Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive515

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

Noticeboard archives



With the vile vandalism being posted by numerous anon users (probably the same one, just IP jumping) and with most of the being threats of violence, wouldn't this be something that we track down via a WhoIs or Trusted Source search and then turn over to the police? Just seems like that next step in this...and might end the whole thing. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 15, 2009 @ 14:05

I've been wondering that as well, but my guess would be that those who are dealing with it are constrained by factors we don't know about. arimareiji (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:ABUSE <-- thataway. Have fun, it's not often stuff gets done over there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I have no "dog in this race", I was just throwing the idea out there. If someone wants to run with it and report it to WP:ABUSE feel free. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 16, 2009 @ 00:52

Vandalism on User:MBisanz and User talk:MBisanz by suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Moved discussion to WP:SPI#Vandalism on User:MBisanz and User talk:MBisanz by suspected sockpuppets. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by Mwilbs (talk · contribs)[edit]

Mwilbs (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat at User talk:Artypants. Cunard (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:No legal threats, and so notified. Perhaps someone would like to drop Artypants (talk · contribs) a note about what constitutes appropriate civil dialogue in respect of this matter? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. User:Artypants could have acted a bit more sensitive at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wilbur, especially is he thought Michael Wilbur was User:Mwilbs.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon campaign against Jeremy Vine[edit]

I wonder if anyone could help me? Over the past week or so, I have been regularly reverting additions by an anon editor making regular uncited allegations about the BBC journalist and presenter Jeremy Vine which violate WP:BLP and WP:POV among others. For one of many examples see here, but roughly the same text has been added to the following articles, often several times:

Usually the IP address is Since I will probably be busy this coming week, please could some kind soul watch for similar edits to these articles and others, revert them and provide suitable warnings to the anon editor? I don't know of any other way (aside from semi-protecting all the above articles) of doing this, but if there is anything else that can be done, please do it! Whatever can be done, much appreciated, Stephenb (Talk) 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The diffs indicate that it's the same person behind all the edits. The warnings on all the IP talkpages, in aggregate, are sufficient for a block, imo. Semi-Protection of all the articles for a while is probably not a bad idea. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: content restored, discussion continues at the article talk page. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer has today repeatedly blanked well-sourced (and bland) material in the zygote article.[1][2] The blanking seems more like vandalism than good-faith editing. I said to Spotfixer: “Re-write it if you think it's poorly written. Don't delete reliably sourced facts.”[3] He instead went ahead and blanked the material again. A block would seem appropriate here. I'll notify him of this discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll affirm the complaint. Although Spotfixer is correct that the paragraph Ferrylodge added is not very well written, it is well-sourced and at least somewhat understandable, so repeatedly deleting it without any discussion beyond edit summaries is not an acceptable approach. Looie496 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As I commented, the problem isn't just that it's poorly written, but that the material is biased and inappropriate. I didn't—and still don't—see any way to repair it, short of deletion. I'm sorry that Ferrylodge appears to believe that he WP:OWNs the article, but he has to understand that not all of his contributions are acceptable. Spotfixer (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that mud won't stick. The article history[4] shows that the article has existed for seven years, and that I edited it thrice (i.e. consecutive edits on February 11, 13 and 15). It's not your prerogative to blank all well-sourced material that you deem inappropriate, without any further explanation.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Have to agree with Ferrylodge. Spotfixer, use the talk page if you disagree. He's sourced the material, I think you should try to argue how it's "unacceptable". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I hate to ask, but what in that material do you find biased? IMO, it's as bland as rice porridge. arimareiji (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<-This has gone astray. Spotfixer said above As I commented, the problem isn't just that it's poorly written, but that the material is biased and inappropriate. If that were true, this would be a content dispute. But Spotfixer never made such a comment, at least that I can find, only two edit summaries saying "Poorly written" and then "Citations don't improve writing or appropriateness." No explanation of what is appropriate, no mention of bias anywhere. Looie496 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if that argument had been raised before the fact instead of after, it's hard to believe that anyone could find this controversial in good faith:
"In humans, a zygote exists for about four days, at which time it becomes a blastocyst. A zygote begins as a fertilized egg (ovum), and contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a baby; half of that information is from the mother’s egg and half from the father’s sperm that has fertilized the egg. The zygote travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form a larger group of cells."
Just my two cents' worth. arimareiji (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reinserted the language. Let's continue any discussion at Talk:Zygote. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Before I respond, can anyone explain why we're not discussing this on the article's talk page? Spotfixer (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Zygote#Lead language. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad threat[edit]

I don't know if this is serious or not, but someone needs to deal with it ASAP. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 5 years. Someone else can decide on further action. ViridaeTalk 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what do about it on MastCell's page, in case someone needs to keep it for evidence or something. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Mastcell would probably know best if this should be taken as a real-world threat. Most editors' real-world identities aren't known to most people so this is probably just a harmless rant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It's that .01% chance that it's a valid threat that scares the crap out of me. There's that widely known story that someone who edited the same articles that I do pissed off someone who made threats then carried them out on the editor, nearly destroying his career. Don't we take this kind of thing more seriously? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess I can only speak for myself, but if I got that message on my talkpage I wouldn't think about it for a second. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the threat of violence and protected the page to prevent further threats of violence. — Aitias // discussion 23:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles talk page[edit]

