Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive176

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

Noticeboard archives


Burlington, Ontario[edit]

Check page history and you'll see what I mean. It is pretty obvious that these IPs are from the same person. FellowWikipedian 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please tell us what you mean. We shouldn't have to perform an investigation to find out what it is that you're referring to. —Psychonaut 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That's been going on for a while, I was reverting them back in December. Needs an IP range block. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please block them. Thanks for your input. FellowWikipedian 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, please let me know when you have blocked them. FellowWikipedian 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Embryoglio - disruption[edit]

Embryoglio (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of someone, being somewhat trollish and disruptive, but done with enough skill, it's difficult to deal with.

See threads in Talk:Breast, Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this board to report Armadillo, as well his allies Atomaton and others, but I see that Armadillo has already made an entry of me here. Apparently Armadillo believes that if oneself is the first person to report the dispute, then people will think that oneself is in the right, even when the evidence shows otherwise. It doesn't work like that, Armadillo... or at least I hope it doesn't.

I have extensively catalogged many of the policy violations of User:Atomaton in an entry that I made to this board. That entry was disruptively deleted by the admin User:Ryulong, who, not surprisingly, is known to have a long history of disrupting wikipedia. Look at the edit history of this page to read the deleted entry.

In addition to Armadillo's above lie (which can be seen to be a lie simply by following the links that he/she has provided), he has also made uncivil false accusations and threats against me on the pages that he so conveniently linked to.

Embryoglio 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 11:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment or reply on Embryoglio's rant. I've been reminded several times recently to not feed the trolls. Anyone who desires to know what is going on here can best make up their own mind by reading recent comments on the talk:breast. Also useful might be Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard for user:embryoglio. Reading those will indicate that several people have complained about Embryoglio, and that my role has been marginal.

As for the breast article, civil discussion between the other current editors of the article on the talk pages and elsewhere, including user:MotherAmy, user:RexImperium, user:Xyzzy n, user:I already forgot, user:Honeymane, user:ArmadilloFromHell, user:.V. and user:Jpgordon have led to a discussion of what images are desired on the article. We've pretty much resolved any disputes and have moved forward while user:embryoglio seems to have become mired in arguments with every person that has disagreed with him at some point. Apparently that list now includes Daniel.Bryant and User:Ryulong. My approach, as is likely the approach of the other editors listed above, is to just ignore future comments from Embryoglio and proceed onward to improve the quality of the article. I have full confidence that Embryoglio will someday be a constructive and positive adition to Wikipedia. Several users,including myself, have recommended that he get familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:CIV, WP:EQ, WP:CON, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:DR and WP:RFC Atom 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For precision’s sake, I did not actually participate in the image debate. All I did was talk to Embryoglio (and that got me added to his user page). —xyzzyn 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Also for precision's sake, I'm not "mired in arguments...with [Embryoglio]", as Atom stated - I just saw an inaccuracy with this post, and mentioned it. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 12:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
What I say above is that Embryoglio is mired.

user:embryoglio seems to have become mired in arguments with every person that has disagreed with him...

" That doesn't imply that others are mired. That is, I didn't say that you were mired in arguments with Embryoglio. It is true that he had nothing negative to say about you (Daniel.Bryant). At any rate, the user has taken someone (not likely me) and has settled down. So, this is all moot, for the moment. Atom 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Great. I just caught a vandal bot. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have any idea what "" is? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it: [[1]]. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-edit conflict: yep, that's it. A Perl script that enables bots to make regular edits to pages, if they need to. Intended for good-faith use. See User:KeithTyler/ (The page is more or less screaming, "Don't shove beans up your nose!") This, if anything, is an argument for the usefulness of real time IRC, although in this case, admins seemed to not be watching the channel. 40 edits passed on #vandalism-en-wp before I realize that I had to alert an admin, and Zoe promptly blocked it. GracenotesT § 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And only because I caught the edit summaries on the Recent Changes page and noticed the User name. Next time they probably won't be so nice as to leave us a noticeable name. Maybe we should get Keith Tyler not to put automatic edit summaries in so that we can see the garbage the vandal is adding? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the idea was that the automatic edit summary would make it easy to see that the script was used. FTR it was originally written for use in a private MW installations, but in the spirit of the commons I figured others would find it useful. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm not seeing the WP:BEANS. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the page only screams WP:BEANS if one is a troll.
I mentioned WP:BEANS because having this page on Wikipedia might make mischief more accessible to those of malicious intent. WP:BEANS does refer to how forbidding the exploitation of a weakness can cause that exploitation, but vandals and trolls that actively search for such weaknesses may find the presence of this page an invitation. The invitation is not made by saying "do this" (black-hat hackers "helping" fellow trouble-makers) or "don't do this" (WP:BEANS), but made merely by the existence of that page. I hope my thoughts are somewhat more lucid to you now. Someone might not go through the trouble of writing a script themselves, but having one readily available requires less skill on the behalf of a criminal.
This is not to say that the script can only be used for bad things. You made it available because it's useful for things, e.g., establishing infrastructure in a newly-installed wiki. It may be better suited for a page on meta, though.
Perhaps I'm simply delirious with disaster fever: the mindset that "Hm, something went wrong, so something must be done about it to prevent it from ever happening again." For example, I might suggest captchas, but then there would have to be exceptions, such as User:AntiVandalBot, and thus begins instruction creep. Going through all of the above (moving to meta, etc.) is a nice gesture, but if someone wants to use this script to exploit Wikipedia, an indefinite block is warranted. End of story. While this course of actions is regrettable, I suppose that there really is no remedy. With privilege comes responsibility, etc. GracenotesT § 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I would think that (i.e. taking down the page) would be very un-open, and thereby rather un-Wiki, especially given WP:NOT. (I thought it was on meta, too, but I guess I was wrong.) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not so bad, User:KeithTyler/ is a very simple and blind script. Just block it and it stops, nothing fancy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, This bot has not been approved for bot in Wikipedia, first If some wikipedian wants to own his/her own bot, they need to make request for bot, then they can create the bot if the bot is already approved. Anyways, I found this on [[2]]. Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
FTR won't by itself do what the vandal is doing. It's a one-off. It is being run in a scripted loop of some sort. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You need approval to run it, not just to show the code. The person using it to vandalize was violating WP:BOT but that was the least of the violations hehe. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As a note, vandalbots should probably get reported to WP:RFCU. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Having never filed an RFCU request, what situation is covered by vandal bots? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Done - [3]. FreplySpang 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And now we have User:Vandalbotfriend and User:Vandalbothelper. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the result of the checkuser check? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Completed IP checks get moved to WP:RFCU/IP. Mackensen blocked the IP. Thatcher131 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but all it says is "done". What does that mean? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That he identified and blocked the underlying IP. Thatcher131 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Venu62 persistently reverts copyvio tags[edit]

User:Venu62 is persistently reverting copyvio tags from Image:Wallajah.jpg, Image:Wallajah2.jpg and Image:Wallajah3.jpg without basis. It is pertinent to note that the first and the third images are the same.

I warned him [4] not to make baseless reverts like this [5] saying that it could be construed as vandalism.

He gives me bogus warnings in return - [6], [7] and [8].

