Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive171

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Zephram Stark sockpuppet[edit]

A new sockpuppet of Zephram Stark (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appears to be active. The Mirror of the Sea (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). He restored Coving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to an old ZS version. Separately, Grace Note is defending his edits with perhaps inappropriate vigor.[1] -Will Beback · · 02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be "appropriate" to let me know you've written about me here? I don't have this page on my (very short) watchlist and I only know you wrote here because I suspected you would, rather than just let a minor issue go, seek to extend a conflict as far as possible. Why you think that is a better course than just letting the article stand is a mystery to me. There is nothing inappropriate about my defending the edit. I think it is useful. I don't know what went on with Zephram Stark. I know that editors I trust were opposed to him and I have some idea that he was pushing a POV. I had some idea of an ongoing engagement because he edited pages I have edited or looked at, but I don't usually read these long unfocused narratives that some people on those pages indulge in. I don't really have any awareness of his goodness or badness, or take any sides in the conflict, except, as I noted, that I know he was opposed by editors I trust. That is all.
But the article seems interesting to me. I think it can and should be allowed to live, regardless its provenance. Destroying interesting articles because of who wrote them doesn't seem a good idea. If Will has a problem with the content, he could perhaps focus on that. Otherwise, we seem just to have an extension of personal conflict that doesn't serve the encyclopaedia. As I say, I don't watch this page, and frankly, the days in which I was interested in pointless fighting over issues that neither I nor the other combatants are particularly interested in are long gone, so this is all I have to say about it. Grace Note 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The article appears to consist almost entirely of unverifiable original research, which, as I recall, was the original objection to it as well. Has something dramatically changed since it was last re-directed in August? Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it has, the practice of coving has been peer reviewed in the New York Times and other notable publications concerning topics such as these, seems its reputation is growing--Edchilvers 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough, though, currently only two sentences in the article have citations. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but in these two citations you will find most of what has been written in the Wiki article. I just didn't see the point of putting the two exact same citations at various points in the article. The article was probably written by the guy who invented the process to be honest, yet the fact that it may have started out as original research does not deter from the actuality of it having garnered quite a large following since--Edchilvers 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Some good references have been added and some OR and unreferenced stuff removed. To Grace Note - nothing wrong with removing unreferenced stuff and OR. --Duk 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Zephram Stark. Thanks. — Mirror of the Sea Something To Say? 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, perhaps not, but you certainly are the indefinitely blocked vandal account User:The Iceman Cometh. That's gotta count for something, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wot, no block? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked the The Mirror of the Sea account and marked it as a The Iceman Cometh sock. -Will Beback · · 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JohnJohnJohnJohn[edit]

This is a repost from 2 days ago, with addendum. The previous post didn't really receive any attention.

Fraslet (talk · contribs) recently brought my attention to the fact that JohnJohnJohnJohn (talk · contribs), whose editing has certainly raised a few eyebrows, was possibly operating Orchardbank (talk · contribs) and Johnowenlangham (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets. John has now asserted that Orchardbank is in fact Malcolm Nicol, a Conservative Party councillor from Polmont, a town in Scotland which John comes from and has repeatedly made disruptive and bizarre edits in connection with. John also claims that, were that the case, Image:MalcolmNicol.jpg could be legimately licensed as GFDL-self by Orchardbank. Orchardbank has also made edits about Mr. Nicol, including this rather aggrandizing effort: [2]. I don't know if this is ready for a WP:RFCU, but I think it has become important to establish exactly what the real situation is here.

Since then Patstuart (talk · contribs) has placed a suspected impersonator / sock tag of no less than Willy on Wheels on John's userpage - I find it unlikely that John has even heard of WoW but stranger things have happened - and Mikkalai (talk · contribs) reverted this edit [3] by Johnowenlangham to Orchardbank's talk. What is the story here? Deizio talk 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Norm[edit]

Some vandal has decided that the departed User Norm (talk · contribs) is Willy on Wheels, and is repeatedly showing up with new accounts to vandalize User talk:Norm to that effect. I have reverted the Talk page to the last version left by Norm, and have protected the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like something WoW would do to some user for kicks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have also protected User:Norm because it has been receiving similar attacks. -- tariqabjotu 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Check this out. [4]. Most interesting. He registered the account in 2004, and is right NOW using it for WoW vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect account compromize. It wasn't very long ago blank passwords were allowed by the system. 68.39.174.238 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I wondered about that too; it's so out-of-character considering Norm's contributions elsewhere. Anyway I reverted all the damage on Commons. Seems like there aren't many people watching over there. Antandrus (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That's for sure. I'm amazing some things aren't more disoriented then they are; I've had some nasty runins with that in the past. 68.39.174.238 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Norm was also used on Wikinews for vandalism. After two pagemoves I blocked it. MESSEDROCKER 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Countdown timer[edit]

Is there any way someone could glance at Countdown timer? It sure reads like advertising to me, but the creator keeps removing speedy delete tags on it. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong, but think it needs someone else's eyes on it at this point. 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Gwernol for the help! Philippe Beaudette 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Spacetimefilms[edit]

