Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive207

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

Noticeboard archives


SPAM/commercial website solicitation[edit]

Please note:

The following commercial websites keep getting added in the category "Telecommunications Broker"

Everytime it's removed, it's immediately replaced. This person is clearly tring to promote their company(s). The category was created a few days ago for this sole purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldcreator1 (talkcontribs) 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

It looks like Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has deleted the article as simply being spam. I have blocked the username BandwidthSeek.Net (talk · contribs) with a soft block as it violates our username policy's prohibition on usernames that advertise a website. --BigDT 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If this continues, then consider submitting it to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. x42bn6 Talk 20:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A few notes;

Spam sock accounts

Sudsymate (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Articles created; Aussie Phone Brokers [1]

Spam sock accounts

Local_host1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
BandwidthSeek.Net (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
T1agent (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
--Hu12 02:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And, curiously, the person who reported this incident is on one of your lists. :-/ x42bn6 Talk 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I left Hu12 a question on that as he left a warning message on User:Worldcreator1's talk page also. As far as I can tell, that warning is misplaced. -- JLaTondre 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the note, if you weed through the contribs, it appears to be an small link war. Some of user's Worldcreator1 first edits were infact additions of links mentioned above [2][3], then self reverted. However, on the deleted page (hidden edits)"Telecommunications broker" the promotional links were reverted 5 times, similar to BandwidthSeek.Net contribs on the same article. I'll correct those warnings that are misplaced. I will note, however it is suspicious that the only purpose of the accout is related to this one url. Sorry for any confusion.--Hu12 18:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User: again[edit]

I'm posting this here instead of WP:AIV as this is a low frequency vandal. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just returned from a 48-hour block and made their first edit as vandalism back on the same page that they were blocked for. Can this IP please be blocked again for a longer length of time? --After Midnight 0001 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again for a week. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

phone number in reversion history[edit]

This revision and this revision contain a phone numer. It was removed by an anon who apparently wasn't aware that it's still visible in the history. Natalie 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of, thank you. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Dietpro1 (talk · contribs) has done nothing on Wikipedia other than spam a brand of tequila, Voodoo Tiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see also Tequila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and harass those who reverted his spamming. I have blocked him indefinitely and the anon with whom he tag-teamed for a month (the IP has been used stably by the same individual for much longer than that). This came to my notice because he emailed a complaint about Harmil (talk · contribs), one of the editors who reverted his spamming. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


User:Liftarn, has both ignored and erased a double warning tag on his talk pageerasing warnings,not accepting source improvement and continues to disupte descriptions to images even when they are generic - "nazi word as OR" Nazi images made by artist:[4][5][6][7] etc. would appreciate some admin intervention on this "dispute". Jaakobou 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Grace E. Dougle uncivil behavior[edit]

User:Grace E. Dougle has made false accusations regarding sockpuppetry and has been uncivil. She has edited my commnents on an Rfc by moving them and continues to revert those changes. See: In the second diff you can also see her false accusations, which are also posted in the Rfc where she states, in part, "I have made remarks and hints several times to other users about the sockpuppet situation and they seem to ignore this like the infamous elefant in the room, in the sense that they do not even deny its existence. The multiplying effect of the sockpuppets has successfully created a hostile atmosphere towards Mihai among other users who are on this article."

Her comments on the RFC are not appropriate, they are uncivil. The following diff is from my talk page and is another example. DPetersontalk 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found this editor somewhat abrasive myself, particularly in terms of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-BPD‎, but she is very new, and she does seem to be doing an awful lot of very useful "donkey work", also, she seems to be editing around the clock sometimes, which could be either a sign of tremendous strain, or the cause of it (he who hath suffered no "Wiki-junkie" 24 hour edit frenzy, let him cast the first stone - which rules me out).
Perhaps if somebody experienced in the workings of the Wikipedia community could just take her aside, persuade her to take a step back, and explain things to her? I would really hate to risk losing such an useful editor just because she gets edgey and overenthusiastic. --Zeraeph 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a wonderful suggestion and I would be very happy with that as the resolution. I agree that if it can be handled so as to not loose a valuable contributor/editor, that would be one who has had a few helpful suggestions made to me by admins and advocates, it is helpful and supportive. DPetersontalk 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Now she continuing to make false accusations regarding sockpuppetry: see diff: I really think that this needs to stop. DPetersontalk 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

