Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive177

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

Noticeboard archives


legal threats[edit]

Anyone who's not keeping an eye on the Derek Smart arbcom case, I'd like an uninvolved administrator to take a look at the personal attacks and especially the legal threats by User:Supreme Cmdr on that case. I understand there is an arbitration currently pending, but that does NOT allow them to be able to make personal attacks and threats against other users. Only a handful of diffs needed, the rest are perfectly clear from a browse down the Workshop page: Note: h e's been blocked EIGHT TIMES for (i believe 41 days) personal threat, legal threat, insinuates another editor is stalking and is committing crimes, personal attack "Liar",incivility, incivility, personal attacks, libel claims, incivility, incivility, disingenuous editing while claiming "weazel words" and "pov pushing" to protect his own POV, incivility, refusal to assume good faith amongst ALL other editors on wikipedia, more personal attacks and incivility against another person this time, uncivil edit summary usage etc....and even trolling for help on other user's talk with incivility such as "consensus by dolts" in effort to "game" the arbcom ruling.

This is sickening, and it's frustrating, and as I've mentioned before, it's stressing me to the point that I'm seriously considering leaving the project because absolutely nothing has been done about this.

He's been blocked EIGHT FREAKING TIMES, community banned from the article, which was never enforced other than a single block, and he's STILL around causing trouble. Why is this being allowed to continue, seriously? SWATJester On Belay! 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, useful link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart/Proposed_decision#Supreme_Cmdr. In my understanding, the situation is currently being discussed by ArbCom and they should hopefully reach a decision shortly. Addhoc 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned the pending case above, but a pending Arbcom case does not excuse an editor from following the most basic policies of wikipedia, such as WP:NLT and WP:NPA, both blockable offenses, and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as well. SWATJester On Belay! 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When a user like this is clearly out to disrupt, it become a huge time sink for people who volunteer to keep this encyclopedia running. For that reason alone he should be blocked. We cannot afford to lose good users by assuming good faith to malcontents. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this case certainly has been a time sink, however as this shows there is currently a discussion within ArbCom about whether he should be blocked for 2 weeks or a year. Addhoc 20:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In my view, he should be blocked until the arbitration committee makes finalizes its decision. Bucketsofg 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I added another remedy at the workshop, regarding this little outburst of harassment and legal threats. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Appreciated Daniel.Bryant, Addhoc, and Bucketsofg, and David D. Thanks for the eyes. SWATJester On Belay! 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If this situation ever comes up again, you also have the option of proposing a motion for a temporary injunction on the Workshop of the arbitration case. I don't recommend doing so in this instance as it could wind up just distracting the arbitrators from getting to the final decision in the case which is what is really needed here, but still, you should be aware of the option.
Please don't leave the project over any one user, however troublesome you may find him, especially when the situation is actively in the process of being addressed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Appreciated, thanks. SWATJester On Belay! 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

External links from User Vwollan‎ & unregistered user(s) on Atmel AVR, AVR Butterfly & unregistered user[edit]

There is a persistent problem with the Articles Atmel AVR and AVR Butterfly. A number of external links keep being added which violate WP:EL. The full list of links and reasons are discussed on the Talk:Atmel_AVR page. On the talk pages I was accused of being a Big Jerk and a Little-Hitler'.

As the edits were originally being done by an unregesited user I requested and was granted semi-protection for the articles. I did this in the hope that it would cause the offender to register and prompt a civil discussion. This stopped the annymous editing and the User_Talk:Vwollan to surafce and perform the same edits. However civilised discussion remained impossible. The User:Vwollan had already recived a 1 week ban for adding excessive links.

The article AVR Butterfly went to mediation over the same matter in September 06 (Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-10_AVR_Butterfly). An unregistered user has recently modified the archive of the mediation.

As attempts at civilised discussion have lead nowhere (and both parties (myself included)are getting close to the thre-revert-rule) I am unsure what to do next. I don't really want to request full protection, and I fear another mediation case would lead nowhere. I would like to bring this to the attention of an Admin/Sysop as attempts at resolvoinng the matter appear to have failed. -- User_Talk:Rehnn83 --Rehnn83 20:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Update the issue appears to be resolved - Admin Robdurbar has blocked the offending user --Rehnn83 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a Problem with User:Fabartus[edit]

I had never had any contact with this editor.

He began by making this edit to a WP:AN/I archive [1] , and then followed by posting this [2] at no time approaching me.

After tried to send me a private email through a third party (which I felt was inappropriate and most peculiar, because my email is enabled and his email is on his user page openly.) I expressed my concerns on his talk page, here [3].

To which he responded as follows [4].

It seems to me to be no more than one long personal attack, with little or no basis in any facts known to me. I have asked him for diffs and he refuses to provide them, instead, continuing his personal attacks.

It seems to me that he shouldn't be doing that. It also seems to me that I shouldn't just let it go on without bringing it here. --Zeraeph 04:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy Fabartus has chosen to resolve the matter satisfactorily. --Zeraeph 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Linda Christas again[edit]

The last Linda Christas related AN/I issue was here, a new AfD brings to my attention the following edits ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and more here) which I have a hard time believing (for reasons explained here) without verifyable sources. Pete.Hurd 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the same piffle paragraph was spammed into John McCain [12] & Ted Kennedy [13] (and Talk:George W. Bush...) by similar IPs Pete.Hurd 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just indef-blocked Georgewstanton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log); his contributions consisted entirely of spamming the same unverifiable paragraph into multiple articles or tweaking it post-anon-insertion, plus the creation of four articles (Shirley J. Neeley, William J. Moloney, Dr. Patti Harrington, Linda McCulloch) which were blatant cut-and-paste copyvios of their official biographies - again, with the IASC paragraph snuck into the middle. —Cryptic 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Whole-heartedly approve these actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More possible Art Dominique socks[edit]

Here are a couple of likely socks of banned user Art Dominique (talk · contribs). Checkuser was inconclusive. Please review and block if it is determined that they are socks.