This user has a history of reverting copyvio tags from images - see this still unresolved issue [9]

Thanks ­ Kris (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, I will give a Good Faith warning. Arjun 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this editor is acting in Good Faith, but you should monitor his/her behavior, and be careful not to edit war. Arjun 04:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
These aren't copyviolations. The artwork in question is clearly PD, as clearly noted in the image summaries. The source should not matter, as a photograph of original artwork is not copyrightable due to the fact that there's no original content to distinguish it from the original (if it was, then anyone could walk into an art museum, photograph all of the paintings there, and then claim copyright on them). If the paintings themselves were copyrighted, then you would have a problem, but they're Public Domain. The copyvio tags are misplaced. TheQuandry 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you say its in the public domain years when you dont know the source and the artist who created the work? Even if that be so, this image contains border frames, which constitutes a modification of the original image.
Also see #User removing license tags and replacing them with no license messages ­ Kris (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I do know the artist and the source. At least in regards to the first one, it was provided. Click the link provided in the summary. [10]. And I don't see any border frames here, I see the original artwork and an empty white box in back. This doesn't constitute an alteration. As for the #User removing license tags and replacing them with no license messages complaint link, how are these copyvios or breaking the rules? The first image was printed in 1909, which means it's out of copyright. It's Public Domain. I really don't see what the problem is here. I guess you could make a case that he's removing administrative templates, but from what little I see, it looks like he's removing copyvio tags from images that have been improperly tagged. TheQuandry 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


User Foundby had his RfA failed, and is disrupting other's talk pages, RfA, etc. saying that closing his nomination early (at 0/15/1) is vandalism, when it is clearly in therules. He has since violated WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT and neds to be dealt with. even his talk page shows some violations. --Wizardman 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Go easy on him... he's clearly upset and probably feels the world is ganging up on him. I can remember when I thought that 600 edits was a lot. He's mightily provoking some very well regarded editors, but it'd be a shame to drive away a potentially useful contributor with an overly harsh reaction. I know, you admins are very experienced in dealing with disruption, so please don't be offended by me speaking up like this. --Dweller 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If nothing more happens, I don't see that anything "needs to be done". He's just indicated that he will take a break- let's leave well enough alone. Friday (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmm - I agree with Dweller and Friday. Although his behaivour is completely unacceptable, I don't think that now, after he's indicated that he'll be taking a break, any block will serve a purpose, especially after so many admins have already spoken to him. Martinp23 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Endgame1. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Images assistance[edit]

I was hoping someone might help out with something. I have placed a tag for a replaceable fair use image at Image:Theocracyband.jpg and added the tag to Theocracy (band). E tac (talk · contribs) has removed the tags twice now. I would like to revert these again, but due to WP:3RR, I won't (something this E tac had been banned for in the past). Also, for further discussion on this users view of WP:FU, he clashed with me last night, as evidenced at User talk:Moeron#Dave Mustaine and User talk:Moeron#Stop removing my fair use images, where the user accused me of WP:POINT and WP:STALK. I felt I have been more than cordial, but I am looking for another opinion. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned E-tac, and we can see if he takes heed. Martinp23 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A little late with comment but I wish to second Moeron's request for assistance. I too noticed many discrepancies in the user's uploads. And also the users very uncivil defence of his policy violations. He has refered to any users trying to comply with image policy as "Wikinazis" [11] and also breached WP:NPA on User:Moeron's talk page.[12] The user has a long history vandalism and policy ignorance and has been blocked several times already. Recent edit history seems to show multiple edit wars and WP:3RR vios on several articles including the images mentioned in Moeron's report. Some intervention would be appreciated at this time. Thanks Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Spent some time considering this, and have blocked E_tac for a short period based on personal attacks and disruption (block is open to review here). Martinp23 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Now unblocked after email promise to avoid PAs (personal attacks, not assistants) Martinp23 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


This member vandalized the Albuquerque page, which I reverted. After looking at his talk page, I see that someone told him that if he vandalized one more time, he would be blocked. I request that this be done immediately. PerryPlanet 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Thanks! PerryPlanet 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Somemoron using sock[edit]

Special:Contributions/Somemoron is back, see Special:Contributions/Sf49rox. — coelacan talk — 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Admitted sock, indef. blocked for block evasion and for this edit summary. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zoe. — coelacan talk — 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio in Periyar[edit]

I noticed that the article Periyar is protected. I am concerned that large sections of the text in the article are copy-pasted from this article on, which is a copyright violation. Specially the sections Periyar#A_Freedom_Fighter_as_a_Congress_Party_Leader,Periyar#A Committed Rationalist and Rebel, Periyar#Leader of Justice Party: 1939-1944 and all the sections below up to the Periyar#Criticism. Since copyvio is a very serious thing and supercedes protection, I ask that it be removed. Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Plus, the title has to be changed from the epithet "periyar", to E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker, which was his name and the way he always called himself. Periyar is actually a river that runs in Tamil Nadu, and therefore this title is actually the name of the river and not of E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker ­ Kris (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Ekkenekepen[edit]

I've indefinitely blocked Ekkenekepen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). His entire recent contribution history here consists of complaining about the German Wikipedia, where he was apparently banned, mainly on User talk:Jimbo Wales. This wild accusation is the final straw for me. He's not even making a pretense of being here for the encyclopaedia - he has a history before that but nothing particularly useful.

He's already had one week's block for legal threats, and has a long block log on deWiki, including an impressive four indefinites (the ones marked unbeschränkt), the one before last for "massives Stalking (Benutzerdiskussionsseiten, Artikeldiskussionen, Zusammenfassungszeilen, Emailbelästigung, persönliche Belästigung, Klarnamenveröffentlichung)" - "massive stalking (user talk pages, article talk pages, edit summaries, email harrassment, personal attacks, publication of users' real names)". Do we want or need this person here? No we don't. Posted here for review etc. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if he was trolling in the end. This seems like a genuine problem – [13] (I can't understand German, but are they asking for donations for something else, other than Wikipedia?) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If Jimbo's page is any indication, sounds like he thinks wikimedia donations are being used inappropriately. Syrthiss 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The user appears to be asking for donations to himself, yes. The notice has been there for a while, out of interest I'm going to see if there's anything on his talk page about it. However, the German Wikipedia is a big boy and can look after itself. I'm fairly certain that if there is a problem, a banned troll disrupting talk pages on a completely different wiki with no jurisdiction over what he's complaining about is not the solution. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Penta's donation notice was added on 19th December, and as far as I can see there's nothing about it on his talk page. If you want to ask him about it, he speaks advanced English. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Good block. Also would support removing content on his user and talk pages, to reduce soapboxing. Syrthiss 14:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Be on the lookout for dynamic IP addresses evading the block, he's used dynamic IPs in the past. – Chacor 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the user page with {{indefblockeduser}} - I don't see a pressing need to remove what's currently there on the talk page, but if he decides to use it to continue his soapboxing I'll probably protect it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are baseless. He said some kind i do not know exactly what was going on. Good block. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting following an unblock-en-l request by this user. Seems like there's a little more going on, here, than a simple open-shut case. But it looks to me like there's been a good amount of disruption, without much in the way of mitigating contributions to the project as a whole. All else aside, if he's banned or blocked from de.wikipedia, bringing the same issues over to en.wikipedia hardly seems appropriate, no? I feel like I may be missing something, but not sure what. Luna Santin 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you figure out what you're concerned about, I'll try to set your mind at rest. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use image crusade[edit]

Oden (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be on a crusade against the use of fair-use images. He doesn't give reasons for removing them from articles, beyond a vague gesture to WP:FUC. When I challenged him on one of them, his reply was that it served only a decorative purpose,apparently on the grounds that it was in an infobox, though what grounds he had for that claim was unclear.