People who have real evidence of sockpuppetry should open a Request for CheckUser case. Otherwise, what they're doing is personal attacks, pure and simple. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is under Arbcom sanction - "If {SqueakBox} makes any edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week." Does anyone reading this believe this is a violation? this, at Slim Virgin? this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week Jaranda wat's sup 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that these edits are a big concern, myself. At any rate if he's going to be blocked he needs a good explanation of why, I think. Friday (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been in sharp disagreement with Squeezebox this evening, but this block is unwarranted. I would like to remove it, or at least see it reduced to a matter of a few hours. Any objections.--Docg 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I just happened to see this (looking on events above). I completely disagree that this block is warranted. Bastiqe demandez 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree also. Tempers are hot, this isn't a preventative block, and it won't help calm things down. GRBerry 23:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. The comments may be uncivil, but they're not attacks. John Reaves (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur, based on the diffs provided (with the proviso that there could be other diffs that haven't been noted here, but that may have been taken into account when making the decision). They are somewhat rude, but hardly justify a week-long block. I would encourage a short (< 24 hour) block and a polite, but firm message on his/her talk page.--BigDT 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A bad block for sure. None of those are even on the edge of a personal attack. I can't even understand why the first one is even listed. The Arbcom remedy is inapplicable. Furthermore, now is hardly the time, is it? 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are SqueakBox editing from an IP, evading a block is NOT the way to convince someone to lift it. --BigDT 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I had the same thought, but this IP does have a significant contribution history, so I have doubts that it is correct. GRBerry 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear, dear, do at least check which country I'm editing from, which countgry Squeakbox lives in aand do step around the notion that anons are generally doing bad things!! 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Whois says the IP is from the UK, which is apparently several thousand miles from Squeakbox. – Steel 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ditto, those edits deserved a mild warning/reminder at most. I request that the block be overturned. If sockpuppetry by SqueakBox is proved then I would support the block. Johntex\talk 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus here. I've unblocked. – Steel 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you didn't hear my view before unblocking. I blocked SqueakBox for the uncivil comments in the DRV, which I saw as disruption, which is a violation of his arbcom case. I didn't block for personal attacks. It should have been a 24 hour block though Jaranda wat's sup 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. The remedy is exactly as Hipocrite quoted it. Squeakbox can naturally be blocked for disruptive editing as any editor can. He cannot however, be banned (note: banned, not merely blocked) under the terms of the Arbitrarion remedy which makes no reference to disruption on the wider scale. Unless you meant to say "assumptions of bad faith", of course... 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly remember that taunting people that are being harassed off-wiki about their personal details is not a "personal attack." I will also remember that calling for the excommunication of someone wis not a personal attack. Finally, I will also remember that cheering when bad thing happen to people I am in a disagreement with is not a personal attack. I think see a bunch of users I don't really think are helpful to the project on the verge - I should probably get my links to Gone Daddy Gone ready. Coming soon to the next failed RFC: Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Throwing a hissy fit is not going to convince people to listen to you more in future. Proto  00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If I were to actually do those things, I would strongly agree with you. Of course, I'd never do those things. However, doing those things has just been basically approved for users who are under personal attack patrol. If you can look at the contributions of Squeakbox to this entire fiasco and show me one positive thing he's done, I'll eat my hat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Although a week was long, I'm surprised at the consensus to unblock altogether. Squeakbox's deliberate and obviously unhelpful personalization of a dispute, taunting of other users, etc. seem to be exactly the sort of thing the parole was intended to control. The fact that he's not cussing doesn't change the fact that the behavior is deliberately disruptive. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would re-read the Arb Com parole statement. Whilst the edits cited by Hipocrite above show SqueakBox being a cock, he's not making personal attacks. Proto  01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear; I think those are personal attacks. "Daniel got you scared?" "We the undersigned think he should be excommunicated for heresy." etc. In these three cases Squeakbox is inflaming a personal dispute in a way that can only be described as deliberate. The message of NPA is to comment on content not contributors; approaching someone with disparaging personal remarks in an effort to twist the knife is a personal attack, despite a veneer of civility. Ordinarily this would be cause for a warning but given the history a short block is not out of order. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless Squeakbox is continuing to make such edits since being warned for incivility, which I assume he has been (and as opposed to personal attacks), I don't see how that would be preventative. Proto  01:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Squeakbox got right close to the edge of the cliff here, particularly as his parole "is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith." His last comment was a bit of inappropriate cheerleading at Yanksox's desysopping; if it had gone any farther I would endorse a block, and if indeed goes farther I will block per the previous arbitration case. Disruptive users are on a short leash for a reason, and we don't anyone dancing on anyone else's grave, so to speak. Thatcher131 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • SqueakBox is very passionate about certain issues, but in my experience he waits out blocks, even week-long ones, which is a good sign. I think he can be guided and helped, I'd certainly hope so anyway. I blocked him over an edit war at brown people, I was actually quite impressed at his equanimity in accepting this and in not ascribing evil motives for the block. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I could not find the block you are talking about Guy! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I believe the block that Guy is thinking of is this one: 19:38, January 22, 2007 Bucketsofg (Talk | contribs) blocked "SqueakBox (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 1 week (violation of personal attack parole, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas#SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas_placed_on_personal_attack_parole) which was a result of a request for arb-enf that I submitted due to personal attacks at the aforementioned article. IIRC, Bucketsofg just beat Guy to enforcement of the ArbCom decision at the time. ju66l3r 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi, I just noticed this user making what seem to be rather contentious and possibly inappropriate edits to Wikimedia Foundation (see contribs). He's been reverted and the page has been protected as a result, but nobody seems to have spoken to him on his talk page or taken any other sort of action. Given the size of the block log I'm assuming this user is something of a persistent issue. Just thought people might want to know – Qxz 05:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I almost wonder if it's time to discuss a community ban. He's shown time and time again that he simply will not follow policy, and his wikilawyering is becoming tiresome. --InShaneee 05:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
He was gone for a good four months before the last few edits, so I suppose we can see if he really sticks around or not. --Delirium 07:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case, if he continues this campaign, a block for disruption is more than deserved. Fut.Perf. 08:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The edits are problematic, I blocked for 48 hours while we consider what should be done. Please see block rationale at user talk:Tobias Conradi. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    The logical thing 'to be done' would be to politely answer his questions / listen to his complaints and see if the situation could be resolved to everyone's mutual satisfaction. As that obviously isn't going to happen (why would we start now?) I'm fresh out of ideas. Seriously folks... what good purpose is ever served by mocking and belittling someone? --CBD 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

IP sock(?) proxy(?) block for review[edit]

I just blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for three hours. WHOIS says it's a static IP in Indianapolis [8].

It caught my eye with this attack on David Gerard in this thread on David's talk page.

I made the assumption that the individual is a banned or blocked editor somehow related to a conflict over Scientology, as his only other recent edits were to an article on one of L. Ron Hubbard's books and he specifically alludes to 'anti-Scientology' attitudes in one of his edit summaries.

I'd appreciate it if someone else could have a look at this. If it turns out to be a sock or an open proxy, then the block should be extended. I'm about to leave the house, so if someone wants to shorten or lengthen the block don't worry about waiting for me to get back. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear to be an open proxy. Prodego talk 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, proxy, or banned user. I've made changes, left comments, and added entries to the discussion pages as appropriate. If you have a problem with my edits, take it up there. If you have a problem with me personally, or the comment I left about David Gerard, let me know on my talk page, or add a note to his. 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This comment was made by (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The first IP belongs to the Indianapolis Zoo. This one is from Louisville.—Ryūlóng () 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
True. Same person, different IP. 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, This is me logged in. Marbahlarbs 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's very very odd to see one edit from Indianapolis, Indiana and the next from Louisville, Kentucky.—Ryūlóng () 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC) is my home ip in Indianapolis (Insight broadband), is my ip at work (VPN). Marbahlarbs 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I recall that handle (not username) vaguely - anyone else? - David Gerard 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti on yet another rampage?[edit]

Hi, permabanned user JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · block log) editing as IP anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has once again munged the talk page of the wikibiography of a living person whom Sarfatti dislikes; see these edits. (Note that Sarfatti talks almost exclusively about himself, often in the third person; these edits exhibit the same writeprint, same thoughtprint, and same ISP as Sarfatti's other recent edits as an IP anon.) These edits exhibit two of the problems with letting Sarfatti edit: he's so incompetent as a wikiuser that he invariably renders any page he edits almost unreadable by randomly inserting unsigned rants or personal emails into comments by other users, and he tends to be abusive and egomaniacal. Neither of these characteristics in an editor tends to advance the goals of the Wikipedia. Plus, I think it's a bad idea to look the other way when permabanned users return repeatedly to continue to use the WP to abuse people they dislike, in this case the author of the Crackpot index.

Is there anyone at WP currently who is responsible for dealing with IP anon edits which are obviously by some specific permabanned individual?

Another single purpose account, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (signed by another "chris", someone unknown to me, but with an email address appended) has spammed a long critique of a web page by myself into the same talk page; see this edit. The irony here is that I long ago took my own contact information out of that website (which I created c. 1992, when I was a graduate student) because of unrelenting abuse from Sarfatti and others prone to similar misbehavior, so once again I appear to be damned if I do and damned if I don't :-/ But the website in question clearly states that it was written by myself, not by Baez, and suggests a avenue for complaints. Because the complaint by the other "chris" has nothing whatsoever to do with the wikibio of Baez, I feel it was inappropriate to put in Talk:John Carlos Baez.