Thank you. TheQuandry 15:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza once more[edit]

Esperanza is on deletion review. Specifically, one editor wants all the histories back. FYI. >Radiant< 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV is for reviewing controversial decisions. And I think that deleting histories of the subpages against consensus to remove said histories is controversial. DRV is fair in this case imo, the statement "Specifically, one editor... FYI" seems to give it a "We want this dead and buried already, and this guy's kicking this back up to the surface" feel. – Chacor 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you read the admin closing statement it specifically says not to delete the page histories, so I don't see why this should be controversial at all. "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages". How much less controversial and clearcut can you get? --tjstrf talk 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If only the deleting admins realised it. – Chacor 16:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm not at all saying it's wrong or unfair to take it to DRV, in fact I fully agree it belongs there. It's just that, given the length of the MFD debate, I figured more people needed to know about it than just the DRV regulars. >Radiant< 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The note on the WP:MFD/EA page probably would have accomplished that, but fine. --tjstrf talk 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a closed discussion—many people will not still have it on their watchlist or notice a change oti, and I don't see any note there about a deletion review being brought anyway. —Centrxtalk • 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's on the talk page. Or at least I assume that's what the thing on my watchlist from that page with the summary "DRV" is. Maybe some of you are better at pruning your watchlists than I am. --tjstrf talk 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


I would appreciate it if someone could look at where there are 11 new user accounts all being used to reinstate the same external links which have been taken out by a series of proper editors. The 11 accounts all look like sock puppets for someone, have a handful of edits each all on the same three articles and are all new but I don't think I can report it as such without being able to identify a puppet master. If they are all at the same IP address could we just block them all or something? --BozMo talk 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


If anyone wants an update on the Gundam mess, we're working things out moderately peacefully and consensually at WP:GUNDAM. Just so you know. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

This Ip has been vandalising rapidly, I've used the WHOIS tool on the talk page, and it says that it is registered to a university, making it a shared Ip, this needs to be sorted out.--Rasillon 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They've got a hard block, and based on the history of contribs I don't think that we need to change that - open to review of course (and might be worth someone checking that this isn't the subject of a bio blanking it - I suspect not, though I don't have enough subject knowledge). Thanks, Martinp23 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rich Wannen[edit]

I just blanked this user page, and indefinitely blocked the account. As background, I had some experience with this user before I was an admin. As a newbie, he attempted some very radical changes without understanding some basic things about how Wikipedia works, and then left the project. I've archived some of this at User talk:SamuelWantman/Rich Wannen. He was not blocked in the past. One of the big ironies of his experience here was that some of the things he wanted to happen, did actually happen after he left (like renaming all the "cinema" categories to "film"). His most recent post a short while ago, contains a legal threat, so I blanked the page, and blocked the account. Not sure what else I could do in the circumstances, and if it was appropriate to leave the page as he wrote it. I figured it could always be restored after discussion, which is what I'm asking for now. -- Samuel Wantman 07:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

An added irony, the legal threat was made by an anon. The anon is upset because the user page accused him of being a sockpuppet using IPs that are very close to the IP of the anon. It is probably a dynamic IP. -- Samuel Wantman 09:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has an opinion? -- Samuel Wantman 21:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone there? -- Samuel Wantman 18:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're sure the IPs were him, it's probably not an issue. Maybe you could leave a message on his talk page saying, "if this block was unfairly applied, because none of this was you, feel free to request unblock." Mostly, however, he hasn't edited for 1.5 years, so it probably won't be a problem. Patstuarttalk|edits 18:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

School's in[edit]

Is it just me, or are there are a lot of vandalism reports from school ips lately? I just handed out about 5-6 1 month+ blocks; I encourage others to handle similar situations similarly. Kids are just getting back to school after winter break, let's nip this vandalize-Wikipedia-at-school thing in the bud now, and hopefully these goofballs will find other ways to be destructive. Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're dishing out long blocks, you might want to be sure that they're anonymous-only to reduce collateral damage. It's probably a more important consideration with highschools and post-secondary schools. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer hard blocks on disruptive high schools. We see a lot of logged-in disruption and it's hard to sort out good accounts from bad. I'd rather they edit from home; it's easier to figure out who's who (at least from a checkuser perspective). Besides, they should be paying attention to the instructor, not Wikipedia! Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can get them to pull up thier pants and cut thier hair! They need to stop smoking pot and join bootcamp! Back in my day we knew how to show proper respect... *walks off the soapbox mumbling incoherently* ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the same thing and noticed a bunch of chronic ones in the ones I blocked today so I had to deal out a few 6-months in there as well. Which, essentially, is a 7+ month block when you consider the 6 month block expires in July and most schools don't start back up until sometime later in August. Metros232 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely what's going on. When it's a weekday and school is in session in North America, we have the maximum amount of silly vandalism. Anyone who has time to RC-patrol during this time, please do, and pay particular attention to articles which are likely to be subject of assignments (i.e. history, English, social studies, arithmetic ...) I've noticed this pattern for a couple of years now at least. Antandrus (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And any article that has the word school in it. Metros232 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. I have seen some persistant vandalism from Australian and UK schools, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. What I meant is that it's time-specific. Right now, morning in California, there's tons of vandalism from schools on my continent. When it's late afternoon-evening in the U.S., you get tons of silly vandalism from 203. addresses, and when overnight in the U.S., from 80.-89. Antandrus (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the "vandalism is out of session for the year" block until September 2007 (start of next academic year in USA). I'd agree with Mackenson, but I often get complaints after a hard block, so I've been avoiding them recently. alphachimp 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, [[[User:]] is a cluster fudge, and I use it because it's my school's IP. Hardblocks are not by friend. ~ Flameviper 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MascotGuy demanding ArbCom case??[edit]

See User talk:Blaitho (now protected) for information. --SunStar Nettalk 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with him getting a hearing, although I do believe this is the first time that MascotGuy has ever written to a Talk page, which makes me wonder if he really is who he claims to be. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that it might be a hoax/impersonator account, but I'm not sure. --SunStar Nettalk 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I extremely doubt that this is MascotGuy based on the fact that he was the first to claim he was MascotGuy. Metros232 18:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ejército Rojo 1950[edit]