Could someone who's familiar with this issue look to see if his actions are, as I strongly suspect, unsupported by policy? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through a sample of Oden's edits, he is correctly identifying images which probably fail WP:FAIR. Usual practice has been to tag those images as being {{Replaceable fair use}}. The image would then be deleted after a week. Reference to the deleted image would then be removed from the article. By removing them first, Oden is also tagging them as orphaned, when he is the one who orphaned them. Although it does seem against the usual etiquette in these areas, its hard to see a policy violation on his part. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of those edits are correct, while others are questionable. I've suggested to Oden that he discuss removing infobox images on talk pages before simply doing so: it is only his opinon that they serve a merely decorative purpose there. Mangojuicetalk 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; he seems to be following normal procedure now. (WJB: I didn't suggest that he was violating policy, only deleting material without the support of the policy that he claimed to be following.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience has shown that such images invariably will be deleted, so leaving them in the article will simply created many red links at some point in the future. Also, the uploader in question has uploaded over 50 copyrighted images in a short period of time. Since there are so many images, and they will all without a doubt be deleted (see the last paragraph of {{Promophoto}} and WP:FUC criterion #1) then there is no need to keep them in the article. The alternative is that OrphanBot does the job in seven days, but my experience is that users do not appreciate multiple warning messages (see User:Jtdirl). In the same manner I only post one warning on the user's talk page, even if I have tagged multiple images. If the deletion is contested I have no problem with the image returning to the article, but then the tag {{subst:refu-c}} has to be attached to the caption. --Oden 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
leaving them in the article will simply created many red links at some point in the future. If people actually made sure an image wasn't in use, and removed links BEFORE deleting, as they should reasonably be expected to, that would not be a concern. I have found, without even looking, at least 4 cases where this happened in the last week, and shouldn't have (all of which just happened to be {{Replaceable fair use}}, which seems to land itself to this by sheer value of removing a need to post a notice in the article, as is often request for IFD). Circeus 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking up here because if Oden is guilty, I almost certainly am also guilty. In my case, I will remove a fair-use image being used in violation of WP:FU solely to depict a living person immediately upon noticing it if the image was newly added. On images which have been there a while, I'll leave it for the full seven days. On an image that is a blatant violation of WP:FU, there's no reason not to remove it immediately. Note that there's nothing in policy that demands the image stay the full seven days. In fact, at least one of the bots if I remember correctly (and I may not) will remove images after four or five days of the image being marked. Anyway, I haven't taken a look at Oden's recent log but every time I've checked his removals in the past, they have been of images which obviously violate WP:FU. In my opinion, it is a good idea to remove obvious violations of Wikipedia policy as soon as they are discovered. Mel Etitis, an editor I have a great deal of respect for, may not be up-to-date on WP:FU and the problems with using fair-use images to depict living people. Jimbo Wales has spoken up on this topic several times though of course, that shouldn't be taken as a dictate from a deity. Note, though, that an image in an infobox does serve merely to depict the person. I wouldn't say that such use is purely decorative but it is a clear violation of WP:FU to use a fair-use image there. --Yamla 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.[edit]

We've got a serious ongoing vandal issue at this article. I'm concerned since nobody has stepped in and it has been about five days. Velten 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you try warning him and then sending the IP to WP:AIV?--Wizardman 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
IP vandalism. Article has now been semiprotected by User:Bucketsofg. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I semi-d it and Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song), which this IP was also vandalizing. Since the Love… page has been protected and recently unprotected it may be that this semi may need to be recurring. Bucketsofg 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This Website[edit]

The above website is clarly taking the mick out of wikipedia for posting Rock Slope, and myself for requesting it be speedy deleted. My userpage has taken a hamering today since the aobve page has been in existance. Could somebody please look into speedying the original page asap, salting the page and protecting my userpage temporarily RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock Slope has been salted by Aaron Brenneman and your userpage has been semi-protcted by User:J.smith. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoax is not a speedy criterion but *shrug* if I'm wrong and any real source shows up I'll cop the trout whacking. - brenneman 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I semi-ed your user page... let me (or some other admin) if the problem comes up again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the quick resolution, I can go to bed now - It is must appreciated RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

obscene language[edit]

"elastic clause" page has an obscene comment posted at the beginning of the Interpretation section. I can find it in "view source" but when I try to delete it it reappears.

Jennifermckenzie 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The same user who added it [14] immediately removed it [15]. We get a lot of edits like this: a newbie testing us out, who immediately removes their damage. It should be all right now. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Profane comment[edit]

User: just left a profane comment on the talk page for Axis powers of World War II [16]. This user has been blocked before for doing the same thing. Cla68 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment was reverted out by ArmadilloFromHell (talk · contribs), and I've added it to WP:AIV given this user has been warned/blocked/warned again/continues to do it. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Next time I'll use WP:AIV. I wasn't sure if it should go to AIV or not since it was left on the talk page, not the main article page. Cla68 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits by User:Fambo to Jim Abbott[edit]

I am writing to report a pair of inappropriate edits by User:Fambo on January 9 on the page of Jim Abbott, a former Major League Baseball pitcher. The changes appear here. I recommend that you review this user's contribution history, and warn him, or temporarily block him. YechielMan 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a one time vandalism account, I doubt the user will ever sign in again. --Wildnox(talk) 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Abusive IP Vandal[edit]

User User: vandalized the Heroes talk page [17], and was reverted. The same vandal returned with a new IP,[18], I reverted and warned him[19]. In this edit he then replied with clear hostility. [20]. I'm requesting an intervention here and a block? ThuranX 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

while I wrote that up, he did this [21] to the policy page. ThuranX 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Already blocked. Next time post on WP:AIV. —Centrxtalk • 05:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 : Repeated and exuastive Personal Attacks, abuse of system to justify deletions[edit]

"Obviously, such concepts are beyond the comprehension of a fanatic with an obsession against India Hindus.It is clear that you are a Hindu hater and bigot and I have nothing more to say to you. Just keep your views in your blog and out of wikipedia. Thaa." [22]

My experience with this user has been generally frustrating. User:Rumpelstiltskin223 has been disruptive in the article 2002 Gujarat violence.

His edits violate WP:NPOV by excluding the notable views of human rights organizations and international publications. The article where conflict began involves the alleged complicity of the then Indian government in a massacre which resulted in the deahts of 2000 people. I made the case that the recollection of information from notable third parties, including newspapers, human rights organizations, and governments, need to be considered with the official statements of the same indian government. Everything I added has been repeatedly deleted in an edit war. Him and those sharing his view have simply dismissed all my sources and suggested sources by deeming their actions as being anti-Hindu (on the talk page, this includes the US State Dept which cancelled an Indian politician's diplomatic and visitors visa due to his involvement in the massacre).