I feel someone should archive the mess on this talk page (and remove the email address naively offered by the other "chris"), but as an inactive former Wikipedian and as the frequent target of rants by Sarfatti and as the real target of the complaint by other "chris", I don't think I should be the one to do this.

I haven't been here in a quite a while, so I apologize if things have changed and this is no longer the appropriate place to ask these questions. Thanks for your consideration!---CH 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just mention it at WP:AIV next time, and I don't see any problem in you archiving or removing that rambling nonsense, which seems to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. (I'm just too lazy to look the archival templates up right now.) Sandstein 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Should be fixed now, let me know if that's incomplete. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! Problem solved; thanks, Guy! ---CH 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


This user is a WP:SOCK for User:Venrix who created Joshua G. Cantor-Stone. He has re-created this article after AfD, re-uploaded Image:Joshuapng.png, and vandalized a couple of user talk pages. 100% of his edits have been non-constructive (either hoax or outright vandalism). Since it's a bit more complicated than simple vandalism (though it includes elements thereof), it seems like a good idea to post a notice here. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do to sack this vandal. Rklawton 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Venrix for 1 week for sockpuppetry and indefblocked User:Crazyneeds as a sock. Article has been deleted again as has the image. -- Heligoland 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


A bit of a situation seems to be developing between Attasarana and Ryulong, an uninvolved admin might want to step in here (not suggesting that Ryulong is handling this badly but for the sake of process someone uninvolved should take a look) before it escalates. --Fredrick day 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

HOTR sock[edit]

User:Rugelbein self proclaimed HOTR sock (see this edit and definitely sock of blocked user User:Fulsome prison. Natalie 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sick person has been blocked byy CanadianCaesar.--Docg 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm, one of his requests was to bring back The Game (game) - I wonder if there's any connection with User:Light Grenade, who reposted that article today. FreplySpang 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There's little point in psychoanalysing a sad troll. Block and move on.--Docg 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate statement?[edit]

Astrotrain, whom I've already blocked for making personal attacks and warned for misuse of AfD, made the following statement on another AfD today (diff): Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Christianity will have been abolished and so we won't even use this system of years anyway. I can't imagine that that's appropriate, but given my history here, I'd like a second opinion. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not the most civil commentary but calling it "hate" strikes me as a bit severe. Sounds more like uncivil criticism of the BC/AD year numbering system. (Netscott) 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking more about the hope that one of the world's major religions would be abolished. He's entitled to that view, but I don't think anyone should be expressing that type of view about any religion; users who have had anti-Judaism or anti-Islam content on their userpages have generally had it deleted and been warned or blocked. Expressing this same sentiment and directing it against another user is a direct violation of WP:NPA, for example. (BTW, I called it "hate speech" because that's the general term for that kind of language in the U.S., not because it's "hate" per se.) | Mr. Darcy talk 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :In addition to being a very poor argument, this is also a very incivil religious slur. Given that this is not the first incivility block for Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), I've issued a one week block. Any administrator is welcome to review this action. Sandstein 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well there has been a regime or two that has tried to "abolish" religions... and we see where they've ended up. I've tried a thought experiment by saying, "Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Islam will have been abolished..." and, "Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Judaism will have been abolished..." to see if it'd change my mind and other than the incivility of it I don't see it as being a slur... particularly given the history of +athiestic movements to abolish religions. (Netscott) 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that the block is too harsh. Christianity is the largest religion in the world, criticizing it without naming a specific individual is unlikely to create an atmosphere of fear and violence, though I'm not Christian. It's like criticizing a government, which is a sovereign right of everyone in the free world and is done in Wikipedia all the time. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think any block for this is quite inappropriate. - Kittybrewster 21:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didnt know my last[[9]] statement was out of line. I was only trying to make an ironic point.What Said 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the criticism silly. But he's entitled to his POV. Pushing it in a deletion debate in such terms is dickery, but not in itself disruptive. I really see no reason to block. Maybe by the year 10,000 all heathen swine will be singing choruses and begging forgiveness from the Holy Church. Is anyone going to block me for that remark. Let's have thicker skins.--Docg 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a world with no religion, no property too; imagine a Wikipedia without people being blocked for expressing what they imagine too. WAS 4.250 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, I agree now that the block was excessive, but the comment was indeed inflammatory (and I'm no Christian). If people want to express what they imagine, they can do so elsewhere. WP:NOT a soapbox. If people work with us here, we expect them to behave in a civil manner; that includes not making offtopic swipes at others' beliefs in a procedural forum. Sandstein 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, we can always have an unblock policy WP:ANDTHETRUTHSHALLSETYOUFREE. Wiki-heretics that recant get to be reborn with new accounts.--Docg 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This block strikes me as profoundly unwarranted. His comment was somewhat Astrotrain's comment was off-topic and vaguely trollish, but hardly a big deal. If he really must be blocked, try 15 minutes. A week is simply ridiculous. At first glance, I thought it might be justified by what looks like an increasingly ugly block log, but read the discussion on his talk page, and these blocks, too, both the last one and its subsequent lengthening, seem rather unjustified. My impression is that Astrotrain is being harassed here. Certainly, he should be unblocked.Proabivouac 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been dealing with this milieu for some time (as has MrDarcy, and we have been monitoring each other furthermore) and I can assure you that Astrotrain has been doing a lot of harassing, one the most recent being to delete a perfectly reasonable edit with the summary of rv POV Vandalism, then even refusing to discuss it with the other editor. If you really want to see all the unpleasantness that's been going on, then you'll have to trawl through the actions of the last few weeks, which I am very familiar with. The actions you are looking at are not isolated incidents. Kindly have some faith that admins are acting for good reasons. Tyrenius 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, all for the comments. I see now that I judged this poorly, and am going to unblock him. Sandstein 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ChrisGriswold's block of User:MatthewFenton.[edit]

I think that Chris is being very out of process with this block, seeing as he had blocked Matthew about forty minutes ago, which Matthew had contested ([10]). Majorly had unblocked Matthew, which Chris followed up with an indefinite block (with no reason at all). This is pretty much all that I know of the matter, I'm just bringing up. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He may have been trying to unblock him, but seems an odd way to do it, especially without a summary. And he's stopped editing. Majorly (o rly?) 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like an inadvertent block. A Train take the 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like an honest if disruptive mistake at first glance. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just had assumed the worst, that's all. Will (Speak to Me/Breathe)(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash) 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah... on further investigation it looks like Chris hit the wrong button when going to unblock him. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did. Sorry about that, everyone. --Chris Griswold () 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No harm done, so long as it's all fixed now. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Let's hope so... he hasn't edited since though. There are moral ethics here that have been damaged. The guy has been blocked enough times, and two wrongful blocks in one evening is no doubt stressful and offputting for any contributor. Let us hope he returns and continues editing productively. Majorly (o rly?) 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
... "moral ethics"? :) A Train take the 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well I don't know about him, but if I were in his place I'd take a walk or something to clear my head, so I wouldn't be editing the second after an unblock, either. Time will tell, though, if he intends on returning. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Habbo vandalism[edit]