Spacetimefilms (talk · contribs) added a couple of articles on films. You'll never guess the name of the production company... Guy (Help!) 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it Columbia Pictures? :3—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparent inappropriate disruption in reply to a CheckUser request[edit]

About to sleep, have been looking at this but can't follow up. User looks like he's disrupting WP:RFCU (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Art Dominique) and User talk:Husond, in response to that RFCU linked. Would appreciate if an admin investigated/kept an eye on it. Thanks. – Chacor 17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gives the checkuser clerks something to do :) Thatcher131 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athelete arrests[edit]

Just wanted to get more eyes watching this, as it's starting to get absurdly bogged down in disruption, sockpuppetry, vandal removal of other users' comments, etc. Postdlf 04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with anonymous editor on List of anime conventions, Anime South, and Tsubasacon[edit]

I would like to request administrator review over a situation I am having with an anonymous editor on three articles. The problems first occurring on Christmas weekend when the anonymous editor inserted a wikilink to Anime South onto List of anime conventions. I removed the link because it didn't meat the criteria listed at the top of the talk and summarized in the lead of the article. The anonymous editor kept inserting the link back in and made several excuses on the talk page as to why this convention should receive an exception before finally saying that the criteria is irrelevant.

During the same time, I also tagged several anime convention articles with the {{unreferenced}} or similar tags, one of which was on Anime South.[5] Later the anonymous editor changed the wording in a sentence that made it clearly speculative,[6] which I then removed.[7] After that, the anonymous editor restored the speculative statement and removed the referenced tag, which I reverted.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

The anonymous editor has also gone to Tsubasacon and put up an {{unreferenced}} tag,[15] which I requested another editor familiar with anime conventions to review.[16] so that I can avoid a WP:COI. After his removed the tag and added some sources, [17] the anonymous editor removed the sources and restored the unreferenced tag.[18]

This has came to the point were I think the anonymous editor is now being disruptive. I originally thought s/he was an Anime South staffer until after I found this topic on the Anime South forums yesterday. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate the uncooperative-ness of these individuals (or person):
These self-righteous wiki editors have formed a group supporting each other so they don't get 3RR. We need to join up and form a posse of our own to fight the same way they do. Are you in? -Animesouth 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Blatantly admitting to wanting to violating policy. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible ID of anonymous editor[edit]

It has came to my attention that the anonymous editor may be Marcyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who may also use a second account Animesouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). known IPs used by the anonymous editor: 68.1.77.61, 68.1.73.33, 68.63.22.57, 68.1.74.54, 68.1.78.129. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may also be wished to be pointed out that Tjstriker (talk · contribs) is likely included. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the person has a weird habit of not signing their comments, and removing any signed comments that are added by other users. It is beyond me why this person does this. I have seen edits from July by Marcyu (talk · contribs) where such is happening. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Include the IP 68.105.60.48 (talk · contribs) in the mix too. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. 68.1.60.33 (talk · contribs). Appears that the person is just changing their IP address at will. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pointy stick needed[edit]

Would somebody please have a gentle word with User:Barberio about the advisability of slapping standard warning templates on admins' talk pages in the middle of threads where they are dealing with other users. It's not a particularly helpful thing to do and stinks of WP:POINT given that he is in dispute with me at Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube and elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, aye. I'm on it. -- Merope 18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)#

Copy paste of PAIN report placed. Please make note of the last point. --Barberio 18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent activity:

  • Tells others to "F*** off" (without the stars). [19]
  • Accuses others of "b**tching". [20]
  • Removes npa warning templates from his user page. [21] [22]
  • Blocks user who complains about it! [23]

