Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Mikenacy[edit]

Personal attack only account. See also [1] // Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of prods without reason[edit]

User:Kappa has been removing prods from hundreds of articles and giving no explanation, and making other changes that appears to be vandalism, I started reverting a few, and he just reverts back, I don;t have time for an edit war. He has had a number of previous warnings reagrding this. I reported him at [Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]] - but removing prods may not be considered vandalism. If I'm right there is a lot of change to be reverted ASAP. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kappa does this quite often. Once a PROD is contested, you take it straight to AfD. Yanksox 01:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You cannot be serious, that's hundreds of articles that would have to be done. Why is that not vandalsim and why is he not banned? --ArmadilloFromHell 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Because there's nothing wrong with removing prod tags? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"Vandalism"? Yikes. It's only vandalism if it's made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's not at all clear that removing Prods is done with that intention, even if it's done repeatedly and without explanation. A contested Prod is a contested Prod, and goes to AfD or it stays. They're not made to be put back after removal. If you don't know why Kappa removed a Prod in a particular case, asking would be better than reverting. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would really be nice if he (and anyone else) would give a coherent reason when de-prodding. Unless the nomination was truly bad... I've seen ones where the rational is just "notability" or "nn". But in a lot of these he's de-prodding for rather technical reasons but giving no explanation, that just leads to confusion. --W.marsh 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanations are good; communication is good. Has somebody asked Kappa why he's doing what he's doing? What's a "technical" reason for de-prodding? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well one example of a technical de-prodding was removing it from an article that had been listed as not being in English for 14 days, for some reason the page says they have to go to AfD to be deleted, not PROD, presumably Kappa was de-prodding for that technicality. --W.marsh 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if it makes an assertion of notability ... could be a technicality, anyway. --Cyde Weys 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user is entitled to remove prod tags if they don't think the article should be deleted, for whatever reason, and doing so is certainly not vandalism. However it would be simple to give a reason in the edit summary, even if the reason is simply disagreeing with the opinion of the original tagger, and Kappa ought to do so, if only to avoid further confusion.

Also note that revert warring over prod tags leaves you open to WP:3RR. --bainer (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. While an unexplained deprodding can make me pull my hair out, it doesn't matter. A deprod counts as an objection to an uncontested deletion. That's been there since prod was created. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's the lack of edit summaries that is the main issue here. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion says : Remove the {{dated prod}} tag from the article, noting this in the edit summary. and there are several warnings regarding summaries in Template:TestTemplates. I've had many prods removed by other editors - but always got an explanation in the summary. (BTW, none of the prods in this matter were put there by me) --ArmadilloFromHell 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See this section. I know it can be grating, but thems the apples. Maybe we should have this conversation over there, but as it stands now, you will likely only find admins and experienced users that are sympathetic, but still support Kappa and anyone else's right to remove prods w/o a reason. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If Kappa is the one removing hundreds of tags, I think it should be him creating these AFD's not us. If he has a reason to believe it is notable, then fine. But why does he get off by just removing the things and not even having to deal with the after effects of a hundred AFD's? semper fiMoe 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing a prod is simply taking down the Sword of Damocles to allow a discussion about the article. No one need state a reason for removal, since "don't delete this without a debate" is obvious in the act of removal. Whether the editor wants to state an opinion, or simply wants a debate to take place is up to the individual editor. If in the process, he doesn't want the article deleted, then he simply doesn't bring it to AfD. Prod is a shortcut to deletion. Sometimes you get to take it, other times you're stuck taking the long way around. Deprodding should be enough to convince the prodder to have a second de novo look and occasionally find their reasoning was off. Unfocused 04:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't do "technical" deprods. Roberto Bravo was a legit stub in English with some extra Spanish which I thought the folks at PNT might like to see. Kappa 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: nobody said that the debate prompted by deprodding has to take place on AfD, it could also be handled on article or user talk pages first. If consensus isn't found there, then AfD is still an option. Unfocused 04:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like this is good material for an RFC, about how, when, and why to deprod; I think there's some reasonable displeasure with how Kappa goes about doing something unusual, which is somewhat overlapping with the usual someone-disagrees-with-me-argh displeasure. Can we take this to User talk:Kappa or an RFC page or something instead of ANI now? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • One of the suspected potential problems with WP:PROD was "that a single user can simply "veto" all proposed deletions without giving a reason or improving anything. Of course, that would be disruption to make a point. If this proves to be a problem, we will likely create some rule to prevent it".
  • Now I would like to see some statistics on this before jumping to a conclusion, but if Kappa is deprodding lots of articles and those articles have a strong tendency of being deleted on AFD, then Kappa is creating lots of extra work for other people for no good reason, and he should stop that. Anyone who is experienced with AFD should have a feeling which kinds of articles tend to be uncontroversial deletes, and should respect that consensus even if personally disagreeing with it. >Radiant< 12:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started the RfC. Kavadi carrier 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • A simple count shows that of Kappa's last 1000 edits to article space, 298 were deprods, or about 29%. This spans roughly the last two months. A quick glance over the deprods seems to indicate that nearly none of them made any changes to the article text; someone with a bot can make a more careful analysis if they want.
  • As corollary to what I said above, if Kappa is not deprodding all that many articles and/or those articles don't tend to get deleted on AFD, there wouldn't be much of a problem (and indeed, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem here). Judged by his talk page, certain users are nevertheless unhappy with Kappa's conduct; perhaps mediation may alleviate this. >Radiant< 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz/Thekohser) attempting to run for ArbCom[edit]

It appears that Gregory Kohs (aka MyWikiBiz) is attempting to run for arbcom, based on the argument that he had over 1000 edits under several accounts. He is also harassing people who delete his statements, including me and Centrx. I've noticed that he edits from various IPs in the 72.94.*.* range, which leads me to think that a range block might be necessary. Scobell302 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the pages that need to be monitored at this moment are Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements and Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. Scobell302 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I could be totally wrong here, but if one of his accounts is subject to a ban by Jimbo doesn't that make him inelligable by default. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Any attempt to run for ArbCom by this user is blatant trolling. There is absolutely no prospect whatsoever of their passing, even if they were not permabanned and below the edit count limit. I vote we deny recognition and just nuke any further attempts. Guy 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • sounds sensible. "AGF" doesn't mean "prance around ad libitum". dab () 11:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A block for disruption may be in order as well... ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Centrx blocked him as an abusive sock hours before you woke up. Which, is the proper course of action seeing that it is an abusive sock of a banned user. pschemp | talk 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth semiprotecting the candidate statement page, which only the candidates and election officials should be editing anyway. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

74.129.234.170[edit]

This user really needs monitoring. When he was reverted by Crossmr, he added insults to Crossmr's userpage. When I reverted and warned him, he did the same to my userpage as well. Can someone watch over him and, if necessary, block him? Scobell302 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:UNFanatic[edit]

User:UNFanatic has uploaded this image 3 times after it has been deleted 4 times for G10. A big X through a national flag should not be tolerated

Image:800px-Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus2.png

Please take action --MCMLXXI 07:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the page, and protected it so that it can't be uploaded again. Thanks. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

article Jim Clark[edit]

Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is undergoing a low level revert war initiated by Pflanzgarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). At RFI we were recommended to report this ongoing incident here at AN/I.