There is a user that keeps vandalizing the infobox on Habbo Hotel with a Screenshot as opposed to alogo, and will not stop (see edit history) Toajaller3146 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. This is a content dispute. —Centrxtalk • 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism continous attack - on National Development Front[edit]

Dynamic ip[edit]

Single person with dynamic ip ( is removing short name of Czech Republic from the article every day (among his other edits which he does over and over again). Several of ips he used has been blocked or warned but it really makes no sense to issue him new warnings every day since it's obvious he won't stop or change his habits. He often uses personal attacks on user talk pages and in edit summaries almost always in Czech language. Any idea how to deal with such difficult user? As someone notified me recently he is known on other language WPs doing the same. I may include extensive summary of his edits if necessary but I don't think it's worth the time. He refused to discuss his edit writing in edit summary (translation follows) I certainly won't discuss anything with pockmarked poop who comes every evening by editing Wikipedia.[12] And Go to shit yourself you prick.[13] Those are not his first personal attacks and he has been warned before to avoid them numerous times (as well as not to edit war etc.). May be protection of those articles would solve the problem but it would be better to deal only with him. Thank you.--Pethr 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) See his today's contributions for a better picture of what he is like... Special:Contributions/ 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected Czech Republic for now. Also blocked the IP for violating WP:3RR. Chick Bowen 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, this IP resolves to Verizon and is probably DSL. A range block would probably cause a fair amount of collateral damage and should be avoided. Chick Bowen 06:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot to mention it. Just for the record he supplied correct translations of his attacks on my talk page along with several new ones, so I'm copying here: "go fuck yourself you dickhead" and "i will not argument with somone who comes every night over wikipedia". He is also vandalizing other user pages [14] [15] [16]. I think my report here will only escalate his actions (since he's well aware) so any solution would be appreciated.--Pethr 06:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Block Check[edit]

I indefinitely blocked Thekillabeejc for continuously recreating the attack page Tim beck and Bim teck (witty on that last one, no?) as well as L337 lllama for recreating Tyler shutowik which was a nonsense page. Feel free to lessen or reverse the blocks if you feel that I overstepped. I am a new admin but I feel that the two users warranted the blocks. Those articles were deleted multiple times and they would constantly pop back up on the newpages list. IrishGuy talk 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, those are both clearly vandalism-only accounts. Two tips: check out Wikipedia:Protected titles (I already transferred Tyler shutowik over), and if you do use {{deletedpage}}, make sure to delete the page before puting the template on it; we don't want the vandalism in the history. Chick Bowen 06:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't realize I left it in that time. They were recreating so quickly that I must have thought I had a clean slate when I didn't. Whoops. Thanks for the tips. I will remember the Wikipedia:Protected titles links. IrishGuy talk 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ApocalypticDestroyer's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) request for a lifting of the permanent block.[edit]

About 3 weeks ago I posted a request from Apocalyptic for a lifting of a permanent block (not a community ban). In response, there was one supportive comment and no opposition. If there is still no net opposition to a lifting of Apocalyptic's block, I will be asking Apocalyptic to put an {{unblock}} request on his homepage. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody, and I do mean everybody deserves a second chance.RRUOK???k 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That may be true, but some people are constructive around here.Bands of Hands Stalk The Land 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Still support, with the same qualification as earlier. Shimeru 07:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the block log, it is a community ban for disruption. When his talkpage User talk:Guardian Tiger was protected, he created a new sock called User:ApocalypticDestroyer's. This case has already been dealt with and enough time has been wasted. The community's patience was already exhausted. Please don't bring up this issue again. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As you were aware when you made this comment, the block log is wrong. He was not banned, he was blocked, and blocked for using a sock at a time when his previous account was not blocked and had not been used for some time. In fact, that account is still not blocked and is still unused. You may choose not to accept his explaination that he lost the password, but that is your choice. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dueling sockpuppet reports at WP:SSP[edit]

Moroder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and HarmonyThree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have filed reports at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets accusing each other of sockpuppetry, and have made several posts to WP:AN regarding these accusations: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Harassment_by_anonymous_user_130.126.15.145_.2F130.126.15.57 Wp:an#False_report_filed_by_newly_signed_up_sockpuppet_HarmonyThree

The cases are:

It would be appreciated if someone could swing the mop at these. Heck, it would be great if someone would review any of the cases at WP:SSP, there's a ginormous backlog... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The first and last time I posted a report there, it took months for anyone to comment, by which time checkuser data was stale. If no one starts dealing with this page, I suggest it be deleted, as it only helps sockpuppeteers by keeping them off of ANI and RfCU.Proabivouac 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The history of the page and the associated process is actually rather interesting. It was created as part of a major rewriting of WP:SOCK. However, the rewrite was later found to have been fundamentally influenced by an infamous banned editor and sock puppet user, which caused the near complete abandonment of the reform attempt and reversion of the changes, and some animosity and confusion among various legitimate editors and administrators. And when the dust finally settled, we were left with the old policy, with the "suspected sock puppets" process tacked on in a somewhat awkward manner. The pages still conflict with policy, since they were written for the ill-fated revision. --Philosophus T 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blobba (talk · contribs)[edit]

I just gave Blobba (talk · contribs) a block. I suspect he's just clueless, not inherently malicious - he previously replaced the article TBA with other content. However, his actions are annoying to deal with; the images he uploads are all apparently faked and he may have sockpuppet(s) (User:Loveman334). Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 12:12Z

AlexPU (talk · contribs)s attack page[edit]

User is engaged in some kind of personal crusade against several other users and he has openly (and without merit) declared them "vandals". First, he accuses ((user|Irpen}} of being a vandal [17], then provides a link to a "vandal list" attack page he created on his own talk as evidence [18]. This is not kosher. I'm reporting here because I'm not a wholly uninvolved person and don't want to stir the pot by deleting the attacks myself. TheQuandry 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DeKalb, Illinois[edit]

Situation: First I filed a report at AIV, which this situation was beyond the scope of. Here is the original report.