This user seems to have problems not resorting to inappropriate behaviour in his disputes with other editors. --Barberio 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yawn. Please read WP:DICK in detail, this is becoming wearisome. While I do not condone telling people to fuck off, your npa3 warning was just ridiculous. That editor had made a clear legal threat and deserved his block and nothing Guy said to him was offensive. Moreschi Deletion! 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and being wilfully offended is just as bad as bad as being wilfully offensive, and probably causes more problems. Moreschi Deletion! 18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect WP:DICK is not policy, WP:NPA is. --Barberio 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
May I point you to WP:DUCK? ---J.S (T/C) 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and removing a warning from your talk page is not a violation of any policy. ---J.S (T/C) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the legal threat that the user SlamDiego was blocked for. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
There was none. He said he 'felt liablled' by another users comments, which is not the same as actualy threatening a libel suit. (For what it's worth, SlamDiego's original complaint that JzG was replying to on WP:PAIN was overblown, but did not deserve the response given.) --Barberio 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Calling something "Libel, although I won't take action" seems to me to be skirting the edge of No Legal Threats. Kinda like "If I wasn't such a nice guy, I'd sue you. You don't want me to be a nice guy?"-ish —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talkcontribs) 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Even so, it would have been better to point that out, rather than threaten with a block for something borderline in a dispute that could be settled by getting people to calm down. --Barberio 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The PAIN report is here for those trying to follow along. ---J.S (T/C)
To Barberio: my response to him was to thank him kindly for self-reporting his legal threat and express the hope that this indicated he would not repeat the offence. I thought that was a long way from harsh. It's only when he demonstrated that he both understood the message and didn't ave any intention whatsoever of heeding it that I got firm. It is much easier to deal with disputes if you don't have random people pitching into the middle of them, of course, especially when those people appear to be looking for excuses to oppose you rather than taking a dispassionate view of the case at issue. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue could have been resolved by simply stating the issue was not a grave attack, nor libel, and should be resolved just by a asking for moderated language. I attempted to do so.
Your threat of a block against the complaining editor was clearly escalating the issue, and your following this up with personal attacks of your own by telling the editor he was "b****ing* over it was further escalation, moving on to directly block the editor is an action I simply don't understand. --Barberio 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • [EC x several] HighInBC, SlamDiego characterised comments made against him by another editor as being "libel" while at the same time making equally aggressive and hostile comments about that user. I was in discussion with him about this and he made it perfectly clear that in his mind only attacks against him are libel. Full-on legal threats are grounds for immediate banning, in this case he was merely being aggressive and deeply uncool so I gave him a short block to calm down, with a comment to that effect on his Talk. Unfortunately Barberio chose to wade in and add further heat, for reasons known only to himself. I can't see any evidence that WP:PAIN was on his watchlist for any reason, although of course it could have been. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It has in fact been on my watch list for quite some time, due to reporting some personal attacks. --Barberio 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, so you did. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have commented out a slapfest above. I suggest we talk about the underlying problem of templating experienced users. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The comments by editors have been restored. --Barberio 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users reading this may wish to review my new essay (in progress, other editors welcome, and if you can think of a catchy name please move it, but Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, because templating the regulars is a mistake. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now all we need is WP:NOJERRYSPRINGER MartinDK 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not have left templates, but at the time of the incident, that's what WP:PAIN required. I agree that the requirement to add specific templates to the talk page, rather than being able to phrase a more suitable warning, was probably a bad part of the process. --Barberio 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I like - to both :o) Incidentally, Barberio, you seem to be confusing WP:PAIN with WP:POINT in your above comment. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Having mulled this over on the way home and also prompted by Hipocrite, I have unblocked SlamDiego. He was being a dick, but probably not to the extent that he needed stopping right now, which is what blocking is for. However, I have also told him that describing other users' comments in a content dispute as libel, however heated things might have become, is extremely unlikely to help. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
How is calling another user a 'dick' more helpful than describing another users' comments as libel? KazakhPol 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone a wp:dick isn't the same as making a statement which could be construed as a wp:legal threat. Argyriou (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
And after being pointed that way, some people realise they've been stupid. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that, having looked at WP:PAIN, I agree with Moreschi's comments above. there are some genuine cases, but most of the complaints boil down to little more than "Mummy, he called me silly...", and are usually made by people who are engaged in an editing dispute and are trying to use this as back route to getting their own way. Admins should surely be trying to douse these flames, but too many seem happy to pour petrol on them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Martin, that's precious enough that I've created a redirect: WP:JERRYSPRINGER. Patstuarttalk|edits 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue here is really external links and YouTube, but rather than resolving the dispute Barberio is attacking people on the other side of the dispute, specifically JzG and Dmcdevit. I warned Barberio earlier this week against attacking or falsely accusing other users; in reaction, he forbade me from editing his talk page. If he doesn't stop he should be blocked. >Radiant< 09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ThomasK and [24][edit]

I know I committed a lot of vandalism. I apologize to all affected. I´m now redemped and going to fight vandalism. Please unblock the IP and the account. Thanks

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards[edit]

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards[edit]

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie[edit]

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on the Reuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violates WP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings on User talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. I reported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, and removed the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for WP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked. Morwen - Talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanley port[edit]

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site [25]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report at WP:AIV). Kusma (討論) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets[edit]

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.36.97 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards[edit]

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie[edit]

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on the Reuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violates WP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings on User talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. I reported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, and removed the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for WP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked. Morwen - Talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanley port[edit]

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site [27]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report at WP:AIV). Kusma (討論) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets[edit]

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.36.97 (talkcontribs)