Ejército Rojo 1950 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Editor makes contentious edits at Joseph Stalin and continues to delete sourced, NPOV facts from that page with edit summaries like this one [14]. Editor has been asked by me to discuss major edits like these on the talk page, and in response he blanked the request from his talk page [15]. I gave him a test3 warning for this, which he then also blanked [16]. This editor's actions are much like those of indef blocked users LuisMatosRibeiro (talk · contribs) and Jacob Peters (talk · contribs), who both edit the same articles and make the same kinds of contentious edits (and are both well-established puppetmasters). TheQuandry 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from AIV. alphachimp 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't our old friend Jacob, it's someone very similar. Recommend checkuser - is that appropriate here? Moreschi Deletion! 19:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser request filed for this guy against Jacob Peters. I think it's unlikely it's the other one: this new one's pattern is very close to that of Jacob. The other one seems obsessive about one article: both this guy and Jacob are more general. Moreschi Deletion! 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is out to get User:Chowbok[edit]

An anon which I just blocked has been posting what they claim is Chowbok's home address, phone number and email address in edit summaries (the edits themselves were valid minor edits). I have requested that the people at WP:OVERSIGHT remove them, but if somebody else sees these vicious edit summaries in Recent Changes, be sure they get taken care of. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One on AN now. Syrthiss 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I just blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours as a preventive measure. If anyone wants to extend it, feel free. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you request that OVERSIGHT remove the summaries? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone else do it please, I'm off to lunch. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, it appears that the anon got this by following the link off of User:Chowbok to his homepage, where he pretty clearly posts his contact info... so it isn't like they did any kind of super sleuthing. FWIW, it should still probably be removed though.--Isotope23 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See this edit ... personal info in edit summary: [17] --BigDT 19:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy ... it's all of User:'s contribs --BigDT 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
See also this thread supra... Joe 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hardblocked for 48 hours. Let me know on my talkpage if it happens again under a new IP. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actualy, note it here. I'm off to lunch. 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
See here too. Yikes. -- weirdoactor t|c 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have merged these two conversations ... sorry that I didn't see the one above when I posted. Can an admin delete these revisions? --BigDT 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's really not a big deal, at least as far as I'm concerned. As Isotope23 pointed out, I make that info available on my homepage; I'm not a secretive person. More petty harrassment because of my image tagging. Thanks to all for watching out for this. —Chowbok 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I contacted OVERSIGHT and they took care of the second one, too. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

made-up material[edit]

for whatever reason - a user is constantly inserting hoax material into an articlewo (6 times in the last two hours). He takes no notice of other editors - can someone have a word in his ear? --Charlesknight 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The user in question has been blocked for thirty hours. -- tariqabjotu 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza protected[edit]

I've protected Wikipedia:Esperanza due to edits which look like edit warring to me in the recent history. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], The talk page is also protected so it'll likely end up somewhere else. I suggest User:Hiding/Esperanza as neutral territory. Hiding Talk 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Oof... didn't intend to start an(other) edit war, but the paragraph doesn't belong there. DRV is running its course. —bbatsell ¿? 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not taking sides. If I could knock your heads together, make you all say sorry and shake hands and be friends again, I would, but I can't so I protected the page. I'd rather do that than start issuing blocks. Like I say, anyone who wants to discuss the issue is welcome to use User:Hiding/Esperanza. Hiding Talk 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User: blocked again.[edit]

FYI: Blocked, anon only, for 48 hours for repeated vandalism. Posted to the notifications sub page of the communications committee over at wikimedia as well. Wikibofh(talk) 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

JB196 (talk · contribs) sock?[edit]

DXRAW (talk · contribs) seems to have a very good track record. However, his latest edits are consistent with JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): nominating non-American wrestling related articles for (speedy) deletion over alleged non-notability. Because of this, I have for now declined the speedy nominations I have come across so far. I believe that DXRAW is a good faith user, but it's better to be safe than to be sorry. Please review my actions and the articles DXRAW (talk · contribs) has nominated for speedy deletion. Aecis No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the history of DXRAW (talk · contribs) I am sure that he is not JB196. He doesn't have any of the other signs of JB (spelling wise), plus JB/his socks arealways focused on wrestling articles only. Besides, JB's last two socks were ongoing, last I checked Machodawg (talk · contribs) and GaryGoingggg (talk · contribs) I have to request a CU on those two soon (plus I noticed there's a GaryGoinggg (talk · contribs) (one less G) with no edits. Probably registered around the same time. SirFozzie 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Like before, Sirfozzie, you are wrong, I'm not a sockpuppet and your continued harassment will be reported if it continues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GaryGoingggg (talkcontribs) 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
And Like Before, "Gary" you have all the signs of a JBsock, just like the 8 or so others that have been blocked after JB's accounts got banned. SirFozzie 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Twice on the board in one week, I'm going good been accused of being sockpuppets for two different people. Who's sockpuppet am i going to be next week? DXRAW 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You never may even get lucky, in a weird kind of way :) Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 11:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
How on Earth is THAT "getting lucky" ? 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It was a joke, hence the smiley... Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd essay from a possible single-purpose account[edit]

I was patrolling Special:Newpages, when I noticed Wikipedia:ProtectionBot is bad created by an apparent single-purpose account, VerizonisthebestISPitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions seem to be to this. --SunStar Nettalk 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"I choose you, MfD! Delete-spam attack. It's super effective! WP:PROBOT fainted!" --Deskana (request backup) 12:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It has been terminated. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Nick's CSD used Extremespeed!" --Deskana (request backup) 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • snicker* -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels et al[edit]

Is there any way you can do an ip block for whatever other accounts he has before he takes it upon himself to do some damage somewhere it matters, or can you only do it on a name-by-name basis? HalfShadow 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the m:CheckUsers found the IP Willy on Wheels edits from and blocked it indefinitely. -- Steel 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of them, yes. Anyone who unblocks will be hung from the nearest lamp-post, By Order Of Mackensen. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Large expanding edit war, need admin assistance please[edit]

Mobile 01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I come here reluctantly with a heavy heart. I was hoping that User:Mobile 01 and I could resolve this edit dispute amblicably, but that will not be the case.

Can a third party admin please review this users behavior?

I am the opposing party in an edit war with User:Mobile 01 on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was protected by User:Robdurbar today.

Instead of discussing this page protection today, User:Mobile 01 created Firestone and Firestone 100 Years of History (both earlier versions of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company)

User:Mobile 01 then redirected links (Bridgestone-Firestone, LLC, Firestone Liberian controversy, Firestone Tire) to his newly created page, essentially an older version of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

I feel it may be best of one admin handles all of these requests.

