Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive161

User:Malherbp

Yet another kid using Wikipedia as a free file host. 30 Images, and only images as user's contributions. See Special:Contributions/Malherbp Is there another way I could take care of this, aside from nominating all the images under CSD (which there really isn't a criteria for) or IFD them all or bring it here or apply for admin and delete them myself (which seems the lengthy of the solutions)? Or is just posting this here probably the best method? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. He's put them (all?) on Broughton xc. --MECU≈talk 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...which has been speedy-deleted several times in the last few days. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently cracked admin account?

User:Mike Rosoft has apparently suddently started creating Willy on Wheels accounts, suggesting the password to their account has been cracked. This needs urgent investigation and attention. See [1] for evidence. Unless proved otherwise, it would make sense to regard all their most recent edits and other actions as suspicious.-- The Anome 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OMG, you think an admin would at least know how to hide it better!Have you tried contacting him? Cbrown1023 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why I find it so suspicious... -- The Anome 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... why would it be necessary to create them from an admin account, if it were cracked? Besides, the interspersed contributions seem fine. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He's creating and blocking pre-emptively, KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the alert but there's no issue here. It looks like he was just trying to be preemptive. Check the blog logs for these new accounts. Each reads (e.g.) "01:29, 21 December 2006 Mike Rosoft (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wiki on Wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Registered by me to prevent its use by vandals)." Newyorkbrad 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, unusual behaviour by Mike's normal standards... Why create WoW account preemptively? There are million upon millions of such accounts which could be possibly created, so trying to anticipate new ones and creating them is pointless. -- The Anome 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that is unusual behavior, what possible use would someone get from that? People don't crack an account and then make pointless creations and blocks, because that would only draw attention to it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At least two of them are to protect from vandal registration.No threat, just some protectiveness of Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... Would someone care to go unblock him now? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I would have suggested pre-emptive blocking of the Willy accounts. But I got caught in a personal record SIX edit conflicts, so screw that. We need to do something about the size of this page. – Chacor 01:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed the fact that they're already blocked by Mike. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean I would've suggested he's creating them so he can pre-emptively block them. – Chacor 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked on his talk page what is going on? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • yes, i did right after i asked if anyone notified him. (the second post) Cbrown1023
• he is probably creating and blocking them so no one else does it later we need to assume more good faith here really Yuckfoo 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Copying explanation from my talk page

No, my account has not been hacked. I have looked at the history of Wikipedia:Suggested usernames, and registered three of the WoW accounts listed there and not yet existing (and blocked two of them with an explanation of "Created by me to prevent its use by vandals"). I even posted a message to that extent to User talk:Misza13. I apologize for the trouble I had caused by my actions - they were probably pointless. - Mike Rosoft 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to Mike; I'm glad my paranoia was unwarranted. Can someone please archive the top of this page, so we can avoid any more edit conflicts? -- The Anome 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact it's not that unusual behaviour: other doppeIganger accounts I had created (and blocked) include: User:Mike Rosoft on wheels, User:Mikerosoft, User:MikeRosoft, User:Mike rosoft, User:Mlke Rosoft, User:MIke Rosoft, User:James Wales, User:Jlmbo WhaIes, and User:Wikipedia@wikipedia.org. - Mike Rosoft 02:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created and blocked some likely imposter accounts of myself as well.Actually, I don't think I blocked all of them ... I just made sure to register them with scrambled passwords so that no one could ever use them.--Cyde Weys 04:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

MudkipLuver111 (talk · contribs)

Something is wrong here. An RfA upon the first edit, and then a support from an anon after closing? And then a note on his talk page about being a respected sysop? I have no idea what is wrong, but something is. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mudkip" is, how shall we say it, an Internet trolling meme phenomenon.Account is now indef-blocked; this matter appears closed.--Cyde Weys 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

More conspiratoriality

User:TwoToweers just posted the Cplot screed to the Village Pump (news) again; another sock, perhaps? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, that was his first edit. (Second to userpage, third to welcome himself.) Blocked indef. Grandmasterka 04:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hit the IP for a month, and indef'd a couple other socks. Essjay (Talk) 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As expected, TwoToweers has now posted the usual attack diatribe on his user talk page. Can someone please delete & lock it ASAP? 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - I wouldn't be surprised if he does the same with the two other socks...

 Done. Essjay (Talk) 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

nominating a protected article for AfD?

I want to nominate Fly like a Raven for AfD, because it's an unreleased album, with little or no cited information about it. However, it's fully protected due to recent vandalism involving fanmade album art. Could an administrator fill out the AfD for me on the article, thus circumventing the protection, or if not, remove the protection so it can be AfD'd? After 10 days of full protection, I think it's ready to go back to editing, not that it belongs here anyway. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Knock yourself out. Viridae^Talk 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Knocked out, thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Waves smelling salts* Viridae^Talk 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Two problems

I have two problems and I think the best way to describe them is to just say what I saw:

1. On my watch list I saw the article Flu was changed.
2. Going to it I saw it was changed from being a redirect to Influenza to being a redirect to Influenza (Flu).
3. Then I saw Influenza had been moved to Influenza (Flu) and they were both marked as supposed to being on my watchlist but they weren't so problem one is my watchlist is ommiting the two articles Influenza and Influenza (Flu) for some unknown reason.
4. I looked at the history and User talk:Kunz506 made the moves, and has made other inappropriate moves and is a new account. He is problem two. WAS 4.250 11:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The watchlist doesn't show articles with last edits of either moving or protecting. – Chacor 11:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And why is that?It would seem useful. --Samuel Wantman 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You probably have to ask the devs or someone in the know about that one... – Chacor 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Influenza (Flu) moved back to Influenza. Viridae^Talk 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And all the other articles moved have been moved back to their original place. Someone has warned them about the inappropriate moves already, but I am goign to drop another note. Viridae^Talk 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like it if my watchlist told when when something was moved, protected, or deleted. maybe the devs will give it to use for christmas! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock of banned User:DAde blocked indef

I've just blocked indef a sock of banned User:DAde. Compare contribs of DAde and Abc3. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good block. This sockpuppet's inclusion of quotations of the Qu'ran related to Mohammed Reza Taheriazar on the Islamist terrorism article (the same as User:DAde had been doing for months) and edits surrounding Mormonism and Pope Benedict XVI makes this a no-brainer case. (→Netscott) 15:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of Malber (talk · contribs)

I have blocked User:Malber for a period of 48 hours for his continued disruption on WT:RFA and trolling on User talk:Chacor. He has been blocked before – [2] previously for disruption and has been warned many times regarding that. He has probably removed all the warnings from his talk page/archives. However, I understand that ideally I should not have been the administrator to block him; I will leave it on the community to decide if he should be unblocked/his block shortened/remains blocked. I am leaving my computer now; and I will accept consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the "trolling" on User talk:Chacor is a npa2 warning for this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How someone treats that comment by me would be subjective, I just noted that that would be a typical response from a typical troll. I've not made personal attacks against anyone, just noted that Malber's response would be what a "typical troll" would normally respond with. It's certainly up for interpretation, but I know what I meant, which is what has been laid out here. – Chacor 16:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a personal attack, but some people do. I think we need to clarify that when most good faith editors/admins say "this person is a troll" they mean it as "this person is acting in bad faith" rather than just trying to call the person names. --W.marsh 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, you know, stop tossing the word around willy-nilly, especially with established editors?BTW, I do hope an admin has the good sense to overturn this block. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this block.The 'trolling' on Chacor's talk page is a very unfair description.A misguided NPA template isn't necessarily trolling, particularly as he was arbitrarily labelled a 'troll' in the first place.Troll is a perjorative term and should only be applied to those who clearly exist just to make trouble - this is not the case with Malber, who may be misguided and wrong at times, and can behave badly, but is not a troll. Malber didn't recieve a single warning with regards to his conduct, you just blocked him (when already involved in a dispute with him).Please consider undoing the block. Proto::► 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Note above, I did not "label" Malber a troll. I've only just noted that Malber's response would be what a "typical troll" would normally respond with, but certainly am not saying he's one. – Chacor 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir Nick definitely did, though, although it might be justified. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If the user percieved something as a personal attack, the the NPA warning may have been in good faith. That action should be given little weight towards the decision to block, not sure about the other reasons for the block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(cross-posted from Malber's talk with minor updating) Although I disagreed very strongly with Malber's position in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Malber's age question, I believe this is a problematic block. In particular, as Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington suggests above, he was involved in an active dispute with Malber at the time and should not have been the blocking administrator. While the weight of opinion in the discussion on the "age question" was against the question continuing to be asked, it can hardly be said that Malber's continuing the dialog was inherently disruptive, and while some of Malber's comments (particularly the suggest that Sir Nicholas should be desysopped) displayed a far from exemplary degree of civility, I saw nothing going so far as to warrant a block. I would support lifting the block, although I would also strongly suggest that the matter be dropped at that point. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Support both suggestions, with a strong reminder to Malber to improve his civility and WP:AGF a bit more (especially if indeed he "perceived something" that wasn't "as a personal attack"). – Chacor 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be wiser to review this block and solve the matter in a friendly way. Malber is not someone disruptive at all. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given his past block log (including multiple blocks for WP:POINT), you might want to reconsider that comment. – Chacor 16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree the block may have been better served as a firm warning. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case than i hope it would serve ease tensions. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... umm... endorse oppose reconsider. Personally, I think he behaved like a dick, and I sympathize with Nick's nervousness with the buttons regarding the issue. Still, the block is problematic, especially since the Nick was on the other side of a heated discussion, and I'd support lifting or shortening, with a clear notice that the further discussion should be stopped. Regarding the troublesome AfD RfA question which initiated all of this drama, I'd also endorse its (forceful if necessary) removal or rephrase. Duja► 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA, not AfD. – Chacor 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Administrators for dissection" :-) Duja► 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, threatening to enforce it that way is what caused the problem in the first place. Besides, there's something kinda resembling consensus if you squint hard enough that the question is actually bad to ask. Not nearly enough to base a block from. --Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess I didn't express myself well — there wasn't really a consensus, but if so many people find it unacceptable and the issue causes so much wikidrama for no apparent benefit... Don't Do It, Then. At least that would be my reasoning if I were on Malber's place, YMMV. Duja► 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Malber on process grounds--we cannot allow blocks by an admin involved in a dispute.However, I do not condone his behavior and have warned him not to continue in his previous manner.Chick Bowen 16:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see with this, is that despite the fact that many people agreed that it was a disruptive question, there was no concencus on it whatsoever. The other problem I have is that Mimsy said this [3] and Malber clearly didn't contribute to RFA after that time. Canadian-Bacon 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter now; it's done.Nick blocked; he probably shouldn't have, but I unblocked, and that's the end of it.I'm closing this debate. Chick Bowen 17:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nobody has mentioned the fact that Malber has at least once reverted an RfA to reinclude the age question [4]. Malber, by his own admission asks a question regardless of whether he will be !voting on the RfA and has stated there is a perception outside of Wikipedia that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands. I certainly think the age question is a violation of WP:POINT and despite being asked to stop by other users (ignoring comments on his talk page) he continued to disrupt Wikipedia by asking this question. I fully endorse the block by Nick. --Kind Regards - Heligoland |Talk |Contribs 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Random libel in vandalism