Block review[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked Huansohnrecordz (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for continuously uploading images without source or copyright information. Since November, this user has uploaded 100 images all of which have been, or will soon be, deleted. The user has no contributions outside of these images. If you look at his contribution log, there's maybe 3-4 things in there and its his current uploads that haven't been deleted it. He's never actually used these in articles as far as I can tell. I post this here for block review. Metros232 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhhhh... Maybe he needs a human warning explaining things to him? An indefblock without a non-bot warning seems a bit stiff. Maybe a short block with an explanation (to keep him from uploading today), and then monitor the account to see if he keeps up? And then block away. -- Merope 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm good with the indefblock, perhaps with an added note about how to use {{unblock}}. The account had 6x10^23 botwarnings with no indication of reaction. I'd rather the user have to go and email or post an unblock than have to discover in 2 more months another 100 images to be deleted. Syrthiss 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. What Syrthiss said. -- Merope 14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As a disinterested observer in this matter, I would like to support Syrthiss'above comment. I think the {{unblock}} should be presented as a matter of course to users who are being given an indef block, since many are relatively new users who may not be aware of what recourse they have. Jeffpw 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is why I brought this here. In many situations, I would have gone Merope's route: given one final warning. However, it was the lack of contributions outside of the images that led me to this block. If he was attempting to improve the encyclopedia with the images and was just misguided with the licensing, that's one thing, but since he's just uploading for no real purpose, I went the block route. Metros232 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on unblocking at User_talk:Huansohnrecordz#Blocked. Thanks for the input. Metros232 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I go with the unblock remarks; a new editor who just doesn't what he is doing may get blocked indefinitely (no argument there) and confuse it with infinitely. Giving the unblock reference shows the difference. Arnoutf 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggested a while back that we include {{unblock}} instructions in the standard block notice templates, but was shouted down. I still think it can't hurt. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
{{vblock}} includes such instructions, but it's a vandalism-specific template. When I can remember, I try to use that or include a note after the template with instructions, if I use a standard template at all. Knowledge of {{unblock}} is crucial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to mention the {{unblock}} option. But seriously, blocking this user was much better than giving another warning. 51 weren't enough, so I sincerely doubt 52 would have been. And users who don't care about copyright issues can create Ginormous Messes. Mangojuicetalk 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the page displayed to visitors on the receiving end of a block, already contains explicit information for appeals, including {{unblock}}. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One more block review[edit]

I've just indef blocked this vandalism-only account of Whatno (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even really need a review, FayssalF. Good riddance to a waste of pixels. I've also speedied his two vandalism images he uploaded. Syrthiss 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think deleted makes more sense as a verb than speedied (sorry, minor grammatical annoyance). --Cyde Weys 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahem.[edit]

User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. Someone mind explaining to me again why keeping the history would deter new Esperanzas and show other users what a horrible mistake it was? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit POINTish to me. – Chacor 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
There's also User:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns. Borderline T1? >Radiant< 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So much for my canned smart-ass remark about needing a userbox...Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've checked Geo.plrd's contribs, he's mass spamming every member of Esperanza he can find. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
A block for gaming the system might be in order? – Chacor 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would support this. WP:POINT violation + an attempt to skirt abundantly clear community consensus. —bbatsell ¿? 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Can someone block/add stiff warning to everyone who signed up and edited it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just left a note re this issue at their talkpage. Let's wait and see. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree on giving a cooldown block to Geo.plrd for this double-whammy violation. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree about an immediate block. He's just received the first/final warning re that. They are offline now. Once they are back we'll see what their reaction would be. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
He made a comment after your warning that seemed to indicate that he was going to continue the "Phoenix" project anyway, but that doesn't matter. The best indicator will be what he does after his recreations are deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I posted the warning at 17:25, January 4, 2007 while their last edit was at 06:02, January 4, 2007. Nothing to lose if we wait anyway. Yes, knowing about their reaction to the deleted subpage would be interesting. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, duh. I read "06:02" as "6:02pm". --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Any reason why I shouldn't just nominate this at mfd? --Spartaz 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It's already there: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. —bbatsell ¿? 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd contend it's speediable. Not explicitly in WP:CSD, but quite obviously a flagrant breach of consensus reached at the Esperanza MFD, which is what a new MFD would turn into. – Chacor 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dang! --Spartaz 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conlict x 4) (now slightly out of date) It is a concerning violation of WP:POINT, going directly against the opinions and consensus generated at the MfD of Esperanza. Are the project pages there deletable/redirectable to Wikipedia:Esperanza, rather than hashing out an Esperanza Mk II MfD? I don't feel that a block is appropriate unless Geo goes against the warning posted. Martinp23 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied the userpages per CSD G4. I don't think that a block is in order unless the user persists. The userbox is more problematic; I'll let some other cold-hearted bitch admin take care of that. -- Merope 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Should have guessed that JzG would be the "cold-hearted" admin I referenced. -- Merope 18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Though "not the way to do it" is not the most informative deletion summary ever. I'd have expected some link or reference to the Esperanza MfD, and/or a CSD criteria. Carcharoth 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The user can hardly be ignorant of it, but in any case I left a lengthy comment on his Talk - much more than would fit in a delet summary. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. On a side issue, I was actually, out of curiosity, trying to figure out the timeline for when they created the userbox and Phoenix respectively, but as they were deleted, that is more difficult to figure out now. Could you, or someone, note the date and time of creation of the pages in question? A day later, a few hours later, or whatever. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Phoenix created 05:13, January 3, 2007, userbox created 06:43, January 4, 2007. —bbatsell ¿? 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, Phoenix was a working model. Geo. 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a working model complete with bureaucracy and talk page spamming for members. -- Merope 18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT and Phoenix/Esperanza Returns[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_5#User:Geo.plrd.2FPhoenix -- Speedily deleting it yesterday had no effect; deletion review is now up. Any other admins want to take a stab at this? -- Merope 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd has withdrawn his DRV. The userbox is back, however. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Delinquent Road Hazards[edit]