Nonsense bios redux - checkuser needed?[edit]

I just noticed some extremely interesting history behind the articles mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelson Wu (second nomination). An admin may want to review the deleted histories of Smegmer Kennington, Richard Carney (previous AfD), Brad Noland and Larry Fish (previous AfD) to determine if there is a case for checkuser. This was previously mentioned on ANI in July; see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nonsense bios. Kavadi carrier 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The user that created the articles abovementioned except Brad Noland has been blocked already. Unless it has any use for existing ArbCom case, Checkuser would probably reject/tell you it's fishing. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly spurious RfC opened regarding Sarah Ewart by Methodology/Ottawaman[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sarah_Ewart in which possible socks (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ottawaman) Ottawaman (talk · contribs) and Methodology (talk · contribs) protest against actions taken by Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), one of our most upstanding admins.

This is an FYI only, really, as if the checkuser comes out as people think it will, the RfC wasn't certified and can be speedy closed. But that's not to say that moral support might not be welcomed (perhaps at the "Outside view by pschemp" might be where to hang it.) ++Lar: t/c 11:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. What a farce, actually. If I didn't have selfpreservation in mind (I don't like these types of trolling sockpuppets - I don't think anyone does, for that matter...), I'd close it right now as a bad faith RfC. Sarah is one of our best, and trolls like this only achieve loss to Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just been across - even a cursory glance at the contributions of Methodology (talk · contribs) tell you pretty much everything you need to know. Quack quack it's a duck!. It's a shame we don't have a quicker process to deal with such nonsense rather than the endless games we all get dragged into. --Charlesknight 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a quicker process, WP:IAR. I'm going to delete the RFC and indef block Methodology as an obvious abusive sockpuppet. With 10+ admins endorsing the idea that this is a sockpuppet, there is no point in continuing. Thatcher131 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. Please keep an eye on the WP:RFC/U page, admins - Ottawaman has repeatedly blanked a portion of the page, removing two RFCs, to readd the Sarah RFC (in three different places!) – Chacor 13:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Also support, let's go duck-hunting. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done Thatcher 131! That was some awesome support there guys, I appreciate it. --Guinnog 14:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou everyone for your wonderful support...to say it is appreciated would be a massive understatement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect example of DefendEachOther and can't think of many folk more worthy, Sarah. Support deletion, support indef block. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Good call! -- Samir धर्म 05:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. I saw this in passing a couple of days ago and was hoping that people with more time would do the right thing to it. It seemed to have been completely without reasonable justification or criticism. Keep up the good work, Sarah. Georgewilliamherbert 03:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IP talk page warnings[edit]

74.93.44.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) engaged in a spree of attacks on the 3rd Nov. 5 days later the IP becomes active again but his only edit is to blank his talk page. The point is raised in IRC that he's broken some 'policy' and should have known he may only archive warnings (ridiculous!). I plead with User:Editor at Large not to take any action unless the IP returns to vandalism. It could be a different user - and WP:BITE applies. Despite that Editor at large replaces the warnings and adds a big nasty threatening template. [2] (didn't somone nuke those things?). I ask him to stop, it and revert his template. But without further ado, I am reverted by User:Shreshth91. I'm no going to editwar on this, so I'm bringing it here.

It is one thing replacing warnings on the page of an active vandal, but, after 5 days and no further vandalism, we need to uphold WP:BITE and also consider that it may be an innocent user on the same IP. We get confused innocents on OTRS all the time asking about nasty warnings. I made these points on IRC but was told that the IP broken policy and it needed enforced. Let's have a discussion here.--Docg 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc, the thing is that it makes it easier for editors using anti-vandal RC tools, who are warning editors on the fly. Some editors may not have the time or inclination or knowledge to check the history of the talk page for warnings, and this may create misconceptions for punitive action. If you weigh in the pros and cons, while removal of warnings may create some problems, keeping them there will facilitate transparency, and easily let people know about past activities of the user without going into the history/contribs. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If you stumble across a blank but created IP usertalk page, then check its history before warning or blocking. If you've not time to do that - then I respectfully suggest that you haven't time to do RCP properly. Don't invent policies and then enforce them with nasty warnings because that is convenient for RC people.--Docg 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Now really, if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself, and this doesn't really look that threatening to constitute WP:BITE. Archiving pages only means more trouble for blocking administrators, so this should not be supported in any form. Any such policy on archiving pages / removing warnings would only cause more process problems. I have welcomed the user, by the way. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
" ... if the IP wants to edit constructively, he will get an account for himself ... ". Absolutely ;not;. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that forces users to acquire an account. IP users should not be dealt with any differently to registered users. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not creating a new policy here. As I have said above, it is my job to make it easier for users to work here. Kindly do not accuse me of biting newbies, or of making up "nasty warnings", without rationale. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, someone nuked those things, but they're presently on DRV. The question is whether making the job slightly easier for recent change patrol warrants being incivil to newbies and revert warring to keep old warning templates on their talk page. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of either of this, but it has happened. Since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, neither should warnings supposed to be (semi-) permanent black marks. The idea that you may only 'archive' your talk page in a certain way would be instruction creep. >Radiant< 12:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Shreshth, Doc did not accuse you of biting newbies. He suggested that you should bear WP:BITE in mind before leaping to punish an IP user when the IP address was used five days earlier for vandalism. I don't know if you're aware of this, but IP addresses are not necessarily static. Proto::type 12:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Shreshth91, forget what is 'easy' for you for a moment and focus on what you are doing here. User gets a warning. They read it and remove it because they don't like it. You then restore the warning. You've just edit warred. To re-insert something you know the user doesn't want to see. On their talk page. I'm sorry, but I can't see the benefits of 'easy' in not having to click on a 'history' link outweighing the 'bad' of actions which serve to greatly annoy users. Even when this is used 'correctly' (as opposed to all the times 'User A' puts a questionable or outright false warning on the page of 'User B' and then harasses them to keep it there) it is a net negative. --CBD 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, okay - I get it. Let's not make a big deal of a samll thing. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here's the AN discussion, and here's the DRV. --bainer (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy "Nobby" Norton[edit]

