm anticipating a problem here; there's issue over removal of Judge Constance Harm, who is supposedly a parody of Judge Judy. No less than three editors including myself don't see a clear connection, but two anonymous users (one of whom is a sockpuppet) are threatening to replace this unless there is a response to their "Request for comment" on the talk page. Just a heads up. JuJube 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please use dispute resolution admins are not content mediators.--Doc^g 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanghak (talk · contribs)

Can you give the heads-up on this user please. I've notice his recent contributions to the list of solitaire card games are really doubtful, since he didn't provide the source on which those solitaire card games appear. Besides, he doesn't even observe alphabetical order when he lists his new games. I've also checked his talk page and block log and found out that he has been blocked four times before because of the trouble he caused. He's already been reminded about the Wikipedia policy even after his recent block, but I think he ignores them or doesn't even read them. Just giving my two cents because his edits already have my suspicions. - 上村七美 | talk 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy wacky funtime

• User talk:SirChristdom
• User talk:Flintrock
• User talk:OpalPI
• User talk:WikiTitan

All four users were indefinitely blocked by yours truly for personal attacks (part of a long-standing effort against an editor I work with often, as well as a couple others now). Threats were met with "use {{unblock}}", which was met with more threats, which was met with a lockdown of their talk pages.

I'm only mentioning it here because I just want a thumbs-up that it is okay to do this (considering that I've completely removed their ability to request an unblock, which I see as an opportunity they squandered by threatening me).

For those that don't want to bother reading the talk pages, the highlights can be found at User:EVula#Collection of threats. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

—Cryptic 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen such artfully crafted death threats. No-brainer support. Grandmasterka 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, hells yeah. I wholeheartedly endorse these blocks. -- Merope 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Fancy Moses. Danny Lilithborne 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really have to give credit to the "murder you and hang your body from a oak tree for the piegons to eat" one. I mean, threatening someone with "I will sue" and "I will report you" is the equivalent to just phoning it in. Feeding me to pigeons? That is creative. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I think the claim that pigeons are scavenging carnivores really needs a reliable source, seesh OR threats, double whammy. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• This one is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Well done. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the fun never stops, apparently. I now have the blood of seven vandals on my hands for this particular incident... is there perhaps something a bit more permanent that I can do? This is my first foray into the wonderful world of sockpuppetry (the closest I've ever come was blocking a Bobby Boulders sock), so I'm severely lost. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put in a checkuser request for all of them, ensure that their point of origin is noted by a CU person for future reference. Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those threats were actually one of the few times I've laughed out loud on Wikipedia. They were unusually creative as well as unusually poorly spelled. 65.102.35.249 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fun never stops at Crazy Happy Sock World! Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What really gets you, of course, is when the actual sockmaster is making good edits and having the vandals attack his page. I've never quite figured that one out. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All of this is a roundabout way of saying that CheckUser confirms that User:American Brit is the sockmaster. All known sockpuppets are now blocked. I'll leave it to the board here to decide what to do about this. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of a similar situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

<Yoda>Behind the Separatist Sock Puppet attacks, American Brit is? Disturbing, this is. Doubt you, I do not, yet difficult to believe this is. If the Sock Master he is, why accuse himself, as he apparently did? Interesting, this is, as EVula stated. Look into this further, I must; suspected slightly I did, yet decided against it. Taken me by surprise, this has.</Yoda> ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this crazy or what? I hope it's not true. --Majorly (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the checkuser result? --Majorly (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I told you that guy was messed up, Majorly. Who the heck has children at the age of 12? Nishkid64 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 [24]. --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that's the link I was talking about yesterday. Dude, I still think that was made up. They have no clue how it happened, though. This kid says he had kids at 2 kids by the age of 16. How the hell does he afford anything? Nishkid64 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See Mary Kay Letourneau. Teke ^(talk) 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked I am being accused of sock puppetry. I ASSURE I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING. I also am quite upset both of my friends on Wikipedia EVula and Haunted Angel are buying this lie. I honestly now think I should just leave Wikipedia. Also Majorly I hope you know this is all bull crap American Brit 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't lie. --Majorly (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's right. Stop trying to act innocent. We take sockpuppetry seriously at Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not acting innocent. I am innocent. This all junk. You cannot prove this. My IP could be shared by over 200 computers. And one man vandalized so I got the blame. Anyway I will be considered leaving this whole website. I feel so betrayed by my once close Wiki friends. All of you know deep down this is not true. I am not a vandal. American Brit 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You know, even CheckUsers do extend a little good faith now then. Gosh knows it's hard sometimes. But, the thing of it is, you've got a static IP address which you're sharing with a drawer full of sockpuppets, all of which attack you and disrupt the same articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I agree that the odds of me and a vandal who argues with me sharing the same IP are very slim, but I am not the puppeter. I admit I knew I was on the same account as them because I was autoblocked when they were blocked. I did not request unblock because I was afraid I would be accused of what I am being accused of now. I really dont know if I am staying here or not. American Brit 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, never would have guessed it.

It does make sense to me though after further review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HolyHandGrenadez (talk • contribs).

omg...No comment...--Dil 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I... don't know whether to laugh or beat my head against a wall. And don't crows or ravens normally eat hanged people, not pigeons? --tjstrf talk 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to use logic in this situation... you'll only end up hurting yourself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...

• CheckUser confirms it
• changing story from American Brit ("My IP could be shared by over 200 computers" became "I admit I knew I was on the same account as them")
• some awfully damming diffs
• similar spelling structure (or lack thereof)
• quirky personal history
• similar userpage setups between socks and suspected puppetmaster (bulleted userboxes)

Yeah, sorry, far too much secondary evidence is backing up the CheckUser for me to consider it a mistake. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My story was not changed I stuck to that from the start.. The damning biffs: the first was explained, I was not trying to attack Haunted ANgel but start a discussion. The wording made it sound bad, it was accident. What do you mean by simalar setup? and quirky personal history? American Brit 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm from the same area you are from (Charleston/South Charleston). I know that us Charlestonians (HeheHe), don't often have children at 13. You also seem to live a very exciting life that would not fit the part about have 2 kids, especially at young ages. You really wouldn't have that time to travel/ etc.

-Holy hand grenadez —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.69.157 (talk • contribs).

Are you saying I lied about my background? I assure you every comment on my user page is true, except the names. I did not put my familys real names for security reasons. Time to travel can be explained. My Grandfather works for a company that is constantly sending to European Union nations, thus I trave along with him. My mother is a nurse and my Uncle owns a large number of shares in oil corporations. My family is not dirt poor. Anyway I left Charleston in December and I know live in Cheadle, Manchester, United Kingdom American Brit 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you've changed some info on your userpage.

Anyway, Usercheck doesn't lie. Why aren't people banned for sockpuppeting?

I have not changed any thing. I changed the names only for as I stated above security. If I wanted to make up a life story do you really think thats what I would tell? American Brit 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

American Brit, you are such a bad liar. See [25]. Took you a while to realize that there are only 30 days in April :P. Nishkid64 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...And his latest birthdate is October 8th, 1987. Anyway, what do we do now? I'm not a big fan of punitive blocks, but usually death threats get the banhammer. Quite a way to repay his "friends". Grandmasterka 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of American Brit

What do we do now? All in favor of community ban of American Brit (talk · contribs) and any subsequent socks for death threats and other policy violations, say aye. Teke ^(talk) 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye! Death threats, sockpuppetry, and lying. Nishkid64 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I must concur. Death threats (or any kind of threats) cannot be tolerated on wiki. Long term threateners should be banned. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Community ban seems right. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye on my part for being a victim.--Dil 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good enough for me... I've gone ahead and done it. Grandmasterka 02:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.69.157 (talk • contribs).

Wow, ban indeed. --Wildnox(talk) 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to me to basically be a punitive block, which almost all recent successful RFA candidates say shouldn't be done. Since the User:American Brit account hasn't been used for vandalism, trolling, threats etc. - blocking him would be a punitive block. Eli Falk 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bans are different - they aren't on one account, but on the person; being banned means you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia, due to your actions under any account name. And this isn't punitive, it's preventative, because concensus has determined his negative impact on this site isn't worth what his contributions give, basically. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If that account had been involved with vandalism, then preventing it from editing would prevent a negative impact on this site; Blocking an account which wasn't involved with the trouble, and which seems to be the main account, doesn't prevent it. Eli Falk 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A ban is not a block. Blocks are used to enfore bans. A simple block is preventative to avoid further disruption if the user is unwilling to discuss their actions. A community ban is saying that the user is not welcome here, usually as a result of their actions. So yes, it is cause and effect but it is not a "block". That's why there're two different policies. If you review the user's contributions on talk pages, they are unwilling to admit complicity despite overwhelming evidence and are unlikely to change their stance; IMO American Brit thinks this is all a game. That is not welcome, and it is preventative in that violations of a community ban can be acted upon swiftly, bereft of process hang ups. If American Brit still wants to charade, the user can appeal to the Arbitration committee. Teke ^(talk) 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as punitive. In my opinion, serious violations that warrant indefinite blocks should be applied to all of the accounts, at least in a case like this when it is checkuser confirmed. If I were to make a death threat using a sock puppet, I think that I would prove that I most likely am more damaging to the project than I am helpful and therefore banning my main account would be appropriate. --Wildnox(talk) 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this: I have used this computer several times and I have noticed the blocking and vandalism warnings. This is a school computer at a high school shared by many people. I do not know the IP address of this computer I think it will automatically show up. I sincerely apologize for the low maturity level of 'my' high school peers.

Support: Even though I am one of his 'friends' (WTF?) for helping correct some strange date-time issues (daughter at 13 in 2002; married in 2003 at age 16; WTF?), go ahead and ban him. His remarks are quite comical but this guy's a jerk. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More sock fun. Wheeeeee. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for investigation

User Aylahs is suspected of using multiple user accounts to push her point to delete articles Aga Khani and Islamic Cults. This is suspected because after user Aylahs requested deletion a whole lot of users showed up who were just created. Also this User takes it upon himself to delete comments and entries by calling everthing untrue and vandalism.

