Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567

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

Noticeboard archives


Semiprotect gold please![edit]

This thread was moved to Requests for page protection --Cybercobra (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Done--owner wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
But not by the editor above, see the thread higher up about this editor. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Over-zealous NPPer[edit]

It seems we may have an over-zealous NPPer. Fngosa (talk · contribs) is tagging a lot of articles with prod and speedy notices, a fair proportion of which either don't qualify as speedies or were tagged within seconds of the creation of articles which had {{under construction}} notices or added comments to the same effect from the article creators. When questioned about some of these taggings, (s)he has not exactly become uncivil, but has certainly used a tone which seems less than friendly - though this may be because of the vagaries of written English (I suspect that Fngosa may not use standard UK or US English. This doesn't really fit as a civility issue or as a deletion review issue, but I think some attention needs to be drawn to it since this is causing some issues with people who are writing genuine stubs. Any suggestions? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • PS - the following diffs may prove informative: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I reviewed his work, and he has an alarmingly high false-tagging rate. The two biggest problems are 1) He seems to have invented his own speedy deletion criteria, and is not following accepted practices in tagging articles, and most importantly b) his refusal to discuss his tagging in a civil manner. He seems to have invented some convoluted "if you have a problem, you must respond in this manner" system, and refuses to acknowledge people who wish to discuss his taggings, unless the "file an official complaint" using his weird format. This certainly has got to stop. I would counsel him to stop tagging any speedy deletions unless he can improve his understanding of the speedy deletion criteria AND unless he is willing to make a clear account of his actions for anyone that raises reasonable questions, neither of which he seems to be doing right now. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • P.S. Since the OP did not notify him of this thread, I did so. In the future, please notify people when they are being discussed at ANI. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Oops -apologies. I thought I'd done so. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I concur with Jayron32's conclusions, the question I have is what we do about it? Is a short tap with the cluestick to "abusive"? Perhaps if the block notice also contained a link to WP:Consensus? Unless the editor decides to conform to WP practice and policy it might be argued that they are disruptive, regardless of the good faith intentions.

          I am shortly to bed, otherwise I would perform a block - but I think the sanctioning admin needs to be avialable to unblock as soon as meaningful communications are established. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

          • I think that "overzealous" may be too kind. The editor, when cautioned about erring says "Hi mate, some articles are given wrong speed deletion tags for convenient. It is not a big deal, at the end of the day, what ever tag i give it, it will still be deleted." added emphasis mine- Sinneed 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - emphasis - Sinneed 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Wield thy trusty admin swords, O wiki-knights of the round-and-round-we-go table. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Blocking may be premature at this minute. He's been notified of this thread, and several editors commenting here have recommended that he stop speedy tagging. Until he starts up again, we should not block him. If he DOES start up again, with the same problems, then a block may be forthcoming. Lets give him a chance to read and respond to this thread. --Jayron32 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that "This article is too abstract to be an encyclopedic article" at Talk:Plumber's Mait is particularly bizarre. I've left some Clue of the subtle variety. But this might prove to be too subtle. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Just chiming in to say that I find communicating with him very frustrating. His misuse of {{db-g6}} is particularly problematic. And of course, when I pointed this out to him, all he does is pointing me to his weird convoluted process. He seems to think that he's got some sort of authority as a NPPer, which certainly isn't true. I'll also add in this diff. What kind of competent NPPer would tag that as a G11? And when I pointed it out to him, his response: [6]. I was thinking about filing an AN/I report myself. Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A fair percentage of Fngosa's edits and vandal warnings are also problematic. He's acting as a self-proclaimed caped crusader, but is far too zealous and doesn't take constructive criticism well. A lot of the speedies are added less than 60 seconds after page creation or recent change. This will give WP a bad name.

    An IP editor added "in a time loop" after the word "stuck" in an article about a film. This was reverted by Fngosa as vandalism. A quick and simple google on the film title + "time loop" showed that the IP editor was right and this was done in good faith. See diff.

    And this which I think was done in good faith was reverted as vandalism and the editor received an immediate blatant vandalism warning. Many of his warning templates have unprofessional and idiosyncratic comments added to them. He needs to play by WP policy and guidelines, not by his own strange system which seems designed to provide a rationale for his own strange way of working.

    In addition, see Talk archive where Fngosa quickly manually shifts problematic comments and warnings.

    Fngosa also needs to check the effect of his edits after he's made them, for example adding a category without noticing that the number of brackets or braces are mismatched, or that the thing is redlinked, or an inappropriate category, or that a note on the category page says don't add directly to this category. On the Plumber's Mait talk page, he says that the title is also wrong and that the article needs moving, but a quick click on the external link shows that the spelling is actually right. In other words, he needs to do some research when making edits, tagging and reverting.

    Lastly, Fngosa says on his pages and in a userbox that he's been editing on WP since 2006. The edit counter here says 30 Aug 2008 as 'Fngosa'. He has sometimes edited as Freshymail, though not since a botched name change.

    Esowteric+Talk 08:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

    • End of Esowteric's comment, to avoid further confusion over who said what.
  • I do (well, did) a lot of Special:Newpages work. Would it be useful if I "mentored" Fngosa, assuming he agrees to it? Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • If you are willing to do that, great, another problem is that the instructions on his userpage for anyone who wants to talk to him about his adding CSD tags are incoherent and will actively confuse any new editors who want to talk to him. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Righto, I'll head off and give him an offer. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Over-zealous NPPer - response[edit]

response This is too much to defend myself. only negative points have been raised except one or two. It will be unwise to defend myself against these negative views, that will be a book. at the same time, i do not want to fight any of you guys, i love you all. we have a common goal, to defend and protect knowledge. You have all done very good work, even highlighting some weakness in my contribution to wiki is a good job. You all deserve to be congratulated. here is a solution, i am deciding, let me know if you agree.

  • I will cease to list any page for speed deletion for a period of 14 days
  • I will not spend so much time on Wikipedia for some time (will be doing some research work some where)
  • I will edit my user page to remove any offending material or you do it for me.
  • I will continue to defend and protect knowledge at a lesser level
  • I will not answer to any criticism, but will appreciate any good advise in good faith.