Why the f*** do people think this is a hoax?? are you mad??? --Cotnress 15:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for undeleting an article. The correct place is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Kavadi carrier 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like our new user created PERCYNOBBYNORTON with the infamous briefs picture. Block Cotnress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) please. Kavadi carrier 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
And Bexy3-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) as well - both trolling DRV [3]. Kavadi carrier 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Both of the above are indefblocked. Also, User:Bpazolli promoted himself to admin this morning by adding the admin template to his user page and adding himself to the admin list, and is now indefblocked as well. Based on the IPs, all the Nobby vandals appear to be the same person. I suggest a Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore approach if any more get created, in accordance with WP:DENY. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Bexy3-2 was blocked for 6 months, not indefinitely. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being undeleted. How many more times will this be re-created under new titles. I'm not going to mention them, lest WP:BEANS coming into play. --SunStar Net 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also indefblocked an impersonator account of User:Starblind (who was the blocking admin of cotnress). Syrthiss 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fys breaching probation, breaking article ban, edit warring again[edit]

User:Fys was blocked for 3RR (see Fys 3RR report, and subsequently banned for a week from editing the article:

"In accordance with the terms of your probation, you are hereby banned from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all pages which redirect to it for the period of one week." --Slowking Man 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The notice of the ban has now been removed by Fys from his talk page (see diff]), and he is back making the same disputed changes to the articles from which he is banned: see Fys contribs

The disputed changes were being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square, where Fys has just blamed everyone else for blocking him. (see diff): "A useful step to resolving the dispute might have been to unblock me earlier. A useful step to not making the dispute worse might have been to realise that I never broke the 3RR in the first place. A useful step to never having the dispute in the first place might have been to read what I wrote in this edit nearly a month ago."

Plase can someone take action to stop these disputed changes being made unilaterally?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't edited that article, or a redirect to it, that I can see. Can you provide a diff? Morwen - Talk 15:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake: he did not edit the redirects. Fys's edits have been to articles which link to that one, by editing the constituency names in those articles to point to the one he wants to split: see, for example [4], [5], [6], [7]
Whilst formally keeping within the terms of the article ban, the purpose of these edits is to remove direct links, replacing hem instead with links to a redirect. I can see no purpose in this other than as preparation for a split. Fys has refused to continue the discussion on the merits of that split. (see ).
These edits seem to me to be a form of wikilawyering: keeping with the strict terms of the ban, but not the spirit of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could another admin perhaps comment on this? Is it acceptable in this sort of situation for the banned user to do preparatory work for the article split which led to the ban being imposed? As above, that series of edits seems to me to be either WP:Wikilawyering or disruption to make a point, but maybe an admin who has considered this sort of thing before could clarify? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looks like he hasn't edited that article yet, but he posted a spurious "no personal attacks" warning on my talk page. The article ban notice has been restored on his talk page and I invite any administrator to block this user in case he removes it again. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
"Spurious" is it? Do you really want me to point to the edits and emails where you made personal attacks on me? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What a load of baloney! May I remind you that it was you who spammed my inbox with unblock demands? Provide the diffs for you shalt find none. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, looky.Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Fys for twenty-four hours for disruptive incivility and personal attacks. Comments and suggestions invited. Tom Harrison Talk 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I think this situation sucks and Brownhairedgirl is not entirely free from responsibility. Fys' recent edits are related to the issue for which he was article-banned; the issue of naming/merging/splitting St George's Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency) and Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency). However, I'm not sure why changing the name in the MP's article is wrong. It seems common sense to me that in an article about an MP, his constituency should be called whatever it was at the time the MP served, even if the name was later changed, and irrespective of what the Wikipedia article is currently called—that's one reason we have redirects. (For example, Dean P. Taylor is listed as a congressman for New York's 29th, 33rd and 31st congressional districts, even though all those districts are now obsolete and their territory is part of the 27th.)
The issue for which Fys was originally blocked and article-banned was over how to deal with a district that either was renamed or altered so significantly that is should have a separate article. Listing MP's in their proper contemporaneous districts does not seem like a problem to me and Brownhairedgirl should not have reverted them (unless they were incorrect contemporaneous names).
I suppose if he apologized to Nick and calmed down, the civility block could be lifted early. I would not lift the article ban, but I would caution Brownhairedgirl not to revert Fys on other articles unless he makes factually incorrect edits. Listing MP's according to their contemporaneous districts is not necessarily a precursor to another edit war over the district's article. Thatcher131 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure; observe that mistakes were made, shake hands all around. If there is no reason to think there will be any more disruption, there is not need for the block. Tom Harrison Talk 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Thatcher 131, I think that you may have misunderstood the situation. Maybe it would be clearer, if I highlighted the changes in this diff of Fys's edit to Lord Algernon Percy:
old link
Fys's replacement
  • [[St George, Hanover Square (UK Parliament constituency)|St George, Hanover Square]]
    (looks like this: St George, Hanover Square)
As you will see, in each case the name of the constituency is displayed as "St George, Hanover Square" (Fys removed an 's suffix, not sure if that was correct).
The substance of the dispute is that Fys claims that Westminster St George's is so significantly changed from St George, Hanover Square that it should not be in the same article; no other editor agrees, but all have agreed that Fys might be right and have sked Fys for more evidence. In the meantime, the consenus is to treat the 1918 change as a renaming rather than a new constituency, and therefore to keep the two constituencies in one article.
The current effect of Fys' edits was to repkace a link to an article with a link to a redirect. What was the purpose of that, if not as precursor to a split? The constituency name was displayed correctly before and after.
I will as you ask desist from reverting further such changes, but it does seem to me to contrary to good practice to replace a direct piped link with a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what he did, and your description is correct. I would hesitate to label it as intentional disruption; perhaps he plans to provide the necessary sources for his version and is getting ready. In the short run I would leave them alone per assuming good faith. Thatcher131 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
There were originally two articles, but BrownHairedGirl merged them. Rather than characterising Fys as wanting to split the article into two, I think it would be more accurate to say that he wants to revert the merge.
In my view, two constituencies with different names and different boundaries are prima facie different constituencies, and should be considered so unless there is a compelling case to believe otherwise. One could make such a compelling case by going to the library and having a look at the Representation of the People Act 1918, but (as usual on Wikipedia it would seem) people on both sides of the dispute would rather argue than do research.
Hesperian 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem if Fys is unblocked, provided that he ceases with his disruptive acts. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma being abusive, combative, not making good faith edits, etc[edit]