Resolved: IPs blocked, page semi-protected. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there is an ongoing edit war at Talk:British Isles. An IP (who has been reported for breaking the 3RR rule) has on more than 6 occasions reverted content on the talk page. As of yet no action has been taken despite the posting by others on the Edit Warring board. Now a second IP has started to undo the edits so its possible its the same person. We really need an admin to take a look thanks. Special:Contributions/ at Talk:British Isles and recent edit by Special:Contributions/ BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the talkpage for 1 day, as a quick review indicated that the majority of edit warring (by means of reverting) was by ip's against named accounts - and that the ip's were removing others comments. I suggest that if this recurs you take a request to WP:RPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, not even sure why the person kept removing the content in the first place it was a valid part of an ongoing conversation. :\. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I have blocked both IPs for 24 hours. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Both ip's indicate an Irish Republic location. I am aware that there is some sentiment that Ireland (or that part of it that is the Republic) should not be included in the geographical term British Isles because of the political connotations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Are maps now unavailable in the Republic? I certainly saw them on sale in Dublin about ten years ago. --Rodhullandemu 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Nay, not the pov-ridden British type;) PurpleA (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Runescape123456789 (talk · contribs) is mass creating video game walkthrough guides. They're all very similar, I think he may even be running a script from his caccount to copy and paste them en masse from somewhere.--Pattont/c 23:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Script seems unlikely, as the edits are relatively well-spaced. More likely he's just copy-pasting them from a Runescape-related wiki. I'll delete them and ask him to knock it off. -- Vary Talk 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ack, he's still at it and I've gtg, sorry. -- Vary Talk 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Mostly copyvios, from videos if you can believe it. The text in the articles is the subtitle text from the videos, verbatim. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

Resolved: By user understanding the best way forward. //roux   03:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

※I don't accuse anyone here. I accept topic ban if there is sufficient explanation and procedure.※

I edited some Japan-Korea related articles. I admit my edition tendency was somewhat rough.

I was Topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise after my edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women. And this time is the my first edition of Comfort women and Talk:Comfort women.

Then I protested my Topic ban with my explanation. (Before I was topic banned, I encountered Future Perfect at Sunrise at Yaeko Taguchi and Korea under Japanese rule.)

After our conversation went awry, I accept my Topic ban. Then I read Wikipedia:Banning policy. I think there is lack of procedure. But I don't know Wikipedia rules well. My edition certainly tended to edit nationalstic issues, so I think I deserve topic ban. However, my topic ban has no specifically definition.

Administrators, please specify my Topic ban definition like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban was given at User talk:Bukubku#... and topic-banned as "I am therefore banning you from all topic areas dealing with Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies." Bukubku, what part of "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" is unclear for you? Without being familiar with the subject area, it would seem to me that one would know if an article did or did not fall under this description. Comfort Women - yes. Oxygen - no.
Oh, and may I say thank you to you for accepting the topic ban; very good. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is only Japan-Korea related article and how long? Please, define like other users.--Bukubku (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It is only articles which fit the description "Japanese-Korean political, historical and cultural controversies" from which you are banned. There is no time limit on the ban. The normal mechanism for lifting the ban would be for you to ask for it to be lifted. You would have to show evidence that you are unlikely to undertake the same sorts of edits that got you banned in the first place. I would suggest that you need to do many months of good work whilst still having the ban to be able to convince an admin to lift the ban. But as there are nearly 3M articles on wikipedia, and millions more that could be added, there is no shortage of good work that you can do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, thank you for your comment. However you are not Admin.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not they are admin is irrelavant. Don't discount opinion on this topic, and insult others POV in this manner. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean insult. I wanted Admin replys and I thought him as Admin but not. So I said like that. I apologize my words. I'm sorry, Tagishsimon.--Bukubku (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Before accepting topic ban, things should be cleared for other users and me. I was topic banned as POV-pushing of the Comfort Women. However, I don't think as POV-pushing. There are reliable sources. If other users edit comfort women like me, other users will be blocked and Topic banned? Are everyone banned to edit women who are coerced into prostitution for non Japanese Military? South Korean women were coerced into prostitute for Military until 1980s. And Russia and the Philippines women were corced into prostitute near military base until 1990s in South Korea. I don't deny Japanese Military Comfort Women existence. I think Japanese deserves to be accused. However, why specify only Japanese?

My edition [5]
New York Times
(Google Translate)
(Google Translate)

Please reply.--Bukubku (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is rapidly becoming content-related ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears to have swung from "I accept the content ban" to "I do not accept the content ban and wish to contest the whole matter from first principles. Not good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I want sufficient reason for my Topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason was tendentious editing & edit warring on Comfort Women, which you know. The problem with your proposed insertion is that it is about allegations of South Korean hypocrisy. It is not directly about comfort women, except in so far as it is they who are leveling the accusations. It certainly does not deserve to go in the opening section of the article. And we see a string of five edits constituting the war. Caspian blue quite clearly explained on the talk page what was wrong, and where else the information might be placed in wikipedia: you went to war; and you got a topic ban. I trust that clears the matter up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look the page signature correctly, Caspian blue inserted his comment between Oda Mari and Bukubku.[6] He changed turns. And he didn't reply my last comment.[7]--Bukubku (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, check Talk:Comfort women history.[8]--Bukubku (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bukubku has disrupted part of Wikipedia and many edit warring has been occurred. And three blocks in 2 months are one of the evidences that he has disrupted part of Wikipedia.--Historiographer (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So I was blocked as 3 revert. Yes, sorry. However, this issue is my POV pushing of Comfort women. And topic ban or not, I don't want to edit Japan-Korea related article now. I mend my edition tendency taking this opportunity. I don't want to involve with you. Why don't you stop editing Japan-Korea related article for a while. You were blocked many times, too. We should leave the articles. --Bukubku (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, my lack of knowledge. I understand now clearly.

My topic ban did not accord Wikipedia rule.

(Wikipedia:Banning policy#Administrator)

There was no warm. I oppose--Bukubku (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we don't unban clearly problematic editors based on a technicality, especially not one who clearly knew better due to prior blocks. Take the suggestions above: spend some time working in other areas and show you can properly handle disputes; after a few months of that, ask for the ban to be removed. Shell babelfish 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, your generous comment. However, please change Topic-ban reason. Because I didn't POV pushing of Comfort women. Please change the reason for other users who edit comfort women too. For example, edition war..--Bukubku (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain the answer to that will be no. You were pushing a POV, you have been blocked three times for edit warring, you are not really entitled to complain about a technicality. Do what Shell Kinney said and stop wasting everyone's time. Unless there are any objections from anyone else, I'm going to go ahead and mark this resolved. //roux   15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It seem difficult to get consensus. Everyone have each opinions, they are not same. I like diversity. So I should try to contribute to Wikipedia non Japan-Korea related issues for months and mend my edition tendency. Thank you, everyone's comments. I keep in mind. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User archiving ongoing discussion[edit]

Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) insist on archiving an ongoing discussion about sourcing/BLP issues at Talk:Darren M. Jackson. Could someone other than me let him know that's not appropriate? Diffs: [9][10][11]. Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified user. --aktsu (t / c) 13:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Theserialcomma (talk · contribs) reverted him, so I guess it's resolved for now. Will take it to 3RR if he continues instead. --aktsu (t / c) 13:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It does not come under the 3RR rule and its is totaly fine to archive at any time, I have archived no more than 3 times Aktsu insits on removing the archive, again 4 times now, now that comes under 3RR rule.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, I said " take it to 3RR if he continues" meaning report you at the edit warring noticeboard should you continue. And no, it's not "totally fine" to archive at any time... --aktsu (t / c) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I also only un-archived twice, not four times like you claim. --aktsu (t / c) 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • i removed the resolved banner because he is still trying to archive the conversation. hopefully someone else will step in and explain why this is not acceptable on a tiny talk page with active discussion Theserialcomma (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see an archive attempt since 13:17, 15 February 2009. Can you show me a diff? THF (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
i was referring to [[12]] where he said basically "problem solved, let's archive it?" after we kept explaining why it shouldn't be archived mid conversation. it's more of an issue of him pushing the issue at this point and acting like he is still trying to archive it. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

eyes please[edit]

A couple of spelling variations now deleted and salted. Kevin (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism from 59.92.x.x[edit]

Moved discussion to WP:AIV#Vandalism from 59.92.x.x. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Moved discussion to WP:AIV#User:Henrywinklestein. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Plumoyr again creating large number of countryX-CountryY relations[edit]

Plumoyr (talk · contribs)

See [13] - some were AfD'd in the past (and some of those I speedied some time ago. Is this a problem or do we just ignore it? dougweller (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, another(?) editor was doing this recently, but the same articles, see [14]. Sorry, that was on the AN board. dougweller (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I NPP'ed a few of these yesterday. I was wondering if he's going through every country pair in the planet and creating a stub for each one. Some of these might be valuable, but I have to question the sheer volume here. §FreeRangeFrog 21:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Burma-Greece relations, Greece-Turkmenistan relations, Greece-Guyana relations for some dead-end "articles"). Should Plumoyr persist in mindless creation of non-notable bilateral relations stubs, he should be warned and perhaps blocked -- there is no reason we should be absorbing this junk. - Biruitorul Talk 22:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You what? You actually speedily deleted some of these? Which ones? They better have been rejected. They most certainly do not come under any of the speedy deletion crieria. AfD if you must. I agree that mass creating stubs that don't give any useful info isn't exactly useful, but an article on the relationships between any two countries could easily be FA is inherently notable, because there are so many sources out there for this type of thing (Hundreds per article I would imagine).--Pattont/c 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No, they aren't inherently FA quality. Greece-Guyana relations, say; how do you thing that is going to get to FA? Greece has an embassy in Guyana. I assume Guyana has an embassy in greece. That's it. A lot of relations (UK-US) for example probably could be FA: long-term cooperation, a history, so on so forth; ones between country X and relatively unknown country Y? probably not. That being said as much as the mass-stubs annoy me CSD isn't really the way to go; AFD would be better (unless they went to AFD and you are deleting them as "pages previously deleted in a deletion discussion"?) Such articles will eventually be valuable, but we should wait on creating them until we have more to stick there than "Country X has an embassy in Country Y". Ironholds (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I doubt any of these will ever get to GA, let alone FA. The notable ones (future events notwithstanding) are already covered in detail. I honestly fail to see the encyclopedic value of an article about relations between Uzbekistan and Ghana that essentially says Ghana is a country. Uzbekistan is a country. Ghana maintains an embassy in Tashkent and Uzbekistan maintains an embassy in Accra. But that's just me. §FreeRangeFrog 00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If some of these were afd and speedied in the past they're speedy candidates as recreated deleted material. In addition if the editor is "again" doing this, to me that sounds like he did it in the past and perhaps was told not to. In that case this would be seen as disruptive and frankly I don't see a speedy being out of order in that circumstance.--Crossmr (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If they were AfDed in the past that's fine. Btw Ironholds any of these articles could be FA. If that's all that needs to be siad then the article is comprehensive, and if it meets the other criteria it's FA. Most articles on this website can be an FA.--Pattont/c 15:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sino-Roman_relations ← GA--Pattont/c 15:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree that "any" of these could be FAs - if the content really is "X established relations with Y in 19__; X has an embassy in Y's capital and Y has an embassy in X's capital", even if it's comprehensive, it doesn't represent "our very best work", as required by WP:FACR. We would be much better served by placing that information in "Diplomatic missions of ..." articles. (By the way, I'm not sure about FAC, but this definitely was a subject of debate at FLC - people were trying to make featured lists out of one-item lists (say List of heads of state of Eritrea), but it was decided such lists failed the "very best work" requirement.) - Biruitorul Talk 17:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Er that's not half of what could be said, take a look at these: [15] [16] [17]. The article could be huge. I could proably get it to FA if I could be bothered.--Pattont/c 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
1. State visits are part of the normal course of international politics. Dinners are had, friendly words are exchanged, medals are bestowed, but they really don't rise to the level of encyclopedic content. So no, I rather strongly doubt the addition of a paragraph about a two-day visit (which, by the way, didn't even involve the Greek Prime Minister, where real power in that country resides) would be enough for an FA.
2. Even where bilateral relations are notable, it would be nice if these guys, instead of pumping out masses of junk like Argentina–South Korea relations or Greece–Uruguay relations and letting it rot for a year, would actually think before creating new articles, gather up sources, try to build up some meaningful content. But perhaps we're asking too much. - Biruitorul Talk 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thought to notify him? Really? Ok, he's been notified and should read here. First step he needs to do is stop recreating these things. Check the AFD discussion and if there's something debatable, consider WP:DRV. If not, find the ones that are allowed and work out the others until they are created. However, someone needs to be help me. For example, Ireland–Ukraine relations was deleted under G4, but I can't find a link to the prior discussion. I'll guess that's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is Groubani, who was blocked for being non-responsive about the same thing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As AfD is already so busy, i would certainly agree that having a full AfD for each possible one of these would break the system, so preventing their creation would be far prefferable, at least until some consensus if formed on which would be notable in principle. Shouldn't there be a wikiproject guideline made if they keep getting created? Without one, there is nothing to help AfD reviewers, and reading 100's of years of 2 countries histories to see if they had any notable interaction is impossible.Yobmod (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya (crosspost from WP:AN as the situation is spiralling rapidly out of control)[edit]

From WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya

Please comment at WP:AN#Harassment by dynamic IP sockpuppets of banned user Naadapriya, or better, do something immediately: We're sending the message that if you make it difficult enough for us, you can ban-evade and sock and harass any editors even tangentially involved with your ban to your heart's content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect the affected pages and WP:RBI the IPs with tight rangeblocks. Sooner or later they'll find another website to plague. Posting to ANI only encourages more bad behavior. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. So actually do that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • IP appears to be blocked right now, please drop me a note if you think any pages need semi-protection. Since I'm reasonably familiar with this one I can probably help out there. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Just to note that I've made a proposal to formalize the community ban at the WP:AN discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: User blocked as sockpuppet

Rules99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look at the huge-scale changes this user has been making this afternoon? I can't decide if they're good or bad, but his behaviour on an AfD page (asked if he would care to list a reason as to why one of his pages should be kept, replied simply "No.") etc. don't inspire confidence. And his Category:Lists of former entities is absurd. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 14:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also his continued posting of that category to pages despite having voted to delete it at WP:CFD. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the account is less than 1 hour old and is already correcting my syntax (very cleverly, but still...) - a little advanced for a "newbie"? ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 14:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* Rules99 (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I find this diff to be problematic. I have no opinion on the validity of the bulk of edits, but I am concerned if they are being made in a pointy fashion no matter how otherwise valid they may be. As TreasuryTag suggests, but cannot bring themselves to say, this is not a new editor but someone who has created an account for a specific reason - and one that may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC) (*finger gently caresses "Abusive Admin (for the use of) Block Button"*)
Agree on the non-new editor part ... but I have button envy for LessHeard vanU`s special button which I apparently do not have. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If he won't explain himself other than giving sarcastic responses, then a block (for disruption) would seem to be in order. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have given a level 3 non templated warning. If the behaviour continues any editor can drop a level4 warning and then/or take them to AIV. I suggest that WP:RBI be the response if there is no improvement or explanation forthcoming. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll enjoy this delightful response: [36] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Charming... and wrong. I note the editor is up at AIV, but without the level4 warning - and with the recent edits being a little more communicative if not exactly respecting WP:POINT (redirecting a list to one that is being AfD'd). I wouldn't block under the circumstances even if I didn't have a COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I took your suggestion as an "either/or". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey your pitbull nominated that category for deletion before I had a chance to put anything it in, and nominated it based on it's "ludicrous" nature. This is not the kind of thing that will evoke a patient explanation from me. Rules99 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well - This is sounding more and more like a particular user who was recently indef-blocked for arguing that he has the right to be sarcastic in response to anything he doesn't like. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What was said user's username? --Deskana (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If I can think of it specifically, I'll send you an e-mail. In any case, it's obvious he's not a newbie, as this ID only started today and is very conversant in the nature of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I sent you the e-mail. Maybe soon everything will be jake. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh you do block people for sarcasm? ROFL, that's a cause for which I am willing to be matryed. Nail me to the tree. Rules99 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, now. Don't get cross. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Ack now with the bad puns Rules99 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You nailed it. To a T. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Guess you'll just have to grin and bear it. arimareiji (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I have now been accused of sock puppetry twice. Users User:Wizzy has been following me around and reverting all my contributions because he seems to have an ideological problem with the issues I am concerned with. User:FFMG has now joined in and are 'tag-teaming' me. They have now both accused me of Sock Puppeting. After the first accusation by FFMG which did not go anywhere, Wizzy then recently accused me once again of being the same as user User:Skwanele. See:

I am obviously not this person and am perfectly willing to submit to any kind of investigation. I am willing to submit my personal data to an administrator and anything else requested of me. However, I want this investigation to finish ASAP and once and for all. Once I am cleared of these charges, I expect both users to stop harassing me and treat me with respect where there are edits that I make in error.

I hope that you can assist me as soon as possible but investigating this.

Thank You. Jaredsacks (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This really belongs at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jaredsacks (2nd). But since this user is repeatedly being accused of being a sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jaredsacks), continuously requests that a checkuser be initiated, we should accede to his requests. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
A checkuser would satisfy me. This is the first time I have filed one of these, I am worried I missed a step at the end that listed the incident properly. It seems the WP:SPI process has changed recently, without all the instructions being updated. Wizzy 21:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, since rule number one is: "if you're not willing to file the SSP request, then stop calling them socks". Being called a sock is a serious insult/incident, and not to be thrown around willy-nilly. I'm glad you'll be filing one. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Please remove this deletion tag as this is the only article about a movie starring famous porn actress Francesca Le --Bziona86 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a {{PROD}} tag, which you are entitled to remove yourself. However, I suspect the article will then be sent to WP:AfD. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 11:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
A7ed by JzG in the meantime. -- lucasbfr talk 13:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lih[edit]

This article on a Wikipedia administrator was created by a brand new editor, and then it was nominated for deletion by another brand new editor. CheckUser shows that the article creator, Lookie Louis (talk · contribs), and the creator of the AfD nomination, Poowe (talk · contribs), are likely the same person. I can't quite tell what they are up to, but if you look at the article's deleted edits, it seems that Andrew was previously the target of an article created about him by a banned user, so this may be related. Anyone want to figure out what to do here? Dominic·t 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy it under G7? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Article deleted and AfD closed on the basis that both are disruption. If someone can point me at where the CheckUser findings are, I'll permablock both accounts. ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Dominic (Dmcdevit) is the CheckUser who performed the check :) -- lucasbfr talk 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Grrr! Down with changed usernames! :op ➨ ЯEDVERS dedicated to making a happy man very old 09:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about the confusion. :-) This was the CheckUser report, so to speak. I just wanted to bring it here rather than doing anything myself. Dominic·t 10:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned I would above, I've blocked both with non-templated notices that request further information and link to this section. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 10:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Lookie Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is requesting a block review. I'm happy to be overturned (or confirmed, obviously) without being asked, but any reviewer(s) should check with Dominic as the active CU in the case, please. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Raffaeleserafini and Xorxi Licensing problems[edit]