Thank you guys' 13:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Ironholds has made you a generous offer that will allow you to gain experience under expert tutelage. What will you learn from 14 days' abstinence? Just a thought. Good luck! Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I decline his offer. that's kind of him. any other alternative solution. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ironholds Esowteric's comment left me concerned, so I digged a bit deeper - here he readded a prod after an IP removed it; this is a ridiculous prod reason; this revert of "vandalism" that (!) added a reference. I'm not sure we can trust him with rollback, at the very least. Tim Song (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Please, review the reason which was given. there was room for an admin to remove the AFD or another editor, apart from IPs deemed to be used for vandalism. remember, Wikipedia is not a marketing website. Wikipedia articles normally come up first on google search. It will be wrong to direct a knowledge searcher to the website offering the software for sale. I am yet to believe that the article in question was self published. I shall not make this a big deal, I am not here to discuss an individual article. feel free to discuss it on my talk page. thank you for your comments though. they are helpful. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • (outside editor) If Ironholds is happy to, he should follow all of his contributions and help him out and revert him whether he likes it or not. The alternative outcome is fngosa will continue bad and questionable edits without learning much and end up being blocked, which nobody wants.--Otterathome (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • This sounds ok, but it should be some one else, not Ironholds. 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am offline now, till 11pm. please put down solution/advice below ONLY. Thank you Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • How will 14 days not adding tags help? You'll be back in 14 days with exactly the same problems. It's a perfectly acceptable response if coupled with a) reading the WP:PROD and WP:CSD pages, so as to know what is appropriate and what is not and b) trying not to make the same mistakes in future. Otherwise it's pointless. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And given his apparent inability to distinguish between what is vandalism and what is not, I find his access to Huggle unsettling. Tim Song (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me from Fngosa's comments that he doesn't understand or doesn't want to accept that what he's doing is wrong. Fngosa, you should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not just what you think is right, and especially not when several others have warned you that what you're doing is wrong. Anyway, let me make the situation clear for you. Your best option is to get the assistance of an experienced editor to help you along like Ironholds suggested. When that "mentor" is satisfied with your experience and knowledge, you can continue on your own. Just staying away from CSD tagging for 14 days and returning with the same kind of editing is not an option. Otherwise you can learn the guidelines yourself and follow them. However, your edits will have to be monitored for some time (it'll be pretty much the same as the first method I mentioned, except without a formal mentor assisting you) and if you are still doing it wrong they will have to be reverted whether you like it or not, as Otterathome said. If you make the same errors then, or you simply continue to edit this way, you're likely to have some sort of editing restriction imposed on you. You can follow either method, or if you have an alternative we'd be glad to hear it. May I also ask why you are refusing Ironhold's offer? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't ve to answer each and every question. 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You don't, no, but if you couple a failure to edit appropriately with a refusal to properly discuss your work or change your behaviour, then some form of topic ban or a full block is likely to follow. Editors are accountable to the community for their actions, and while one does not have to answer unreasonable questions, being asked to explain why you've inappropriately tagged dozens of pages, refused all requests to cease and desist and refised all offers of assistance is anything but an unreasonable question. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
So, Ironholds, stop bullying others. Freshymail (talk- The knowledge defender 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ironholds is doing the opposite of bullying.- Sinneed 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Possibly of interest as part of the discussion. 2nd account.

  • freshymail (talk · contribs · logs)
  • fngosa (talk · contribs · logs)- Sinneed 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A small issue, since he has not attempted to conceal these two accounts as being different. Running multiple accounts with full disclosure is usually kosher. --Jayron32 01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Fngosa/Freshymail, now you're being deliberately unhelpful. Learning the policies and guidelines and following them is not optional, it's a must. As I said before, "going your way" will not be accepted. If you are unwilling to learn and keep continuing like this, you will get some sort of editing restriction imposed on you, possibly even a block. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Advocacy: Fngosa, I can see that you are feeling daunted by this process and I can understand that. Do you feel upto representing and defending yourself here, or are you in need of an advocate, counsellor or other representative to share your thoughts with and to assist you in avoiding sanctions and obtaining a happy outcome? Is there such a thing in Wikipedia? If not, please disregard this comment. With good wishes to you, Esowteric+Talk 08:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for using two accounts to comment on this thread. I intend to make Fresmail my main account. On the issue of receiving help from another editor, I will choose some one to show me bits at a time of my choice. I am still learning. As such, I am prone to error. some idiot pointed out that my use of huggle is unsettling! That is rubbish. It is pure attack on an individual which should not be happening on wikipedia. I don't use huggle for vandalism. show me one please! This is a community for every one to use in harmony. I just happen to have different charges to user:Grutness who started this silly thing. He pointed out some wrongs in my edits at my talk page, i responded positively. I can't understand why he brought up this issue here! This issue can well be resolved by Grutness fully participation. May i ask him to leave a message on my talk page and take it from there. If any one is unhappy with any of my edits, i challenge you to challenge me on my talk page. I am sorry, this seem to be becoming a general discussion with poor little solution or advise put down. I can not continue answering each and every question here. please, challenge me on my talk page. Thank you. User_talk:fngosa, 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Fngosa, with respect this sort of response is what they term in England "a bit of an own goal": it will hinder rather than help your prospects. It is not up to you to set the agenda or dictate terms here. With regard to challenging you on your talk page, see Talk archive which contains several examples of that process and goes some way to explaining why the serious (not silly) issue has been raised here. Esowteric+Talk 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a court of law: no lawyers allowed. Fgnosa simply seems to think that they get to set the rules, and only abide by them in certain cases. He was offered a high-quality mentor to help him through Wikipedia's policies. He (unbelievably) declined, saying he's follow his rules and all would be ok. If he's unwilling to accept a mentor, and is going to continue to push his own rule set and fails to recognize the disruption they cause, then there is only going to be one possible outcome ... 08:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I am no longer following my own rules on CSD. I am simply helping out with few articles i feel need a bit of editing. You should also recognize that i am contributing a lot on wikipedia, It is completely voluntary, and i am happy to do so. Should i completely stop patrolling new pages? let me know? I will still list attack pages for speed deletion. 09:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Last time I checked we were all volunteers. I think that you should a) learn Wikipedia's policies correctly b) proper;y edit a few thousand more articles, and then return to any form of NPP'ing - you will have a better idea of what is or what is not appropriate. Oh, and a mentor will go a long way right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you my friend. 09:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that BWilkins is suggesting exactly the sort of thing I proposed in terms of having a mentor. I'm still willing to mentor you, and have experience in (not to toot my own horn) most areas of WP in some shape or form. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
oh goosh! this is getting to my nerve now!. so, you Ironholds mentor me. promise that you wont be a bully, you know, I protect and defend women and children, so, any bullying of whatsoever wont be in my interest. thank you. 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
...okay. I wasn't intending to bully users. That's considered a "blockable offence", not a "mentorship" :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you know that forcing some one to accept something they ve refused is wrong? 10:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This need reining-in asap, imo. Esowteric+Talk 10:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No one is forcing you to do anything, and Ironholds or anyone else has not bullied you. Since you have agreed to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, I think we can end this here. You can always ask an experienced editor when in doubt (and I strongly recommend you do this) or ask at the help desk. Once again, keep in mind that you cannot continue in the manner you have been doing so far. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 10:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no "forcing" here. There is a hobson's choice, but one of your own making. You have a choice between following our rules and leaving. If you honestly don't want any kind of mentorship and think you can go this alone, fine, tell me, but if you end up at AN/I again because of errors similar to those you've promised not to repeat then people are unlikely to be sympathetic now you've refused assistance. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Said idiot believes that people who cannot tell what is vandalism and what is not should not have access to tools that allows them to revert edits at a high speed, for reverting a good edit as vandalism is one of the easiest ways to drive away a potential editor. Tim Song (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst noting and respecting admin's proposition to close this issue, if you feel strongly about rollback and the setting up of Huggle yesterday, then here is the link to the granting.Esowteric+Talk 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I only responded because of his comment; we shall see if he can tell what is vandalism properly. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What does he mean that he already had rollback because of his time on wikipedia?Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think Fngosa means that as he has been using Wikipedia since 2006 that this entitles him to rollback, hence his application for rollback was a mere formality :) Esowteric+Talk 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Rollback has nothing to do with this issue. I assume that this case is now closed. I ve noted down all positive criticisms and will consider them all in my contribution. thank you. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The case has been was incorrectly marked resolved and I was really hoping that the advice offered had been thoroughly digested. And yet almost immediately ...
Flowers in space: Incorrect CSD A2 replaced by another editor with correct template for "needs translation" (and subsequently tagged as A7 by two further editors): deleted diff, User talk page notices.
Ascending power numbers: Article incorrectly added directly to category ("Quick-adding category Mathematics articles by quality (using HotCat)") diff Esowteric+Talk 11:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the closure, as it was done by the person against whom this ANI was opened. This person really doesn't get Wikipedia at all, and needs a mentor whether they think they do or not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

