Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive208

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Apostrophe[edit]

User:Apostrophe Keeps on trolling me, annoying me, and reverting my edits to Kingdom Hearts II. I attempt to talk to him on his talk page, and he removes my comments completely. I am often insulted by this user,a nd he's getting on my last nerve. Perhaps a block is in order? Toajaller3146 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this user is intent on adding [1] (3RR violations in this page which he was blocked twice for) to another page (and editors besides me had removed it). If he doesn't get his way, he often resorts to silly applications of policy, such as "warning" users that he disagrees with about vandalism/trolling and threatens to report them to an admin. To be blunt, my patience is low and I'm not going to use kid gloves for this guy. ' 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I sort of have to to fix your Bullshit, don't i? Besides, i was told to add the FN promo to that page.-Toajaller3146 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
User is currently banned for 3RR and harassment. ' 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Both editors concerned could afford to read WP:CIVIL a few times, IMHO. Heimstern Läufer 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So I'm put in the same league as somebody who threatens to report any disagreement as vandalism when he doesn't get his way. How lovely. ' 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Being told to stay civil isn't bad. That said, I am inclined to disagree with the information because yes, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Implication is a dangerous thing. That said, this didn't have to go to WP:AN/I in the first place. x42bn6 Talk 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he wanted to just add the Florida Natural promotion this time around, which other editors disagreed with in both articles. ' 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandal[edit]

Could action be taken about the repeated insertion of a deliberately false section to Elián González (which has our young Cuban rafter staying in the US and now living in Chicago!) by user Elian126 and probable sockpuppet TylerTSanders.-- Zleitzen(talk) 20:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Seeing as both introduced the exact same content, it appears to be sockpuppetry, but neither have received more than a single warning. At the very least they should be asked to provide citations before a block can be considered. Are there any other related accounts? - Mgm|(talk) 00:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • In this case, it would appear reasonable to conclude it's intentional insertion of false material, and vandalism. I have left uw-error3 warnings on both users talk pages. They seem to have stopped before that; if they do it again, leave them a uw-error4 warning and then report them to WP:AIV if there's anything after that. It should be safe to assume they're sockpuppets for purposes of that. They may be past 3RR there between the two of them already, but I haven't warned them for that. Someone else can check and do so if appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation on Ivor Bell[edit]

I removed a derogatory and offensive comment about Margaret Thatcher from this article [2]. It is a quote attributed to Muammar al-Gaddafi- and referenced to an IRA book.

Even if the comment was made (which cannot be checked)- it is not relevant to Ivor Bell's page and thus is a violation of WP:BLP. However some users keep adding it back. Astrotrain 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a sourced quote, WP:BLP applies to unsourced negative information. You should assume good faith, especially as you haven't got a copy of the book. One Night In Hackney 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Astrotrain, as you are quoting WP:BLP can you show the exact section of this policy that it violates?--Vintagekits 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:NPOV. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. - Kittybrewster 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes and the quote is referenced.--Vintagekits 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim of "IRA book" is incorrect as well, it is a book written by Ed Moloney, who is not a member of the IRA but an unbiased author and journalist. One Night In Hackney 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotation is irerelevant to the article; it's attributed to Gaddafi, not to Bell, and has no obvious direct (or indirect) relevance to Bell. It seems to have been inserted for the pleasure of being rude about Thatcher. No objection to that in general, but not in a Wikipedia article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with Mel. Even if this can be sourced with the book, it has absolutely no relevance to the Ivor Bell article. (I'm not even sure if the book was used to reference that quote or the surrounding text. When it was reverted, only the text was removed not the quote, so I'm not sure they belong together. - Mgm|(talk) 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel removed the quote, and replaced it with the text [3]. The Libyan connection involved far more people than Bell, so I think it's important to try and give some context and background. One Night In Hackney 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct, it puts in context why Libya would assist Irish republicans in attacking British forces.--Vintagekits 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for some admin eyes on Talk:Daniel J. Barrett[edit]

I recently made some comments in this arbitration case as an uninvolved editor. Currently one of the involved editors seems to be baiting me by implying that I have COI and other problems and making more or less veiled accusations against me. Example: diff. I think this editor is very close to policy violations on this talk page (or may have crossed the line already) and I do not want to place warnings on the editor's talk page in order to prevent escalation. Besides, I'm going to bed in a minute. Then again, I am not the only editor being accused there. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ilena, the editor referred to, is currently blocked. The arbitration case, incidentally, is now in the voting stage. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block?[edit]

Per this checkuser, if you look at the AfDs the IP has been editing the duck test should be enough evidence? One Night In Hackney 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Block of Backup100[edit]

I (Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)0 have blocked Backup100 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) on a suggestion from Vishwin60 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) on IRC (#wikipedia-en) that this user is a probable sock of 512theking (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). I related this to the user here, based not on the sock allegation (although circumstances suggest it's possible, I did not examine the edit records closely) but rather on the contribution history of this user and two particularly egregious edits. I suggested to Vishwin60 that he visit WP:RFCU to pursue this further if warranted. As always I welcome review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello???[edit]

So once again my report of harassment went ignored, and yet it continues. But we don't need WP:PAIN do we? This editor among a couple others have been after me for over 2 months because he made an off-topic and inappropriate comment on a talk page I removed, and yet it continues [4], [5].--Crossmr 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And the previous ignored report was here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive204#On-going_and_Long-term_Harassment. So let me be clearer. I edited a talk page in accordance with the guidelines and in retaliation I've had months of harassment in the form of talk page, user page vandalism, personal attacks and incivility hurled at me. The biggest response was a single 24 hour block of one of the IPs, who obviously didn't get it as he's admitted to using his IP to vandalize and harass me when he has an account.--Crossmr 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Crossmer, calm down. I've warned the IP again, though I do find it troublesome that he refers to himself as a 'dynamically assigned IP' when threatened with a block. Can I can some other opinions? --InShaneee 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been harassed for over 2 months, with more personal attacks and incivility than I can count. The last ignored comment wasn't the only one thats gone posted here and ignored while it continues. If you read the previous comment you'll see that I've provided some evidence as to who the IP is.--Crossmr 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You need dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. You should probably all put down the stick and step away from the horse, the survivalist bullshit on the Kim article can stay out, I don't see a lot of dissent from that, and really the number of edits ot that article and talk page display an unhealthy level of obsession on some people's part. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The survivalist issue was taken care of long ago. The issue on the part of the IP 24.... was that months ago he made an off-topic and attacking comment against kim on the talk page which I noticed when archiving and removed per the talk page guidelines. He's gone on a personal vendetta since that event taking every opportunity to harass me both on the talk page and vandalize my user page and talk page. I don't think dispute resolution is the issue, his behaviour is well beyond that.--Crossmr 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for a week by someone else, and has threatened to sock/continue on his return, so I think some more eyes on this situation would be helpful. --InShaneee 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A few months ago I was the target of on-going harassment by another anonymous IP and I put together a record page which made it easier to deal with. I've done the same here [6]. This is complete give or take a few diffs (the vandalism and harassment diffs would be extensive, so I stuck to the main one regarding this) There may already be some proxying going on (which I've included on the page).--Crossmr 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The 131 IP is obviously the same person/someone working with them. [7] Here he restores 24s harassing comment to my talk page and makes his own. This whole range is going to need blocked as I've seen at least two other IPs from this air force on the Kim talk page and vandalizing my user/talk page in relation to this.--Crossmr 13:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just an update, Jake b was confirmed as the 24... IP address via a check user [8].--Crossmr 04:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Liist edit to The Holocaust[edit]