I was recently patrolling new images being uploaded without copywright/source status and was tagging them accordingly. I noticed user:Raffaeleserafini had uploaded a lot of images with no license (see their talk page). After a few days user:Xorxi decided to release the work under the GFDL licence which says they are the copywright holders and not Raffaeleserafini (which is improper). I think the source of these images is indeed questionable. It may be that the user just found them on the internet and uploaded them here. Is there any action required? --DFS454 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Examples where Xorxi changed Raffaeleserafini's file info [37] [38] [39]. See history in each case. --DFS454 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Weirdness on userpage[edit]

Resolved: someone deleted it

I'm going to WP:AGF and therefore imagine there may be a legitimate reason for this hidden userpage text from an editor, Jaggre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has done nothing but create bad pages and edit his userpage, but I'm not smart enough to think of one. An admin who understands what is trying to be done here will know whether this requires intervention or if it's mostly harmless. THF (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

John Vanderslice[edit]

We have an SPA who, despite multiple requests, continues to upload an image of dubious copyright according to the GFDL. More problematic is that they have completely re-written the article in a POV fashion, removed a lot of content, and inserted sentences such as, "John Vanderslice makes lyrically ambitious, highly varied and sonically adventurous records"; "Vanderslice is an accomplished and inspired live performer"; "Vanderslice owns an influential recording studio in San Francisco"; and "Vanderslice has always been a forward-thinking progressive", amongst others, none of it sourced. It's becoming an edit-war that I wish to back away from. --David Shankbone 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean this and later similar diffs. It certainly looks like he has a conflict of interest, or is trying to promote the subject in some way. As he has no contributions apart from these and has been warned multiple times, I think it's safe enough to block him.--Pattont/c 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The editor seems to be behaving himself a little better now; a block for a week-old editor who hasn't been told about the edit-warring or COI rules would seem WP:BITEy to me. The page isn't half as bad as Tim Howard (attorney), and Tim's been able to keep that autobiography up for over two years. THF (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Over three years, in fact, and it's such a ropey article that I've sent it to AfD. Black Kite 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry[edit]

user:Afroghost has recently been accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, in a rude and hostile tone, for no reason. I have recently been looking over an incident involving a blocked user (User: Shnitzled), where he was blocked for being uncivil and making personal attacks, I felt his case was handled poorly but that is a different matter. My reason for being here, is because this user making the accusations has been following me around, asking me the same question "Are you a sockpuppet of Shnitzled?" on 2 of the pages I have posted on, I feel I am being harrassed by this user. Could an admin please look into this? Thanks very much, U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This account was created on the same day that User:Shnitzled was blocked, and less than ten minutes later, she became involved in defending that user on a rather obscure user talk page. It is difficult to imagine how an unrelated user might have accidentally become involved in that conversation and even more difficult to conceive how she could have stumbled upon this conversation and drawn the conclusion that the wronged party was User:Shnitzled, unless she is either User:Shnitzled or a close personal friend of that user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can look into all right, but you are not going to like my conclusions. Blatant trolling almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet possibly deserving of an immediate block for trolling this board.UNIU please stop at once. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

UNIU is not a socpuppet of me, and cannot be for technical reasons - a blocked user cannot create accounts due to the restrictions in place, and why would I? That would only deepen my situation tenfold, all I want to do is get back to editing. I have no idea who this UNIU person is, all I know is that he/she or it was the only person who came and saw things from my POV, not that it was going to help, but I did notice it. I do feel that this Afrofrog person needs to lay off, he/she is bordering on incivility - precicely what I was blocked for. Shnitzled (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Afrofrog? Awesome, just back from your block and you are insulting other editors again. Afroghost (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Afroghost, I knew it had Afro, and I knew frog was also in it, simple mix up. Please, don't victimise me about those incidents. Shnitzled (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) The solution to everyone's angst here is to leave this be and go do some constructive editing and encyclopedia building. There's work to be done over at WP:AFC, why doesn't everyone involved pick an article and improve it? Best medicine for problems like these. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Per a discussion on WT:VG, the consensus on roster lists were that they should be written in prose. Chelo61 completely disregards this consensus as shown here, here, here, and many more places. S/he has been warned too many times as shown here. I'm tired of reverting his edits, as he does not listen at all. A block would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. SimonKSK 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They have also been warned many times about this matter and refuse to listen.--TRUCO 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:AN3 can also accomplish the same thing. It's not 3RR, but it surely is run-of-the-mill revert-warring and hence is grounds for a block. I think the talk pages have failed in this regard. MuZemike 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)



Does the image on User:WikiGruvakia, in comparison to the text that is there, constitute a BLP violation? Is the text a violation of GFDL, since it's a copy of Wikipedia text with no indication that it's copied from an article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  • From the timeline of the edits, I'm tempted to assume it was a good-faith exercise in copying wikitext and markup and inserting images. Since the editor hasn't been seen since January 17 though, I've blanked the page. Black Kite 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked indefinitely by Jclemens. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 00:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indexsales (talk · contribs) can an admin take a look at this and fix as necessary? DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: blocked -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Keldino1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) claims to be the indef-blocked Keldino (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and is currently vandalizing pages. Fire at will. --Dynaflow babble 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably could have posted on WP:AIV, but he's gone now . -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI protection level[edit]

I would like to propose that we leave the protection level on ANI as it is right now at "indefinte protection" because it seems like we it is lowered, the vandalism kicks up again. Just leave it be, no vandalism. People can still edit ANI, so it is not like it is hindering anyone. What does everyone think? - NeutralHomerTalk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:12