To stop this expanded edit war:

"Hypocrisy does not reflect well on your bias" "While your revisions seem intent on showing Firestone to be a wicked and evil monolith that should be tarred and feathered" "You claim you will respect the wishes of the Wiki community but in fact you do not" "Comprimises I can do, Respecting the global Wiki users POV I can do, Dictatorship; I have a problem with."

Sorry to bother you all with this edit war. I sincerely wish it could have been avoided. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected Firestone International to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company , thanks/wangi 01:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Wangi also was kind enough to delete Firestone 100 Years of History[23] Maybe it can be recreated as a redirect after this edit war is over. User:Mobile 01 you can Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles, if you wish.
WP:TEA I won't pursue this any further tonight, except to link this section to the admin, User talk:Robdurbar/Miscellanious who page protected Firestone Tire and Rubber Company originally. I look forward to User:Mobile 01 input in the Wikipedia:Third opinion. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Note:   Active requests are normally cleared quickly on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Travb posted the WP:3O request to which he refers at 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (diff); it remained until 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (diff), quite a bit longer than the usual hours or even minutes.
It may be pertinent that LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006, Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing 20 November 2006. These two users, with prominent roles in the active disagreement as posted on WP:3O, may be the same person. Athænara 10:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Judge Judy and talk page[edit]

  • I'm anticipating a problem here; there's issue over removal of Judge Constance Harm, who is supposedly a parody of Judge Judy. No less than three editors including myself don't see a clear connection, but two anonymous users (one of whom is a sockpuppet) are threatening to replace this unless there is a response to their "Request for comment" on the talk page. Just a heads up. JuJube 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please use dispute resolution admins are not content mediators.--Docg 02:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanghak (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can you give the heads-up on this user please. I've notice his recent contributions to the list of solitaire card games are really doubtful, since he didn't provide the source on which those solitaire card games appear. Besides, he doesn't even observe alphabetical order when he lists his new games. I've also checked his talk page and block log and found out that he has been blocked four times before because of the trouble he caused. He's already been reminded about the Wikipedia policy even after his recent block, but I think he ignores them or doesn't even read them. Just giving my two cents because his edits already have my suspicions. - 上村七美 | talk 02:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Crazy wacky funtime[edit]

All four users were indefinitely blocked by yours truly for personal attacks (part of a long-standing effort against an editor I work with often, as well as a couple others now). Threats were met with "use {{unblock}}", which was met with more threats, which was met with a lockdown of their talk pages.

I'm only mentioning it here because I just want a thumbs-up that it is okay to do this (considering that I've completely removed their ability to request an unblock, which I see as an opportunity they squandered by threatening me).

For those that don't want to bother reading the talk pages, the highlights can be found at User:EVula#Collection of threats. :-) EVula // talk // // 06:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbol thumbs up.svgCryptic 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I've never seen such artfully crafted death threats. No-brainer support. Grandmasterka 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, hells yeah. I wholeheartedly endorse these blocks. -- Merope 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sweet Fancy Moses. Danny Lilithborne 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I really have to give credit to the "murder you and hang your body from a oak tree for the piegons to eat" one. I mean, threatening someone with "I will sue" and "I will report you" is the equivalent to just phoning it in. Feeding me to pigeons? That is creative. EVula // talk // // 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, I think the claim that pigeons are scavenging carnivores really needs a reliable source, seesh OR threats, double whammy. Pete.Hurd 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This one is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Well done. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the fun never stops, apparently. I now have the blood of seven vandals on my hands for this particular incident... is there perhaps something a bit more permanent that I can do? This is my first foray into the wonderful world of sockpuppetry (the closest I've ever come was blocking a Bobby Boulders sock), so I'm severely lost. EVula // talk // // 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Put in a checkuser request for all of them, ensure that their point of origin is noted by a CU person for future reference. Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Those threats were actually one of the few times I've laughed out loud on Wikipedia. They were unusually creative as well as unusually poorly spelled. 04:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The fun never stops at Crazy Happy Sock World! Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What really gets you, of course, is when the actual sockmaster is making good edits and having the vandals attack his page. I've never quite figured that one out. Mackensen (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that CheckUser confirms that User:American Brit is the sockmaster. All known sockpuppets are now blocked. I'll leave it to the board here to decide what to do about this. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, very interesting... EVula // talk // // 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Reminds me of a similar situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
<Yoda>Behind the Separatist Sock Puppet attacks, American Brit is? Disturbing, this is. Doubt you, I do not, yet difficult to believe this is. If the Sock Master he is, why accuse himself, as he apparently did? Interesting, this is, as EVula stated. Look into this further, I must; suspected slightly I did, yet decided against it. Taken me by surprise, this has.</Yoda> ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this crazy or what? I hope it's not true. --Majorly (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a link to the checkuser result? --Majorly (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I told you that guy was messed up, Majorly. Who the heck has children at the age of 12? Nishkid64 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Nishkid64 [24]. --Majorly (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, that's the link I was talking about yesterday. Dude, I still think that was made up. They have no clue how it happened, though. This kid says he had kids at 2 kids by the age of 16. How the hell does he afford anything? Nishkid64 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
See Mary Kay Letourneau. Teke (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked I am being accused of sock puppetry. I ASSURE I HAVE NEVER VANDALIZED ANYTHING. I also am quite upset both of my friends on Wikipedia EVula and Haunted Angel are buying this lie. I honestly now think I should just leave Wikipedia. Also Majorly I hope you know this is all bull crap American Brit 22:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't lie. --Majorly (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Majorly's right. Stop trying to act innocent. We take sockpuppetry seriously at Wikipedia. Nishkid64 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not acting innocent. I am innocent. This all junk. You cannot prove this. My IP could be shared by over 200 computers. And one man vandalized so I got the blame. Anyway I will be considered leaving this whole website. I feel so betrayed by my once close Wiki friends. All of you know deep down this is not true. I am not a vandal. American Brit 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You know, even CheckUsers do extend a little good faith now then. Gosh knows it's hard sometimes. But, the thing of it is, you've got a static IP address which you're sharing with a drawer full of sockpuppets, all of which attack you and disrupt the same articles. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I agree that the odds of me and a vandal who argues with me sharing the same IP are very slim, but I am not the puppeter. I admit I knew I was on the same account as them because I was autoblocked when they were blocked. I did not request unblock because I was afraid I would be accused of what I am being accused of now. I really dont know if I am staying here or not. American Brit 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, never would have guessed it.