User:Shuppiluliuma has been doing numerous things, including reverting over and over, removing city names that have been discussed already, and making threats/offensive attacks such as "(do we have to kill you greeks one by one?)" in an edit summary, marking major changes as minor, and after I warned him with the 3rr template, "Well, I don't care. You people have Crusader mentality. But don't worry: Within a few centuries, we'll be back in Vienna (Never mind Greece)... So sweet dreams with the Greek names of Turkish cities." He is clearly out of control. --AW 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now he's adding nonsense to Izmir --AW 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
His unilateral re-kindling of the Greek-Turkish placenames WP:LAMEness is certainly not helpful, and much of it is "editing against consensus". I've already reverted him myself on one or two and consider myself sort of involved, otherwise I'd come myself and keep a very strict watch over editwarring on those articles. Fut.Perf. 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just happened to see this. One of his edit summaries is extremely worrying: "do we have to kill you greeks one by one?" Death threats are really not acceptable. Jakew 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on that I blocked him for 31 hours. Tom Harrison Talk 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, in the context of Byzantine Ottoman Balkanian Greco-Turkish rhetorics I doubt any of his addressees would have been likely to take that one even remotely at face value, but sure, if nothing else we must take it as a sign of a deeply unconstructive attitude to this editing dispute. Fut.Perf. 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another reminder about reversions[edit]

This has been mentioned before, but I'd like to remind everyone to be careful when reverting edits to make sure something beforehand isn't missed. When I reverted this edit on 31 May, I missed the one immediately preceding (by the same editor; I did not know at the time that popups reversions and rollback are not identical), and this person's Commission Junction link has been active for over five months! Thanks to Poetxpress (talk · contribs) for finally catching it today... :( RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, further to that, I posted a warning on the AIV talk page re a phenomenon I've seen recently, with tag team vandalism between a registered and anon user; often, the anon vandalism will be rolled back to the last registered edit, which is also vandalism. Anchoress 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

There is a lot of vandalism on the GMF page. Please take it out.

Thanx.

Tyson Moore es 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that you're referring to this, it's already been removed. Shadow1 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Geez, that IP's been prolific. --Masamage 19:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium[edit]

User:Deuterium, an editor who was extremely combative and rude, and managed to get himself blocked quite a number of times in his brief editing career, has returned as User:FuManChoo. His return became obvious when he began edit-warring over the exact same issues as before, and trolling the exact same editors he previously targetted. This is his second sockpuppet (his first was User:ANecessaryWeevil). Eventually he was caught, and, as with the previous sock, I blocked this one under this clause of WP:SOCK:

Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.

He then claimed he had lost the password to his original account, and wanted to be unblocked because he now "admitted" he was Deuterium. Well, actually, he demanded to be unblocked, many times, along with various other abusive statements. I offered to try to get him mailed a new password, but he insisted it had to be the new account, not the old one.

At this point, I'm thinking that not much good can come from this editor, and that a ban might be in order. What do others think? Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that a ban is in order. In the interest of full disclosure, I tangled with User:Deuterium myself when he was kept posting my user name on his user page and so I may not be the most neutral party to be making suggestions about his fate. How many blocks does he have in total? I ask because I think a "community ban" is something that should not be applied lightly. (Netscott) 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
He was blocked twice in April, soon after he started editing. He then disappeared, returning in late July. He was then blocked 3 times in August. He did not edit after August. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Given that an offer to restore his account has been made we don't need to think about banning. If he accepts that option then it will become relevant. Until then, block all socks on sight per the above clause. JoshuaZ 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's mostly making demands IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS on his Talk: page, insisting he did nothing wrong, and calling me a liar. I'm feeling very unmotivated about helping him at this point. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopiakuta[edit]

Hopiakuta has been blocked by Centrx, who claimed he did some vandalism. I looked at Hopiakuta's contributions and he didn't vandalize anything. He requested to be unblocked, and i think he's getting a bit angry for this treatment. The difference is located here. Another editor reverted Centrx actions, proving that Hopiakuta didn't vandalize. Canderous Ordo 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

UNFanatic[edit]

THIS IS THE 4th TIME UNFanatic HAS UPLOADED THIS HATE IMAGE AFTER IT HAS BEEN DELETED 5 TIMES! A BLACK X THROUGH A NATIONAL FLAG SHOULD NEVER BE TOLERATED! PLEASE TAKE ACTION 250px --MCMLXXI 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. Next time, please do not use all capital letters when typing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Or bold your entire statement...or demand that action be taken...--InShaneee 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's obnoxious nature made me worry what else he was up to. It turns out he's only got about a dozen edits, including signing as another user. Anyone else smell a sock? --InShaneee 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Definately. The "no crossed off flags" bit was solely practiced by User:ROGNNTUDJUU!, a known and blocked sockpuppet. 68.39.174.238 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Move war at Beit Hanoun-related article[edit]

The article Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is only eleven hours young, but has already been moved eight times, back and forth from Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident to Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre. The result of this is that the article is Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, while the corresponding talk page is Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 massacre. I've issued a final warning on the article's talk page: Whoever moves the article again before consensus has been reached on the talk page, will be blocked for 24 hours. However, it's night over here in Europe, so I'm asking for the assistance of other admins to make sure that this move war stops. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for input: I've blocked Burgas00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 24 hours per the above warning. I have deliberately not moved the page back, so that others wouldn't have the opportunity to drag me into the dispute and claim I am involved (I've seen too much of that lately). Humus sapiens (talk · contribs) now says on the article's talk page that "by not reverting the title back to NPOV, we are rewarding such behavior." So should the article be moved back, or not? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
comment:why don't you block him(Runed Chozo)? you said Whoever moves the page again before consensus has been reached, will be blocked for 24 hours. Anyone. Even if you move it back to the current title. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC) --Nielswik(talk) 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've move-protected the article until a consensus can be reached; this article shouldn't be a block-trap for editors. By the way, it appears that Runed Chozo has indeed been blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld[edit]

Much as I feel its a last resort sprotecting articles linked of the main page, like Saddam's article earlier this week Rumsfelds has gone totally off the chart. In the previous 3 hours its had over 250 edits - and AT LEAST 20 vandalism reverts - and that was just glacing up the history page quickly.