Thanks

trueblood 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I wish to state my position in this matter:

1. I did not create or use multiple accounts in either of the AfD processes.
2. Any deletions or reversions that I have made are justified with an edit summary, a note on the talk page where appropriate, and in cases of vandalism a notice on the user's or IP's talk page.
3. User:Trueblood786 has also requested that I be investigated at the RFI page. The investigating admin there states that he "didn't see any indications of vandalism".
4. User:Trueblood786 has also initiated a checkuser request against me.
5. In the past multiple users (including myself) have noted that User:Trueblood786 appears to routinely use anonymous IP addresses as sockpuppets in commiting vandalism, and other questionable edits. Please see the following talk pages for more details:
   • 75.15.204.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - vandalism and abusive edits
   • 75.15.203.99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - vandalism and link spam
   • 75.15.206.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - vandalism of AfD pages

If I can be of assistance to the investigating administrator, please feel free to address me at my talk page. Regards -- Aylahs ^(talk) 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation through username

The talk page Talk:Indian Valley High School (Pennsylvania) seems to be a bit of a battle ground: some (presumably) students not only using it to discuss the price of parking and launch personal attacks on teachers, but also agressively defending their right to do that from a variety of registered users. This situation seems to be in hand, and does not require intenvention; this is just background. The reason for posting is the user "User:R varner20" who claims to be the same user as "User:Iv admin20" who was blocked for (probably accidentally) including "admin" in the title; Iv = Indian Valley? Anyway, the article itself, Indian Valley High School (Pennsylvania) claims that "Ronald L. Varner is the current principal of the school." (This can be verified from the official site). Judging from the attack at [26], this user (who signs as R Varner) is not the principal (maybe a wild accusation, you make up your own mind). Given that, it might be appropriate to block the username; I'm not sure what the policy is, however. Notinasnaid 13:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Even ignoring the username, it is a vandal-only account and probably deserves an indef on that alone...--Isotope23 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Trolls should be blocked. Impersonator usernames should be blocked too (unless it's really R Varner, in which case, he's the same guy that vandalized the article to have himself as principal, which means we don't want him around either). Seems like a no-brainer to indef this guy. Somebody, please do (impersonator/attack usernames are very bad). -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another [27] This time by "Ronald Varner IV". I can't put my finger on it, but something tells me this guy isn't genuine. Prometheus^-X303- 06:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Child or troll?

I indef-blocked 12bogdanicha (talk · contribs) as a child-imitating troll. While WP:CHILD is not a policy, user's contributions clearly reveal that he's here primarily for trolling. Duja► 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You've certainly told him he's blocked, but have you really blocked him? Grandad 14:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

:-D. My bad, fixed. At least, I have proven myself that I'm not a "shoot first" guy Duja► 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone share my view that Wikipedia:Reach out looks very esparanzaishy? It looks like a good (and kind) idea, but I'm not sure an encyclopaedia is the place for it. And it's a troll magnet. yandman 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the very first time I see it now, but I second your opinion. MfD? Duja► 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is always a difficult thing to discuss, and whoever does MFD it will no doubt be labelled as a monster who eats babies. Such 'help pages' have very good intentions behind them, but Wikipedia is really not the place for social interaction or a message board, which is in our policies for very good reasons. Proto::► 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to burn me at the stake. yandman 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. I just don't share it. Fred Bauder 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yandman, I think this kind of thing is mostly harmless. Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with making an encyclopaedia, but ultimately, it doesn't hurt it either. What does hurt though is the endless fighting over silly things like this. Grace Note 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nasty antisemitic attack

As some of you know, I'm not very active on Wikipedia currently; the following was passed along to me on my user talk page by User:Dahn. It's not immediately obvious what, if anything, can be done about it, but I figured I'd mention it here in case anyone has a useful suggestion.

A very nasty antisemitic attack (in Romanian) was left on Dahn's talk page. When he passed this fact on to me, he provided a translation, which appears accurate but which I'd rather not reproduce in full here. Suffice it to say that some of the milder language in it is "there's a place in front for you at the next holocaust".

It's from an anon IP that seems to have been used only briefly and once. The IP address (82.77.7.239) leads to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. This one was so egregious that it might be worth investigating whether that is the service provider for some regular contributor of whom this might be characteristic.

Anyway, I'm not monitoring anything these days except my own user talk page, so if someone wants to ask me anything further on this, please ping me there. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This actually traces back to a Romanian ISP. [28] --pgk 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, specifically Bacău. Anyways, I've blocked the anon (along with 82.77.7.240) for one week. Upon further investigation, both of these IPs appear to be the same person as Dacodava, who has been indef. blocked since last April. Notice the limited IP range at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dacodava. In addition, the similar very usage of edit summaries from all these IPs makes it even more likely. Khoikhoi 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious edit-warring by User:Kathanar

There is a 3RR complaint against him:

Three-revert rule violation on Hate Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kathanar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• Previous version reverted to: 14:10, 12 January 2007
• 1st revert: 100315207 14:20, 12 January 2007
• 2nd revert: 100318211 14:34, 12 January 2007 (partial revert, adding the same link again with others)
• 3rd revert: 100318665 14:36, 12 January 2007
• 4th revert: 14:44, 12 January 2007

Comments: User is a tendentious editor and also has created bogus categories to push an agenda Category:Religious supremacists Rumpelstiltskin223 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Similar pattern of revert-warring here: Hindutva [29] [30] [31]

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [32] [33] [34] Rumpelstiltskin223 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this edit of mine [35] is not a counter-revert because I was removing vandalism put there by an anonymous user (the statement "kkk like black people").Rumpelstiltskin223 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar revert-warring in: Sangh Parivar [36][37][38]Rumpelstiltskin223 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, he created two bogus cats. First is Category:Religious supremacists which is up for CfD. he saw that consensus was against him when he started to add several articles to the category in a pattern of bias, then he decided to create another category Category:Hindu Fundamentalism which is also up for CfD on the grounds that Category:Hindutva already exists and the cat is highly POV. He has been repeating the same pattern that he did with the previous cat. Continuously adding pages against clear consensus. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To give some idea of such improvements on recent featured articles: The Adventures of Tintin (261 edits[39]), Operation Auca (120 edits[40], vandalism in last one corrected in next edit), Invasion (203 edits[41]), and Fauna of Puerto Rico (187 edits[42]). This shows that most changes are cosmetical (wikilinks, some spelling) but overall an improvement to the article. This also shows that general and/or popular themes get more edits than more specialized ones. Fram 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:Flameviper

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

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

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

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

Can we get the article for discussion withdrawn that he may have started while compromised? Thanks! [43] Kyaa the Catlord 06:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Chadbryant sock/impersonator

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

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

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

User:70.251.123.231

70.251.123.231 (talk · contribs · count)

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

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

I've username blocked WikiWarrior1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series incidents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a request...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 195.92.168.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [44], [45], [46], [47]
• 195.92.168.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [48], [49], [50]
• 195.92.168.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [51], [52], [53], [54]
• 195.92.168.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [55], [56]
• 195.92.168.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - [57], [58], [59], [60]

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

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

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

Potential concern over COI/NPOV edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Router's edits:

• Farmers Insurance Group: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]... (23 edit(s))
• Farmers Insurance: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]... (19 edit(s))
• PayPal: [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] (9 edit(s))
• Talk:PayPal: [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] (8 edit(s))
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] (8 edit(s))
• Gripe site: [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] (7 edit(s))
• Allstate: [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] (6 edit(s))
• Zurich Financial Services: [119] [120] [121] [122] (4 edit(s))
• Others in namespace (main): [123] [124] [125] (3 edit(s))
• Others in namespace User talk: [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135]... (28 edit(s))
• Talk:Farmers Insurance Group: [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] (6 edit(s))

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

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

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

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

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

To quote WP:TALK: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Drama and vacuous accusations of vandalism[142] and trolling[143] create unnecessary drama. I suggest this drama should be ignored without further... well, drama. Revert, block the associated drama queens (User:TheHoleKittenKabudal User:InAPartyDress User:JuranJuran et al), ignore per WP:RBI. Weregerbil 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Weregerbil 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

There once was a troll from Nantucket

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

When vandalizing the talk

Forgot to use his sock

And promptly for his error got blocked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It's a bad limerick. Um.

A user from downtown New York

Engaged with the people on Talk

but conspiracy theory

made editors leery

of risking a WP:STALK

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

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

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

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

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

LithiumLollipop (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pontius Ethics

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

After being quiet for the past year or so, the user Pontius Ethics popped up and began vandalizing the same Church of the SubGenius article once again. See: [144] and [145].

After I posted one warning for this user to stop vandalizing the article, he began posting whiny "legal threats" on my talk page. See: [146] and [147].

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

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

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

User:Sanghak

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

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

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

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

Fourth, i'm notice he is like to vandal, such as the FIFA host for 2008, he wrote Japan [148], adding football team while it is list of flag [149], put the extra line in article [150], adding nonsense content [151]

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

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

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

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

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

Sanghak is at it again; this time, he created the New Ansan Line article which contains just a route and no other details. He even tried to give new unconfirmed names to the list of solitaire card games which were reverted by Aleenf1. What should we do now? - 上村七美 | talk 11:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Threats being made/Need others to Defuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal Attack and Uncivility of user Anonimu

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

"luati'mi pula la frecat"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles knight must die!

