Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Fair Deal[edit]

The user Fair Deal has accused me of sockpuppetry when I have already been cleared of that charge. He has also reverted my edits on the list of Gothic Metal bands even though I provided multiple legitimate resources including and Here is a link to his edits. Fred138

To add to this, we also have the user deathrocker causing problems too [1], [2]

As you can see, these users are abusing wikipedia by asking people to revert edits made by me under the untruthful charge that I am a sockpuppet for a user I didn't come into contact with until AFTER I started editing the gothic metal page. This is a cheap and unfair way to try to revert SOURCED changes (I have provided multiple sources for the changes I made, including both and, each of with are reputable sources. Fred138

It should also be noted that the RFC has already proven me NOT to be a sockpuppet for Leyasu, and therefore these attacks are immature and unfounded. Fred138

  • Adding timestamp to allow for archiving. Thatcher131 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


This user is an obvious sockpuppet of User:OzWrestlemaniac. The text on "her" userpage says:

I am a huge fan of Wrestling. I have never edited on Wikipedia before, but due to some confusion, I have been called up by my friends to continue some great work.

Theres no doubt by the same articles that this person is editing, same location or whereabouts as the others and obvious tips left by this user, that this is a sockpuppet of OzWrestlemaniac. OzWrestlemaniac was indefblocked for WP:HA against myself and Normy132. If someone could look into this, it would be most helpful. — Moe Epsilon 14:54 October 01 '06

I don't want to fight, but I am not that person. I have never met OzWrestlemaniac and never plan to. The IP Address is a multi-user address. Why do people like Moe assume everyone from that address is a sockpuppet? I'm sorry I added some previously deleted information but I honestly thought it was relevent. I thought i could edit anywhere I wanted on Wikipedia? Normy edits wrestling more than I do, would he not fall in the above catagories as an OzWrestlemaniac SockPuppet? If you look closely 90% of my edits have nothing to do with wrestling and what OzWrestlemaniac edited. Also, if anyone bothered to check, OzWrestlemaniac edited on IP Address, while I edit on IP Address I'll add this paragraph to my userpage so anyone who decides to delete this and hide any defense can't. Thank-You for your time. User:WackadooXanadu
  • Adding timestamp to allow for archiving. Thatcher131 19:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Street Scholar[edit]

OK, this is fairly extreme. It's not so much against any particular instance of personal attacks, but rather, the users entire attitude and refusal to accept that his views are not aligned with consensus on issues pertaining to gender/sex and insistant derogatory/offensive comments to these ends. As such, I'm proposing that this user is acting and will continue to act in a disruptive manner above and beyond that which WP:PAIN can really deal with.

Please will somebody take a look at my talk (or the talk history if he sees this and removes his comments) for details under the (somewhat provocative and offensive) section heading "Are you a Feminist?". Thanks --Crimsone 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that [3] is a bit too much. I left a warning on his talk page [4]. Tom Harrison Talk 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Lets hope it does the trick :) --Crimsone 17:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? I mean its odd to tell someone that they have to go against a highly publicized facet of their religion to edit this encyclopedia. While I do agree with the idea that everyone should be equal, I think we should also to some degree respect others religions and simply ask he not voice his religious views or attempt to put them on others, not that he ignore them or dismiss them so as to edit here. --NuclearUmpf 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This being the Administrator's noticeboard, I'd leave this up to the admins and direct your questions to the Village Pump. --InShaneee 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed NuclearUmpf - and that is all I would ask (and a cessation of needless hostilities perhaps). However, refraining from pushing religious views and religion on other editors doesn't constitute "going against your religion". It surely constitutes not going against wiki policy and ranting offensively about it when a legitimate warning is given? Even still, this does not account for the vitriol with which a large number quite nasty of personal attacks have been made in just a few edits, nor does it account for unreasonable demands or insistance of the submission of a female editor (ie, me) just for being female.

Apparently, all he wants is an apology from me for giving him a perfectly legitimate warning in response to a WP:PAIN report. Needless to say, I'm not going to apologise for a legitimate action. Further, I could easily have added quite a variety and number of warning templates for much of what he has said to me personally as a result. However, that's not the issue for me - the issue is one of what I believe to be the disruptive attitude of this editor, where somehow he doesn't believe that the quite fundamental statement on WP:NPA somehow doesn't apply to him because of his religious views...

  • Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)

... Well, what if I mentioned that such attitudes are unacceptable in my religion? To be honest, I wouldn't (which is why I'm not going to name my relifgious beliefs here), but the question does demonstraet an important concept - using ones religion or other beliefs (or those of others) as a tool or means by which to circumvent or break the rules needlessly has no place on wikipedia. Any given editor can believe or opine in or on any concept or opinion they want to - such is the right of every individual. There are however limits to how far that can be acted upon, and I'm pretty sure that that limit is the point where such views, beliefs, or opinion are either used as an excuse for breaking rules, deliberately deriding, hurting, or offending others, or otherwise attempting to force another into acting as though said user is in a position of superiority (ie, forcing submission).

To be honest, all I did (as per my comment in response to the WP:Pain report) is to issue an npa2, inform that the statement he made was sexist - ths derogatory and offensive by it's very wording (whether intended that way or not), and that the user he made it to took it in that very way. All told what's happened as a result is pretty extreme, and demonstrates more than could be comfortably written here in my opinion.

I think the applicable phrase may be "When in rome..." - Crimsone 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If I am out of line commenting here - my apologies. The editor in question, despite demanding "respect" and "tolerance" from others particularly regarding his "beliefs" which he seems to think provide him special rights (while claiming others have superiority complexes - lol), shows blatant inability to return tolerance or respect. This is typical: "The way we talk to you may seem rude but to me it doesn't. --Street Scholar 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)" Are respect and tolerances not 2 way streets? I think Nucleafumpf makes good sense in his post above - his comments are particularly apt if Street Scholar is trying to use his claimed "beliefs" to justify these edits: [5], [6], [7], [8] --Merbabu 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have apologized to Crimsone for my comments. I agree they were out of order and uncalled. I am not going to try to make an excuse about them it was my fault so I do apologize to everyone particularly the females who may have been offended by my comments. --Street Scholar 10:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings Street Scholar, and thanks. Please see my (well intentioned - just incase the arabic isn't what I thought. lol) reply to your apology on my talk page, and as per my talk page, this page, and the WP:Pain report I originally responded to, I consider the matter closed and look forward to continuin to contrubte wih you to Wikipedia. :) --Crimsone 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Which change (check your link). - Samsara (talkcontribs) 13:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that was the wrong link; but the situation seems to have passed, despite some serious violations of WP:POINT. A non-involved admin should keep their eye on the article, though. Danny Lilithborne 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Walled garden / spammers[edit]

I blocked Fact idiot (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Ecopave (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Webmasters (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for a spamming (and likely sockpuppetry) campaign to astroturf Ecopave Australia, now at AfD; I also deleted a couple of the more obviously problematic spam articles in a walled garden they created. Typically the astroturfing campaign included adding text to articles (or indeed whole new articles) and appending Copyright (c) 2004-2006 Ecopave Australia . Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License"., as well as linking to their company website.