These edits probably ought to be deleted. --Masamage 20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

They're fictional characters. I'm not sure you can be libellous towards fictional characters. --Deskbanana 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really libel anyway, it's just vandalism. --W.marsh 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian Prime Minister is a fictional character? What about the football player, the doctor, and the novelist? :P I'm inexperienced, so if you don't think it's libel, that's okay. There's definitely a real person in there, though. --Masamage 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like s/he was definitely talking about the Prime Minister. --Masamage 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments aren't "libel" because they don't make a specific factual claim, but we certainly don't need them around. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

'Kay. I guess that makes sense, doesn't it? If simple name-calling was illegal, the world would be a scarily different place. o_o --Masamage 20:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your link only referenced one page so I thought you were referring to that page. --Deskbanana 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Darin Fidika returning

Darin Fidika (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been openly active today, creating User:Darin Fidika (2) and leaving me a note signed by "Darin Fidika" from the account User:Tang Priest. He is on a campaign to win sympathy and get unbanned. Personally I am convinced that he cannot or will not understand and comply with our copyright policy, and so is appropriately banned, but of course anyone is welcome to review his talk page and/or contributions and reach your own conclusions. FreplySpang 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Cplot-related issue

Given the various circumstances known to readers of this board, this edit to User:MONGO's talkpage struck me as a highly inappropriate way to raise the issue presented. The edit summary, though conceivably written in good faith, struck me as being taunting in nature and intent. Should an administrator respond and suggest that the issue be pursued, if at all, by other means? Newyorkbrad 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Zoe, Tom Harrison and I have all left messages. Thatcher131 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good, thanks. Newyorkbrad 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we send this one to checkuser? MER-C 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• CyclePat is a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, so he is merely acting on behalf of Cplot.--MONGO 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pat certainly picks them!I might have a quiet word.He's definitely not a sock, though, I've known him for ages. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I am a member of AMA. Thank you and I appologize if my comment on Mongo's talk page set off bells. Cplot would like an RfC for his "unjust" block. To pass the RfC he needs a second nomination and would like to be unblocked so he may second the nomination and voice his opinion on this subject. However, because he has avoided a block by using another account (far away from the trouble), I would suggest (if possible) that access be granted but for ONLY his user page and the RfC. (Remaining status quo, or not allowing for an RfC because there may not be enough votes, because cplot could voice his vote, would not really be fair for cplot.) (Furthermore, comments on Cplot et All. could be gathered in one venue and would probably help the situation!) --CyclePat 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cplot, with all his socks, is a noxious and disruptive troll. I blocked him, and I strongly oppose unblocking him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tom, we appreciate this concern. But, we still believe an RfC would be justified seeing as we both see that there may have been an unjustified "block" from the begining. (I think this could be discussed during the RfC if someone was to vouche to second it) --CyclePat 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure...good ahead and start an Rfc and there are 48 hours in which a second/third or even more editors can weigh in your and Cplot's evidence and decide if they want to join in the effort to unblock Cplot.--MONGO 11:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to view my informal quickpoll on this user User:Hipocrite/Cplot. An RFC on MONGO will not help Cplot be unbanned. As a member of the Association of Member AdvoRulesLawyers, you should know this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, the most recent sockpuppet attack on the Village Pump was 03:55, 21 December 2006, almost exactly 5 hours after CyclePat's plea that we unban this valuable user because he will certainly only edit to defend himself via RFC (of course, not an RFC on his own conduct - no no - an RFC on the person he has instigated a harassment campaign against.) I know the Association of Member RulesLawyers was known for Wikilawyering, but has Wikistalking been added to the repitoire? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat, please review the evidence that you have as well as the evidence on the Cplot sockpuppet page.It is overwhelming.Further, it no longer has anything to do with MONGO as at least 5 admins have stepped up and blocked his sockpuppets and support the ban.They have begun to delete and salt his talk pages.His original block is of no consequence and your continued pursuit of this is a waste of time as there is no remedy.--Tbeatty 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My original post that started this thread was not an objection to CyclePat's advocacy in principle, just his choice of forum (MONGO's talkpage) and what appeared to be taunting in the post and in the edit summary. However, I also agree that Cplot's and his socks' conduct is beyond the pale and that there is really nothing further to discuss about him. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering four confirmed CheckUser requests and three weeks of continuous sock creation, the initial blocks appear to show good instinct.If you check the block log, Cplot was originally blocked for 3RR violations and the block was made permanent when he unleashed the socks to start trolling. --StuffOfInterest 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to a slight correction of StuffOfInterest here. It is only 2 checkuser requests confirmed and those don't involve any edits by Cplot because Cplot has been blocked. So the only conclusions we can draw from the two confirmations is that the sockpuppets are connected: but connected to whom? At least one of the sockspuppets in the Cplot list is actually a sockpuppet of Tbeatty according to our checkuser probe, so there seems to be problems on both sides. I don't think we should be so afriad of Cplot that we try to stop an RfC. --USHLS, NSA, CIA,... but mostly BS 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:80.195.226.94

I have blocked 80.195.226.94 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Rachel Weisz, but looking through his/her edits, it's clear that this account is on a rampage to make sure that no Jew could possibly be listed as English, as if there is some stigma with doing so. Very borderline anti-Semitic. After the 24 hours, this account bears watching. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having looked further into this user's edits, the term "borderline" does not need to be applied to his anti-Semitism.User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

One look at their contributions, and its a dungload of anti-semitism. I would have preferred a longer block. Good job. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Ewart

She just slapped a suspected sock sign [5] on Tom Blackstone who I happen to know has a completely different ISP from Canuckster. 64.229.184.82 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that because you use those different accounts from different locations? ---J.S^(T/C) 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag says, it is "suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of Ottawaman" which is exactly what that account is. I don't care if you're making the edits yourself or asking your friends to do it on your behalf, the tag is correct. Now stop playing games. Sarah Ewart 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We need a tag for suspicious and pathologically fixated[6] contributors who smear others based on no evidence at all. 70.48.205.166 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does in fact have such a tag. it's on the users mentioned below. SirFozzie 01:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Should you be the first recipient of said tag? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like another account just popped in and added a link to Sarah's page. User:Lepag's only edit is to this page. SirFozzie 01:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence...

• [7] "User:TomBlackstonez"
• [8] "User:Gomapleleafsgo"
• [9] "User:Canuckster"
• [10] "User:Canuckster

Compare the edits. It should be obvious to anyone. ---J.S^(T/C) 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Community Ban on Canuckster/Ottawaman?

Do we have a community ban on Canuckster/Ottawaman yet? There seems to be a sort of consensus, but no true community ban has taken place. I strongly support said motion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's already been done, but if not, I support a community ban. ---J.S^(T/C) 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is going on presently, support strongly. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 01:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support; I lately see no focus in contributing to the encyclopedia constructively. Just attacking Sarah as much as he can.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support --Guinnog 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone storing these IP's to check for Open Proxies, etcetera? This seems like a concerted effort here. (especially since the IP is section blanking, etcetera) SirFozzie 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman for the ever-expanding list. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong support with a view of contacting the user's ISP. Going too far. – Chacor 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked another one of his sockpuppets, so I agree with a community ban and contacting the user's ISP. --Coredesat 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that two socks. --Coredesat 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposed ban now applies to the main account, Neutralizer. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd Support a community ban as well. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - will make a great banned user. Khoikhoi 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 Note: The below is quoted from above ANI section (#User:Canuckster) regarding the same user(s) in relation to a community ban:-

For the sake of continuity, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rangeblocks in place

Essjay (talk · contribs) placed five rangeblocks, set for anon. only, account creation blocked, and expiring 02:00, December 27, 2006. There's a couple of accounts that were registered in the /16 prior to the blocks, and they are listed on the SSP page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T • C ]} 02:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fun continues: Neutralizer

Thought it couldn't get any better? Well, Neutralizer is the sockmaster in all this, per his latest contribution to Essjay's talk page (the blocker of the range, see above). For those who don't know, this guy was banned at Wikinews, and this merely confirmed Sarah and my suspicions about this guy. I strongly urge that people follow the lead of Wikinews two third-level sections above and ban this guy. He's getting an abuse report for good measure sent to his ISP, as well. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm ready to start an abuse report if anyone agrees... --SunStar Net^talk 12:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• My support of the community ban extends to the puppet-master. Whats the mop for if not to clean up dirt? File the abuse report to his ISP and inform them of the range-block.That will get thier attention. ---J.S^(T/C) 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So who are we to apply the {{banned user}} template to? Canuckster, Ottawaman, or Neutralizer? Or any combination of the three? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I added an entry on WP:BU under Neutralizer. Fix it up as necessary, as I don't know the whole story. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