User:Liist made this edit to Holocaust, which I reverted and gave a Vandal4im warning for. He erased the warning from his talk page., then proceded to add this image to the Jew page.

If it's not vandalism, it's skirting the edge--but there's enough wiggle room that I wanted an admin to look at the situation. Justin Eiler 18:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also point out that these "POV edits" (if nobody wants to believe it's really a lot worse than that) seems to be a habit with Liist - he's made a bogus redirect in a similar vein ("stolen land" to "Israel"). That's a pretty strong agenda for a kid in high school. MSJapan 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 24h (vandalized Jew in a similar manner after that final warning) - but someone needs to see if this account was compromised. I don't see anything anti-Semitic in any of his edits before today. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked PhilPhague (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), who is obviously one in the same with the indefblocked PhilMakesMeGroan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and HeyPhil (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (possibly AZJustice (talk · contribs) as well, but that's conjecture), despite his claim otherwise [9] or that Jesus endorses his work here [10]. Both PhilPhague and PhilMakesMeGroan created an attack page Phil Gronowski, Portrait of a Sad Young Man. (Philip Gronowski (talk · contribs) is a user here). Some concern had been expressed on WP:RFCN that the name PhilPhague was itself an attack on Philip Gronowski. (I have no idea what "phague" means, but ok.) At any rate, please review this block and feel free to reduce the time or to allow the user to make an account under a different name that doesn't contain "Phil" in it, if you feel that the user should not be banned. Thank you. --BigDT 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A phage is a virus that attacks bacteria, and 'phague' could be pronounced as "fag". The attack page backs up the idea that this is a single-purpose attack account / sock. Completely support the block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... either of those make sense ... thanks. I have added a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU#PhilPhague to find any other potential accounts that there may be. --BigDT 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible doppelganger[edit]

Hi, I am an admin, but I'd like a little outside assistance on this case. User:67.53.78.15 appears to be posting on multiple talk pages while emulating the signatures of multiple non-existent users. Obviously something's amiss, although I'm not exactly what I should do in this case. Help requested. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I told them how faking signatures is unacceptable and they should either sign so their IP appears or register an account. If they continue faking sigs, the IP can be blocked. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I went to the list of contributions and have undone all the fake signatures. This user appears to belief big corporations are evil and work for the government. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request of block[edit]

The IP addresses User:68.91.91.194, User:68.89.129.226, User:68.91.253.8, User:69.149.104.72, User:66.142.89.8 and other similars are believed to be the same person. They recurrently edit in Clásico Regiomontano over a supposed NPOV dispute. The claimant will always leave accusations and other comments in the talk page, and then proceed to vandalize the page by deleting material. At his request, the materials has been recently re-written, sourced and referenced. However, since the result was not of the satisfaction of his point of view (of which he has referred to as "the truth"), he has continued to vandalize the page by deleting said sourced material. Administrator intervention, and guidance, is requested to resolve this dispute. Hari Seldon 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute and edit warring. I've protected the article in order to discuss further your edits. I've left a note at the article talk page asking the IP address to get an account instead of trying to game the system by avoiding the 3RR (it hasn"t happened yet anyway). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockblock requested[edit]

HolyMoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has helpfully identified himself as a sockpuppet of the indef blocked SneakySoyMeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): [11]. Could someone kindly block him? (All the accounts listed in the linked SSP case have been blocked.) --Akhilleus (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I Wish To Report An Infraction![edit]

He did it again. I thought that this user was blocked! Apparantly, I was mistaken. RichardRonnie 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a bit more detail might help here. Admins are not mind readers... WjBscribe 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. I have to look it up again. I seem to have forgotton his name too. Darned.RichardRonnie 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this your new account Richard? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I had to create a new account, because I lost the password to my other one. Anyways, once I remember "Mr Infraction"'s real name and offense, I will re request a total block.RichardRonnie 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oki. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Death threats on my user and talk pages[edit]

Recently, some vandals/IP addresses have been attacking my talk page and leaving nasty messages, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunStar_Net&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SunStar_Net&action=history

Please can someone delete the offending revisions for me?? --sunstar nettalk 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It's also on my talk page too. --sunstar nettalk 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible doppelganger[edit]

Hi, I am an admin, but I'd like a little outside assistance on this case. User:67.53.78.15 appears to be posting on multiple talk pages while emulating the signatures of multiple non-existent users. Obviously something's amiss, although I'm not exactly what I should do in this case. Help requested. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I told them how faking signatures is unacceptable and they should either sign so their IP appears or register an account. If they continue faking sigs, the IP can be blocked. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I went to the list of contributions and have undone all the fake signatures. This user appears to belief big corporations are evil and work for the government. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request of block[edit]