But people can't edit AN/I only autoconfirmed users can edit it, no IPs and no new users. How can that be acceptable? The vandalism isn't that bad, it's easy enough to deal with IMO. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What she said, was about to say the same. ViridaeTalk 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree; semiprotection is useful at times of high vandalism, especially if it's the same vandal persistently, but under normal circumstances the board should be accessible to anyone who needs to post here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know it would block out good IPs and new users. Oh well, it was worth mentioning :) - NeutralHomerTalk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:41
well, we only know an IP is bad once it has been used to post, right? ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Leaving [move=sysop] in effect is probably good, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
We should have a subpage to be used by non-autoconfirmed users when AN/I is semi-protected (as we have for AN). I'd create one, but I wonder whether people might prefer, especially in view of the community's recent inclination to prefer other noticeboards to AN/I, that we simply add a note to the header directing users unable to edit because of semi-protection to the AN non-autoconfirmed page. Joe 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
We used to have one, and a notice directing editors to it. I have no problem with recreating it in the light of recent events; it's easily watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that looking at the number of sections here that would be better on other noticeboards indicates that quite a few people don't read/see the header. Would an unconfirmed/IP editor see AN non-autoconfirmed page? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, it would just transfer the vandalism problem to another page, not solve it. SoWhy 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Rodrigo Ávila[edit]

Ever since Rodrigo Ávila, on a Salvadoran presidential candidate, was created, anonymous users have been adding BLP violations to the article. In addition to the mundane "he's gay" additions, there have also been many POV additions sourced to an interview he gave. The anons never edit from the same IP twice, making communication somewhat impossible. The only IP edits to the page are to add BLP violations (except for one or two to remove violations added by other IPs), but page protection until the Salvadoran election was denied at RFPP. Could an admin please protect this article, or someone else leave an eye on it? I seem to be the only person watching the page. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:ChristianMan16 (3rd)[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved: Discussion closed per subject's request. –xeno (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Previous discussions: 1st, 2nd (posted by Dylan620 below; copied here for convenience) Gavia immer (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, WP:AGF, and an e-mail I just got from User:Kalajan, I would like to propose formally lifting the existing indefinite community ban on ChristianMan16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He does very good work on the Simple English Wikipedia, where he is a hard worker who actively participates in community discussions, works on general cleanup, the founder of this, and has a good amount of edits in the "article," "user talk," and "wikipedia" spaces [40]. I'm an admirer of his work at SEWP, and when I first found out he was banned here, I was shocked. Not only does he do good work at SEWP, but also at Commons and the Simple English Wikiquote. But what may possibly be the biggest reason I would like to welcome him back to here is this – a well-written apology regarding his community ban here.

CM16 has successfully proven to me that he has matured enough to be a responsible contributor here, and I'm hoping you all think the same thing. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall that this has been proposed at this board at least once before. Can you post a link to that discussion and a summary of its outcome, please? If the (3rd) in the section title indicates that this is the third proposal, I'd appreciate a link to both prior discussions. Avruch T 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm about to take a shower, so it'll be a bit delayed... but I'll do what I can. And yes, the (3rd) in the section title indicates that this is the third proposal to unblock CM16. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