Essentially this user is asserting notability for a non notable random business. See my talk page and his. I am trying to defend the Wiki against what I see as obvious spam. I mean the information he was inserting was ambiguous and ended with something like "the owner serves his guests a big bowl of popcorn." I was unsure of what to do so here I am. Any help? Thanks ahead of time.A mcmurray 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically I was hoping someone could watch this situation and/or explain it to the user. I am not quite sure how to.A mcmurray 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess this isn't the right place either. If no one here can help could someone at least point me in the right direction. I feel like my concerns are being completely ignored.A mcmurray 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The place to start resolving this is on the Talk:Dekalb, Illinois page. Get the community involved and see what the consensus is. If you feel that the addition of the arcade truly violates notability guidelines, bring up your concerns on the talk page and see what the community consensus is. Justin Eiler 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So it doesn't matter that this is obvious non-notable spam that has no place in an encyclopedia? If the community likes some arcade it gets to be in the article? That seems heavily favored toward a spammer.A mcmurray 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the community as a whole is pretty good about squashing spammers. The issue here is not that he's an obvious spammer--it's that you and he have a content dispute. The dispute resolution process may also provide you some assistance. Justin Eiler 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, nonetheless, I am taking your advice and trying to build community consensus, I really don't want to grace this user with the benefit of dispute resolution, as much as I would like to assume good faith here, it is just not possible. They are here to be disruptive, that I am pretty sure of. If the community builds consensus (probably via WikiProject Illinois) and the user persists, do I report it here or AIV?A mcmurray 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
How about you just assume good faith for now and work from there? --InShaneee 21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose Indefblock of Buzzards39[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Propose_Indefblock_of_Buzzards39 where these types of proposal go now. (Netscott) 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Phone number in edit summary[edit]

A vandal left a phone number in an edit summary here. Can that be removed? I don't want someone being harassed. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng () 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. IrishGuy talk 19:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oversighted. (Oversought? Oversitten? Oversmitten?) Oh bother, disappeared! Essjay (Talk) 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess the only proper term to use would be whalloped. :-) Willie Stark 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
With a trout... 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"Overseen" (with a cat o' nine tails, or a knout). I trust you donned a curly moustache for the occasion, Essjay. -- Ben 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I though it was "oversightificated". And Essjay, I hope you realise how ominous it is when you use disappeared in that way ... Proto  23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on Associative Economics Page[edit]

Here someone insists in deleting discussion on the talk page. Please help. Pete K 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully he'll explain his actions now. --InShaneee 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Pete K 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Evening all. I would like to report the persistant removal of a few perfectly legitimate sentences of text, by a biased user on the Monmouthshire page. The user is unregistered and I have already warned the user on the talk page that their edits were not helpful, yet I was still ignored and they have made the same edit about a dozen times now. Marky-Son 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like a fairly routine content dispute to me, and in fact I'm on the side of the anon because it looks like promotion of a minority political party. You might want to raise it as a Request for comment before it turns into a revert war. Sam Blacketer 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another phone number[edit]

Got another phone number in an edit summary here. While it doesn't have an area code, it should still be deleted. Can someone do that please? Thanks. IrishGuy talk 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Disappeared. Essjay (Talk) 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks IrishGuy talk 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Grace E. Dougle continues to make false accusations of Sockpuppetry[edit]

I previously filed a notice here about her conduct. An administrator, User:Zeraeph left a commnent for someone to talk with her and an admin did leave a notice on her talk page ( [[19]] However, she continues to make false accusations based on accusations of others, which were determined to be untrue and were unfounded. [[20]] I really would like her to stop spreading false and malicious statements about me. It is uncivil and does not Assume good faith. It is a personal attack WP:NPA DPetersontalk 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I do not believe Zeraeph is an administrator. I certainly hope that they are not impersonating an administrator. I see no blocks, deletions, or protections on Zeraeph's logs. In my past dealings with Grace E. Dougle they have been overly vexatious and incivil, so it seems par for the course, so to speak. Don't let them get you down. Just follow the rules and you will be fine. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You are right about Zeraeph...I assumed (incorrectly) that only admins commented here. I will follow our rules and practices and modes of interacting..but, how can I make her stop??DPetersontalk 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see this earlier but I was off having a whale of a time offline this weekend. NO WAY am I an administrator, and I hope I didn't say a single word to suggest I was. I have just been keeping an eye on Grace E Dougle since experiencing her on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-BPD and I thought she seemed more stressed than anything and might respond very well to a good night's sleep and some words of advice from an experienced admin. --Zeraeph 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in utter shock about Peter M. Dogdes comment here... I am just speechless. The link that DPeterson gives in the above paragraph (MrDarcy's talk page)were in response to Mr Darcy asking me for a comment on DPetersons suspected sockpuppetry. I did not make that statement anywhere else. Note that there are two pages on Wikipedia where people accuse others of being sockpuppets. Dodge even threatens to block me on his talkpage if I do anything about the sockpuppet-situation. All of this is going on totally behind my back and I discovered this by accident. I am so shocked I am shaking. A quote from Peter M Dodge above: In my past dealings with Grace E. Dougle they have been overly vexatious and incivil, so it seems par for the course, so to speak. Note that I have never been in contact with this person (Peter M Dodge). Are you confusing me with someone?--Grace E. Dougle 14:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do about personal attacks by Peter M Dodge, a place to complain about admins behavior?--Grace E. Dougle 15:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Peter isn't an administrator. So he can't block you. Secondly, this is not the Wikipedia complaints departments. Thirdly, this is not the Wikipedia flamewar department. Fourthly, unless you have strong evidence of sockpuppetry - such as acheckuser-confirmation or maybe identical editing patterns, evidence for which will have to laid out very carefully - continued allegations of sockpuppetry are disruptive and yes, we do block for disruption. Does that cover everything? Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. The above section gave me the impression I was not allowed to file for checkuser, because that would be continuing the accusations. The evidence is strong. --Grace E. Dougle 15:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If that is so, then WP:RFCU is the way to go. Please read the instructions on that page carefully: checkuser is not for fishing. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not being a native speaker I don't understand what 'fishing' means and I am going to leave this for now because it is too much for me right now.--Grace E. Dougle 15:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Fishing is requesting a RFCU where proofs are hard to provide. File a RFCU if you believe you got hard evidences. Nothing would be attained here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And what I found on my talk page: I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks. by MrDarcy. Not Dodge who personally attacks me right here, but I am the one who should be blocked, the singular they. Again, I cannot tell you how shocked I am at how I am being treated here. Preventative blocks I think aren't even allowed. --Grace E. Dougle 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to have left Wikipedia - and just to be clear, here's the meat of my post on her talk page, not just the half-sentence that she chose to quote above (diff): You need to stop claiming that DPeterson has used or is using sockpuppets unless you can prove it, with checkuser being the best way to do it. I'm also extremely disturbed by your implications that DPeterson has a personality disorder. At this point, you're dancing on the edge of violations of WP:NPA and I think you're well past WP:CIVIL. If you don't alter the way you deal with this user, I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NovaNova needs official warning about personal attacks[edit]