If his edit warring to exclude WP:RS isn't enough, his justifications for his edits and his responses in edit summaries and talk pages have been extremely and repetitively offensive. He has accused me of being "Hinduphobic","racist", "indophobic", he has called me a "bigot", a "fanatic", described me as "ignorant", etc. [23] [24] [25] [26] My comments in regards to the subject matter may seem hostile to one who doesn't consider that the matter in question revolves around an incident where over 2000 people were massacred, several hundred women raped and mutilated, etc. My criticisms on talk pages are limited to the government involved at the time, and the local political figure directly involved in the massacre (the US state dept even banned his visa due to his involvement in human rights violations). There is no justification for the charge of racism or religious hatred whatsoever. I have said nothing that could be twisted to imply a dislike of Indians or Hindus, and for the record I have no feelings against them. I have been hostile in response to these allegations, as anyone would charged with bigotry. In I have not used partisan sources to support up my edits though. Rumplestiltskin has repeatedly deleted content I added that would add the findings of internationally highly regarded (ie Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Guardian newspaper), which WP:NPOV suggests are essential to give ALL NOTABLE VIEWS voice in the article. His latest violation includes deleting a comment I made on the talk page and adding a warning template to my own talk page alleging 'defamation'. Please do something as I've already lost patience with this person too many times. Note: I have already been threatened by an admin for responding to this character, but no action has been taken in regards to his instigating behavior (ie his REPEATED allegations of anti-India hatred and anti-hindu bigotry) Falcon2020 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: He is now harassing me with warning templates on my talk page, and deleting talk entries from the article in question. Falcon2020 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to leave him a warning, however, I see that you have not been very civil yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Above rant is a retaliatory post to him being blocked for abusing wikipedia by filing a false report against me. See the following diffs and a chronology of events:

  1. Falcon revert-wars and behaves in an incivil manner on 2002 Gujarat violence
  2. Admin warns Falcon2020 for incivility[27]
  3. Falcon2020 responds with defiance [28]
  4. Admin warns him again [29]
  5. Falcon2020 files a false 3RR report [30]
  6. I explain that he is gaming the system and lying about copyedits being reverts [31]
  7. Admin blocks him for abusing system and doing 3RR himself [32]
  8. Falcon2020 commits WP:LIVING violation in 3RR report against living person [33]
  9. I warn him [34]
  10. He then commits WP:LIVING violation in Talk page [35] where he defames a certain B.Raman, author of this article [36]. As I understand it, WP:LIVING applies to all parts of wikipedia. Please excuse if I am wrong.
  11. I formally warn him[37]
  12. He makes this post above
  13. Makes an incivil remark to my talk page [38].Rumpelstiltskin223 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, my report of this users actions so far is complete, signed and dated. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I ask that an admin analyze this post of his[39] to see if it, a response to my post [40], violates WP:LIVING against the subject of the discussion. If I have misread the rule, then I apologize ahead of time and will undo my deletion of his post personally. Admins please respond with your assessment in my talk page. If admins agree that I have gone against wikipedia rules or philosophy then I will take warning to heart and apologize. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Vandalism: "Talk page vandalism Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

Now see: [41]

Falcon2020 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He is harassing me on my talk page even NOW. No warning will be sufficient. How can you ask me to be civil when he gets away with anything? Falcon2020 07:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how he is harrassing you NOW. He hasn't made an edit on your page after your report here. Please assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
His latest addition of that ugly warning template was at 7:07. I will ask that another admin consider this ANI entry instead of you, I'm having trouble believing you're actually serious. You are ignoring that his deletions of my talk page entries are acts of VANDALISM as defined in WP:VANDALISM. His record suggests his only desire here is to be disruptive. Falcon2020 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In my view WP:LIVING precedes over all other rules in this case. Again, if I am mistaken then admin with more knowledge may contact me and I will re-insert the statements that I removed. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
BLP issues are dealt here – Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You are not even reading- there is no PERSON involved in my edit. Falcon2020 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
RPSS has provided the diffs. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding his most recent allegation. I do not think he is allowed to remove warnings unless an admin decides otherwise. As of this moment I have not been contacted by admins regarding this particular matter. Therefore, I will assume that my warnings are legitimate and take steps to make certain he does not illegally remove them. If an admin disagrees with my position then please contact me in my talk page and I will follow instructions. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While both of you have been rather harsh to eachother, I must say that after reading the talk pages and the article's disscussion, it appears that Rumpelstiltskin223 is removing acceptable content based on his own opinions, and then attacking Falcon for putting up the other side. This is obviously a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. I may be wrong, but whether I am or not comes down to one question, does Wikipedia consider the HRW to be a reliable source. "Plus, HRW is not neutral or reputable. See Criticism of Human Rights Watch.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)". Can you really use a criticism page to determine a group uncredible. The New York Times has one too, but Wikipedia allows that doesn't it?--Danielfolsom 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for such a discussion. Please look at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence for my responses. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I request again that another admin address this issue anew, User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is listed as an "Indian Wikipedian", as the article in question revolves around the Indian Govt's association in a massacre, and Rumplestiltskin's charge against me all along has been "Indophobia", his curiously partisan approach to this entire issue is suspect. He is instead giving the person causing all the disruption here advice on how to combat me User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-PorpingtonFalcon2020 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, this user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user BhaiSaab on confirmation by checkuser Dmcdevit, on his talk page and due to similarity in editing. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests[edit]

There are a number of "high-risk templates" in here with requests to change them, with at least one (Template talk:Cite encyclopedia) several days old. May I ask that someone either take care of these or unprotect the templates? Thank you. --NE2 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not the only person who complains about CAT:PER backlogs? I just added {{adminbacklog}} to it when it reached 10 entries. --ais523 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Gundam kettle calls the pot black[edit]

How these people dare complain about me tagging their articles for deletion and then call it a WP:POINT violation is beyond me. When I tell them about they call it incivil. Incivil? Here are some diffs and quotes from the WP:GUNDAM talk page.