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

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

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

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

Eh, I liked Charlesnight, ever since you pointed out that your name is also the naem of a publisher (this was during another incident with a user whose username was of a famous celebrity). Hbdragon88 04:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please investigate ScabbinOnTheAngels

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

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

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

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

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

Topper vandal - second request for assistance

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

Templated Signature + Ignoring talk page = Block warning

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

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

He obviously left a trail – [152]. If its not allowed by the devs, how did he do it? — Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Minor sockpuppeting

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent personal abuse by User:Ednas

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

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

But you haven't blocked him, and he continues in his antisemitic abuse of other editors. RolandR 13:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronen Segev

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

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

Return of the GMC blogger

See MedicalNews (talk · contribs), especially this diff [153]. Also General Medical Council Abolition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Good doctors, safer patients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Unikkatil

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

• Same thing again (diff.) - Evv 12:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Guardian Tiger and the unblock template

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

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

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

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

Ben Aveling is correct in stating that access to the original account has been lost. Guardian Tiger was my original account but I wish to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. Hi, Ben Aveling, thanks for contacting me on this talk page. Are you an admin on Wikipedia? I wish to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. I cannot access the accounts: User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, or any other account except the one I'm currently using now. You may block the other accounts except my nominated main account as necessary or request another admin to do it. Please see User talk:BenAveling for details. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 21:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to [[154]]. --Certified.Gangsta 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point Gangsta is trying to make is that ApocalypticDestroyer's is/was probably also the owner of User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, an account which was permanatly blocked, in a large part for being a disruptive sock. And therefore, I believe his argument runs, all other accounts belonging to that user should also be permanatly blocked, including the user's main account. I don't believe that's policy. Certainly, using a sock can earn a ban (or a ban extension) for other accounts belonging to the user, but there is no requirement that the users main account recieve the same length block as the sock account(s). My understanding of this specific situation is that ragnarok would have only have received a temporary block except for the fact that it was a sock. Either way, no perma-block was applied to Ragnarok's main account at the time, assuming that Ragnarok is/was owned by Apocalyptic, which seems probable to me, though I can't claim to be sure that it has been proven. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC) If his passwords are as long and complicated as his usernames, I can see how he comes to forget them!

Ben, you seem to be disregarding the fact that I have blocked Guardian Tiger not just as a sock but an abusive sock. In fact, you know, these accounts are all one person. There is to my mind something illogical about a measure that "fixes" the permitted behaviour of the user behind the accounts (the socking) but allows the bad behaviour (the stalking and harassment) to continue. I've asked mackensen to take a look at this. Bishonen | talk 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Regardless of which is the sock and which the main account, which has been blocked as a sock, and whether he's been banned or just blocked before, these accounts are all the same person, and I've blocked Apocalyptic Destroyer now too, and I will consider him and any and all of his sockpuppets and IPs from now on banned from Wikipedia unless anyone gives me any reason not too. The community's patience with him is exhausted. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking through Tiger's edit contribution for gross abuse, and I'm not seeing it. He's accused at least one admin of not being neutral, which is certainly uncivil of him but I think the Giano case established that it isn't a hanging offence. He's accused Isberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of being a sock which is uncivil, even if he's right. (He isn't, is he? If he is, I owe him an apology.). He's accused Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of harassing him and campaigning to have him banned, which is also accurate, and as far as I can see, he's done this complaining in relatively polite terms. He's used a lot of accounts over time, but no one (other than Certified Gangsta, formerly known User:Bonafide hustler) is claiming that he has been using them in parallel. So he may or may not be abusive, but he isn't a sock master. (What sort of self respecting sock puppetier loses the passwords?) I wouldn't be surprised if there's some 3RR violations and POV waring but most of his edits look reasonable, lots of wikilinking and some minor edits. Nothing that wikipedia will colapse for the lack of, but nice to have. I haven't checked every edit, especially from the long dead accounts. No doubt I've missed stuff. Just to set my mind at rest, will someone post some diffs to this gross abuse and harrasment and I will promptly and publically apologise for making this request. Sorry everyone for being difficult. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A few admins had already reviewed the blocks so I don't think we should be discussing this right now. All evidence can be found at my talkpage (the timeline I set up), User talk:Guardian Tiger User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH, and I believe a few of them on Bish's talkpage.--Certified.Gangsta 01:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement Request on User:BryanFromPalatine for sockpuppetry, block evasion, and disruption.

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

In fact he is now editing in the Sock Puppet investigations page trying to start a sockpuppet investigation against myself and the other editor who have been reporting his sockpuppets! See; [155]. --BenBurch 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38.119.66.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an open proxy, so I have reblocked for 5 years. Prodego ^talk 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it might have been him. On his talk page he dares us to "Call Sheriff Roscoe." :-( BenBurch 20:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, he is at it again. Now he is emailing other editors using his ArlingtonTX sock puppet to smear me where I am editing other articles! Can we get the socks deleted so that they cannot be used in this fashion, please? Thanks!

Email from user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Return-Path: <SRS0=D3aY=GY=wikimedia.org=wiki@bounce2.pobox.com> Delivered-To: benburch@XXXXXX.net Received: (qmail 3620 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2007 14:12:38 -0000 Received: from lime.XXXXXX.com ([208.58.1.198]) (envelope-sender <SRS0=D3aY=GY=wikimedia.org=wiki@bounce2.pobox.com>) by mail24.sea5.XXXXXX.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <benburch@XXXXXX.net>; 15 Jan 2007 14:12:38 -0000 Received: from lime.XXXXXX.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lime.XXXXXX.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20884FA870 for <benburch@XXXXXX.net>; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:12:58 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: benburch@XXXXXX.com Received: from mail.wikimedia.org (mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.221]) by lime.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCAD4FA79D for <benburch@XXXXXX.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from srv55.pmtpa.wmnet (unknown [10.0.2.55]) by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2FC1C0047 for <benburch@XXXXXX.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:12:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from srv55.pmtpa.wmnet (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by srv55.pmtpa.wmnet (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l0FECU5I031796 for <benburch@XXXXXX.com>; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:12:30 GMT Received: (from apache@localhost) by srv55.pmtpa.wmnet (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l0FECUPG031795; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:12:30 GMT Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:12:30 GMT Message-Id: <200701151412.l0FECUPG031795@srv55.pmtpa.wmnet> X-Authentication-Warning: srv55.pmtpa.wmnet: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f To: BenBurch <benburch@XXXXXX.com> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer From: ArlingtonTX <nittany16876@yahoo.com> I notice that you've been getting into a fight with BenBurch on the Henry Ford article. There is a "Suspected Sock Puppets" case against him and I encourage you to post your experiences in the "comments" section. BenBurch and FAAFA are engaged in a campaign known as "POV pushing." They are extremely clever about it and they are very dangerous. If enough people band together, these two can be the subject of a community ban.

The header won't help, since the e-mail came through the e-mail user function, it is from the Wikipedia server. Blocking won't help either, since blocked users can still e-mail. I would advise those who receive the messages simply delete them. Prodego ^talk 18:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

block evasion

Nadirali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked for racism and personal attacks, and trolling has been editing under an IP address Special:Contributions/74.98.241.189. He was so careless as to canvass support using his signature [156] and graffiti-tag an article tag page him and meatpuppets revert warred on [157].Bakaman 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Personal information

203.135.21.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added a desperate plea for help on several articles. See for instance [158] and [159]. This person requests "POLICTICAL SHELTER" in Great Britain, apparently following a trial against the authorities in Pakistan. He claims there are "MANY EXTRIMIST PLOTING AGAINST ME." This person ends the pleas with his bank account number, his address and his mobile phone number. Pakistan is not a terribly free country, and if his claims are true that extremists are plotting against him, should we protect him from these edits? Should they be removed from the article history? Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WillyofToxteth (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

71.231.107.188 (talk · contribs)

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

• I'm just wondering why it's such a problem that he was deleting dead links. An admin apparently rolled back all of his recent changes, so now all we have are a LOT of articles with dead links to yahoo news that he spent a lot of time deleting - there are no citations to be found, simply blue text that says "Yahoo news report" that leads to a 404 page. I totally understand the reasoning behind not deleting viable citations simply because the url no longer works, but it seems like what he was doing (at least, in the most recent edits) was valuable grunt work, and he was repaid by having his changes reversed wholesale.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • First, there was no admin rolling back of his recent edits. Regardless, I must agree that the IP may be doing us a favor. I know for a fact that Yahoo! news links often expire quickly, over time, and do not contain original reporting. Thus, they tend not to be good references (and are discouraged from being used on Portal:Current events). -- tariqabjotu 06:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You are right I noticed that a lot of a random sampling of edits had been reverted by the same editor, seemingly without looking at what the edit was, and I assumed it was a rollback. I was mistaken, I didn't look closely enough--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Removing a citation just because the URL no longer works is not "helping us". The URL in a news article citation should be regarded as a bonus. The primary keys for news article citations are the byline, dateline, title, and publication. Those are what enable one to find any cited news article. This edit, for example, is not "helping us". It is removing a citation of a Reuters article datelined 2006-11-28. Similarly, this edit is removing a citation of an Associated Press article datelined 2006-06-24. Helping us would involve not removing the citations outright but actually fixing them instead, so that they used the {{cite news}} template with the byline, dateline, title, and publication all filled in.

  Yes, the IP address editor is correct that people should not be providing bare URLs to news aggregators as citations. But no, simply removing all of the URLs indiscriminately is not the way to improve the articles and to have them contain proper citations. Uncle G 13:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• My specific question, which I also asked of the editor who reverted many of the anon's edits, is this: iff the citation is nothing more than an undated, untitled link to yahoo news which is now dead, is it wrong to delete that link? The other editor indicated that he believes the presence of the dead link indicates that a story once existed and therefore could be found again, which I can buy. Are you saying that dead links should remain until each one can be replaced by a "real" citation with date, byline, etc? I don't mean to drag this discussion out but I think it's worth clarifying, as many users might be inclined to delete dead links without thinking it through in this manner.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a Manual of Style guideline about that: see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". Basically, if you can't repair or find a replacement for a dead reference link, leave the link and add a mention of when the link was found to be dead, since someone might eventually be able to find a hard-copy replacement, or the content might show up in the Internet Archive a few months later. --Metropolitan90 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What makes you think that the URLs were undated? Read the URLs removed, in the two edits that I linked to, carefully. Uncle G 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

68.84.128.226 (talk · contribs)

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

Update: User has been blocked for three hours. (Not enough in my opinion; I recommend taking such complaints to WP:AIV in the future; they seem more willing to block vandal-only accounts, like this one, indef. They're also faster, I think - this guy got in four more edits between the time reported here and the time blocked, 29 minutes later.) John Broughton | ♫ 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User WillyofToxteth

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

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

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

Evan Sackett

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

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

Interwiki watch on 82.159.137.19/User:Mac needed

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

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

Renumbering of mailing list posts

Apparently, incidental to the installation of the new mailing list server, the posts in the archive have been renumbered. Consequently, most if not all existing links to mailing list posts bring up the wrong post, e.g. [160].