Articles include:

It's slightly complex as our coverage of roadstone and coating processes is patchy and could certainly do with expanding, but the opening line of the Ecopave article describes it as "a company with a mission" and that is what we have here - editors on a mission, looking back form a solution rather than documenting a historical continuum. If anyone can help with resolving the confusion between bitumen and asphalt, and help with more information on bituminous mastics and emulsions that would be greatly appreciated. The whole collection needs picking up by the corners and shaking, I think. Guy 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Add Helping (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). This is unquestionably sockpuppetry by this stage. Guy 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

He's also been recreating Cereplast. I warned him I would block him if he recreated it, so he went on to other pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple (17) attempts to reset my user password[edit]

The IP User: has attempted to reset my password 17 times. I have an ongoing sockpuppetry request Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jacknicholson and believe this may be related. --Mmx1 16:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't all that uncommon. Just ignore the requests. There's nothing that we can do to stop them. Sorry. Alphachimp 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in bugzilla:6427. —freak(talk) 22:00, Oct. 5, 2006 (UTC)
Mmx1, that IP address appears to resolve to the Georgia Department of Education, so you could e-mail their abuse person and report it, giving dates and times of any offensive posts on Wikipedia or attempts to change your password. This has been done before with success, and the culprit was traced. See here for the e-mail address for abuse. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I just recieved a grand total of 64 requests. The problem is, now all those passwords are assigned to my account, and anyone who is willing to spend a little while can try all the combos. Daniel.Bryant 02:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I may be completely wrong, but I think only one is assigned. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01 6 October 2006 (GMT). blocked for disruption[edit]

I've blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for disruption and incivility because of an uncited quotes section at Jim Johnston (composer). He has been repeatedly reverted it over the last few days, although the section has been copied to Wikiquote. I've contacted the help desk to see if the quotes section should remain, and the helper, User:Daniel.Bryant said it doesn't belong. I've tried to explain this at the talk page, including forking the conversation, but based on the edit summary of his latest revert before the block, "(I don't care for your attitude, your snobbery, or your facism. The information pertains to the subject and it stays. I'm the one that contributed 85% of Jim's info to this page - not you. Show respect" he plans not to. As a result, I blocked him. Also this user is suspected of being a sock of Cornerbock (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Any input? --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 18:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd endorse that, especially in light of the edit summary. Daniel.Bryant 00:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation at Anita Barone and the ASDA Theft Scandal[edit]

The article Anita Barone and the ASDA Theft Scandal appears to be a WP:BLP violation (absolutely zero sourcing for very negative information about a living person). I have put a {{db-attack}} on it per CSD A7/G10, but Coxingle (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and QanderVerrs (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) keep removing the tag so that no admin will ever check the article. I've tried warning both of them, but they're just ignoring me. I'd like an admin to check out Anita Barone and the ASDA Theft Scandal for potential deletion and possible salting, and dealing with the two vandals as you see fit. (Both appear to be SPAs, just for the record.) --Aaron 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article deleted and both accounts indef blocked by someone who is not me. --InShaneee 00:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Uncle G! --Aaron 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Username block[edit]

The admin below blocked Stephencolbert, just so he could get on the show. Look at the comment he left when he blocked colbert:

"04:59, 1 August 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) blocked "Stephencolbert (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (please confirm ownership of this account per the email I sent before I unblock. That, and mention me on the show... (put me on notice!!!))"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysmartmouth (talkcontribs)

The username is in violation of WP:USERNAME. And, contrary to popular belief, Wikipedians do have a sense of humor. -- Merope Talk 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the block or the block message. If Tawker said "GTFO N00B LUSER," that is when the block message would be considered no-go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:LOL. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I was about to change the heading here to "SHIFT KEY ABUSE" but some rouge admin beat me to it. Something must be done! Friday (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Better watch what you say here, I blocked an attack-only account called User:SHIFT KEY ABUSE a couple hours ago. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, the only edits from the account are minor vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Request admistrator help against user who keeps a porn gallary on their userpage[edit]

User:Kingstonjr has a "Work Gallary" on their userspace (User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery) which, for the lack of a better term, is simply a porn gallary.

The "Work Gallary" has nothing to do with work he, or any other wikipedian, is doing for wikipedia. Another user who checked this "Work Gallary" confirmed that the majority of pictures there are linked to only on his, and a small number of other users, userpages.

I believe this is breaking guilelines at WP:UP, especially the line that says "...avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian.". The member seems to be using his wikipedia user subpage for a personal collection of porn images.

Further more, it is clear from this user's talk page that many of his pictures on that gallary are not free images, and do not fall under fair use guildlines.

The user seems to be purposely exploiting the "Wikipedia is not censored" philosophy to prove some point and show off his "gallary" of pornographic pictures, but maintains that it's within rules because wikipedia is not censored.

THe user's talk page also shows evidence of other WIkipedians trying to reason with this user regarding the gallary in the past, but has recieved no replies.

This Gallary really does concern me, i stumbled upon it by accident from these stats because it was one of the most highly viewed userpages. I was quite shocked to end up on a porn gallary. WIkipedia may not be censored, but WIkipedians' having personal gallaries of such pictures on their user pages really doesn't send out the correct message.

I believe this "Gallary" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery (which is linked to by User:Kingstonjr on his userpage) also needs to be checked.

I do not wish to start a debate with an established wikipedia user over his personal userpage, but i really do think something needs to be done about it. Can an administrator please look into this, and if it is indeed not within wikipedia's guildlines, please make sure this gallary is deleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It's currently being debated at WP:MFD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery). No administrator assistance is required. Daniel.Bryant 02:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the Wikipedia is not censored. I doubt you'll have too much luck, I don't think you're not the only person to try this. The user also doesn't seem to be breaking any particular rules, as he's only linking to images around the Wikipedia, as many others do on their userpages. The fairuse images should definately be removed though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually many of those images are not currently used on wikipedia and only exist on commons, as other versions have been selected for articles.pschemp | talk 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to comment on that, but was edit conflicted. I could have sworn someone MfD'd one of these galleries before, but I could be mistaken. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep—Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity. Someone from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery went and MfD'ed Markaci's page 'again already. Hyenaste (tell) 03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

DKfan1 (talk · contribs) and Kelly Clarkson[edit]

That user keeps replacing the free image on Kelly Clarkson with an unfree one, and has been edit-warring with several other editors over this. *Dan T.* 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions Review[edit]