  • Choice quote, out of the whole bundle:I "have decided not to do anything for now, there are stuff that I wanted to merge and clean up anyway. Spending time with those irrational deletionist is just wasting my time, that is what they are seeking: editors in this project ending up with no time to improve the article and at the end making them able to try to nominate desembling this project itself. They do not even want to follow rules in WP:FICT that minor characters should get a list. (The most unreasonable nom would be the RX-78 which is already a list) They can shovel WP:ICANBULLYYOU all they want, the articles can be recreated one by one as long as we can create a process of deciding which should be kept and what should be in a long list(also what lists should there be). All the articles go through this project's editor's inspection, rewritten to a point where any of those AfD is just going to make them look more irrational and vandal/troll like. Join me, let them have their small victory over old and outdated cruff, and we will gain back a larger ground later and laugh at their short-sightedness. For the admin up there, would you kindly try to be the closing admin of RX-78 Gundam and let them know what is the realistic side of the world they do not understand.".
  • While I understand that ANI is not a forum for dispute resolution, and I do not wish to see anybody blocked, I must request, if this has not been done already, that User:Mythsearcher and User:HellCat86 are given firm warnings from a neutral admin for personal attacks and incivility. Moreschi Deletion! 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The behavior coming from many of the parties to this dispute—and yes, I do mean people on both sides—has been quite disgraceful. Everyone needs to step back and stop with the attacks, the mockery, the hysterical proclamations, and the provocation; we are all Wikipedians here, and presumably that says something both about our shared purpose—to create a great encyclopedia—and the kind and thoughtful way we approach disagreements with our fellow editors. Wikipedia is not a game that we "win" by fighting with each other. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have recently found out about all the warring on the gundam articles from WPANIME, and i have to point out these 2 pages [42] and [43], it appears to me that numerous editors have made it their life goal to rid the site of any gundam related articles. An admin def needs to step in here and settle this. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And that is in itself another assumption of bad faith. "Rid the site of any gundam related articles"? No, that is not true in the slightest. There are numerous valid articles that could be written about Gundam, just not these ones about obscure fictional weapons. Moreschi Deletion! 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, if you're feeling under attack as it is, it's hard to find another interpretation of "To Do: Nominate every single article in [6+ categories] for deletion." (And yes, that was not Moreschi, to be clear.) I'm thinking it's something of a personal joke, myself, but if I were heavily invested in the articles, I might not see it that way. Regardless, after taking a quick look, I'd suggest tea all around. Shimeru 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Quit bogarting my tea! Kyaa the Catlord 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (reply to Kirill Lokshin) Heh. Weary irony. I know this isn't a war. I'm not trying to beat anybody. I have not been incivil or violated any other policies. This is simply about a load of articles that I think need to go - the community agrees, judging by the votes at AFD thus far - and some individuals' reactions to the attempts of the community to get rid of these articles. That reaction has been often unacceptable. Moreschi Deletion! 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • MythSearcher's language is somewhat, er, confrontational, but it's clear that he's willing to accept some reasonable changes:
"Ditch the detail spec, list only the height of the unit and main weapons types, link to mahq and Gundam wikia so that readers can find those specs." [44]
"I am all for merging and deleting things like R-Jayja and such" [45],
Meanwhile, Moreschi has nominated several Gundam-related articles for deletion, but he's voted keep on RX-78 Gundam. Hopefully, that should send a message to Gundam supporters that there's no massive campaign to wipe every mention of Gundam from Wikipedia. If everyone toned down the language just a bit, I'm sure a fair agreement could be reached. Comments like "ignorant arrogant deletionists" are not helpful at this time. Neither are comments that a user plans to "nominate every single article" in 6 Gundam categories for deletion. Quack 688 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case study in how not to deal with "the community" as a whole. Moreschi, whether your tagging / cleanup campaign is appropriate under Wikipedia rules or not (and at a quick glance, I agree that it is), if you stir up a previously calm situation into a largescale, many hostile responses hornets nest, that's an indicator that your tactics and approach to what you did were inappropriate. It's percieved as hostile intent of high order, nigh-on blatant bad faith vandalism, by many subsets of Wikipedia's contributors if you go in and make widespread nominations like that, even if the articles are by all rights deletable by wider community standards. Go more slowly and talk to the editors in that sub-area more before you make such widespread change proposals next time? A crisis avoided is a lot more happy beers. Georgewilliamherbert 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a competition to see how many violations of WP:AGF can be made on a single issue? Here's another example from only a few hours ago [46]. That sort of personal attack has just got to stop. And remember, none of this would have happened if WP:GUNDAM and associated editors had tried to follow WP policies in the first place.--Folantin 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Please keep in mind that WP:GUNDAM, which is getting all the heat for this, only was "created" less than a month ago in its current form. It is NOT TO BLAME for the articles it has inherited with histories going back to 2004 and potentially earlier. Want to argue AGF some more? Blaming those who are innocent for creating craptastic articles, calling for the project to be burnt to the ground, taunting of the Project on its discussion page.... This is a freaking mess period. Kyaa the Catlord 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Er, I was aware of that. That's why I mentioned "WP:GUNDAM and associated editors". It doesn't change the fact that the WP:GUNDAM Talk Page is rife with incivility and members of the project continue to ignore WP:NPA.--Folantin 10:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly though, why do are you escalating the drama? Do you want Mythsearcher blocked? This wasn't drama on the WP:GUNDAM page, this took some searching to find.... Do you have a goal in finding these "incidents" and reporting them? Moreschi is being generous and is working with the Project in this matter, Myth's outburst is unfortunate, but honestly, what good is done by bringing up every instance where a comment in placed in the heat of passion? Kyaa the Catlord 10:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've taken a better look at where you linked to, I find you went to ned scott's page. Ned Scott has been nothing but neutral, civil and a good example in all this.... I'm not sure what is going on, but damn man, it doesn't look nice. Kyaa the Catlord 11:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what I actually linked to. This has nothing to do with anything Ned Scott has done. I quite clearly linked to Mythsearcher's comment on Ned Scott's talk page, which goes like this: "It is just impossible to assume good faith in the actions taken by the deletionist. What is currently happening is just like the dark ages, burn them, its something we have never heard of before, it must be heresy. With people making up rules, saying nothing counts as sources, and trying to blame people who have just a little more than a month to work on hundreds of articles, they are being dicks themselves. Especially the one who nominated dozens of articles during another AfD process saying that one is nominated as a precedent to delete others..." If that doesn't violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I don't know what does. This user has already had ample warning. If this continues, admins should take action. --Folantin 11:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I point out that describing the actions being taken by others is not a personal attack. Calling them "dicks", is... I'll refactor that away, per WP:NPA. This is what is supposed to be done in these cases, not calling for blocks or bans. Kyaa the Catlord 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
"...describing the actions being taken by others is not a personal attack" sounds like hairsplitting to me, but I'll let that slide for now. Blocks and bans are for repeat offenders, which Mythsearcher will be if he doesn't knock it off. He's had fair warning. If he stops now, then fine. The whole atmosphere of incivility and failure to assume good faith at the WP:GUNDAM talk page (and elsewhere) has got to end. I'm glad you seem to be working through an improvement campaign with Moreschi. Keep it civil and get everyone else to keep it civil and this shouldn't be a problem any more. --Folantin 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe the use of the word "dick" in the quoted reference was a response to Ned warning Myth that he should cool down. Things are hot and Myth's venting. He's been warned, he's made constructive edits and not made further heated statements since this one. He's actually taken steps to work with Moreschi to better handle the crapload of bad articles the WikiProject inheritted.... This seems, to me, to be a non-issue at this point. Kyaa the Catlord 12:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimate use of userspace?[edit]

Just had the following posted at WP:RFCN..

RE: Yuske Uramishi (talk · contribs), Heie Austin (talk · contribs), Kevin Austin (talk · contribs), and Bully Austin (talk · contribs)
Not certain that this is the place for this, as I dont find the usernames offensive, but it seems that these user's userpages are being used as faux articles for small time wrestlers. I'm not sure what should be done, but I hardly think that this constitutes appropriate use. —damnreds (|) 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As each user listed above seems to pretty much only have edits to their own "faux article" on their respective userpages, would a {{db-nouser}} tag be appropriate, or should it go to MfD? Crimsone 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't use {{db-nouser}} as the users do exist. It's for if I created something like User:ThisUserDoesNotExist and saved. I noticed Yuske Uramishi blanked the talk page of Kevin Austin after he had a 'welcome', so something strange is afoot! I'd concur with MfD. --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Great - thanks. I've just listed all four at MfD under one nom. Crimsone 11:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

3 users unjustly blocked by the same admnistrator[edit]

Users Nadirali,Szhaider, and Siddiqui have been blocked for a week by admnistrator Ramma's arrow based on false accusations.
Nadirali was accused of making insulting remarks and false accusations,which he requests a chance to disprove.
User Nadirali requests to be unblocked to present evidence to disprove Ramma's arrow's accusations.
User Nadirali,was neither given a chance to request an unblock,nor even reply on his own talkpage.
Nadirali also states that the blocks against Szhaider and Siddiqui are also based on false accusations and requests an unblock to testify against admnistrator Rama's Arrow.
Seriously. Admins abusing their powers are getting annoying. We know Indians on Wikipedia seem to have a real problem with Pakistanis, and since most of you have already proved you are not willing to discuss, why not leave us alone? Unre4LITY 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The blocks were in accordance with Checkuser results. See – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui and User talk:Dmcdevit#Siddiqui. Please assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You dont understand. This is not the first time, and Pakistani users keep getting the sack for editing when they are correcting articles instead of mindlessly putting down information without sources. I am requesting for these users to be given the chance to explain the situation. This has happened to me before, and I know something is wrong here. Articles have been hijacked by certain members, and editing them, even with sources provided can get you banned.
--Unre4LITY 07:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOCK? They are blocked for a reason, a reason which is not up for dispute. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Sanghak[edit]