User:NovaNova has made several personal attacks against me (and some other editors). As far as I can tell, I am the only person who has ever given him formal warnings about his abusive and unjustified comments. He has posted a message on his talk page saying he will ignore all of my warnings, and even that message includes a baseless personal attack. His recent editing and talk history shows that he chooses to offer nothing positive or productive to Wikipedia. Please uphold Wikipedia guidelines and take the appropriate actions. Spylab 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have given NovaNova a final warning and mean to make good on this and block the user if he or she does it again. Calling another user mentally challenged in inexcusable under WP:NPA. Heimstern Läufer 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I already e-mailed this report on Spylab. I hope that someone of serious Wikipedia administrators will read this report and take serious steps in protecting the Wikipedia dignity
I do understand that Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia - but still some kind of very basic ethicalrules shall be applicable and obliging to all editors.I noticed that you have a person whose nick name is and whose number of edits goes over 60 per day very often spanning 5-11 hours dayly. This person is extremely agressive and intolerant and his/her edits are causing a lot of damage and irritated many people.
The best way to describe his/her behaviour and 'contributions' are given by a few people which can be summarised/quoted this way:
'I am probably from the USA and like to scrap others' contributions due to what I call "factual correctness" - instead of knowing the facts and reporting them!'
'I've noticed that you are editing someone's contribution by altering the text under pretext of grammar corrections - not reading references at all. Moreover, not reading the references nor providing your own - you are demanding new references.
Also, on January 12th you've made 65 edits on various articles in the span of more than 11 hours(merge, clean, copy, revert, etc). Don't you think that it might be seen as something wrong with you if you are spending day after day, hours and hours - practically not contributing anything serious to Wikipedia, only irritating many people this way???'
'When seeing that the existing edition of the Croatia section here, was reduced by User:Spylab to just 6 sentences out of which four were marked by the [citation needed] tag [21]. Moreover, User:Spylab 'completed' his own 'editorial' work by adding {unreferenced|date=November 2006} and {weasel} tags on the top of this page!!! How a serious editor could tag/mark his own edits this way??? I reverted the section demanding explanation for this almost complete section destruction. Ultimately, the existing edits cannot be re-written or destroyed by just throwing claim 'replaced content with info from Neo-Nazism in Croatia because old version didn't focus on neo-Nazism' as he did.
All my attempts to bring the editorial work on the same start and support any further editorial work with facts and serious observations - failed. Instead even willing to discuss the issue seriously, User:Spylab started throwing accusations 'last edit brok 3RR rule', 'you may be blocked' , 'sock-puppetry' etc. and selfpraising (User:Spylab) work as superior and claiming that I do not know what Neo-Nazism is. My attempt (questions) to ask him why he deleted what he deleted already - are removed from the talk page and when I've put back the deleted questions - User:Spylab ignored them completely.
I had impression that I have to deal with an extremely cheeky and primitive personality and wondered how this person could have any access to the editirial work here. Then, I went further and examined the whole User:Spylab editorial work and noticed that User:Spylab commited more than 500 changes within 10 days i.e. more than fifty edits per day - (November 28 - December 7 2006). In that period of time [User:Spylab] was busy by the Wikipedia editing on: November 29 - 9 hours, November 30 - 16 hours (63 edits!!!) , December 1 - 18 hours, December 2 - 7 hours, December 3 - 8 hours, December 4 - 21 hours, December 5 - 12 hours, December 6 - 17 hours, and December 7 - 8 hours.
The content of User:Spylab edits were - spelling check, version reverts, removal of links, copy-paste etc. So it is quite clearly that I had to deal with a mentally challenged person!!!
I just wonder how it is possible that a serious publisher could allow such access to the articles to a person like User:Spylab.' As per his/her own words, as an Neo-Nazism in Croatia section editor, Spylab publicly claims
'Actually, it's not complicated at all. The revert war has nothing to do with point of view, and I am not an expert on Croatia at all.'
My note - how then this person should edit some subject (s)he is not familirar with? Also, all references written in Croatian and given here in the Neo-Nazism in Croatia were removed. As per Spylab question here
Can someone explain it in plain English? Spylab 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
it is clear that (s)he does not understand Croatian!!! His/her obsession with 'correct' usage of the Caucassian vs. white does damage and irritation of other editors which is best explained here:
'Here, it is not the problem of correct or of not correct term - rather it is of your attitude which includes: disrespect of other editors, not discussing rather 'justifying' your changes, not demonstrating effective knowledge - rather denying knowledge and pointing at 'rules', acting as ifyou have last word, as being a decision maker. That is the reason of entering into conflicts with a great number of editors (I counted at least eight of them, not including me)
The only 'contribution' of yours - to the Wikipedia - is damage. You are not providing any reference or ever reading or understanding refererences you are trampling over. One example is here, and another in the Neo-Nazism article (subsection Croatia). --BarryMar 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)'
The best illustartion of the Spylab 'corrections' of this type is visible here
Original text 'Caucasian highlanders' - which locates people living on the mountain Caucasus highland is replaced by Spylab Caucasian highlanders- which creates an utter nonsense due to the fact that a vey specific notion is replaced by a generic one.
My conclusion
  • editor Spylab is apparently a mentally challenged person who spends enormous amount of his/her timeduring each day obsessed by the idea of 'correcting' and 'improving' someone's else work
  • (s)he never provided a reference and many times demanded reference after deleting the existing ones and not reading or understanding them at all
  • my experience: I've added reference which strictly not cover the text where Spylab demanded it and Spylab did not notice that the added reference is not realted to that text at all
  • it is not possible to discuss anything with Spylab nor (s)he demonstrated ever any effective and particular knowledga about subjects (s)he edited
  • Suggestion - for the sake of basic editotial standards and ethics - please, remove this person from any editorial work. It is shame on and disgrace to Wikipedia to have this person as the editor.--NovaNova 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You have been warned numerous times you come here and write Spylab is apparently a mentally challenged person as well as tell us it is a disgrace to have Spylab as an editor? How is this evidence that you are taking the warnings seriously? IrishGuy talk 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What a heap of tripe, NovaNova. As this editor has failed to heed my warning not to continue personal attacks, I have blocked him/her for 2 days. Heimstern Läufer 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As NovaNova posted this rude missive in three different places on Wikipedia, I believe that would classify as harassment. Personally, I have no problems with the block. IrishGuy talk 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this block. About user Spylab - I've got complete psychiatrist's analysis of his behavior - based on his edits. I still cannot understand how and why it is not possible to see that someone's behavior has nothing to do with the basic editorial ethics??? Also, while writing the report which I've already e-mailed to the Wikipedia I found this 'support' to the Spylab's work:
  • he was supported publicly by a person who publicly admit suffering from a mental disorder!!!
  • Hiya, Spylab! I've never got this sort of reaction. I can only conclude that you're a better editor than I am! Keep up the good work. CWC(talk) 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I suffer from Bipolar Disorder Type II (a Bad Thing) with an odd twist: I have never been Manic (which is a very Good Thing).
  • How a serious publisher might ever have people like Spylab and this person on its editorial board???