More fun

Canuckster (that's what the e-mail says) has sent me three e-mails first requesting that Sarah not go through with the ISP report because "the report would hurt other innocent people more than me and that I don't think this restriction on filing a report applies to me." Additionally, "[He] could lose [his] job if [we] go ahead with the ISP report. [He is] really sorry and [he] feel[s] really depressed. Please just wait awhile and [we]'ll see that [he] won't be back; [we] can always file the report if [he] do[es] break this promise." He then cites this diff. Just to assume a little good faith here, and be nice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I received the same. Frankly, I had to control myself from laughing and typing out a retort bofore I simply asked him to desist from spamming me. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been getting them, too. The last one said, "the reason I know I'm not a really bad guy is because I have a sponsor child (World Vision) in Haiti." LOL Sarah Ewart 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Funnest yet

I myself have gotten 5 emails from this user, claiming Sarah's manipulations, that he "couldn't sleep last night" because "An ISP report could cause problems for innocent people", and "I could lose my job if you go ahead with the ISP report." But here's the catch: User:Leaf06 (who is still claiming to be different from the other users) and User:Canuckster both sent messages within 9 hours and, coincidentally, have the same email address (surprise!). It appears that the range block is holding out quite well. -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Only 5? Lucky you...I'm well past double-digits. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have shaken the user up, my idea would be to tell the user that should he return to his old ways that we send the ISP abuse report then - Cartman02au 03:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done that - any more emails, or editing Wikipedia, and we send. Waiting to see if it holds. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've received a few today too. Very well done for your sterling work Daniel. --Guinnog 06:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution?

Neutralizer/Ottawaman and I have reached an agreement that he will stop now and honour the community ban. He has also promised that he won't migrate again and restart abusing other Wikimedia projects. In return, I have agreed not to send a report to his ISP or take the matter any further. He understands that if he breaks this agreement, I will send the report to Bell Sympatico without any further warnings. I hope everyone is okay with this agreement as a resolution.
Ottawaman has apologised profusely and as a sign of good faith, he has identified another sockpuppet which we hadn't found. He also wants us to know that he asked Wikinews people he was friendly with to try to help him here on ANI. So, Wikinewsies, if you do come, it's not necessary.
Thankyou everyone for helping with blocking, reverting, tagging, supporting the ban etc. I'm really grateful for all the help everyone gave. I truly hope this is now resolved and that we all (Ottawaman, included) have a peaceful Christmas. :) Sarah Ewart 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that "Desist" email by me and your even more harsh one worked a treat. By the way, Sarah, see your email regarding the Abuse Report. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing of talk page comments to make a point by THB

In this edit, THB (talk • contribs • count) deliberately modified my words on a talk page, attributing to me remarks that I did not make.He did this to make a WP:POINT about the wiki process, as this edit illustrates.I consider this to be a grave provocation, and perhaps the worst violation of wikiquette I've ever seen, to say nothing of a textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.As you can imagine, I am rather frustrated right now, so I'd like to ask someone uninvolved to take a look at the situation and take whatever action is appropriate... at minimum, this should include educating THB about the guidelines he violated; I am too irritated to trust myself to do even that much. -- SCZenz 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's quite beyond the pale.But I'm also "involved" here too, I suspect, so I'll do no more than leave this comment. Friday (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the involved user by means of his talk page. Cbrown1023 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Let the record show that I ought to have done so myself, but I thought it best to take a break and walk away from the computer for a little while.There's not much he can contribute past the links, but I expect him to point out it was just a little illustrative joke, and no harm was done—I don't really think that's an accurate statement, personally, but dealing with this is up to someone else. -- SCZenz 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The wiki process is part of all of Wikipedia, and the notion of taking offense when one's contributions are removed for good cause is foreign to that process. That's a core value you'll never get around, no matter how long and hard you try. There's much room for debate—about how much certain comments really undermine the purpose of the desk, for example—but that's not the approach you're taking. -THB 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to quote me, it would be polite to attribute it to me.In any case, there is a very clear difference between misrepresenting/manipulating what other people say and removing harmful content from project pages. -- SCZenz 05:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

THB, regardless of context or the point you were trying to make, this was completely out of line. Chick Bowen 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, really, you should have just put your own reply/comment underneath SCZs rather than alter his post--Light current 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See also this earlier edit, which was subtle enough that I didn't catch it until just now, some hours later. -- SCZenz 06:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of these diffs should never have happened - THB, you say that the wiki process permits us to remove comments, but I'd suggest that in the case of your two edits here, you're disrupting wikipedia process by doing the fundamental wrong of changing the meaning of anther user's comments to suit your point of view.OK - removing other peoples' comments can be OK in exceptional circumstances, but never changing the meaning of them - it's important that you understand this fundamental idea.How can we get a consensus if people can g around changing eachothers' comments? Martinp23 07:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not subltle at all!. You could easily notice this one!--Light current 23:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In this edit made December 5, [12], THB quotes the guideline against editing the comments of others. Since the user apparently knows the standard this does appear to be a case of intentionally making a point. -Will Beback · † · 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

This is too bad, especially since I note that TBH's post above shows him to be quite unrepentant and in no way self-motivated to avoid such behaviour in future. As an uninvolved admin, I've blocked him for 24 hours. This is not intended to punish, but to prevent future abuse by showing that the community doesn't accept it. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

User:Nintendude

Banned user has been actively sockpuppeting for weeks now.His vandalism isn't especially creative, which leads me to believe he is doing it merely for attention, which is why I stopped tagging his socks a while ago.Today when I tagged an article for speedy as a recreation by Nintendude, he opened an AfD with another sock and proceeded to stuff it with many of his socks that have not been blocked yet (and User:(aeropagitica) wisely closed the AfD early) which I think supports the theory he's looking for attention as he craves a more public outing than a quiet Speedy Deletion.Is there anything that can be done per WP:DENY? He's not a particularly effective vandal, but it's just getting old.--Isotope23 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have checkusers had a crack at him?If he was static, could just block the originating ip. Syrthiss 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a checkuser has been done, but I did find his primary IP at one point.It's cable soit isn't completely static.The ISP he uses tends to change them every few months or so... still it could be a slowdown for a while.--Isotope23 17:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I requested a Checkuser and I'd archive this if I knew how...--Isotope23 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bigtop

What is Bigtop (talk · contribs) doing?Is this some bot?User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He has put in a couple of extremely vague anti-vandalism bot requests before, but all have been withdrawn or declined. Bigtop sometimes doesn't typically respond to talk messages. I don't think these edits are bot testing...I think he's just doing a lot of reverting without warnings. Alphachimp 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He just responded. He's using Lupin's anti-vandalism tool. Alphachimp 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Archive?. —Centrx→talk • 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Michael-adams01

I know we give a great deal of leeway on User pages, but does anybody think this is appropriate?I politely asked him to remove the inappropriate language, and he retaliated with a personal attack.User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He has now made what could be construed as a death threat against me on the page, which I have reverted.Death threat or not, it's a personal attack, and if he keeps it up (having had no edits to article space), I will block him.User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Swatted.No reason to put up with this.Antandrus (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you.User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oposx : request block

Hi. I'm requesting that this user (Oposx), be blocked for repeated vandalism. User has made 5 edits, and all 5 were vandalism and done within 5 minutes of each other. Edits include articles : Horse, anal masturbation, Adolf Hitler and Prehistoric warefare. Thanks Dread Specter 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Proto::► 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving WIkipedia