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

Administration request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest JB196 sockpuppet

12.164.70.194 has been inserting a link to JB196's original research [161] [162] and adding prod tags to non-US based wrestlers [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] both of which are the usual M.O. of JB196 and his socks. One Night In Hackney 08:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Can someone deal with this please? He's edit warring over insertion of the links in the first two articles now. As far as I'm aware any contributions made by JB196 and his socks are classed as vandalism and exempt from 3RR, but I'd rather not keep reverting to be on the safe side. One Night In Hackney 09:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it as well, could we get an admin to block the IP, at least for the short term? SirFozzie 10:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Helpful admin Guy blocked the IP earlier and removed the links from those articles and some others. A new anon IP has now accused Guy of vandalism [168] and started reverting Guy's edits. One Night In Hackney 16:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sdneubdmb

I've blocked Sdneubdmb indefinitely for personal attacks, vandalism, and generally not being here to write an encyclopedia. See also the deleted histories of Wikipediia and John Vanderleest (which was put through AfD). Brickbats, rotten tomatoes, and the like are invited.

On that note, I smell sockpuppetry. Anyone else think a CheckUser would be a good idea? --Slowking Man 09:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bryan1111

User:Bryan1111: Nonsense, abusing other users, see examples at User_talk:Bryan1111. MidgleyDJ 10:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

He's already blocked, and I just protected his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Third time lucky? Is anyone going to block this vandal or not?

Right, I've been patient and I've been polite and now I'm absolutely sick of cleaning up after this vandal every day. He creates throwaway accounts daily, sometimes several of them. He creates hoax articles which, if you look at them, are obviously hoaxes, yet are obscure enough that they hang around for months, and then he edits article after article with references to these hoaxes that stick around until those articles are TOTALLY WORTHLESS. I've been reverting after him since the end of December and I've documented everything I've seen him do [169] here and it is ignored. Last night I even tried to get an emergency block on him when I saw him start editing and was told that because I hadn't warned him in the past week (I had, in fact, on the 9th) he couldn't be blocked.

I've posted here twice already and not got a response. If none of you can even be bothered to look at his record and block him, then I'm not sure I can be bothered to come on every day and clean up his shit. Block him, or don't; I don't care any more. Vashti 11:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am currently blocking the vandal accounts, but with an open IP adress, he can just recreate accounts as he likes. I support an indefinite block of the IP, as all contributions from this IP seem to be related to the vandal creating TV series hoaxes mixed with a few credible TV series edits. Strong support of indef block of 220.233.226.170 (talk · contribs). -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Support indef block. - Kittybrewster 12:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Support indef block too much of a future headache. JuJube 12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP indefinitely. It seems to be a static IP, and this sort of thing cannot stand. Rebecca 12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you *so* much. I do apologise for losing my temper, but I'm so happy he's blocked now. :) He seems to be on a broadband link which changes its address every couple of months - what should I do if he comes back? Vashti 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If the IP changes every couple of months, then I think the blocks should be limited to four months or so to avoid blocking any legitimate contributors that share the IP (but have yet to contribute) or that receive the IP in the future. Also, as soon as the vandal's style is recognized on a new IP address, the four month block should be given immediately. -- Kjkolb 12:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support, good use of the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• TotsTV again? Very much in support of saving time from being wasted by indef block.--Alf ^melmac 13:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support (Apologies for contributing to this delay but the case was too complicated for WP:AIV, hence my request to move it to WP:RFI at the time). Asterion^talk 13:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

linkspam - makeminemarvel.com

The owner of makeminemarvel.com - which is an entirely non-notable blog is spamming various marvel comic pages from various ip addresses including this one. He has been doing this for 3-4 months and refuses to stop. He takes no notice of comments or warnings left on the various ip pages. I emailed him directly and he indicated that he has no intention of stopping. Can it be added to the spam blacklist? --Larry laptop 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested. --Majorly 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Lee Nysted

About to head to bed, so cannot follow up. Can more admins please look into Special:Contributions/Nyslee, Special:Contributions/Lee Nysted, User talk:Lee Nysted, User talk:Gurch and User talk:Tawker? Thanks. – Chacor 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

since I was involved in this too (as one of the admins deleting the many recreations of Lee Nysted) here's my 2 cents: This Lee guy wanted to promote his non-notable himself here, ignoring 4 deletions by different admins. The last admin salted the page and protected it to avoid recreation. Apparently, that got him upset, and after the usual calls for desysopping [170] and banning [171], and bitching how wikipedia failed [172], he decided not to fund us anymore[173]. On pretty much every talk page post he mentions his legal council, but so far I think that is not enough of a threat to validate a ban. There was a bit of confusion regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Nysted. Due to his unclear wording the closing admin though he wanted the article deleted, whereas I though he wanted the protected template to be deleted so that he can recreate the article. IMHO the deletion was and is just. If he does not come back I would say the problem is solved. -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment here is sorta of interesting If Lee must re-pay the publicist to load the above article under a different name, --Larry laptop 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of that stuff belongs on BJAODN. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some sort of block for legal threats? This is at least disruption, and is certainly to protect Wikipedia, not simply punitive. -Patstuart^talk|edits 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh noez, he won't give us money no mores!!!111one JuJube 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• In this edit (Read to the very bottom.) and this edit this person has stated a clear and unambiguous intention to pursue legal action. Per our Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, the editing privileges of Nyslee (talk · contribs) and Lee Nysted (talk · contribs) should be revoked, until either the legal threat is wholly retracted or legal proceedings are appropriately completed. Uncle G 11:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sassy555

User goes by many different handles but has a single purpose: to upload copyright images to blond and dreadlocks. This has been on-going for months, the user comes and goes under different names, but the images are the same - he uploads them, edit wars for weeks while they go through the deletion process, then re-uploads them again and starts over - same images every time. I'm sure a block of this particular account will help, but he will just login from other accounts. Would article protection also be appropriate until the images are deleted? Or can the images be speedy deleted instead of waiting the 14 days? Any suggestions or help appreciated. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user 24 hours for edit-warring. The images will be deleted in a few days if source info isn't provided, and I don't like to protect articles if the problem is just one user. Keep us posted if s/he resurfaces under another handle. Also, have you tried a checkuser? | Mr. Darcy talk 18:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

24.22.86.151 (talk · contribs)

Could someone please block this user. They have been warned and blocked before, but continue to remove content from an article. We've discussed the content on the talk page, and reached a consensus about the wording. But this IP user keeps removing the section in question. You can see from the history that several editors have to continually revert his/her edits. Thanks! --Bill.matthews 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Cbrown1023 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Messymike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has introduced sufficient hoaxes that I no longer believe a word e says about anything. I have indef-blocked the account and am working through the articles he's created under this account or as a sock - Jamesbourne11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 86.142.87.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), PRodger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Johnbarnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Simondukes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sd92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Articles include:

• Phil Dukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Philip Dukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lincolnshire Pallets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), supposedly owned by Phil Dukes, AfDed and endorsed, request registered by Jamesbourne11.
• Rietveld Pallets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), stated to be in Lincolnshire and owned by Phil Dukes but the firm is a Netherlands company and in any way likely not a WP:CORP candidate
• Category:Companies based in Lincolnshire (only entries were all owned by Phil Dukes, all deleted)
• Salsim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nonotech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DD Fine Dining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sotby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), real place but the entire history is from this hoaxer so no way of spotting what is disinformation and what is not.

Main account and all socks blocked indef, IP blocked temporarily, balance of remaining contribs needs checking for validity. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored Sotby but removed any unverifiable content. Asterion^talk 18:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any connection to User:Jamesbourne11? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, listed and blocked. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppeteering/meatpuppeteering of Users: Olivierd/Benio76/Zelig33

I would like to report suspected sockpuppeteering/meatpuppeteering of the following users:

• Olivierd ^{(talk) (contributions)}
• Benio76 ^{(talk) (contributions)}
• Zelig33 ^{(talk) (contributions)}

This all started in the midst of an edit war over the Foie gras page. During the edit war, Benio and Zelig appeared as new users, with positions and wording strangely similar to those of Olivierd, and starting acting in cohort to push their own radical changes to the article. The timing of their edits to the article as well as their activities often tend to be in the same time windows (please see contribution lists for each user account), and both Benio and Zelig seem to be single-purpose accounts for editing the Foie gras article and have continued the battle both in the GA review of Foie gras and in the ensuing Mediation Cabal case.

Should these prove to be meatpuppets (or sockpuppets), the multiple IDs may have been used to circumvent 3RR policy on Foie gras (although I would consider this last stale and of lesser importance). The really important part is that the three IDs are now acting totally in concert, holding the same intractable positions and generally disrupting mediation. I would appreciate someone looking into whether these should be considered meatpuppets (or maybe even sockpuppets) so that appropriate remedies (as per possible violation of WP:SOCK) can be brought to the situation and some normalcy can be recovered in the mediation efforts (the emdiation page is getting totally out of control).