Sanghak has already received three blocks for uploading images without any source information [47] [48] [49]. As you can see from his talk page, he has been asked many times to study Wikipedia's policies and clean up his act. His most recent block ended today. Since then he has uploaded one of his images that was previously deleted due to a lack of source information. This time he has provided a source URL (the correct URL is actually, but is still claiming to be the creator of this image when obviously he isn't (the site at appears to be operated by someone called Mark Cruickshank). He also removed the no_source template and OrphanBot messages from another of his images [50] and reinserted it into at least one document [51]. I've spent a lot of time trying to get this user to mend his ways, but he hasn't responded once. My patience is pretty much exhausted now. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Someone please check this out User talk:Cwiki - feel free to unblock if you think it's the right thing. Guy (Help!) 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That looks a tricky one. No edits for ages then not long after a block pops back in again. I've declined the unblock request, I can see how you drew the conclusion, and I tend to draw the same conclusion myself. The user indicates they have no desire to edit Wikipedia, so it seems a little bit like a point being made here. Hiding Talk 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is still demeaning and discourteous to keep the user blocked merely because they indicate that they have no desire to edit Wikipedia. It could be that the user actually still wants to edit Wikipedia, but would rather not admit it (I have been in a similar situation before), or that the user merely wants not to have such a strike against their name. I'm rather inclined, despite my lack of significant knowledge of the Joan of Arc vandal, to think that Cwiki is not the vandal. Cwiki's IP address puts the connection as being from Australia, not Virginia, which is consistent with the user's userpage. The user's bias seems to be quite different from that of AWilliamson, and there are many style differences between the two users. Essentially, it seems to me that they are either completely different people, or Cwiki is a sock puppet of AWilliamson for the purpose of either subtly inserting pro-Catholic/French bias while purporting to be inserting anti-Catholic/French bias or aggressively asserting an anti-Catholic bias in order to stir up those with AWilliamson's bias. These sock puppet ideas seem overly complex and unlikely to me, though I will admit again that I am not very familiar with the case. As a side note though, what happened to Cwiki's capitalisation!? Also, in response to Hiding, is it not possible that Cwiki was using the account for reading Wikipedia, but not editing, and then was greeted one day with a New Messages notice that led to the block notice? --Philosophus T 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Philosophus, if you want to lift the block, feel free to do so. I reviewed it and weighed it all up and decided not to. I may well have been wrong. The block is still reviewable. I do take objection to the notion that I have refused the unblock request wholly on the grounds that the user indicates that they have no desire to edit Wikipedia. But please, review it yourself and make your own decision. I did note it was a tricky one. And you're right, it is possible that the user has been reading all this while whilst never editing. I've merely attempted to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. I would ask, though, that you note whichever decision you choose to make at the user's talk page to aid future reviewers of the request. Oh, never mind, I've just checked your user page and I see you are an alternative account, so it's unlikely you can unblock. I really can't stand much more of this, to be perfectly honest. I feel like smashing the fucking computer in. I'm sorry. Hiding Talk 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If it was open-and-shut, I would not have posted here. My IP is currently in Phladelphia, so that can't possibly be me (I edit from one of two static IPs in England). Or can it? Anyway, it was the long period of inactivity followed by edits to Joan of Arc articles just when a block was active that roused my suspicions. I am a nasty suspicious bastard and I could be wrong, hence the post here. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my review. It seems I don't have the nous to make a decent review. Hiding Talk 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Pilotguy - open proxy[edit]

Could please tell someone this admin the difference between open proxies and IPs his tool does not know? Several of his blocks are against regularly registrated IPs [52]. Thanks --ST 17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (deAdmin)

WP:AIV backlogged...[edit]

...and I have to leave now. Please check the 14 open requests. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Gnetwerker indef block. Anyone with experience of Gnetwerker should probably add their $0.02. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

More ranks and hierarchies[edit]

While we're on the subject of bureaucratic instances within Wikipedia, I found the Association of Member's Advocates (AMA) as an apparent example of overcomplexity. It has an elected coordinator, three elected deputy coordinators, rather formalized meetings and an apparent strong reliance on the letter of policy. I'm not sure how effective the AMA is, but perhaps debureaucraticization would help? >Radiant< 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, both the co-ordinator and the deputy co-ordinators were basically co-opted into their positions. David Mestel(Talk) 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the role of the co-ordinators in the AMA is merely to co-ordinate. We've never had (and, I hope, never will have) any sort of veto on anything, or any powers over and above those of others - it seems that our role is more to advise and deal with queries to the association than to decide things in closed meetings (Esperanza) or to exercise any kind of special veto. I believe that we used to have our meetings on IRC, until timezones got in the way, and now use a Wikipedia page, which, depsite its apparent complexity, does serve the job of discussion well. Finally, as we advise on policy as "advocates", we do ned to try to stick to it and have at least some procedures in place :) (I should say, I am strongly opposed to overbureaucraticization, and would immediately leave the AMA if it went in the direction of Esperanza. Fortunately, we're very open). Martinp23 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...and back to MOTD[edit]

Sorry if this seems to be beating a dead horse, but thoughts on the readdtion of "co-ordinators"? [53] is of interest. I can tell you, if that "special veto" comes back, this whole thing will get MfD'ed quick smart. I wouldn't have worried, but [54] kinda makes me suspicious that this is still very heirachal. Thoughts on the "co-ordinators"? Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the users keep doing this. Geo should be warned and strictly reminded of what WP is and what it is not. – Chacor 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The Special veto will not return. Geo. 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of those mottos concern me - I don't know how many people actually read that page but some appear to be come-ons to trolls/vandals - something we should avoid. --Charlesknight 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Qwertybambino (talk · contribs) violating WP:NPA and creating multiple articles[edit]

Qwertybambino (talk · contribs) is in dispute with me over the creation of All Time NHL Transactions. I marked it for an AfD, and thusly he created another page--NHL transactions, which I marked for speedy. If you take a look at his contribs, you'll see a comment along the lines of HERE IVE DELETED 4 U, U FUKIN LOSER...R U FUKIN HAPPY NOW...WAS MY PAGE BOTHERING U THAT FUCKIN MUCH...FUCK U, U FUCKIN FAG. I gave him a warning about personal attacks, but would someone else like to chime in? Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for personal attacks. Syrthiss 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that this is a sock of Querty (talk · contribs) (based on username). There's something really odd going on at the Qwerty page. An admin first deleted the person's user page, then blanked the user page, then protected the user page. [55]. Anyway... Qwertybambino looks like some kind of sock to me. TheQuandry 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:TrentJones[edit]

TrentJones (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has left several personal attacks at my talk page, even after a final warning. Request block. John Reaves 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I have to say that some of your replies to him were a bit of gasoline on the fire and may have exacerbated the situation. When confronted by someone who is obviously trolling you it is better to stay WP:COOL instead of feeding the WP:TROLL. The account you pointed out below User:JJohnReaves should be indef blocked as an attack account and if you feel this may be User:TrentJones I suggest you submit a Checkuser on the account. socking to attack is a big no-no.--Isotope23 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. John Reaves 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Imposter/Sockpuppet vandalizing[edit]

JJohnReaves (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is vandalizing my talk page. User is most definitely a sockpuppet of User:TrentJones. John Reaves 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Has been blocked indef. Arjun 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dark Matter[edit]


The first line of the Dark Matter article appears to have been subject to racist vandalism, and a dubious link installed.