This AfD was closed as a Delete by Khukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy by Pd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar with Khukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope23 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in the Wikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell ¿? 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment on User_talk:Khukri. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
(EC)Actually, Khukri also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as a Delete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope23 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope23 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not, Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe. Carcharoth 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie[edit]

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on the Reuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violates WP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings on User talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. I reported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, and removed the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block. JamesMLane t c 02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for WP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked. Morwen - Talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanley port[edit]

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site [29]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked. Arnoutf 12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report at WP:AIV). Kusma (討論) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Arnoutf 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets[edit]

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.36.97 (talkcontribs)

Block review[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked Huansohnrecordz (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for continuously uploading images without source or copyright information. Since November, this user has uploaded 100 images all of which have been, or will soon be, deleted. The user has no contributions outside of these images. If you look at his contribution log, there's maybe 3-4 things in there and its his current uploads that haven't been deleted it. He's never actually used these in articles as far as I can tell. I post this here for block review. Metros232 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhhhh... Maybe he needs a human warning explaining things to him? An indefblock without a non-bot warning seems a bit stiff. Maybe a short block with an explanation (to keep him from uploading today), and then monitor the account to see if he keeps up? And then block away. -- Merope 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm good with the indefblock, perhaps with an added note about how to use {{unblock}}. The account had 6x10^23 botwarnings with no indication of reaction. I'd rather the user have to go and email or post an unblock than have to discover in 2 more months another 100 images to be deleted. Syrthiss 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. What Syrthiss said. -- Merope 14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As a disinterested observer in this matter, I would like to support Syrthiss'above comment. I think the {{unblock}} should be presented as a matter of course to users who are being given an indef block, since many are relatively new users who may not be aware of what recourse they have. Jeffpw 14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is why I brought this here. In many situations, I would have gone Merope's route: given one final warning. However, it was the lack of contributions outside of the images that led me to this block. If he was attempting to improve the encyclopedia with the images and was just misguided with the licensing, that's one thing, but since he's just uploading for no real purpose, I went the block route. Metros232 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on unblocking at User_talk:Huansohnrecordz#Blocked. Thanks for the input. Metros232 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I go with the unblock remarks; a new editor who just doesn't what he is doing may get blocked indefinitely (no argument there) and confuse it with infinitely. Giving the unblock reference shows the difference. Arnoutf 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggested a while back that we include {{unblock}} instructions in the standard block notice templates, but was shouted down. I still think it can't hurt. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
{{vblock}} includes such instructions, but it's a vandalism-specific template. When I can remember, I try to use that or include a note after the template with instructions, if I use a standard template at all. Knowledge of {{unblock}} is crucial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to mention the {{unblock}} option. But seriously, blocking this user was much better than giving another warning. 51 weren't enough, so I sincerely doubt 52 would have been. And users who don't care about copyright issues can create Ginormous Messes. Mangojuicetalk 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the page displayed to visitors on the receiving end of a block, already contains explicit information for appeals, including {{unblock}}. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One more block review[edit]

I've just indef blocked this vandalism-only account of Whatno (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even really need a review, FayssalF. Good riddance to a waste of pixels. I've also speedied his two vandalism images he uploaded. Syrthiss 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think deleted makes more sense as a verb than speedied (sorry, minor grammatical annoyance). --Cyde Weys 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PAINful situation[edit]

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard--Docg 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User blocked accidentally[edit]

It appears Frankyboy5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is autoblocked: "I cannot edit anything all because somebody with the same IP as me has been vandalising everything, even though I signed in!". Could an admin go and have a look please? Yuser31415 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we a little short on active admins at present? Face-smile.svg Yuser31415 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No, we just can't do anything without the information in his block message. I see Syrthiss is working on it now, though. -- Merope 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. For the future Yuser31415, if you respond to a helpme on a user encountering a block please ask them to put {{unblock}} at the very least on their page. That guarantees that anyone working on unblock requests will see them in the category of blocked users asking for unblocks. Syrthiss 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol I see you already did they just didn't do it. In any case, Frankyboy5 says he is unblocked so this matter is closed. :) Syrthiss 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Face-smile.svg Yuser31415 19:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid wall -- Request enforcement of AfD decision[edit]

There was a dispute some months ago over whether Apartheid wall should be a standalone article, a redirect to Israeli separation barrier, a redirect to Allegations of Israeli apartheid, or deleted outright. An AfD in June 2006 (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall) settled this issue, with a decision of "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier.", and that decision was implemented.