So, FYI, its sprotected. :)  Glen  23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mrpainkiller7 -> Disruption, impersonation.[edit]

Someone is likely evading a one week block imposed on him for personal attacks. He's doing it by causing mild distruptions (like this [8]) while impersonating someone else. I suppose he's just trolling, so I'm reporting it here for admin attention. Jean-Philippe 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've opened a report on this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mrpainkiller7 as the user is using socks in an abusive manner to harass and impersonate me and circumvent his one week block. --Neurophyre(talk) 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

24.218.212.136 Vandalism at page Saudi Arabia[edit]

At the history page for Saudi Arabia, it can be seen that the user 24.218.212.136 has vandalized the page thrice already on 9 November 2006 0737h, 8 November 2006 1023h, and 8 November 2006 1020h, which was quickly reverted by Mcorazao and myself. In the talk page, it has been suggested also that Saudi Arabia be locked for edits due to the vast number of occurences it has been heavily vandalized. -P. Rodriguez 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Next time please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (shortcut: WP:RFP). ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Account compromised?[edit]

I suspect that User:Eixo's account has been compromised. I've never encountered this user before, but Eixo appears to be a productive editor (he/she even has barnstars and has contributed to featured articles). However, Eixo has vandalized George Allen (U.S. politician) several times today.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I think a block needs to be put in place until this can be sorted out, because the vandalism hasn't stopped despite warnings. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Naconkantari blocked him. --Coredesat 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Beer mug icon.jpg This user is drunk.

Hmm... very interesting. —freak(talk) 05:27, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

I could easily see valued contributers becoming vandals when they're drunk. Grandmasterka 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that that userbox was added on August 31st. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More problems on Myron Wolf Child[edit]

IP making legal threats and claiming copyright infringement on talk page. JChap2007 02:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment of users and talk page vandalism[edit]

Not sure if this should go to the vandalism page or the PA page so I'm putting it here for the notice of admins.A user User:Nadirali has been rather disruptive on Talk:India with communally loaded statements[14], some of which he he copy-pasted from a hate-site[15]. He was reprimanded for copyvio and vandalism by other users[16][17] but he persisted nonetheless with harrassment of User:Fowler&fowler[18]. Hkelkar 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Borderline personal attacks by GoodCop[edit]

Had I chanced across GoodCop (talk · contribs) in any other way, I would have long since given them a warning about avoiding commenting on editors and borderline violations of WP:NPA (like this one). As it is, I only know about them and their editing habits because they voiced a bizarre opposition in my RfA and I tried to figure out where we'd crossed paths. (I still can't figure that one out.) Out of concerns of conflict of interest and inexperience, so close to my RfA, I'm going to ask that someone else review this user's edits. — Saxifrage 06:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have a tendancy to see any disagreement with his own POV as a personal attack and/or vandalism. And he seems to have more than a few fringe beliefs. I didn't see anything that justifies admin intervention, at the moment. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to report him. I removed a couple of what appeared to be highly POV comments [19] from the Racial realism article, and he reverted my edit calling it "POV vandalism". I reverted it back putting the reasons in my edit summary, then he reverted my edits again accusing me of "POV vandalism" once more, libeling "neutral-fact restorers", and violating Wikipedia policy. - JScott06 07:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your summary of the situation. His comments are wrong and his behaviour is inappropriate, but you should still try talking to him first, on his talk page. Give him a chance, even if you think he won't take it. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was wrong when I advised you to talk to GoodCop, but not because it was the wrong thing to do but because it was the right thing for exactly one person to do, either you or me, but not both of us. Live and learn. Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
<sarcasm>This user is clearly on the verge of being a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia. If only he had a few more strikes before people gave up on him.</sarcasm> JBKramer 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a process we should go through before we escalate. Sometimes things can be resolved through talking. And sometimes the attempt to talk makes the full situation clearer for those that we escalate to. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm being attacked by him as well. He seems unaware of WP:NPA. --Ronz 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, yes, GoodCop doesn't understand NPA. But in an odd sort of way, he's not trying to attack us. He's actually trying to defend himself from threats that only he can see. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Does the warning they have at the top of their talk page and their characteristic response[20] qualify as "unresponsive" to the community? They seem to have attempted to armour themselves against any disagreement at all. — Saxifrage 19:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I would think a 24 hour block would be warranted for calling Ben a psychopath in that diff. Does anyone think it would be improper if I did so? — Saxifrage 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
See the thread below. I blocked for 24h, personally I think that's lenient under the circumstances and if anyone wants to extend it they should do so. I also left a note on his Talk noting WP:NPA and WP:NLT. Guy 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hope against hope that it helps. Life is bigger than Wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I'm still getting used to the way multiple sections sometimes crop up here for the same subject. RTFP for me... — Saxifrage 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be too harsh on yourself. If I read correctly, JzG posted 4 minutes after you did. I think you've handled the whole situation well. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

High-speed page blanker[edit]

Sorry to bring this up here, but Danfifepsu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been mass page blanking for a number of days now. The person was blocked yesterday for 24 hours and as soon as the block expired resumed the same behavior. I have reported this to WP:AIV over 20 minutes ago but no one is watching that page at the moment. Yamaguchi先生 07:37, 9 November 2006

Alkivar blocked him indef. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ulster Defence Association[edit]

Could an admin look at this talk page. I've reverted the addition made today, but I think it should be rolled back. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. Morwen - Talk 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Bluebot[edit]

User:Bluebot is adding {{uncategorized}} to lots of pages that are already sorted stubs, and therefore have a category. Not only do they have the stub category itself, but the stub can be a sub-category of a non-stub category as well. This is not something listed as an a recognized task on WP:RBOT and the bot does not follow WP:BOT#Good form by halting when a message is added to the talk page. I am requesting a block until this issue can be discussed. Grouse

Never mind, I am in error about the bot not halting or being in bad form, being confused by time zones ;). I retract the request. My apologies for implying bad form. Grouse 12:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Akaneon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Can some Admins have a look at this talk page and the arguments ensuing within - you may be aware of them, not sure. I came across them by accident, but I find his argumentative approach extremely worrying - along with all the other accusations floating around that page. ViridaeTalk 11:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just ahd a look at the page and noticed several administrators names. You may ignore this :). ViridaeTalk 12:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I just indefintely blocked him. Yanksox 12:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Akaneon seems to be making some WP:POINT AfD nominations as retaliation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akaneon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with user who refuses to communicate[edit]

What can be done about an anonymous Wikipedia user who keeps deleting the same section of an entry day after day and replacing it with text that contains original research with no cited sources?