The IP addresses User:68.91.91.194, User:68.89.129.226, User:68.91.253.8, User:69.149.104.72, User:66.142.89.8 and other similars are believed to be the same person. They recurrently edit in Clásico Regiomontano over a supposed NPOV dispute. The claimant will always leave accusations and other comments in the talk page, and then proceed to vandalize the page by deleting material. At his request, the materials has been recently re-written, sourced and referenced. However, since the result was not of the satisfaction of his point of view (of which he has referred to as "the truth"), he has continued to vandalize the page by deleting said sourced material. Administrator intervention, and guidance, is requested to resolve this dispute. Hari Seldon 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute and edit warring. I've protected the article in order to discuss further your edits. I've left a note at the article talk page asking the IP address to get an account instead of trying to game the system by avoiding the 3RR (it hasn"t happened yet anyway). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockblock requested[edit]

HolyMoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has helpfully identified himself as a sockpuppet of the indef blocked SneakySoyMeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): [12]. Could someone kindly block him? (All the accounts listed in the linked SSP case have been blocked.) --Akhilleus (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I Wish To Report An Infraction![edit]

He did it again. I thought that this user was blocked! Apparantly, I was mistaken. RichardRonnie 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a bit more detail might help here. Admins are not mind readers... WjBscribe 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. I have to look it up again. I seem to have forgotton his name too. Darned.RichardRonnie 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this your new account Richard? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I had to create a new account, because I lost the password to my other one. Anyways, once I remember "Mr Infraction"'s real name and offense, I will re request a total block.RichardRonnie 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oki. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Death threats on my user and talk pages[edit]

Recently, some vandals/IP addresses have been attacking my talk page and leaving nasty messages, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SunStar_Net&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SunStar_Net&action=history

Please can someone delete the offending revisions for me?? --sunstar nettalk 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It's also on my talk page too. --sunstar nettalk 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Theratman[edit]

Not sure if this is the correct forum, but this user name and behavior is suggestive of a sockpuppet for the blocked Theman00 based on this edit [13]. Is it possible for admins to check the ip address to confirm this, or do we go through the test1, test2 procedure? Thanks, AntiVan 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indef for block evasion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Nrh15[edit]

I have no idea how to deal with this problem so if this is the wrong forum I apologise and would be happy to be pointed in the right direction. Since early February I have been attempting to revert a series of edits from one user, mostly to Claudette Colbert, Talk:Claudette Colbert and to a lesser extent Vivien Leigh, and to a very minor extent Charles Boyer. The other editor has been consistently removing cited material and injecting a non-neutral POV into these articles, or has added "cite needed" to areas that are cited. It's petty, but annoying. Has also engaged in vandalism to the user pages of several editors, including myself, but this seems to have stopped. The first user name, User:Wbrz was blocked temporarily and emerged as User:Wptfe who was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Returned within a day or so as User:Nrh15 making similar edits. The edit summaries used to revert my edits are dishonest - for example they often say "reverting unexplained deletion" when I've clearly explained my edit, saying it is "potentially libellous" when it's not, or replacing cited text with uncited POV, with cryptic edit summaries such as "POV or guesswork" which seems to have been taken from a comment I made in one of mine. It's all so odd. The edit summaries make no sense at all particularly those relating to Claudette Colbert. I don't know what to do, but having an edit war every few days is obviously counterproductive. Claudette Colbert is semi-protected because of numerous edits made by this person as an anon, but has easily gotten around this by creating user names to make the same edits. I've left messages on the talk pages of these identities, but the replies I receive make no sense. User talk:Nrh15 contains a couple of replies - but they are incoherent and downright odd. Would appreciate any help or advice. Thanks Rossrs 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've reverted Claudette Colbert and created a redirect at the copyvio Lily Claudette Chauchoin. I've also protected Claudette Colbert for the time being and left a message for User:Nrh15 on his talkpage about adding unsourced POV into articles. I'm waiting to see his response, if any, before I unprotect the article. Hopefully this clears it up.--Isotope23 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tmac68 and the Zodiac killer page[edit]

I completed a major rewrite of the Zodiac killer page to bring it into conformity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To do this, I had to delete approximately half of the 72 KB article, since it violated WP:V, WP:BLP WP:RS and WP:OR. It still does, to some extent, but it is much better now. Tmac68 has now begun reinserting material that is unsourced and inaccurate. [14] [15] [16] [17]. He was warned three times, but then did it again: [18]. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring this to ANI, but on the talk page, he promised me an edit war about this, in conjunction with other editors who own the article. [19]. Given that the article grossly violated WP:BLP, I thought it best to bring this to the community's attention. Jeffpw 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC) He also blanked the article completely Jeffpw 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.--Isotope23 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

March 11th Madrid train bombings[edit]

I am afraid that user Randroide has decided to ignore yet again the disputed nature of this page [[20]] and add an entirely new, and strongly, disputed section [[21]]. The long running dispute on this page is about to go to arbitration, but somebody really needs to tell this user that this is not the way to resolve the dispute. The only possible result of his actions is a worsening of an already difficult dispute. Southofwatford 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation. If not → Arbitration. I already know that the talk page hasn't served to solve the issues related to this article. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI → User talk:FayssalF/11M on July 2006. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is Southofwatford´s idea of solving disputes:
The RFC, and anything else, should be put on hold until we resolve the new problem created by Randriode's actions on Friday [22]
And what "terrible" thing I did last Friday: Hiding unsourced blocks of text [23], restored three times by Southofwatford[24][25][26].
Southofwatford rejects RfC. It is time to simply ignore him. Randroide 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about this topic, but an ArbCom or mediation looks like the way to go and someone may want to consider protecting some version of this page after it is filed... and they might have to dig back into the history to find one that is actually decently WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I'd do it, but like I said I'm not that knowledgeable about the topic. I do know enough to say the article is kind of a mess right now.--Isotope23 14:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration seems to me to be the only way out now, in the meantime I think something should be done to protect the rights of those parties to the dispute who have voluntarily refrained from making edits to the article whilst attempting to resolve it. Southofwatford 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

School Block[edit]

I have applied a 6 month schoolblock/soft block to User talk:216.152.229.82 if another admin thinks the time period is too harsh please adjust. Gnangarra 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

6 months is tooo harsh for a second block especially that we all know it is a high school. I shortened it to a week. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential incident at List of Internet phenomena[edit]

  • Could someone look into it, please? 70.58.114.69 (talk · contribs) is editing the article in a fashion that suggests bad faith, particularly considering this edit. JuJube 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Content dispute. However, some incivility is shown by the IP. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The diff cited is almost a month old, which is roughly the age of the IP's edit history. In general, adverse action against a user is preventative vs. punitive. Is there an instant offense? :)
User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:15Z
Nope and as i said above it is mainly a content dispute. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm, isn't including this kid an infraction of his privacy? He made the video himself and it was posted to the internet without his consent, so arguable the entire 'meme' is a copyright infringement. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I quite agree that the article is problematic. Similar problem to that with Brian Peppers in being an article poking fun at a person of borderline notability. Have nominated it at AfD. WjBscribe 11:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fisc EuroTour spamming by User:Fisceurotour and 81.206.231.18[edit]

I really hate to report things this way, but I'd like to draw attention to this issue because Fisceurotour (either logged in or via his IP address 81.206.231.18) has done some major link spamming for the Fisc EuroTour page.