It'd be good if there are a few more fellow sysops to review all the few dozen speedy deletions of porn bios by User:JDoorjam, in which some were later undeleted because they passed AfD and appeared to be deleted out of process. Review the thread above for more details. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam has apologized and said he will be more careful. However, deletions done before the discussion started should be reviewed. Quarl (talk) 2006-10-06 18:46Z

AOL talk pages and Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mykungfu[edit]

Could people please stop spamming sockpuppet tags onto AOL sharedip talk pages? and could someone please undo the latest spam spree? thanks-- 11:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It's a bit overkill really--AOL account 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC + AN/I[edit]

I do not want to get in the middle of this but it was brought to my attention. Apparently an anon user has a RfC filed against them and they are not being permitted to reply, the person who filed it, or one of the supporters at least keeps reverting when the anon user attempts to comment on it. I am asking for an admin to either close the RfC if appropriate, since you cant have one sided dispute resolution or simply ask the people reverting to allow the anon to comment. I am not sure if they are even blocked or banned and if they can post to the RfC while under those conditions.

The RfC is here and it came to my attention because some information is being reverted on an article on Gundai, New South Wales, I asked why and he responded on my page, apparently its his information that keeps being removed. The user who is removing the information genuinely feels they are removing lies and so its justified. I tried telling them that you cant have ones sided dispute resolution. Can an admin please take care of this and get it far away from me. --NuclearZer0 12:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently sprotected the page because of edit warring by the anon. I suggest the parties apply to the mediation cabal for help, where they can create a page for discussion that the anon can participate in, and have an uninvolved moderator. It's a content dispute, not vandalism, and the anon may have a good point to make, however he is going about it entirely the wrong way. He may really just need wikification rather than to be treated like a vandal. Thatcher131 12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I was trying to find out the locus of the dispute, I noticed a story the anon tried to insert was removed, it seemed sourced (I did not verify them) and so I was confused especially since it was a popups revert (no summary). I found the story apparently its true and documented history [9] but I hope they can come to some resolution, one of them is threatening to quit if the anon users information gets included. Again thank you Thatcher, if I could, I would change my vote, you have been quite a respectable admin thus far. --NuclearZer0 12:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Leyasu returning as IP-only user[edit]

It looks like Leyasu, who is currently indefinitely banned, has made a return under a new IP address, Edit made today: [10]

This IP posts under Leyasu's name here: [11], and the IP's WHOIS info matches the info for several of the other IPs on the Leyasu sockpuppets listing.

flowersofnight (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Naconkantari 16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Observer R[edit]

This user has posted a legal threat on his talk page.--MrFishGo Fish 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Sean Black. — Moe 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple noticeboards?[edit]

Some people have created the Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Administrators' noticeboard for admin notices on matters related to India. It's presently up at WP:MFD. Since it's technically a fork of this page, I figured some regulars here may want to comment on the matter. >Radiant< 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

long term abuse on Galatasaray and Turkish related football articles[edit]

This incident is really about a long term abuse. Galatasaray article and some Turkey related football articles are heavily vandalising by two IPs (User: and User: At first i don't want to interfere, for thinking it was a revert war. But then take a look what is happening on Galatasaray. And see that this IPs are just reverting page to a version, they even revert newly added interwikis, notes section. And they don't mind warning messages or talk pages. I request for semi-protection, then it's semi-protected and then User:Burak18 started to revert page with same pattern to same version. I report them several times to 3RR page, they blocked several times. But they don't stop. I even request for checkuser, but the result is Obvious 3RR evasion should be treated as such by Mackensen. Actually i know that, blocking one ip or users, or protecting an article is not the solution. Because, this user is coming with many new IPs, and vandalising several articles.

His general motivation on changing and reverting articles are. He wants to Turkify Galatasaray (or other clubs) manager carriers with removing foreing coachs etc, adding conjectural coach assignments, like X'll be coach of Galatasaray next year, removing fact, POV tags, and many other things.

Thanks to User:Robdurbar, he's trying to help on this subject but one admin is not enough. There must be a different solutions because it's really not managable. His last anon block are all about this user.

As you can see he has several socks, As far as i know a login sock User:Johnny200, and many other ips trying to evade his blockings.

I want to write every ips used for evading by him here but it would be difficult. It would be easier to check history part of Galatasary article, nearly all anons which are reverted by other users are his socks. And it would be better to check this users other contributions, [12], [13], [14], [15], these are just ips used lastly. All of them used for distubing contents of Wikipedia. --Ugur Basak 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial edits by[edit]

It has come to my attention that (talk · contribs) is going around adding "Persian" in front of instances where the world "Gulf" occurs. While the article is at Persian Gulf (and it should stay there), the anon is also making edits like these, in which he/she linked to a dab page, and these. In this case, the article Gulf War has Persian Gulf War as a redirect. Essentially the anon is changing links from the actual articles to its redirect page, and I just wanted to know if edits such as these are considered disruptive or not, because only some of them appear to be helpful. —Khoikhoi 21:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


User:HertzPHI's only edit was on my talk page, saying something about my upcoming birthday. He/she seems to know me personally, just like User:OhmyΩ and User:Dr.Gauss, both sockpuppets of each other who have attacked me in the past. I would like this user to be blocked because his/her edits was a personal messages on my talk page which reveal private info, and this person also seems to be the same as the other sockpuppets. Thanks! Mar de Sin Talk to me! 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry beyond other pages' assistance[edit]

During all of the {{Pokepisode}} nonsense, I had filed an RFCU on several of the user(name)s involved, but due to the new mode of operations there, the request was declined. Now, another user has popped up after one of the IPs was blocked for a month, and has come and started to edit (although not maliciously) but still has the exact same interests, writing styles, an intermediate knowledge of Wikipedia, as well as the same method of signing their posts on pages. I do not know who is the puppetmaster and who is a puppet anymore, but they have definitely become abusive.

I know now that it's blatantly obvious that they're all the same person, but this nonsense just needs to be stopped from these preteens who want the episode list pages to be better looking with up to 80 fair use images on them. Ryūlóng 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that this section was removed by Judai105 earlier today and replaced by myself. While I don't necessarily believe that all these accounts are the same person, that was definitely bad form. Danny Lilithborne 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I only learned about this now. And it's blatantly obvious that they are the same person. It's all just too similar for them not to be. Ryūlóng 10:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI's talk page[edit]

Apparently, SPUI is interested in leaving Wikipedia, as he blanked his userpage a few days ago, and today he blanked his talk page. The question is, do we unblank it? Since it has warnings and stuff? Or let him leave in peace?