Somebody please delete my user, talk page and archives. I understand that they can still be accessed by admins if need arises, and I do not want to leave them public. —Hanuman Das 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been involved in a long ongoing dispute which has been submitted for arbitration here. Please do not act on this request until the outcome of this arbitration has been finished, as many of this user's edits are material to the complaint. - WeniWidiWiki 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is the users actions that are under complaint and they are leaving, I fail to see why you would need to keep the arbitration case open (having not read it yet). I also setrongly hope that right to vanish is not being overridden by an ongoing dispute. Viridae^Talk 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. A wider case may have had discussion on the user's talk page. Deleting it now may compromise evidence to be presented in the case. I wouldn't support deleting his talk page. And, also note that the main problem with deleting talk pages is that the main contributors to them aren't the user himself, but rather other users, whose contribs you're deleting. – Chacor 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, why should an ongoing dispute override m:Right to vanish? Viridae^Talk 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case itself, only that it's been brought before AC as a request. If this user is not directly involved as one side of the dispute alone (note emphasis), it's not far to the case to remove evidence. – Chacor 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have done everything except the User talk page. On m:Right to vanish it says Delete your user and user talk subpages. That wording is a little obscure, not entirely sure wether that means the user talk page may be deleted or not. Viridae^Talk 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the user talk pages - it will at least stop the harassment that the user is experiencing. If the edits are necessary for arbcom, they have the ability to look at the deleted edits anyway. Should the user continue to edit, his pages will, of course, be undeleted. Cowman109^Talk 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. It's right now not a full case yet. Evidence may need to be presented that was on the user's talk page. Can't support a talk deletion while the case is still being presented. – Chacor 00:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there still a case if they have left? Viridae^Talk 00:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving does not necessarily end a case. The history should be undeleted. If there is vandalism, you can protect the page. NoSeptember 00:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears so. Is their involvement in the dispute important now they have left? Viridae^Talk 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the case myself, but it is possible that the case was not solely against this user. However, if there has been evidence which could be of use, in the history of the talk pages, then you're compromising the case. [after 4 edit conflicts!] – Chacor 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read the case as it is so far, the user appears to be a small part of an ongoing dispute for which the arbitration was called. However, the request for arbitration has not even been accepted yet, and there is no guarantee that it will be. Viridae^Talk 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And there may be diffs from the user's talk page that are needed to present a case for such a case in the first place. With the talk page deleted the whole case is compromised. – Chacor 01:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment from an uninvolved user. This is a tough one. Chacor has made some good points here, and so has Cowman109. If I was an admin involved in a situation similar to this, I would probably have tried to get consensus here first for deleting a user talk page before doing it. --SunStar Net^talk 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone leaves in the middle of a dispute you have to be careful that they may not have really left. Socks or a resumption on this account may occur. I doesn't hurt to wait a few days to see what will happen, even if there is no active Arb case. A user talk page is a community shared page much more so than a user page or subpages. Right to Vanish can be abused. NoSeptember 01:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a certain four-capital-lettered user asked for his pages to be deleted a while back, but is still actively editing... – Chacor 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the user request and the reference above to harassment suggest there may be aspects of this matter that should not be discussed on-wiki. Cowman109 is an Arbitration Committee Clerk and I am sure that he will be sensitive to any issues raised by the pendency of a proposed ArbCom case. Newyorkbrad 01:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to Vanish is not really an Arbitration issue. Please check here for the current list of clerks (though Cowman has been doing a good job of helping out). NoSeptember 01:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice consensus. I am requesting that the talk pages and archives be restored and locked. This was an attempt to pre-empt arbitration and it looks like it worked. Hanuman Das' status on wikipedia is not material. If he/she wants to leave that is his/her choice. However, this user has been involved in a protracted dispute that has involved numerous other editors, and the content of the user's talk page is pertinent to the discussion. After the arbitration - if it is even accepted - I think the page should only then be blanked. - WeniWidiWiki 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd second an undelete/blank/protect for the sake of arbcom evidence. Someone can add a request that arbcom deletes the page when the case is complete. ---J.S^(T/C) 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage anyone to undelete the page if they'd like - I won't mind, but personally I see nothing that makes me think his talk page is necessary for the arbitration request (and you're not really supposed to be giving that much evidence on the request page anyway, but merely supposed to be showing there exists a dispute). The user has plenty of edits in other areas, and it would seem that the focus of the dispute lies in the article of the arbitration case anyway so I don't see how his talk page is relevant. Oh, and I'm not an arbcom clerk, in response to Newyorkbrad, but just one of many volunteers who try to help out. Cowman109^Talk 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am the editor who removed the "speedy" tags from the user's talk page, so perhaps a comment from me will be useful.First, I don't think that there is a significant amount of evidence that would be unavailable to parties to the arbitration.There are two principle editors on one side of the arbitration.The user who has left Wikipedia, and a user who is associated with numerous links.Although the users collaborated, I think the issues in arbitration are quite different between them.Long and short, I did not remove the "speedy" tags because I feared deletion of evidence.(Of course, I did not file the arbcom case, so I do not pretend to be speaking for anyone else -- others may disagree).

Having explained that I was not worried about loss of evidence, I feel a need to explain my motivations.At the time that I removed the "speedy" tags, I was unaware that the user was intending to leave Wikipedia.I was sensitized to seeing the speedy tag on his talk page from a previous interaction.On a previous occassion, the user had a puppetmaster tag on his user page. My understanding is that before a user or talk page is speedied, the deleting admin should check to see if a) the page has been editted by other users, and b) whether there are warnings on the page that ought to be preserved.For better or worse, it appeared to me that the admin who deleted his page on that occasion did not notice that this user had first deleted his warning tag, and then added the speedy tag.I understand that in such situations, users may "lose their cool".Further, the user made a declaration that he would not use sockpuppets.At that point I thought it appropriate to let the matter drop.However, I was sensitized, and worried that we were seeing a repeat.When I learned that the user planned to leave Wikipedia, I had no interest in preventing his pages from being deleted.

I hope that someone may find these comments useful.Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. As long as someone can resurrect the talk pages if it becomes an issue later, I don't foresee it being necessary unless it gets really protracted. Probably should establish some sort of protocol for such instances though.- WeniWidiWiki 02:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We frequently get these people claiming that they are leaving for good in the middle of an RfA, who, lo and behold, after the RfA has been closed because they are gone, come back and start the same behavior all over again.PLEASE do not close the RfA.User:Zoe|(talk) 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed.I believe all the arbs are sysops as well, so deleting the pages should not significantly hinder that process. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I have a proposal that I believe addresses m:right to vanish and the need for evidence for the RfArb. I suggest that the talk page and archives be undeleted and then moved to an appropriate sub page(s), eliminating all redirects created in the process. (no suggestion as to where they should be moved to - but if the RfArb case was taken on then a sub page of the case page would be appropriate). When the RfArb is finished or if it is rejected then the pages get moved back to their original position and redeleted. The purpose of the move is to assume good faith and honour the right to vanish. The username would no longer be associated with the content of the pages, any more than any other comments he has made on other talk pages would be. The purpose of re-moving the pages to their original position and then re-deleting them would be to have them availiable for revival in the right spot in the event that the retirement was not permanent. All these actions could be performed by any of the sysopped RfArb clerks, or if that idea is rejected, I would be happy to take them on myself as long as someone notifies me of the outcome of the case. I would have his talk page and user page on watch, looking for signs of editing (ie other users questioning edits) and a note in the RfArb case to be notified of the close or rejection of the case. Thoughts? Viridae^Talk 10:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the situation at status quo for now (i.e. deleted).Evidence of Hanuman's bad behavior toward others (if such evidence exists) will be mainly on their talk pages, the mediation pages associated with the case, and the articles themselves.Assuming Hanuman's talk page contains evidence of other editors' bad behavior toward him, it can be restored or examined by the arbitrators if the case is accepted. Thatcher131 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman may be only tangentally involved in this case. My concern is that we are accepting all this at face value when in the past there have been users who have used Right to Vanish to game their situation. We also don't want to start expecting Arbitrators to be the gatherers of facts in a case. We need to let involved parties find their evidence to present where ever they can find it, and not tie their hands in building their case. NoSeptember 13:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - if someone invokes the right to vanish (sounds like a magical spell), insisting that their talk pages and user pages get deleted, is their account also blocked? Proto::► 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No. User talk pages are not deleted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, user talk pages are quite frequently deleted.The argument that a user's warnings and history of problems needs to remain visible only applies if they don't stay vanished.(I used to be more hard line on this, but I have come to really dislike the scarlet letter mentality that some folks have.)In this particular case the talk pages will probably be undeleted if the case is accepted.I'm not convinced they are needed in order to make a case for acceptance. Thatcher131 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to distinguish between a vandal's talk page full of nothing but warnings and unproductive messages (which we can delete without a second thought), and that of a long time user who has had much discussion about articles and other productive Wikipedia issues over many months (which is the case here).The history of the page has value to the project (and since he used page move archiving, so do his talk page archives). It's about having the history, the top page can be blanked and protected (this is not about the removing warnings issue or anything like that) NoSeptember 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Question and comments

Please pardon my ignorance, but doesn't m:Right to vanish being a meta-directive, trump en.wikipedia concerns? I've read through the meta page and the meatball page linked from it, and IMO you are treading on very treacherous ground here. The ability to vanish is listed as a "right", not a privilege. In my opinion, it should not be conditional in any way. Perhaps mediawiki foundation needs to clarify the talk page issue on m:Right to vanish, but with it being ambiguous, and with talk page deletion having been done for other users recently (e.g. User:Ars Scriptor), it would seem to me that if you are going to undelete H.D.'s talk page, you'd need to undelete every other vanished user's talk page for consistency.

In any case, as someone also involved in the issue, I don't think H.D.'s talk pages are significant in any way to the arbitration request. He was occasionally quite rude - on other people's talk pages. His edit history is still available, and I beleive the contention is that he kept restoring links after other editor's deleted them. I also believe that both sides believed that they were in the right, i.e. it was not a case of intentional vandalism. Anything that was said to him on his talk page about the situation is most likely also brought up on one of the meditation pages. And Mattisse has been keeping "files" on her user subpages about all of her percieved "enemies", so she should be able to answer precisely what information might be needed from H.D.'s talk page. (Interestingly enough, Timmy12 keeps "files" on his "enemies" in the very same way as Mattisse does). It seems like perhaps some people want to go on a fishing expedition on a user who decided that his involvement in Mattisse's manipulations was a waste of his time. That doesn't seem right to me.

Finally, please do kick this up to the MetaWiki level. I would like to know definitively what exactly I could expect if in the future I should want to avail myself of the Right to vanish. Currently, based on observation, I believe that I could expect to have all my user space pages deleted, including talk pages and archives. If this is not the case, I think Mediawiki Foundation should be clear and explicit about it on m:Right to vanish. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish is not an official policy but a general internet principle which we apply in a way that we try to balance the competing interests of this project. Just because an essay is written on Meta instead of enwiki does not confer to it more authority. See m:Privacy policy to see what is our official policy (which leaves tremendous leeway to each project on the Right to Vanish issue). NoSeptember 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the concern is harrassment of HD after he leaves, then blank and protect his talk page.Nobody can leave messages, but the history is still available if people need to review discussions or other information (whether to provide diffs for an arbitration, or for other constructive purposes).If HD believes that there is information in the history which compromises his privacy, then by all means he should ask an admin to delete the appropriate revisions of the page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The page :m:Right to vanish describes removal of personal information (real name, address, political views etc.) that are pretty far short of deleting an entire set of user and talk pages on request, that are of interest in an ongoing dispute and that don't all contain personal information.It also explicitly says info is deleted "provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues)" (IMO that would include an arb case, if there's a legitimate need for the material).

I have some knowledge of the former contents of HD's talk page and don't remember any personal material on it but (from what I saw) it also wasn't obvious there was important evidence on it.I don't see a compelling reason to undelete the page at the moment, though that may change if the arb case progresses.I think Matisse should work this out with the Arb clerks, as Thatcher131 suggested [13]. They can undelete it or grant private and/or redacted access to Matisse as appropriate.To Matisse: try leaving Thatcher131 a talk message or sending an email (you can send email through the "email this user" link at User:Thatcher131).