you re stalking me! 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talkcontribs)
No, you're not being stalked. This is a public page, and anyone can see who made the edits by clicking on the History tab at the top of the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Many apologies, I'm the one to blame for the links to your edits, Fngosa, not BWilkins. It wasn't one of my better ideas. I think the best thing I can do is for me to put down my "dustpan and brush", walk away from this issue and leave you to it. My apologies again, Esowteric+Talk 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of barnstars / possible sockpuppetry[edit]

 blocked by Sarek of Vulcan for socking and generally being a nuisance --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The user Shivlingam seems to have awarded himself every possible barnstar; even on created for Jimbo himself. Is there something that should be done about this, or can anyone award themselves any barnstar as and when they wish? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The rollbacker Redtigerxyz tried to remove them but Shivlingam just reinstated them. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
So what? It looks silly and is obviously disingenuous -- so, let's let this editor make it clear to the community that this is his/her standard for behavior. We'll know this editor has matured more toward the community's standards when he/she removes them him/herself. --EEMIV (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Barnsars are serious business after all. Really, what should've drawn more attention is this. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, then there's the fact that he signs posts as "owner wikipedia" (e.g. at Wikipedia:Help desk#date format) and creates subpages like User:Shivlingam/owner WIKIPEDIA. I think someone's got a crush. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not an administrative issue. Suggested solution: add trout and cluebat to the user's awards. Durova320 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What he did with the barnstars was copying the code from User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars (including the comments at the top of the page) to his own talk page. See also this response to ukexpat's attempt to get him to stop posting unhelpful comments to the Help Desk. All in all does not look like somebody who is here to write encyclopedic articles, but so far his behaviour is more nonsensical than actually disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed them. If the user wants to award themself barnstars, they can go nuts, but they should not copy others' barnstars - they are signed and would misrepresent the positions of the users who granted them. –xenotalk 20:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Durova320 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I also agree with Bonadea that this user might not be here for the right reasons. –xenotalk 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
If problems worsen that can be dealt with. A lot of people make a few missteps at the beginning. When those aren't too serious they get a few chances. Durova320 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate to have a bloodhound-like nose for ducks and socks, but something isn't right when the user's first edit consists of adding a {{who}} tag. However, I've seen this before, so it is possible that I may be overlooking this, but the other edits just cannot be ignored. MuZemike 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Also welcomed him/herself.[7] Has been editing Saffron terror.[8][9][10][11] On 20 June 2009 Nishkid64 semiprotected that article with the summary "editing by banned users".[12] Shortly before that, an IP who edited the page was tagged as a possible Hkelkar sock.[13][14] Would someone who knows the background on that situation please weigh in? I'm unfamiliar with Hkelkar and can't really assess whether this is a lead or a red herring. Eyebrow-raising, though. Durova320 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL. Not Hkelkar, not with those comments about Modi. Quite the opposite, it would appear. But still hilarious. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. Durova320 03:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hilarious YES disruptive NO .I added those barnstars as they are available under GFDL I can use them and any signature which I like WP:GFDLLemme live in peace .BTW why are users stalking and reverting my edits (Properly referenced) on Saffron terror PEACE OUT --owner wikipedia (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Clue-bat anyone? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
SP OMG .Is that a threat ?--owner wikipedia (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