On December 28, 2006, an editor changed the redirect to point to Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Attempts to change the link back are reverted within minutes by that editor. Please take appropriate action to enforce the AfD decision. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars over an inappropriate redirect. WP:LAME. I am nominating the redirect for deletion; it's divisive and unnecessary, as no articles link there now that I have removed the totally unneeded link on Jews Against the Occupation. But regardless of opinion, the AfD decision was a long time ago, and this can be revisited. Mangojuicetalk 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of links... to a good site[edit]

Is plbman (talk · contribs) spamming? He's added almost a hundred links to the same site... but it's a pretty neat site. Is this a violation? A helpful addition? Something nefarious that I'm not quite smart enough to work out? I could use a little advice. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's affiliated with the site, adding this many external links is unquestionably fishy, and constitutes spam. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They are all different online books. They happen to be hosted on one website, but they are all part of the Open Archives Initiative. This is not substantively different from adding a bunch of links to different books on Project Gutenberg. It's being suggested that this is WP:COI, but these are good additions and who else is going to make them if he doesn't? I suggest we let him WP:IAR as long as the edits are good. — coelacan talk — 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coelacan. Unless the edits are shown to be bad edits, these should be allowed due to the nature of the links. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There's been a suggestion that the links would be best used as citations in the text. That is true, but also a lot more work and I think Plbman's contributions should be reverted back into place and used as they were (external links) until they can be integrated as citations. I just want to make sure we aren't asking Plbman to bring a {{shrubbery}}. — coelacan talk — 20:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree; the way this was dealt with is unfortunate. The links seem solid and certainly shouldn't simply have been removed; at worst, they could have been moved to the talk page as likely useful references. I definitely don't agree that it was spam. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks god for IAR. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, did anyone review these books. They are all archived studies and publications from the California Fish and Game that date as far back as early 1900s. They were digitized and organized as part of a project that is managed by plbman under a federal grant. In most cases they are being added to articles that have no or few External links and in many cases the relevance is questionable. My question is would anyone add these links on their own based on the merit of each of these archived documents? Would any of these links have been added by this user if it were not a part of his project? For each article that was linked, there are probably many other pages on the web that may be equally or better suited as an external link. Each document requires a download and some are 20 - 80MB each to view the actual document. These very same articles are located here under a much better online viewing format California Explores the Ocean. Perhaps a different approach would have been to add a new article (California Explores the Ocean) under WP with a link to this page rather than adding all 178 archived documents under different WP articles. There appears to be a COI here and adding 100 links in a day is spam. IMHO. Calltech 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I disagree that this was spamming.
Secondly, the existence of "other pages on the web that may be equally or better suited as an external link" is irrelevant because no one has added them. We don't remove good content from articles based on the theory that "better" content might be possible. Unless and until such "better" links are added, how does Wikipedia benefit by losing these links (leaving most of the articles in question with "no or few external links")?
If some of the links are of questionable relevance, perhaps they should be removed or relocated to different articles. Indiscriminately purging all of them en masse was an ill-advised overreaction on your part, and labeling obvious good-faith contributions as "link spam" was needless newbie-biting. —David Levy 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't see a conflict of interest here -- the user does not stand to gain from the inclusion of these links in any way. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the additions of the external links were SPAM, I think everyone needs to take a good look at User talk:plbman#Editing concerns and User talk:plbman#Reply to your request. Here was somone who was very clearly a well-intentioned newbie, but the response from the Wikipedia was, in my opinion, a clear case of not assuming good faith and biting the newbie.

Were the links spam? As I said on plbman's talk page, he was adding good references that weren't really good external links. I think that the best response for all those who have been involved is to contact the editors at WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes, and then for all of us to work with plbman to integrate those references into the article itself. BlankVerse 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:I Wear Two Shoes[edit]

New account created today which immediately proceeded to nominate several articles on wrestlers for deletion. I am 99.9% sure this is a reincarnation of the banned user JB196, since this is the same approach as made by User:CDlatch245, another confirmed reincarnation, yesterday. I have reverted away his {{prod}} notices with the note that I will not object if someone else puts them back on, and also tagged some of his AFD nominations for deletion. Can someone who (still) has admin tools please intervene here? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The methodology taken by this vandal (if it is the same one) is alarming, insidious and highly damaging to WP. The fact that most of us (me included) know nothing (and probably don't give a stuff) about Australian wrestling only makes it more dangerous, as it catches well-intentioned editors off-guard. It certainly caught me on the Billy Blaze AfD. It's very clever, deleting all the notability from the article before Afd tagging. This needs to be stamped on, quickly please admins. --Dweller 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the various admins for taking prompt action. You're the guys in the white hats and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. --Dweller 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

      • Concur with Dweller. Thanks for the help. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sighs. Whack-a-mole. Lovely. I already sent one abuse report (not through WP) for JB's previous sockpuppetry/disruption.. should we go for WP:ABUSE next? Or is that not possible because we can't confirm the underlying IP without a RfCU, and it's not for fishing..... SirFozzie 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
At Durova's request, I've tagged the pages, and created A LTA report on JB SirFozzie 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block on 66.37.63.162 for repeated vandalism[edit]