IMO, HD is not the most important participant in that dispute.67.117.130.181 10:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Other people's contributions

The whole thing about deleting user talk pages (and talk pages in general) is that they also consist of other people's contributions. If I have a long and involved and productive discussion with someone on their talk page, I don't want that discussion to vanish with that person. I want my contributions, which might contain important material on my thoughts on certain issues, to be preserved somewhere. Should I really have to keep a list of all the user talk pages I've edited and then 'rescue' my edits if the page gets deleted? Carcharoth 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are (at least) two valid issues here. On the one hand the possible usefulness of previous comments by the user and/or others and on the other hand the possibly embarrassing comments of the user and/or others. Historically on user talk pages the balance of those two possibilities has always tipped in favor of the individual user. For instance, users are allowed to blank messages left for them... archiving is favored, but not required. That, of course, makes it more difficult to locate past conversations... requiring a search of the history instead of just browsing the page/subpage. We have a speedy deletion criteria allowing 'user subpages' to be deleted upon request... which is described as including things like 'User talk:Username/Archive 1'. The 'right to vanish' deletion is just another aspect of this. All of these things make it more difficult to access past comments when there are legitimate reasons to do so... but I think that's preferable to keeping things users don't want in their user-space. If a user has done something they are embarrassed about we allow them to delete it... we can still get it back if we have to, but there should be no reason for it to be publicly available (even if just in the history). Ditto nasty or embarrassing things said to the user... people shouldn't be able to drag those up to harass them elsewhere. If we want to retain comments made to user talk pages then that needs a systematic change to a number of Wikipedia policies, but I think it is better to just proceed with the understanding that comments on user talk pages are potentially more ephemeral than anything else on Wikipedia. If it is really of long term importance move it to an article or project space talk page. --CBD 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a page is nothing like archiving or blanking. With archiving or blanking, the contribs are still found in the commenter's own contribs and in the page history, and do not need an admin request. With deletion, the contribs simply disappear unless the user keeps a separate list of users they have talked to (a list which would otherwise be in the contribs) and then if the user is experienced enough to know they can be restored at all they can ask an admin. Also, if Right to vanish allowed someone to simply request deletion of the user talk page, that would not simply be "ephemeral", that would be instantaneous. This case is a somewhat good example, where there is apparently an active Arbcom case that could be related to comments on the talk page. If you want to delete the talk page of a banned or permanently vanished user after a year, that may be okay, but that's not what your interpretation of a right to vanish would mean. —Centrx→talk • 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean we should just accept that user talk page comments would be more ephemeral? With everything else on Wikipedia, comments are permanent except for deleted articles where the comments are not relevant to creating or having a legitimate article. Should I simply not talk on other user's talk pages? Or should I duplicate every comment I leave on a separate page of my own, thus defeating the purpose of deleting those comments in the first place and demonstrating even more clearly that those comments are not his to delete? If the vanishing user has a comment he wants to get rid of, that comment could possibly be arranged to be removed. If someone else leaves a somehow embarassing comment, the vanishing user has no right over it; if appropriate it can be deleted under a no personal attacks policy, which applies anywhere. —Centrx→talk • 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's more, it would even be legal to simply copy his talk page entirely and save it somewhere else; his comments are under the GFDL. If user talk pages were to be ephemeral, one could and should simply keep a separate record of all conversations—but that's the purpose of the original talk page in the first place! —Centrx→talk • 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Centrx's points. I also have to admit that it took me over a year to realise that my contribs to deleted pages were not appearing in my contributions list. I was partially misled by the availability (now withdrawn) of a tool to list a user's edits to deleted pages. Now, instead, I watchlist every page I edit, make regular updates to an off-line copy of my contributions list, look for redlinks in a list of pages on my watchlist, and compare my current contributions list to my offline list to find what contributions have disappeared. If the edit summary indicated a long essay or comment, I might try and retrieve it through an admin, but trying to explain all this would be rather tedious to say the least. This is also why I avoid trying to improve articles at AfD, or contributing to the talk pages of said articles, until the AfD is over. Writing on something attached to something that then gets deleted feels rather inefficient. Carcharoth 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Um... ok. When a comment I've made gets deleted, if I even notice, I shrug and go on with what I was doing. In the extreme hypothetical that I absolutely had to get it back for some reason I know it can always be undeleted so... seems less than crucial to me. In short, I don't see alot of value in having every past comment easily and immediately available... just doesn't seem important. That balanced against, 'annoy people by making stuff they want to get rid of readily available to everyone'... seems like a clear case for allowing deletion. You two apparently place ALOT more value on 'easily available records', but... can you point to a case where it has been more than hypothetically important? When have we ever 'needed' some edit and it has just been terribly difficult to get it back? --CBD 12:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just the general prinicple of the thing. I don't normally delete things that I have written, and I like to keep track of what I have said and done. It would seem courteous to allow people to keep copies of what they have written, or at least to make it much clearer that their contribs list is not complete. I would have no problems with such pages being deleted if I could in general, at any time, see a list of my deleted contribs (the reason it is not done at the moment, I think, is because the way it was set up, anyone could see anyone's deleted contribs - that would not be a problem if viewing was restricted to the user only - similar to how only the user can see their watchlist). My contribs are what I wrote, so what is the problem in letting me access them, even if only to make a copy before they are re-deleted? I realise that this system can be abused by those wanting to paste back in deleted content that should be kept off Wikipedia, but most POV-pushers do this anyway, and are stopped by the normal means. Carcharoth 12:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And a more specific point. Edits to the blurbs of category pages (the bits at the top) are deleted when categories are renamed, as categories are not moved like article pages are, but are deleted and a new page made. These are not 'ephemeral' talk page edits, but are integral parts of the encyclopedia where contribution history is, if not completely lost, made far more difficult to track down (and nearly impossible if the deleting admin does not mention the CfD page or date), though using "what links here" for the deleted category or the newly created category usually works in tracking down the debate and the deleted page where the contributions history is "kept". Carcharoth 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have gone back to user talk pages to find out about some situation where a user was blocked, etc. There have been several times where I went back to another user's talk page to retrieve my own words and put them on User talk:Centrx/Meta-writing. This is then used for personal reference, for future essay and guideline material, and for having easy access to best-of-breed responses to {{helpme}} requests, m:OTRS queries, etc. If I forget to copy the writing when I comment, these are accessed by looking through my own contribs; I do not otherwise keep a list of every talk page I've commented on or remember the exact username of someone. Anyway, this is just one practical example; there are thousands upon thousands of people, commenting on things over the course of years, on Wikipedia. We have the general principles so we don't need to take a survey of everyone's all possible uses for old talk page comments. A user does not own his userspace; we let him retract some things if he wants to vanish, but we do not let him retract article contributions or discussion comments—and article and policy discussion do happen in the user talk space; the only comments it might make sense to allow him to retract are comments that never really belonged on Wikipedia in the first place; none of this means he has control over other users' comments. —Centrx→talk • 08:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree entirely with Centrx's points. I also found a mailing list post from Jimbo that is relevant here. I have asked Jimbo if he has time to comment here. Carcharoth 14:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, deletion should remove the page from active view at the previous location, while allowing reasonable access of various kinds.One kind: admin access.We have that.Another kind: access to my *own* contributions.Let me give an example where I personally find this irritating... prod deletions.If you prod an article and then it gets deleted, it vanishes from your contributions history so you may not even see that it was successfully prodded, etc.I find that irritating.At the very least, it would be nice if it showed up in a non-viewable way as an existing contribution in the contribution history, despite having been deleted.Oversight-deletion might have be used more aggressively, though, if that were the case.(Oversight-deletion makes it so even admins can't see it.)--Jimbo Wales 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I wonder if there is a open bug request on this thing about people being able to see their own contributions to deleted pages?

About the 'prod' thing, if the only edit the prodding process needs is to the article page, then you are stuck, unless you can be bothered to make a link to the page on your user page and wait for it to turn red. But that defeats the whole purpose of streamlining the prodding process to a single edit. I don't think I've ever had a deleted article watchlisted - does the watchlist tell people that a watchlisted article has been deleted? Or even if someone recreates it? My experience of this kind of thing, incidentially, was trying to find a page I had tagged as copyvio. That page and the record in my contributions that I had made the effort to tag a copyvio, had vanished. I was most upset! :-) Ditto for those people that do lots of db (speedy deletion) tagging.

As for recording the prod in your contributions list, a workaround for now would be to, immediately after adding the prod template, to edit (say) a user page where you list your prods, add the title of the prodded article, and in the edit summary put "list prodded article: Example". Then the two edit summaries are right next to each other in the contributions list. If the prodded article is deleted, the template addition edit vanishes, but the other edit (the one I decribed above) remains and the blue link turns red. A record remains in your contributions list, and it all feels so organised! I've just finished adding a translation request, and I'm awestruck by efficiency and organisation at Wikipedia:Translation. But still, being able to view these sorts of edits to articles that later get deleted would be best and easiest (for the user). I wonder whether it is feasible and how much priority the developers would give this sort of thing? Carcharoth 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block: Stfuplz

From observation, I take it that admins should report lengthy blocks here after placing them, with some reasoning as to why they were placed.I'm still learning the ropes in terms of what to post here and how much detail to include ... feedback on the posting here would help me to adapt to standard practices.