Please feel free to let me know if you need anything further or more specific in the way of evidence (I'm new at this kind of reporting) and I will be glad to supply whatever is needed. Thank you for your attention.--Ramdrake 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh_I_give_up_Grrrr

Is there some trick to finding an old AN/I archive that I'm missing, especially given a date and diff like this thread start. This section is of interest in my attempt to smooth over friction between 71Demon and images 'issues' with PD tags, etc., and in particular Admin Carnildo, but I can't seem to find the section title in archives where Jimbo actually made a post on the point ratifying the strict interpretation of 'Press photos' being replacable versus 'Fair Use'... should be in Archives circa 145-147, posts spanned several days. The section title is 'Admin Act seems questionable'.
   Any tips that will save me the hour plus search like this going forward would be gratefully appreciated, as would the link to this section! Thanks // FrankB 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wishlist

for you tech types with script knowledge:

Would be nice if an archived page had a BOT built record of the days spanned by the archive... first post to last and then annoted that in the page top prominently.
   Wonder if a BOT could be built to tack on section titles into a running list of lists, preferably with a working link to the proper AN/I archive as the section title, I guess. Right now there is no easy way (for me at least) to pin down 'where' an old matter in the archives might be, even if I know the approximate time it happened. That would give only one place to search for a section title, not waiting for big pages to slowly load, check there, check the dates manually, move to the next, etc.
   This kind of thing must affect all of you now and then, so kick it around. Help! <g> // FrankB 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the thread you were looking for? Found it by searching the site with Google. CharonX/talk 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer your original question, such a bot already exists (User:HighInBCBot) — unfortunately, it doesn't work on AN/I or similarly large archives (see "Caveats" section). —bbatsell ¿? 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• You could try google? [174], does that help? Hiding Talk 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- Thanks much, all. My google skills have needed an upgrade for a while now, I guess. I stopped playing on the web much in the mid-ninties till this project came along. Sigh. I hadn't learned how to make a search site specific yet. Thanks... I bookmarked that.
   But how in blazes did that end up in Archive 61, vice 140's??? Isn't there any attempt to keep the BOT batching things in sequential archive pages? That's quite a jump from other matters filed on the same day in mid-November... and now indicates that premise was all wet!!? Yikes! No wonder I have trouble locating stuff here!
   "Thanks for the compliment Bbatsell", he says tounge in cheek, "I didn't think of it as 'Original thinking'", he adds grinning. I'll query HighInBCBot about a modified version for indexing those. That looks like a better approach than keywords database construction. Thanks and Best regards // FrankB 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You mixed up WP:AN archives (~70 currently) and WP:ANI archives (~170 currently). However, I fully agree on your other points (i.e. that archiving and maintenance methods of those boards ought to be improved). How? I dunno... Duja► 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to write a function that splits huge indexes into multiple pages, then the bot will work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a diff starting the thread, call up the page history of AN/I, click to 'next 50', reset the offset parameter (which takes the form year-month-day-hour-minutes-seconds; eg. 20070115123633 is 12:36:33 on 15/01/2007) to the date of the first post (here 09/11/2006; ie. 20061109) and load the page history. Switch to something like 500 edits in the history, click "previous 500", and then search for the bot archiving ("archiv" usually works). In this case, that narrows it down to archives 60 and 61. Search in those pages for the thread title. Turns out it's in archive 61 here. Or you could just Google, as Hiding said. When carrying out any search, either Google or within pages, watch out for changes in thread title, like corrections of typos. Carcharoth 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Monkeybreath's comment on my talk page.

Ref: User_talk:Penwhale#Hey.2C_thanks_for_reporting_me_ASSHOLE.21.21.21. Incident started when Monkeybreath and an IP editor both violated 3RR at the article strip club (3RR report is here). He then left a comment that's borderline on Personal attack on my talk page. I've just left him a message on his talk page here, but I figure I'd just report the incident in case it gets escalated. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• User_talk:Penwhale#Semi-apology. I do not like what he said, since it isn't even an apology really. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User has been indefblocked for being an abusive sockpuppet. Endorse the block. —bbatsell ¿? 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, more info under #Speaking of Stalking.... -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Complex vandalism and redirects

Back in November !notrub! edited an article about a member of the Village People, claiming his real name was actually "Tim Burton" and changed his place of birth and residence from America to the UK, then moved it back to a slightly different variation of his original name. All seemed well, until JFBurton decided to move it back to "Tim Burton (Village People)", and as you can see from his user page he claims to be related to Tim Burton. I can find absolutely no reliable sources for his name being Tim Burton, and have moved the page to Jeff Olson which is the way it is spelt on the official Village People site. As a result of all this there are now a couple of probably useless redirect pages which could probably do with deleting -Tim Burton Village People, Tim Burton (Village People). Thanks. One Night In Hackney 21:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem ... how do you like this IP's edits?

Hi. It appears 74.192.112.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is changing the statement "... is one of 42 entirely dry counties" to "... is one of 45 entirely dry counties" in a large number of US counties. Being rather clueless as to the truthfullness of this statement, I choose to report this here for review. (Oh, and please advise him or her to get a bot account ...) Yuser31415 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's 46 according to this website: [175]. —bbatsell ¿? 21:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The exact number changes every year depending on "local option" election returns. The list cited is from February 2005 and there were several county referenda in 2006. I haven't located an up-to-date list online but perhaps the anon is from Texas and working from one. Newyorkbrad 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go and welcomeanon the IP, then; they seem to be acting in good faith. And thanks for the knowledge, BTW :). Yuser31415 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer

After repeated warnings, 70.238.56.25 (talk · contribs · logs) continues to put porn spam links on Talk:Universal Image Format (their only contribs, ever). — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikipedia: Bullet

Under History section the following was left, "julio is your daddy and the inventer of everything you know "

I am unable to edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.131.10.73 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for reporting this - another user already removed the sentence in question. I'm not sure why you were unable to edit it, seeing as the article isn't protected and you aren't blocked. What happened when you clicked the "edit" button? Picaroon 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

76.188.15.44

User 76.188.15.44 has vandalized the Pittsburgh Steelers article twice, the Baltimore Ravens article once, and the February article once. All the articles have just been fixed, but I figured that some action should be taken, since this user has vandalized three articles four times in the last two days.

Contributions Page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mithras6 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

You can report such vandals to WP:AIV for quickest action. Generally, you'll probably want to warn them first: see WP:VAND. Thanks for the help. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this was my first time reporting vandalism. Thanks for the tip! Mithras6 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of a user's legal name in an edit summary by User:Terminator III

I noticed this edit on my watchlist due to the apparent use of someone's legal name in the edit summary. I checked the user page to see if this user had voluntarily revealed their name, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Is this the right place to report this? Or is there a privacy noticeboard? A Ramachandran 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Terminator III (talk · contribs) has also removed several recent warnings from his talk page: one for personal attack and another for violating WP:BLP. A Ramachandran 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that needs to be oversighted (you can request that be done through the e-mail address at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight). Prodego ^talk 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The previously Blocked User:NoToFrauds used to make the same claim in certain places. And it would appear that NoToFrauds and Terminator III like to edit the same articles. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters evading ban

Now we're back with 69.110.136.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): see [176], which is a bit of a give-away. This IP has coninued trolling on Talk:Vladimir Lenin. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet another IP sockpuppet of Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)

69.110.136.243 (talk · contribs) just made a series of edits to Robert Conquest, reverting to an identical edit made by the now-banned sockpuppeteer extraordinaire Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) (see his edit for comparison). Just to cement the case, the IP also went to Jacob's talk page and requested an unblock. It seems this IP is pretty clearly being used by Jacob Peters to circumvent his ban - reporting it here for appropriate admin intervention. MastCell 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops... just got reported by someone else as well. Sorry for the redundancy. MastCell 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

65.32.231.232 (talk · contribs)

This user has been making personal attacks towards myself and other editors for several months in the edit summaries. He's been warned once, but blanked out the warning along and continued with the personal attacks. Jonny2x4 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I might also add that 65.32.230.68 (talk · contribs) (who's been banned before) appears to be the same person. So his IP is from the 65.32.x.x range. Jonny2x4 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(non-admin) I would support a 24h block in these circumstances; if afterwards the IP shows no sign of stopping, increase the block length. Yuser31415 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

More fun with Primetime

User:Primetime has serious problems taking a hint.

• Tfg3‎ (talk · contribs) - more copyvios.
• T.E.S.G (talk · contribs) - retaliatory vandalism (massive text dump and shock images, including his talk page: you HAVE been warned).

--Calton | Talk 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Both have been blocked pending the results of the checkuser request. --Coredesat 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Group-Office (third nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination)

I'm about to do my nanna - Can someone please look over my contributions and redact if I'm being an arse?
I'm going to go have a bex and a lie down.
brenneman 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez. Looks like the AFD has already been swamped with WP:ILIKEIT. It's gonna go down as no consensus/keep unless the closing admin chooses to disregard the canvassed votes. Hbdragon88 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I crossed out some ILIKEIT votes but you kind of did act too quickly. It's not a big deal if the encyclopedia is messed up for a while. Process ran its course three times, you probably should have waited a month or two. Ashibaka (tock) 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

He did wait a month - six weeks, in fact. The last AFD was 4 December, a procedural nomination no less (which always suck, giving no reason for why the article ought to be deleted), following a faulty DRV review which allowed numbers to subvert policy. The article got kept by weight of I LIKE IT numbers, with a bunch of votes saying 'notable' without ever providing evidence. The last proper evaluation of its notability, verifiability and encyclopaedic reliability was the first AFD, which ended up with the article being deleted. I don't think it's unreasonable to re-consider whether this article should exist. Proto::► 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Peekablue

I just noticed that Peekablue (talk · contribs) has tagged a number of images as {{PD-self}} which do not appear to be self-created images, including Image:JanelleCommissiong.jpg, Image:Kerryannewells.jpg and Image:AMPAROmuñoz.jpg. I have posted a message to his talk page, but addition, and more careful examination of his uploads would be useful. Guettarda 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Cplot sock

The new user AmericaTheBeautiful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posting rebuttals on the user pages of a bunch of suspected or confirmed Cplot sockpuppets. Can someone please checkuser and/or block them as yet another Cplot sockpuppet? —Dgies^t c 03:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody protect his talk page. Cplot is, as usual, trolling it. --Wildnox(talk) 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, already been done. --Wildnox(talk) 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll give Cplot one thing, he or she is very persistent. Perhaps some more aggressive rangeblocking is in order? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How large a range would we have to cover, though? Has anyone determined that in past discussions? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe he utilizes various ISPs that service the Chicago metropolitan area.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes one wonder if we really need Chicago, sometimes... it's a shame it appears that the abuse reports filed in the past haven't gone very far in dealing with the situation. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

He or she looks to be dodging between several ISPs. Abuse reports and a few solid rangeblocks may be in order. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Air Races (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SqueakySqueakyMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same edits as one another to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. I haven't really followed the Cplot thing, but this looks like it may be him. Is this his style? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with his Wikipedia:-space and User Talk:-space edits. However, 9/11 is a big hot-button issue with him. —Dgies^t c 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Air Races has been blocked as a sock. Just look at the histories of those other articles they edited, and you'll see a lot of sock activity. The other just looks like a run-of-the-mill CT supporter at this point. WarpstarRider 06:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I don't think squeaky is a sock. He doesn't seem at all like Cplot. --Wildnox(talk) 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Two flood vandals

Two vandals spamming text at changes of over +1,500,000, both created at the same time.