I am undecided on this issue. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you would be satisfied with the latter option, somehow. —freak(talk) 03:46, Oct. 6, 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would be. It would be nice for him... if anybody reallly wants to see the junk it's in the history... I'll go with what the community decides here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not. Leave it. pschemp | talk 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think there's plenty of precedent for allowing departing users, especially those with long histories, to blank their pages. Deleting talk pages is problematic, but not blanking. In my opinion, let it be. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Antandrus, shame SPUI is leaving though :( Jaranda wat's sup 03:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite our misgivings with him, SPUI will be missed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to state that I would like to see the talk page remain, since I archived his talk page (after a year of requests, it was killing all of our connections) - which contains warnings, block notices, etc. that should not be removed from the talk page. Note policy is not to remove the warnings from the talk pages, to which it is linked from the main talk page, so if it is blanked, how will people find out how many blocks/warnings SPUI received? Also, I highly doubt that SPUI will "leave". Remember he pulled this stunt off before, so why should we presume he won't come back and try to start "fresh" with a "new" user talk page? Oh well, at least we won't have to face the crap that goes on at the state highways project again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(tired repeat) Its not policy. And you can read the edit history.pschemp | talk 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
"Note policy is not to remove the warnings from the talk pages" <--- it never became policy. – Chacor 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
So all the warnings I've seen (never received) of people that have removed warning tags is in error? No specifics, but it's interesting to note. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. (I need to make a template so I can subst this) There is a perpeutal conflict between vandal fighters who want to force users to keep warnings visible (or archived in a linked archive) and other editors who think people should be allowed to remove things from their talk page and that forcing people to keep warnings is more disruptive than removing them. At the present time, the vandalism policy WP:VANDAL I believe, states users may remove content, including warnings, from their own user talk pages. There is also a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings. REgarding SPUI, he should be allowed to leave in dignity and peace. His user page may be deleted if he requests, his talk page may be blanked, and protected if necessary, but not actually deleted. Thatcher131 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In this case, all you need to do is look at his absurdly long block log to see his history. —Centrxtalk • 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it blank. It's clear that something was there before (by virtue of the talk page existing), so interested parties can easily check the history. Besides, m:Right to vanish might apply. -- Merope Talk 04:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, leave it blank. Don't delete it, but there is no harm in it being blank. Titoxd(?!?) 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Respect is important. Dignity is important. Leave it blank. WAS 4.250 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to forget that SPUI has had blocks and warnings, or that he's been subject to two different decisions of the Arbitration Committee, or anything else that was on his old page. I'll let m:Right to vanish serve as the explanation here. If he comes back in a few months and actually plays nice with everyone, then the past record of warnings won't be as relevant. (In fact, "playing nice with everyone" was pretty much the goal in the first place.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Elkman, You're wrong. Our goal in the first place was producing a high-quality encyclopedia product. That's a task at which SPUI excelled. If there is any editor among you as skilled and productive as SPUI, please point him out to me. If we had a hundred editors of SPUI's calibre, distributed amongst various ranges of topics, we could easily be a top-5 web site. But I don't suppose that matters much anymore. —freak(talk) 04:51, Oct. 6, 2006 (UTC)

I can only second this. SPUI was a right pain in the arse, I told him so all the time. He kicked up a stink on a regular basis, and was nudged back into line just as regularly. He took it well if it were done with even the slightest bit of mutual respect. The vast majority of the "disruption" he caused was from knee-jerk over reactions combined with stubborn insitance that everything was SPUI's fault. Still, a right pain in the arse. Who churned out quality content like a monkey laying pipe. - brenneman {L}
I second this completely. I must add, though, that he had a problem working effectively with/around complete idiots. And unfortunately that's not an optional skill on Wikipedia - David Gerard 10:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant the goal of the warnings was to get SPUI to play nice with the rest of us. The goal of Wikipedia is still to build an excellent encyclopedia. And I don't dispute that he's skilled and productive at what he does. But the constant bickering and arguing over roads is a distraction from the task of building the encyclopedia. We need people with expertise and a willingness to contribute, but we also need to do it with a spirit of consensus and collegiality. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Examples? As far as I can tell he did a ton of redirects, wikifications, categorizations, etc. All good and well—though it is confined almost without exception to articles about roads—but nothing nearly as spectacular as you make it out to be. —Centrxtalk • 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think his pages should be left blank as he wished. The history is left if anyone wants to look. He did a lot of good work and will be missed. --Dakota 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is a ridiculous discussion. It's in the history if anyone cares. (That's why, when someone leaves, we are often very reluctant to delete their talk pages.) Wikipedia talk pages do not exist for the convenience of those who want to place warnings without checking the history - David Gerard 10:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If he's really decided to go, let it be. If he comes back, either as himself or someone else, the talk page should be restored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Let it be. It's his choice to blank the pages - why would we go into edit and revert wars over something this strange? (*forsees this being listed in the *LAME wars* page ;)* ) --• master_sonLets talk 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think Jimbo's comments are quite relevant too. (Especially since I agree with them!) AnnH 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754 turned up at my talk to ask my opinion. I will repeat what Isaid there. Blanking pages is part of the m:Right to vanish for sure ... the only reason to revert warnings or block notices in my view (which I acknowledge is a minority) is if the user is involved in an active, ongoing situation in which other admins need to know that warnings have already been issued and for some reason it's so hot that they might not have time to check history. On an ongoing basis, separate from the above, can you blank pages without setting up a proper archive? yes. Should you? no, I don't think so, it's inconsiderate of others. I've opposed admin candidates for this (for hiding things by blanking at a convenient time). But then I never blank my page. I refactor, but I leave pointers to where stuff was moved to. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

He may be a pain in the ass, but I'm also sorry to see him go. If he wants to blank his page and vanish I say let the man leave in peace. Diffs are still available via history, and it doesn't violate policy as has been pointed out. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave it blank, he's leaving and it's all going to be in the history anyway. What possible use could forcing all of that stuff to remain, against his will, possibly serve? --Cyde Weys 18:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

None. He's not currently at this moment involved in anything that requires warnings or information to stick around, so no positive reason to force it to remain, and every reason to let him do as he likes. I've had my disagreements with him but he makes a lot of valuable contributions and I too am sorry to see him take some time off (let us hope that he shall choose to return again someday). ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe if he returns in a few months he can start over again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The page shall be left blank then (if SPUI reblanks it). If SPUI returns, we can discuss whether to unblank then. I just wanted to get a sense of consensus... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


