Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive57

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Archival[edit]

With the new bot running on this page, is it still possible to archive manually? I ask because this page is currently 370 kb long, and becoming very slow to load. the wub "?!" 12:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so long as you update both navboxes if you create a new archive page instead of adding to the old one. It might be better to decrease the lagtime on archival instead; in the initial discussion, four or five days was suggested before settling on seven to start with. I agree that the page size is ridiculous, and unless someone objects, I'll decrease the lag to six days tomorrow and five on Saturday. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This page grows way faster than WP:AN (the amount of new things here to read if you miss a day is very high), and is also used for more transitory matters. I support the change. --cesarb 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Uzbek articles vandal[edit]

There's a guy who changes his IPs often and attacks Uzbek almost on daily basis. I have warned him in the past, but today he returned as 80.80.215.120 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), blanked Uzbek and List of Indo-European roots and vandalized my user page. Please help to deal with him effectively. --Ghirlandajo 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The IP mentioned by Ghirlandajo is continuing to vandalize the article Sogdiana. He is messing up the article with totally wrong information, replacing the words Iranian (meaning peoples of Aryan heritage and not citizens of Iran) and Tajik with Uzbek and Turkic. It is a well-known fact that the Sogdians were an Indo-European people from the Indo-Iranian subfamily. They had nothing to do with Turkic peoples or with Uzbeks who migrated to Central Asia more than 1000 years later! -213.39.141.128 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America[edit]

This was listed on AfD for the 8th time. I have closed the AfD, removed the AfD tag and locked the page. Consensus on this article is clear already: it should be kept. Are people going to keep adding this to AfD until people get sick of the whole situation and give in to those who want it deleted? I find this to be forcing an issue by attrition, and to be frank it wastes all our time. Therefore, I have taken action on the issue. I will also inform Jimbo of what I have done. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did any of the previous AfDs result in a decision that was not "no consensus"? android79 14:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware, no. All previous listings resulted in "no consensus". -- Francs2000 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Then what Ta bu says is untrue. Consensus is not clear. It might be a time-waster and generally futile, but AFAICT it's a nomination made in good faith. android79 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, good point. However, as Francs2000 says, we know what the result is going to be in advance. This article will never have clear consensus to delete, which is really what I'm trying to say. Continuouly submitting it to AfD is absurd, and I think that most people will probably just vote keep because they dislike people forcing the issue. I know that the last vote was done by myself, and was done by the book. It is very clear that it will never be deleted via AfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The difficulty being that we already know what the result is going to be before we list it so what's the point? -- Francs2000 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we probably do. It would be interesting to see what Lord Jimbo has to say about this. android79 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (8th nomination) - Just noticing the proportion of "Delete"s in this latest attempt before TBSDY's speedy keep close. - SoM 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to express support for Ta bu's action - it's less disruptive to discuss it here than it is to have yet another contentious AfD vote. Eight nominations for a single article seems like abuse of the process. At least give it 6 months or something. Guettarda 14:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of sanity it should not be AFD'd again, for me this is a case of WP:IAR. Martin 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Many editors (like myself) do want to see this deleted. If we can't nominate it of AfD, what are we supposed to do? It would be a different matter if the old AfDs had a keep consensus. But the fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on the issue. Why shoudln't we keep debating it until there is a consensus? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe wait at least six months like Guettarda suggested? :p Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought it got consensus to keep on the last attempt (number 7) --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I think the nomination is unfortunate, considering the histroy, it is within policy, and I do not see good reaso for granting this page exemption from normal proceduees. i think that unilaterally closing this page was a mistake, and it should be reopened. DES (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
There is NO WAY ON EARTH that eight nominations is "normal procedures." - David Gerard 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is when there's a huge sockpuppet presence almost every time, and when some of the nominations are closed early or with no consensus (default keep). —Locke Cole 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This here? Is why we treat no consensus as "keep." Phil Sandifer 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

David, Snowspinner, Ta Bu: I'm for keeping this article, (I've voted keep several times) but are you guys saying that this article can never again be nominated for AfD? Paul August 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not unless someone can present a reason why the consensus reached the first seven times will change this time. Phil Sandifer 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that's good then, because the last time this was debated fully (that'd be nomination #6) there was no consensus, ergo, the default keep was chosen. The 7th nomination was also closed prematurely (and incorrectly, IMHO). —Locke Cole 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And why should it be? The conclusion is foregone; nothing useful can come of it. It wastes everyone's time. — Dan | talk 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That claim is circular. As long as people are permitted to break the rules and stifle discussions, of course the conclusion is foregone in their favor. The issue is, they shouldn't be permitted to do that. --FOo 05:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Closing administrators have a fair degree of leeway in closing AfDs. The person "breaking" the rules could be said to be the person who relisted the GNAA article for the 8th time. Please review WP:POINT. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what WP:POINT has to do with this; how else will the article be deleted? Direct appeal to Jimbo? And besides, the 7th nomination was closed prematurely, and the 6th nomination resulted in no consensus. Maybe you should review WP:AGF. —Locke Cole 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ummm... you're using the concensus that because you have administrative status and abilites you have surperior influence desisions on the article's AFD policy and blocking decisions..? -_- -MegamanZero|Talk 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:207.200.24.241[edit]

This user has complained on the Help Desk Mailing list that his account has been blocked as a result of the Curps block of User:Johann Wolfgang. Could an admin go in and unblock 207.200.24.241? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

SIIEG[edit]

If anyone is still in doubt that Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG exists specifically to push an anti-Islamic POV, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG#Changing_the_first_point_on_our_mission.