NovaNova 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding rude...exactly what part of "don't make personal attacks" are you not understanding? You get blocked so you come back here and do it again? IrishGuy talk 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

more phone numbers[edit]

This revision of Sword of the Samurai. Natalie 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And this revision and this revision. Natalie 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
These have also been oversighted (sic ?) by Essjay. WjBscribe 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196 back again[edit]

See the edit to my talk page, and the long term abuse report. One Night In Hackney 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed open proxy, can someone do something about his relentless trolling of my talk page please? [22] [23] [24] Thanks. One Night In Hackney 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Deaded.—Ryūlóng () 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate administrator behavior.[edit]

The administrator known as Pilotguy tagged an article for speedy deletion that was then contested. Rather than reply to the Talk, he deleted the article immediately claiming copyright violation. However, this claim was incorrect as the article was (mistakenly) written direct for wikipedia. I rewrote the article to be more neutral and to meet the standards.

Further, his attitude towards other users as expressed below raises serious doubts about him having administrator privledge.

you know you just blocked User: for no reason what he was doing was not vandalism. 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Too bad I don't care. —Pilotguy push to talk 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

this has to do with WP:EW not nonsense pages. 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it has to do with you being a dick. Deal with it. —Pilotguy push to talk 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "(mistakenly) written direct for wikipedia." mean? Does it mean the article in the web page was written specifically for Wikipedia, as in "Geez, I don't have sources for this article, so I get a Geocities account, upload my thoughts there, and then use it as reference"? Just wondering. -- ReyBrujo 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If memory serves, I came across that conversation you've copy-pasted. I believe was caught up in a fantastically pointless edit war, and is a pretty obvious sock that may as well have been blocked on sight, anyway. An admin treats disruptive trollsocks users dismissively; maybe not the shining beacon of truth and goodness, but is it really bad? As for the deletion, I haven't taken a look at that, just yet. Will see if I have anything to say about that one. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So I guess I can be an ass to people without accounts and treat them like trolls. I don't know anything about what's going on with that -- that's just what it seems like to me. --Dookama 16:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes the IP was edit warring over MiB or MB with edit summaries such as "Changed from mib to mb give it up you are not going to win". Also blocked as being used by a registered account to perpetuate edit wars. --pgk 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Pilotguy's deleted a number of pages, today; could you provide a link to the article in question? If there's some nasty abuse going on, it should be pointed out; otherwise, it may as well head over to deletion review, instead. So, link? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The IP has no other contribs, so that's no clue. I added a timestamp to his entry to help narrow the range to search. Pilotguy often (not always) uses the CSD# tags when deleting, and copyright violation would be CSD#G12, if that's any help. Otherwise search the list for "copyright". -- Ben 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this complaint surfaced about ten days ago or so, the first time around, and has been revived here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a troll. Just move along. There's nothing to see here. —Pilotguy push to talk 14:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pilotguy is one of our best pilots. Fly along. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed with how you treated those annons Pilot. If we lower ourselfs to trollish behavior in response to trolls we've still lowered ourselfs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If one can't take the heat, one should get out of the pan, not stoop to the same level. Zocky | picture popups 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple socks vandalising Ibagué[edit]

Ibagué is being vandalised by multiple socks some of them have been blocked already but some have not.--ChesterMarcol 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Article semiprotected and socks blocked.—Ryūlóng () 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking open proxies on home IP's -- a few words on process & policy[edit]


I was recently asked to verify a purported open proxy, and opine on the length of the block established vs. it.

After looking into current de facto standards for blocking home users running (suspected) proxies, I'd like to give a little bit of guidance.

I encourage admins blocking home DSL and cable IP's suspected to be proxies to avoid using indefinite blocks, due to the potential for collateral damage, and the potential for these machines to shift IP's. When indef blocked, there is a significant possibility that non-proxy machines will end up on these IP's, and thus be inappropriately blocked.

In general, systems with *dhcp*, *dsl*, *dynamic*, and related strings in their hostnames should not be being blocked indefinitely. I've included, below, an excerpt from my reply to the user who originally asked for verification: is verifiably a home dynamic DSL IP, and not currently running an open proxy as of Fri Feb 23 16:59:31 EST 2007. Based on the foregoing, and the stated block terms of "(anon. only, account creation blocked, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected open proxy but registered/logged in users are allowed to edit)", this block should be lifted.
My reading of policy infers that proxy blocks are for the life of the proxy, regardless of the type of system in question. When it ceases to be a proxy, it should cease to be blocked. For practical purposes, blocks are against IP's rather than against specific machines, so when a machine gets a new IP, the previously blocked IP is de facto no longer an open proxy.
The metapolicy on open proxies affirms this reading, stating: "Non-static IPs or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP is likely to be transferred, the open proxy is likely to be closed, or the IP is likely to be re-assigned dynamically."
dhcpd defaults the lease length for a given IP to one day. Many DSL and cable providers use "sticky" dhcp, which means that clients will continue to receive the same IP when they renew under many but not all circumstances.
An informed blocking policy would then be for a length of at least one day but no more than seven days. Ultimately, when blocking a nominally dynamic IP, the blocking admin should take responsibility for ensuring that the benefit to the project outweighs potential harm, and for re-checking (or having re-checked) the proxy status of the IP if the block is for any substantial ( > 3 days ) length of time.
Hope this helps :)

In summary, it just takes a moment to check the hostname of an IP -- you can do it at a number of sites, including this one. In the case of the IP referenced above, the output is, which is clearly dynamic DSL.

The metapolicy on proxies lives at, and is also good reading.

There are more accurate ways to do this, and this one will produce both false positives and false negatives, but it's better than nothing, and the most accessible to non-technical users.

If you have doubts as to whether a system is still a proxy, please ask someone on the Wikiproject on Open Proxies approved user list to check for you. The Internet community will thank you for keeping Wikipedia sane, while still protecting end-users from collateral damage.

Thanks for reading. If anyone else has considered this issue, I welcome feedback : )

User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 08:30Z

Inappropriate edit summary[edit]

Inappropriate edit summary:[25] --Doktor Who 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly fine, and perfectly accurate, edit summary. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg

bad faith, I have more than 1500 cool edits, and Gene Poole has many more than 1500.--Doktor Who 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP concern[edit]

Barrywelham1009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in adding information to the Cheryl Cole article stating that she is a closet lesbian and involved in some type of secret gay marriage. As this information seems to me controversial, and the only "source" cited by its author doesn't even mention Cheryl Cole, I have been reverting it, I can't find a thing on this except some rumor-mill type stuff. However, I would like this to be evaluated by someone, unless I'm correct and this is a BLP issue I would be violating 3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You have acted entirely correct and I do not see a violation of 3RR as you are removing unsourced and such material from a BLP article. --Fredrick day 12:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a troll - check out this edit summary - can an admin step in with a block so we don't all waste our afternoon's reverting this nonsense. --Fredrick day 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Aside from WP:BLP, this is just nasty vandalism. Willie Stark "Believe in Me!" 12:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

hum --Fredrick day 13:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Has been blocked now. Newyorkbrad 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block or ban[edit]