At it again [15]. And the "owner wikipedia" thing is going to confuse the newbies, especially if the editor participates on the HelpDesk. --NeilN talkcontribs 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the signature is problematic. –xenotalk 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's GFDL complaint I can use those barnstars on my page You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form. See the Terms of Use for details.--owner wikipedia (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable - "Do not misrepresent other people", in particular, awarding yourself the barnstars those people had awarded to someone else. –xenotalk 13:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Do not edit wp if you do not want your edits to be edited or copied mercilessly --I do not own [[WP]] (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the barnstar mess again, as it is still just another broken cut n paste job of jimbo's user page, with the "thanks for running the wiki!"-ish platitudes and all still intact. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar is nothing more than an illustrated "thank you". How is it possible to "abuse" something that's essentially a decoration? Does anyone ever get elected admin based on how many barnstars they have plastered on their user page? Not bloody likely. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is rather unfair to create the appearance that those named, specific other users awarded User:Shivlingam those barnstars. If they were plain barnstars copied from templates, no big deal, but s/he's also copy-pasted the signatures and comments of the people who originally awarded them to Jimbo. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Gonzonoir. And, judging from their edits, User:Shivlingam is not a new user. --NeilN talkcontribs 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Barnstars are trivial, sockpuppetry is serious. Hence I have altered the header. If this were just about copying someone else's barnstars, though, I wonder what specific rule were being violated? Plagiarism, perhaps? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The barnstars are an attempt to mislead other editors, as is the sig used by Shivlingham. Both the "owner wikipedia" and the "I do not own WP" used here only serve to make it harder to track an editor's contributions.
Wikipedia relies on collaboration, and this sort of game-playing impedes collaboration, so I suggest just blocking Shivlingham until zie gains enough clue to stop playing disruptive games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Bugs I agree that they are trivial, and if this person wanted to go to WP:BARN and award himself every single one, I'd fully support that. But copying and pasting the un-transcluded text from User:Jimbo Wales/Barnstars crosses the line, IMO.
BTW, who is this user a sock of? Can we see some links and sockpuppet templates added to the account? Tarc (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Gere and the gerbil[edit]