and this edit. --Victim of signature fascism Join SIIEG and teach them NPOV 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User:199.20.16.20[edit]

A user has complained on the Help Desk mailing list that User:199.20.16.20, which I blocked, is a shared account. Could an admin unblock it, please? Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Unblocked. Antandrus (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

User BillRoller has been blocked by a bot (page moves)[edit]

User:BillRoller has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's vandalism. Fixing it now. Thanks, bot. - jredmond 21:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The articles all now appear to be self-referencing redirects... -- ChrisO 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like two of us were reverting pagemoves at the same time; I'm fixing the double-redirects now. Thanks for spotting that. - jredmond 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Diatrobica;l[edit]

I just issued a 30 minute block for Diatrobica;l (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). He was going to every user talk page he could find asking people to vote on an AFD that apparently matters a lot to him. (And his request ranted and raved about alleged censorship.) I found this behavior disruptive, and since I've seen other admins block for disruption, I felt it was justified to enforce a cooling off period.

Any comments? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I invite review of my comments at this user's talk page. I suspect that this 30 minute block will need to be extended, but it would probably help if a second admin looks into it and takes care of that. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My goodness; he sounds like a BigDaddy sockpuppet. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

UNFAIR BLOCK! UNBLOCK HIM RIGHT NOW!!!! YOUR WIKINAZISM IS NOT APPRECIATED HERE!!!!--Halopinacka 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does User Talk:Diatrobica;l wind up at User:Halopinacka? Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Ah. I see. He copied the Talk page over. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

BigDaddy? I was thinking more along the lines of CoolDude. — Dan | talk 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User Maricon has been blocked by a bot (page moves)[edit]

User:Maricon has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it "Pagemove Vandalism Day", or something?--Sean|Black 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism[edit]

Check these diffs - [1], [2] and [3]. He seems a little pissed off that WoW is stealing his thunder! the wub "?!" 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

195.82.106.x[edit]

This anon is performing multiple personal attacks on people involved in the Veganism article, including Skinwalker, User:Viriditas and others. After multiple warnings, I blocked this person for 24 hours. For awhile, they were using 195.82.106.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and recently used 195.82.106.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). It's either a static IP or one person using several computers. If they try using another IP, I plan on blocking it as well. Clearly, it's the same person. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation[edit]

I think this user: User:Kingofhearts is trying to impersonate me, User:King of Hearts. So far, he has made 1 edit on Megan Boice with the following text:

Megan Boice is a loser.

This text has been removed by IP User:207.5.124.166.

They are obviously trying to vandalize pages. --King of Hearts 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the account indefinitely. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

High times at Houston ISD[edit]

I've blocked 11 users, all created in a five minute interval by someone at the Houston Independent School District. This IP address is clearly a web proxy used by the school district, and is the same IP from which the recent page move vandalism by BillRoller (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) originated. The blocked accounts are:

  1. PolandForever (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  2. RussiaForever (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  3. FranceForever (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  4. EnglandForever (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  5. AustraliaForever (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  6. Anallusian (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  7. PigSqeal2000 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  8. DogHammer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
  9. Glowinggay (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um...(warning: links are not work friendly)[edit]

Ahem. Someone needs to deal with this. I would if it wasn't for the fact that I'm busy finishing my Writing paper. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All deleted, and the user has been blocked indef. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
(afeter ec)I've nuked his porn collection, but Kelly Martin beat me to the indef block (and the note here, grrr...). -Splashtalk 02:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone care to explain what was so bad that it merited an indefinite block? All the sophomoric nudge-nudge, wink-wink above doesn't really explain. --FOo 08:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Adding a presumably highly explicit pic to Jessica Jaymes at the least (see surviving contribs), presumably uploading a pile more - David Gerard 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted about 10-12 obviously-copyrighted no-way-we-can-claim-fair-use explicitly pornographic images that, as Linuxbeak warns, were extremely very ultra not work-safe. I could probably have included detailed medical descriptions of each image here to help evaluate the situation. There was one additional image that, by the time I got to it, had already been deleted; there may or may not have been more. The 'editor' was using Wikipedia as a repository for stolen porn, and uploading them with gibberish upload-summaries ranging from "mklm" to "gfhj" with the occasional "no copyright" claim interspersed. He had made a total of 2 actual edits, one of which was the addition of the infamous Image:Example.jpg to Jessica Jaymes, and the other as David Gerard describes. (If we need a basis in policy, then Jimbo has indicated that blocking for repeated copyvio is appropriate.) If he wishes to become an editor, I am sure Kelly Martin will unblock in a flash on receipt of an email indicating his comprehension of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -Splashtalk 12:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WIKI BALL OF WAX vandal[edit]

The same user has been posting absolute nonsense to multiple pages from an AOL IP this evening. The usernames/IPs that have been blocked so far today include:

One to watch out for -- Francs2000 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ball of wax vandal. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Pryveen[edit]

This user has been posting lengthy POV screeds which are apparently book excerpts. Articles are titled in all caps. The ones we've chased down so far are as follows:

THE CRUMBLING STEELFRAME OF INDIA
POLICING UNDER POLITICAL PATRONAGE IN INDIA
ROLE OF POLICE IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF INDIA
NEED TO LIBERATE LAW ENFORCERS FROM UNHOLY ALLIANCE IN INDIA
POLICE UNPROFESSIONAL IN INDIA

Apparently he has a beef with the police in India. A mild notification of what wikipedia is not was placed on his talk page, but the results have been unpromising. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You forgot the 1st, POLICE AS SOCIAL SURGEONS IN INDIA. According to the edit summary "MY OWN ARTICLE FROM MY BOOK "POLICING THE POLICE" PUBLISHED IN 2000 IN INDIA.". 68.39.174.238 14:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User Mustanglover has been blocked by a bot (page moves)[edit]