I have indefinite blocked User:Stfuplz after the user was reported to AIV.The block summary reads "Vandalism only account which has turned to talk page vandalism".Account was created 19 December; user began edits 20 December and vandalized Snorlax twice and Peter Jennings 11 times all in the course of about 30 minutes.After the user was reported to AIV and warnings were posted on the user's talk page, vandalism began on the primary interactor's talk page User talk:Gzkn, at which point I instigated the block.--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a sequence of edits in chain, with no reversions inbetween, should be counted as more than one instance of vandalism, so indef seems excessively harsh. I'm not an admin though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a normal indefinite block of a vandalism-only account unless I'm missing something. BigDT 03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

He should be blocked for username alone - Stfuplz = shut the f*** up please (translated from l33t-speak, of course). Merzbow 03:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, even using what I said, it's enough to be considered vandalism only. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On the reversions question - there were multiple intervening reversions to restore article content, a chain of vandalize-revert-vandalize-revert involving several editors combating Stfuplz (see 'Peter Jennings' history). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ceyockey, thanks for your conscientiousness, but blocking vandalism-only accounts is No Big Deal. Any account that does nothing to help build the encyclopedia should be briskly blocked indefinitely, and there's no need to post the block for review. (In fact, the noticeboard would be overwhelmed if it were practice to do that.) Those accounts have no value, they're no kind of start for the user in case s/he later wants to contribute constructively; the thing to do in that event is create a new account. It's blocks of accounts that have made useful edits, or at least attempts at useful edits, that need posting. (Plus, as Merzbow says, this is an obvious username block in any case.) Bishonen | talk 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Yup, I agree. Although I'm probably a bit biased in this case, it looks like a normal, everyday indef block on a vandalism-only account. Gzkn 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Never worry about blocking somebody who has only harmed Wikipedia and never helped it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Female page hit

Looks like the top of the page (first paragraph) for "Female" was tagged.If it no longer starts with "Also Known as" then it's been cleaned

Fixed a few days ago, thanks. If you see vandalism it's quicker and easier to revert it yourself than ask for help - see Help:Revert. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism only?

moved from WP:AN --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the proper place to post this, but someone might want to check out if User:Woomoobs57 could be classified as a vandalism-only account.He has been responsible for posting a hoax article, then reposting it after it was deleted, and his only other contributions have been to put personal attacks on various talk pages, including his own.There haven't been any new edits in the last day, but I don't know if it's proper to wait for the next one, although I admit I am not 100% sure on the protocol in such cases.--Dmz5 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No edits since 17 December. Let's see what the next one is like, if there is one. Tyrenius 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Apocalyptic Destroyer

User:Apocalyptic Destroyer is likely a sockpuppet of indef. block User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH based on contributions (note both accounts has extensive edits on Bruce Lee and other chinese-related articles (massive POV pushing), maybe it's time to indef. block the sock and block the IP to prevent further disruptions.--Certified.Gangsta 02:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

user:OrphanBot

The Orphanbot is out of control.It is removing content that it should not be removing.Please ban this bot from Wikipedia before it causes any more harm. Mrcfjf 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's behaving normally.Can you give diffs or specific examples of images you feel it should not have removed?Chick Bowen 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And, Mrcfjf, please do not vandalize Carnildo's userpage. You can talk to him about the bot, but vandalizing his userpage isn't the way to go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what the cause of all of this is. The only article Mrcfjf has ever edited is Cessna 152, which OrphanBot has never touched. Without specifics, this seems to be yet another bad faith OrphanBot complaint. Chick Bowen 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User made no edits for months (the Cessna article was in August) and since returning has no edits other than complaining about Orphanbot. Fan-1967 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no friend of OrphanBot, but this doesn't seem like a good faith complain, suggest closure and moving on.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no evidence has been presented I agree. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously more to this story.Look at this edit and these contributions.Somebody is running a sock farm, clearly.Someone who's good at detective work (Durova, are you listening?) might want to investigate. Chick Bowen 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked into it; those two seem to be the only socks for now. However, when I went to block the IP for a week, I found it was already blocked anon-only for six months due to abuse (I'd blocked it several times for different lengths due to abusive use, and another admin instituted the six month block on that basis). As there is nobody else using it, and this individual has been a problem for some time, I've blocked the IP for a year against all edits, anon or otherwise. Essjay (Talk) 03:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad that's solved.Thanks.Chick Bowen 04:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block: User:ChessMater

Vandalism (Grafitti)-only account: Blocked for repeated inappropriate page creation and editing related to praising 'Kate McAuliffe' and creation of User is blocked pages. Blocked by User:Lucky 6.9 ... but that was because they beat me to it. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this user was previously User talk:67.81.102.11. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Scaring a possibly useful vandal

User:Robster07 (talk) has been causing much trouble at the Decatur High School (Georgia) article. See [14]. There are a few very helpful edits in there as well, so I'd like to see him get a nice scare from an administrator if possible and within guidelines, to get him in the right direction, so he can start helping out in other articles. Is that possible? (you might even enjoy it :D)

\/\/slack (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I adjusted that link to target=Robster07 from target=Robster07There because it was leading to a blank page.--Isotope23 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're interested in following this up you could always try Durova's school vandalism solution: based on the edit history and IP info it appears that some of the vandal edits were made from a school computer[15][16] including a marijuana pun[17] that matches the registered account's vandalism.[18]Now this is probably someone who's underage so I don't want to be too explicit about this, but it isn't hard to guess that this is a male senior who plays on a particular sports team - and what his first name is.That narrows it down to a very small number of students and the class schedules, correlated with the time stamps on school IP edit history, would probably give a definitive identification to the school administration.If you feel like following up on this, the administration telephone number for Decatur High School in Georgia is (snipped).I'd suggest the best remedy is to assign this young fellow a special project to improve the school's Wikipedia article under the supervision of the teacher who sponsors the school newspaper that Robster07 doesn't appreciate.[19]Cheers, Durova^Charge! 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have suggested a final warning on his userpage, to the effect that he is being monitored and better cut it out, long before anyone suggests calling his school. He's never even been blocked. Reaching out to real world authority figures in a user's life, even a rotten user, is a extremely serious step and certainly is not in accordance with policy at this stage. Newyorkbrad 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that when I've done this in the past it's been after many warnings and previous blocks.I don't see how it violates policy.Arguably there are suggestions of underage drug use here, which in my view makes it appropriate to at least discuss whether responsible adults should be informed.We're not Big Brother or even Big Babysitter.Yet - at the risk of another bad pun - I've got something of an urge to nip this in the bud. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Um ... you've done this before? I'd like to see a broader discussion of whether that's appropriate because I have serious qualms about it. In the interim, having scanned this user's contributions (and it's possible I might have missed something or some edits have been deleted), I didn't see any reference to drug use except for a mediocre pun on someone's (a 1959 graduate's) name. There's a combination of school-spirit edits and mild vandalism edits (e.g., changing the words of the school song, denouncing the quality of the magazine). Maybe I'm missing something, but the idea that someone should call a user's employer or (as here) school to report something like this, with who-knows-what real-world consequences, strikes me as completely unwarranted. I will admit that on a quick check, I didn't find a specific policy on the matter. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Abuse reports to ISPs are permitted by policy; where the ISP is a school or corporate network, a report to the responsible administrators is the correct action. (I've done a few myself.) However, abuse reports are only warranted where there is no other way of preventing continued disruption; this situation doesn't rise to that level. This needs to go through the normal channels before such a thing is ever considered: counsel, warn, block, block longer, block indef, ban, abuse-report. Essjay (Talk) 03:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that's exactly what I thought. Note also that in this case, there seems to be no basis for assuming that the ISP for these edits is the school; from the contributions link above the edits were all at night, US time. Newyorkbrad 03:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In a case where the edits are not being made from a school/work computer, contacting school/work officials would be inappropriate (and would border on WP:STALK; we already have vandals reporting admins to thier employers, we don't want to sink to their level). Abusive use of corporate or school networks is an issue that (after the above steps have been taken) should be reported to the appropriate administration/management. If the user is not using corporate/school resources to do so, then it isn't a matter for concern by school/work officials, and reporting it to them would be a very, very bad idea, not to mention far outside policy (and subject to sanction, if it rose to the RFAR level). Essjay (Talk) 04:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.As I've said, when I've contacted schools before it's been after numerous blocks and warnings have failed. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I agree those situations are different. Coming back to the original question in the thread, I'll leave a note for the user in the morning unless someone else does first. Newyorkbrad 08:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Halle Berry

The musical career section reads: "Rolling Stone.Com and An Article in All Headline News confirms that Halle Berry is releasing a new album from EZ Records, entitled Halle. The album was planned to be released on January 9, 2007, but due to filming conflicts it was rescheduled to February 6, 2007.[17] It has been widely reported that this is a hoax.[18]"

Ref #17 links to rollingstone.com, where I am unable to find any article about Halle Berry's music career, if there is one. Ref #18 links to this article accusing Wikipedians of creating a hoax, partially based on this TMZ.com article]. This All Headline News article does confirm the album, but I have never heard of this source before and have no idea how reliable it is.

Could some other admins please look into this? If this is a hoax, we need to move on this now. I am currently connected through staticky dial-up on a very crashy computer, and so my Internet abilities are limited. --Chris Griswold(☎☓) 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No reliable sources, it should go out and to Talk. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see Halle (album). Jimbo came into #wikipedia on IRC yesterday talking about this. A few of us investigated, and we're pretty sure that it's a hoax, but it's possible it's not. The article is currently prodded. --Rory096 06:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I lied, article was already killed. --Rory096 06:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Malaysia Banks troll?