Resolved: User indef'd for now. Let him vent but leave him alone until he's done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Immediate attention is required to this. WebHamster created this page, since consensus is blocking him from adding this bullshit to the Richard Gere article. This is a blatant WP:BLP issue. I nom'ed for CSD, but don't know how that'll turn out. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You really shouldn't call edits bullshit. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, these edits pretty much are bullshit. Nothing bad about the person making them, but the edits themselves are utter WP:BLP-violating shit. --Jayron32 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me. Gentlemen, this is a public noticeboard. There are children and ladies here. Would you please mind your motherfucking language? Durova320 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Haha. That's classic. I'm gonna go kegel now. Law type! snype? 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Only allowable if you upload educational video. ;) Durova320 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a little edit reversal going on now at the Richard Gere article here WebHamster has inserted a link to the gerbil page 4 times now and Crotchety Old Man is removing . Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've speedied it. It's a BLP nightmare and WebHamster is skating around consensus on the Gere article by creating this one, and adding the link to the hoax page. Law type! snype? 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
And under which CSD category did you speedy it? This should be taken to AfD at least. Oh and how about taking COM to task both for not informing me of the CSD request or the not notifying me of this discussion. --WebHamster 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)--WebHamster 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Under CSD category WP:IAR. This is a clear BLP-violation, and should not remain at Wikipedia under any length of time at all. I endorse Law's deletion of the article. --Jayron32 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
How was it a clear BLP issue? It wasn't promulgating the rumour, it was explaining and debunking it. It was adequately referenced and totally neutral. --WebHamster 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
G10 ... G3 ... take your pick. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
See WP:BLP, and especially WP:COATRACK, as well as Loaded question and Association fallacy. Even the idea that refuting the rumor is a BLP violation here. "I am here to state that John Doe has never beaten his wife." Use of a denial is not an acceptable means of of sneaking a BLP-violation of this nature into Wikipedia. This is a clear WP:COATRACK issue. Creating an article denying the truth of a rumor is just a backdoor method of getting the rumor exposure at Wikipedia. Somethings are not appropriate to discuss, even if only to deny them, because the mere act of denying gives them too much coverage in itself. --Jayron32 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I have left WebHamster a note informing him of this discussion and a 3RR note regarding the edits at Richard Gere. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Good call. Law type! snype? 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I have also left Crotchety Old Man a 3RR note regarding his reversals on Richard Gere. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth protecting Richard Gere and the gerbil or would it just lead to Richard Gere and the Gerbil?- Sinneed 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC) would then lead to "Richard Gere and the gerbil named "Bob" (I would assume that a hamster might know the name of a specific gerbil) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not forgetting The Gerbil and Richard Gere, and countless other permutations. This one can be resolved by dealing with the source of this stuff, but not by trying to swat each fly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to protect it because I'm going to assume that WH will not recreate it. And yes, Jayron was correct. CSD IAR. Law type! snype? 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ECx3) I already salted those two, but you're right, we could play whack-a-hamster all day. In any event, we don't need articles for these two, but revert me if I erred. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Way to go mate. I knew AGF was total bollocks. --WebHamster 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF is not a shield for obviously asinine editing behavior. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Such a long word for someone who obviously doesn't understand its meaning. --WebHamster 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't agree, WebHamster. But if one person thinks an idea is a good one, someone else will too. I know I intended no assumption of bad faith.- Sinneed 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've seen childish, ridiculous behavior from WebHamster, right? Anyone got ideas on how to apply some clue? Friday (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Backdoor"?? "Asinine"?? Come on, have we not given enough publicity to the supposed location of said gerbil named "Bob"?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually there's a rumor that OTRS has already received a complaint from "Bob" that we're violating WP:BLH (biographies of living hamsters). Bob has a family and a reputation, after all. Durova320 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added WebHamster to the Twinkle blacklist. This is not vandalism. I'm also thinking that some sort of community restriction may be necessary.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how such a thing would be worded, other than something vague like "Don't act like a 12-year-old." Would a simple block for edit warring (repeat as needed) be simpler? Friday (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
He's been blocked multiple times already, and just said on his talk page that he ain't changing anytime soon. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No editing anything remotely related to a living person?I don't know, the only evidence I have of misbehavior is what I see in front of me, and I can't see me supporting or executing a block based just on a limited bit of childishness. --Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Switching back to serious mode. I've defended WebHamster before, but his posts to this thread don't look good. AGF is not a license to fork a BLP violation against consensus, misuse Twinkle, and brush off community concerns. No matter how many jokes are within easy reach, there are basically two rational solutions: either WebHamster accepts the Clue being offered by multiple people and promises not to walk this path again, or else a longer block than previous is appropriate--in the hope that will curb the behavior where persuasion hasn't. This time it isn't an R-rated photo on your userpage, dude. It's about a real human being and a very nasty rumor. Not the place to go when you already have a track record of problems with walking the line of appropriate conduct. Durova320 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it more than satisfies WP:DE at this point. Railing against the man keeping him down and being "blunt" are poor excuses for repeated BLP violations. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaaaaaaaand WebHamster told me to "go fuck yourself" after I reverted his attack on Tznkai and warned him for it. → ROUX  23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Aw diddums. --WebHamster 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
WebHamster needs a time out. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Its worth noting that undoing without comments is reserved for vandalism only as well. I do however, try to avoid blocking people for attacking me, so I will ask another admin to take care of it. I think we are well beyond short blocks, for the record.--Tznkai (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A habitrail.
  • Wow. I was already thinking it was going to be necessary to post to the etiquette noticeboard about WebHamster's conduct at the talk page, but I see WebHamster has created this article against obvious consensus, and has contributed further insults and general incivility on this thread. There's no need to tolerate his behaviour. Final warning then a long block if he still can't stay civil? p.s. I don't want to breach WP:OUTING, but how do we know WebHamster isn't really a self-publicising WebGerbil? Fences&Windows 00:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved admin: Per this comment, would an uninvolved admin please review the expired and closed RfC (Note my comment at the end relative to the housekeeping archiving of the RfC) on Talk:Richard Gere#Gerbil, initiated here on April 4, 2009, and determine consensus to help simplify the ongoing discussion. Specifically, is the gerbil urban legend as attached to Gere a BLP violation? Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to this request here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked I have about 0 tolerance for editors that respond to criticism that way. My action is, as always, open for review. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who deleted the article and admonished for such, would you reconsider the block? Full disclosure here is that I don't adhere to NPA nor CIV blocks. That's not an excuse - but just who I act as an admin. I would cordially ask you to unlblock at consider the backlash was one that was highly charged and emotional. I do not make excuses for the behaviour, as I would as you to unblock and discuss because as I said, CIV and NPA mean naught to me, and I think that WH was just lashing out. I'd honestly like to see a block for a vio of a policy to which I adhere. Law type! snype? 09:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Individual cases are generally poor times to make arguments over larger policy concerns, nevermind what common law may have taught you.--Tznkai (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm generally not supportive of "civility" or "NPA" blocks unless there is ample evidence that the person under discussion just isn't "getting the point". In some cases though, someone seems to be getting in their spidey costume in order to flaunt the fact that they don't have to behave like they would in a face to face community. In that case I don't think we need to wait for WH to grow tired of telling all and sundry to fuck off before we step in. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support block. Disruption takes up people's time when they could be doing something more useful - the Hamster has been stirring this pot for long enough. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as well. Yes, we know Law does not like NPA and civility blocks, which is what turned the ChildofMidnight affair such a fiasco. I do not believe that admins should get to pick and choose what rules to enforce and what to let slide though, and Webhamster was clearly in to "no personal attack" territory. Don't really buy the "blowing off steam" excuse when the source of all this was a ridiculous WP:BLP transgression of an article. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When you have a consensus that for BLP reasons that 'this should not happen' and the response is to simply create another article to mention it on, that's reason enough for a block on preventative grounds until we can get an assurance that such behaviour will not be repeated. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support the block also. Long history of incivility. The childish antics yesterday were a bit too much. Obvious this user has no interest in improving their behavior. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think WebHamster will be back [16], perhaps as a different web rodent.--Tznkai (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Cameron Scott. Risqué humor has its place and WebHamster can be one of the site's more colorful individuals. Although it can be harmless to poke fun at the rich and powerful in private, doing likewise in article space is not harmless--it goes to the top of search rankings and that compels us to set boundaries. This is not prudery or The Man oppressing anybody; it's common sense (with the law casting a shadow). WebHamster rebuffed ample feedback before, during, and afterward in such a definitive way that a preventive block is necessary until he recognizes those boundaries and agrees to abide by them. Durova320 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we all know how well my comment about Octomom worked out during my RfA :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Good block, obviously. We put up with this sort of disruption far too often.  Sandstein  15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support block. Good block. The disruption and inappropriate behavior had gone on long enough. Cirt (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is disheartening when established contributors are not taking the time to remove the personal attack from a comment, but instead, reverting the entire comment and explicitly identifying the whole edit as vandalism (example - the first sentence should have definitely been left alone). Following this by using obvious template warnings on established contributors [17] will then, depending on the user, practically guarantee that the matter will become worse - a one sentence reminder may have made a difference. In such circumstances, the result here is hardly surprising, and resolution becomes more unlikely than it would have been. However, despite what the blocking rationale seemed to focus on, there are good grounds for a block for more broad reasons that would call on a restriction of some sort (particularly as BLP and the mainspace are involved) - it is purely in light of this that I do not object to the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • If new contributors can be templated as though by some nameless faceless bureaucracy, I hardly see why 'established' editors should not be. If anything, DTTR should be DTTN. Sometimes 'established' editors need reminding that they--this includes you, me, everyone all the way to Jimbo--are fungible and replaceable. And that behaviour not tolerated in a new contributor will not--must not--be tolerated in an 'established' one. → ROUX  16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to mention, WebHamster gave me a kiddie template on my talk page during our revert war on the Richard Gere page. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Sorry, some of us don't care to pick the Polo mints out of the CowpatElen of the Roads (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh my bad - I guess we should issue template warnings in order to make a point (despite the greater likelihood that there will be a more favourable response to other forms) right? We intervene (whether it's here, or by warning) to escalate disputes and controversy (rather than to move it towards a favourable outcome or to dissolve it), right? Evading a concern over wholesale reverting and removing others comments is totally cool, right? IAR when it's a cowpat, huh? Two thumbs up to both of you, Roux and Elen; who needs fundamentals nowadays anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the block. This sort of frivolity with BLP issues can have serious consequences, and WebHamster has been around long enough to understand why enforcement is needed. Instead of backing off and discussing it, his response was to recreate and engage in incivility, and that's why a block is needed -- because there's every likelihood of a repeat, and of further unnecessary drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Would those of you blanking his user page and sanitizing his user talk page header please stop? It looks like gloating, or caged-animal poking, and is distinctly unhelpful if there is any hope of de-escalating things. He's blocked. Leave him be for a bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is indef blocked [18]. Consensus does not exist to support an unblock. I added the {{blocked user}} template [19]. This was reverted by DuncanHill (talk · contribs), with edit summary: Blocked, not banned, so no need for the unseemly gloating. It should be noted that the template added was {{blocked user}} (which reads: This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.), and not {{banned user}}. Cirt (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to point out the painfully obvious but anyone this cavalier with their account should be expected to sock pretty darn soon. Not to cast aspersions but forewarned is fore armed. Padillah (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)It's been pointed out, rightly so, that, despite appearances, this has no real evidence to support it. As such I retract and apologize, I think I have sock on the brain from some other conflict and it leaked over here. Padillah (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake, put the fucking stick down and walk away! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you need some tea or a cookie? I made one observation in a thread that was recent and you're swearing at me, WTF? Padillah (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You can stick your tea and cookies where the sun don't shine. Your evident enjoyment of the misfortunes of another editor disgusts me. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You two can both cool it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Request unblock. I very much agree with Law's position. An indefinite block for a bit of swearing is ridiculous. WH probably deserved a block for 3RR, and probably so did others, but this just looks like laziness to me. Not made any more attractive by the evident dancing on the grave that we've seen since. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Those supporting the block, above, mentioned other problem issues as well. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Quite, and I think a block was probably inevitable, but not just of this user and not an indefinite block. Indefinite blocks are really only a means to humiliate by forcing an apology, which I very much doubt will be forthcoming in this case, so it's effectively a ban. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Screw apologies, I'm more interested in behavior change. If that comes, it comes, if it doesn't, it doesn't. This isn't, or at least shouldn't be about civility or personal attacks, its about behavior that is clearly counterproductive. WebHamster has not shown behavior that gives anyone the impression he's recognizing any of his errors (Edit warring, misusing vandalism templates, highly questionable article writing, and generally responding to criticism with abuse), which means they are likely to be repeated. Malleus is entirely correct however, that the grave dancing that is going on is unseemly. So, if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say it.
WebHamster can request his unblock the normal way, and if he can't muster the wherewithal to convince a single administrator he needs to be unblocked, that is not a problem that can be corrected here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Calling all admins/vandal fighters who are fans of Weezer[edit]