I'd like to request a block on 66.37.63.162 for repeated incidents of vandalism. --Poochy 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this user has only made one edit today, so a block is not appropriate. Secondly, try WP:AIV next time. Thanks for fighting vandalism :-) --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The user has made 3 edits in the past 48 hours, all of which were pure vandalism (one adding nonsense, two modifying biographies of living people). S/he has also been blocked four times before for vandalism, and has over 100 edits, a vast majority of which are vandalism cases. I'm guessing s/he would continue if given the chance, so I think a block is necessary. You're the admin, though, so I'll leave the decision up to you. --Poochy 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

continued block evasion by VacuousPoet (talk · contribs) socks[edit]

199.62.0.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked a week ago for being a sock of indefinitely-blocked user VacuousPoet. He has resumed disruption to Talk:Evolution under the same IP now that the block has expired. Note that this user has been known to switch IPs regularly to evade blocks, even continuing to sign comments with "VacuousPoet" in many instances. N6 23:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page is hacked[edit]

Telletubbies. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it is really nasty.HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? Diff links please? --Cyde Weys 00:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:POTD image/2007-01-05 was briefly vandalized. FOUR main page templates were left unprotected for 45 minutes. Congratulations to the sysop who caused this mess. --- RockMFR 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The sysop didnt protect it so the vandal could put the pictures. duh 121.6.103.249 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ugh... please stop. People make mistakes; we don't need the sardonic remarks. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed and blocked. This was the edit: [31]. He later changed the image: [32]. Go !vote for ProtectionBot. Also, if you're a Commons admin, go delete this (WARNING, GRAPHIC). I'll open a CU request asking for the entire ISP to be blocked. --Slowking Man 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am prepared right now to start running ProtectionBot as soon as it is flagged. Several of the Bots Approval Group wanted to see the code, so that is where we are right now. Also, they generally seem to feel it should have its own RFA before being given sysop rights. Dragons flight 02:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The RFA doesn't appear to be necessary. Just ask for a bureaucrat to flag it on WP:AN. Or run it on your admin account for now and run it through RFA if you must. But this is critical enough that we don't need to wait for all of this unnecessary bureaucratic process. --Cyde Weys 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, even if a 'crat won't flag it without an RfA, just run it as a "script" on your account - no-one's going to complain (or, they won't if they've got any understanding of the distruptioon which goes on). Martinp23 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur, Dragons flight. If you're certain that the script is performing as intended, just run it on your account for the time being. Addressing this issue is far more important than dotting every "i" and crossing every "t." This is a textbook application of WP:IAR. —David Levy 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
When calling for Commons attention, please post to the Commons AN (more likely for a commons sysop to be able to do something about it then.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The POTD templates for tomorrow will probably be forgotten again as there doesn't seem to be anyone monitoring them. --- RockMFR 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that bot should run. Can't those POTD images be protected in advance? It's not as if non-admins need to edit them anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I went through the list of unprotected template sent to me by shadowbot2. I did not list Template:POTD image/2007-01-05, but listed Template:POTD protected/2007-01-05, which I checked to be sure it was protected. What happened? Why was one shown on the bot list, and another used? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the template got changed after Shadowbot2 did it stuff. The full story seems to be here: Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#New_system. Carcharoth 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New user 69.177.205.162 deleting dated prod and other templates[edit]

New user 69.177.205.162 rapidly is deleting dated prod and other templates. See [33] -- Jreferee 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to check: is the proper response to the deletion of prod templates from articles by anonymous users to replace them, or list the articles for AfD? Thanks, WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In general, deletion of the prod template means that it's contested so it would go to AFD. The exception is clear cases of vandalism (page blanking, replace article text with "graffiti", etc) in which case it can be reverted. -- JLaTondre 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
However, this was a Prod2. I've reinstated the Prod2, (it's a single season in review for a High School football team) SirFozzie 01:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't the article I had in mind. In this instance an anon went through a number of articles and removed prod template but did not vandalise those articles in any other way. I've nominate 2 for AfD in response, other editors have restored the prod templates. In retrospect the latter solution seems better given the pattern of behaviour which doesn't suggest real reasons for deleting the template, so maybe we can presume vandalism (though WP:AGF is at the back of my mind). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I was speaking generically. I didn't go through the anon's edits as by the time I looked, they appeared to all be handled. However, I just looked at the one you mentioned (2006 Terrier Football). Restoring the prod2 template on that article doesn't mean much as there was never a prod template to start. It had an incomplete afd nomination instead. I deleted it as {{db-group}}. -- JLaTondre 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

adolescence article vandalism/trolling[edit]

I have been dealing with the article on adolesescence, namely the part on adolescent sexuality and neogitiating the removal of data of HIGHLY dubious viability and which is obviously opinionated (Lot's of the data is from a single book by leonard sax which is not easily accessible by the average person) And i have placed in more accurate and backed up Center for disease control data on adolescent rates of std transmission/pregnancy rates which have been CONSISTENTLY deleted along with the references DESPITE my asking for proof of sax's 'studies' and 'facts' to be given in an internet reference and for possible other sources on this controversial subject to be used that aren't obviously against it.