I have started a discussion on the page the person keeps posting the article to and have encouraged the person to join in on the discussion, but he/she has not replied after an entire week of this. I have also left several messages on the person’s user talk page which have been ignored. See user talk

By consensus opinion with other Wikipedia editors working with me on this entry, I have reverted this article daily for the past three or four days running.

I have attempted to have the page placed in "semi-protection" status twice, but have had my requests denied because the person felt that what was taking place is an "editing war" and not vandalism. While that assessment may be correct, I am at a loss here as to how else one could describe what the person is doing.

And what would be the remedy for resolving an "editing war" when the person in question refuses to communicate?

Any suggestions? I’m new at editing here and have not had any luck finding anything that addresses this situation anyplace else.

The Wikipedia entry in question is: Zodiac Killer

Thanks. Labyrinth13 14:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is in fact a legitimate argument for semi-protecting an article, and Durova seems to have done so in response to your posting here. For your future reference, attempting to contact them via the article talk page and their was entirely appropriate (if apparently unsuccessful). That is the proper and encouraged method of attempting to resolve edit conflicts. If the other party doesn't respond, we we describe it with the term "Sterile edit war", where people make changes back and forth without discussing or posting to talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

prboable (old) evasion[edit]

suspect annon 124.183.230.177 was User_talk:Premier evading a block (for evading a block) based on ([21] and [22]; is that best way to ref this?) dates and similarities in choice of topics.

then more recently this, ahem, robust sock puppetry(?) 124.183.172.88 who seems to be [23] doing the nastier bits for premier. as u can see i'm rather involved in this, i only wish to complaining about the s p.   bsnowball 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazon affiliate spam[edit]

I recently had a request [24] at the site-wide spamlist denied[25]. Could we have a block on 217.106.166.* ? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The contributions are here btw: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]
Note that one of the anons (.17) tried to blank this section. Kavadi carrier 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I support this rangeblock request, but am not comfortable enough with rangeblocking to do it. Can an admin assist here please. — Moondyne 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Alphachimp 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


User:7T7 and move vandalism[edit]

Notice, I didn't link his name...

I think I reverted some complex move vandalism involving British West Indies. If the history of the talk page doesn't look right, feel free to delete and/or undelete pages. I think I moved it and then moved the redirect over it. I only blocked him for a hour, which block is probably now up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

An administrator has advised me to post my concerns here. I have been involved in an ongoing edit dispute in Selig Percy Amoils regarding verifiable information and style issues. I have discussed the issues with the other editor in Talk:Selig Percy Amoils and have requested second and third opinions in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Selig Percy Amoils, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Selig Percy Amoils. I have largely ignored insults from him, but he has recently began posting in articles in which I contribute to and just posted on my Talk page what I perceive to be a personal attack: User talk:AED/Archive 2#Wikipedia terrorism. Could you advise what my next step should be? Thanks again! -AED 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikitester (talk · contribs)[edit]

I have encountered this new user. His/her username gives me some concern about his/her motives. I left a welcome, and suggested that s/he pick another username. I recommend not blocking per {{UsernameBlocked}}: if s/he is here to "test the Wiki" it will be much easier to manage if s/he edits using this username! I will be going offline soon, and I would appreciate it if other admins can just keep an eye on it. --RobertGtalk 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the block log first next time? I already blocked before you posted this. If you want to change that, its up to you. pschemp | talk 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion[edit]

Merchbow (talk · contribs) seems to be using Calsicol (talk · contribs) for the purposes of vote rigging at CFD see: [64] where Merchbow changes the signature after Calsicol replied by mistake on Merchbow's talk page. Concerning when Calsicol then turns up to vote on Merchbow's proposed deletion of Category:Anti-French people [65]. Tim! 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reported to Indian Head, Saskatchewan[edit]

User PhatD is continually vandalizing the page for Indian Head, Saskatchewan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head%2C_Saskatchewan Thanks for your attention to this matter. Headtale 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Firehose needed at Ascended Master[edit]

The saffron crowd and the snark patrol (I'm in the latter group) are going at it without approaching a consensus. - Richfife 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate is to esoteric for me. :) pschemp | talk 19:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a pretty bitter content dispute, but a content dispute all the same. --InShaneee 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Misuly[edit]

This user linkspammed his site "Fantastic Reviews" over a number of author articles. Would be grateful if someone with the tools could roll-back his edits. CRCulver 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Second spam warning issued. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Query about WP:AUTO and WP:Harassment[edit]

Evidence has emerged that a user who is editting a biography page may actually be the person in question. When posted the question as to whether the user was the person in question, he demanded I remove it per WP:Harassment. Could I get some administrator opinions on this matter? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, ScienceApologist 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction: This is a misrepresentation. The above user (ScienceApologist) is attempting to rescue himself from a discussion of his own problematic editing behavior at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, especially here. He has no evidence of the sort he claims, and in fact, it is not I but he who has a history of improper editing on the biography page in question. He is engaged in harassment for purposes of diversion. Thank you, Asmodeus 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus, knock it off. I've already told you you have a WP:AUTO problem and that SA didn't do anything wrong. JoshuaZ 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an onlooker (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user has created a numerous new accounts: Vegetarian Friend (talk · contribs), Vegetables76 (talk · contribs), Veggies for life (talk · contribs), and Vegetarian Friend (talk · contribs) to continually dodge the 3RR rule and revert changes I've made (and properly sourced) on the Vegetarianism article (sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.) This user has a history of sockpuppet use [66] to circumvent policy and avoid scrutiny from other editors. The user has also engaged in making uncivil remarks to both myself and Davidjk in the process. Note that one of the users current puppets AndyCanada was just recently blocked for violation of the 3RR rule. Thanks. Yankees76 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks I can find, leaving the puppeteer (User:Messenger2010) unblocked, but perhaps a ban on this user would be appropriate. So what's the next step? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Activity by banned user[edit]