There are multiple vandals doing damage to numerous articles related to this band. I've knocked out most of the more obvious stuff and protected the main Weezer article. If there's anyone out there who actually has some knowledge related to this band, all of their articles could probably use a good once-over to insure there's not more of it hanging around. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A list of particular articles would be helpful. Even those of us who are indifferent to Weezer aren't fans of vandals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you say The Vandals?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rbj should receive a pardon[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrong venue. This is an ArbCom ban. Appeals would go to ArbCom. Durova320 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rbj (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

User:Rbj is serving a life sentence in Wiki prison. He was always a valuable contributor to physics articles. It were some disputes on other pages that escalated a lot that caused problems for him. More than two years have passed, these disputes are no longer relevant and I'm sure he has cooled down a long time ago. Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Has he asked for an unblock?
On a side note, I'm not sure why this was added to CAT:TEMP and then deleted... There's a lengthy talk page history that should persist. –xenotalk 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, he was community banned at least partially for anti-Semitic slurs on other editors. I really don't care how good he was at physics, we don't need bigots with anti-Semitic attacks here at all. Finally, there is a strong possibility he's been ban-evading editing under IPs. Back in 3 with links. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Banned user? where it seems he's been editing, although he was community banned and ArbCom declined his appeal. I've not received an email that he plans to mend his ways or is sorry for the hurt and disruption from before. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a Wiki-head of state to issue a Wiki-pardon to declare a person not guilty of a wiki-crime, no matter what a wiki-jury or wiki-judge had to say. There is no wiki-prosecutor to fire, no wiki-police who abused their authority. If Rbj wants to be unblocked, or his ban appealed he can request it like everyone else. Unless of course, Count Iblis knows something we don't.--Tznkai (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you could put on a black robe and a wig and we could pretend. :-D KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Rbj has been active on physicsforums for quite some time see here. Physicsforums as a very strict rules against personal attacks, so I think he qualifies for parole because of good behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BASC is thattaway. Alternatively, he can post an unblock request on his page, and someone, say you, can bring it to wider community review here. Please ask him not to use the word pardon if possible.--Tznkai (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Has he been editing as an IP or sockpseudonym recently? Can we see a contribution history to examine? I'd be generally opposed to seeing Arbcom imposed restrictions removed by anyone but Arbcom. It is really hard to get productive but abusive editors restrained through Wikipedia dispute resolution. It is even hard to get Arbcom restrictions enforced when you can't find an active administrator who gives a care to look at the issue. I don't know what this users history is, but where is the mea culpa and the outlined plan for self-discipline so the project doesn't have to deal with their previous disruption again? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
yes, he's edited with two IPs evading his ban, but more to the point, he hasn't asked to be unblocked since his last appeal was declined by ArbCom. That's the first step. Not some third party asking for a "pardon". KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need one of them sanity checks[edit]

Resolved: Speedied by KillerChihuahua Khukri 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I speedied Josh_lumb as an article about a non-notable person, then changed it to vandalism, seeing as it it included the regular vandal repertoire. Now the creator is contesting the speedy, claiming that the subject donated a kidney and saved their life. This is inconsistent with the original version of the article, and violates WP:COI anyway. Can someone who has time take care of this? A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And doesn't make the individual any more WP:Notable, unless it made the front page somewhere --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Odd combination of memorial and vandalism. Probably a kid thinking he's funny, but maybe not. Drop a message on his talk page and figure out which is which, then the page can be deleted.--Tznkai (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Kidneys (or rather, selling them off to pay the mortgage) are all over the UK news today. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Nicole401 continued copyright violations[edit]

Has continued to ignore the copyright warnings on her talk page from day one, and after a final warning, uploaded Image:Angelina-jolie-tatoo-.JPG the next day. I think the only way to get her to take these warnings seriously is a block. And also suggest a review of her past contributions for any violations gone unnoticed.--Otterathome (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Her response was to blank her talk page except for the welcome note. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Indefblocked by NW.  Sandstein  20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This account has been created for the purpose of vandalising articles. I recommend that it is closed. ----Jack | talk page 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Next time, consider reporting vandals at the dedicated board, WP:AIV.  Sandstein  20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of disruption, again, by Off2riorob[edit]

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has yet again engaged in edit-warring [20], [21], [22].

Off2riorob has been blocked seven times for disruptive editing, made promises to stop, and was warned recently that he would face an extended block if he edit-warred after violating this promise. Admin Chillum (talk · contribs) has commented that action is appropriate here, but stated he is currently taking a break from his tools.