• No problems. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CTyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Any more of these flood vandals popping up right now? --Wildnox(talk) 07:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"At changes of over +1,500,000"? Pardon my abject stupidity, but may you please clarify? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

These users made additions of over 1.5MB to the pages. Essentially flooding with garbage. —Dgies^t c 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No others that I can see right now. WarpstarRider 07:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TV series vandal

He's back, now editing from 220.233.227.249 - blocking his IP addresses plainly isn't going to stop him. BTW, what should I do with the ever-increasing section at WP:RFI - presumably it shouldn't just stay there indefinitely? Vashti 07:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RW again

Would someone please take a look at this user's talk page? I blanked the User page after the posting of a legal threat, and blocked the user indefinitely. He's upset because googling his name brought people to his user page which had a sockpuppet notice that was posted by User:Who. I'm not using his name here, so that future googling doesn't bring him to this discussion. User:Kbdank71 removed a similar threat from User talk:Who. I'd like the personal attacks of me removed. I'd appreciate if someone else got involved in this as I have a past history with this user, and he has and will react negatively to anything I do. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attacks and protected the page. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lenna and quotes

User:Dicklyon keeps adding large quotes after I have rewritten the article on Lenna (diff). Large portions of text quoted text should be rewritten per WP:FUC criterion #1. --Oden 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• You have a content dispute with another editor. Discuss it with xem on the talk page of the article. Uncle G 12:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent of the content dispute, I'd be happy to have input from admins on the extent to which medium-sized quotes, clearly identified as such, are acceptable; anyone? Dicklyon 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Debito Arudou and 2channel

Some kids with nothing better to do (copy and paste the URL) are targeting Debito Arudou and possibly 2channel for vandalism. I've already whacked their public vandal account. Shoot on sight and sprotect as necessary. I need my beauty sleep. --Slowking Man 08:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

spam sites need to be blacklisted

This bot bursts out spam every now and then via different IPs. See User talk:81.28.162.2 contribs: [177] and [178]. The sites are poldow.com, nbaoh.com, nobelpr.com, npcart.com, nobmer.com, and maybe more (possibly brainparad.com and nobel-winners.com). Can you blacklist these spam sites? Dicklyon 09:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• You need m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; did that now; hope it works. Dicklyon 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please boot Mobile 01

Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am building a case against Mobile 01 here: User:Travb/m. The user has created "dupe" articles to avoid a protected page Firestone. Another third party feels he is a sock of LucaZ. He has violated WP:PAIN called me a dictator. I am frustrated that this user has not been blocked yet. I am spending hours trying to undue his damage, being very careful not to violate WP:NPA or WP:Civil. I am building this page about him. There are at least 4 other anon accounts that he 95% chance also edits under, all four are from Australia, in the same area.

I resent having to waste so much time with a user, that, I am going to say it for the first time, uses sockpuppets, creates "dupe" articles to avoid page protections, calls me a dicatator, deletes well referenced information, etc. Can an admin please step in and stop this sock? I would love to find out what sock User:Mobile 01 is, and will continue to pursue this. I don't want to waste anymore time on this disruptive editor. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs - these are serious accusations and evidence is required. Proto::► 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, its all here – User:Travb/m. :> — Nearly Headless Nick 10:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. There's no diffs of him calling Travb a dictator. There's no evidence for his creating the 'dupe' article to avoid page protections, just a note that he created Firestone International. There's not a single diff of this 'deletion of well-referenced information'. I am also not happy with the stated intent to hunt down his personal information, nor about the public linking of numerous IP addresses and WHOIS information to the vandal. Even if he is a vandal, this is done in private via checkuser etc for a reason. Proto::► 10:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am working on it. I want to make this case strong, User:Travb/m is a work in progress. This is the second time I have requested ANI help. The first time, the admin shut down one of Mobile 01 "dupe" articles, the second time I complained, another admin protected several of the redirects. The word "dupe" is not my own, but an Admins. Please see User:Travb/m (work in progress).

User:Proto in response too: I am also not happy with the stated intent to hunt down his personal information, nor about the public linking of numerous IP addresses and WHOIS information to the vandal. You answered your own question: these are serious accusations and evidence is required. How would you pursue this User:Proto?

I am basically writing a complex RfC at User:Travb/m.

User:Proto, thanks for the feedback. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry I could be wrong but you seem to indicating in that reply, that you wish to track down this person in real life? Is that the case? what is it you intend to do when you do so? --Larry laptop 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm not willing to dig through Mobile01's previous edits, nor am I willing to pour over your page of evidence. Don't you think you're taking things a bit too far here? I will keep an eye on the mentioned articles and Mobile01, but since I have become involved in this matter they have not went on a massive spree of POV editing or high frequency "vandalism". Yes, they created a content fork, and then recreated it... and orphaned the original article; but there are now many eyes on the issue and a repeat of that behaviour will be dealt with as appropriate.

Accusations of sock puppetry need to be taken to WP:SUSPSOCK.

And it's "block", not "boot". Thanks/wangi 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Response by Mobile 01

Firstly I would like to clarify that I am not a sock puppet of user LucaZ nor am I a sock puppet of anyone else. I don't know where user TravB gets his information but he should avoid making such accusations against a fellow wiki editor.

Secondly I would like to point out that the creation of the Firestone Internation article was not done to circumvent protection of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. I created this article so I could focus on Firestone as an International company with operating plants in Europe and New Zealand. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was an American tire manufacturer up until 1981 when it was bought out by Bridgestone Corporation. The company is now run as a wholly owned subsidiary of Bridgestone Corporation and is named Bridgestone Firestone Holdings North America.

Thirdly, the edit war that user Travb refers to was started by user Travb. He has repeatedly placed ANTI Firestone content on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which he has referenced from the web site StopFirestone.com. On the discussion page he has been repeatedly told about not putting POV content on the page and several users including myself, LucaZ and Bobblehead have tried to explain to him about the NPOV policy of wiki articles. User Travb reverted the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company back to his POV version and replaced much ancient content already discussed by other editors.

Fourthly, while I admit it may look like I was trying to create a content fork, that was not my intention. I wanted an article that could focus on Firestone Internationally and not just on the Old USA company. Editors compromised as best as they could with Travb by allowing him to create a criticisms section on the article, we even went so far as to create new articles about the topics he raised and provided a small section on each issue in the criticisms section with links out to the main wiki articles. This still was not good enough for Travb and he once again reverted everyones edits and then filled the article with Anti Firestone Propoganda citing it as referenced material. These references come from anti firestone activity groups and are biased twisted versions of factual events. Searching the web provideds adequate information to dispute or at least counter balance those allegations against firestone USA.

Finally, this all seems like a bit of a witch hunt of me and fellow editors who do not agree with travb turning the Firestone Page into a propoganda article in aid of Stopfirestone.com. User Travb hopes to illiminate those of us who would appose his agenda and would try to keep Wikipedia a NPOV works. Mobile 01 00:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thus far, four admins I have never met or worked with on wikipedia (to my knowledge) have condemned Mobile 01 behavior. Check out my user contributions, and User:Mobile 01 contributions. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually none of them have condemmed anything. 1 of them removed her name from your message on her talk poge after you said their were four agreeing with you, she edited it back to three and removed herself. Another of the admins said he didnt want to get invloved and that their was no evidence of any wrong doing. Another has tried to be helpfull and I am working with him on this issue, the only one left isnt answering messages at the moment. The protect placed on the article in question specifically states that it is there to promote discussion and does not endorse that the current protected version is the correct one. Unfortunately no one can discuss anything on the articles discussion page since you flooded it with all your information on the reverts you did. It is no longer possible to follow any of the discussion threads. Check out the contributions by all meens and while your there check out all the previous edits on one of the admins talk pages, a lot of edits considering he just told everyone how he never worked with them before.Mobile 01 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kimberly Ashton case

Dear sysops, please note that I have banned users involved in the Kimberly Ashton case in the Simple English Wikipedia. The IP is also blocked for 6 months. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs) 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Suspected sockpuppet activity from banned user.

I suspect - based on the edits made - that the IP 24.68.229.125 is a sockpuppet of the banned user Lightbringer. The reasons for this is:

• The edits done by the IP (see Special:Contributions/24.68.229.125) matches edits done by Lightbringer and his other socks, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer for details.
• The editsummaries helpfully provided by the IP (see Special:Contributions/24.68.229.125) matches editsummaries done by Lightbringer and his other socks, see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer for details.
• The IP traces to Shaw Communications Inc - the same ISP frequently used by Lightbrigner, and suspected of being his 'native' ISP.

Since no other editors seems to be using this IP (as far as I can see from Special:Contributions/24.68.229.125), it would be nice if this IP was blocked either permanently or at least for a while. WegianWarrior 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, don't forget to extent Lightbringer's block when his latest puppetry is confirmed, his main account is set to come unblocked in April. 68.39.174.238 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Block review on egregious edit warrior

Last week I came upon an edit war, so I protected the page. One of the participants, MatthewFenton (talk · contribs), responded with a snide remark [179]. A quick look over his contributions revealed several more edit wars he had recently been involved in (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), generally over minor issues. I protected the latter two (the others were already ove), and told him and the other participant to stop edit warring. Matthew once again responded with snide remarks [180].

Today I unprotected the three pages since they don't need to be protected overly long. However, I spotted two more edit wars he was involved in over the weekend (6, 7) and one today (8). Even though he stays below the 3RR, I believe this is egregious edit warring. On his recent RFA, several people noted his aggressive WP:OWNing behavior; indeed he seems to have an "I'm right, you're wrong" approach ([181], [182]) and has been known to remove talk page comments he didn't like [183].