See [20] and the contributions from the IPs in the range 219.95.xx.xx, in particular Special:Contributions/219.95.214.172.This user has been removing "Banks in Malaysia" categories from many banks, completely refactoring the above page, and removing content from many other pages, without any explanation whatsover.I'm not sure these edits are even bad, but the pattern sure seems to reflect an editor with an agenda.Can anyone else figure out what is going on? -- Renesis (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it very fishy, what is he up to anyway. I can't figure out what he is trying to do. I will be watching over him for some time in case, this sounds something up to no good. But to AGF, let's see how it goes. Terence Ong 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Needless full protection of University of Phoenix

University of Phoenix was recently fully protected due to an "edit war" over the inclusion of a link to http://www.uopsucks.com.However, the links were inserted by various IP addresses, and two single purpose accounts. Therefore, a better course of action would be to semi-protect the article, and to block PhoenixStudent andRdenke for disruption, as these accounts have been used for the sole purpose of adding the disputed link to University of Phoenix, then, in the case of PhoenixStudent, protesting the removal of the link in a manner amounting to a serious violation of WP:POINT, if not outright vandalism [21].Due to the fact that the registered accounts have no substantive contributions beyond insertion of this link, it is likely that both registered accounts and the IPs being used to insert the link are being operated by the same person.We shouldn't fully protect articles every time someone engages in transparently obvious sockpuppetry to insert a dubious link. John254 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First place to go to in this case is the admin who protected the page, NOT AN or AN/I. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You could also try going to WP:RFPP--there's a section for unprotection requests. jgp ^T_C 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible bad faith AfD

Someone might want to check out this AfD, it appears to be a bad faith nomination and it's getting kind of bizarre - it seems like it should be closed and perhaps, if someone wants to, they can start it again? --Dmz5 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed without prejudice against another trip to AfD.--Kchase T 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

→ WP:DRV. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Modification of Policy wp:v

I'd like to get an opinion on an edit to a key policy.Verifiability Diff.I reverted the edit and received a lashing.Alan.ca 09:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well your edit summary of "vandal revert" appears out of line, the addition most certainly wasn't vandalism. The statement seems pretty accurate in the context of the policy, but personally I don't care for the wording particularly no in the prominent position in the policy, so I've reverted again. I guess some discussion on the talk page of the policy would be good as to (a) if it is needed since it seems to follow from the rest of the policy anyway or (b) how and where such a statement should appear in the policy. --pgk 09:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The "lashing" was due to the reversion summary, not the edit per se. See User talk:Alan.ca. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for it. WT:V should be fine. If not, you could go to WP:VPP. Or maybe file a request for comment, but that's a bit overkill. jgp ^T_C

I hate to tear anyone off topic, but I wasn't sure how seriously we are to monitor the key policy pages. Alan.ca 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As closely as possible.That's not to say that they're frozen and not changable - but changes really, really should have consensus first, particularly if it's at all controversial...Georgewilliamherbert 10:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User's overzealous {{prod}}ding of articles

User:Alan.ca (see contribs) seems to be going on a {{prod}} spree, and at times is tagging geolocation articles as old as from 2002 (Fountain Green, Utah) for {{prod}} on the basis of "non-notable" and lacking in sources (also, Jules Joffrin (Paris Métro) with a ridiculous prod reason, and Alconchel de la Estrella). Prod is not cleanup, and looking through his contribs that there are many articles tagged for prod simply for missing citations (animal fat? It'd get kept in an AFD almost certainly as a speedy keep!), an admin should keep an eye out for further misuses uses of {{prod}} that may not meet criteria. – Chacor 11:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The user has been notified. I see some difficulties here and after a cursory glance have reverted two of his edits – [22], [23]. Although, the animal fat article was not sources, I see no need as to why it was prod'd. I request the user to stall his work over prod'ing the articles till it is considered by the community on the noticeboard. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No intention to offend anyone.I made a multitude of edits in the last 24 hours, some of which were prods.I'm not aware of what policy I would have violated, if someone could point that out I'm definitely open to reviewing another point of view on the matter.The most common theme in my prods would be wp:v.As far as I know, if an article isn't verifiable it fails to meet 1 of 3 key pillars of the project and would be subject to deletion.My further understanding of PROD is that anyone can object to it by simply removing the prod tag.I don't have those articles on my watchlist and figure if anyone disagrees with my prod they would simply remove the tag.Alan.ca 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Marcos Valle article was originated by me because he is a noted musician and producer of long-lived success; I have several albums of his, and some compilations produced by him, yet there appeared no mention of him here. So I read several biogs and record company promo literature and summarised what I saw. Is there a generally-accepted way of noting this? John Warburton 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted a note on your talk page, if you would like my assistance I may be able to assist you. Alan.ca 14:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see here though is that much of what you've PROD'd doesn't fail WP:V, it's just unverified not unverifiable.WP:V is a reason to delete if an article absolutely can't be verified, not just because the editors who contributed lack knowledge about the policies here (or in some cases are just too lazy to follow them).A better tactic would be to see if sources are out there and just tag the article as unsourced if sources exist.--Isotope23 14:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, please refer to wp:v#Burden of evidence.It clearly states that if an article is lacking sources wikipedia should not have an article on it.I am confused by this whole discussion, as the articles I prodded clearly violate wp:v.Alan.ca 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Where does it say that?It says unsourced edits should be removed... there is no rationale in wp:v#Burden of evidence for deletion of an article.--Isotope23 15:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Send Kappa (talk · contribs) on him

. Problem solved... Duja► 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can count at least 15 reverted prods. I'd suggest the user just AFD articles he thinks fails the criteria. – Chacor 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you're welcome to remove the prod tagging on any or all of the articles I had tagged.That's the beauty of PROD.I don't feel strongly about any of those articles, in fact they're not even on my watchlist.If you want to understand the basis for my prod in most cases, please read wp:v#Burden of evidence.If you review my talk discussions you will see that I am always willing to assist an editor who has sources to include in any article. Alan.ca 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left him a note on his talk page and asked him to cease this temporarily. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This user below was the maintainer of an article I prodded Alan.ca 15:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support the use of prod on the Murchison Region of Western Australia as a valid prod - for a start SatuSuro 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That editor also removed your PROD from the article.All it took was some Googling, a page move, and a few minutes of editing to make this a good, sourced article at Murchison Shire.--Isotope23 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he corrected it, the PROD instigated improvement.Alan.ca 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a highly disruptive way of looking at it. PROD is not {{cleanup}} or {{unsourced}}. – Chacor 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; PROD should not be used where a Cleanup Template is sufficient. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, this debate could go on until the cows come home.The fact is, verifiable sources are one of the 3 pillars of wikipedia.If as a group, the editors in this debate believe that failing to meet one of the 3 pillars is not criteria for deletion, there's not much I can say further.The point of a PROD is to see if there is objection to deletion.I have no hard feelings about anyone removing any of my prods and I believe I am inline with the policies of the project.Failing someone citing an arbcom decision, I am through discussing this topic. Alan.ca 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you truly believe an article should be deleted due to lack of sourcing, when someone deprods an article you should AFD it. But if you're just going to ignore the article after prodding it I'm quite certain that's disruption to make a point. The best way forward to be to actually finalise something, and not toss it aside because you think everyone else is wrong. – Chacor 15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution to a discussion that can go on for a long time: if a prod is removed, AfD the article. If enough AfD are defeated, the nominator either learns and stops or starts to get blocked for trolling/pointing/etc.; if his AfD go through he is proven right.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment and threat

I believe that this is a threat, and constitutes harassment. Can someone please have a look and warn him? – Chacor 01:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Titoxd has left a note, but I'd appreciate it if other admins ensure this doesn't get out of hand. – Chacor 01:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User has summarily removed the message with a relatively uncivil edit summary. Can we please keep an eye on him? He's most definitely refusing discussion at this point, so what next? If he continues with questionable PRODs I'd say it's most definitely, at the very best, not conducive. – Chacor 02:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

More harassment and trolling. Please, please, please, someone take a look. – Chacor 02:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Chacor, I have debated this topic ad nosium with many of you.I have even initiated a discussion on the verifiability policy talk page.I have a right to terminate the discussion on my talk page if I so choose.Alan.ca 02:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you don't, especially if it's a friendly message asking you to improve your conduct. Stop harassing and trolling me. – Chacor 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not that simple, Chacor ... the topic of user modification of user talk pages was discussed a few days ago - please read through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#User clearing talk page before that discussion gets rehashed here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Their was a lengthy dsicussion about it, as stated above.The result was very unclear.There is no clear policy for or against, and the vandalism text is ambuguous. I'd say that it leans more towards that cleaning, blanking, or archiving your own talk page is not considered to be vandalism.Atom 03:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of a policy against removal, removal is permitted. Of greater concern to me is that it's rude to "terminate the discussion," especially if other users are expressing concerns about your behavior. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you in this case, I am ending the conversation on my talk page for efficiency reasons.If the debate is about PROD tagging articles based on the wp:v policy, that debate should be discussed in a place where it can be archived in relation to the policy.As for my conduct, I see that I ruffled some feathers with a run of PROD tags and so I'm backing off from it.I'm not backing off because I think I'm wrong, but when you hit a bunch of opposition sometimes it's best to let things cool off.Part of backing off is that I don't want to have a circular discussion on my talk page, this noticeboard and the policy talk page.There is no new evidence to discuss, if anything we're debating policy wording and that discussion has been started on the appropriate page.Please respect my request Chacor, I am more than happy to debate the subject with you on the policy talk page.Alan.ca 03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan's request to discuss policy on the appropriate policy talk page is quite reasonable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents because I have recently become involved in disputes with Alan.ca. It appears to me that he is fairly new to Wikipedia and is not yet clear on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and how people interact on Wikipedia. This is leading to numerous unnecessary disputes with other editors. Having said that, I have looked at the edits that Chacor has cited as evidence of threats and harassment, and I do not agree that they constitute threats or harassment.In fact, in these cases, Alan.ca has been civil. Ground Zero | t 13:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Meisterchef

User:Meisterchef is asking for another admin to review his indef block.The block was previously reviewed by User:Ryulong and another editor has initiated a sockpuppet investigation.It might be beneficial for another admin to review and/or leave him a message.--Isotope23 20:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoping someone can look at this - user keeps changing template to request review again [24]. Thanks. Not a dog 14:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A brand-new good faith user whose first action is to repost the arguments of a known and recently blocked troll?Sure, happens all the time... Guy (Help!) 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible socks