I have now recieved over 200 password changes thru email. Although this wouldn't normally concern me, I have a question: does each of these "passwords" become eligable for use with my account, or does each new password request over-ride the last one? If they don't over-ride (ie. I now have 200+ passwords for my account), it is becoming easier and easier for whoever is acting like a complete tool from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to punch in a password for my account (presuming they know how many letters/numbers etc.), and have an ever-increasing chance of getting it right with these emails. Daniel.Bryant 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Each new request should invalidate the previous request. At worst, you will have two passwords that work with your account (your current one and the new one). Naconkantari 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, OK. That's fine - I can handle the one-in-a-million shot for my password. I was just getting a bit worried because, if this continued, the chance of someone guessing could have gone up a lot. Daniel.Bryant 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out bugzilla:6427. —freak(talk) 04:40, Oct. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting indeed. Daniel.Bryant 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note on the IP's talk page this has happened to several people. Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 07:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had 76 password change requests from the same IP. I don't know how or why I've been victimized by this person, but this isn't funny. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I had 90. Big deal, it took me several seconds to delete them, old password still works, ignore the fuckwits. Guy 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that doesn't identify a person. Rather, according to User: it identifies an "open proxy". In non technical terms, this is a computer that anyone, anywhere, can use to do things completely anonymously. It has been blocked from editing; it doesn't seem completely unreasonable that it also be blocked from triggering password e-mails. But maybe that technical facility doesn't exist. Notinasnaid 12:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruption off-wiki in regards to Rory096's RfA[edit]

There are a small group of users that have conspired to attempt to negatively influence Rory096's RfA. Fittingly, this discussion occured on IRC, in the, believe it or not, #wikipedia-cabal-en channel. I'm aware of the ridiculousness of the channel name, and this is all the more reason to nip this in the bud as soon as possible. User:Draicone, who goes by "Draicone" and/or "[Draicone]" on IRC, User:MichaelBillington, who goes by "Mike42" on IRC, and other users who have not acquiesed to their content being publicised have attempted to skew the results of Rory096's RfA and have planned to attempt to influence other RfA's and AfD's. I was a bit amazed that this was being discussed, for it not only goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, but for the sheer stupidity of discussing it in an IRC channel with such a silly name and where many admins were present (upon invititation to the channel, and remained out of curiousity, or so I assume). User:Draicone and User:MichaelBillington have allowed for their content to be publicised.

  • [2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> This is a real cabal
[2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> Unlike Elliott's, which after 6 channel takeovers, disbanded so quickly it wasn't funny
[2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> Sometimes its good to have a cabal though
[2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> We come to consensus and vote
[2/10/2006 4:02 PM] <[Draicone]> Currently, we'll probably result in rory096's RfA not coming to pass
  • [2/10/2006 3:59 PM] <[Draicone]> (unnamed user): Good to see you made it. We're discussing policy right now.
[2/10/2006 4:00 PM] <[Draicone]> (unnamed user): ( RE: topic ) We just finished coming to consensus on Rory's RfA
  • [02/10/2006 06:39] <(unnamed user)> so, mike, are you strong opposing?
[02/10/2006 06:40] <Mike42> Already did
[02/10/2006 06:40] <(unnamed user> currently: 0xSupport, 4xOppose, 0xNeutral
[02/10/2006 06:40] <Mike42> Oppose - That's not all he's been up to, he did this [2] on my user page. Per Glen S "This is completely unnacceptable for an admin." Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • <Mike42> (unnamed user): the idea is that it wont draw suspicion if we all vote for something, because we are all un-related
  • [03/10/2006 03:19] <Draicone> Otherwise, we'll probably start discussing an AfD of DRV in half an hour
[03/10/2006 03:19] <Draicone> Care to join in?
[03/10/2006 03:20] <Draicone> If we reach consensus for a delete, we'll start the AfD and put in about 25 delete votes before transcluding it and listing it at WP:AFD

These are snippets from the full log. I'm not really sure how to proceed as this is all off-wiki stuff, but this needs to be addressed somehow. There are always rumblings about shady backroom IRC stuff, and this is exactly the sort of thing that propogates that field of thought. It's also beyond me why they would invite random users and admins and label the channel that way... ridiculous. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We've been told by arbitrators that IRC is a reality totally different from WP and that WP admins have no authority over off-wiki discussions. You should complain to the owners of the channel. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
"<Mike42> (unnamed user): the idea is that it wont draw suspicion if we all vote for something, because we are all un-related" -- Just to add context, that was a reply to something to this effect: "so why are random people from #wikipedia being invited here?" :-) Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what's being missed is that that channel was just random people from #wikipedia, and that the name and most of the comments there are ironic. There's occasionally some cronyism on IRC, but that's a parody of accusations of making cabals on IRC. Don't mistake a joke for the real thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less. Yes, it's concerning. Yes, I find groupthink to be one of the most harmful things about Wikipedia. No, I don't think we can do anything about it. I think we have far bigger fish to fry. — Werdna talk criticism 08:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no disagreement that disruption to consensus gathering is unacceptable. But these logs are not compelling. Find the debates that these neophyte cabal members are in and do some elmentary network analysis. For a sample size this small either: A) The block !voting users will stand out like a dog's, or 2) Their effect will be so diffuse as to be meaningless. Evidence is what puts bums on seats: Diffs and facts. Talk is cheap, and IRC talk cheaper still. - brenneman {L} 10:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears one of the quoted gentlemen is leaving over this. Well, that's his choice. I can't say I agree that the failure of Rory's RfA proves Wikipedia is broken. Although, I suppose that if I'd only been here since June, that would look somewhat bruising (having never seen Sam Spade run for adminship). Too bad. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is unnerving and even somewhat threatening to find out that people are negatively discussing your RFA in an off-wiki format. There doesn't seem like there's much to do about it, though. There are no policies preventing off-wiki discussions, and some (en-wikipedia-l, unblock-l) are actively encouraged. Even if the IRC channel were closed, people could use AIM, or open a new private channel with a less obvious name, or even use e-mail. Thatcher131 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so people realize, #wikipedia-cabal-en is publically advertised in #wikipedia (which is open to all), consists mostly of people joking about or griping about Wikipedia, and is heavily ironic and silly (last time I was in there, we were discussing forming a cabal on Klingon Wikipedia). If people have a problem with private groups influencing Wikipedia, that's a legitimate issue, but I think the worst thing this cabal might do is vandalize each others' userpages and make silly Wikipedia-space pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the silliness that goes on in that channel, but humour should not detract from the actual attempts at gaming the system that went on. The snippets I provided were just that; snippets. There's lots of silliness, but there was also lots of serious inappropriateness. If you look that the history of Rory096's RfA (and the participation by these individuals, specifically) and the full logs, it becomes clear that there was an overt attempt to manipulate it. Furthermore, the quotes I provided were not jokes, and the surrounding context would show that, regardless of Mike42's attempt to brush it off as humour. I'm aware that IRC is not Wikipedia and as such, I wouldn't expect any serious ramifications, but it's important to realise that there was/is gaming of the system by these individuals, regardles of how they attempt to disguise it through irony. In short, I fully agree with brenneman, but felt that this sort of shadiness should not be dismissed as simpe humour, hence my elaboration hoopydinkConas tá tú? 07:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
RFA isn't a vote. Give the log to the bureaucrat that is handling the RFA. They can decide to discount whatever votes they choose.--Tbeatty 07:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tbeatty; give the logs to the bureaucrat. --Aaron 19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanfiction chuff problem[edit]