It does make sense to me though after further review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HolyHandGrenadez (talkcontribs).

omg...No comment...--Dil 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I... don't know whether to laugh or beat my head against a wall. And don't crows or ravens normally eat hanged people, not pigeons? --tjstrf talk 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to use logic in this situation... you'll only end up hurting yourself. EVula // talk // // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...

  • CheckUser confirms it
  • changing story from American Brit ("My IP could be shared by over 200 computers" became "I admit I knew I was on the same account as them")
  • some awfully damming diffs
  • similar spelling structure (or lack thereof)
  • quirky personal history
  • similar userpage setups between socks and suspected puppetmaster (bulleted userboxes)

Yeah, sorry, far too much secondary evidence is backing up the CheckUser for me to consider it a mistake. EVula // talk // // 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My story was not changed I stuck to that from the start.. The damning biffs: the first was explained, I was not trying to attack Haunted ANgel but start a discussion. The wording made it sound bad, it was accident. What do you mean by simalar setup? and quirky personal history? American Brit 19:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm from the same area you are from (Charleston/South Charleston). I know that us Charlestonians (HeheHe), don't often have children at 13. You also seem to live a very exciting life that would not fit the part about have 2 kids, especially at young ages. You really wouldn't have that time to travel/ etc.

-Holy hand grenadez —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Are you saying I lied about my background? I assure you every comment on my user page is true, except the names. I did not put my familys real names for security reasons. Time to travel can be explained. My Grandfather works for a company that is constantly sending to European Union nations, thus I trave along with him. My mother is a nurse and my Uncle owns a large number of shares in oil corporations. My family is not dirt poor. Anyway I left Charleston in December and I know live in Cheadle, Manchester, United Kingdom American Brit 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you've changed some info on your userpage.

Anyway, Usercheck doesn't lie. Why aren't people banned for sockpuppeting?

I have not changed any thing. I changed the names only for as I stated above security. If I wanted to make up a life story do you really think thats what I would tell? American Brit 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

American Brit, you are such a bad liar. See [25]. Took you a while to realize that there are only 30 days in April :P. Nishkid64 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
...And his latest birthdate is October 8th, 1987. Anyway, what do we do now? I'm not a big fan of punitive blocks, but usually death threats get the banhammer. Quite a way to repay his "friends". Grandmasterka 01:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of American Brit[edit]

What do we do now? All in favor of community ban of American Brit (talk · contribs) and any subsequent socks for death threats and other policy violations, say aye. Teke (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye! Death threats, sockpuppetry, and lying. Nishkid64 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I must concur. Death threats (or any kind of threats) cannot be tolerated on wiki. Long term threateners should be banned. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Community ban seems right. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye on my part for being a victim.--Dil 02:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Wow, ban indeed. --Wildnox(talk) 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This would seem to me to basically be a punitive block, which almost all recent successful RFA candidates say shouldn't be done. Since the User:American Brit account hasn't been used for vandalism, trolling, threats etc. - blocking him would be a punitive block. Eli Falk 00:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Bans are different - they aren't on one account, but on the person; being banned means you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia, due to your actions under any account name. And this isn't punitive, it's preventative, because concensus has determined his negative impact on this site isn't worth what his contributions give, basically. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If that account had been involved with vandalism, then preventing it from editing would prevent a negative impact on this site; Blocking an account which wasn't involved with the trouble, and which seems to be the main account, doesn't prevent it. Eli Falk 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
A ban is not a block. Blocks are used to enfore bans. A simple block is preventative to avoid further disruption if the user is unwilling to discuss their actions. A community ban is saying that the user is not welcome here, usually as a result of their actions. So yes, it is cause and effect but it is not a "block". That's why there're two different policies. If you review the user's contributions on talk pages, they are unwilling to admit complicity despite overwhelming evidence and are unlikely to change their stance; IMO American Brit thinks this is all a game. That is not welcome, and it is preventative in that violations of a community ban can be acted upon swiftly, bereft of process hang ups. If American Brit still wants to charade, the user can appeal to the Arbitration committee. Teke (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it as punitive. In my opinion, serious violations that warrant indefinite blocks should be applied to all of the accounts, at least in a case like this when it is checkuser confirmed. If I were to make a death threat using a sock puppet, I think that I would prove that I most likely am more damaging to the project than I am helpful and therefore banning my main account would be appropriate. --Wildnox(talk) 01:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this: I have used this computer several times and I have noticed the blocking and vandalism warnings. This is a school computer at a high school shared by many people. I do not know the IP address of this computer I think it will automatically show up. I sincerely apologize for the low maturity level of 'my' high school peers.

Support: Even though I am one of his 'friends' (WTF?) for helping correct some strange date-time issues (daughter at 13 in 2002; married in 2003 at age 16; WTF?), go ahead and ban him. His remarks are quite comical but this guy's a jerk. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More sock fun. Wheeeeee. EVula // talk // // 06:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for investigation[edit]

User Aylahs is suspected of using multiple user accounts to push her point to delete articles Aga Khani and Islamic Cults. This is suspected because after user Aylahs requested deletion a whole lot of users showed up who were just created. Also this User takes it upon himself to delete comments and entries by calling everthing untrue and vandalism.


trueblood 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I wish to state my position in this matter:
  1. I did not create or use multiple accounts in either of the AfD processes.
  2. Any deletions or reversions that I have made are justified with an edit summary, a note on the talk page where appropriate, and in cases of vandalism a notice on the user's or IP's talk page.
  3. User:Trueblood786 has also requested that I be investigated at the RFI page. The investigating admin there states that he "didn't see any indications of vandalism".
  4. User:Trueblood786 has also initiated a checkuser request against me.
  5. In the past multiple users (including myself) have noted that User:Trueblood786 appears to routinely use anonymous IP addresses as sockpuppets in commiting vandalism, and other questionable edits. Please see the following talk pages for more details:
If I can be of assistance to the investigating administrator, please feel free to address me at my talk page. Regards -- Aylahs (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation through username[edit]