User:Mustanglover has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've gotten some. Need help with these. Wikibofh(talk) 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How in the world did United States get deleted? There's no log. Need help undeleting it. --cesarb 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This is embarassing - it needs fixing quick! violet/riga (t) 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm trying to restore the latest version and then we can get the rest, but it's not letting me (Error -Wikimedia Foundation) Wikibofh(talk) 22:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • We can't do a thing with it right now, not even add a message to say it's temporarily unavailable. violet/riga (t) 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We need a developer. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • It's up at United States of America but I have no idea where the page history went. Had multiple errors trying to undelete when I had the deleted page with history at United States. - BanyanTree 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
            • That's a version created by a cut-and-paste move some time ago. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
              • We clearly need a coordination policy so that two people don't try to repair the same page move at the same time. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Compromised webhosting IPs blocked[edit]

As a result of a request to investigate Mustanglover (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), I have blocked two different IP addresses both allocated to different webhosting facilities. Vandalism from addresses allocated to hosting facilities almost always indicates the use of compromised hosting servers to nefarious ends. As a result of this investigation, I have indefinitely blocked 72.22.69.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (also used by NataIina smpf (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Brithackemack (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), both currently indefinitely blocked) and 72.36.221.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added "Vandalism from addresses allocated to hosting facilities almost always indicates the use of compromised hosting servers to nefarious ends." to m:Help:CheckUser - David Gerard 12:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Note, btw, that this doesn't apply to all edits — the user may have a legitimate shell account on the machine. (I have a few of these, though I haven't edited from them.) - David Gerard 12:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the chances of that are pretty slim -- and the talk page message I'm using ({{CompromisedWebHost}}) advises the owner of the IP to contact us (at info-en) to discuss unblocking the account. Note that we shouldn't do this unless they actually fix the compromise! Kelly Martin (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Can't the "compromise" consist of nothing more than an "innocent" nph-proxy.cgi someone tought it was a neat idea to add to his legitimate account? --cesarb 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange email[edit]

I'm sorry if I've put this in wrong place, but I really didn't know where else it was supposed to go. I just got an email about this page, which I unblanked. It says:

Chanel

My name is Harry Palmer and I just won a 450,000.00 suit against the person who wrote the libelous, incorrect bio on Wikipedia.

see here http://www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html

Now this is the second time I've asked you to take it down. Please comply.

Harry Palmer CEO Star's Edge, Inc.

I don't know what he means by "this is the second time I've asked you to take it down." I've never had contact with him prior to today. I'm not sure what to do.--Shanel 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

He probably just used an "email this user" link. Ignore the trolls. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is Harry Palmer (Avatar) a scientologist who runs his own "self help" organization licensed under the CoS. I've got friends who've had run ins with him based on public posts online. You will note his bio page here on Wiki has no posts to the discussion page, so if he's complained about his bio, its not anywhere anyone would have seen it or anywhere someone would have been able to do something about it. Suggest someone emails him and gets a list of "exactly whats wrong" with his bio, so we can NPOV the article.  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 08:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, no, it's not licensed, quite the opposite - it's a breakaway from the CoS - see Free Zone and Category:Free Zone. The CoS hate their schisms with a passion - see Fair Game (Scientology).
It's someone who doesn't like his Wikipedia bio. Note that it's unreferenced - we really need verifiable sources on this sort of article. I'll have to see what I can find. I'll note it on WP:SCN as well. He may be a bit weird, but take it as you would anyone who doesn't like their unreferenced bio - David Gerard 11:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

His web page makes lots of (WP-irrelevant) minatory noises, backed up with links. But most or all of the links are to other pages on his own site. One (the only one?) that isn't is to this PDF file, for what it's worth. -- Hoary 09:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done a pile of work on the article and added the above discussion to its talk page. It's a bit better now and hopefully can be made better still - David Gerard 17:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And now he's blanked it again. I've blocked the IP for 24 hours and suggested he dispute what's disputable about the article on its talk page - David Gerard 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:204.39.64.2[edit]

User:Appleseed asked me to look into blocking this anon. I thought I'd pass this request on here. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophile accusations on Talk:Main Page[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked the user User:69.76.224.95 for asserting that Wikipedia is a bunch of pedophiles, as evidenced by [4]. I would welcome an immediate review of this block by someone more experienced but I felt that urgent action was required. The Land 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. I'll take care of this. Thanks, The Land. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, IPs are not to be indefinitely blocked unless they're open proxies. — Dan | talk 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hence raising it here. The Land 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hence my reply. You asked for review, and I provided it. — Dan | talk 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Good. I've reduced the block to one month. The Land 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Spurious obscenities[edit]

We're getting tons of complaints on the Help Desk mailing list about people seeing obscene images and language on articles which I don't see when I come to look at them, and can't see that there have been any recent edits to make the vandalism or to correct it. Sweden, Zoroastrianism, The Legend of Zelda:_Majora's Mask and Indian Navy are among the most recent. Has a template or something been changed and then fixedf? I don't know how to answer these people when I can't see the same thing they're seeing. Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Now International Court of Justice. Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Could this be a new kind of vandalism? Tell us we have vandalism when we don't, then we spend ages looking for it... I'm probably being too cynical, but I can't find any vandalism on these pages myself either. [[Sam Korn]] 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably not -- these came from a lot of different mail addresses, 23 messages in total with very different writing styles. Someone would have gone to a lot of work to pull that off. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the {{Ref}} template. See history, especially this diff Note: Unsafe for work image [5] Carbonite | Talk 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Considering how often that's used, it should be protected! Thanks for the sleuthing, Carbonite! Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
It was only protected from moves, so I fully protected it. This is too widely used to allow anyone to edit. Carbonite | Talk 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I protected {{Main}} as well. We should think about protecting others that are widespread (in respect to WP:BEANS, I'm not going to list them here), but there are others that have a lot of uses as well. Ral315 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've suggested permanently protecting a range of templates, see Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Template_protection. --bainer (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've protected {{Spoiler}} due to vivibility as well.--Sean|Black 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