It appears that this IP address is being very problematic.[26] --Savant13 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Multi-user, multi-pattern, cross-project vandal "tester"[edit]

en:Wikiquote has been experiencing concerted, rapid-fire, multiple-user attacks for two consecutive days, follwing a pattern that has happened at least twice before in the past few months. The most recent one also included a simultaneous attack on en:Wikinews. The person or people behind this create a bunch of usernames in rapid succession, frequently but not always following several patterns, including *ook, animals, "new user" words, cross-project sysop impersonation, offensive names, and others. Some of these names are leftover from earlier attacks — usernames that made no edits during the previous attack, but are "activated" for the new one. The attack begins with either unassuming usernames starting an innocuous trolling of joke posts to user talk pages or with the scatalogical usernames plastering insults and offensive terms over articles, user, pages, and talk pages (especially from Recent Changes and targeting anti-vandal sysops). Then another set of usernames starts posting local or cross-project vandalism warnings to the sysops, possibly impersonating a sysop from another project (not immediately distinguishable from an actual sysop belatedly registering a username to help in cross-project vandalism fighting). When the real sysops start blocking accounts and/or refusing to take the joke-posting bait, yet another set of usernames or IP addresses post complaints to sysop talk pages and Administrators' Noticeboard. Eventually these are all tied together by a careful consideration of timing, writing style, knowledge demonstrated by multiple users, and, most compelling, outright statement by the multiple users that they are the same person.

Supposedly these complex attacks are a product of someone testing anti-vandalism reactions (see q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Coming Clean and the surrounding topics for Wikiquote's recent problem), but this has happened before to Wikipedia (see w:User talk: Clean), suggesting the true goal is the vandalism and the confusion it creates. One pernicious aspect of this attack is that the user participates in arguments between sysops of different projects after they've gotten annoyed with each other for blocking impersonators. (Or it may just be that the angry folks are all the impersonating user. It's hard to take time to consider the possibilities when you are manually fighting changes driven by an automated system, apparently leaving the vandal time to have fun pissing off the sysops with complaints against each other.

This is only a partial list of vandals and their sockpuppets (just on Wikiquote) involved in the past two days's attacks:

Some of these names (or variations) are also new users on Wikipedia. Some vandalize on one project but not the other. Even though the contemporaneous creations during this rapid-fire, multi-user vandal attack should implicate one username if the other is used to vandalize another project, sysops are reluctant to block the account on the project where it isn't vandalizing. This leaves the untainted account available for future vandalism — see q:User:Mi nombre es Heraldo and its mention in q:WQ:AN for a concrete example.

The resulting confusion while trying to discuss so many new users doing so many different things across multiple projects in a short time makes it virtually impossible for small-project sysops to coordinate.

en:Wikiquote has only a handful of sysops, and has periods where none are watching. We cannot keep spending hours each day blocking such complex attacks, even if we bend or break our own policies to head off likely vandal accounts (which this vandal seems to be trying to encourage). I would like some advice on how we can do a better job of stopping these attacks, given our extremely limited resources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you folks could benefit from some m:CheckUser. Assuming your depiction of events is true and good (I haven't looked), you could probably persuade the stewards to help you out with a few rangeblocks. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that is edit was not made by Jeffq and the user in question has removed one of your posts on this page as a "GARBAGE EDIT". It is true that this is going on on Wikiquote, but it may not be true that this is Jeffq. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You guys want some "emergency" sysops? I'm sure we can get a few dozen volunteers to spend some time over there helping out on a short-term basis. We could verify the ownership of accounts the same way the commons picture of the year is doing it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To expand on Cbrown1023's note, (talk · contribs) made the above post and two additional edits here:

We are dealing with an editor who likes to annoy sysops by impersonation, and who knows enough about Wikimedia to make the impersonations credible on the surface by using sysops' names and posts from other projects. I believe this particular cross-project vulnerability should be significantly reduced when we get unified login working. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I would imagine the Wikiquote sysops are not as dumb as the above anon poster made out, and can quite happily solve this with a little checkuser voodoo. Proto  15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I sprotected this to prevent people avoiding 3rr. Since I am arguably too closely involved in editing to be entirely objective, I would appreciate someone reviewing the action. Please un-protect or block if it seems more appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there has not been a single act of vandalism by an anon I think this is preventative. The new and anon users have not been the primary source of disruption on this issue. But I am also involved, so I welcome other peoples opinions aswell. Who do you think is avoiding 3RR? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not I[27]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a religious issue? The whole "depictions of Muhammad cannot be shown" thing? --Cyde Weys 04:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The hope was that Muhammad could be unprotected, and disputes confined to the transclusion. Now I have sprotected Muhammad also. Tom Harrison Talk 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Should this not be in the Talk: namespace, as traditionally anything that isn't a published article is kept out of articlespace and in talkspace? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This disruption is stemming from the very obvious sockpuppetry of editor Bbarnett (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) who on his user talk page vowed to keep the image of Muhammad on the article (regardless of consensus). He's using Canadian IPs (do note Bbarnett's Canadian centric editing outside of the Muhammad article) to circumvent 3RR because he knows he'll be blocked again for that. (Netscott) 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Were there any remaining doubt...[28].Proabivouac 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the admitted nature of this editor sockpuppeting I've filed a 3RR report citing the sockpuppetry. (Netscott) 05:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't all this image stuff be nicely covered under Wikipedia is not censored? -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think so, but see Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is, but this is not equivalent to the policy being enforced. Jawboning is not enough to compel many users to abandon their personal beliefs. WP:NOT is understandably simply not that important in the scheme of God, Heaven, Hell, prophets and all that. It's futile to wait for people who view it in this framework to change their minds - think, would you betray God himself to comply with Wikipedia policy? No reasonable person would. In such a situation, both recriminations and further argument are futile; all we can do is recognize the difference in perspective and act without anger or blame to protect the encyclopedia.Proabivouac 14:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I realize this arguments already been fought and decided, but allowing a paticular group of users to ignore policy simply because they strongly believe against it seems the farthest thing from protecting the encyclopedia. Logically consistent jumps from this could be Christians getting to ignore NPOV on evolution articles because its blasphemy or some such. Oh well, I should've popped in when it was being discussed to begin with. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I cannot agree more. I wish more pro-active admins were involved in this, because if I keep enforcing policy I will look more and more biased towards the side that just happens to be in line with policy. It is far from decided, please pop in. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, lacking admin bits I can't be a proactive admin, but I can definitely participate with keeping the dang thing in line with accepted policy. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg
It is a big read, but I have summarized the arguments and counter arguments at the bottom. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • i think the actual debate has been misrepresented here. the issue is not religious beliefs vs. WP:NOT in the slightest. that much is clear for anyone who reads through the mediation and its archives. the arguments have all been iterated and re-iterated several times on the mediation pages, and most of us are rather tired after having restated our arguments so many times ^_^. ITAQALLAH 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei and Instantnood, continued revert-warring in violation of probation[