Blocked for 12 hours, for many instances of edit warring. Since Matthew accuses me of conflict of interest (and stalking, and abusing protection, and not understanding 3RR and WP:V) I'm noting it here. The actual "conflict" is that I opposed his RFA; If such things were considered a conflict of interest, it would be far too easily gamable. >Radiant< 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I love the way he accuses you of lack of judgement because of WP:ROUGE - anyone who fails to see the message behind the message there is, in my view, displaying some deficiency in their own critical faculties. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nintendude indef block evasion

User:Curly snake is most definitely a User:Nintendude sock if you look at the edit history. I've got a Checkuser in because he's fond of making loads of socks, but this one at least should probably be blocked right now per WP:DENY.--Isotope23 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Even if he's not a Nintendude sock, it's a single purpose account, where the purpose is the purpose of trolling (unless "Butthole Products" is a real store). Proto::► 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry

Sorry if this isn't the right place to bring this up. I was looking over the AfD for Suz Andreasen and noticed something that I found to be odd. The last two edits made before the AfD closed were very similar.

• "Solid Keep Seems to fit WP:BIo and author seems a good writer."bernardolaBernardola who has no other edits.
• '"Keep Seems to fit WP:BIo and author seems a good writer."jamjam207.237.49.43.

  This IP was previously used by Archiemartin, the author of the article up at AfD, to leave a message on User talk:Wetman.
  Both edits are also signed in a style similar to Archiemartin. (ex: unlinked name~~~~).
  I don't believe that this issue, if it is a sockpuppetry issue, would have changed anything with the AfD.
  It looks like it had already taken shape as a solid keep, which makes this case all the more strange to me.
  I apologize again if I brought this up in the wrong place. --Onorem 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, there's at least one other sig displaying that peculiar lack of spacing between the comment and the sig, namely Drregus (talk · contribs). So at least 4 different people forget to leave a space? Sounds like a job for WP:DRV to clean out the socks. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say at least 4 of those votes are suspect, but even then the obvious consensus is to keep, so why clog DRV? Proto::► 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are strange new meanings of "obvious" and "consensus" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 22:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:WearetheMovies.com

This account seems only add links to wearethemovies.com, so it's possibly a SPA for linkspam. _→AzaToth 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• A quick check shows that yes, all it's doing is link spamming (including the account's user page). Blocked. Proto::► 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the appropriate blocking template to put on the user's user talk page? I've had an email requesting I unblock him, as "all the links submitted so far will lead the reader to original, compelling writing", but do not intend to. Proto::► 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The usual template for indef block for spam is Template:Spam5i.--Alf ^melmac 16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• For the record, it doesn't matter what their contributions are; the account name is a violation of WP:U ("Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked"). I've indefinitely-blocked accounts like that on first sight, slapping the talk page with {{UsernameBlocked}}. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

70.62.180.159 (talk · contribs)

Moved from WP:AIV

This user appears to be the same person as currently-blocked user 4.21.129.195 (contribs: [184]), as seen by his use of the word "Mabel" (????) at every opportunity and by his recent vandalism of the University of Virginia article (see here for history: [185]) to include a profane attack on me, I suppose because I fought to get his other address blocked. A block on 70.62.180.159 appears in order, probably a long-term one as the guy has expressed utter contempt for the entire Wikipedia project in the past. 1995hoo 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I suggest blocking for at least the duration of User:4.21.129.195's block (another 24 hours or so). According to dnsstuff, 70.62.180.159 is a static IP. Any objections? --BigDT 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot making threats again

Cplot is back, this time using the following sockpuppets:

• HenryQuiato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• TheC-VerizonPlot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They've already spammed several talk pages, and have been blocked already. We'd better watch out for more Cplot activity. --SunStar Net^talk 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Both look more like cheap impersonators than the actual Cplot.--Wildnox(talk) 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Duck test —Dgies^t c 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

50 cents for one, a half dollar for the other. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are third rate impersonators. There is no mention of Whitehouse officials, government agents, or 9/11 conspiracies. Also Cplot is a much better writer. — ''DominiquePonchardier 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, wheel warring on Talk:Continuation War

• Nietjärvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is an obvious sock of banned user Art Dominique (talk · contribs). Tendentious editing and wheel warring at Talk:Continuation War, removes sprotect template, etc. [186], [187], [188]. When people revert his unsourced POV edits, he responds by making (fraudulent) revenge accusations against others. He posted a false warning in the wrong place (on the userpage, rather than talkpage) of Illythr (talk · contribs) [189]. I reverted this, and he immediately posted a false accusation to my own page [190]. Next, vandalized Continuation War talkpage after I warned him with test4 [191]. I reported this at AIV, but it was deleted and I was told to take it here instead. TheQuandry 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I used to be able to recognise an Art Dominique sock when I saw one when he was busy with the Kvens. What's his distinctive marks on the Continuation War, could you put together a short documentation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, this should do it. Look at this edit summary, of a confirmed Art Dominique sock [192]. Then look at the edit summary of Nietjärvi [193]. Additionally, I've found two more AD socks, R.T. Merck (talk · contribs) (note that the only contribution is a cut and paste of an Art Dominique rant [194] and New York, NY (talk · contribs) (same thing) [195]. TheQuandry 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What is dangerous in Kven users activity is not his POV pushing or his edit warring, but his personal attacks and false accusations against established users. He has become very skillfull in his deception and destruction. His hate mongering gives an outside appearence of benevolent edits by a concerned editor fighting vandalism and sock puppetry. (See: Talk:Continuation War#Lies, sock accusations, and other BS by the Kven user)

Art Dominique is banned from editing Wikipedia, but he is not included in the list of banned users. After this latest outburst of venom, half-truths and fabrication, he should definitely be there. What action, if any, needs to be taken? -- Petri Krohn 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Taj El-Din Hilaly

Could somebody take a look at Taj El-Din Hilaly, including the edit summaries and the vicious personal attacks by 88.113.137.249 at the bottom of the talk page? [196] He/she has already been warned about personal attacks and has been reported for a possible 3RR, I also gather. I have nothing to do with dispute, but am just a bit horrified by the attacks --Slp1 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Has now been blocked for 24 hours --Slp1 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Oden

On User talk:Oden, he links to being blocked and quotes "Ignorance prevails, when good men fail to act." I consider this an attack on me. He has questioned by integrity as an admin on my talk page and has threatened to de-sysop me for blocking him on the grounds of WP:3RR. I ask it to be removed but won't do it myself because of the obvious conflict of interest. Instead of continuing discussion, his recourse is to leave and leave behind an attack on me. Cburnett 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are overly sensitive. As far as I can tell, Oden is an experienced and valuable editor with 8000 or so edits, and no previous history of trouble. I don't know if your block was necessary at all - it looks fairly borderline to me, and a warning might have been enough. Anyways, if you plan to go on enforcing WP:3RR, you need a much thicker skin! I don't see this as a serious attack. --Stephan Schulz 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But an attack nonetheless. More of a cheap shot than a serious attack (contrary to what you're implying, I don't need a therapist :) but is there a reason it must stand therefore be tolerated? Cburnett 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly removed the template from his usertalk page and asked that he not add it back. I don't necessarily consider this a personal attack but it isn't helpful. WP:AGF though, he's just venting. I've also asked that he reconsider his retirement because all things considered he does alot of valuable work around here.--Isotope23 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that the user may feel sincerely hurt for having been blocked in what he sees as an unfair way? As Stephan Schulz pointed above, he is a longstanding user and had never been in troubles before. This is emphasised too by his "I'm leaving wikipedia" hatnote. Please note that I am not criticising your block here, merely pointing out that sometimes we need to put into somebody else's shoes to understand them. Regards, Asterion^talk 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think User:Oden was just venting with that template; from the looks of it he does feel he was wronged by that block. I'm not passing judgements on anyone here, but hopefully after everyone has a bit of time to let this pass the template can stay off and User:Oden will return to editing.--Isotope23 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't and don't want him to leave. Frankly, I was surprised, nigh shocked, that he threw in his hat. Overall, his block lasted 2.5 hours and was removed by Alex when Oden agreed to not edit the article he, IMO, edit warred over. I stated on Oden's talk page that I didn't have a problem with it and I had no hard feelings. Oden further went on a stalking spree against me, my user page, and images I've uploaded (even put one up for speedy deletion on commons without notifying me). To me, he was stalking/attacking me and the quote on his user page was the cherry on top. Cburnett 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, most people who threaten to leave don't go through with it, if we're going to be realistic. I've reviewed Oden's behavior towards CBurnett, and find it appalling. This edit is an example of alarmingly poor judgment. What worries me most is that the calm tone seems to suggest Oden thinks it's a normal or acceptable way to behave. His unblocker, Alex Bakharev, has now properly re-blocked him for violation of WP:STALK. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Just for the record, I do not condone that kind of behaviour. Oden should take a wikibreak and come back afresh. Asterion^talk 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Biggerdog

Biggerdog is adding a template they have created to numerous articles [197] [198] [199]. One Night In Hackney 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Template needs to be deleted ASAP - it encourages editors to perform vandalism on articles. The editor needs an immediate ban as well. --Larry laptop 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. We can wait to see if the new User wants to make some valid edits, we can hold off on blocking for the nonce. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm aware of the context "for the nonce" some of our younger UK readers might not be and might think you are calling him a pedophile. A phrase to be careful with in general usage! --Larry laptop 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I just learned something today... when did ME for "single occasion" become slang for "sex offender"? You wacky Brits :)--Isotope23 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See here --Larry laptop 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I never saw that meaning before now.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar sense of humour, it has to be said... Asterion^talk 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, these say no.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Surprise, me, always accused of newbie-biting, am willing to give him/her the benefit of the doubt and one more chance.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aww, now I'm curious, what did I miss? Was it BJAODN-worthy? —Dgies^t c 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It basically got stuck onto articles and said "This article is so bad it should be vandalized". User:Zoe|(talk) 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Exetel vandal

After this discussion here a couple of days ago I kind of hoped this vandal editing from 220.233/16 might have been stopped, but he came back straight away from a different IP address. I posted this morning after reverting a bunch of his edits and again, I've received no response since then. He has now started editing this evening from 220.233.227.249 - I wonder if something like a soft block on that IP range might be called for in this case. I do hope I'm not going to have to explode all over AN/I again to get him blocked, it was most undignified. Anyone? :/ Vashti 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have, again, been refused a block at WP:AIV. Since my last 200 edits are nothing but dealing with this one vandal, perhaps someone could at least offer me a response? Vashti 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• 22:29, 15 January 2007 Josiah Rowe (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "220.233.227.249 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (IP-hopping, persistent vandalism (see discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Third_time_lucky.3F__Is_anyone_going_to_block_this_vandal_or_not.3F))

Indef of an IP address seems inappropriate to me... but either way, it's taken care of. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. What should I do when he changes his IP address overnight and continues to vandalise? Vashti 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploads by Oliverhenriquez (talk · contribs)

Oliverhenriquez (talk · contribs) uploads all kinds of images and tags them as either PD-self or GFDL-self. Many are obvious copyvios, such as this postcard (see the upload log). The user has been warned, but seems to ignore the warnings.