I have removed approximately 150 (!) references to this page, done on virtually every obscure article there is on automobilia from the 1950s and 1960s. While the page about FISC EuroTour itself read like an ad and I have my doubts about the contents (I put the advert template on it, but Fisceurotour has removed it), the blatant fact that he linkspammed this page all across Wikipedia made me convice this is a deliberate act of spamming. Also, he has been warned before.

I hope one of the administrators will look at his edits the coming days, as I don't want to repeat this excercise in mass article editing.

Cheers, Brinkie 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a username issue as well. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've notified him of the WP:RFCN discussion. Sam Blacketer 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Editor is associated with the FISC Eurotour and probably wrote the article. I ran into him many months ago as an IP editor for some reason (adding links or maybe I was deleting a lot of car images he had uploaded). I encouraged him to register a username and he did. Conflict of interest editing is discouraged but not prohibited. I'd suggest this editor is enthusiastic about his topic and just needs some guidance on COI etiquette (such as suggesting links on the talk pages and letting other editors decide if there is enough notability to add it). Thatcher131 15:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

You know, my main concern in all of this is that even when I am an "asshole" and deserve to be stepped on, the innocent people around me do not deserve same. I go to meetings (for going on 13 years) to help me when I get crazy. But the people getting squashed while trying to do their jobs are innocent victims.

I have over 20,000 employees to think about at AGE and at NM, as well as, all the people on all the wireless outlets.

Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC.


Managing Director, Owner Senior Vice President Investments

A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Lake Forest, IL. St. Louis, Mo. N.Y., N.Y.

U.S.A.

Tierra del Sol, Aruba

Amsterdam

London


www.NystedMusic.com

Lee@NystedMusic.com

www.MySpace.com/LeeNysted

www.isound.com/lee_nysted

Legal Counsel:

Frank W. Pirruccello, Esq. www.Musiclaw1.com

Roger White, Esq. and Associates, Ltd. Lake Bluff, IL. U.S.A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted (talkcontribs) 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Sorry for not signing.Lee Nysted 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Hello,

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:


80.42.49.227 is verifiably a home dynamic DSL IP, and not currently running an open proxy as of Fri Feb 27 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 80-42-49-227.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com, which is clearly dynamic DSL.

The metapolicy on proxies lives at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WM:NOP, 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 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad place to put this kind of advice, because discussions here are archived very quickly. The other noticeboard is better (slower archiving), and even better is to also put on a relevant talk page (where it can take months or years to be archived). --cesarb 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OTRS related assistance needed[edit]

In response to a justifiably angry e-mail I have deleted an article Academy at Swift River as a sophisticated attack page on a school for children with behaviour problems. It was unsalvageable and purposely POV. On going throught the contributions of its creator Covergaard (talk · contribs) I'm seeing various other instances of similar articles with obvious weasel words, 'sources' with bad links, and apparent POV pushing and potential libels. They look well sourced, but dig down a little deeper. Rather than get into a head to head with the user, I'm bringing it here. Please review all his contributions, and revert, delete or de-POV as necessary. This is urgent.--Docg 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the term Behavior modification facility is loaded and pejorative.--Docg 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You'd think so, but that's actually a term the industry uses, as shown here Eugenitor 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I need to rush off but I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Village certainly requires a deeper look. --Fredrick day 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
MUST go but.. I urge most strongly that someone looks quickly at the article I cited above - the sources I quickly checked either were misquoted or were not anywhere near a standard that WP:RS would go for - this for example. --Fredrick day 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Turnabout_Ranch was a disaster. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much every article in there is very close to a POV screed...--Isotope23 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aspen Education Group. I've removed a lot of content that was OR or pure POV and made the language generally more neutral. Think this one's now OK but another pair of eyes wouldn't be a bad idea. WjBscribe 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think someone needs to delete Peninsula Village. There's no way of knowing what's salvageable there: it uses the term 'detainess' throughout and the alleged use of straightjackets seems unsubstantiated. (also see Fredrick day above on this article).WjBscribe 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has created loads of these pages. I am going to delete a bunch that have recieved no other edits - many don't actually provide any evidence of notability, are badly or unreferenced, and are very loaded POV-wise. Proto  16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Some I have also stubbed right down. I have to go, but a bunch remain. Someone badly needs to look at the root articles, behavioral modification and teen escort company, also curfew and Brat Camp. Proto  16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

These are what I managed to pick out from January and February. I've no doubt missed some, there's a lot there to wade through. – Steel 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we add to this list as people find articles that are problematic. Those that have been dealt with can either become redlinks or someone can add a note saying that that they have edited it to bring it into line with policy. WjBscribe 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, some kind of annotation would be a good idea. – Steel 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or nuke 'em all, and let people start again if they wish?--Docg 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an adminstrator, probably because if I was I would have done that already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a bloody good reason to sysop you.--Docg 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If nominated, I will not run. If running I will not win. If winning, I will not serve. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth checking through the contribs of Eugenitor (talk · contribs). He appears to edit mostly the same pages, though. – Steel 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Having checked, I don't see anything on this user's contributions needing attention other than the lists above and below. With less than 50 edits, this one was simple. GRBerry 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a pattern from the two users, it might be worth checking World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools and everything that links to it. I see the following articles on that list:

GRBerry 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another path to find articles; use Category:Behavior modification. GRBerry 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the severe damage that could be caused if this user has done the same thing to other articles with an alternative account, I'd suggest a checkuser investigation might be in the encyclopedia's best interests.--Docg 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another new user with interest in the same article topics. Rmagick (talk · contribs). Probably has been trying to help cleanup; see Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Rmagick. GRBerry 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Wikipedia already go through something like this before with Scientology, with the Scientologists not really willing to talk about what happens at the upper levels, and trying to get such information removed?

Trying to get any truly substantiated reports of the details (particularly the level systems) of these facilities is even more difficult.

But please, for neutrality's sake, don't delete anything actually sourced and don't take anything anyone says at face value, particularly when they write it in angry letters.

What looks like blatant POV is, unfortunately, actually what is going on (although it could all be phrased much, much more neutrally, I'm sure..) Difficult as it is to believe, some parents out there really are paying top dollar to have their kids kidnapped and "behavior modified". Much of this is third-party sourced in news articles.

Oh, and Covergaard's not intentionally using weasel words- the man doesn't have the English skills to do that. He's just calling it as he sees it, which is probably not the best idea when trying to maintain neutrality.

What this whole business needs is a good and thorough editing by experienced Wikipedians willing to knock out POV crap on both sides of the issue and find sources, not rampant deletion. Eugenitor 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In the long run, it does need editing as described. In the short run, it needs a cleanup for adherance to the policies WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Copies of newspaper articles maintained at an advocacy group's website aren't reliable sources. The links can remain in history though, for someone to go find when and where the article ran, then go check that article, then add the content once they have confirmed that the reliable source actually said that. GRBerry 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, some of these places can be pretty horrible. Granted, anything I could tell you would be dated by about 15 or 20 years, but it was nasty. HalfShadow 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've stubbed Majestic Ranch Academy, and I encourage anyone going through these to look out for claims that are supposedly sourced through a newspaper. One in that article was supposedly sourced from the Salt Lake Tribune, but it was on some other website, and I can find no evidence that the Tribune ever actually published such a story. (Even if they did, the site linked to is very likely in violation of copyright.) Were the deleted ones that godawful? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. WjBscribe 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have to protest that you have deleted some of the pages without tagging them for speedy deletion. Maybe such facilities or the concept of therapy is not wide-wide based subject, that can be on wikipedia at all. But surely they could have been tagged instead. Covergaard 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, consider this thread the tag. Clearly the need to evaluate was indicated above. Speedy deletion criteria do not require tagging, nor any particular delay prior to deletion. Those speedy deleted were mostly done under WP:CSD#G10 (not necessarily with those letters in the summary), which has its own category and gets faster than average processing - my guess is the average tag to bag time is well under an hour, probably under 15 minutes. Many admins choose to only tag and let another delete, but the policy does not require a two person process. GRBerry

Inappropriate user page[edit]

I note that User:The Nazi's username is being disallowed, but am also concerned by his user page. In my opinion, the current version ([27]) is abhorrent and offensive and request speedy action. --Dweller 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Persian Poet Gal has dealt with this now. Thank you. --Dweller 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually deleted the history of it too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking Chris.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all round. --Dweller 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:HongQiGong[edit]

User:HongQiGong has made a personal attack, labeling me a "Japanese porn fanboy," for defending articles on Japanese erotic cinema, a subject which he has threatened with mass AfDs numerous times, after commenting on POV-pushing on another user's talk page. Dekkappai 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So, politely tell him you're offended and ask that he stop. It's not that insulting and it's obvious there are some personality conflicts going on there among several users. Why not just back off and let the whole thing cool off? This isn't the Tattletale board to come running to. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I was under the impression that there were some sort of official policies on communication to be followed here. My mistake, Schmuck. Dekkappai 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There are also policies about not playing tit-for-tat. You'll note I said personality conflicts among several users, I suggest you all cool off. And thicken your skins, or at least not pretend your skin is so thin as an excuse to go running to "authority". SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
He could use a reminding of civil communication, but you need to tell him specifically what you were offended by before any action can be taken (assuming he would then ignore your warning). Leebo86 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I placed such a reminder. SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see what choice words Dekkappai had for me[28]...

  • narrow-minded and blind
  • white-washing an article
  • I've never had the stomach to associate with such people
  • Now watch him parrot back the words like some 5-year-old thinking he's making a real point
  • thug[29]

Hmmm... maybe I should file a complaint on this board. And no, I'm not ashamed to use this rhetoric: he started it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that the three of you should avoid direct conflicts if you can't refrain from passive-aggressive banter. Leebo86 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I was just responding to Dekkappai's colourful description of my behaviour. And I've stopped after Schmucky here left a message on my Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned user reappearing?[edit]

The recent edits by User:132.216.104.200 suggest to me a reincarnation of a banned user. This user is simultaneously rejecting low numbers on the number of Romanians and high numbers on the number of Roma. In neither case is he presenting any real arguments, just saying that these numbers (which seem as well cited as others in the relevant articles) constitute "POV pushing". Use of that term strongly suggests experience with Wikipedia, so this is presumably not a newbie.

Following up on this, I see that the IP is McGill University in Montreal. I believe that is where banned user NorbertArthur was, and these edits would be typical of him. If so, this IP should definitely be blocked as a sockpuppet and the edits reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits reverted and I'm issuing a block. WP:DUCK applies here.--Isotope23 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I issued a 1 month because it is an IP. I don't have a problem with another admin coming along and adjusting this block... I'm not too sure how McGill runs their IP's so I was not comfortable issuing an indef myself.--Isotope23 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Review block of YeLLeY511[edit]

YeLLeY511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was recently indefinitely blocked with the rationale "spam-only account. dozens of spam images. apparently a paid promoter for a wrestler named 'brimstone'". YeLLeY511 was a new user who created an article Brimstone (wrestler), uploaded several Brimstone-related images, and inserted references to Brimstone in a few (apparently carefully-chosen) wrestling-related articles. The writing did not seem overtly promotional to me, but it was certainly fawning and non-encyclopedic in tone, which gave me the impression more of a young, enthusiastic fan than a professional promoter. The user has been in continuous contact with me (after I tagged her images as unlicensed or improperly licensed) on my user page and with the rest of the community on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and seems to have made good-faith efforts to abide by policy.

I ask that this block be reviewed, as though it is indeed possible that the user is a paid promoter, it's a bit premature to have blocked her without better evidence and without advance warning. This situation could have been better addressed through article {{cleanup}} and {{NPOV}} tags, and directing the user to read our WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies. —Psychonaut 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather depends on whether the blocking admin had good reason for believing that this is a paid promoter. Has anyone asked? Moreschi Request a recording? 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I was the blocking admin. Sysop user:Jersyko concurred offwiki. Please see blocked user's upload logs, and mine and Jersyko's deletion logs for the extent of the spamming. See also additional explanation on the blocked user's talk page. - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
YeLLeY511 was responding to and abiding by policy notifications in a polite and courteous manner. Even if she were spamming, there's no reason at this point to think that a {{welcomespam}} message wouldn't have solved the problem (or at least prevented future ones). —Psychonaut 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems more likely than not that the user is a paid promoter: (1) the user wrote a fawning article on an arguably NN local wrestler (CSD G11 definitely, possibly A7), (2) all of the user's contributions were related to promoting or building this article and the wrestler, and (3) the user uploaded 32 images, by my count, all related to said wrestler. E-mails purported to be from the wrestler were posted by the user on several of the image talk pages, further lending credit to the view that the user is a paid promoter. I believe NYC JD's block was appropriate. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked... sort of[edit]

I only now see this thread after I've provisionally unblocked them, as they made a (in my eyes, credible) promise to stop spamming. Feel free to re-block in case of any recidivist behaviour. Anyway, I came here to ask a technical question: even though unblocked, they say they still can't edit, and a {{unblock-auto}} shows them as editing from 127.0.0.1. Can anyone figure out what's the problem here? Sandstein 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of edits on Genesis article made by Codex Sinaiticus[edit]

Please have a look at the reverts of my edits of the Genesis article. I have given a detailed reason for my edits on the talk page of that article. I sthink that putting this article into the Categories Category:Creation stories and Category:Mythology is justified and even demanded by the NPOV principle. Wikipedia must not treat any single religion special. The mentioned user seems to have taken ownership of that article. This kind of behavieour is threatening the neutrality of Wikipedia. Please note his answer.

Moreover, his comment on the last unedit, he writes "(rm POV pushing supercat)". I take this to be a personal insult! On a similar revert of the edit of another Users he commented "(rv per WP:NPOV - POV-pushing cats, this has been tried with many religious books, but it is not neutral to state that the Bible or Quran are "mythology". You can attribute the opinion, not a cat)". I think this is wrong and the choice of words is going too far!

Can this User be blocked or can the page be protected after puting those categories?

I respect the belies of Christians, but Wikipedia is a multicultural project with editors from many religions. It must by allowed to do comparative studies of religions and put the creation stories of - for example - the traditional religion of the Baluba into one Category with the creation storiy of Jewish and Christian religion. In Wikipedia, the Christian or Jewish religions must not receive any special treatment or status. Some of the editors and some of the users belief in other things and so there must be neutrality here!Nannus 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had a quick look, but it seems rather low profile. In my view, the categorization is deserved. I encourage you to continue to try and use the talk page, and any user who chooses not to when dealing with such a sensitive topic is quite revertible. Only if the comments or scale were significantly higher would it be likely that protects or blocks would be made. Revert wars do generally lead to comments from both sides, but I don't think much can be gained in the form of resolution if one were implemented. We do not punish, only prevent and deter in the least disruptive way possible. Ian¹³/t 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

request for block for User talk:marvinstalin[edit]

He just vandalized triple entente, whatever that is, and has copious warnings on his talk page. I think a short duration block might set him straight. --Savant13 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The vandalism seemed rather blatant so I gave him an indefinite block instead. Next time report such obvious vandals to WP:AIV so administrators can see it sooner.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a block for two IPs[edit]

76.23.128.114 71.241.67.14 diffs: [30] [31] [32] Acmlm's Board -has- moved to acmlm.no-ip.org, at least if you consider both the eponymous founder of it and the largest part of the community having relocated as enough evidence to call it a move. The old administration, however, has decided to retain ownership over the domain and run a new board under the name and claim of being the official "Acmlm's Board" at the old URL. Now, undeniably, the internal politics of said forum should not be carried over to Wikipedia; however , the fact that the users performing those edits clearly tried to avoid any discussion/arbitration regarding that topic by editing anonymously, trying to flag both the editing in of the new URL and an as objective as it could get version as "vandalism", in my eyes, justifies blocking those IP addresses. In case this issue continues under changing IP addresses, I would even propose semi-protection of that site to force the perpetrators to perform the edits under an accountable identity, thus encouraging dialogue or even arbitration. --Blackhole89 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

user posting spam links[edit]

First had Jonglob (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) posting links to luckycharmsusa <dot> com, then an anon (69.84.104.230 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)). I've cleaned up what I can, but is there any way to globally search for outgoing links to a specific site or domain? And is this enough activity to request a blacklist, or just clean it up unless he/she tries it again? Justin Eiler 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you can use Special:Linksearch for that. There is some more helpful information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sweet. There are no hits for the spammers domain, so I'll call it taken care of. Thanks for the info. :D Justin Eiler 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How to add sites to spam blacklist?[edit]

I've just spent some time cleaning out an infestation of blog spam - an anonymous user, most likely the blogger himself, has been systematically going through Wikipedia adding links to his personal essays and smuggling them into lists of scholarly references. He's been warned about this before, his links have been removed plenty of times before (most recently only two days ago!), but he seems to be intent on using Wikipedia to drive traffic to his blog. Unfortunately the spammer is coming from a number of Verizon dynamic IPs, so I can't simply block him without causing unacceptable collateral damage. The only alternative I can think of is to add his blog to the spam blacklist. Could someone advise on how to do this or suggest any other alternatives? -- ChrisO 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Make a request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist listing the relevant diffs, and show that it is indeed a problem, more evidence the better. Me or another meta admin will see to it. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much - I'll do it tomorrow, it's late and all this spam deleting has made me tired. :-) -- ChrisO 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Block request/Intervention: User:Master Cheif 001[edit]

User:Master Cheif 001 has consistently vandalized Halo related articles and now has launched personal attacks against User:Peptuck of a particuarly gratuitous nature. Editor Peptuck has helped remove his vandalism and while also attempting (with other editors) to mediate with him regarding his changes in effort to resolve any dispute, but User:Master Cheif 001 has resorted to vandalism of talk pages and blanking out vandalism warnings from his own talk page along side personal attacks. Can any admin intervene and attempt to put an end to this? Qjuad 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He has not had a vandal warning in two days. Be sure to put vandal notices on his page, he can only be blocked for vandalism after violating a level 4 or blatant warnings.Rlevse 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism?[edit]

The recent edits by User:84.13.87.135 on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_scheme show repeated reverts and prolonged vandalism. I have asked for page protection already on the relevant page, but ask that this IP address be banned to stop further attacks. --Cybertrax 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. In the future, however, please take these reports to AIV (for vandalism) or AN3 (for 3RR violations, which we have here). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Cybertrax should also be blocked for 3RR: by my count, he's reverted at least nine times in the last 24 hours. I'm fairly certain that User:84.13.87.135 is the same person as User:Arzel and User:Webwatch (nine reverts between them in the past 24 hours).
You are incorrect. I have signed all of my changes. Arzel 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Some background on this conflict: there's been a long-running edit war between User:Cybertrax (the former operator of a matrix site) and User:Arzel (presumably the owner/administrator of matrixwatch.org, an anti-matrix site). Cybertrax has been pushing the view that a matrix scheme is a valid business model, while Arzel has been pushing the view that a matrix scheme is a scam related to pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes. The most recent skirmish has been over whether the article should link to Cybertrax's matrix-advocacy site, Arzel's anti-matrix site, neither, or both. --Carnildo 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mostly correct. However, I am neither the owner or an administrator. I do assist in moderating forums, but that is the extent of my capacity regarding MW.


It is simpler than that. I deleted an external link as it contravenes the External Link policy, but the people who are moderators of the site the link goes to are adamant that the link should stay. I have NOT reverted at all today. I took the action of deleting the link - the others reverted. I did not revert, I made NEW edits based on my original action. This means that I was simply upholding the Wikipedia policies, and should not be punished for such.

As it stands, it is actually Carnildo that I have asked as an administrator to protect this page - I am still awaiting a response.

--Cybertrax 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated numerous times the link has been viewed as relevent to the article at hand for some time. It is quite simple though. Cybertrax is a former matrix site owner who has been attempting to sue MW for the better part of a year. When his link was deleted by a third party his response was to delete the link to MW. Arzel 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with sock puppet army[edit]

I've simultaneously listed a request at RFCU. CheckUser would be nice confirmation but I've detailed a sock puppet army at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The circumstantial evidence is obvious. Review please? SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the articles until a full review can be completed.--Isotope23 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New user who needs some ... assistance[edit]

User:Cfinn06 has been removing maintenance templates from articles. When I confronted him about it, he got somewhat defensive, including threatening to evade a block of he got "band" (sic). He did later apologise and agreed that he wouldn't remove any more maintenance templates. However, he then blanked his talk page, added a spam link to his user page, and added a bogus {{protected}} template.

I've removed the spam link and the bogus banner, but he may need someone with some authority to explain the ropes. I have to admit I've lost my patience--can one of the admins take him in hand? Justin Eiler 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ive offerd to help him out in a friendly way. If i had more time i would put some more effort into it. I will keep an eye on him though. If there are particular issues with him, you can feel free to contact me directly with it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal[edit]

64.229.151.148 just produced this edit on the Waldorf Education article. Thanks in advance for your help. Pete K 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If he violats again, report to WP:AIV. Rlevse 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:LedgerJoker[edit]

LedgerJoker (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was reported at the suspected sockpuppet board, but no action resulted. This editor, also suspected of being blocked Batman Fan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Dr. McGrew (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) amongst others, has one MO - create redundant and often overly broad categories with multiple capitalization errors, populate them, and repeat. Seems to favor soap opera, reality TV and superhero topics. Please block before this clogs the CfD board again. CovenantD 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayzel68[edit]

Implied legal threat: "As for your other charge, libel is not taken lightly. You'd better have a solid case," against User:Jiffypopmetaltop. Bolded in original. [33] Derex 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. Should he retract the threat, I would support an unblock, although having him cool his heels for 24-48 hours might not be a bad idea either - it's not his first block. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet harassment[edit]

Aikenfangs13 continuously recreated the nonsense article Derka. Finally, I just protected it and gave him a 24 block for vandalism. He returned and began harassing me and vandalising other article.[34] I indefinitely blocked him as he had no edits other than vandalism. He has returned as Aikenfangs613, Aikenfangs6113, and Aikenfangs66113. All I indefinitely blocked as socks. He even recreated his nonsense article as Derka derka derka derka that last time. Frankly, I'm getting tired of being harassed by him and having to block new accounts and cleanup his messes. Can someone suggest something to control this person? IrishGuy talk 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's continuing, I'd post at RFCU for an IP check/block. —bbatsell ¿? 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior by a new user[edit]

I noticed the user Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) make a vote at an RfA for his second edit ever. The user then commented on blocked user's page and made an unsolicited comment to a user who had no previous dealings with them. This pattern of behavior seems very strange for a new user and makes me suspect they may be a sock engaging in block evasion, so I'm posting here to see if anyone recognizes it. —Dgiest c 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry[edit]

There has been some content dispute at Georgetown University. The IP user User:68.48.79.224 and new users User:CasqueGauntletDmouth and User:Tulaniac4 have made the same edits to the page and no other edits. I suspect the last two are trying to pretend to be from other colleges (Dartmouth and Tulane). Can somebody look into this? --AW 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock/reblock of confirmed sockpuppeteer[edit]