opppose The ban removal seems self-serving to me. He wants to be unbanned because it eats him up. I see very little in there about what he's going to do for enWP and more about what the unban will do for him. Frankly its not overly convincing of why on the third proposal this should be granted.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this was only 2 weeks ago [41]--Crossmr (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose IF only to try and prevent Simple becoming even more of a dumping ground for users who are childish time-wasters here to go and convince others to help them return here after a ban. This is the user who, on Simple, begged every established user to help him write the above linked apology! GTD 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi GTD, we all know your opinion on Simple. Can you please provide diffs of this? Hating Simple is not a reason. Sam Blab 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure - I'd just point to his begging note here (which is a re-add after being removed, then removed again, then re-added...) And it's perhaps worth noting the community over there is far, far smaller than here and easier to, erm, pull the wool over the eyes of. I would assume good faith, but in the case of a sockpuppeteer and time-waster, at least on this project, asking for an unban, perhaps assuming bad faith is safer? GTD 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No, he is asking politely where this can be posted so people on EN can see it, not asking "all of the contributors to write it". You really need to learn not to twist words around.
Assuming bad faith is safer? Am I hearing this correctly? Look at how many people have turned their careers around by someone assuming good faith. I think that you just have something in for Simple and have resorted to the low of trying to tarnish their good-faith editors. Sam Blab 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
After spot-checking over the past month's contributions, I'd support this--depending on what the last discussion said. It looks like he's learned his lesson, and if he continues to edit on WP like he has on Simple, he'll be a great addition to the project.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Just found this edit: not damning, but not encouraging either.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
So what is the problem exactly? SimonKSK
He responded to "don't break the interface" with ILIKEIT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support I've worked with CM16 on Simple. There are a couple maturity-related issues, but I think a good mentor would take care of that. Sam Blab 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I have worked with ChristianMan on Simple for some time now,and I have been watching for signs of improvement. I have seen archives on the old Hornetman discussions, and when I compare now and then, I have seen only improvement. Sure, CM1 might cause some minor drama, but he doesn't freak out anymore. No socks anymore. I believe that ChristianMan has really grown. SimonKSK 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Conditional weak support - I think CM16 has matured a lot since his shenanigans of 2007, and he seems to have curbed his ... 'zeal' ... to a certain extent. I've no issues if he's unblocked and admins can feel free to overturn my block if consensus indicates. However, I'd 1) like to see a "sane" mentor appointed first for the guy for at least three months, 2) please run this request by the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, too, as they've been most affected by his behaviour in the past, 3) leave Deskana and Daniel a note to weigh in, as they were involved last time. In short, I'm cool with a conditional unblock, with mentoring. Please, though, no garish, OTT userpages! - Alison 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Alison, I value your opinion, I really do, but to tie in your "matured a lot" with "Please, though, no garish, OTT userpages!" - erm...question of opinion, I guess!!! GTD 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Trust me when I say, GTD, that it's been a lot worse than that!!! That's streets away from the mayhem that it used to be. It's all relative ^_^ - Alison 01:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I feel that Hornet (or Christian) has matured since '07 and has learned from his mistakes, if he didn't he would have gone and done the same thing at the Simple English Wikipedia. I'm still a bit skeptic, but I think he means good this time.--TRUCO 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever. I'm a lot better with CheckUser than I was then, so if he starts sockpuppeteering then he'll definitely not get away with it for long. I'd hardly support an unban, but I won't oppose it. I've got to say, I'm really not interested in any apology he might be writing to try to work his way into my good books. He wasted his time writing that, as far as I'm concerned. So... whatever... --Deskana (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment If ChristianMan16 needs a mentor, I would gladly step up. I have worked with ChristianMan16 on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I feel that I can help him get re-integrated into the community if he is unbanned and agrees to mentorship. Sam Blab 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Wait a bloody second. "Based on an email from User:Kalajan"??? Then, unless someone can explain on-wiki how those two are connected, I would say absolutely not. Kalajan has been at the center of some seriously stupid, time-consuming antics, wasting hours of my time, User:Chrislk02's time, User:SimonKSK's time, and a couple of others too. Based on an annoying email he sent me a few days ago, he has some kind of real world tie to User:Sinofdreams, who's up to like 20-30 socks. Kalajan used to be User:Steelerfan-94's mentoree, and sure enough, his name pops up in Hornetman's Simple English apology (linked above). No, there's just too buch bullshit going one with this whole little group of editors; my WP:ABF BS detector says all of these career sockpuppeteers are the same person, or a little clique of time wasting meatpuppets. And because Hornetman is banned, it's up to him, or his apologists, to explain how he's related to Kalajan, and why in hell we should do anything that a proven troublemaker suggests. Dylan, please explain some context of why Kalajan was the one who emailed you. Unless some really good, well thought out story gets presented, I say keep banned, keep blocking his/their socks, and stop listening to anything Kalajan has said. He's wasting your time. --barneca (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Reply - I don't believe that they are the same user. Kalajan whines a lot, and Sinofdreams exists to harass me. Whil CM16 can be whiny, he can't beat Kalajan. SimonKSK 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Whoa! I turn my back on ANI for 2 seconds, and when I get back, THIS is what my thread becomes? <sniff> They grow up so fast! <sheds a small tear> Also, to reply to Barneca's concern, Kalajan e-mailed me saying that he has been impressed with CM16's antics. I appreciated his input, which was the last (albeit not the biggest) thing that drove me to propose unblocking. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • "He has been impressed with CM16's antics"?? Please, please tell me that's a misquote. --barneca (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't believe he's grown up at all. He lost rollback on Simple recently for misusing it. I haven't been pleased at all with his behaviour on Simple. Majorly talk 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I was talking about this thread. And yes, while that loss of rollback was recent, he's still certainly improved from his 2007 shenanigans. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • He has lost rollback twice in the past three months...? ViridaeTalk 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Previous unblock proposals - 1st, 2nd. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose still too much trouble than he is worth, wikipedia is not therapy. Still lacks maturity as evinced by that apology and other behaviour on simpleWP. ViridaeTalk 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh and just to add to the load, the userpage on simple is still Myspacey (combined with other factors that further indicates a lack of maturity), even if it is in collapsed sections. ViridaeTalk 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No - we've been down this road before and nothing good is going to come from it. He does not have the requisite maturity. --B (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've scanned Simple a few times. I simple do not think that CM has the right temperament for the English Wikipedia. Please keep him off this wiki. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Not worth wasting our time. As Barneca said above, the involvement of Kalajan and his, ummmm... questionable judgement, is in and of itself enough to give pause, let alone all the other issues. //roux   03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Synergy 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unfortunately, from what I've seen on Simple, CM16 has hardly improved with regards to immaturity. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Good gracious, please, no. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Likelier than not that the net effect on the project of his presence should be negative, so no. Joe 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? I do not see the fuss about it. If he behaves, good for us, if not, we can easily get rid of him again. Just place him under strict probation and if he misbehaves, block him again. There is no way this could do any major harm but there might be a slight chance it benefits us. SoWhy 09:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Why not? Why not let Gwarp back long has it been? We can block him again easy right? Because he burned through all the chances before and his behaviour elsewhere doesn't show a significant enough improvement over the behaviour he showed here, not to mention his reasons for unban are wholly self-serving.--Crossmr (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Weird comparision you make there. Grawp comes back every few day to continue his confused vandalism-spree. There is plenty of proof he did not learn anything from it. Can you point out similar, recent behavior by CM16 here? Because otherwise your position essentially is: After all that happened we can never ever ever unban this user no matter how much time passes and how much he might behave elsewhere. I know, I might be wrong about him, but I'm willing to take this chance as I think (see above) that the risk we take is minimal at best. I think even if we decided to unban him, dozens of admins will watch him closely with the finger on the block-button. SoWhy 10:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    Sure. Just read this discussion. As someone pointed out he's lost rollback twice in the last 3 months on simple wikipedia for abusing it. I put a link above where just 2 weeks ago he tried to proxy some content on to EnWP. That is a pretty clear indication that he isn't interested in working within the guidelines that are laid out before him. Those are all pretty recent, unless you want to define recent in the last 5 minutes, at which point I might point to his reply linked below in his not understanding what more we want him to do. As I pointed out the apology seems wholly self-serving and not remotely in the interest of EnWP and only in his interest of removing the ban which is apparently "eating at him". He barely mentions contributing in a positive manner to the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Are we going to do this every few months? Also, these edits (except the last one) were all made right after the previous unban request. He used the good old "it was my brother" excuse to explain that away. Yeah wow, he's so mature now, let's invite him back. FWIW, he hasn't returned after October to edit here anonymously or with a sock to my knowledge, but it's still been only 4 months. Not yet. Oh, and a recommendation from User:Kalajan is worth absolutely nothing.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Notice - After I notified CM16 @ simple regarding his unblock proposal here, this was his reply. Maybe it should be looked into? --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, so this unban request wasn't done at his request? What's the point of all this then?--Atlan (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the user himself isn't interested, then drop it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addendum[edit]