The talk page Talk:Indian Valley High School (Pennsylvania) seems to be a bit of a battle ground: some (presumably) students not only using it to discuss the price of parking and launch personal attacks on teachers, but also agressively defending their right to do that from a variety of registered users. This situation seems to be in hand, and does not require intenvention; this is just background. The reason for posting is the user "User:R varner20" who claims to be the same user as "User:Iv admin20" who was blocked for (probably accidentally) including "admin" in the title; Iv = Indian Valley? Anyway, the article itself, Indian Valley High School (Pennsylvania) claims that "Ronald L. Varner is the current principal of the school." (This can be verified from the official site). Judging from the attack at [26], this user (who signs as R Varner) is not the principal (maybe a wild accusation, you make up your own mind). Given that, it might be appropriate to block the username; I'm not sure what the policy is, however. Notinasnaid 13:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Even ignoring the username, it is a vandal-only account and probably deserves an indef on that alone...--Isotope23 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Trolls should be blocked. Impersonator usernames should be blocked too (unless it's really R Varner, in which case, he's the same guy that vandalized the article to have himself as principal, which means we don't want him around either). Seems like a no-brainer to indef this guy. Somebody, please do (impersonator/attack usernames are very bad). -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's another [27] This time by "Ronald Varner IV". I can't put my finger on it, but something tells me this guy isn't genuine. Prometheus-X303- 06:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Child or troll?[edit]

I indef-blocked 12bogdanicha (talk · contribs) as a child-imitating troll. While WP:CHILD is not a policy, user's contributions clearly reveal that he's here primarily for trolling. Duja 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You've certainly told him he's blocked, but have you really blocked him? Grandad 14:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 :-D. My bad, fixed. At least, I have proven myself that I'm not a "shoot first" guy Duja 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone share my view that Wikipedia:Reach out looks very esparanzaishy? It looks like a good (and kind) idea, but I'm not sure an encyclopaedia is the place for it. And it's a troll magnet. yandman 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's the very first time I see it now, but I second your opinion. MfD? Duja 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is always a difficult thing to discuss, and whoever does MFD it will no doubt be labelled as a monster who eats babies. Such 'help pages' have very good intentions behind them, but Wikipedia is really not the place for social interaction or a message board, which is in our policies for very good reasons. Proto:: 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to burn me at the stake. yandman 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to your opinion. I just don't share it. Fred Bauder 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yandman, I think this kind of thing is mostly harmless. Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with making an encyclopaedia, but ultimately, it doesn't hurt it either. What does hurt though is the endless fighting over silly things like this. Grace Note 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nasty antisemitic attack[edit]

As some of you know, I'm not very active on Wikipedia currently; the following was passed along to me on my user talk page by User:Dahn. It's not immediately obvious what, if anything, can be done about it, but I figured I'd mention it here in case anyone has a useful suggestion.

A very nasty antisemitic attack (in Romanian) was left on Dahn's talk page. When he passed this fact on to me, he provided a translation, which appears accurate but which I'd rather not reproduce in full here. Suffice it to say that some of the milder language in it is "there's a place in front for you at the next holocaust".

It's from an anon IP that seems to have been used only briefly and once. The IP address ( leads to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. This one was so egregious that it might be worth investigating whether that is the service provider for some regular contributor of whom this might be characteristic.

Anyway, I'm not monitoring anything these days except my own user talk page, so if someone wants to ask me anything further on this, please ping me there. - Jmabel | Talk 19:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This actually traces back to a Romanian ISP. [28] --pgk 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, specifically Bacău. Anyways, I've blocked the anon (along with for one week. Upon further investigation, both of these IPs appear to be the same person as Dacodava, who has been indef. blocked since last April. Notice the limited IP range at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dacodava. In addition, the similar very usage of edit summaries from all these IPs makes it even more likely. Khoikhoi 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious edit-warring by User:Kathanar[edit]

There is a 3RR complaint against him:

Three-revert rule violation on Hate Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kathanar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Comments: User is a tendentious editor and also has created bogus categories to push an agenda Category:Religious supremacists Rumpelstiltskin223 22:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Similar pattern of revert-warring here: Hindutva [29] [30] [31]

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [32] [33] [34] Rumpelstiltskin223 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that this edit of mine [35] is not a counter-revert because I was removing vandalism put there by an anonymous user (the statement "kkk like black people").Rumpelstiltskin223 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar revert-warring in: Sangh Parivar [36][37][38]Rumpelstiltskin223 04:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, he created two bogus cats. First is Category:Religious supremacists which is up for CfD. he saw that consensus was against him when he started to add several articles to the category in a pattern of bias, then he decided to create another category Category:Hindu Fundamentalism which is also up for CfD on the grounds that Category:Hindutva already exists and the cat is highly POV. He has been repeating the same pattern that he did with the previous cat. Continuously adding pages against clear consensus. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - Half-Life 2 (featured article on the main page) is NOT PROTECTED and should be.[edit]