User:Irismeister has apparently created a sock, User:Eerie is meister, which I have blocked indefinitely. I'm not familiar with his case; does his one-year ban "reset" each time he breaks it? If so, the ban clock should be reset. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's blocked indefinitely due to legal threats. See his user talk page for more information. 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

UNFONE problems[edit]

I just received the following email:

Hello, I am emailing you just to mention something. My name is Daniel Rigby. I happen to be the topic of the article I mentioned in my subject (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rigby>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rigby). I just want to mention a few things. I, along with Charles Phllips (bobsfoot, UNFONE, [and additional sock puppets he created following the format of UNF#]) work for the University of North Florida. I would prefer it if you would revert the topic link and the contents of the article to its state before Charles edited them. I can do the version myself, but I can’t change the topic I believe. I already reverted on of the topics Charles edited before (article on metrosexual, if you look in the history, you will notice the edits by bobsfoot [Charles] and the subsequent suspension of his account). You will also notice that the image used in the edit of metrosexual is the same image used in the topic he made about me under Daniel Rigby. The photo itself is a photo shopped image of Mark Smith, a third coworker of ours. Finally, you should be able match the ips of UNFONE to the same as those used by bobsfoot to edit the metrosexual entry (further proof the UNFONE account is a sock puppet) since Charles tends to use the same computer at work to vandalize wikipedia. Anyway, I usually don’t care enough to do anything about it, but I’d prefer an entirely bogus entry (Yes he made up everything in that article) with my name on it not stay on wikipedia. While Charles may not have much faith in wikipedia I do, and I would prefer it stay a good source of correct information (I use it all the time). Thanks for your time.

Looks like sock and vandal problems... Grutness...wha? 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Yannakis[edit]

I first noticed him when he redirected Macedonians (ethnic group) to the article for Bulgarians, which was the first edit on the account. He's now gone on to remove information from myriad articles without making any comments on the Talk page. Still no productive edits from the username. When I put the vw tag on his Talk page, he accused me of being the vandal. CRCulver 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He's now reverting my reverts which had return the articles to the earlier, consensus version. His edit commentaries are aping mine. CRCulver 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like he's just removing words in languages other than English, which is fairly standard procedure. Instead of shouting vandal at eachother, you should discuss whether or not those place-name translations add value to the articles they're in.
Yannakis, please do not remove this section. Whether or not it's the best way to do things, it is definitely not vandalism.--Masamage 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked. Although it's possible he's acting in good faith somehow, so I've asked him to explain himself. -- Steel 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he most likely is. A lot of articles start with "Someword (blah in French, blorp in Spanish, blumph in German)," which is not something we're supposed to do in the English-language WP without very good reason which is pointed out within the article.
I really, really hate to see people get so excited about catching someone else doing something wrong that they completely skip over the "discuss the issue" step.
Incidentally, CRCulver, you're at three reverts for the day on at least one of those, so be careful that you don't get blocked too. --Masamage 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The guy was an obvious sockpuppet of some banned user, probably User:Mywayyy, like several others that have been plaguing these articles recently. And the matter of what foreign names to include in these articles has been discussed extensively. Fut.Perf. 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
'Kay. --Masamage 06:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel[edit]

Let me be clear: I'm not sure he requires a block yet, although I have made several attempts over the last few weeks to explain to this user how Wikipedia operates and how he is expected to participate. However, I'm hesitant to start with a long drawn-out RfC, mediation cabal, or ArbCom case because I think he honestly believes that he is following policy, and a short sharp shock to show him that what he is doing is indeed in violation of community norms may be sufficient to get him to change his ways. That said:

About a week ago, I accepted an AMA case between User:Yajaec and User:Folken de Fanel. The two users were involved in a content dispute regarding the Saint Seiya and Gemini Saga articles. As an advocae for Yajaec, I contacted Folken de Fanel and requested that, until a community consensus could be reached regarding their dispute, they both agree to stop editing the article. Yajaec had already agreed to do that (his agreement to do so and article history which shows that he abided by that).

Folken de Fanel then proceeded to post on the Advocacy Case discussion area explaining his side of the story. He also made a comment ("Without these 2 elements, I won't let him edit." - diff showing comment) which led me to be believe that he might be claiming ownership of the articles in question, in violation of WP:OWN. He also accused Yajaec of "vandalism" for good-faith edits which Folken de Fanel believed to be containing false information.

After this, Yajaec, with my assistance, filed an RfC to request community input to solve the content dispute. Folken de Fanel claimed that it was "unnecessary", and asserted that he had proved his case and so there was no need to seek a consensus.

Over the next week, I posted a series of comments on Folken de Fanel's talk page explaining to him how Wikipedia works, how disputes over content are resolved, and what is and is not "vandalism". I repeated this several times--and others have told me, informally, that I was clear and concise and correct in my points. Folken de Fanel, in his responses on User talk:Kmweber#dispute over Saint Seiya merely reiterated his initial position and continued to refer to Yajaec as a "POV-pushing vandal" despite his clear good-faith actions to resolve the dispute properly, with community consensus. In my final two comments on his talk pages, I cited the specific policies he was violating and asked him to please stop, and pointed out that he could be blocked if he persists--in his last message, in which he requested that I contact him no further concerning this matter (a request I intend to honor), in addition to repeating the same assertions he claimed that my warnings that he may be subject to a block constituted "threats" and "personal attacks".

Anyway, like I said above I'm not sure a block is in order--perhaps someone could do a better job than I in explaining his errors and misunderstandings to him; on the other hand, as he honestly believes that what he is doing is in accord with Wikipedia policies and community norms, perhaps a "short sharp shock" will show him that he is not more than any argument could. Kurt Weber 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Vader99[edit]

This user has vandalized the Xbox 360 and Wii pages several times. I don't think this user had contributed anything positive to Wikipedia. There were multiple warnings on the user's talk page. Scepia 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked: for 24 hours. semper fiMoe 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive move warring[edit]

User:Tekleni unleashed a mind-boggling move war over List of unrecognized countries which he frivolously moves to self-invented POV titles, such as List of separatist regimes. Then he made a bad-faith edit to keep the article from being moved back. I suggest the article should be restored to its traditional name and move-protected. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This move made in a bad faith attempt to force the POV without consensus being reached at talk needs reverted as per the ArbCom ruling about such dirty trick moves with addition of artificial history. ArbCom ruled on that in AndriyK case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves.)