Shapiros10 (talk · contribs) said he would be willing to be CM16's mentor. So, if CM16 agrees, I propose that Shapiros10 is assigned to be his mentor in the event he is unblocked. I'll notify CM16 at SEWP. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Shapiros10 would be a suitable mentor here.--Atlan (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
No mentor is suitable, Sharipos10 especially. He should not be unbanned at all, with or without a mentor. Daniel (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This is going down in flames, but have you even looked at my recent contributions or are you just remembering my name off the top of your head from past incidents? Sam Blab (Shapiros10) 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer someone more experienced than you. As far as I can see, you have never mentored anyone and now you want to mentor a banned user? And yes, I remember you from past incidents, which affects my judgement, truth be told.--Atlan (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

  • The user in question claims that it is getting "so heartbreaking" and apparently wishes to forget about the incident (please see his user talk header on simple). It has also been observed that the proposer did not talk to CM16 about it and only notified him after the proposal was created. Even another user has expressed his astonishment over this. In the interests of CM16 and Dylan, I request for this proposal to be closed. Continuing this won't benefit either person. Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Build the web[edit]

Some time ago it was agreed after discussion that this guideline page WP:Build the web would be merged with two other pages at WP:MOSLINK, and this was successfully done. Now a couple of editors have (without any new discussion) begun repeatedly resurrecting the merged page and altering the changed links, and others (myself include) have reverted them. I hope we can settle this amicably, but admins might like to keep an eye on the issue in case it gets out of hand.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More eyes would be nice. —Locke Coletc 08:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've protected The Wrong VersionTM of the page at whatever position it was when I protected it - I didn't even look - so that people can spend a week talking. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 08:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at WT:Build the web. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh... I see that a different Wrong VersionTM was preferred and reverted to. Gotta love this place. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that was me. At least this Wrong VersionTM is one that can be read and discussed. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Karthago Airlines - problematic insertion of POV[edit]

Resolved: Semi-protected for 24 hours Spartaz Humbug! 13:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Karthago Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this should be at WP:RFPP or WP:AIV - two IP's (related) and a user account keep adding what looks like something that has spilled over from the french wikipedia as a content dispute / quest for the truth. [42]. I've reverted twice, but mindful of WP:3RR I'd like admin assistance please. M♠ssing Ace 12:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! M♠ssing Ace 13:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question[edit]


Anyone wonder whether there's a connection between Mr. "Lex Luthor of Wikipedia" and the apparent upsurge of nasty vandalism? arimareiji (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not his style. Is more the style of one of our other long-term idiots. (He Who Shall Not Be Named). //roux   16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Point of interest - is anyone still getting emails from the illustrious arch-nemesis? Skomorokh 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't 'Lex' be doing something more helpful to the world as a whole, instead; stapling his own face shut, for instance? HalfShadow 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
He was, until the ankle-biters got to him. Mr. Luther has contributed more quality encyclopaedic content than 95% of those who comment here. Skomorokh 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Really? Because considering his actions thusfar, he looks much more like an asshole to me. You might consider seeing an optometrist. HalfShadow 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Being an asshole and being able to write better than the overwhelming majority of gutless, hiveminding little napoleons who populate this place are not mutually contradictory; too much exposure to the latter often cause the former. Regards, Skomorokh 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Could that be a consequence of it being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit?" And if so, whose fault is that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Skomorokh 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone said his writing was better than 95% of the contributors. Since any moron can edit, then certainly 5 percent of the population are going to write better than 95 percent of it. That does not give someone in the 5 percent a pass to do whatever he wants, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Skomorokh, he pulled up his pants, put his ankles in the community's mouth, and hit us on the head. He was given multiple chances to reform, and at every turn, chose to become a combatant. He's made his identity clear, and it's a wonder we didn't block him as a COI long ago. ThuranX (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That's got to be one of the most interesting visual metaphors I've ever seen. arimareiji (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you see anyone arguing otherwise? Skomorokh 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Your comment seems to imply that he was blocked, then banned, for no good reason, and that you are on 'his side'. If I misread it, then I misread it. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It does nothing of the sort; you do yourself discredit by jumping to conclusions and taking a manichaean perspective. Sincerely, Skomorokh 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that characterisation of the people inconvenienced or whose time has been wasted by him as 'ankle-biters' does, indeed, require no conclusion-jumping by anyone and that your meaning, sympathies, and implications are quite clear. Certainly doing a great deal of work on a single article--one whose subject I'm not even sure deserves an article--means very little in the greater scheme of things. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of this, let me suggest something by Chirikure Chirikure, you can find it at
(I've left out the http:// because this site is still blacklisted.) The punchline, in Shona: Nhasi woisa tsvina mutsime? "And then you shit in the well?" --Abd (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested and seems like a good idea[edit]

Could some neutral parties have a look at the block on this user's talk page [43] and see if it's being handled appropriately? I believe the user is also now blocked from commenting on their own page, which I think means they can't appeal? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be reasonably routine. He's blocked from commenting on his own talk page due to soapboxing (abusing unblock process), but that does not prevent an appeal via email, on the condition he doesn't abuse that privillege like he did with his talk page. Another administrator has already reviewed the block and considered it valid too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. I don't think there is ever a routine block by an administrator who is themselves involved in the dispute, as is alleged here, especially if it is that same administrator who then blocks the talk page. This smacks a bit of judge, jury and executioner. With great powers come great responsibilities, and I don't see the incivility or the soapboxing as being so clear cut or so blatant that bringing more neutral involvement shouldn't have been considered first. Let me make clear that I am not arguing that some kind of block or other action wasn't warranted, I haven't reviewed the matter and the history carefully enough to determine that. and clearly Spotfixer was pushing and outside the envelope of discussing content and was feuding rather inappropriately, but I do think following best practices and protocols for handling these situations is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight - thanks for bringing this here for consideration - however if you don't mind please review the history carefully before you make broad allegations about my role. When you do review you will find that I am not involved in the dispute in any way rather I have been one of two or three administrators actively trying to maintain the peace at Rick Warren for weeks now - and Spotfixer has taken a one-sided view on that work. Please note also that others have reviewed that situation and they have already agreed that my actions were not inappropriate. Best wis