Hi - I have a problem with an editor who seems unable or unwilling to accept that the discussion pages are for improving articles not for posting fan fiction. I left a message on his talkpage about the purpose of discussion pages. Some assistance would be nice. --Charlesknight 12:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we have him adding Bios he made up for characters. --Charlesknight 13:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty please could someone take a look at this? I want to archive old material and start discussing to-dos for the article but that's impossible if it's going to be a story page. --Charlesknight 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Actual quote: "Enemy ZCF#3 took 9281 health points damage and die" Yeah, that's not exactly what talk pages are for. According to the IP's talk page, they've already been given a short block. If they come back and continue, the matter probably warrants further investigation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

this is clearly him as well, other editors have tried to communicate with him, I've tried to communicate with him and well... time for fanfiction! argggggggggggg! --Charlesknight 08:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Serial copyright violator[edit]

User:Fisss - serial copyright violations, edit wars (i.e. in Moscow article). Azov 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fisss uploades copyvio and falsifies licenses. For example here:[16] he inserted in his image a license which was copied from another image (the author explicitely gave me permission for a number of images, it was very long ago). Now he vandalizes Moscow and avoids any discussion of any kind.--Nixer 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Might be vandalism is to strong a word for the edit warring about which images to use in the Moscow article (Moscow is a large city and the question of image selection is ultimately a question of taste) but substituting free images with copyvios is a very unhelpful move. Also uploading an image from the photographer who explicitly stated that he donated a few images into public domain but do not want any other of his works on Wikipedia, copying the very same notice on copyvio images was gross. I have speedied the image and warned Fisss. One more of such actions should warrant a long block. Also can somebody look through all other Fisss's downloads. There might be copyvios there abakharev 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
A good faith effort to select the best images would include discussing the changes on the talk page, but he's refraining from any discussion whatsoever, despite multiple requests to explain his edits. So, I agree with Nixer's classification of this as vandalizm. As to the images - the main problem is that he's not just uploading dozens of unsourced images, but consciously falsifying licenses and removing warning tags on questionable uploads. I went through a bunch of his uploads and tagged unsourced ones, but I feel like I may be wasting my time as nothing prevents him from just removing the tags as he did before. Azov 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Fisss is not an editor in good standing. The guy does not respond to any queries concerning his actions. I have yet to see him posting on a talk page. He starts one-line articles specifically to illustrate the images he uploaded (e.g., Saint Michaels Church). Wikipedia for him is a large image gallery. But, Nixer, it is strange to hear complaints from you. Fisss's behaviour mirrors your own, to a degree. You both seem to have serious problems with WP:OWN of articles written by others. It was you who ousted other contributors from Moscow, replaced a lot of free images with those of unclear copyright status, revert warred about it, reigned over the article for months as if it were your personal diary page, and now come here to complain when Fisss does the same to you? --Ghirla -трёп- 14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
What I meant saying "vandalism" is that he deleted this Msk all districts abc eng.svg and this Moscow-downtownmap.jpg images both free and illustrative. The former was made especially to illustrate administrative divisions of Moscow in Wikipedia. Another example is that he changed the free image of Bolshoi Theater Bolshoi th.jpg to copyvio Bolshoytheatre.jpg - a fully copyrighted private image. Although I agree that his image looks nicier, in fact it will be deleted soon. I suppose he does not know English well, so he can contribute only by uploading and re-arranging images.--Nixer 14:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have noted a similar problem with Vozas (talk · contribs) who keeps replacing freeuse images fairuse one. Agathoclea 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Howard Eskin[edit]

Anon user (talk · contribs) seems to have one purpose in life. For each of the last 8 weekdays, at approximately the same time of day, a single vandalism edit is made to this article. No other edits have ever been made by this IP. This seems to be something that should not go it WP:AIV, since it is not one of those blocks that needs to be made urgently, but can anything be done here? WP:RPP seems not right. Perhaps a one-week block? I know that a block of such length is uncommon without prior blocking, but there are several warnings and the user has persisted. A typical 24 hour block would presumably be ineffective, since they likely won't be editing again until Monday PM anyways. Thoughts? --After Midnight 0001 21:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert, ignore, forget. Zocky | picture popups 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


This user has consistantly engaged in disruptive behavior on his user page. In addition to blanking the contents of his talk page frequently and/or removing warnings, he has engaged in numerous personal attacks and consistantly shows a lack of respect for Wikipedia policies. I reported this earlier, but did not get a response. WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:VAND are some of the policies that he chooses to ignore. Cacophony 22:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus regarding talk page blanking has not yet been established. The only thing I see that user doing "wrong" is blanking his userpage which, really, isn't that big of deal. I see no problems with edits in the past couple of days. My suggestion, Cacophony, would be to take a break from trying to revert his page and let it drop for a while. Editors can tell that something used to be on his talk page by virtue of it existing. His non-talk page-related warnings are nearly a month old and so I think they can be removed safely. If the user has new problems, the chain of warnings would be started fresh, anyway. I'll keep an eye on the situation (so you don't have to), but at this moment I don't really see anything that warrants an intervention. -- Merope Talk 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that too, don't get stuck up on user/talk page edits - it they do anything in the encyclopedia then look toward WP:AIV after giving the full suite of test/warning messages. And it's Bigjake (talk · contribs) by the way. Thanks/wangi 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping an eye on things:

"Vandalism and disruption might be ok with you, but I feel strongly that it hinders our ability to collaborate in writing an encyclopedia. Just because someone is persistant in their vandalism does not make their actions any more acceptable. Your "let the vandals play" attitude is a detriment to Wikipedia. So if no admins want to take care of it, I will continue to waste my time on this stupid edit war. Thanks for nothing, Cacophony 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks/wangi 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message asking the user to stop, I do not think they realize they are making themselves look bad by these actions as Bigjake is allowed to blank his page, but I believe Cacophony is not allowed to start an edit war over it. I am sure Bigjake can even argue that Cacophony is breaking 3RR and he is not since he is reverting vandalism. --NuclearZer0 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OTRS Call to arms[edit]

The WP:OTRS team requests your assistance in fixing these articles, which have drawn complaints from their subjects:

  • Chai Ling - inaccurate summary of legal dispute, not encyclopedic in tone, undue weight
  • Greenwich_University - basic problem here is that Capogrossi claims that he's made a good-faith effort towards quality and accredation both at Greenwich and at Akamai. If anyone's interested in working on the article we have contacts and some background information we can share; drop a note expressing interest to with "Ticket# 2006091810012695" in the subject if you want these.
  • Joko Beck - edit war involving a number of new users adding unsourced material. I have stubbed this but doubt it will remain that way. More experienced hands will be needed.
On watch. Daniel.Bryant 08:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 08:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, unvalid protection[edit]

11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings was protected [17] by a non-registered user. AFAIK this is an unvalid protection. Can I retire the protection?.