The article Half-Life 2, which is the featured article on the main page but is not protected has had 180 edits in the past nine hours. See here (most of them are vandalism) for the 180-edit diff, the history, and my watchlist for the compacted list of editors (most are IP and new made-for-vandalism accounts). I reccomend an immediate full protection, changing to semi-protection after a cleanup, and a massive block party, IPs and users alike. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous attitude you have there. (rolleyes) Generally, the FA is never protected unless really necessary. Nothing major, every FA gets it share of vandalism. I'm against protection, 180 edits in 9 hours seems perfectly okay for TFA, we've been hit worse before. – Chacor 15:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't protect the main page FA, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Kusma (討論) 15:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I was about to direct the requestor to PPOL, when I checked it to find that in this edit, made without discussion that I could see, the important note about high profile articles was removed. What? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My bad. -- Steel 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Wait, no. I removed it because it was more relevant to semi-protection, and is mentioned on that policy's page. -- Steel 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Am I misreading consensus that the FA of the day should rarely, if ever, be fully protected? I don't see this mentioned anywhere. I note an ongoing debate about semi-protection, but we're all in agreement about full, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well at least sprotect the damn thing: of 180 edits, at least 2/3 are vandalism, and the rest are mostly reverts fixing it. Nothing constructive. Not to mention that sprotect would exclude the IP and very new users, who are doing the vandalism... —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention the load it's putting on the servers, and how it's filling them up: IP replaces page with 'PEEEEENIS LOL!!11', user reverts, IP blanks page, user reverts - that's already two new copies of the article saved, and a big article too. This diff is just from while we've been talking. —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Server load and disk space are not problems. Kusma (討論) 15:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Three edits a minute is nothing for the servers. Any bot will do twice that, and we've got probably a hundred of them roaming around Wikipedia. --Carnildo 19:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not protect or sprotect the featured article for any length of time other than to clean up vandalism. Period. That is the consensus, that's always been the consensus. Featured articles attract a lot of vandals and testers, for obvious reasons. It is also the first article that people new to Wikipedia go to. So if they've read all about how Wikipedia works, how you can edit it, then they go to find where to edit and find out they're not allowed, then they get a wrong first impression. In addition, a lot of featured articles come out improved after being featured on the main page, and a lot of that is from anonymous editors. They're not all vandals; hell, some of them are just testing! So we watch the page more closely, warn and block obvious vandals, greet and inform testers (don't bite), and we keep it as clean as we can. —bbatsell ¿? 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should not be protecting the today's featured article, except in the event that a serious, non-vandalistic edit war breaks out among established users. Which, really, would be grounds for the article being de-featured (they're supposed to be stable), and I can't actually imagine it happening, all of a sudden, on the day the FA reaches the main page. Mangojuicetalk 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To give some idea of such improvements on recent featured articles: The Adventures of Tintin (261 edits[39]), Operation Auca (120 edits[40], vandalism in last one corrected in next edit), Invasion (203 edits[41]), and Fauna of Puerto Rico (187 edits[42]). This shows that most changes are cosmetical (wikilinks, some spelling) but overall an improvement to the article. This also shows that general and/or popular themes get more edits than more specialized ones. Fram 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
NB for newcomers: This is only "consensus" in the odd, if well-established, Wikipedia sense of the word (which you'll encounter in AfDs and the like). A possibly small percentage of editors who've been here for some time, such as myself, think that not sprotecting featured articles is a damn silly idea and a massive waste of time; and that the kind of would-be editor ***ERIC IS A FAG*** who will give up and go away if he doesn't get instant satisfaction the very first time is an editor that WP can very well do without. The changes to the Tintin article could have come later, been suggested on its talk page, etc. But hey, this desperate openness to people with limited attention-spans is a matter of faith in WP; who am I to argue? -- Hoary 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I, too, believe that "consensus" isn't exactly established in this issue. See for example, Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection/re-write, Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection, and Wikipedia_talk:Don't_protect_Main_Page_featured_articles/December_Main_Page_FA_analysis. In my opinion, not sprotecting the FA of the day is quixotic at best. Leaving the article unprotected does much more harm than good. Gzkn 08:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty neutral on that question, but the two opinions above raise a concern in me: it seems to imply that the more an article gets attention, the more protected it should be. This would mean to me that the whole "openness" thing is wrong, and that basically, on the average annon and newcomer participation is a bad thing. I'm very uneasy with that, as it's the basis of the whole building.--SidiLemine 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it refutes the entire anon = good argument. It just reflects the reality of the Internet these days; large, open-ended sites are high profile targets (many of the comments on popular Youtube videos, for example, make me weep for the future of humanity). If openness is our only goal, then we shouldn't be fully protecting the main page. Presumably, well-intentioned IPs would be able to correct many of the little errors on the main page that slip through occasionally. But our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and we must be practical. Allowing anyone to edit the main page would cause much more harm than good. There was a time a few years ago when that was probably not the case. But that time has long passed; and unfortunately, as the evidence shows, leaving the FA open during its day on the main page is also no longer beneficial. Gzkn 13:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Dudes should have pointed him to WP:PERF. *smug*Nearly Headless Nick 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Looks like User:Flameviper's account was compromised. I've blocked; what is supposed to happen next? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait until the (presumably) real Flameviper comes back in some form and says OMG UNBLOCK ME and then unblock and monitor. Some kind of external confirmation is good, such as an IRC confirmation or something (if he uses it.) Grandmasterka 05:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
He has e-mail set up; might that not be a good first step? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 05:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh duh. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we get the article for discussion withdrawn that he may have started while compromised? Thanks! [43] Kyaa the Catlord 06:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not like the other edits that were made after the (presumed — he might be having a nervous breakdown) compromise. Is there any reason to think that it's bogus? Aside from the fact that you're desperately defending the articles under discussion, of course... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So the nom was made prior to him being compromised? He seemed to be willing to withdraw the nom (not like the one I'm talking about has a SNOWBALL) Kyaa the Catlord 08:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Chadbryant sock/impersonator[edit]

Thad Tyrant is definitely a sock/impersonator of Chadbryant. One Night In Hackney 07:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No question. Blocked. —bbatsell ¿? 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to a note from DXRAW, I blocked Pedorelli (talk · contribs). Fewer contributions, but clearly a sock of someone's, and completely in line with Chadbryant's edits, so I went ahead and pulled the trigger. I invite review of my actions here. —bbatsell ¿? 07:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs · count)

This user doesn't have an effort when he is interpolating a talk page and is a puckish purpose even if this is careful and will contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore, it proposes a posting block for 6 months. --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for personal attacks, but not for 6 months. That's a little steep for a first time block. User Talk page semi-protected, too. -- Gogo Dodo 07:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've username blocked WikiWarrior1[edit]