I have recently been editing a very, very arcane article that, I came to realize, used to be the #1 hangout for a rather notorious, now-banned user who focused a huge amount of energy and ill-will defending his extremely POV version.Recently, three new users with very similar names were created practically at the same time and appeared at this article.They, as well as a fourth user (an anon ISP), seem remarkably familiar with this obscure topic, right down to the obscure references.They have only been active on the talk page so far, but they are subtly (and almost overly-civilly) pushing the same POV (e.g. "don't bother checking that reference, I'm sure it's correct" and the like).Another user has already made the (so far uncountered) claim that they are probably all socks of the banned user.What's the procedure here?I am being vague because if this is a non-issue I don't want to attract attention to it, and I don't want to just accuse the users of being socks, although it seems very likely the three new accounts are one person.I can give specifics if necessary.Nothing "bad" has happened so far but I figured I would be a bit proactive. --Dmz5 06:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the new accounts is also editing a group of different articles the banned user was fond of.Seems likely there's at least one sock.--Dmz5 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess:

• UneJolieMelodieViennoise (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• FriendOfCatholicMusic (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• InManusTuas (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 66.31.250.134 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Looks like our old friend User:LorenzoPerosi1898 is spawning more footwear on his sock farm.He's not letting go any time soon.[25] LOL.They're all socks.Bet the "farm" on it.Antandrus (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sigh.Yes. --Dmz5 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I think it's ironic that it took me 30 seconds to find a simple citation on the Grove that might have shut him up in October and avoiding all the huffing and puffing that ended up going on.--Dmz5 07:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And this [26] is the last edit by the user whose first edit [27] was a claim he didn't know what "sockpuppet" or "banned user" meant.Sometimes you just have to shake your head.This guy is knowledgeable and could be an excellent contributor if he'd just make an attempt to abide by NPOV and NOR, but he wants to be a one-man-sock-army versus all of Wikipedia.It's a tune we've all heard many times.Don't know what to do other than keep the article on the watchlist, and block socks when they become disruptive.Antandrus (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not being allowed to contribute, Help!

Hi I've been trying to contribute towards the Ireland article but I have an Administraor who won't let me contrubute anything. His name is Guinnog and he wouldn't even let me put a map of the British Isles in the article or let me write under a map that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. All he ever does is revert my stuff and tell me off for apparently not getting "enough consensus" when he's the only one who's even minds about what I want to contribute and there's no one else saying anything to apparently get enough "consensus" from, and if I try to contribute again he threatens to block me and has blocked me before for just wanting to contribute. I think it's basically that he likes the article a certain way and won't let others contribute and change it. Somethingoranother 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A whole bunch of people have reverted your changes there.Why aren't you listening to what they are saying about your changes on the article talk page and your talk page?Are the comments not clear, or do you disagree with them?Georgewilliamherbert 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a whole bunch of people it's one administrator and his friend who just won't let me contribute at all. I've discussed everything on the Discussion page and made compromises but simple won't let me do anything. I've tried to contribute many times now but he just reverts them and they're only the most minor of contributes. I mean am I not allowed to contribute here? He says I need consensus from othere users but how am I meant to get consensus when he's the only one who even cares about me contributing as others haven't said anything about it and don't care. I've contibuted to many articles over the past year and I've never once had anyone showing this kind of threatening behavior, and the contributes I've made to other pages were far more changing. It's to the point of being ridiculous now where he just totally dominates the article and uses his administrator powers to block those who dare to contribute towards the article. I really just don't get it anymore, please help me. Somethingoranother 09:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you've been repeating the same edits that got you blocked the first time for 3RR (adding "(Part of the United Kingdom)" to every mention of Northern Ireland) by adding "part of the United Kingdom" to each mention of Northern Ireland after the block expired and then adding a map of the British Isles, pushing a similar opinion. Please stop while you are ahead.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So adding a picture of the British Isles was wrong was it? I think you'll find that's not against wiki rules so why bring it up? Also those 3RR where simple contributes which should never have been reverted and he only reverted them because they didn't fit his point of view. I thought wiki had a NPOV policy? That's not what I've seen so far. And what I'm being ganged up on here now? Somethingoranother 09:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to all users. Admin and non-admin alike. It is really unnecessary to tack on "Part of the UK" to each mention of Northern Ireland in an article about the island.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I only tried to add part of UK in 2 places, hardly every mention of Northern Ireland, but I'm not allowed to even contribute anything. As soon as I do it gets reverted and I get threatened with being blocked. Besides I thought Administrators would be helping me out not trying to back up the idea that I'm not allowed to contribute anything because basically the page now belongs to him. Somethingoranother 09:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple people seem to agree that you're doing the wrong thing for the article here.It's not just Guinnog; look at the article history, you had four separate people revert you.

If multiple experienced editors, including an administrator, are telling you that there's something wrong with the contributions you want to make, you need to take a step back and listen to what they're trying to tell you.

Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for anyone to post anything they want.We're an encyclopedia; we have content standards and community consensus discussions on how to best present information, all of which you have to abide by to participate in the project.It's bizarre to think that you could get to do what just you want to by coming here and complaining.

If you believe they've all got the wrong idea for what belongs in the article, take the discussion to the article talk page.If you have a new idea for something to add, which isn't just re-doing the controversial things, and you think it is consistent with Wikipedia policy, then feel free to add it to the article.If it's ok it will stay.If someone disagrees and it turns out to be controversial, then you need to justify why you've got the right idea on the talk page and get at least some of the other people who edit that article to agree with you.

If you're really interested in contributing, please take the time to engage in the community discussions that serve as our quality control process.If you don't understand why they're objecting, please ask them.If they were to just revert you out of spite and refuse to talk to you on the article talk page or your or their talk pages, THEN that would be the time to come ask an administrator for help, or if you couldn't find one perhaps ask on ANI.Asking now is really not good.Georgewilliamherbert 10:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

George, I appreciate your taking taking the time to explain our policies to this user. I tried very hard to be patient and to helpthem, but it seems my efforts were unappreciated. It may well be that this user will need another block as they continue to controversially insert a non-consensus pro-British POV into Ireland-related articles, and I was somewhat perturbed by their last edit and signs that the editor is adding incivility to their other problematic attributes. Can I ask others to keep an eye on this, as I think it would look better if someone other than me enacted their next block, should another one be necessary. Thanks a lot, --Guinnog 17:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Persistent no source image uploading by Rizuan

Rizuan is mass image uploading without providing sources. Persisting after plenty of warnings. ccwaters 15:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Final warning issued, {{Image no source last warning}}. He should be temporarily blocked if he keeps on doing this. Sandstein 17:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet Truli

I have the impression that User:Truli is a sockpuppet of User:Mark us street (editor of "Tiraspol Times", known also as User:MarkStreet and blocked already 3 times for 3RR). Mark us street anounced few days ago he will quit Wikipedia, I suspect he just changed his name to avoid scrutiny from other editors and imediatelly appeared under this new name. Other editors had the same impression: JonathanPops, William Mauco, TSO1D, with some doubts, there are similar edit patterns and interest for the same article (Transnistria). Mark us street was often block for edit warring, Truli also shows the same behaviour. Some of hius edits I would qualify as vandalism [28], [29], [30], [31]--MariusM 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely see a troublemaker, and one who knows Wikipedia a little too well for a true newbie. Can you show us some diffs where the blocked user made similar edits (esp. the wholesale deletions)? Or have you considered filing a checkuser? | Mr. Darcy talk 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet = visit WP:RFCU and remove either one or two words from that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I followed the advices and filed a checkuser.--MariusM 19:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

xxxx.com spammers

Has anyone else run into "xxxx.com" spammers? I've found 220.30.248.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 81.29.194.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ,66.192.59.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 144.216.3.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) etc.. all spamming medical pages with commercial links. The speed and the way the edits are made makes me wonder if this isn't a bot. yandman 17:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added "pelendrek.com" to Shadowbot's blacklist for automatic reversion. Shadow1 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I recently blocked 6 IPs that I found doing this type of linkspamming.I blocked for 24 hr, but would it be safe to assume they are open proxies and switch to indef?Some previous offenders of identical spam have already been indeffed as open proxies. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the Meta spam blacklist. --InShaneee 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep.Blacklisting has already been requested there. [32] --Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Three more: 72.3.140.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (on 3 blacklists), 200.88.46.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (on two blacklists), 210.0.176.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). MER-C 02:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above link has been blacklisted.Any IP addresses involved in linkspamming like this are to be blocked indef as open proxies. Naconkantari 20:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing gamer saga

The gamers from the Games Plus LAN (66.93.251.112/28) are having a hard time with challenges to their edits. The latest round started with this AfD, which prompted a series of bad-faith edits from the IP range culminating in this threat and the block of 66.93.251.117 (talk · contribs). After the block, Freakdomination (talk · contribs) — whose history indicates association with the editors in the same IP range — reappeared with less than helpful edits. Since my edits tend to just inflame the group (probably really one individual), I think it would be better if someone with the extra tools to deal with a couple of problems and the reaction likely to follow.

• IGames was created by copying www.igames.org/About.asp and it needs to be db-copyvio'd
• Recent edits of Freakdomination (talk · contribs) need to be reviewed for good-faith

I sincerely apologize for dragging this here, but I think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia for me not to annoy this editor directly since it has started to spill over into other unrelated articles. I'll probably get significant backlash just for bringing it up. I welcome any feedback about how I could have handled this situation more gracefully. Happy Holidays. JonHarder ^talk 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just speedily-deleted IGames as a blatant copyvio. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Purgeusdhs (talk · contribs)

Judging by this editor's contribs and general tone, he is definitely an abusive trolling sockpuppet of somebody. At a guess, from this bizarre edit I'd say he was related to the gang harassing MONGO. I recommend an indefblock, no reason why we have to put up with this. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam and vote-stacking in AfD

User Jinxmchue added (what I consider to be) an inappropriate message in an AfD. Not only is he soliciting votes for an AfD which he has a personal interest in - he is advising a certain vote that meets his own POV. IMHO this is vote stacking and probably some other WP violation too. I delted the message, and he resposted it. Will an admin please take a look and do what he/she thinks is needed? Thanks link Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the discussion he was linking to. Naconkantari 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)