Sorry if I look too cautious, but I am engaged in a lenghty and hot dispute in the talk page of this article, and I want to double-check all my actions. Thank you..Randroide 11:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't actually protected, the anon just dropped a {{protected}} template on it. You can pretty much always revert those on sight: if the page had actually been protected, you wouldn't be able to edit to remove the notice in any case unless you were an admin. I removed the false protection notice. Syrthiss 11:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, copy that and now I have a firm guideline for the future. I supposed what you have just told me, but I prefer to err on the side of caution due to the sensitive nature of the page. Thank you very much.Randroide 11:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet[edit]

On the article Natalie Portman, user Adamrock (talk, contribs) and user PoetPoems (talk, contribs) have both been repeatedly vandalizing the page, adding in POV, including the exact same phrases.



Shannernanner 12:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Adamrock bloced 48 hours for WP:LIVING, PoetPoems blocked indef by Naconkantari as a vandalism-only account. Guy 21:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

pls block an impostor[edit]

See [ here], this is the third time that the same vandalism is made on my page. I am quite sure that the User:-jкb- (see the second letter, there was already User :-Jkb- and others) could be the User:Zacheus which could be identical with the User:V. Z. - can you check it? -jkb- 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - User:-jкb- indef blocked. --WinHunter (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx, i saw it. But now it is this user: (not User:Nolanus, which is a user from; he is vandalising on the same pages like the previous one. Pls block. -jkb- 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC) - - - P.S. Beside others he vandalised Jan Koukal, which is my real name; please, where can I ask in for help of a check user? Thx, -jkb- 17:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Move went wrong[edit]

A vandal moved Otto Ernst Remer to Otto Ernest Remer and a well meaning editor c+p the content back to where it belonged. But obviously the history will still need to be merged. Agathoclea 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

All done. It's my first history merge, so I hope I did it right. :) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Beauty. Snoutwood (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Mykungfu sockpuppet[edit]

Not sure where to request a block, but ManOfTke (talk · contribs) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of Mykungfu. ManOfTke's first edit was to an AfD for a Mykungfu article, and his fifth and sixth edits were to request unprotection of pages Mykungfu was messing with. User seems way too familiar with AfD, page protection, talk pages, etc. for a rookie. This isn't straightforward vandalism (although he did just undo the cleanup I did on the links section of Sigma Pi Phi), so I didn't think WP:AIV was the right place. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ManOfTke is back to revert-warring on Sigma Pi Phi, using the same phrasing typical of User:Mykungfu, and is shadowing me around Wikipedia as well, showing up wherever I report one of his socks ([18]). User:GrandWizard may also be a Mykungfu sockpuppet, although it's too early for me to tag him as such. I'm requesting a block on User:ManOfTke, but not on GrandWizard unless anyone else finds his username offensive. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
And clearly another sock apeared. Agathoclea 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The beat goes on till the break of dawn. Incidentally, the AIV report was for a username I considered offensive (User:GrandWizard, the term for the head of the Ku Klux Klan, an American white-supremacist organization). The closing admin did not consider it offensive, and I respect his decision. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet. I've been following this. Mr. Darcy, Please let me know on my talk page as soon as sockpuppets pop up and I'll block them. No need to keep posting it here. Thanks.pschemp | talk 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help with a trolling account[edit]

The account Arabistani (talk · contribs), who I suspect is a sock of Sargonious (talk · contribs), appears to have only been created for the purpose of trolling. See this, this, and this for some examples. This is not the first time Sargonious has done this, see Shaitan Al Mahdi (talk · contribs).

Anyways, I was wondering if someone could please block this guy, and warn Sargonious again. —Khoikhoi 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, please make a checkuser request and if it's positive I will beat the sockmaster with my cluebat. Guy 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Long term disruption from IP Block[edit]

Posting here as recommended at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#How_to_handle_long-term_disruption_from_IP_block?.

A user editing from a block of IPs has been causing general disruption for well over a year now. I am not sure how to proceed. See the old Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/65.182.172.x for further links. Currently active at Green Tortoise and Talk:Green Tortoise. What is the historical response to abuse/vandalism arising from blocks of IPs?

The response on the prior RfC was removed due to privacy issues. (response removed for containing personal information: please ask an admin if the user returns and it becomes necessary to view this material. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC) )If possible, could an admin can take a look to help where to go from here? Thanks much! here 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus protected[edit]

I've protected the article Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus due to continuous edit warring between two groups, those supporting a Greek point of view and those supporting a Turkish point of view. This has gone on for several days now. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 13:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the users involved in the edit war, E104421 (talk · contribs), has now questioned my impartiality on the article's talk page, saying that I am involved in the edit war too. I could use an extra pair of admin's eyes, to check the article and its history, and to review my behaviour in this matter. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

UK South West Grid for Learning blockage[edit]

I currently work in a Middle School in West Somerset in the UK which is provided internet access via the SWGfL - I doubt anyone would deny that I am a good editor but during working hours I have been unable to do any editing on the site due to a range of blockages.

The following IP addresses are those of the SWGfL's proxy servers (most of which are blocked):

I have noticed that public IP addresses can be blocked whilst allowing registered users to continue editing. Can this be done for these addresses as I would like to be able to carry on editing in my quiet moments at work?-Localzuk(talk) 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

About half the accounts were already converted to soft blocks by other admins. I fixed the rest. Account creation is still blocked but if you have an account at home you should be able to log in from school. Thatcher131 00:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That is much better. I can now 'waste time' more efficiently at work :) -Localzuk(talk) 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

MrDarcy Harassment[edit]

Upon entering Wikipedia, I was reading a 3rr report, and decided to investigate the matter. I made a report concerning the 3rr violation behavior of User:MrDarcy. [19] He then accused me of being a sockpuppet and proceeded to label my userpage [20] and then stated i was a indefinately blocked. [21] Can you please address this situation. thank you. Sb213 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indef blocked the above user; if he's not a sockpuppet, I don't know what is. --InShaneee 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Meaning Sb213, not Mr. Darcy of course. pschemp | talk 20:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course. No offence intended, Mr. Darcy. --InShaneee 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Darcy smiled; but Elizabeth thought she could perceive that he was rather offended, and therefore checked her laugh ... nah, really, none taken! | Mr. Darcy talk 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


User:Centrx just recently deleted Naruto2.0's userpage and talk page, for no reason. This is very bad behavior for an admin.--B&W Anime Fan 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That user has no edits outside his userpage and you are the only editor to his talk page. It's apparant that he wasn't here to edit the encyclopedia. Naconkantari 20:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