What concerns me the most is that it is FILLED with data from just ONE book by a supposed guru on adolescence who claims to have all the facts on teen sexuality and it's dangers and how while my attempts to make the article more nuetral and at least input data from both sides of the debate are overwritten...

There's the fact that some teen or parent might go to the article on adolesence and after reading a few paragraphs on the topic of teen sexuality (Which despite my best efforts is somehow constantly returned back to it's highly biased and non nuetral state by trolls) would declare it horribly dangerous and thus likely cause A LOT of worries, suppression, etc. etc. and EVEN MORE fear about the horrors of teen sex, WITHOUT even allowing for opinions to prove that STD transmission rates and pregnancies have gone down among teens in the last few years without being waaaayyy at the bottom behind the MASSES of Leonard Sax and exclusively right wing opninions, I'm requesting that the topic is locked until a consensus can be reached and if no proof of the dubious (at best) claims about teenage emotional shallowness can be brough out that someone helps me to stop this constant trolling....

The anti vandalism bot reverted my correction where i moved up the CDC data to the top and added teen sexuality based on country to the almost original super biased state...

help in resolving this matter is desperately needed....

Nateland 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User continues to remove my nomination for deletion[edit]

a non admin user continues to remove my nomination for speedy deletion.

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

68.161.73.206 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Argh. As I explained to you four times, speedy deletion tags can be removed by anyone who did not write the article. I did not, so I can remove it. -Amarkov blahedits 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Clearly not a speedy candidate - and I am an admin. Satisfied? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Amarkov has offered to nominate the page for AfD for you. Will that not do? Also the tag was previously removed by Naconkantari who is an admin, and suggested AfD. This page clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (see WP:CSD). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed it now as well, and I'm also an admin. Please read about the criteria for speedy deletion. You may nominate it at AFD if you like. Antandrus (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Visionary Brazilian kid[edit]

13-year-old user Will-Martins was blocked indef for creating a pool of vanity articles which included Willian Neiva (documenting his movie stardom up to 2008), and his movies Thiago and the Cousins, Jake is going to field and The Life Zac :the Series. Despite the warnings, he persistently kept creating and recreating these vanity articles and moving his user pages to the main space. More importantly, he edited valid articles such as List of Disney Channel Original Movies and Disney Channel to include his fabrications [34] [35][36][37], sometimes almost imperceptibly amid other valid entries [38](try to locate Willian Gustavo Neiva in this diff). After being blocked, he now returned under a new account Raven gnm and created Thiago and the Cousins /Jake is going to the field which was speedy deleted by Voice of All. He's also continuing to add his phony movies to List of Disney Channel Original Movies [39][40] with his IP 201.78.63.184. Since he doesn't seem to be willing to put an end to this trend, I recommend his IP to be blocked indef and account creation prevented.--Húsönd 15:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problemos. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure about indef for an IP, let's see if a week is enough that he gets the message. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I had never recommended an IP to be blocked indef before but the circumstances here might make that the only solution, or at least an account creation block as the IP alone would be easy to monitor. Otherwise I believe that he'll be creating more accounts and damage valid articles with his sneaky vanity inclusions.--Húsönd 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Support indef block after a one week block, if it fails, as long as unblock instructions are left on the talk page, in case another user gets the IP. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that User:Rani-maris was blocked by Lucky6.9 back in December as a sock puppet. We need to get Lucky6.9 into this discussion since he seems to think this User is a sock puppet of some previous editor. Rani-maris (talk · contribs) is the original creator of the Willian Gustavo Neiva article. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Lucky is on a wiki-break, I have emailed him. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Rani-maris does seem to be a sockpuppet of User:HD324. Edit pattern definitely corresponds to the same person (Willian Gustavo Neiva).--Húsönd 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh gosh, did I blow it with the wrong info. I told Zoe that I thought that the name corresponded to a Wiki brah sockpuppet, but after looking at the deleted titles, I'm certain that I blocked this account as a suspected sock of an anon vandal who was posting bogus Disney articles both here and at the Disney wiki. Back to my vacation; please e-mail me if you need anything else. - Lucky 6.9 03:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd.[edit]

User:Geo.plrd recently tried to create a new Esperanza, called Phoenix, discussed above, that was speedily deleted. Geo.plrd was warned at least three times to abide by the community consensus by administrators, but went to DRV anyway and demanded it be undeleted. He withdraw after he got six Keep Deleted votes. Because I voted on both of these and have been blunt with him as to why, Geo.plrd has responded by tagging every non-FA article I have written for speedy deletion. This is blatant stalking and I would appreciate it if someone would block, because this is going too far. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And I don;'t what what he meant by this, but he just recreated the aforementioned User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix with "Boo". Seems like he's taunting us all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Beginning to think they're violating WP:Point here... SirFozzie 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
He's absolutely violating WP:POINT, but I gave him a single warning. I also deleted the Phoenix page and protected it against re-creation. Unfortunately, he appears to be on a self-immolation strategy; I hope he changes his mind. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I also weighed in. I am of the opinion that another such disruption should result in a short block. -- Merope 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)