This user had e-mailed me asking for some help regarding their username block, but I'm about to go offline. I've probably compounded the sting of having his first edit reverted as "retarded nonsense" so if someone can please hold this person's hand a little bit, and feel free to slap me around if I've handled it poorly. - brenneman 06:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to know the reason for his block and will hopefully re-register. --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the username? Warrior is hardly that bad; it's not like it says WikiJihad or WikiKillPeople. No worse than User:Opiner. Patstuarttalk|edits 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a borderline case. It was probably just intended as "I'm a tough guy" but it sounds a bit like "I engage in edit wars". —Dgiest c 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dgies and Aaron Brenneman on this one. User names shouldn't sound like any kind of Wikipedia trouble-maker. Since edit wars occur here all the time, I think WikiWarrior is a problematic name. Eli Falk 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Patstuart. This is not a bad username and he shouldn't be forced to change it. "Warrior" isn't always a bad thing; not even most of the time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's a borderline case. I'd gently encourage the user to change the name as a show of good faith. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? With respect, if an admin came to you and asked you to change your username because it's an anagram for 'Venal Being', how would you feel? If there's nothing wrong with the username, they shouldn't be asked to change it. Cases like this is why I've opened a line of discussion on the subject of overenthusiastic username blocking on Village Pump (policy). - CHAIRBOY () 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd assume that such an admin had lost their mind. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Then we are agreed. - CHAIRBOY () 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think we are. There are usernames that are clearly acceptable, usernames that are clearly unacceptable, and usernames that are borderline. I find WikiWarrior1 borderline. Not to the point that I would initiate action against the name, but to the point that I feel a voluntary change of username would be helpful. If WikiWarrior1 isn't prepared to change his name, and the evidence given by Steve above suggests that he does understand the problem the name poses, then I belive we should accept that decision. But it would reduce my faith in the user's good judgement. PS. Is everyone aware that there is already a User:WikiWarrior? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think we should unblock him now. We're allowing names with characters from all languages; why not allow this username (Warrior is a good thing in many cultures and times, BTW). Patstuarttalk|edits 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've unblocked WikiWarrior1 (talk · contribs), per above. -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarity, it's exactly like "WikiKillPeople" and much worse than "WikiJihad." Unless you're some kind of very odd pillow-swinging warrior you are certainly at least trying to kill people. Jihad can include spending time studying, for godness' sake. Can we leave the cultural bias/crypto-racism/whatever at the door please? - brenneman 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series incidents[edit]

A user and his respective sock puppets, Butterrum in particular, have been making edits that are disproven, due to discussions in the talk page and its archives, but said user and his sock puppeteer continue to post the erroneous edits. I would very much appreciate an administrator to look into this issue, even if I will be reprimanded, to any degree, in the process; I merely wish the issue to be resolved. BishopTutu 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the serious issue here is not the content dispute, but rather the possible sockpuppetry. --Wildnox(talk) 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That is very true. BishopTutu 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this is going unaddressed? Have I gone through the proper channels? Klptyzm 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this ever going to get addressed? Klptyzm 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To support my claim of sockpuppetry, consider this: if the user's were 2 different people, why would they use the exact same type of incorrect grammar (check this and this diff to understand); one particular grammatical error is the misspelling of "bealve" (believe) that is misspelled the exact same way as the other user. Klptyzm 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Am I going to get help with this, or should I just stop trying? Klptyzm 06:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm actually quite surprised nobody has said anything about this report at all. --Wildnox(talk) 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You and me, both, man. Klptyzm 06:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not experienced in handling sock puppet cases, but here goes. If the alleged sockpuppets appear to be in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Forbidden uses of sock puppets, the proper place to report them is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I will comment that if it appears that a single editor is posting from more than one IP address, the first assumption should be that the editor is using a dialup or other connection with dynamic IP addresses. One editor posting from multiple IP addresses is not a concern unless the editor is doing so to avoid 3RR, affect consensus in a discussion, or one of the other 'forbidden uses of sock puppets'. So, unless you can convince an admin that the alleged sockpuppetry rises to that level, this is a content dispute and needs to be handled as such. -- Donald Albury 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It is more of a "consensus in discussion" sort of thing; the puppeteer is using a username to make it appear as if someone agrees with his point of view. A month ago, I requested the above article to be locked down so the warred-over issues could be resolved; they were, for the most part, but one user disagreed with one change, but never truly had any evidence to support his claims. Around that time, he made a small attempt to create a consensus by creating a username and make it appear as if he, the puppeteer, was being agreed with. When I exposed him of this, I presume he stopped, in fear of being blocked, or some reason, but, when the page was reduced to semi protection, he brought out the user puppet again and, this time, made it appear as a girl, so to not arise suspicion. I know it's a sockpuppet: the puppet made edits in the POV of the puppeteer, and commits the exact same grammatical errors, like spelling "believe" like "bealve." I just want someone to look into this. Klptyzm 17:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Forget it, now. Issue has been resolved. Klptyzm 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a request...[edit]

When I placed a "helpme" on my talk page, I was told I should ask this here. I am currently in the process of starting a Wiki about internet memes, and I need 2 copies of pages that are deleted and protected (If that is aloud), being that they are popular memes that Wikipedia has deemed non-notable (Not disagreeing with the policy, but I need copies of these for my Wiki). I need:

  • A Copy of the Brian Peppers article (Not Nonsense)
  • A Copy of the NEDM article (Not Nonsense)

If it would be easier, you can send me multiple versions of the articles, and I can figure out which ones are good versions. You can also email them to me at Thanks! Please leave your response on my talk page. --MasterA113 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I, for one, refuse to fulfil that request. Although there are properly sourced versions of the Brian Peppers article in the deleted history, they don't contain much that one couldn't write starting from scratch with sources. As for NEDM: None of the deleted revisions are useful. They are all clearly original research, contradicting one another on almost all of the details. About the only thing that they have in common is the phrase that "NEDM" expands to, which you don't need copies of deleted articles in order to record. If you want to document an Internet meme properly, the way to do it is to do your own leg-work, researching the meme and checking the facts extensively yourself, and then to publish your findings in some respectable medium. Copies of badly written, unsourced, deleted Wikipedia articles that are chock full of original research are not the way to start. Properly researched, peer reviewed, and fact checked articles studying Internet memes would enrich human knowledge. I encourage you to create some. Uncle G 12:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Unk, this person isn't even willing to watch this page for the answer: "Please leave your response on my talk page" is certainly audacious, but unlikely to get the anticipated response. - brenneman 12:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind if he's doing this on his own website, none of our policies (RS/CS/NPOV/ETC) necessarily apply. Anyway, to the original requester, see {{user recovery}}. A word of warning, however, the first articel had alot of problems, including possible libel, so watch yourself. 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Prolonged anonymous edits to pages about Hazel Blears, a UK politician[edit]

No sure how to solve this problem. A number of IPs have been posting the same unsourced block of comment about Hazel Blears to her article, Hazel Blears, and that of her constituency, Salford (UK Parliament constituency). The addition is in clear violation of WP:LIVING and WP:POINT. Firien and I have been reverting these edits since the end of last month at a rate of one every day or two. Here are the relevant difs: