Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive465

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Dameware[edit]

Resolved: or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dameware article was tagged {{db-spam}} (which was valid, the article having been rewritten in vapid marketing speak by the user Dameware). I have reverted to the marginally less spammy version prior to this editor's involvement, and blocked the editor per WP:USERNAME and because this and the prior WP:SPA on that article (likely the same person) show no understanding of WP:NPOV. Others are free to undo any or all of these actions, but I don't think the article should be deleted as it is very widely used software. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the widely used software bit. Also popular with hackers because it can push a VNC server. Pretty neato. --mboverload@ 23:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Added references to reliable sources - two CERT/Homeland Security advisories concerning major security defects in the product, and a MITRE list of lesser vulnerabilities. Removed "advertising" and "verify" tags. --John Nagle (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Good job, all. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd AfD behavior[edit]

I created an AfD and user Roadstaa then listed several other AfDs and pointed them at my AfD. Although a couple of them I was considering listing if the first passed, I didn't want to bundle them all together. He also added the line "The AFD also comprises of ..." and listed the other articles he listed under my original AfD reason statement. Is this okay? Shouldn't the other AfD's get their own discussions? I would think if he wants them bundled then he should bundle them in his own AfD. The odd thing is that Roadstaa was the creator of most those articles he listed, so I'm wondering if either he is trying to make it seem like the debate is including more borderline cases to try to push it towards a "keep all" conclusion. Anyway, here are the related links... Discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sport utility coupe. Articles: Sport utility coupe, Sport utility convertible, Sport utility truck, Sport utility sedan, Sport utility wagon. Thanks. swaq 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I madea a move for a procedural close there, and was the second to do so. This needs to be clsoed down and then reopened as either a bundle or in separate AfDs. ThuranX (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on this now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Closed and relisted without the other articles, left a note for User:Roadstaa. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! swaq 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal information troll has returned...[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. at least for the moment... Adolphus79 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok... it was quiet for a while (a couple weeks since he last pulled this shit), but my personal information troll has returned... Superbabyleer (talk · contribs) just created an account, and has made 2 posts using my name and business phone number... I've given up on trying to hide the information, I just want this crap to stop... I got 2 "private caller" phone calls back to back just now, then suddenly the new account was created and he started editing... no help in the past to make it stop, or find out who it is that is doing it, and now it starts again... this is getting very annoying... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the edits in question and contacted a Oversight. Tiptoety talk 23:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, could you check if MitchellWinery (talk · contribs) is also blocked, that was his last incarnation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Not blocked, the single contrib for that account is in its user space. I want to help you but can you show us any diffs to go by here? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
He's been doing this for about a month now, it started with using my real name and phone number as usernames, then came MitchellWinery (talk · contribs), which is my company... and now the most recent Superbabyleer (talk · contribs), which actually added my name and phone number to the text of pages... this latest name makes me feel that this is all the work of Learjetsuperkingairmechanic (talk · contribs) (SSP report here)... the other three usernames with my personal information have already been blocked and oversighted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since there was only one contrib from almost two weeks ago (and that was a user page message which does not grow lots of trust) I've blocked MitchellWinery (talk · contribs) and will watch the talk page to see if anything shows up there. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Per CU,  Confirmed that MitchellWinery is Superbabyleer.  Possible that these are Learjetsuperkingairmechanic, but Texhausballa certainly is, and is blocked. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just an office note, Learjetsuperkingairmechanic was a sock himself... of 137.240.136.80 (talk · contribs)... Lear was just the last confirmed incarnation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's already back...[edit]

Resolved: Edits removed. Tiptoety talk 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For those that were involved in my personal information troll situation yesterday, he's already created a new username... Leeringbaby (talk · contribs)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked, and the edits are being deleted. Tiptoety and I were stumbling over each other both trying to clear out the edits, so I'm stepping back and letting him finish that part up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OO! Oops, oh well, the revision has been removed a email sent to oversight. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thank you both... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have also protected the page(s). Tiptoety talk 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin buddies[edit]

found this on mfd. I think admins should check it out as it seems to be a good proposal.--Lenticel (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the MFD will answer that. Tiptoety talk 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - wait until WR gets a hold of this. Er, there is no cabal. --mboverload@ 07:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My buddy / My buddy / Whoever he blocks, I block / My buddy and meeeee! caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Block 'em all / Block 'em all / The long, and the short, and the tall. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Disruptive" article creation?[edit]

Could someone take a look at the large number of articles created by JoeMcKim (talk · contribs) - see [1] and click on any of the "N" articles. At last count, there are now ~75 articles consisting of nothing more than a {{MMAstatsbox}} and sometimes an infobox.

These athletes may be notable - I don't understand wrestling, so I don't know what's a professional league, etc. But mass-creating articles with only their competition stats and no further information seems to violate some combination of WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, requesting info from the user was ineffective - articles are still being created.

Should all those articles be deleted? Should the user be blocked for being disruptive? Or should the situation be left alone, with nearly a hundred vaguely useless articles sitting around? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is a humbug, so whether it's "notable" or not might be debated. But I don't see how creating these articles would be disruptive. It's just information, not an attack of some kind. And you should see the zillions of articles that have started in the major league baseball realm, for example, making this pale by comparison. Meanwhile, have you asked the editor about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
All contributions to JoeMcKim's talkpage are inbound - no responses. I think SatryTN alluded to same in the above report. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he did; I missed that part somehow. Well, nominating them for deletion might get his attention, provided that notice is also posted on his page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts is PROD the lot of them. Writing a lede sentence would be simple enough, if anyone could be bothered to do it, but a statsbox and/or infobox doesn't at all show notability. If necessary a mass AfD nom. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There was another editor creating a lot of very similar articles not so long ago, same format table, and same linking to a dab page Georgia instead of the Georgia (U.S. state). Can't remember his name offhand, will have a look at my watchlist to see if I can work out who it was. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Can't recognize them on my watchlist. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It might be best to equire to WP:MMA about this. D.M.N. (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Pinged them. lifebaka++ 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
That kind of article qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#A1. A table of data is not an assertion of notability, and it lacks any meaningful context.  Sandstein  13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not. Yesterday I nominated all of them for speedy deletion, but iridescent (talk · contribs) and Od Mishehu (talk · contribs) denied them. --aktsu (t / c) 14:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have informed the editor concerned of this thread at User talk:JoeMcKim#A thread concerning you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this editor is simply taking any event article for a notable event, looking for redlinked names, looking them up on Sherdog, and creating an article. By a strict reading of WP:ATHLETE, these people are all presumed notable (they have "competed in a fully professional league".) However, consensus on that is not clear, and that doesn't mean creating articles is a good idea. I tried to salvage a few, such as Neil Wain but I suspect that reliable sources for anything other than the actual fight record will be difficult for some. gnfnrf (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Lee Gifford article Ban due to Edit Warring[edit]

Hello,

The Wikipedia article on Kathie Lee Gifford has been the target of whitewashing, users have attempted to remove the controversy section of the article, claiming that it in POV and biased. When I edited the section to add more references and NPOV statements, the user at IP 68.45.133.234 reverted it, as well as my Talk page edit explaining my actions. I have left information reguarding this on the user page of the IP, but I believe that the user will continue to revert without suffecient explination. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see "dispute resolution" for some suggestions for how to handle such situations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Gave the article a cleanup. shockingly, there's almost nothing about the sweatshop mess. Must be asian 11 year olds in a warehouse doing the whitewashing. ThuranX (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Could be. That also describes my company's current development staff pretty closely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Persistent blanking at Talk:Circumcision[edit]

Seven SPA accounts have been blocked for blanking this page and replacing the content with "Happysouth" or something similar. I've sprotected the page for a short duration, but it would help to have some other eyes here. (If anyone wants to unprotect, that's fine, but I won't be able to monitor it much longer). OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. -- Avi (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Block request: please suspend my WP user account indefinitely[edit]

Resolved: Wikibreak enforcer installed, no block needed Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the admins to block my WP user account indefinitely. That would be great. My user page is here. Thank you. —Eickenberg (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Self-requested blocks are generally refused per the blocking policy. You may want to consider WikiBreak Enforcer as an alternative. --OnoremDil 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No need to block - blocking you just creates a hassle if you ever want to come back. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Need for deletion and potential oversight on the contributions of User:Nenetcurry[edit]

Resolved: Info deleted, oversight informed, user indef blocked pending explanation/discussion on talk page or unblock-en-l.

The contributions of this account have been to create userpages that contain personally identifying information about minors, as well as some slightly racy pictures of minors as well. This needs dealt with speedily, in my view. S.D.Jameson 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This user should be blocked indefinitley, no questions asked. Citedcover (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Risker deleted the pages, I sent an email off to RFO. -- Avi (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick action, everyone. Perhaps an indef block for the above user would be best now, until they realize this kind of thing is not okay. S.D.Jameson 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Indef blocked. -- Avi (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued spamming by a range of IPs[edit]

Several different IPs keep adding back a section on the Gannon University article about a non-notable on-campus organization [2]. All of the IPs that are involved are registered to Gannon University. There were two user accounts initially (User:Sidrous & User:Maxtalbot), but they haven't been used in a while. The article was semi-protected on July 21 for a period of 3 days[3]. It was quiet for a couple weeks afterwards, with it starting again on August 8[4]. I've provided the list of the IPs:

Not sure of what to do (I didn't think protecting the article again would solve the problem, just pause it for while). Not sure if blocking would work, either. I figured I'd bring it here. I apoligize if I'm not doing this right, as this is the first time I've encountered something other than small-time vandals. --​​​​D.B.talkcontribs 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of blocking a large section of Gannon University's access (although they only seem to have 4096 IP's allocated in this range), I have semi-protected the article for a while. That should cut down on the vandalism for now. -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fyzlee[edit]

Resolved

Fyzlee (talk · contribs) seems to be a incivility-only account used to bait/troll/annoy User:Fyslee. It probably should be checked as a sockpuppet (for whom? I have no idea.), and it certainly should be blocked by an admin. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Imitating with the name is blockable anyway. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Already blocked indefinitely. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say a troll this obvious could be reported to WP:AIV, if they keep up with any similar accounts (if there's some need for discussion I'm missing, then by all means continue here). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Same user as Storylimit (talk · contribs) and Godfroy (talk · contribs) (another harassment impersonator). Thatcher 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Constant Changes[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

I already responded to this at WP:AN#Constant Changes. I have issued a civility warning to User:Trip Johnson. caknuck ° is not used to being the voice of reason 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from the reliable sources noticeboard. 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

User:Trip Johnson, who also uses User talk:82.28.237.200, is continuing to make edits that favor the British in military history. He has been blocked for this before, and I have asked him many times(he blanks his talk page)to stop doing this, or at least add a source. He never does. Here are some of his more recent changes.

[5]

[6]

[7]

At least there was an edit summary for this one

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

These are just a few of many, many, many thigns he has done. I hope you understand, I am quite tired of asking him to source things, and reverting his edits. He does not listen to anyone, admins or non-admins, has called everyone on this site a "dickhead" and told me I'm an "asshole". I am not the only editor who has experienced problems with him, you may ask these two, who I know have had some experiences with him.

User:Tanthalas39
User:Tirronan

I simply do not know what to do anymore. I really don't know what can be done, as he is not really doing anything that can get him blocked, but anyways, I figured I'd see what can be done.Red4tribe (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A new one.

[13]

Red4tribe (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one, telling me to "shut up".

[14] Red4tribe (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the English Wikipedia Internal Account Creation Interface?[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

The page isn't coming up on my PC, is anyone having the same problem? --Cameron* 20:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Worked fine for me. What browser are you using? lifebaka++ 20:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm using this link, has it moved or something? PS: I'm using internet explorer but I always use IE and haven't had problems before. --Cameron* 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you've got a login, try this link. I believe that's the one. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! : S --Cameron* 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another sock of TyrusThomas4lyf[edit]

As noted here, user was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Has returned today using IP 99.141.34.37, again making same reversions, in defiance of blocks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 99.141.34.37 (talk · contribs) and semi-protected Michael Johnson (athlete) and NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Eutony, an anon and page protection[edit]

Eutony has been disruptively tagged over the last three days by a floating IP anon (190.20.217.86 to 190.20.255.31) who seems to have a grudge against Eutony and or/ its creator, Gerda Alexander. After I twice declined to speedily delete because the thing passed an AFD and recommended listing for another AFD, the serial multi-issue tagging started. Attempts to engage in dialogue have failed. See User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Eutony and User_talk:190.20.246.42 and Talk:Eutony. I have semi-protected for now because about twenty of the last twenty-five edits have been the anon's edits and their reversals. Bringing it here for advice. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the 190.20.x.x user is being tendentious, in this situation. I can't see any option more viable than semiprot at this point (which may need to be extended, but we can cross that bridge when we get there). Gerda Alexander seems okay, for now. They also edited Paulo Coelho at one point, but that doesn't seem to need admin attention yet. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Should User:Aldrich Hanssen's block be extended?[edit]

This user was blocked for 72 hours about 2 days ago for several personal attacks. [15]. I had gone to his page to suggest he stay on topic in another discussion and I noticed he evidentally thought it a good idea to respond to being informed of the block with another personal attack (on one of the editors he was blocked for attacking, not the admin who blocked him) [16] (3 edits basically just refining his comment). While no one has called him up on it, since it's been over 2 days and he has edited his talk page in the mean time, he has had an opportunity to withdraw his comment when he calmed down if it was just a 'heat of the moment' response. I know it's fairly normal for an editor to respond to a block with an attack on the admin and this is usually I believe ignored (heat of the moment and all that) but I feel given he was continuing his attack for which he was blocked for in the first place (which suggests he unfortunately didn't learn his lesson) and the attack was rather offensive, the block should be extended. Anyone else agree? P.S. I've informed him of this discussion and suggested he respond on his talk page if he has anything to say so any admin extending the block should check it out first. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Block ineffective - I was disappointed to see him continue to edit and enhance his attacks against Sticky Parkin. He used his block time to continue his personal attacks and as he worked on them they became more personal and gender based. He has made a little story now to rationalize the attacks, as if Sticky had been making advances toward him that he rebuffed and so anything she does now is out of anger from rejection. It's a disturbing and sad turn of events that illustrates the block has not made an impression on him. Rob Banzai (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well of course I will agree with this, as it's me he's called a "sticky hobag", or perhaps saying women as a whole are such, as he says "wishes all the sticky hobags would leave him alone."[17] amongst other things. He also accused other, male editors who warned him numerous times about his personal attacks of doing it just to try and 'pull' me,[18], though I've never edited alongside them before for them not to be objective, and makes comments that those men who dislike the seduction community obviously haven't tried it or they'd be 'out banging chicks' rather than disagreeing with it. [19] His attitude is deeply misogynistic of a type I've never seen this explicitly on wiki, calling women 'hobag', and interestingly it's mainly a woman he targets, along with saying I am a low ranking on the scale of attractiveness, though he's never seen a pic of me to judge.:) If he was calling a black people racist names, along with the numerous other comments showing his atitude that he's made, he'd receive a long block. He should receive the same for hate speech against women. Sticky Parkin 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I feel it is unfair to specifically say that the sticky comment was a personal attack against yourself, you are not explicitly mentioned. Though I do see how it is perfectly understandable for you to assume he is meaning yourself. Mathmo Talk 10:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say preceding 'hobag' with 'sticky' is a blatantly obvious personal attack on User Sticky Parkin. Edward321 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is just his exploits around the time of his previous block, I've not seen what he's been upto since his block expired as I was out, but I'm loathe to look as his comments are very unpleasant if they're along the lines of the 'hobag' one. Sticky Parkin 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to extend his block to "indef pending withdrawl of comments" in a couple of minutes unless I hear a good reason not to. MBisanz talk 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Two, two, two spies in one. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? Rob Banzai (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. Acroterion (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! (slaps forehead) Rob Banzai (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I've extended his block to indef, pending withdrawl of his offensive comments. MBisanz talk 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good block to me. I'd investigate further through the user's contribs, but I already feel like I need to wash my hands. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Per [20] and his interest in the Timothy McVeigh article, I think this person has far deeper and more disturbing problems than just enjoying making comments against other editors. Sticky Parkin 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed those two things, particularly the Neg deletion debate comments were what made me visit his talk page to post a comment only to notice not only had he been blocked for the personal attacks, but that he was continouing them, so I brought it here for action. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He says "Ironically, the reason for the block extension was a supposed continuation of attack, yet it does not, of course, prevent further comments from being written to the talk page, which was the venue of the issue at hand." [21]. Could someone please protect his talk page if he comes back and writes more on it? Sticky Parkin 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - fair 'nuff - Alison 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison has already removed the protection at the request of two editors who see Aldrich as a misled newbie. I am disappointed at what is basically admin support of Aldrich's exceptionally bad behavior. Not only did Aldrich continue to add to his attacks after his initial warnings and block but when given an indefinite block he made a point of adding more parting shots to show exactly how little regard he has for Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Aldrich's behavior went far beyond that of an annoyed new editor who felt under siege. His attacks were personal, gender-base and included a disturbing element of fantasy. This is the wrong person to be bending over backward for and I can't see how he could have made that any clearer than by his persistent and unrepentant efforts. Rob Banzai (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on this [22] comment, the user is using Wikipedia for a deliberate social experiment, and is not a misguided newbie. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The response so far seems reasonable at first glance; if abuse continues on the talk page, it's easy enough to revisit the issue of protection. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(Copied response from my talk page earlier) As an admin, though I loathe what the guy has said and done here, I cannot leave his talk page protected for too long. It's not right and it makes unblock requests difficult. See this log for another extreme example of an abusive editor where I had to repeatedly protect and unprotect the page. Rewarded?? He's indefinitely blocked and highly likely to stay that way. I've been asked by two editors in good standing to unprotect so they can try to reason with the guy, so I complied. Any further funny business and it goes back on permanently. I personally dislike the guy and what he stands for but as an admin, I'm obliged to be dispassionate here - Alison 01:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support block; and support unprotection of talk page. The user's contribs show a generally pointy approach; it's unlikely based on behavior so far, that the user will show a better attitude anytime soon. However, unless there are significant privacy or disruption issues, it does not seem necessary to stop the user from communicating on their talk page or using that page as a way of indicating a willingness to reform and join the community. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Harrasement.[edit]

After i busted User:RRaunak and his army of sockpuppets after a Checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rnkroy, each day, i get vandalized by his IP's. I keep IP sock tagging them and requesting them to be blocked, but he keeps doing it. Evidence is situated in my userpage and my talk page. What should i do? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Request indefinite semi-protection. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait a few days, i need to analyze his Ip range so there can be a proper Ip range block. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone considered e-mailing the person to try and talk sense into them? Email is enabled on the RRaunak account. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There is little chance of a rangeblock, as the IPs are from 59.64.0.0/10, which contains over 4 million IPs. User:Blnguyen noted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RRaunak that this range had many users who would be affected. Semi-protection is the best answer here. Kevin (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.47.143.206[edit]

Not sure if this requires any action or not but the edits of this user seem, well, confusing at best. I'm not sure if this is just a minor ripple not worthy of attention or part of some crafty way of disguising inappropriate behavior. Could an admin take a look and see if any action is required? Some of the edits are just filling in details on the templates of long banned users and others seem to be removing sock templates previously added by IPs from the same range. -- SiobhanHansa 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edits by this guy are long-term (but probably not anything "crafty", just him having fun/being useful); Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. See also the section below. --NE2 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked a checkuser if it would be practical to anonblock 75.47.127.0/17 for an extended period. If that can't be done, do admins have the ability to see all recent changes by IP editors from a specific range? It might be feasible to undo all his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing is (with respect to roads) he makes a lot of edits, some good and some bad. --NE2 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Very concerning behavior by Elkman[edit]

Resolved: Daniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has intervened

I am very concerned regarding Elkman (talk · contribs)'s behavior to this IP. It seems to be a clear violation of WP:NPA. Also, policy clearly allows for someone to blank their userpage. Might someone be able to intervene? Bstone (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The administrator in question is currently off-line, but I notice Daniel has left a note, at this stage, any further action is both un-necessary and considering the admin in question appears to be off-line, frankly impossible. If the issue remains unresolved, then reporting back here would be fine, but at the moment, reporting this administrator to ANI when they've not had the chance to respond to a couple of messages left on their talk page is rather premature. An amicable resolution might well be reached on the administrators talk page. I'm marking this resolved for the time being. Nick (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The IP's talk page should be unprotected. Any objections? –xeno (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and have just requested unprotection at WP:RPP Mayalld (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I undid the report because it's redundant to this thread, anyhow,  Done. No prejudice to reprotection if he begins abusing unblock templates, etc. –xeno (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Overreaction to the user described in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x. This guy is a problem but Elkman lost it. --NE2 12:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:CENSEI[edit]

Resolved

CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a new editor, seems intent on undoing all of my edits. For a newcomer (account started six weeks ago, started editing enthusiastically two weeks ago), he is very familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and (ab)uses WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP to justify his edits, all of which seem to favor current Republican talking points. If contradicted, he edit wars immediately and at length. He has already been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. I don't want to edit war with him, but having well-sourced edits undone because of unspecified violations of policy is getting monotonous. — goethean 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very rich coming from goethean, who is a blatant Democratic activist, such hypocrisy screams to the heavens.76.217.103.251 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at recent history on The Obama Nation, I've blocked 76.74.8.86 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours and CENSEI (talk · contribs) for 48 (not their only recent problem with edit warring). Any objections? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Tiptoety talk 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. User:CENSEI should also be given a stern warning on his/her talk page that continued edit-warring may result in longer blocks. Has anyone brought up WP:DR to them? Shereth 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This seems to have been handled appropriately. CENSEI needs a block template notice on his talk page, though. Could an admin do that, please? SWik78 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just finished leaving a note for each user, regarding their respective blocks. As I may be occupied unpredictably over the next day or two, I'll trust to the community should any unblock requests come up (no need to consult me, in other words). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have decline his unblock request. Tiptoety talk 18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The word is incensed, not "inceseid" also, I removed the personal attack atack by Mr Baseball Bugs He should learn to behave better.76.217.103.251 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also blocked this IP; they seem to be interested only in stirring up drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I spelled it "incenseid", and only because it looked like a punning situation. And of course I'm a "Juvenile edtior" (sic) - I'm only 13 1/2 years old. Or at least that's what my user page claims. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Marriage[edit]

Resolved: Semi-protected by Luna Santin

[23] Would a rangeblock be appropriate here? If so, would someone with experience implementing rangeblocks care to do the honors? Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 03:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Page has been semi'd. HalfShadow 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism edits[edit]

User Daysofdayso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a new user, is going around making comments and removing many CSD tags inluding a clear G12 with no explanation. I prefer not to deal with this on my own opinion and would like 'backup' --triwbe (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe a page they created was speedily deleted, and their current behavior stems from frustration. Many of the pages they untagged have been deleted; I see Ned Scott's left them a note asking for an explanation of some sort. Will try to keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing this up. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually just blocked the user feel free to reverse if you feel the need. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1[edit]

I just came across User:SLJCOAAATR 1 in a ani case filed a few days ago, and, me being the curious person I am, I clicked onto his userpage, and found that he had a lot of personal information on it, His age, location and other things, usually this wouldn't be a problem but this user isn't even 15 yet, so I am requesting a second opinion on this. Another thing which came to my attention was the behemothic ammount of userboxes and quite a rude statement on the top of his userpage. Citedcover (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Notified him of this thread. I'll write him a message about the userpage a little later. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the message at the top of his page is remarkably restrained considering how he was "welcomed" by certain "trusted and respected" editors. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not about restraint, it is incivil, considering he got blocked indefinitley and then unblocked within hours, he has no reason to display such a message. Citedcover (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone here is aware, but we just had an extended discussion of this user here regarding the indefinite WP:MYSPACE block. Many of the personal-information and MySpace-y userboxes were partially restored, on the condition they not be created again as usable templates. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh right, in that case, why does he still have a freinds list? Surely that must be a breach of his unblock? Citedcover (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, he should have remained blocked, and I'm not convinced the unblock did any good at all. He's been offered mentoring, and turned it down, and I'm not seeing too much improvement. I, and a couple other admins I believe, are keeping an eye on things. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Also in the news, that editor is currently blocked for WP:3RR, as per here. [24] I've always felt that when someone is blocked and then unblocked with no repurcussions, they don't learn anything productive. Dayewalker (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll keep an eye on him as well, and I will report any continuation of bad behavior here. Citedcover (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's the edit that got him blocked. [25] As you can see he was trying to get rid of duplicate information. And I think this should be noted. [26] Someone warned SLJ that Gwen would block him the second she found an opportunity. Sounds like Gwen is no stranger to a bit of stalking.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is to do with the continued misuse of wikipedia by certain editors, not stalking, and I fully support Gwen on this. Citedcover (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Agree with Citedcover. SLC knew what he was doing, and edit warred on the Cory in the House page making four reverts in less than three hours, and never bothered to explain or post on the talk page for the article even once. He didn't discuss or try and seek consensus, which is what wikipedia is all about. You're making groundless accusations against an admin, here. Please read WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Dayewalker (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Avineshjose and inappropriate editing behaviour[edit]

User:Avineshjose has two proven cases of sockpuppetry behind him1 and 2. He has some WP:OWN and WP:COI articles which he wants to be the way they prefer. He removes tags without discussion and editwars on them. Santhosh George Kulangara (and several other articles related to the subject's business ventures like Sancharam, Labour India, Labour India Gurukulam Public School, Bluefield International Academy, etc. are his chief area of interest. See his recent editwarring [|here] and [here]. He has a history of recreating these advertorial articles [27] He has also accused me of vandalism [28] for putting maintenance tags on the article owing to its being replete with nonsensical sentences as I have shown on its talk page. [29]. I am a banned user, but those who know me know that I have weeded out much crap from WP related to Kerala. You don't need to shoot the messenger.Uzhuthiran (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I have created many articles as you can see in my contributions. I personally feel proud of creating Government of Kerala along with many others (check my user page, it is listed all). User:Uzhuthiran accusation seems that I'm primarily interested in Labour India's promotion. It was earlier deleted and DRV'd later. About my sock cases are already discussed and I provided my rationale at my talk page. Let me come to the point that, User:Uzhuthiran is engaged in vandalizing Santhosh George Kulangara and Labour India , that are created by me. I already posted my rationale of reverting User:Uzhuthiran’s edit at article’s talk page. Additionally, please see these edits also by User:Uzhuthiran i.e 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. You could see that his edits were reverted by many users. Whenever his edits are being reverted by somebody he calls it as my sock puppets and engaged in an edit war. Santhosh George Kulangara was edited by many editors as can be seen at articles history. And he is primarily interested in targeting my edits and creating nn article's by using this sock id, as can be seen from his contributions. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Too many lies and too much ignorance. Nobody other than some IPs has reverted me on the page in question. The guy doesn't (or pretends not to) know that what vandalism. If anybody vandalises on that page it is User:Avineshjose. See the diff. [30]. I would call it vandalism not because it is stupid, but since the stupid additions came due to his deliberate attempt to preserve his own preferred version. Se this nonsense his reversion has brought back. " He is also writing a book on the space voyage hoping space closer to people." With this understanding of English language coupled with unabashed eagerness to revert, it would be hardly of any use to talk sense to this user. If some admin would step in this problem user could be curbed from denigrating Wikipedia. With such stupid sentences in the article, should tis article shed cleanup, grammar tags to please this guy? I wouldn't care further because I know that there is a retard's part for Wikipedia. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It is you who (claimed to be a banned user) are lying. First of all, your sock id, i.e User:Uzhuthiran is primarily used for attacking my edits and creating unimportant nn articles. Your intention itself is wrong as only interested in adding those templates into the article that was already edited by many editors. Where are your contributions in Kerala related cleanups? What is your original id? How can an editor claim that I have weeded out much crap from WP related to Kerala though he has hardly 50 edits? I also raised this issue into SSP also. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User with a WP:OWN issue.[edit]

Ahunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting an image which I uploaded from Flickr on Commons since it's a better photo (I don't own the photo I've just been using Flickr to find better images for articles) then the one used within the article however the user keeps reverting[31], [32] back to an image that they took which is a lower res and not on commons. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bringing it here seems a tad premature, after only one comment each regarding the photograph on the article's talkpage, and no violation of WP:3RR. See how the editor responds to your reply at Talk:Embraer E-Jets first, see if you two can't work it out. Failing that, a request for comment or a request for an independent opinion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft might be the better bet. Hope this helps, Steve TC 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I took it here as I thought it would have turned to an edit war. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It takes two to have an edit war; as long as you don't participate, one shouldn't occur. It doesn't matter which image remains in the article in the meantime; no-one will come to harm should the "wrong" image be left in until this is resolved. I urge both of you to refrain from replacing the image until you can thrash this out on the talk page, or with help from independent editors from WP:AIRCRAFT. Steve TC 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
He's probably being protective because it's his own photo. How about including both of them in the article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there's an issue over having more than enough images in the article already. I say we solve the problem by offering to cut the photos in half so they can use both. Oh wait... that's something else. Steve TC 13:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe splice the two photos together so it looks like one is taking off over top of the other. You can practically hear the screams. And that's just from the pilots. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. Too many pics and it still can't beat airliners.net. Time for a cleanup? NVO (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Infact not only does it need a photo cull but it also needs some work done to the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely confused. They're the same image when I look at the pages. Boths send me to the same image. What's going on over there? ThuranX (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing them both as the same image. One is Image:EmbraerERJ190-100IGWC-FHNP.jpg, and the other is Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg. --OnoremDil 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(EC)Image:Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190-100IGW 190AR C-FHOS.jpg is what I added and Ahunt Image:EmbraerERJ190-100IGWC-FHNP.jpg revert twice but now this (Image:Air-Canada-Embraer-190-YVR.jpg) image has replace both. Bidgee (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, isn't this a content issue that should have stayed on the talk pages. I encourage Bidgee to use the appropriate venues first. "If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC).

Arcayne RE: Civility & Good Faith[edit]

Resolved: Arcayne is right. This is trolling. Sceptre (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please stop Arcayne from bullying? Is this kind of personal attack really necessary? [33] There is no foundation to his attack - and I'll be happy to dredge up all his baseless and unproven previous attacks against me if necessary - but seeking to ostracize a fellow editor as a "Proven Troll" is a new low even for him. His relentless style is neither civil nor acting in good faith. Period. And should not be considered acceptable by any neutral party. Thank you for your time. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, here. I don't see that Arcayne moved your post (rather, it looks like they posted immediately above it, which on a diff may look like they "moved" it)... but even if they're offended by your accusation, their response seems a bit harsh. Cup of tea or wikiquette alert might settle things down, unless this is a pattern of behavior? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Although my complaint here is with the false and decidedly uncivil slander, the text itself was moved by him more than once, dropped down to the bottom with several spaces between it and the discussion. He's actually done that to me and others several times before, it's kind of his own personal way of "blocking", so to speak, other editors that get in his way.75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What I see is an edit war going on on the talk page and an accusation that the IP is a troll. Tell me, 75., have you taken the liberty of informing Arcayne about this thread? Nevermind, Luna did so. -Jéské (v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne has been informed of this thread by Luna Santin, I saw it when I went to his page to inform him myself.75.57.178.160 (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Luna. Sorry, I chose not to post anything that could be considered a reply to the IP anon, who has used at least fifteen different IP addresses since April to evade admin oversight, and has been blocked repeatedly for both that evasion and personal attacks. I chose not to feed him, aside from asking him to behave. My reply was not to him, but to the others involved in the discussion.
The comment prompting the troll descriptive was the anon's continued sniping at my educational background. The anon does this every few weeks and each time, he is told to either grow a thicker skin or a smaller mouth. Were any further posts to recur, I would have probably consulted an admin regarding this IP-farmer. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne please show some "diffs" for your unfounded and uncited allegation that I have evaded administrative oversight or been blocked for such. That you have made many ATTEMPTS to have me blocked for having a dynamic IP is known- but I have always claimed my posts and abided by the rules of WIkipedia. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, your claim to be 'warning other users' that I was a "Proven Troll" is uncivil slander and decidedly NOT in "Good Faith".75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Plus, if I'm following your reasoning - Can any Wiki editor use your Wiki block log of TEN blocks to publicly tag you as a Troll during discussion, or is this just a special privilege (The personal application of Scarlet Letters by Arcayne) you reserve for yourself?75.57.178.160 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Strange interpretation there Sceptre. I said that Ibiza was not itself an autonomous community of Spain and made referance to the citation. Arcayne dismissed the citation reverting myself and others several times and then moved my comments while calling me a "Proven Troll". Yet he's a saint and I'm the bad guy? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with your unexplained finding and unilateral termination of the complaint without consensus. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I want you to remember that you asked me to provide that proof, anon. I suspect that attention (even negative attention) is what you crave, and I am loathe to provide it to you, I am tired of your repetitive and baseless fishing trip ANI's (this is ANI #7 OR 8), If an admin or someone else wishes to see that proof, I will take the time to pull up the blocks for the following IP addresses:
Of course, these are just the IPs I know about and have watchlisted (they are listed in numerical and not chronological order) them as they pop up. I haven't detailed all the RfCu's and ANI's and wikiquette complaints he's raged at. Good faith doesn't mean my overlooking the anon's disruptive - and especially repetitive - bad behavior.
Now, Ricky and others have encouraged me to just ignore the anon (in whatever IP address he uses) and, apart from asking him to be civil when he pops up, I have done so. The last time this situation came up, I asked for a range ban for this user. As the personal attacks, sniping annoyances and multiple, baseless ANI's don't seem to be ending (and have in fact led to some real world issues, which I will detail via pmail to an inquiring admin), perhaps a stronger message needs to be sent than the responses he has received in the past at RfCU, Wikiquette, SSP and ANI. While I am by no means perfect, I don't really need my own 'Grawp'. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A list of dynamic IP's all claimed by me is not evidence of evasion AND ARCAYNE has been told this repeatably! Here is the supposed "Block Evasion", for which as always I respected the proceedings of Wikipedia: Hi, I seem to have been blocked for making this AN/I report.[34] I'm not exactly certain why bringing this post[35] to an Administrators attention is a Blocking Offense. I was completely unaware of this block as my IP changed and I had confirmed edits at my new IP at 14:07, 16 April. This was hours after ThuranX's post in the section at 01:57, 16 April and many hours before I was blocked at 21:35, 16 April. My IP automatically changing 7 1/2 hours before being blocked has now been used as the basis by Arcayne for a full press to be banned for "Block Evasion". After his current attack [36] against me on AN/I failed he went back to the original Admin on his talk page and lobbied there. I am now banned. I have abided by the Wiki rules and since being informed of the ban and discovering where the block that Arcayne was referring to came from I have only posted to AN/I and directly to the Administrators involved. I have honored and respected the rules and customs of this institution and tried to speak with civility and reason - I am disheartened by the lack of protection and dismayed by my sentence for having used the correct channels to civilly address my concerns. Arcaynes ruthless and deceptive obsession, and his ability to somehow always find someone, somewhere to try another avenue of approach with is troubling. 75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And I am not comfortable with your baseless and empty accusation of "Real World" issues to be detailed privately. I am certainly not comfortable with McCarthite accusations being handled by a star chamber. Please outline your charges.75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
How can you say his real world issues are "baseless and empty accusation," when he hasn't given any details on them? My advice here is to register a wikipedia account, so you have a reliable and tracable history. As it stands now, you're just a number without any legitmate contributions and no history, other than a hatred of a long-time editor. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't hate him, I wouldn't even think of him other than when he attacks me, baits me or others or ramrods indefensible edits. If this Wiki is just for insiders and facts and citations don't matter, and civility is only a one way street, I'd be disappointed.75.57.178.160 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec') Comment 1': As you claimed that you hadn't been blocked for block evasion, I pointed out where you were wrong. I am sorry you are unhappy with that, but you must expect that if you are going to target me every few weeks for an AN/I or some other sort of frippery, and pointedly slip between IP addresses so you can claim to have not seen any talk page history, warnings of blocks, you sacrifice most good faith. As I see it, you simply come here to attack me. Sad, but your last four AN/I's used IPs with no other edits behind them.
Comment 2: No. I will do so privately, as real world considerations are on point. There isn't a star chamber, and if it is just a coincidence, you should be fine. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
One of my axioms as regards this type of editor: "Why are you messing with this guy?" The IP is an obvious troublemaker, belligerent from the first edit, and clearly no stranger to wikipedia. Yet he remains unblocked. This discussion does have entertainment value, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So, I am just supposed to ignore the anon for the eighth time? Sigh. Okay. Maybe when number nine rolls around, someone will piupe up and say, hey, hasn't this anon popped up before? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RSPCA Australia (and the Controversy Section)[edit]

On the article RSPCA Australia a section call Controversy keeps getting added to the article and removed due to it being a Unsourced POV paragraph. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 10:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Paragraph in Question:
  • Instances of it being added:
  1. (cur) (last) 17:40, July 30, 2008 70.38.11.43 (Revision Link)
  2. (cur) (last) 13:49, August 12, 2008 Alexcan99 (Revision Link)
  3. (cur) (last) 19:27, August 12, 2008 User:202.61.215.43 (Revision Link)
I've reverted the section based on that it fails WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I like to see a Controversy Section that is POV free and sourced. Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the edit histories, it all looks like the work of a single editor (1st IP is a blocked proxy) with a POV issue about dangerous dog breeds. The named account was blocked a while back for edit-warring, so I'd guess the IP editing is to get round 3RR. EyeSerenetalk 11:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 76.186.64.155 - 2nd offence[edit]

A few weeks ago, he was banned for abusing me. Now he's jumped on the racist bandwagon and chucked a hissy at me again, for no reason. He's also previously used the username: Special:Contributions/Mr. FixIt902 (talk). I don't really know what extent you guys can take this to whether permanent is plausable (please!!!), all he has done on wiki (looking at his contributions and talk page) has been ignore warnings, rules and changed things with personal opinion and POV. I tell him no, he abuses me calling me a "fucking faggot" etc etc. Attacks me with racists remarks about me being Australia (for some reason he thinks that's a problem? I feel sorry for those of you Americans with half of a brain!!!!). IP in question: 76.186.64.155 (talk). First offence here (report). Latest offence here: [37] (in Genre and 3rd single..). Hope you do the right thing by me and get rid of him. Thanks. kiac (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gave the IP a {{uw-npa4}}, hopefully it won't happen again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Bjrothschild7: racist gibberish[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked

Please see all contributions for anti-semitic attacks.--Gregalton (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Given out a {{uw-npov2}}, if it continues issue some more. The editing is clearly POV of some sort. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems more serious, [38] is agross breach of blp. Have given user specific warning, but isn't that grounds for indef?--Bsnowball (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I turned him in to WP:AIV. Basically a vandal with a specific agenda. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That took all of 3 or 4 minutes. User now indef-blocked. [39] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible banned user back under a new account.[edit]

It looks like that XxJoshuaxX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is back as Xxlaura88xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Not only did the username look suspect, I looked at the contributions and has edited articles of singers which XxJoshuaxX use to do. Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:SSP would be good for this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I was going too but I'm a bit confused about how to do the report. Bidgee (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You can request a checkuser also if you have hard evidence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I've dealt with 98E from time to time, before. Will take a second look at this one in a day or two, see how things look by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Quack. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Issues with the Chupacabra page[edit]

I've noticed that the Chupacabra page has had it's page protection deleted. I would like to tell Caribbean H.Q. about this little mistake seeing his editing actions deleted the PP tag, but after I warned him and another editor that their editing actions might be a 3RR violation, he told me to "get knotted" and will ignore any attempt I make to communicate with him, feasible or not. Will an Admin look into this? (The page protection part is the main issue right now; the 3RR is not a priority for me unless someone else thinks it is a priority and will direct me to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule page)--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, couldn't you just add the {{pp-semi|small=yes}} tag back yourself? Neıl 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought only an Admin was allowed to do that? And the chances of me being an admin....I'd have better luck bagging some Bollywood Star like Shilpa Shetty. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So long as the page really is protected when it gets tagged, I wouldn't see a problem. :) Looks like the tag itself might have been tangental to the reverting (which appears to have stopped). – Luna Santin (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The protection thing is a non-issue. Removal of the tag doesn't remove the protection. No comment on any 3RR violations by anyone, as I haven't looked into it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:65.216.70.60[edit]

This user was first reported for a 3RR violation on Gemstone IV, and at the same time began to vandalize my user talk page. He received a 24-hour temp block for the vandalization and incivilities, and as soon as the block expired, heavily and obscenely vandalized my user page, claimed that he was "going to gut this article" on the Gemstone article, and has hit other user talk pages with WP:CIVIL violations, as per these diffs: [40], [41]. It seems a 24-hour block didn't get his attention.  RGTraynor  15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Has he made any useful contributions at all, or is it all disruption? If the latter, you could try posting it at WP:AIV. They can't indef-block an IP, but they can do a lengthy block if needed, provided they take the case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, he's made constructive, good-faith edits in his time; this is not a vandalism-only account. There may also be another account in play: Special:Contributions/68.239.20.96 shares recent edits to the Gemstone article, to Ray Carver (darts player) and to Superman (film series), including WP:BLP violations to the Carver article. Another admin put a 72-hour block on the 65.216.70.60 account, but I bet this guy isn't going to just take his medicine gracefully.  RGTraynor  15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Following Ed's block, I think we can wait for any further incidents and take action from there if needed. Probably report it here if disruption continues. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's hoping; no doubt I'll see it if it does. Thanks for the help, folks.  RGTraynor  16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring at 2008 South Ossetia war[edit]

The recent edit history from 14:30 UTC time until now, see [42] appears to suggest an edit war is brewing. Admin intervention/full protection may be required. D.M.N. (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Watching, for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by Folantin[edit]

Folantin persists in trying to create trouble by reverting my talkpage to questions which I do not wish to answer and which have nothing to do with my editing this encyclopedia. He's done this [here] and again [here]. This account is not banned, is not a sock puppet of anyone and is currently engaged in adding information about the Prix de Rome winners which are missing. Please tell this person to stop stalking me. Gretab (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, this user is well-known to all of us here, and at Wikipedia Review. It is a sock of the Wikipedia Review editor, the fieryangel, User:Musikfabrik, aka User:Batshitinsanedoofusfromhell on Encyclopedia Dramatica, who has used it to circumvent the ArbCom ruling against him. --David Shankbone 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What David said. Per the ArbCom, "accounts associated with MusikFabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog". "Gretab" has also indulged in other trolling. --Folantin (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If the user does not wish to answer the question, she doesn't have to. This is not the place for accusations, either. Gretab removed the text, leave it gone. Repeatedly adding it, even if you are correct in your assumptions, is harassment. So stop it. If you have evidence to back up a claim, take it to WP:SPP or request a checkuser. lifebaka++ 19:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe a checkuser was run on them awhile back, and confirmed it a Musik Fabrik account, which makes sense since two articles that "Gretab" takes credit for, "La bonne d'enfant" and "Jacques Leguerney" are Musik Fabrik products. Strange how they have called for the death of Wikipedia, and spread scurrilous pedophilia rumors about Wikimedia staff, yet here he is again...trying to use it for his own gain, in violation of ArbCom. That's principles for you! --David Shankbone 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A checkuser is not necessary. Alison knows exactly who this is and I am not editing disruptively (unless you think that updating the list of winners of the French Prix de Rome is disruptive). When I am editing disruptively, I hope that people will let me know. Until then, please stop harassing me. Gretab (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a problem. You aren't supposed to be editing those articles. That's why you have an ArbCom ruling against you. --David Shankbone 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, stop it. Unless you have proof, which should be filed elsewhere, stop making accusations against other users. This is not the place for it, and you are becoming disruptive. lifebaka++ 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I thought ANI was the place to make accusations against other users ("Please tell this person to stop stalking me"). Get a grip and do some basic research before you start picking sides. --Folantin (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the place for accusations, Lifebaka; what exactly do you think is the point of ANI? Fact is, this person has libeled and harassed Wikipedia editors to an enormous degree. --David Shankbone 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Point. This is a place for accusations, but not baseless ones. There's no evidence that the two users are the same, other than tangential items and a load of data on the blocked user. So, unless there is some hard and fast evidence the two are the same (which I've yet to see), I highly suggest you stop. Thank you. lifebaka++ 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The quality of the adminning round here seems to have gone downhill recently. The last person calling for my head on ANI turned out to be a sock of a banned neo-fascist troll who was allowed to harrass me with impunity for over 24 hours, no thanks to our keystone cops admins. Start doing some research before you talk about "baseless" accusations. Read the ArbCom, read User:MusikFabrik's edit history then read User:Gretab's, including "her" contributions to the now deleted article on Paul Wehage. --Folantin (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh - Lifebaka is making a baseless accusation that we are making a baseless accusation. I've alerted some more experienced admins as to the issue. --David Shankbone 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I welcome more eyes, but I'm still not seeing at all that the accounts are connected. All I've seen is that Gretab likes to edit articles about music. And it appears that User:Musikfabrik is blocked, not banned, and for reasons which wouldn't (in my mind) preclude a new account by a single editor. Gretab is not being disruptive from what I've seen (please provide evidence to the contrary if you wish to dispute this) and is not doing any of the things which resulted in the ArbCom proceedings for User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau. So, I'm not seeing at all how you're connecting the two. As the accusations do not appear to have proof, they appear to be baseless. And, before you bring it back up, the business with Paul Wehage appears to be a good faith attempt to find sources. Given the edits on the (now deleted) talk page, I would find it hard to believe that Gretab was very knowledgeable about the subject before those edits were made. Thank you. lifebaka++ 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not an admin, but I have to agree with Lifebaka to some extent here. It seems to me, if there is evidence Gretab is a sock then this evidence should be taken to the appropriate forum, be that here, WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. If it's decided Gretab is a sock an is violating policy or an arbcom ruling, then an appropriate punishment enforced (e.g. a block). I don't particularly get how trying to force the preservation of a 3 month old question on Gretab's user page helps particularly when our policy on user pages has been that users have wide latitude, basically more or less full discretion over their talk pages and may removal warnings, legitimate or otherwise. The removal of a warning is taken as a sign that the user has read it but unless I'm mistaken edit warring to preserve a warring is disallowed and liable to get the person trying to preserve the warning blocked. There may be some exceptions I'm not fully aware of, e.g. block notices, SSP templates, unblock requests but I'm pretty sure the kind of comment that Folantin is trying to preserve is not covered anywehre. Now I'm not against Folantin, Shankbone, or anyone starting a thread here about Gretab's alleged sockpuppetry (although I agree with LB here it seems WP:RFCU or WP:SSP would be a better place) but surely this should be covered in it's own thread or at least a seperate subheading and is any case unrelated to Gretab's complaint which if you haven't realised already, I think is legitimate. Whoever Gretab may be, and whatever he or she may have done, there is no reason to violate policy and try to force the preservation of a message he/she doesn't want on his/her talk page. To put it a different way, it seems to me a lot of wikipedians energy would have been saved, if users who suspect Gretab is a sockpuppet go through the proper channels to get it addressed rather then trying to preserve a 3 month old talk page comment which isn't going to achieve anything and then when Gretab complains, bringing those allegations into the discussion when they are largely irrelevant... (In any case Alison's comment may help clear things up, LifeBaka has already asked her to clarify if she know's who Gretab is. It would also be helpful if Gretab is willing to say precisely who he/she is but it is his/herright to remain anonymous provided he/she isn't violating policy) Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"She" is violating an ArbCom finding. Try asking some useful admins: User:Moreschi, User:Antandrus, User:JzG and User:Makemi. They'll have more idea of what's going on here. --Folantin (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misunderstood my and I believe LifeBaka's point? To be clear I have no idea what she is doing. But if she is violating an ArbCom ruling then she should be blocked ASAP. There are probably various ways this could be achieved but preserving a 3 month old comment on her talk page against her wishes isn't one of them. Bring the issue up into an unrelated discussion also isn't one of them. Bringing this issue to WP:SSP or WP:RFCU is one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Try asking those admins what they know. Sorry, I don't have time for this at the moment. --Folantin (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Besides, since Alison knows who this is, even though they have never corresponded on-wiki before today (how does she know?) then she should be enforcing the Arbcom Ruling. That is what Alison does, correct? So why go through WP:SSP when we have a high-ranking Wikipedian charged with doing exactly that who should enforce things, right? --David Shankbone 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Likely, if Gretab was skirting any sort of ArbCom ruling, Alison would have already blocked her. Again, without specific evidence, please stop making accusations against other users. Thank you. lifebaka++ 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone protect my talk page and userpage, please, to prevent further stalking by these people? Thank you. Gretab (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No need; they haven't edited your talk since you came here. lifebaka++ 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your help, then. Gretab (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is abusive sock puppetry going on, file a report at WP:SSP and leave a link on my talk page. If there is evidence enough, I will block any accounts. This procedure will minimize drama, and provide a clean record that future administrators can refer to if there are future incidents. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely by saying this "A checkuser is not necessary. Alison knows exactly who this is"- the user admits it is a new/alternate account of someone, and doesn't have a problem with people knowing that. S/he just says s/he is not editing disruptively. Sticky Parkin 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Whistle, the ruling is clear. "users affiliated with Musik Fabrik are banned from editing any article dealing with artists or projects listed in their sales catalog. Further, they may not add any such artist or project to any article." It doesn't also say unless they profess to edit productively or we like what they do. We have already shown that Gretab has added Musik Fabrik products to Wikipedia, and continues to edit articles that deal with those products, including just today. --David Shankbone 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would consider the Musikfabrik accounts banned, and I am also persuaded that this is a sock out of the same drawer. There is some inflammatory language above, but not without justification: Jean-Thierry Boisseau was extremely disruptive, and the attacks on various individuals were vitriolic in the extreme. A checkuser is unliekly to be productive due to the length of time since Boisseau / Musikfabrik edited. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I also think there is a larger issue here, which is why these kinds of shenanigans are going on over at the Wikipedia Review, yet we have two admins, one who is a checkuser and oversighter, not enforcing our rulings and policies. This damages the community and makes a mockery of our procedures. --David Shankbone 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a tad too paranoid for me, David, but the article focus of Gretab is very specific and Musikfabrik-like, these are not what I would call mainstream music subjects. I think there is a problem, it would be interesting to hear what Alison has to say here. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now, the issue to me is whether the people entrusted to enforce our community's decisions are going to uphold their end of the bargain. If not, then that needs to be addressed. Gretab has already confessed to being on Wikipedia Review, where the two admins who apparently know who he is (I guess Paul could also be considered transgendered) have seen it. There are too many games being played. --David Shankbone 22:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped it wouldn't happen, but there's spillover at Alison's talk page. Please keep the discussion here, for visibility. Thank you. lifebaka++ 22:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Has User:MusikFabrik been unblocked, if not I'm afraid they're not 'allowed' to edit are they? :( Unless we're going to agree to unblock s/he? Sticky Parkin 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
MusikFabrik was blocked as a role account; this in itself does not prohibit people who had been using the role account from editing on their own. However, if Gretab is one of the MusikFabrik editors and is editing articles relating to their sales catalog, [43] clicks in, and the enforcement provision allows for blocks up to a week. However, given that User:Gretab has also created accounts for harassment -- among others, User:Vanish, Dead Knob, User:His Banned Vodka, User:Invokes Bad Hand -- one might think this would be grounds for stronger measures. --jpgordon