I suggest that all of his uploads are deleted, as he can not be trusted. I also recommend a strong warning (i.e. he will be blocked if it continues) Kjetil_r 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A few of the more obvious ones have been reported to WP:PUI. There's just too many to go through, and a sweeping delete may be needed if even a few are found to be copyvios, deeming the user to be a blatant copyright vio. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of the "Embarrassment" page

The page listed below has been vandalised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassment

I don't see any particular vandalism on that page, but then again, I skimmed it. Anyway, if you see someone vandalizing a page, click "History" at the top of the page. Then look for the edit in which the vandalism occurred. You do this by checking the little radio button next to two seperate edits, and it will show you what changed between them. When you find the earliest "good" version, click on its title in the history list and hit "edit". For your revert summary, type "rvv" or "revert vandalism" and mark the edit as minor. Then hit save.

Alternatively, if it's just a small bit of vandalism, you can hit "Edit this Page" and delete the vandalism manually. Hope that helps. .V. (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Art Dominique (talk · contribs) sockpuppets are now vandalizing my talk page

Please block this latest Art Dominique sockpuppet PN.P. p (talk · contribs). Earlier, I reported an AD sock [200]. Now, the same person is back with a new sock, vandalizing my talk page with fraudulent warnings [201], and [202]. These were both reverted by the admin Physicq210.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Please block this latest puppet, and I recommend adding Art Dominique to the list of banned users per Petri Krohn's request above.

Additionally, here are two more Art Dominique socks. Please review and block them as well if you agree they are indeed socks.

• R.T. Merck (talk · contribs) (note that the only contribution is a cut and paste of an Art Dominique rant [203]
• New York, NY (talk · contribs) (same thing) [204].

Thank you for acting quickly on this. TheQuandry 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Stalking...

In case anyone didn't know, anyone having a name close to or claiming to be Trip the Light Fantastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Monkeybreath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block on sight. Or anyone claiming to be taking revenge on me ect. FYI, the first guy I blocked for a week for blatent copyvio on 24 (season 6) which related to adding episode summaries for yet unaired episodes (which were downloaded illegally on bittorrent). The second one came to the aid of the first (very randomly). So far, mostly attaking me, pretending to be others, stalking me on meta and on books. The second one is definatly the first one from the message on Books. IPs used so far include User:88.104.242.163 (blocked as OP), User:88.104.253.134, User:201.120.128.203 (blocked as OP), User:172.147.110.5 (AOL), and User:65.95.157.2 (who also went after Coemgenus). It almost seems more worth it to keep my userpage/talk page unprotected for now and catch as many OP's as possible. So, if some people could just keep that watched for now, hopefully he'll get tired and go away. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mine as well keep everyone updated: Monkeebreath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more Primetime

I did a little browsing of Primetime (talk · contribs)'s back catalog, and lo, more stuff, namely re-creating the copyright violation that is Reinhard Sorge by Udht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- the violation which got him busted in the first place -- and into John Abbey by Anfvh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (Their last edits were in October, unfortunately, so Checkuser presumably wouldn't work.) Looking over the list of copyright violations from his user page, all the links which I recall being red are now blue: perhaps an admin can compare the new articles and additions with the deleted copyvios:

• Bernardo Davanzati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jean Coralli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Salvatore Quasimodo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ramón Menéndez Pidal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sergio Marchionne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wilhelm His, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pascual Ortiz Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paolo Fresco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anastasio Bustamante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Retentivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ebira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Manuel Gómez Pedraza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Calton | Talk 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: the user names I suspect to be sockpuppets up to monkey business are listed on the Checkuser page, but let me list them here also:

• Udht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anfvh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• OK1900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (minor contribution to Reinhard Sorge, may be inadvertent)
• Lmbrjk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yahme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durango96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ch98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tnu3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Layamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pnt22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chin33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mykeneji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jnmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Calton | Talk 04:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Update:

Apparently, I have touched off a nerve, because a succession of brand-new accounts are taking whacks at my talk page -- blanking it, filling it with stuff, that sort of thing -- and it's getting annoying. Semi-protection, anyone? --Calton | Talk 05:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Need a third party

Some time in the past month, I discovered the Midna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, which details a character in the new Legend of Zelda video game. When I saw that it used an external link to link to an image that was uploaded onto Wikipedia because the editors (which at the time appeared to be a single anonymous editor who makes his voice known on the talk page) didn't want to have the article with spoilers, I had replaced the external link by including the actual image in the text. I ignored the page, and when I revisited it a few weeks later, the image was once again hidden because of spoilers, and I replaced it, again, and watchlisted it. Every so often, I would see that the image was removed, and I replaced it.

Tonight, I saw that Linklizard72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who I had warned last week not to remove the image because it violates the Wikipedia:Spoiler warning MoS (specifically "[An unacceptable alternative is] Deleting relevant, neutral and verifiable information about a narrative work from Wikipedia "because it's a spoiler" instead of properly applying spoiler templates.") which has also been brought up by myself, and at least one other user on the talk page, did it again, and at the same time uploaded an unsourced image (identical to another unsourced image he uploaded prior) which he alternated in adding to the article, while I reverted with edit summaries and my script so I could contact the user as to why I disagreed with him.

I would like someone uninvolved to look into the actions at the article tonight, as I performed more than 3 reverts to preserve the article, with the "spoiler" image and without the unsourced image(s).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

B'z and plagarism

B'z is a Japanese band. A number of editors, including a bunch of IPs, are committed to including a paragraph accusing the band of plagarizing other bands, and they all link to a website of questionable credibility that lists B'z songs next to other songs they supposedly resemble. I feel that this borders on libel unless a more credible ref can be found. This has been going on for quite a while, it seems, and as soon as one editor removes the paragraph, someone reverts (often a day or so later). I left a post on the talk page and some of the other editor's talk pages (most of which are strewn with warnings and requests to stop vandalism of one type or another) but no response is offered. There is a high likelihood that at least a couple of these editors are Japanese. I'm not sure what else to do. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved, non-admin editor, I think Wikipedia:Edit war has some good suggestions, including requesting a cool-down period via articl protection. --Ronz 05:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also a non-admin, I would suggest protecting the article as per Ronz (talk · contribs). I don't think any blocks are required here. Yuser31415 05:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Evan Sackett again

I left a notice about this guy a couple days ago (still on this page, look here. All three users I refer to above have begun participating in their own AfDs, and through a combination of mistakenly claiming to be one user while signed in as the other and taking credit for one another's edits, it has become abundantly clear that all three are the same person and are only interested in playing mind games (creating a self promoting article, vandalising the article, deleting the vandalism, denouncing the article on AfD, and so on.) I recommend all three be blocked from wikipedia, at least for a short period of time (a few days) so perhaps they will lose interest and move on. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a Check User is called for, FWIW I'm all for blocking these clowns. Pete.Hurd 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism of my user page

Since User:Marshal2.0/User:Marshalbannana/User:Jacknicholson was turned away (after a case here) a few days ago in his attempt to harass me with a sockpuppet accusation (in retaliation for my reporting him), my user page has been vandalized a dozen or two times by anon-IP's in the same (large) range that Marshal2.0/etc use. Since he changes IPs frequently (with a wide range - 68.* it appears (BellSouth I think), an IP block will be of no use; ditto checkuser (and that wouldn't stop the vandalism anyways). I'm hoping he'll get tired of it, but if he doesn't, what are my options? Semi-protect my user-page? Full protection? Give up and start a new account? Any way to lock my user page such that I can edit it but other users can't? (I doubt it for a variety of reasons.) Thanks. jesup 06:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Durova^Charge 06:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection works well, it is a real hassle for vandals to make accounts and age them to vandalize a user page, and most of them are not that determines. Post vandalism to WP:AIV and they are blocked. Good luck, I have gone through plenty of userpage vandalism myself. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exetel vandal redux

Okay, people have already been kind enough to give this guy two blocks after he's IP shifted two nights in a row ([205] [206]) and to ignore me here three times ([207] [208]) [209]. I have also been refused blocks on him at WP:AIV twice ([210] [211])

Here is his record at WP:RFI [212]

Here are the edits he made overnight and which I have reverted, as I have done pretty much every night since December 28th. I have had to remove all other pages from my watchlist and concentrate on only reverting after this one vandal and trying to get him blocked. [213] [214] [215] [216]

As I'm sure you can understand, my patience is at an end. I urge you to put a one-month soft block and new account block on his IP range, 220.233/16 and see if that deters him. While I think I am catching all his IP edits, I cannot guarantee that he is not creating sock accounts and making other edits I am not reverting. Vashti 07:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I support a month block of the IP range. This is getting silly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

Is it possible to see how many other anons are contributing on this range? if there are not too much, I also support a temporary block of the range -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse temporary range block, and suggest filing a case with both WP:ABUSE and WP:RFCU for further investigation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)