Early today, admin User:Yamla unblocked Lee Nysted (talk · contribs), a recently confirmed sockpuppeteer, stating that the user promised to stop socking, spamming, etc. I've reblocked the user, because the unblock was not discussed with either the blocking admin or on the RFCU. I'm not entirely sure if this promise was made on wiki or via email, but in any case, there should be more discussion about the issue before we unblock the user. Shadow1 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I approached Yamla about the unblock and raised the issue that this was done without communication, which is not a good move, in my opinion. Checkuser has information that normal admins do not, and these blocks should only be repealed after communication with the checkuser.
It should also be noted that since his unblock his only contributions have been removing sock tags from his sockpuppets and harassing users that he sees as his opponents on their talk pages. When the sock tags were removed, administrator JzG restored them and protected the article. I think that his lease on good faith has expired and should remain blocked. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I left Yamla a note on their talk page and invited them to join the discussion here. A Train take the 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course. As she is the one that unblocked Lee in the first place, I would value hearing what promises were so compelling to repeal a block without any discussion at all. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this user is willing to commit to using one and only one account, not asking other people to create meatpuppet accounts, and being civil, there's no harm in an unblock ... but I don't see any evidence of such a commitment. --BigDT 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • As I said, all this user did since he was unblocked was harass his detractors and attack the checkuser process. Oh, and remove sock tags from his socks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No reason, as far as I can see, to unblock. This guy has done sweet FA in his time here bar spam us with self-promotional articles, all of which have been deleted as being about as notable as my left sock. AGF only goes so far. And then sockpuppet. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Can I take it that "FA" in this context does not stand for featured article? Newyorkbrad 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the case that I unblocked this user earlier today. The user was unblocked more than three weeks ago after discussion on unblock-en-l. The user did at the time commit to having read WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and some other policies, and agreed not to violate them again. I unblocked the user because blocks are preventative, not punitive, and iirc (which I may not), notified JzG about my actions. I was rightly criticised by JzG for unblocking without first discussing with him, and apologised for doing so. --Yamla 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The user was unblocked on the 6th, to be precise. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see it now. My mistake; it was three weeks ago. Shadow1 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So, having cleared this up, what is it now: has he done enough disruptive things within those last three weeks to deserve a new block, or not? In particular, is there evidence for renewed sockpuppetry? He's currently on Category:Requests for unblock. Fut.Perf. 15:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know if there is evidence of renewed puppetry, but at the same time I can't really say he has had a lot of high quality edits since the block was lifted. His claim of wanting to be unblocked because he in involved in 2 AfDs rings a bit hollow. One he apparently became suddenly interested in after JzG showed up and opined delete. WP:AGF, but it is kind of hard not to see this as a WP:STALK. The other is apparently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena 2, which is closed. That said, I'd be willing to extend him a bit of AGF and see if he actually wants to contribute positively here, but any more socking should result in a ban discussion.--Isotope23 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Just a couple of bits on the issue: I haven't seen his checkuser, but he claims to be connecting from several different places, each of which could be shared by random and disparate users. He has read and agreed to several policies (including WP:SOCK and WP:COI. Yes he violated the policies, but he didn't really know them? He wanted to participate in the AfDs, but they're both closed, so those are moot issues now. People have been making a big deal about him becoming an enemy of JzG and just joining the opposite bandwagon. People have been throwing words around like "proof" but I've yet to see anything besides circumstantial evidence. Maybe there's some evidence that I'm missing, but I think we should AGF, and allow an unblock, watching what he does for a while to see if he'll contribute to wikipedia. McKay 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Okay, as not much fresh material has come to light here that would necessitate an ongoing block (we're talking indef here!), and since the previous block was based at least in part on a factual misunderstanding, I'm unblocking now. Fut.Perf. 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it rather depends. I'm the original blocking admin, and not known for long periods of absence, but this is largely news to me despite the thread I started at WP:AN. Nysted's contributions thus far are of approximately zero worth, as noted above, and the text below implies a legal threat, which hardly helps his case. Discussed on unblock-l? For what value of discussed? I posted a strong request not to unblock when he first asked, and although I subscribe to unblock-l it looks like I missed that debate as well. So once again Nysted is loose and !voting "keep" for syntheses of original research and other "helpful" input. No doubt one day he will be a really productive self-publicising vanity spammer... Guy (Help!) 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Plus, he is lobbying to have the article on Matt Walker mention him. (See this diff and I won't even bother linking to the pettifogging on your talk page.) This is exactly the kind of garbage that got him banned in the first place. I was surprised to see him at AfD again and that he got unblocked. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, Mr. Jzg,

Let it go. I threaten no one here. I mean no harm. My thank you, is just that, a thank you. I am trying to learn. I voted on an issue today and you suddenly showed up? I would like to be allowed the opportunity to learn here, and eventually add value.

That is all.

Lee Nysted 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Fine, then learn. Please, learn. First up, when voting on a deletion, remember it's not a vote, and remember too that if someone has researched the issue and concluded that the article is a novel synthesis, that means you need to check for that argument, not whether you personally think the topic has merit. If it can't be verified from authoritative sources then we must delete it even if we are personally convinced that one day it will become important so we will one day have to have an article. Right now there are no reliable sources for that article, the sources cited do not support the actual content. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Serafin[edit]

To my astonishment, Checkuser has confirmed that User:Deszcz is not a sock of User:Serafin. I have thus unblocked this account. As I am no longer certain that Serafin evaded his block (some IPs have been brought into question, but no confirmation was ever received), I have reset the block to the original expiry time. I must also acknowledge having clearly been much too rash my assumptions of sockpuppetry. Heimstern Läufer 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that checkuser cannot confirm two accounts are not owned by the same person; all it can confirm is the absence of evidence of sockery. 09:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for ban[edit]

Continued vandalism from a school. [[35]] There have been repeated incidents, apparently.

Hunted by A.K.G. and Ivebenndead5000years[edit]

Two new users have joined Wikipedia today, Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Let's start with Hunted by A.K.G. His/her second edit, ten minutes after registering, was a support vote in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Hybrid (2), including a correct signature. Edits 5, 6 and 7 were to Tree63. Edits 3, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 13 were talk page messages, again with correct signatures. Edit 14 was a comment in WP:RFC/NAME claiming some level of knowledge of our username policy including using the correct shortcut. Later edits were an unblock request for Can'trest,myshoewillgetlostinthewasher (talk · contribs), amongst many other suspicious edits. Cut to Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs). One of the first edits by this user was creating a proper redirect to... Tree63, followed by some vandalism and a comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. With only a few edits, this user managed to find this section of Wikipedia. Something is fishy here. AecisBrievenbus 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like socks, is there a need for a checkuser? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not sure, since I have no idea yet what the main account is and CheckUser is not for fishing. This discussion btw is related to the above discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious behavior by a new user. AecisBrievenbus 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
They really do seam like they know policy whilst being on wikipedia for less than a day. Same editting pattern could be a good reason for a CheckUser - both to WP:RFCN and Tree63, with the vandalism from the latter account I think it would make an ideal candidate for CheckUser RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, sockpuppetry has been established for 99%. Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs) has been blocked for vandalism. The autoblock on the underlying (static) IP, 70.104.103.206 (talk · contribs), caused an autoblock on Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs). The accounts posted unblock requests two minutes apart, seemingly editing from that very IP. AecisBrievenbus 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Think this establishes 99.9% certainty and and an indef block for both RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As per the earlier post on this page, I think they're probably a reincarnation of someone else. If both have been indefed, though, the identity probably doesn't matter. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:28, 28 Feb