80.217.152.161[edit]

I am seeking a block against 80.217.152.161 (talk • contribs), preferably longer than earlier ones (24 hours, then 48 hours, and most recently 3 hours), for refusing to cease (or at least discuss) his behavior. I am not comfortable creating such a block myself as I am involved in a dispute with this user. He has not responded to previous requests, nor to a subsequent (and still open) RfC. As the user is unwilling or unable to communicate with any other editors, I'm not sure what else to try, as nothing seems to be getting through to him. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Editor removing copyvio notice[edit]

I was looking over Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine) as a candidate for AfD, and realized that it was suspiciously well-written. I checked and found that the bulk of the article had been copied from [6], a Shi'a web page. I put up a copyvio tag. The creator, Striver, removed it. I replaced it and asked Striver not to remove the tag until the copyvio had been fixed. He indented the quotes inside the quote and removed the tag. He speaks English as a second language and doesn't seem to understand why cut-n-paste is NOT OK as a means of creating WP content. Perhaps the page needs to be protected? Zora 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Chooserr: Date format stuff[edit]

I blocked Chooserr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for violation of WP:3RR at Xenophon. He's contesting the block, so here we are. What do others think?--Sean|Black 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It wouldn't be fair for me to comment on an incident I know nothing about. I can say, having looked at Chooserr's recent edit history, that this editor appears to have been acting with contempt for at least the spirit of site policies. Durova 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think he violated 3RR, and the block is appropriate. I also think there is a nonzero chance that he and User:Pitchka are sockpuppets of each other, and slightly longer odds that User:Puca is another sock. I'd say Chooserr used up his three strikes about 8 strikes ago. If he wants to avoid being blocked, he should do what the rest of us do, and start honoring our policies. Nandesuka 02:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    I support the block too. He's being disruptive, reverting a lot, and using sock puppets. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to see evidence that he's using sock puppets. To my mind, he and User:Pitchka come across as rather different. I will admit that I'm wrong if it's determined that they edit from the same IP, but I'll be quite surprised. I think Chooserr has potential to be a good editor, but he doesn't yet understand that it's inappropriate to use Wikipedia for activism. He's not really gaming the rules any more than those pushing the BCE/CE format in this case, he's just not as good at it. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've encountered Pitchka and Chooserr on the issue of alleged pov pushing on their behalf in an afd and a cfd. I believe that they are not sockpuppets of each other. I believe that they are two different users. And if I'm not mistaken, they have contributed to wikipedia simultaneously. Afaik, this is only possible on two different computers, and it would require a large amount of energy to constantly switch from one screen to the other. Aecis praatpaal 09:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Massive disruption of album pages[edit]

A single editor, User:BGC, formerly User:PetSounds, is systematically removing virtually all recent contributions (6-8 weeks worth) by other editors to popular music articles he has an interest in. [7] At this point, well over 100 articles are involved, over the last 3 hours. He has been engaged in long-running edit disputes with several users, including myself, over noncompliance with a variety of policies and guidelines, particularly the Manual of Style, the Album Wikiproject guidelines, and NPOV. He is particularly incensed today over my proposal to delete a template he favors [8], and is clearly, I think, violating WP:POINT, if not engaging in outright vandalism.

A few examples: Monster_(album), removing contributions from 5 editors, including a clarification that one release of the album including a DVD-audio, not video, "bonus" disc.

Their_Satanic_Majesties_Request, removing contributions from 6 editors, including undisputed correction of factual errors and reintroduction of BGC's aesthetic opinions.

Calling_All_Stations unexplained removal of apparently indisputable dab and MOS revisions by 3 other editors.

Surf's_Up unexplained removal of dab and MOS revisions by other editors, and reinsertion of a lengthy, NPOV-violating, unverifiable text that seems to be little more than his personal essay on the album.

The typical edit removes all changes going back to October or November, whenever User:BGC last edited the article, without any regard for the nature of intervening edits.

User:BGC has attempted to justify his actions by saying that "I feel certain people have no respect for my contributions and have acted in extremely bad faith. I'm just returning the favor" and "An eye for an eye." [9] I'm not sure anything I can say would be more convincing evidence of abusive intent than those comments are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicasdude (talkcontribs) (who intended to sign it, since he included the link to the TfD he proposed . . . ) Monicasdude 04:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable. As he's stopped now I see no sense in blocking, but I've given him a warning that any repetition will get him a good long block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Persistent... idontknowhattocallit ...does't like QED very much[edit]

The same anon that's been going around vandalizing other theoretical phyisics related articles, has apparently settled on this page, and while I wouldn't call its edits outright vadalism, I would say that its past history makes me doubt its seriousness, seems more like it's picked an article where vandalism wouldn't be very likely to be noticed, and stuck with it

  • I'd like to get an outside opinion on this, which is why I'm posting it here--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 03:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't edit[edit]

I moved the article on the Suzuki SV650 and SV650S motorcycle from its old title of Suzuki SV650(S) to a better title of SV650. Then I realized that a more appropriate title would be Suzuki SV650 and so I moved the article again. I did the moving by hand because I was unaware of the wikipedia function for moving articles. In between the moves I was editing/creating a bunch of articles and fixing their redirects, but suddenly I can't save my edits any longer. It lets me edit and press the Save button, but then when the article reloads nothing has changed. Did I get banned or something for doing a burst of editing? CMJ 08:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll forward this to the admin notice board so they can fix your copy-paste moves and get some insight on your error. Blocked people are clearly warned of their block, not sneakily allowed not to have their edits shown. Did you get any error messages? - 82.172.14.108 11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's possible that you need to clear your browser cache. That happens to me sometimes on certain pages. Try hitting SHIFT+CTRL+R or CTRL-F5. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Evading a ban[edit]

User:Absent was banned indefinitely for hate speech, serious personal attacks against users, trolling Islamic articles, and inserting patent lies into many of the same articles. He is now back as User:Nosharia view contribs, answering to questions posed to his old username, and continuing old arguments from his old username. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 13:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Node ue[edit]

Node ue (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is vandalizing various pages. Someone must watch him.--62.66.243.96 13:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Node >> anon redshirt. You wouldn't have come here from the Moldovan Wikipedia discussion on wikipedia-l, perchance? Heaven forbid! (The above is this IP's only edit ever, anon or with a username.) - David Gerard 17:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_dialects&diff=31591845&oldid=31570335
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_language&diff=31591971&oldid=31590919
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raionul_Cimi%C5%9Flia&diff=31543916&oldid=30199603

Moldovan raion[edit]

Hi Mark. I have a question about this edit you made. In addition to the name of that raion, "Raionul Cimişlia", you added its name in the Moldovan language, you wrote "(Moldovan: R-ul. Cimişlia)". I belive it does not make any sense, as "R-ul. Cimişlia" is just an abbreviation of "Raionul Cimişlia", and not its name in some other language. If you are trying to make a point that Moldovan language is different than Romanian language, that kind of edits, if anything, work against you.
I don't plan to argue with you or with anybody else the issue of Moldovan language, but I belive your edit was not productive. I will keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while, so you can reply here if you would like to comment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Node_us is creating a lot of mistakes in the article and does not acknowledge them nor corrects them (he translated "traieste" as "works" instead of "lives", "Rochia mea este noua" as "I have a new dress" instead of "My dress is new", that aside whenever he is arround he is irritating everyone, never even tries to reach a consensus,for example an admin Jmabel left the Moldovan language page because Node_ue was starting again to edit (after the page has been blocked for the 4th time because of the edit/revert wars) without consulting other editors. Please indeed watch him. 212.0.211.204 14:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone watch Node ue (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log).--194.83.70.20 09:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Rajputs[edit]

Talk:Rajput is too much for a single admin to handle; I protected the article for two days, and tried to teach basic WP:5P to the editors, but I cannot be expected to babysit every Rajasthani jingoist with internet access. Being called a racist for pointing out that WP doesn't necessarily subscribe to the Hindu pov somehow did it for me. So I unprotected the article again, and am watching it for renewed edit-warring. I would be much obliged if a couple of you could also watch the article. dab () 14:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've added to my watchlist, and I'll do what I can. – ClockworkSoul 15:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've given Shivraj Singh repeated warnings about edit warring and civility, up to the point that he's had several 3RR blocks and even a week-long block but hasn't changed a bit. (Incidentally, after the last block I got an email calling me and Zora racists and vandals, which almost convinced me to unblock, really.) I'd give him (and some of the others that have been calling him a vandal, too) a short leash, this whole thing's been going on for a while. Dmcdevit·t 19:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

User Peter Griffin has been blocked by a bot (page moves)[edit]

User:Peter Griffin has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

66.235.221.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and 82.165.244.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) have been blocked indefinitely as compromised web hosts. In addition, La casa de carton (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been blocked indefinitely (created from one of these two addresses). The other four accounts created from these addresses, Peter Griffin (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Raul 654 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), TML 1988 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and Aidepolcycne (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), were already blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
All the moves fixed, except for Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia talk:Introduction—I get error messages when trying to delete the former to make way for the move, and the edit history has disappeared from the latter. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Got it, all clear.--Sean|Black 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh, nope. Wikipedia:Introduction's history is still in the wrong place. -Splashtalk 01:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
You guys really need to work on a protocol to avoid stepping on one another's toes fixing page move vandalisms. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe it would be better if the server code were to be fixed so the only effect of stepping on one another's toes would be a harmless edit conflict. However, as a coder, I know how hard can fixing that sort of bug be. --cesarb 01:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops. I really don't know how to fix this, but it looks someone got it.--Sean|Black 01:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
What? The history is still elsewhere, and still hasnt been moved back. Brian0918 appears to be doing something, but nothing appears to actually have happened. Are there too many edits to just mvoe it back or something?-Splashtalk 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the introduction talk page, but I can't find where the history of the actual introduction page went. This is why page move vandalism sucks.--Sean|Black 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I found it. Just follow the history trail from Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (vandalised) to (censored) to Wikipedia:Introduction/real one to Wikipedia:Introduction (history). I will not be the one to do this page history merge. You can all thank Cool Cat (talk · contribs) for his attempt to help fix the page moves (just look at the page histories). --cesarb 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The history can be found at Wikipedia:Introduction (history), similarly for the talk page. Attempts to move it back weren't successful (database glitch?), better to leave it alone until some developer can do it. -- Curps 02:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the talk page, but get database errors with the main Introduction page, so I'll just sit back and let someone else handle it. Incidently, isn't Wikipedia:introduction supposed to be protected from moves?--Sean|Black 02:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It's protected now. --Carnildo 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation of an admin[edit]