I hope this has been posted to the right place, but the instructions on reporting such matters did not make a blind bit of sense, and the article itself didn't seem to have any way of informing the original authers.

Many Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Balbers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) already fixed the vandalism.--Isotope23 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Death threat[edit]

Here. Same user also vandalized the AFD discussion, but that kind of pales by comparison. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I blocked the user indefinitely. Johntex\talk 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I am being accused as a sockpuppeteer and Bowsy is being accused as my sockpuppet. Llama man and Metros232 aren't using reliable evidence. They are accusing us because we have similar beliefs, userboxes and share a computer. This is not very good evidence. By accusing us for having similar beliefs and intrests, they may as well say it is illegal for any two humans to have similar beliefs and intrests. He is trying to use the edit war as an excuse, but Bowsy only contributed once and then tried to resolve it in a civilised manner. I however, continued to edit and was uncivil while doing so. Llama man has also rejected Bowsy's defence saying they are lies when he has no proof. We live in the same household so we share a computer. This is also why Bowsy created his account shortly after mine and why we edit in regular intervals. Please can you resolve this false accusation before we are unfairly blocked as the sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer we aren't. Henchman 2000 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, just to make that clear. Anyway, I thought I'd make a comment here since I'm mentioned in this comment. I now believe you, for the most part, that you are not sockpuppets. As for a reply to your comments: You had virtually the same layout to your userpage. This is quite unlikely unless a Wikipedian asks another user on their talk page if they may use the same layout, or the users share computers. Metros and I didn't know that you and Bowsy are, or claim to be, sharing a computer, as you didn't mention it before the sockpuppet case. I accused you of being sockpuppets because you had similar layout to your userpages and were strongly opposed to WP:CRUFT (which isn't really much in itself, but the fact that Bowsy !voted four minutes after your nom, and it is highly rare for that to happen, it was likely you were the same person), and I had no knowledge that you shared a computer. This does not mean that I might as well have said that it is illegal for two people to have similar interests; rather, because so many things were similar about you and Bowsy, that it seemed you were sockpuppets. –Llama mansign here 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


User: is a single purpose account engaging in edit warring at Plastic Paddy which is up for AfD. His /her edits mirror User:Vintagekits' edits, and I suspect it is the same user just not logged into their account so as not to violate 3R. User: has already broken 3R, and I have put notice on the user's talk page. The user then left this on my user page:

Why do you insist in putting silly pov into the article. The term is only used by the odd journalist, and you know what they are like. I have never heard the term used once here in Ireland, and the article does not reflect that truth. I have a dynamic IP address, so am not at all concerned about being blocked. 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) diff

This overlaps into so many things, I am uncertain how to proceed. - WeniWidiWiki 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I made the article better and I pulled out all of the POV, yet WeniWidiWiki insists in reverting me back to the old POV version. Unfortunately, WP has to sometimes suffer as a result a peevish few! I have edited 3 times, so no rules broken ;-))Thanks. 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd that a single purpose account with less than 15 edits knows wikipedia policy and nomenclature so well, and apparently keeps an eye on the admins' notice board as well. - WeniWidiWiki 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I am on the office computer today and cannot leave a footprint. Sorry. 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have only 50 edits in total to your credit. You seem to know a lot about socks. Are you an ex-sockpuppet? I guess that you might be just that! 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Just seen this - its not a sockpuppet of mine!--Vintagekits 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User admits to using IP edits for disruption - compare the above post by IP editor User: to this one by User:

Why do you insist in filling WP with silly pejoratives that only comedians use. These terms, like "Miserly Scotsman" etc should only be in the WikiDic!! 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)diff

After a few exchanges on my talk page, I post this response in which I give diffs of user's disruptive edits on other articles. He responds with an admission that he only uses his screen name "when sober" and edits under the IPs at other times:

I have a user name, and you are not getting it. I only use it when I'm sober, HeHeHe. diff.

I then warned him about the WP:SOCK policy against using "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: diff, and posted the warning on his talk page as well: diff. If you look at the history, this user was also warned by an admin to cease disruptive edits: diff and: diff. After the sock warning he became scarce for a while, but is now back repeating the same pattern. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentYou should go to talk page, and discuss things there. I don't have the foggiest what you are talking about. 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I cant read many of those links you added and they are "secure" - is he still accusing me of having the sockpuppet or has someone else owned up to it?--Vintagekits 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

86 is not a single-purpose account. He's been editing for a long time, at least since April 2006, through a whole host of Eircom DSL addresses, which is why I think of him as my anonymous Eircom fan. Whether he's been editing longer than that depends on whether he has, as claimed, another active account. If he has, I don't know what it is. Jerricco (talk contribs) was probably him, but that account is inactive now. Not being vindictive, and seeing no reason why anonymous editors should be persecuted, I'll leave it at that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This particular IP is a single-purpose account. Look at the contributions. Since the person is editing without creating a username, how do you know that the other IP from the same block is even the same person? Furthermore, this IP has voted in an AfD and then admitted that he /she uses multiple accounts. Did his /her registered username also vote in the AfD? - WeniWidiWiki 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to work till late tonight. I see a bunch of editors' accusing two other editors of being socks. And all I can see are hysterical accusations being made. Really really sad. All I can say to you is this, go and deal with POV and fix things on WP. It's obvious that your POV is being questioned, and it reveals much. 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To recap, I did three edits, I have never seen such a stir. 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

False - any competent editor can look at your contributions and the edit history of Plastic Paddy to refute this. Furthermore, I ask you to cease and desist removing references in the entry until there is consensus on the talk page.You are not editing in the spirit of consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Those references were stuffed into the article today,seemingly without much thought, and they are quite meaningless. They don't relate to the sentence or the <<citation need>> quest. They also broke WP:EL rules on some points. Two of them are still there and one of those is modified to WP standards. 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:, please do not misrepresent the positions of other editors by altering their comments. I have reverted your alterations to WWW's statement. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kathryn NicDhàna what are you talking about? I made 4 incremental edits and reverted 2 times. The article is much improved now, and I and other editors are happier with it. And I hope you are too. 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment struck, misread the diff. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on: Burlington, Ontario[edit]

Note: this was copyied from above. [56]

Check page history and you'll see what I mean. It is pretty obvious that these IPs are from the same person. FellowWikipedian 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please tell us what you mean. We shouldn't have to perform an investigation to find out what it is that you're referring to. —Psychonaut 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That's been going on for a while, I was reverting them back in December. Needs an IP range block. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please block them. Thanks for your input. FellowWikipedian 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, please let me know when you have blocked them. FellowWikipedian 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to do a checkuser. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Responding in all caps helps nothing. Please remember this is wikipedia, not a live or die situation. Essentially what he told you was to go to checkuser, he can't use the checkuser tool either. In the future, please use WP:AIV for simple vandalism reports, the response there is quick. --Wildnox(talk) 22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I am sorry for typing in all caps but this vandalism was getting out of hand. Next time I will be calm when responding. FellowWikipedian 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Also you may want to look at WP:VANDAL, it has some tips and the template messages usually used to warn vandals(much easier than typing a message to a vandal like you did). --Wildnox(talk) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. P.S. I am an admin on Wikinews. FellowWikipedian 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've semi-protected the article for now. Hopefully they'll get bored and play elsewhere by the time it's undone. Bucketsofg 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks. At least you did something about it. FellowWikipedian 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Threat by Herostratus[edit]