He is my friend who lives across the street. Just because he has no edits does not give Centrx the right to delete his userpage and user talk page.--B&W Anime Fan 20:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If people are not contributing to the project, then they don't need a chatroom that this user's user and user talk pages sound like they were. Ryūlóng 21:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

He mostly likes to read. He told me he would start editing though, but now he can't since Centrx deleted his account.--B&W Anime Fan 21:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

His account was not deleted. Only his pages. If he makes constructive edits to the project, he can have a user page, but just using it as a chatroom is against WP:NOT. Ryūlóng 21:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Ryulong's statement: Wikipedia is not a free web host. Wikipedia should not be mistaken for one of the many social networking sites. Geogre 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have used a clear deletion summary referring to WP:NOT. —Centrxtalk • 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious issue and I'm glad you brought it up. This user has been here since 3 September [22] and has no contributions besides to his user space. We have more and more people who build user pages and do nothing of value for the encyclopedia: I see them on RC patrol every day. We should actively discourage this kind of behavior. We are not myspace. I agree with Ryūlóng and Geogre. Antandrus (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we expand or clarify the CSD U2, "Nonexistent user. User pages of users who do not exist. Check both Special:Listusers and Special:Contributions to verify." to include users who have no productive edits outside their userspace? —Centrxtalk • 21:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be sensible. Martin 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Definitely. -- Steel 21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Would it be worth putting a sentence into the page a user sees when s/he registers, saying (in some words) that Wikipedia isn't a social networking site? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. I've been doing this for awhile now, time to make it official ... Cyde Weys 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, but I think it might make sense to have a time parameter as well. I'm sure some good users have built their userpage with their first registered edits. Grandmasterka 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've expanded CSD U2. Quarl (talk) 2006-10-08 10:30Z

For the record, B&W Anime fan has very few edits outside of his userpage as well, and essentially all of those have been disruptive. He's been for two months, but has been blocked half a dozen times. --InShaneee 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Centrx forgot to put the deletion reason or maybe if the reason was already discussed on some thread (albeit a thread that will get lost in the archive later) it got annoying (they bug admins and potential admins like mad about edit summaries I've noticed. It's like it's good practice and well I don't put those summaries in as much as I could). Maybe a solution is to restore it with the reason "forgot to put deletion reason in. restoring to put deletion reason in on next deletion reason." And then delete it again with the reason you gave, but shortened to fit into the deletion reason box or some diff to the discussion. Anomo 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Need Help[edit]

Alright, I know this isn't the right place, but I need some help. My signature won't show up. I don't know what happened to it, but no matter what I put for my sig, it always comes out as just the text I wrote. Example:

[[User:KojiDude|<font color="blue">Koji</font>[[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="darkblue">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|<sup><font color="lightblue">(Contributions)</font></sup>]]]]

See? I've tried everything, nothing works. It says there are four ] after the </sup>, but in my preferences there's only two. I seriousley have no idea what's going on here, and it's really starting to get on my nerves. I'd be really grateful if somone offered to help me. Thanks.--KojiDude 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Try clicking on the raw signature box. Ryūlóng 21:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
FINALLY! Thanks. I didn't click on it before because it said not to use templates, and I thought the <font> and <sup> were considered templates... Thanks again.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Templates are things between curly brackets (like {{this}}). If you use a template (transclusion) in a sig, then each time the template changes, the previously signed signature changes. Since this would require the page be changed everywhere you have a signature, it'd put massive load on the MediaWiki software and bog the site down. If EVERYONE used a template signature on here... well, it'd be a Bad Thing(tm). ~Kylu (u|t) 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin complaint[edit]

The administrator Jaranda had removed me from the RfA list. The bad part is, HE DID IT LESS THAN 4 HOURS AFTER I ENTERED!!! I think EVERYbody should have the oppertunity of a full period because the "good" users aren't online at the time. Who knows? I could have BECOME an administrator. It IS WAS possible. --Cricket Boy 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Get off your high chair already. – Chacor 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Snap...look, there was not a chance in hell of you succeeding, and hence Jaranda (talk · contribs · logs) was quite right to remove the entry. Daniel.Bryant 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Not saying that removing the RfA was a bad thing, but isn't WP:BB for articles specifically? ~Kylu (u|t) 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think it was correct to remove the request. Yes, there is absolutely no chance it would have succeeded, but only bureaucrats can close or de-list a nomination. The user in question had been asked to withdraw his nomination, but he did not. Therefore, it should have run until a bureaucrat closed it. -- Merope Talk 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to note: There has been precedent for clearly-failing requests being removed by admins. – Chacor 04:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then perhaps the instructions on the page need to be revisited. Right now it says non-bureaucrats can do it only in cases of "vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination". -- Merope Talk 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a description for someone reading it, not a rule. —Centrxtalk • 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There is precedent to remove clearly failing requests, and an RFA by a user with less than 20 edits is suspicious. Jaranda wat's sup 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There most definitely is for ones as obvious as that. Sasquatch t|c 05:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've seen cries of "sock!" for much less than what this user did - my question is how a 20-edit user found their way to RfA... Daniel.Bryant 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion either way about whether admins should be able to close no-chance-in-hell RfAs or whether it should be left to the beaurocrats. Regardless, it's done all the time, and you should be thankful that it was. Voters tend to be pretty hard on someone who thinks they should be an admin with just 20 edits. If it had been left to run, it would have been pretty embarassing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's good to remove obviously failing nominations to prevent them from becoming overly negative. We have lost good users that way. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

4 hours seems to short. It should be two days at maximum. Unless the person up had only 20 edits. Anomo 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

anonymous proxy flamer vandal[edit]

Hi people, I'd like to report's vandalism. This person is not an editor, he masks his IP behind an anonymous proxy and flames editors in random articles talk page.
He always act the same way, adding nonsense to discussion page, claiming that the article is atrocious, that the editors are pretentious and claiming that anyway he don't want to edit wikipedia. This vandal is really annoying as i've seen vexed editors answering him. By checking his log I've just realized he was just a vandal having fun by trolling editors. Please can't you block this vandal's IP or something? Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Check contributions log for evidence: Special:Contributions/ Buenaparte Social Club 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "he masks his IP behind an anonymous proxy"? Is this an open proxy, or are you reiterating that the user is not logged-in/hasn't registered? Also, reports of vandalism should go to the appropriate page (or WP:AIV), and requests for dispute resolution should go to that page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
actually i mean both. sorry i will post this report in the right place. thanks. Buenaparte Social Club 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Systematic Use Of Sockpuppets To Get A User Blocked Through 3RR[edit]

User:Mahawiki has been blocked for violating WP:3RR rule on Belgaum article. The article's hist