New user User:Mistress Selina Kyle, as well as some highly contraversial edits and extremely dodgy edit summarieas, is impersonating an admin on their user page, and I'm not quite sure how to deal with this. An actual admin might be useful, as they're also deleting some comments off their user talk page. --Kiand 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Its now been removed by someone else, but I'd still be wary of this user. --Kiand 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It's possible they copied the userbox code verbatim from an admins page and didn't realize they'd tagged themself as an admin (or if they did, didn't realize how to remove it). I would WP:AGF for the moment. —Locke Cole 12:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Based on the users other edits (including going to page with a contraversial title, changing its contents to the non-concensus title, and removing not one, but two commented notes to editors about it), I think AGF can be completely ignored here. --Kiand 15:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism by User 82.27.25.214[edit]

A spate of AfDs have come up concerning fanfiction Star Wars articles by 82.27.25.214. I have left him a message concerning his contributions and the possibility of his being banned, but upon taking an extensive look at his edits--almost all of which consist of unverified, non-canonical and clearly self-invented data--I felt that "possibility" should be changed to "certainty". I hope this is the place to get that done. ^_^;; Marblespire 07:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any such articles since 3rd December, and in any case would assume good faith. If he keeps knowingly creating nonsense articles then yes, there is the potential to block him for vandalism, but we would warn him several times first. The Land 10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


The place to report vandalism is WP:VIP. Not here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

New user uploading possible copyvio images[edit]

We have a user, Shez 15, who's been active for only four days (though I suspect him of being an anonIP making the same sort of edits earlier). He is uploading high-quality pictures of currently hot Indian actresses, claiming that the copyright holders have released them into the public domain. I think he's just pulling them off websites and making that claim. He uploaded one photo, of Bipasha Basu, Bips.jpg, that clearly says mahiram.com on the bottom -- that website says on the bottom, copyright, all rights reserved. I called him on it and he said that he'd made a "mistake" and kept on uploading pictures. I'm spending hours trying to check out his edits.

Could you block him for a while and SLOW HIM DOWN? Zora 09:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped, so I'm not going to block him. I've listed the rest of his images on WP:PUI, though. —Cryptic (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've put a message on their talk page, asking them not to upload any more images until the problems with the previous uploads are sorted out. --ajn (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look, to me, like a lack of knowledge as to the true copyright status. If you'll look here [10] you'll see that he untruthfully claimed this image as his own personal fan photo - when in fact I was able to find a source for the image that indicates otherwise. --Krich 11:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take note of vandalism 18/12/05[edit]

Travb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) insult to Filipinos "having thought themselves free" 09:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC). Please see articles's history and discussion Treaty of Paris (1898).61.69.171.168

This is NOT vandilism, I edited the sentence, and then he edited it back, and I gave up on the silly edit war, and let him have the sentence intact, anon needs to read the definition of vandilism better, because my edits are clearly NOT vandalism.
Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress: When NOT to use this page: Edit wars - content disputes must go through the appropriate dispute resolution process"
Anon needs to learn to read pages in full before making foolish, baseless accusations. Travb 10:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Flatheman and possible admin abuse[edit]

User:Flatheman has been blocked for adding his name to the list of notable chess-players (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flatheman) by User:Ludraman. 17:13, 15 December 2005 Ludraman blocked "User:Flatheman" with an expiry time of 1 week (Vandalism / addition of misleading info at List of notable chess players). User:Ludraman appears to be mostly inactive, apart from this block. It is not appropriate to block a user when no attempt has been made to explain Wikipedia policy to him/her. There's not so much as a comment left on the talk page. As such, I would like to report User:Ludraman for abuse of admin powers---what should now be done? --83.147.171.12 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • One week is a bit over the top, yes. But I don't see why we should act against an admin for a single misstep. Ungen unblocked the user and gave them a warning. Shouldn't we give Ludraman the same courtesy? - Mgm|(talk) 17:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What, block Ludraman for a week accusing him of vandalism, then unblcok him and give him a warning? Zocky 03:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for sock check[edit]

At this RfC there has been a claim that 62.162.226.197, 62.162.226.48, Macedon5, and possibly others are sockpuppets of Bitola. Since the question of whether these are multiple people or a single individual bears on some of the items disputed in the RfC, and there has been a request for verification of whether sock-puppets are involved, a sock-check would be helpful. --CBD 14:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[I don't know how to request a sock check, but I feel one is necessary as claims have been made concerning the following, which, as they originate from the same IP, may well be related to the above:
62.162.217.175
62.162.208.57
62.162.208.14
62.162.216.167
62.162.221.190
62.162.217.127
62.162.218.211
62.162.224.43
62.162.224.51
62.162.224.77
62.220.220.123
samvak

--82.195.137.125 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]

  • Correct me If I'm wrong, but isn't a "sockcheck" really just a fancy word for see if two people have the same ip, and if so, how could you do a "sockcheck" of two different IPs? wouldn't that be a paradox?--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedon5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a sockpuppet of Bitola (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and has been used inappropriately, see [11]. The various ips do not match exactly but are mostly from 62.162. Fred Bauder 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[All IPs resolve to mt.net.mk "Makedonski Telekomunikacii" --82.195.137.125 19:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]
Which sounds like the state telecom, meaning that those IP's could be used by any of 2 million people. Zocky 13:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[Actually that is more like 392,671 people divided by 9 ISPs, considerably less than 2 million, all, apparently, resolving to Skopje, which subdivides it somewhat further, daunting nonetheless even if you factor in that the user must write English fluently! However the syntax, subject matter and use of language strongly suggest sockpuppetry, in the instances cited by myself and by CBDunkerson, as does some of the content. It is to be hoped that somewhere server logs exist that will establish this clearly, particularly if the "puppeteer" has slipped up from time to time and switched from login to IP too quickly.--82.195.137.125 16:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)]
I haven't checked the user's contributions, but I would like to caution people from jumping to conclusion. I would presume that the state telecom is a major ISP in Macedonia and I also wouldn't be surprised if all dial-up IPs in Macedonia resolve to Skopje, bringing the possible number of people using those IPs back into millions.
Another thing that should be noted is that common education and linguistic background tend to give a similar feel to all the English written by people from a particular country. Zocky 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I’m so sorry that I have been constantly accused of using sock puppetry (among other things). First I was accused by User:Freestylefrappe that User:Glenn Willen is one of my sock puppets and in the last time I’m repeatedly receiving accusations from User: CBDunkerson, User:Freestylefrappe and User:Bunchofgrapes about User:Macedon5 being my sockpuppet. As I said once before, that is simply NOT true. Nonetheless, during my block I anonymously did some corrections in the Kumanovo article, but that is not a proof of sock puppetry. How could you make assumptions based only on the fact that some user had been using the same IP address as me? I discussed the Kumanovo dispute to some of my colleagues and friends here and it is very likely that somebody used the same IP address as me in order to join the discussion. Moreover, I don’t intend to continue with future explanations about my alleged sock puppetry.--Bitola 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[ Zocky "Makedonski Telekomunikacii" along with some of the other ISPs have nodes in at least 7 cities, including Skopje, for several years. There were only a total of 392,671 internet users in the whole country a year ago http://www.internetworldstats.com/blog.htm
"Another thing that should be noted is that common education and linguistic background tend to give a similar feel to all the English written by people from a particular country." Which, in a case where user samvak, an Israeli, apparently also educated in Canada and the US, is involved, makes it something of a dead give away. (62.162.226.197 can be clearly seen dropping links to the work of samvak here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decriminalization&diff=prev&oldid=13392426 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_movement_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=8045931 all of my list of suspect IPs post exclusively in connection with and support of samvak, in exactly the same style, with remarkably similar expressions and aspects of content ) --82.195.137.125 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)]

Administrator abuse of power and privileges[edit]

Admin Mikka blocked me for "personal attacks and spreading false and defamating information (about usage of "sperm")".
Now, I will explain you exactly what happened. Me, User:Anittas and User:Dpotop were labelled as "koncenii" (russian vulgar word for "sperm") by the User:Node ue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect)+(in 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Node addresses to Dpotop)+(Tu eshti koncenii. Graieshti moldoveneshte, Anittas? --Node 07:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)).
Even the person User:Node ue recognize it that is a curse/insulte/vulgar term:
If you were referring to me saying "koncenii", please know that it was to prove a point and as a joke, not a serious insult. Besides, is it really a personal attack if the target doesn't know what it means? -- Node 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
So, he recognize it as a foreign word to me (russian word) and its meaning is vulgar, obscene.
Now, for determing that it is really or he meant to be a real curse we have to take into account the correct russian writting of the word: (konchenii) so, it won't be found in
Mikkalai said that in russian: "konchit" means "to ejaculate", konchenii" could mean "a man who just finished sexual intercourse"
Konchit, Koncheni, Konceni (variations of the word)
Fuck, Fuckk, Fucck (variations of the word) - Until now they tried to minimalize to say something like: it is not exactly like that, an "i" is missing, or an "t", or other letters ".."

but the main issue remains: that user had used this label "koncenii" as an insult.

Even Admin Mikka admits this in a very bias way, he actually put "fan on flames":
Bonaparte, tu eshti koncenii!!! --user:Node ue
That's a tough one for Bonaparte: if he recognizes this as an insult, then he will admit that Moldovan is not identical to Romanian, if he will not, then he does not know Moldavian. :-) user:mikkalai (t) 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed :) that was the intention... to force his hand, by using a Moldovan word that you don't hear in Romanian. --user:Node ue


This word is all over the russian pages on Internet (from where User:Node ue had taken from so is false to say is not a vulgar term.
Look what other person which is exactly from Moldova says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect):
It is a slang, basically in russian it means "washed-up", but it is also considered to be quite vulgar (at least here), becase "кончать" would mean in a vulgar sense (you won't find that in a dictionary) to ejaculate, guess what "конченый" (in the same vulgar sense) might be, based on that. Just a tag
The conclusions: It was meant to be an insult and was used as an insult.
Now after all this is my question: why am I blocked, since that word which is clear now that was meant to insult me, and who was used against me and other users, and it is not blocked the person who use it aka User:Node ue?
Isn't this an abuse? Isn't this not fair? How come that the user that was cursed and labelled is blocked? And not the person who permits to label like that?
I hope that some Admins will see this and will take the proper measures. So I am waiting for actions and I hope that you've seen how bias and illegal measure can take an Admin.

-- Bonaparte talk 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

If anything, Bonaparte should look in the mirror. He's always been a troll agitating people around and making personal attacks. See some "constructive" contributions of Bonaparte on the very charged Talk:Moldovan language:

Please go through the trouble of reading those diffs, as I am accused below of taking things out of context. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Comment[edit]

I did not say that. Only this [12] and this: Are all these real? all-powerful entity made of pure energy , If you know him, you will be blessed and your dreams will come true , THE GREAT MARK HAS NO WEAKNESSES, All-powerfulness , All powerful, handsome!!!??????

What are you Mark? some kind of God or what?
 Bonaparte  talk & contribs

I just asked the guy that's all. He said so and I asked him if it is true.

And I said you are a looser with this approach, so Oleg I'm sorry but if you take out only some parts of the text is not good. Anyone is welcomed to see the whole text. Only a part is not enough.

That was obviously one statement of Node without any reference and those who don't know about the subject is like for comparison to state that the Earth is flat.

-- Bonaparte talk 20:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Each and every one of those is a blatant personal attack. The topic of that talkpage is "Moldovan language", not "Things Node posted to his livejournal a few years ago", nor is it "Calling Node dumb and a loser". You keep trying to say that your attacks are warranted by my behaviour. But that's not true, nor can it ever be -- no matter how serious my offences may have been, you have never had and still do not have licence to harass or attack me or others. If you have a problem with a user, you should use the appropriate administrative channels -- WP:RfC would've been nice if I really did all of those horrible things you claim. But instead of staying reserved and polite and taking any problems through appropriate resolution processës, you have continued to harass and blatantly personally attack me. Oleg gave some good examples of that above. It's totally unacceptable to say people are "losers", "dumb", or "stupid", and spelling them incorrectly doesn't make it any more acceptable. Comments such as "does your ass still hurt" and "some kind of God or what?" are completely inappropriate and the first one could easily be considered sexual hárassment. --Node 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
So much to tell about your behaviour...For you calling others as "sperm" is OK I guess...So what about you Node? You actually did this and you cann't deny this, isn't it so? And what about your trolling edits? and revert war? You've been blocked for this. However here I posted this against the abuse of power of an Admin. So I let other Admins to see how "out of line" reacted Mikka. Instead of blocking me, you Node should have been blocked, because you labelled me and other two users as "sperm". -- Bonaparte talk 08:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
My behaviour? Why are you trying to make this about me? I'll answer concisely because I do feel the focus ehre should be you. 1) No, I never called anybody "sperm". Mikkalai and Ghirandajo have both backed up the fact that "koncenii" does not mean sperm, as well as any Russian or Moldovan dictionary you check. 2) "Trolling edits"? Please see internet troll... after some of the cruft you've offloaded onto Talk:Moldovan language, I'm surprised you even have the nerve to accuse me of trolling. Actually, not really surprised. 3) Revert wars take more than one person. You have also violated 3RR on that page, and you have been banned/blocked far more times than I. 4) You have claimed in the past that Mikkalai has blocked you "illegally". But he never has -- each time he blocked you, it was completely in accordance with policy. 5) Nobody in their right mind who knows Russian or Moldovan would've blocked me for calling people "koncenii". Unfortunately for your claims against me, Mikkalai knows Russian. Now, stop trying to reflect all of your bad behaviour back to me. You have not explained your hárassment and personal attacks... --Node 12:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So much to tell about your behaviour...That's why you annoy everybody...Reader please see the way he annoyed almost all...except me, I have enough pacience to deal with him. He doesn't have any strong argument and that's why he adopts that approach. For more info readers should see his trolling approach on Moldovan language. The majority of users there agree with the fact that he is just annoying everybody there with his trolling. He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "koncenii," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. User:Node ue does not play well with others. But again, this post here is about the behaviour of the Admin Mikka. He didn't react in a good approach. Actually he made exactly the opposite. Mikkalai as admin has been involved in the article or the dispute supporting bias edits.
Your accusations are completely empty. Oleg Alexandrov provided diffs for your violation of WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Harassment, and a few others. You have provided no diffs or evidence for any of your accusations. Really, what do you hope to accomplish here? Can't you just reform yourself and stop being so mean? All anybody wants, with the exception of you, seems to be a compromise resolution at Moldovan language. You, on the other hand, have stated before that you're not going to stop your nastiness until the page states categorically "Moldovan and Romanian are the same language"... --Node 04:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Proof: To proove that so-called Moldovan language is identical with Romanian I gave an example of the two costitutions. With this example we have the proof that they are identical. After all a constitution is written in the official language isn't it? But he constantly deleted my example. Why? Because in this way we proove that they are wrong! How many times they reverted my examples? at least 20 times! Do you find a good approach like his "so called neutral approach " or "third party"? -- Bonaparte talk 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tell me you two, what are you hoping to achieve by having this discussion? Izehar (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just want some Admins to see the behaviour of Admin Mikka. Because I was blocked by him on reasons, as I described very well above, that are politically motivated. Since I was labelled as "sperm" by a user and that user was never blocked by him. Instead Mikka continued to block me. Bonaparte talk 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • And what do you think they are going to do? I really think you're wasting your time here. Time which could be used in more productive ways - like writing articles or reverting vandalism for example. Izehar (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Read here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Anittas#Suggestion) He said he will ban all if we say: you are mistake....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Anittas#Dpotop Dpotop explain very good what happend there. -- Bonaparte talk 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW (and with no opinion on why Bonaparte may have been blocked), Node appears to have written this to (clumsily) illustrate his claim that differences between the speech of Moldova and Romania are larger than most of the Romanians acknowledge. I don't particularly like the way he did it, but considering some of what has been flung around on the talk pages in question, it doesn't stand out, and at least has the justification of relevance to the topic, which a lot of the insults on the page have not.

On the other side: an insult is an insult whether its target understands it or not. When an anonymous editor called me "curve batrane ignorante" on Talk:Romanian_language, it would have been just as inappropriate if I didn't have enough Romanian to understand. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Peter McConaughey and the Cabal[edit]

Peter McConaughey (talk · contribs) seems to be rather obessessed with idea that Wikipedia is run by a Cabal [13] [14]