Tekleni (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) and MariusM (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) (see this move of the same article earlier today) should be warned in strongest possible terms (perhaps blocked) for bad faith multiple times moving of the article especially the provocative addition of history.

Just today, MariusM noved the article once and Tekleni moved this article twice and when his first move against concensus was reverted and it was explained that unilateral moves are not to allowed. [He moved the article again to an inflammatory name and added artificial history to the move AndriyK style! --Irpen 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the dirty-salted redirect and move-protected at original title. All parties, please take this to a regular WP:RM debate. Fut.Perf. 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hallo! This user is real vandal: 194.144.111.210[edit]

Please block 194.144.111.210. This user to wage edit war, all users reverted this edition [67]. This user have many caution in discussion [68]. PS. WP:3RR. LUCPOL 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Many % edits from this user is editwars or 3RR. See: [69] - all 17 editions --> 13! editions is edit war or/and 3RR. LUCPOL 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

the US Senate is vandalising the Donald Rumsfeld article![edit]

Donald Rumsfeld was fishing off the coast of Melbourne in 2002 when he came across a great white shark. The shark attempted to drag the entire boat under water, but Rumsfeld jumped into the water, killed the beast, and ate it raw. Thus, he has become a great white shark that can walk on land but uses the human appearance in order to avoid frightening children.

They're already on two warnings! Hysterical! :)  Glen  17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh shit, this just takes the cake! Buddy you have balls! Nice  Glen  17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to encourage vandalism, but it's great to see somebody at the Senate has a sense of humour! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe from the usertalk page that it's the House of Representatives, not the Senate. Note the request here that the Foundation be notified immediately if this address is blocked. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Silly Representatives... This is better than me issuing warnings to the Belgian Parliament! Shadow1 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Expect a "Free Editing For All" bill decreeing an end to blocks and bans on freely-editable websites to appear on the schedule when the next sitting starts. The representative who proposes it is probably our perp... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably some staffer either celebrating or drowning their sorrows... 68.39.174.238 22:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request removal of inappropriate edit[edit]

Could an administrator remove this edit - [70] - from the edit history for Randy Forbes? The edit is blank, but the description is absolutely horrible. Thanks. BigDT 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done by Naconkantari @ 06:31, November 10, 2006. [71] Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 06:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! BigDT 17:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Sockpuppet block[edit]

Grazon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is now a confirmed puppet-master. I'd like to request a block of his puppet Devilmaycares (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). If a admin wishes to slosh though a bunch of diffs you'll see the disruptive editing patterns at a RFC I filed. I think there's ample reason to long-term block the main account too, but I'll leave that to the judgement of those who aren't involved. ---J.S (t|c) 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Propose community ban. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) was last straw for me. To the best of my knowledge (anecdotal), HH is already banned on he:wiki. - crz crztalk 16:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Got a bit narky with User:Yanksox on Yanksox's talk page about an article he deleted. Then it seems that Haham tried to get the guideline everyone referred to in the AfD deleted? Excellent. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I think it'd be better to send this to be dealt by ArbCom instead. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • W/ such an extensive block log, i also agree. -- Szvest 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
    • I can't speak about his/her past history, but I don't see a violation of rules or guidelines recently. I would not endorse a ban. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • With that many block log entries... I think we can all agree he violated the rules numerous times. I really question whether or not recentness really matters... very few repeated rules violaters ever clean up their act and stop being a pain in the ass. Opinionated users remain opinionated, and this guy repeatedly goes around his blocks to continue his ranting. I think I'm gonna have to support an RFAr if one is put forth.  ALKIVAR 18:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Considering I was the closing admin on that guideline MFD, I also support sending Haham hanuka to ArbCom. --Coredesat 20:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Community patience has been worn out, but I do endorse taking this to Arbcom. Yanksox 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that haham hanuka has been indefinitely blocked from the Hebrew Wikipedia. The protected user page reads: "haham hanuka is an internet troll... El_C 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support a possible Arb, though I'd have to see the evidence to really see if it was possible. It's annoying how he comes along every few weeks to attempt to whitewash the Adolf Hitler article, then disappears with nary a word. However, the block log is poor evidence for a community ban, as he hasn't been blocked in four months. --Golbez 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I support an Arbcom. He recently twice deleted part of the Yigal Amir article (second time even using the edit summary rv trolling! [72]) even though there was a consensus to keep that part. I did not have time, energy and interest in reporting him so no further action were taken. I want to enjoy myself more while I am here. He also keeps watering down articles on Hitler and the Holocaust. In general he pays no respect to community decisions and consensus. gidonb 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, the talk page of that article contains a lot of information about the user. gidonb 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, now that it seems that the consensus is to go to arbitration, who's going to officially file the request? Scobell302 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user may request arbitration; you don't have to be an involved party. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Punch-up brewing at CFD[edit]

A bucket of cold water needs to be hurled at various editors of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Female life peers - claims and counterclaims of vote deletion and vandalism; looks like this needs watching. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As one of the protagonists, I can point out that we have even had user:nonomy ppuring out barrages of personal abuse, and making two attempts to move ALL of the oppose votes off to a separate CFD (see this diff for one instance).
The whole CFD should in any case have been closed at the outset as an abuse of the CFD process, because it seeks to strike out a category contrary to existing guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I keep looking over that diff, but I don't see a single removal of a keep vote. Grouse 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I got the wrong diff :(
Anyway, at 17:50, 9 November 2006 here's the votes before Nonomy's restructuring: 3 deletes, 4 keeps
... and at 20:15, 9 November 2006 here's the votes after nonomy has been at work: 3 deletes, no keeps (all the keeps have been moved off to a separate CFD, below).
That's aside from the current state of the CFD, hich has split out the male-only categories, and kept the female-only ones. The vore-deleting nominator claims that it is bad faith to remove a male-only gendered category, but a great idea to remove a female-only one.
How often do we have to go through all this? The only gendered categories that I know of comply with Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations, but there is a hard core of dissidents who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the guidelines and press CFDs on a regular basis This is the third CFD in a few months to remove a women legislators in the UK category :( --BrownHairedGirl