In response to the lame edit war on WP:PI (see above), Herostratus (talk · contribs) is now threatening with a "war" [57]. I'm not sure why he gets so worked up about this, but I find this comment wildly inappropriate. >Radiant< 09:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by another comment of his at the bottom of the page I would say he is NOT threatening war, but commenting on the current situation as a war. ViridaeTalk 09:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And that comment is possibly even more inappropriate, in that he accuses those people who disagree with him of "sterile, useless, energy-wasting, ... childish contention, ... find[ing] edit wars and wheel wars exciting or amusing ... gaming the rules ... [and] childish small-mindedness". Almost makes me wish WP:PAIN was still around. >Radiant< 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What is really inappropriate here is you reverting to your favored version five times in a row with no argument but blithe assertions that "we" have decided that this is the way it should be. That you made yet another revert and then came whining about your own edit war on ANI while misrepresenting everyone else's positions is absurd enough, but congratulations you succeeded in getting the page protected on your version. You can stop now - there's obviously no threat on Herostratus' behalf as Viridae points out. Haukur 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that both you and Heros immediately resort to ad hominems indicates that you really don't have a good argument. As I recall, I asked you on the talk page what the deal was, and you said it was a dislike for {{essay}} ([58]). Since nobody agreed with you that that was a good reason, and Jeff agreed with me, there was no consensus for your removal of the tag that had been in place since October 6th. Heros came in afterwards talking about "the reason this has no essay tag" when in fact the tag was there for several months. >Radiant< 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hate to sound patronising, but guys, dispute resolution is that-a-way.--Docg 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. This is not a subject for ANI and I won't make any further reply here. Haukur 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vinaixa67 blocked[edit]

I have blocked Vinaixa67 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 24 hours for continuously posting information without sources. The user doesn't speak English so communication has been difficult (many, many thanks to Patstuart who helped in some of the communication voids!!. Basically the user adds information about upcoming albums for musicians or rankings on singles charts for songs without providing sources. The most recent one is this. I post this here for review. I'm not quite sure if 24 hours is too little or what. The user has 3 previous blocks for uploading copyright images time and time again. Metros232 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did specifically warn him several times about posting unsourced information, and said he would be blocked. He claims that he gets his information from television and a locked site on the internet, and has been a bit unresponsive (e.g., saying "don't worry about it", but continuing to do so). I'm not quite sure how to handle this any further. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Though, upon closer inspection, this specific addition doesn't look as bad as the others. Patstuarttalk|edits 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think blocked sockpuppeteer User:BryanFromPalatine is at it again[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine (4th) --BenBurch 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He continues to use this sock puppet to evade his two week block. Can we please get his block timer reset to two weeks and the sock and IP address blocked? Thanks! --BenBurch 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTE - This is the same IP address which was the subject of a positive checkuser finding. --BenBurch 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Urging POV pushing[edit]

Is it legitimate for User:PBurns3711 to write things such as [59]? Or is this abusive of Wikipedia? 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It neither here nor there. What's important is if the article is neutral and with reliable references. Thanks/wangi 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
No one likes a tattletale. is not part of Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a pretty blatant case of soliciting outside supporters for collective revert-warring (he isn't asking them to contribute constructively, but to help him re-insert exactly his version of a single article), and as such potentially highly disruptive and a breach of WP:SOCK#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. A stern warning would be in order, and if the article should indeed get swamped by single-purpose meatpuppet accounts, there should be swift administrative action. Fut.Perf. 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Asteriontalk 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You may well get more helpful replies than the above if you were to alert the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights to be on the lookout for meatpuppetry at that article. Jkelly 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also warned User:GWP, who seems to be the primary reverter of PBurns' edits, not to engage in personal attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at AfD[edit]

It appears to me that there is significant sockpuppetry occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Donnelly (author). The author of the article isn't too happy that his article is up for deletion, and at the time of this writing 6 SPA's have been created to vote "keep" on the article. Several of these accounts have edited comments by other accounts, and one of the latest one has added a "keep" comment and signed it as the original article author Celtic 0106. Could use some help with this... thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - if that's not proof of sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. Dan, in the future, just tag single-purpose accounts as such with {{spa}}, then if the article isn't deleted and you believe the socks are the reason, file a checkuser request. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing the tagging, but it's getting a bit annoying. Isn't this blockable? --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If they're changing others' comments, warn them per normal vandalism and list at WP:AIV, imo. – Chacor 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
K i'll try that approach. Think it's worth the effort of tagging all the accounts with sock/sockmaster tags and opening a case too? --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And speedy deleted.[60] Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
AbsolutDan: no, code D at WP:RFCU (the applicable one) says "Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome". They didn't affect the outcome. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The Mystic Battle Trilogy needs to be deleted, too. JuJube 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was vague - i meant an entry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
SSP is fine, I presume. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, thanks Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Celtic0106 --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Great Rift Valley Edit[edit]

"Your recent edit to Great Rift Valley (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"

I've never even been to the Great Rift Valley page until accused of vandalism--when I checked the page to see what it's about. This computer belongs solely to myself and no one else has been on it recently.

  • also, no one else in my little network updates or even uses Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC). 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possible for the computer to belong solely to yourself, but for the IP address to rotate from one machine to another. This may be the case with Road Runner which appears to be your ISP. Since Wikipedia has no way of knowing which specific anonymous Road Runner user made the problematic edit, the message you received is going to show up for any contributor who logs in from that address. If this is a regular problem for you, you can consider registering a user account which will ensure that you receive only messages intended for you. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not necesarily the computer, it's the IP address, from which someone did indeed make such an edit. If it was not you, you can feel safe in ignoring the warning. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More socks in Anaheim Hills?[edit]

Consider this edit by DP121 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). In fact, all of his edits are there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For further clarification, the puppet master was indefinitely banned two days ago, per a previous discussion on this board after flouting a one year block by Arbcom with various socks. [61]. AniMate 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and bigotry from User:[edit]

Please someone take a look through the recent edit history of (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). There are many recent examples of personal attack:

  • revert-A Ramachandran is not a Hindu, he has also vandalised the article "Backward-caste Hindu Saints"
  • refvert-why do you neo-Buddhists feel that my work does not belong to this section-WHICH I CREATED?
  • revert-unless you people posing as "Hindus" give me a reason as to why my changes are unnecessary, I will continue to revert back to them

This user has been identified as being the same as Maleabroad (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) by Nat Krause here, based on the content being restored. He apparently has a history of this, and has been getting longer and longer blocks, the last was a week. A Ramachandran 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He has now changed IP addresses [62] to (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). A Ramachandran 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing, 3RR, vandalism, wheel warring at Vladimir Lenin[edit]

On January 8, the IP address (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptive editing at Vladimir Lenin. Edit summaries and edits themselves are exactly in keeping with those of banned user Jacob Peters (talk ·