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

Comments by admin Chillum

I have contributed content work in the past to articles that Off2riorob has disrupted, and so I would appreciate another uninvolved administrator taking a look here. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I went there in response to this request for people to take care here and I ripped a fair bit of what I thought was excessive material out and after that I have only two reverts, which in my opinion don't even reflect a fight never mind a war. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are my comments to the editor who was adding the material, I was attempting to get him to the talkpage but it didn't work so after two reverts I left his edits in. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look here on my User_talk:Off2riorob you will see his replies to me. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My clearly displayed block list should not be an excuse to drag me at the tiniest opportunity to ANI in an attempt to get me blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, there's this as well. ninety:one 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No action, again just like this report, if you look at it from an uninvolved neutral point of view there has been no infringment of any policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I reduced this users prior edit warring block based on his word that he would not edit war in the future. As far as I am concerned this promise has been broken at least once. While this is a case of edit warring, I am not sure if it is actionable when looked at in isolation. As to what happens when looked at in the context of previous actions, well I will leave that to another to decide. I find the belief that the recent reverting was "no infringment(sic) of any policy" to be an indication of a lack of belief the he is indeed edit warring. Chillum 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

These two reverts and standing back is nowhere near a war, it is not even a fight. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There are three reverts. Any edit that undoes the edit of another editor is a revert. Your refusal to accept that this is indeed edit warring may be why you keep edit warring, you may just not think it is edit warring. It is clear we disagree so how about we both sit back and let other admins give their opinion? Chillum 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole. Personally I know which I'd prefer if I was the user concerned. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If those are my options I would choose a 1rr parole, with a not too extensive period of time, perhaps a month, to allow me to get used to the single revert, and to carry it along after of my own free will. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A month is a little short, typically I find 6 weeks works better for an initial revert parole. Moreschi (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
So what about agreeing on five weeks? Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine. It's a deal, then. Unless anyone else has anything extra to add. Note that we will look dimly on simply slow revert-warring at the rate of 1 revert per day, which will simply force us to extend the sanction to 1RR per week (which is what most of my balkan friends at WP:ARBMAC get, or the armenians/azeris at WP:ARBAA2). Moreschi (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I am a little sad after going there in good faith from the BLP noticeboard, but I have been treated fairly so I will go to sleep in the knowledge that at least I am not in a worse situation. Tomorrow I will come and ask you for the exact condition so I do not infringe. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (second nomination)[edit]

The nominator of this discussion turned out to be the sock puppet of a banned user. Might be worth closing early since the whole debate is somewhat "tainted" anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Commented.[25] Durova320 23:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Redirected to Wiktionary.  Sandstein  06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just deleted Innit which has been deleted more than once. Also indef blocked the vandal who created it this time. Question is, should the page be salted, or redirected to Ali G, Innit and fully protected? Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. But I'd just protect it. According to a brief Google and Wikipedia search, the Ali G tape is not the only thing called "innit".  Sandstein  21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Salted, innit? Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Protected soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry at [26]] would seem an obvious solution. Exxolon (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm a new admin, if that's a better solution I'll not stand in the way of it. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd happily do it myself but the page is currently protected. Any admin want to do this? Exxolon (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

trying to start a page called SJSM[edit]


Im trying to start a page called SJSM and have it redirected to the link below.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medschoolresearch (talkcontribs) 16:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Done. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

user jaimeizquierdo[edit]

Resolved: User blocked as a spam-only account.

I would like to redirect my page to my website Is this possible? I am not familiar with Wikipedia editing. Please help. I tried doing it and it gave me a negative notice and option to write here with my request. Can you help? You can write to me at if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimeizquierdo (talkcontribs) 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not possible to redirect to an external site. You may add a link, but not a redirect. Horologium (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:User page in which it points out that you can post a link to your home page, provided the nature and content of your home page is allowable within wikipedia guidelines. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaime Izquierdo, Artist, PAFA'85[edit]

(Spam content has been redacted but is available in history. --Kinu t/c 04:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Assuming the above is your proposed user page, a lot of it looks like self-promotion, and would probably not be allowed. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to welcome back Sinebot! Manning (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Jaime has also been reported to WP:AIV, but there seems to be some reluctance to block. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about Iwillremembermypassthistime[edit]

I have real concerns about the actions of Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Over the past 12 hours this user has made 100+ edits, nearly all with no edit summary to a variety of geographic articles. I have reverted the changes to {{Infobox England region}} and all the articles which previously linked to it as they broke the template and all the articles. The nature of the changes were drastic - completely replacing the template with another unsuitable one - and were not discussed. This pattern of undiscussed changes means I think someone with more expertise than me should go look at the user's other changes to see if any intervention is needed. --Simple Bob (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The username kind of gives away that they've been here before....VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
also created and edits userpage User:AS1S1SA1AA which is constantly edited by IP User: Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you consider asking him/her about these edits? Or informing them of this thread? I see no discussion anywhere that let's them know there are concerns. (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user concerned. - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I confirm that I'm AS1S1SA1AA (my previous account) and 93.45.ecc. That said, while it's true that I did some pretty drastic changes to a number of templates, in almost every case the new layout was an obvious improvement over the previous one (Infobox England region probably being the exception, but at a glance I didn't notice anything wrong with the nine articles where it was transcluded) so I didn't think anyone would have contested these changes. Should I be the cause of further concern, I would rather receive a message in my talk page *before* there's any need for a ANI notice. I apoligise to Bob if I caused any trouble.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

He/she (as the IP) had said that they forgot the password to the AS1Sblahblah account, so I assume this is their new account...with a name to remind them to not lose the password. ;) As for the edits to the userpage, it looked like they were working on a template to use in mainspace articles, but didn't want to break the article. Syrthiss (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Who told the user he/she could institute {{Infobox Settlement}} as the default infobox for all political division (districts, peripheries, etc.)? El Greco(talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't mind him. He's just angry with me for trespassing into "his" WikiProject.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No, your failure to discuss your changes is amazing. El Greco(talk) 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm answering that on your talk page.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It's called taking it to the article or template talk pages. Not mine. Because prior to my objection you left no comment or explanation on anyone of you template/article edits about you mass deletion and change campaign. El Greco(talk) 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That looks like the beginning of WP:BRD, being bold. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, backlog cleared out. decltype (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check the history, because there's one new editor masquerading as a bot SoxBot XlV (talk · contribs) who keeps removing the report filed against him/her. (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: User blocked for 1 week by Decltype (talk · contribs)

. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has been making inappropriate pages and has been warned, but refuses to stop creating inappropriate pages. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a while but WP:AIV really does work faster. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
When it's not backlogged that is, as above :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Linas again[edit]

See previous ANI thread. Linas (talk · contribs) has decided to return from his block and is right where he left off: personal attack edit summary, choosing "to rain insults" on people, a frivolous ArbCom filing.... oh, and whatever attack will result from me informing him of this thread. Anyone uninvolved please do the needful. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 03:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, with Linas' foul mouth, he should be banned permanently. (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The above IP looks to be another in the recent harassment sock farm, except he didn't bother registering this time. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec'd) I'd like to attempt to get at least a civil discourse going here. Blocking isn't going to solve anything.
P.S. 7.238, are you an uninvolved user? Or just someone who logged out? Just wondering. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 04:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm an uninvolved user who became interested in this when I restored [27] Aboutmovies' correction to Trace monoid [28]. (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"Civil discourse". Well, where do you start, with a user who thinks it's perfectly OK to throw the F-word at everyone? Never mind that he threw down the gauntlet by calling his antagonist an "idiot". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs: You talk to them civilly and hope they return the favour. There's no need to face force with force. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I seriously think the guy is off his meds or something. He's been on here 4 years and (apparently) all of a sudden this string of vile invectives over a seemingly very minor incident? Something's not right. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the IP's "restoration" of the edit that started it all, that even Aboutmovies agrees was a mistake, seems like a bizarre way to start one's career on Wikipedia. I'd be curious to hear the IP's rationale for restoring what is clearly an (done in good faith by AM but) incorrect edit. Katr67 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep an eye on that IP. His approach is all too familiar. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear god in heaven don't mean...*sigh* Katr67 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am blocking Linas for a week for continued personal attacks (those cited by Wknight94 and the reaction to the ANI notification, ""go jump off a cliff", as also reflecting opinion in the previous ANI thread. Civil discourse, as suggested by Master of Puppets, does not seem to be on his agenda today. If there is reasonable reason to believe that the IP above is a registered editor, blocking it should also be considered; whoever has disputes with Linas should please discuss them while logged in.  Sandstein  05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really, really not sure I would have blocked. He hasn't even responded. Remember that blocks are preventative, not a method of punishment. We're all civilized adults; putting people in the corner chair is far behind us. I would have at least liked to have some discussion.
That being said, I don't intend to overturn or anything. I just don't think this is a fair case. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(Fixing a wrong diff in my above comment.) Such blocks are preventative in that they aim to prevent continued personal attacks. I have no problem with any admin unblocking the instant Linas promises to discuss his disagreements civilly.  Sandstein  05:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Note Wknight's edit at the beginning of this header; 3 out of those 4 diffs were all on Linas' user talk. Unless you blocked him with talk page-editing disabled (which I hope you didn't), we've prevented nothing, provided that he wasn't about to mysteriously go to Main Page talk and start swearing at everything that moves. In my eyes, the block's done nothing worthwhile. It's nothing personal, and I mean no offense; I just don't see the logic.
I'd like to take you up on that, though. If there's any discussion that bears fruit, I'll unblock immediately. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of cases of someone having had a really amazingly bad day and having had a snappy behavior change on Wikipedia as a result of it. We're human - it happens. That said, this was properly preventive given the circumstances. If he agrees to stop / gets over it then unblock sounds fine with everyone involved however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not known for supporting civility blocks, but this one seems solid. This is not a once-in-a-while-drops-a-cuss-word being met in a whack-a-mole manner: this was someone consistently making attacks like "fuck you" at other editors (and then accusing them of escalating the situation, I mean, WTH?) and calling another editor a vandal without good cause. It's the fact that he was doing it consistently (and not in a once-a-week type way; in a most-posts-addressing-others type way, and over the course of a few weeks, so it wasn't just getting mad for a few hours) that really helps to justify the block, at least in my mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe my memory is faulty... but wasn't his unban contriversial (sp)? --Rockstone (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Unban? Are you in the wrong section? Anyway, put me on the record as supporting an indefinite block which is to be lifted when - and only when - Linas agrees to stop the general hostility. If he'd like his original issue - Aboutmovies (talk · contribs), etc. - re-examined, he can request that here or wherever. But to proudly "rain insults" is unacceptable. Now and indefinitely. Wknight94 talk 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Because I've yet to figure out how to use WP:SPI properly:

KamenRiderDouble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of the abandoned account Batrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and the blocked spammer accounts Japanhero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Japanherobatrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The addition of the external link to a * website clinched it, as the Japanhero and Japanherobatrus accounts added links to the "Japanhero" website before I had blocked them in March [29] [30] (a person with the user name "Batrus" runs Japanhero). I'm requesting that this be nipped in the bud before it continues.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, obvious sock. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"For the good of Germany"[edit]

A new user keeps blanking several sections of GSG 9 "for the good of Germany". this is their justification, and their promise that they will continue. So far I've given them two vandalism warnings and an explanation that if the government of Germany is concerned, they can take it up with officials of Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that diff look like a legal threat to anyone? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope; this is certainly not ANI worthy. After a final warning, take it to AIV. Tan | 39 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Fairy Snuff (always did think that was a funny name for a fairy) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was a drug fairies used? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That could explain a good many things. FAIRY SNUFF:UR DOIN IT RONG! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A user who is being disruptive and vows to continue I think gets to skip the queue. We have evidence of disruption and the promise of more.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
User is also apparently interested in gay tourism in Tel Aviv and calling slaughtered Rwandans monkeys, as well as claiming to be part of the German special forces.--Tznkai (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Overall not an asset to the project then? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I would be curious what would happen if someone asked him a question in German. I am currently not blocking the account out of a totally selfish interest in avoiding an e-mail on the policy implications of discussing the organizational make up of a German special forces unit, but I suppose I will do it later if no one else will.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, so why are we sitting around humming and hawing over it? The guy is obviously here to disrupt, and has promised more...--Crossmr (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted his last run (at 3:09) and gave him a fourth level warning. If he does it again, feel free to block him. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And now I'm going to be reported to the head of Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (