Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 More Iraqi dinar vandal accounts 2 Censoring opinions with WP:ATTACK 3 User:Seljuk Soldier 4 Block review 4.1 Cindery's response 5 Chip-india Redirects 6 Unwarranted mass removal of sourced material 7 personal attack and abuse of personal userpage 7.1 off-topic 7.2 off-topic 2: fair use image issue 8 Musavat 9 User Mel Etitis 10 User:Lysdexia 11 Very strange user-pair w/puppets 12 Sinosphere 13 User:MaindrianPace 14 vandalism in Christianity article 15 New MyWikiBiz sock 16 Backdash/Jacob Peters 17 User:ApocalypticDestroyer's requests a review and a lifting of the permanent block. 18 Frankfurt (Oder) 19 Indefinitely blocked user Himalayanashoka and his sockpuppets 20 User uploading many images with no use on Wikipedia 21 Placing of inappropriate maintenance tags 22 BJBot needs to be blocked temporarily 23 Review needed 24 User:Barbaric edits to Balkan topics 25 User:Soul-mine 25.1 User:ryanpostlethwaite 26 OrphanBot (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is malfunctioning 27 Persistent article/talk page IP vandal 28 User:Arthur Ellis 28.1 Known Ellis IP 28.2 Community ban? 29 Username blocks, punitive? 30 Sixty Six (talk • contribs) 31 Sockpuppet of banned User:Rumpelstiltskin223 vandalizing pages 32 Problems with user re-adding unlicensed/possible copyvio images 33 User:141.152.249.214 34 Block review requested 35 Checkuser request 36 User:Will Beback 37 Repeated personal attack by User:Nationalist 38 Recommend temporary block for 65.170.106.193 39 User: Searcher007 repeatedly removing "no fair use rationale" tags. 40 tried to discuss apparent personal attacks, editor dismissive 40.1 Go read AGF! It's all just Coelacan. 41 Being harassed by anons 42 Legal threat by CyberAnth (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 43 Gilbert Wesley Purdy spam + outing editors 44 Flashing message? 45 Personal info of a young editor, need oversigh#t? 46 Admin attention required

[edit] More Iraqi dinar vandal accounts

Could someone please rollback everything done by Mercy Drops (talk • contribs), Efnasharana (talk • contribs), Downez shinez (talk • contribs), and Shadow gost (talk • contribs), then block these accounts as Iraqi dinar vandal socks?

Can't someone PLEASE find out which IP is registering all these accounts, and show down anything coming from that IP? Zora 05:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dang, I can't figure out why Shadow gost isn't showing up properly ... Zora 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed template for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked two of them, but couldn't find Mercy Drops and Downez shinez. Misspelled names? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You could request an IP check via checkuser. I don't think there's any way other than that. Grandmasterka 07:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism. Downz shinez (talk • contribs), Efnasharana (talk • contribs), Past dayz back (talk • contribs). I'm sick of this. Zora 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I asked to have a checkuser done, and jpgordon found dozens of socks Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iraqi_dinar_vandal. They all come from one IP block owned by Batelco, the government-owned Bahraini ISP. I have emailed Batelco and asked them to stop their abusive user and haven't even received a reply. So -- can we block Batelco? Can we block the creation of new accounts and stop anonIP editing from those blocks? Can someone with more clout than I have contact Batelco and tell them that access to WP will be blocked unless they police their users? We've blocked whole schools for continuing abuse. Zora 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censoring opinions with WP:ATTACK

[edit] User:Seljuk Soldier

I have just placed another warning on User:Seljuk Soldier's talk page. This user appears to be a single-purpose account creating and editing articles that are some variation or another of ISOC (Islamic Society).[1] He has already been blocked once for recreating deleted articles (and one is currently up for speedy deletion as a recreation by this editor: University of Liverpool Islamic Society). The incident that lead me here is that ISOC (Islamic Society) is currently undergoing an AfD, and this user has once again removed the {{afd}} template from the article; I put the {{Uw-afd4}} on his talk page. Agent 86 07:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted LivISOC and University of Liverpool Islamic Society, as re-creations of the latter after it was deleted in AFD (LivISOC was recreated four times). They were exactly identical to the original deleted version. --Coredesat 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

[edit] Chip-india Redirects

User:Wikiga and User:59.92.136.29 are redirecting the above article to Digit (magazine). I can't find any proof of either magazine taking over the other. The above captioned editors have not provided any proof concerning the need for a redirect. Another revision by me puts me into Three Revert Rule territory. Please advise? --Silverhand^Talk 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU maybe? Googling, I can't find any support for the "claim". Presumably, the IPs and the user are the same ... perhaps checkuser could determine if a 3RR block is in order? --BigDT 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Uncle G has placed a sprotect on it, but I don't think that will stop Wikiga. I left a message on Uncle G's Talk Page concerning the situation. I may invite him over here once he replies for his opinion. --Silverhand^Talk 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiga has continued redirecting unrelated magazines to Digit (magazine) and is currently blocked (for 24 hours at first; maybe there is some reason here that he just doesn't tell us?). Kusma (討論) 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted mass removal of sourced material

Can please some one look at Islamic ethics article, which was completely sourced using Encyclopedia of Islam, "Encyclopdia of ethics" by Taylor and Francis, and Mizan. Diffs are [12],[13],[14],[15]. Removal of these materials from prestigious sources was done on the basis that it is propaganda [16] and is uncomprehensible by one of our wikipedians [17].

My position is that the article already had the POV tag on it, for which the other party had the time to find the contrary information and add to the article, rather than mass-removing sourced material, which Qur'an strongly purports. And secondly, wikipedians are not expected to be scholars. Hence, if we don't understand the article, this shouldn't be a reason for mass removal of material from prestigious scholarly sources. TruthSpreader^reply 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the section on Good and bad qualities is well written and sourced. So, it makes no sense to remove it. The other section is sourced but is in bad english and needs some clean up but is sourced to one of the most prestigous scholarly sources. It needs a clean up (a clean up tag at the moment) but its removal doesn't make any sense. --Aminz 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attack and abuse of personal userpage

User:Abu ali has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent, when the issue was mentioned to him, his response was to add my user name to be pointed out together with the rest of the intentional attack on zionism.

after given fair warning and increasing on his offense (such as reintroducing my username after a wikipedia admin - Ryanpostlethwaite removed it [18]) he was recieved an issue of a final warning [19].

his response was to reply with false naivity.. that he did not see offense in the "zionism = moshe katzav" issue (he actually enhanced the issue by adding two more categorical misrepresentations), while he ignored his blatantly offensive reaction (i.e. putting me out on display). i honestly feel the best summary for the innapropriate activity of this user lies behind the warning in with these words:

"this finger pointing [at me] is unacceptable, i suggest you let go of your anti-zionist bash tactics or that you merely move them to a website which allows such activity. Jaakobou 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

in conclusion, i request this user be banned due to his counterproductive and even destructive use of wikipedia. Jaakobou 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-- complaint moved from Administrator intervention against vandalism due to request by Woohookitty Jaakobou 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• The user linked someone's assumed political convictions to their edits on Wikipedia. I told them not to judge edits based on the editors religious or political beliefs. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that it would be wise to remind Jaakobou to assume good faith and its incompatability with using phrases like "has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent", "anti-zionist bash tactics" and "his response was to reply with false naivity". His compaint above is factually incorrect. He has accused me of vandalism for editing my own user page. He has accused me of making personal attacks from my user page, but declined to provide the text of these attacks (the simple reason being that no personal attacks were made by me). He has mischaracterised my reply to his "warnings" without providing a link to the text reply here and accused me of making two (unspecified) misrepresentations. If you examine his contributions you will find a mixture of personal attacks on other editors and aggrassive POV pushing (e.g. [20]). Of course Jaakobou is intitled to his opinions. And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. But other users are also intitled to observe his actions and through them to learn about the ideology that he supports. Abu ali 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

there's no need for you to remind me of "good faith" after you decided to paste my username on your page for display even after it was removed by admin Ryanpostlethwaite - [21]. your current response here follows with that same false naivity you deny (your added reply see: reply herehas no mention of abusing my username does it?).

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

(1) And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. (see boldened text above) - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.

(2) User Jaakobou proudly supports zionism and does not feel that being labled a zionist is a personal attack. I personally do not share his belief. But I do believe that one can learn much by examining his actions on Wikipedia. [22] - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.

I repeat on my original request on this user so long as he insists on using wikipedia in a counter-productive manner. Jaakobou 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone ask this guy to calm down. ThanksAbu ali 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that singling out Jaakobou and posting his name in the Zionism links on Abu Ali's user page was inappropriate, and I am glad to see that Abu Ali has removed it from there. But it's not such a big deal, surely? After all, it's not as though Jaakobou considers the term to be defamatory. I don't see any inappropriate content on Abu Ali's talk page; and after all, on his own talk page, Jaakobou refers to " crack head arabs" and suggests that other editors are lying. Isn't this also a personal attack -- and racist, in addition?

There is no possible excuse for banning Abu Ali, even the original "offence", which I do not think warranted any sanction, has been remedied by him. I suggest that Jaakobou drops the whole storm in a teacup, and gets on with editing. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Roland. Personally, I don't like political material on userpages, but many people do this, and I don't know that there's a clear rule, is there? If there's not a clear rule, I think we need to be very careful about singling people out. As far as insulting people, I recently had a situation where two other users were dealing with a much more serious political accusation, and along with some admins, we talked it through and got the material removed. I think Jaakobou had a right to be annoyed, or even offended, but even alleged incivility can be dealt with civilly, and in this case I think that was accomplished with the removal of the material. I hope that resolves the issue. Best, Mackan79 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this? -> (1) help me RolandR, (2) help me Mackan79 <- (1) RolandR, please don't change the subtext of conversations i've had in an aggressive atttempt to present me as racist - consider this a pre-warning. (2) Abu ali has made it clear that he percieves zionism as a derogatory affiliation ^{(see quote (2) above)} and to add to a personal opinion (which he's allowed to have) he used wikipedia in a counter-productive manner to say the least. (3) considering this new multiple account activity i think Abu ali should simply use wikipedia in a productive way and entertain his perception on zionism on the regular hate-websites rather than a serious enterprize... i suggest users RolandR and Mackan79 consider doing the same (i.e. use wikipedia in a productive manner). Jaakobou 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And presumably trying to get other users banned is an example of using "wikipedia in a productive manner"? I did hope that a word from other editors would convince you to calm down, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. Anyway this page is not the place if you insist on lashing out at me or other users. I suggest that if you want to persue this, look at the resolving disputes page. Abu ali 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) perhaps you should not treat warnings with provocation? (2) you can still change your mind and cease counter productive use of wikipedia... if you do this, i will not pursue further activity. (3) "lashes... or other users" (see above boldened text) is what i consider yet another personal attack which is besided the issue of your own activity which is being reported after more than fair warning. Jaakobou 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] off-topic

There is no such thing as a pre-warning. If you want to complain about me, go ahead -- I'd like to see you explain how your dismissive reference to "a couple of crack head arabs" was anything but racist. And, before you accuse others of being aggressive, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. RolandR 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

reply:

• you've made a fair point about my use of terminology (albeit there was no racial intention) and i have changed it^[23], apologies to anyone who considered it as a racial slur.
• i request for you to show that same anti-defamation POV in regards to the misuse made on zionism by your friend Abu ali.

Jaakobou 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] off-topic 2: fair use image issue

• • By the way, Abu, when I was looking at your userpage, I saw that you are using a fair Use image on it. Would you remove that please? Jeffpw 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• no problem Abu ali 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprised that anyone sees a copyright issue here. Naji al-Ali created Handala as a symbol of the Palestinian people, the image has been very widely copied by other artists and cartoonists, in graffiti, on t-shirts and elsewhere. It is universal in Palestine. Preventing use of the image in Wikipedia is almost equivalent to censoring a conscious Palestinian presence. Surely, if there is any doubt, it is possible to contact his family and establish the status of this image. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No one stops you from doing just that (be sure to get a release that is acceptable to Wikipedia, not just an informal mail or even worse a telephone call). Until then, it is a fair use image, and we have to follow the image policies. Note that e.g. the famous Che Guevara photo Image:Famousphotoche.jpg is also a fair use photo. Fram 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But there is a difference between a cartoon character and a photo. Even if the particular version of the image used by Abu Ali is fair use, there is nothing, as far as I know, to prevent him from himself drawing and using Handala. I don't think that the idea itself is copyright. RolandR 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not allowed to do that either. Making your own version of copyrighted cartoon characters is still a copyright violation (otherwise you could make your own Dilbert cartoons and no one could stop you!). Fram 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but is Handala copyright? I don't think so, which is why the image appears so frequently on t-shirts and other commercial items. RolandR 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be free of copyright, but unless we know for sure, we have to act as if it is copyrighted. I see Calvin and Hobbes on illegal T-shirts all the time as well, but they are definitely copyrighted. We have to err on the side of caution here. 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It will be copyrighted. Copyright is automatic. The question is whether the copyright is owned by someone (the default situtation) or whether the work has been put into the public domain. There is a good explaination at Commons Regards, Ben Aveling 10:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musavat

Dear Administrators, for few days now users Azerbaijani, Mardavich and Nareklm have been inserting a neurality tag onto the Musavat page, to which I made major contributions with relevant references from Western and non-Western sources. All three users are involved in persistent edit warring of every article on Wikipedia, that I edit. I added a discussion thread to the talk page of Musavat article, asking to explain the reason for the netrality tag, and provide references countering the ones listed on this page. Yet the three users mentioned above, keep RVing the page and inserting the "neutrality" tag without any explanation whatsoever. Can you, please, advise what to do. Thanks. Atabek 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag and pointed out that it's being misused. Let's hope the users involved respect that. I'll watch it, but feel free to message me on my page if I should miss further edit warring without talkpage discussion. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User Mel Etitis

Repeatedly adding a copyright violation image to Mika (singer) in violation of WP:3RR. The image in question has been tagged as "Replaceable Fair Use" (in violation of FUC#1) and is in violation of FUC#10 (has no rationale). According to WP:COPYVIO "the infringing content should be removed". The template {{rfu-c}} is an optional template for inviting further discussion. It describes neither an official procedure nor policy. The user has not made any objection to the image being tagged as replaceable. It is suggested that his edit warring is simply to make a WP:POINT, as the image will be speedy-deleted within 24 hours anyway. ed g2s • talk 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the standard template on the image and the standard template on the article give time for editors to respond; ed g2s has been removing the image from the article despite both temnplates being in place. As there is no urgency involved, it's impossible to see why he should (be allowed to) do so. I've already raised this further up the page.

Still, I see that his aggressive over-eager approach, including misleading edit summaries, is going to be condoned again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You have repeatedly used administrator tools to rollback ed's edits; please do not use the tools for purposes other than they have been authorised for. Please consult what WP:FU states, and the involved parties can reach an amicable resolution which is consistent with the policies and the copyright laws. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If {{rfu-c}} should not be used or misrepresents policy, it should be TFD'd instead of edit warring over its use. I personally think the template makes sense, and we should keep something on the page with or instead of the image to advertise that people should try and replace the image with a free one. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There are talk page notices for requesting images ({{reqphoto}}). One could have a small notice on the article I suppose, but we don't use unfree material as a placeholder for free content (to draw an analogy to text, we don't use EB articles to pad out stubs). ed g2s • talk 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to edit war as an admin, at least don't use the rollback button. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins need to set higher standards. _{/me doles out some more sanctimonious bullshit:)} — Nearly Headless Nick 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of nonsense prevalent about the rollback button; it provides at least as much information in the edit summary as most bots and pop-ups, more than some, and is only slightly more convenient. If I've explained my revert already, then I don't see the need to repeat it every time I make it again (my approach is surely preferable to that of ed g2s, who gives different reasons each time, at least one of which is simply false). There's also a repeated implication or even statement as here that the use of rollback is only authorised for certain situations; that was certainly not part of any policy or even guideline when I becasme an admin; has it been added somewhere since?

With regard to this issue, no-one placed the image there as a placeholder; an editor had placed it there in good faith. If it has eventually to be removed, what on Earth is the objection to doing so in a measured way, placing the relevant templates, and keeping to the deadlines that they provide? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This big difference is that it is an admin tool. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, turn the question around: if there's not a snowball's chance in hell that somebody will actually come up with a valid fair-use rationale, what's the point in insisting on the deadline and repeatedly putting the image back in again? It only creates more work for the admin who will in the end have to do the deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

rfu-c is a template created out of the suggestion of one user. As I have explained repeatedly - it is neither an official procedure - nor does it describe an official policy. ed g2s • talk 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I guess it makes good sense to have it in borderline cases where there's actual room for disagreement. The seven-days period, however, actually is policy, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual policy is 48 hours. ed g2s • talk 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one lame edit war. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic rollback summaries are fscking fast and there is a reason why they aren't provided to regular users. You should not use rollback tool to revert other user(s)' edits while in content dispute with them. They are only meant for reverting vandalism and other means of WP:POINTmongering by WP:SPA trolls or under special circumstances like reverting instances that violate WP:CANVASS and WP:SPAM. Our policies are descriptive and should not be taken in a normative manner. This image should not be used on Wikipedia as it goes explicitly against WP:FU. The subject of the picture is a living entity and hence his picture is replaceable. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's what people often say; now, can you point to the policy (or even a guideline) that backs up your claim about what rollback should and shouldn't be used for? (And, again, this peculiar fantasy-world notion of "replaceable"? How? What do you suggest that editors do to replace it? Start stalking actors, singers, etc, to get photos? Write and arrange a modelling session?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, what people are supposed to do is to write to the agency and ask for an explicit realease under a free license. Which in the case of celebrities they actually have pretty good chances to obtain, because these guys have an interest in having their images here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel, if you disagree with Wikipeida's current fair use policy, then you should probably take this up at the appropriate talk page to discuss changes to the policy. Proto::► 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit ridiculous to complain about 3RR in regard to an article on which you have violated 3RR as well (and violated it first, from what I can tell)? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, it seems that neither of you violated 3RR. So your original accusation of 3RR would be a false one. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mel, it is the rule against edit warring that is the problem. You took a regular user violation and used admin tools with it. I am not trying to hammer this in or anything, just clarifying my objection(edit warring is bad, but using admin tools to do it is worse). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Although of course he shouldn't be edit warring, Mel is pretty much correct regarding the rollback button. There have been a few attempts to make a policy/guideline to restrict usage of the rollback button (e.g. to vandalism reverts), but those have not met consensus. There appear to be some people that assume that such a policy/guideline exists anyway. >Radiant< 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Um, no. The WP:ADMIN#Reverting and Help:Reverting#Rollback pages have said this for years now. It's not like something people just made up overnight. Indeed, despite having seen the 'do not use rollback for content disputes' warning issued dozens of times this is the first I've seen someone try to claim that ISN'T the case. Reverts generally need to be explained... rollback was introduced as an exception for dealing with obvious vandalism. Thus, using rollback on things which AREN'T obvious vandalism / otherwise blatantly improper is incivil at best and disruptive/abusive at worst. That has always been the case. There was never a time when it was considered 'ok' to just go and rollback anything you wanted to. --CBD 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any comment on this particular dispute, beyond noting that the involved parties should know better than to edit war.

On the topic of admin rollback, it should be used with a great deal of caution – and probably avoided altogether – in any sort of dispute. It is worth noting that the ArbCom has ruled in a number of cases that using admin rollback in a dispute (particularly where longstanding editors are acting in good faith) is inadvisable; they have made findings of fact, issued restrictions, or imposed sanctions on this basis in several cases. (A quick Google finds at least four: Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu; Requests for arbitration/Guanaco; Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom; Requests for arbitration/Kosovo.)

Whether or not this particular case squeaks past as 'tolerable' or not I can't say; it is absolutely certain that a better handling of the case would have avoided the use of rollback. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lysdexia

69.238.129.55 (talk • contribs) signs as "-lysdexia (still wrongly banned)" [24]. So technically all edits should be reverted? I know the name but I'm not familiar with the deeper history of this user. How should this be handled? Femto 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now revert warring at the standardized color code templates of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements and accusing me of disruption. I've blocked the IP 31 h for block evasion. Femto 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very strange user-pair w/puppets

Cleaning up nonsensical edits to Talk:Pin pointed me to User:Elspeth Monro and User:Strento, and their unusuall edits. Strento seems to have done nothing but tagged accounts as puppets of EM, and EM has been warned a couple of times for vandalism and incivility, but none of his "puppets" have been blocked. Can someone else look @ these and see? The latter definitely doesn't seem to follow any normal editing pattern. 68.39.174.238 15:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinosphere

The Sinosphere article is seriously biased. James C. Bennett, founder of The Anglosphere Institute, defined Sinoshpere as a network commonwealth between Chinese people around the world. He envisages the Sinosphere as consisting of Greater China, and to some extent, its overseas Chinese population. But some Asians, especial Chinese make it to include Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia because these countries were once tributaries of imperial China. User: HongQiGong even insists on putting a link to the list of the tributaries on the article. I think this is a disrespect of other Asian countries. These links should be removed from this article. Also there is no authoritative source provided to include Mongolia to Sinosphere. The map is simply wrong and misleading. It should also be removed from the article. Could someone come and settle this dispute? Thanks. Migye 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. --InShaneee 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MaindrianPace

MaindrianPace (talk • contribs) is uploading images taken from eBay and passing them off as GFDL. This user has been blocked repeatedly in the past for uploading scores of images with to copyright information.

Also take a look at Gone in 60 Seconds (1974 film). He/she uploaded fourty-two screenshots and inserted them into the article, making it completely unreadable. --Sable232 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism in Christianity article

Just noticed some inappropriate pictures of a sexual nature have been inserted into the article on Christianity. Not sure how to remove them.

I've just looked, and I don't see any pornographic pictures. ElinorD 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New MyWikiBiz sock

I'm wondering if User:Samsara is a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz? Check this out. --72.94.166.89 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Samsara didn't write that, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) did (who is now blocked). Not sure whether it should have been restored, though. —bbatsell ¿? 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to fill out the back story, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is an indef blocked sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz. Given the IP's only two edits, I'd say there was a reasonably strong possibility that this is MyWikiBiz back to harass editors and push his agenda again. Gwernol 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just getting pathetic. Doesn't Gregory Kohs realize that he is clearly unwanted here? What corporation in their right mind would pay him money to write an article knowing that if it's discovered it will probably be deleted and their reputation besmirched? They're basically paying a saboteur to try to sneak in and do something against the wishes of the vast majority of our community. It just doesn't make for good business at all. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes, I concur 100% to block him straight away. But if he or someone else makes constructive edits and gets paid for it, I don't see what the big deal is as long as they're WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:NOR compliant. To do otherwise is just cutting off our nose to spite our face, and I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Just H 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Then you're not paying attention. Try here, or most succinctly, the black box here: note the sig. --Calton | Talk 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1. .Some talkpage archive commented on by a few people constitutes "the consensus of the community"?
2. . One person, Jimbo notwithstanding, represents "the consensus of the community"? You certainly don't seem to have alot of respect for the thousands of contributors that make up the "community" if you think such a narrow crossection constitutes a "consensus". Just H 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your inability to pay attention is not my problem: I gave you some pointers -- which only served as a place for you to tee off a bunch of wikilawyering. One more time, and read carefully: He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now, was that clear enough, or are you going to make some disingenous claim about how I need to prove "the consensus of the community" isn't against spam? --Calton | Talk 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah...So when someone disagrees with you, you resort to badmouthing policy in order to protect it (or whatever the negative connotation of "wikilawyering" is supposed to be). Good job, Calton. No, what i'm saying is how can you claim "consensus" from a handful of people or even just one person? It's not entirely your fault though, many people seem to do this, a lack of a clear definition of consensus is endemic on Wikipedia, which ultimately leads to people trying to "claim" it by badmouthing anyone who disagrees with them. As for the Wikibiz guy, I can see what you're talking about in terms of bothering people, but like I said before, if he contributes constructively and NPOV/V/NOR-esque edits while getting paid for it, kudos for him. Just H 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah...So when someone disagrees with you, you resort to badmouthing policy in order to protect it Is there an English translation available? What are you talking about?

No, what i'm saying is how can you claim "consensus" from a handful of people or even just one person? Again, your inability to pay attention is not my problem: He's been banned by Jimbo AND he's been been banned by community consensus at WP:AN -- a double whammy of longstanding processes. If you had any objections you should have made them, since they were done publically. Engaging in processwankery about the longstanding use and practice of "consensus", purely for its own sake, is something you'll have to do alone, I'm afraid.

As for the Wikibiz guy, I can see what you're talking about in terms of bothering people, but like I said before, if he contributes constructively and NPOV/V/NOR-esque edits while getting paid for it, kudos for him' You should have written "if he contributes constructively, NPOV/V/NOR-esque edits while getting paid for it -- and everyone gets a pony!" which would have made just as much sense. You really AREN'T paying any attention, so to recap: He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors trying to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's better not to pay attention to incivil commentary like yours. There isn't going to be any riddance of him with behavior like that. He'll just come back with another name, you people will block him again, and then he'll come back with another name, and the cycle will continue until you people get sick of it and he wins. Or, you can ask him not to spam and not worry about when he makes constructive edits to the encyclopedia. Just H 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, as I noted below, MyWikiBiz is under a community ban. Strong consensus is that Kohs is NOT wanted here. If he was paying people to just write articles, we likely wouldn't've noticed. He wasn't. He was paying people to SPAM. Spam is BAD. He was blocked by Jimbo, promised to play nice, but didn't, so was reblocked. He had his second chance, and he blew it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed the previous section header here, which was misleading (and inadvertently unfair to an uninvolved editor). Newyorkbrad 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Per a motion I made on AN/I a week or so aho, MyWikiBiz/Gregory Kohs is banned by the community from editing Wikipedia, so we keep our eyes peeled for socks. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to examine all articles which link to his new business, too. They're either by him or his customers, but in any case probably a priori unreliable. --Calton | Talk 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backdash/Jacob Peters

Backdash has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of community banned Jacob Peters on WP:RFCU. However, the checkuser clerk didn't block him. Backdash is still editing and causing problems. Can someone with a mop please block the sockpuppet? Thanks in advance. C33 05:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked the sock. To clarify, clerks are not required to block confirmed socks, and to imply that clerks should have is totally incorrect. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide#Enforcement states this. Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it says that right on the header at WP:RFCU as well. Thatcher131 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the clerk should have blocked him. I just wanted to communicate that he hadn't been blocked yet and request that someone do so before he edited more articles. Very poor choice of words on my part. Thanks for the help! C ^thirty-three 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ApocalypticDestroyer's requests a review and a lifting of the permanent block.

User:ApocalypticDestroyer's requests a review and a lifting of the permanent block. He acknowledges his past mistakes and promises not to make the same mistakes again. He promise to no longer engage in content disputes without discussion, but discuss them with users involved. He has used a number of accounts in the past, but never more than one at a time.[25]. He has made many positive contributions in the past as shown on his contributions page. He wishes to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as his main and only account, and will stick to it. Please refer to the previous ANI thread, where there is no strong consensus for a community ban. Further evidence can be found on his talk page. He wants to be unblocked so he can do useful editing and contribute usefully on wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling, for User:ApocalypticDestroyer's. 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to support Ben on this. After looking into things a bit, I see some evidence of bad behavior. Some of the blocks certainly seem warranted. The user doesn't seem to have been a sockpuppeteer, though (although I can't take so much account-jumping to be a good sign, I'm not convinced it's abusive per se -- he doesn't seem to have ever actively edited with more than one at a time). Still, he seems to have been a reasonably productive editor at one point, and I trust Ben's judgment. I support an unblock, provided it's made clear to this user that he should remain on exemplary behavior for the next few months -- and refrain from creating any additional accounts. Shimeru 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frankfurt (Oder)

There's one user who isn't comfortable with the article name and adds POV/disputed tags to the article. When I first came over it, it looked like this. I reworked it and reworked it, read the talk page and removed the tags. In fact the article was moved due to a requested move and failed another requested move (started by that user). In the past he used different names for the city (Frankfurt an der Oder (req mov), "Frankfurt-on-Oder, as it is called in English," (article)). Since Feb 1 he's active again and sadly it turned to an edit war. My move to Frankfurt (Brandenburg) (with a reference to the airplane/aeroplane solution) wasn't accepted at all. Since that user doesn't use the talk page, please lock the article in my reworked version (Jan 22), as I believe it was the less offending one (compare to the current one). Add {{Protected}} to it and let the people discuss. If that doesn't work, there's still one alternative, I've mentioned in Talk:Frankfurt (Oder)#Some thoughts about the article name. --32X 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This request belongs on WP:RfP or WP:ANI. In this instance, I don't think that protection would help much, but I agree that the edits of Pmanderson (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) to Frankfurt (Oder) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) have indeed been disruptive. I'll leave him a warning to stop edit-warring about the name and use the article talk page. For what it's worth, I agree that Frankfurt (Oder), as the official name, is the most sensible article title. Sandstein 11:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is yet another name, too: Frankfurt ob Oder. It's probably the best to simply make "Frankfurt" go to a disambiguation and then have all possible permutations of this city link to one article. Fighting over the article name is ridiculous. This isn't Danzigdansk. Geogre 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't make an disambiguation out of Frankfurt, since Frankfurt am Main is by > 90% the meant target. While editing the article I had to think about the Danzig/Gdansk discussion, but sadly I couldn't find it again. Since there are some references to Stettin, Breslau and Poznan in this article (I'd like to fix the name according to the made decission), I'd be happy to get a hint were to find that discussion. User talk:32X is o.k. --32X 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinitely blocked user Himalayanashoka and his sockpuppets

The India page has been repeatedly held hostage by indefinitely-blocked user Himalayanashoka. Over and over again his sockpuppets (see here) disrupt the page in the most obsessively insidious way. The page was semi-protected for a while, which kept him at bay. However, since the protection was recently removed, he has been reborn as sockpuppets, Cerebralsun and Nutramul, and the former has already violated 3RR (although not penalized yet). I reported the sockpuppets to WP:AIV, but to no avail. Something more needs to be done, at a higher level. Please suggest and act. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are a few things that can be done. First of all, report all the socks to RFCU, so that they can be checkuser'd, and blocked. Secondly, a semi-protection may keep the socks at bay, or at least stem the surge. Thirdly, if such disruption continues, then it may be appropriate to propose a community ban. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• I reported this one to WP:AIV as a blatantly obvious sockpuppet, and it was blocked. I see that India is now fully-protected; I hope it helps to resolve the problem. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User uploading many images with no use on Wikipedia

See [26] where User:Nasaninja has uploaded 40 images since December 11th, 2006 with no other activity on Wikipedia or attempts to include the images in an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a free file host. All 40 images should be deleted immediately and the user warned that this use of Wikipedia is not appropriate. I would list the images at WP:IFD, but it seems needless and would only clog it up slightly and there isn't a WP:CSD criteria to cover this. --MECU≈talk 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All orphans gone, note left on user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placing of inappropriate maintenance tags

New user Morristhepig11663 (talk • contribs) (account created 12:49, February 3, 2007) placed inappropriate maintenance tags on six articles (plus one unreferenced negative edit in a biographical article). I left requests to stop and undid the edits. Immediately thereafter, new user Hollinsgombayne (talk • contribs) (account created 13:00, February 3, 2007) restored the inappropriate maintenance tags on the articles. Obvious sockpuppet activity, does this m.o. appear familiar to anyone? Accurizer 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinitely blocked user Himalayanashoka and his sockpuppets below, seems to be the same puppetmaster. Accurizer 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BJBot needs to be blocked temporarily

BJBot has recieved complaints and it needs to be blocked and have those problems fixed before continuing. The problems are:

1. Notifying the most recent uploader of an image, instead of all uploaders or just the original uploader. Thus, users who have simply reverted image vandalism are being notified instead of the real contributors of the images.
2. Marking messages on userpages as "minor", making the orange banner not come up, so the user is not informed that they have recieved a message.

Bjweeks has not responded to a single comment on User talk:BJBot. —Remember the dot (t) 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I have fixed #1 and 3 other bugs. I respond to the user that reported the bug not the bots talk page. Please do not block. BJ^Talk 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad to hear that bug #1 has been fixed. Could you please turn off your bot for 5 minutes and fix the issue with marking messages as minor changes? —Remember the dot (t) 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

#2 fixed as well. BJ^Talk 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. This bot does not need to be blocked, then. Apologies for being more upset about this than necessary. —Remember the dot (t) 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review needed

I blocked User:DeanHinnen for 24 hours for continued baiting of User:BenBurch, especially at User talk:BenBurch. I advised these disputants to leave each other alone, they appear unwilling to do so. I suspect I should have blocked BenBurch as well. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Barbaric edits to Balkan topics

Barbaric (talk • contribs) created an account a few hours ago, and so far has only made controvertial and provocative edits in articles related to the Balkans, mainly those dealing with Albanians. It appears to be a vandalism-only acount created by someone already familiar with Wikipedia. - Regards, Evv 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Soul-mine

I've just recieved a vandal warning message from this user, yet, as far as I'm aware I havn't done any vandalism!! After checking his contribs, thats all he seams to do, give warning messages to users, no reversions, which suggests he's doing it randomly. Could someone look into it for me? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ryanpostlethwaite

This is a message to Ryan. You either have comitted vandalism, and you reverted it, or you didn't. It seems that you are not a trustworthy source either, seeing that many people made strange remarks about you and gave you a very appropriate star. Anyway, if there is a problem, contact me, but if you really did not vandalize or anything, accept my apologies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soul-mine (talk • contribs) 2007-02-04T00:50:25 (UTC)

I've said it on your talk page, please tell me what I have vandalised! And regarding the 'bitch star' on my talkpage, that was given to me by a vandal when I reverted him RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• You mean the gold "bitch" star from the indefinitely blocked vandal? The issue here is, you should not leave warnings for vandalism unless you directly observe it. You don't leave warnings because someone "might" vandalize. JuJube 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we just pissing in the wind here guys, or is there an issue? Diffs? /wangi 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Theres my warning diff, turns out Soul-mine was using lupins filter and warning everything that came up. Guess in many ways it was a good faith edit, I've advised him on using lupins tool, and that everything that it filtered out isn't vandalism RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OrphanBot (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is malfunctioning

This bot is placing template:no copyright holder on GFDL licensed images clearly marked with template:GFDL-no-disclaimers; see [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. This bot is also issuing unjustified warnings regarding the uploading of images which it falsely describes as "unsourced" [38]. John254 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The large number of edits by this bot makes it nearly impossible to find the most recent instances of this behavior. This bot normally runs intermittently, and may start running again at any time. Therefore, I suggest that this bot be blocked until Carnildo, the operator of the bot, confirms that it has been fixed. John254 01:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Might just be me, but I've had a look at a couple of diffs and there's nothing wrong with OrphanBot, actually, all the images there have been lifted from http://www.steamboat.com/winter-int.aspx?CategoryId=80 anyway. Yes, the images have a licence tag, but there's no mention of the author, source, etc, which is why OrphanBot has tripped. -- Heligoland 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot is functioning properly. "Untagged" is not the same as "unsourced", and those images were indeed unsourced. --Carnildo 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This was listed elsewhere too... And I investigated too... nothing wrong here, and the specific examples are clearly mis-tagged too (just look at the image size). /wangi 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent article/talk page IP vandal

Unsure how best to handle the vandal with IP 65.73.71.*

This is a vandal who has persistently vandalised the Labrador Retriever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article to replace cited information with fabricated quotes stating the opposite of the actual sources, to support a personal agenda on so-called "silver labradors". The page was blocked, a while later unblocked, and now reblocked again against IP vandalism. He's now begun hacking the talk page. This is twice in a day with (slightly) variable IPs. Vandalism has included editing others comments as well as the article to say the opposite of what's intended.

I'm loath to Sprotect the talk page as it has other IP contributors, and loath to block his known addresses without checking here, since possibly others will be affected and it would have to be a fair length block.

IP's used (Talk page vandalism):

• 65.73.71.87 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.108 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• Silverlabrador (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

IP's used (Article vandalism):

• 65.73.71.19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.33 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.41 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.47 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.49 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.87 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) [also used on talk page]
• 65.73.71.95 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.97 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.107 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.116 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.118 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.123 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.146 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 65.73.71.182 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

Advice on handling? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks for a week at a time? /wangi 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done :) —Pilotguy push to talk 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Arthur Ellis

Arthur_Ellis (talk • contribs) has recently used several sockpuppet accounts to evade a one-month ban. (Evidence: [39]) These sockpuppets have caused disruption on some of Ellis's most-frequented sites, including Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. Some of the sockpuppet names have also been abusive to other Wikipedians, and/or to noted public figures.

Ellis's ban was imposed on 28 November but is now slated to run to 2 March, as the clock is reset with each sockpuppet violation.

It's obvious that Ellis isn't taking his ban seriously, and I believe it's time for the community to impose a more serious punishment on him. Given the staggering number of violations we're dealing with from the last two months alone, I think a community ban may be in order. CJCurrie 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support permanent ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban. This should have happened weeks ago. JoshuaZ 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Based on what I've seen of this user, endorse ban. --Coredesat 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse with comment: it's not just socks, but apparent meats. I blocked LotusLander2006 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for the account's first-ever edit, a direct reversion to Ellis's preferred version of Warren Kinsella. In an e-mail to me the following day (yes, I still have it), LotusLander2006 acted ignorant of (or surprised to be "confused" with) Ellis, yet identified herself as none other than Rachel Marsden. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that the Rachel Marsden article is currently protected on a version edited by one of the aforementioned socks. Just wanted to point that out. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected. Thatcher131 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, and now it's been fixed. Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. For a partial list of blocks, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Bucketsofg 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. Addhoc 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban --SunStar Net^talk 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I see CJCurrie and Jayjg agreeing on something... world peace cannot be far away ;) Anyway, endorse with the recognition that the person has also made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Kla'quot 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Do we have sufficient support for a community ban, or should we continue this discussion elsewhere? CJCurrie 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per ecidence and commetns above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Bearcat 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known Ellis IP

Any objections to blocking 209.217.96.177 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) for an extended time, say, six months or even one year? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be able to change his IP at will, at least when he's determined about it. A long IP block won't accomplish anything. His favorite articles are permanently semi-protected already, since both he and Kinsella tear them up whenever they aren't protected. Thatcher131 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

True; still, the idea occurred to me when I noticed the comparatively tiny edit history and the suggestion that no one but Ellis has ever used it—and that he returned thereto. Thanks for the reminder. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

His IP will be stable as long as it's not blocked, but then he switches. Probably DHCP on a cable modem that he can reset by unplugging the modem. Thatcher131 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, probably... :P RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocking the IP might be a bad idea, as he'll probably go IP-switching. Roving IP edits happen... --SunStar Net^talk 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban?

I'll repeat my previous question: do we have sufficient support for a community ban, or should we continue this discussion elsewhere? CJCurrie 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see more than enough support, I tagged him with the banned user template, (he's already been indefed block) Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent socks User:Kitty's little helper, User:Keeperdog and User:Happy Fun Toy are not indef blocked yet. There may be others who have been given one-month blocks only. Could someone please do these? Kla'quot 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username blocks, punitive?

(anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our username policy and choose another name)

Anyone notice a paradox here? And this is what 90% of the usernameblocks look like, are we trying to bite people whose only crime is to pick a name that's too long, random, or non-latin?--172.164.122.67 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking account creation is a very new feature, and it's on by default. Presumably this is happening in error. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! -- SCZenz 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Those really shouldn't be set to ACB, unless it's something clearly vandalistic like an attack username (in which case the block is to prevent more attack usernames being created, and the block summary should be clearer). Besides, anon-only is a setting that only applies to IP blocks as far as I know (although I'm not sure, not being an admin); so if it's an anon-only block, how can it be for a username violation ('Sorry, your IP violates our username policies, please pick another IP...')? Are you sure you've reported that block message correctly? --ais523 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the block log, there are dozens of examples--172.164.122.67 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted, some of the blocking features are new. It appears that the blocking admins may inadvertently not be clicking the optimal combination of boxes in these cases; we (myself included if I've erred in this regard) should be more attentive to the particulars, especially since the standard username-block template specifically invites the user to create another account. Newyorkbrad 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ACB probably shouldn't be on by default... I know I've nearly AC blocked before when I didn't intend to.--Isotope23 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isotope23. Does anyone know if there's a centralized discussion somewhere or a bug request on this? Newyorkbrad 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to WP:USERNAME and WP:BP to reflect that ACB shouldn't be used if it's just an inappropriate username. People should please feel free to clarify the statements I've added. Infact, now I'm tidying up a really messily layed out section on WP:USERNAME that I just noticed when I went to add this change. --Deskana (request backup) 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A similar note at WP:RFC/NAME might be a good idea... WJBscribe 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some discretion is warranted here, though. If someone in good faith creates User:JesusSaves, having no idea that it is a violation of policy, preventing account creation would be silly. But if you see four usernames in a row, all of which comment about a particular administrator's mother, I can't see any reason not to prevent account creation. --BigDT 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reflect such in my additions to WP:USERNAME and WP:BP. If you feel I didn't do well enough at it, please do add to my edits. --Deskana (request backup) 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking the current logs: TKD, Betacommand, Wiki alf, JLaTondre, Viridae, Glen S, and Sarah Ewart (this one was autoblock-enabled, and didn't say 'choose another name') did username ACB blocks (DragonflySixtyseven did an ACB block but noticed and corrected it, which seems to imply that this is purely a mistake and not intentional behaviour); HighInBC, NawlinWiki, DragonflySixtyseven, Edgar181, and Shreshth91 turned ACB off for username blocks. So it's a real problem, presumably usually due to admins not noticing that the ACB option is on by default. --ais523 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the solution then is to not turn on potentially destructive new features by default, leaving admins to enable account blocking when warranted, rather than blanketing them for everyone who misses a new checkbox. Blocking new accounts indefinitely is extreme overkill in any case but community banned static IPs, I'd think. -- nae'blis 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I disable AC with most of my username blocks as 99.8% of them are vandals or spammers,

just take a look

yes I give them all the same usernameblock message as I dont want to say "fuck off vandal" or "go to hell spammer" I instead give them a polite message. can anyone argue with that? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so what did Kclasdf1 (talk • contribs), Pencil lead productions (talk • contribs), Hi1234567890 (talk • contribs), Fungilover (talk • contribs), SoftwareWriterNYC (talk • contribs), Nyc software writer (talk • contribs), Greenpeace123456789 (talk • contribs), Braedon5555555555555555555555555555 (talk • contribs) all do to deserve 'Account creation blocked'?--172.165.169.16 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general, you need to make a decision on a case bu case basis, of the list you've given I would probably have unticked the box for a handful (assuming them to be just poor choices rather than malicious), though I'll admit I frequently forget (Last time I checked, I'm human so prone to such mistakes). Up until recently it wasn't an option, so the option for such people is the same as previously, post an unblock request. I don't think changing the default is a good idea, since if not ticked the other blocks on vandalism accounts etc. will not be as effective, since they'll just be able to create another account and carry on. --pgk 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would rather have it such that as a blocking admin you have to actively and consciously elect to AC block. I'm not by any means trying to argue that AC blocks are unwarrented; some of the above examples are situations where an AC would be warrented on a username block and I know I've encountered other situations where AC blocking is warrented as well. It just seems there is more potential for harm by leaving it as a default option and having it applied where perhaps it is not warrented. Just an opinion.--Isotope23 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well my point was for blocks outside of blocking usernames. But looking at this again I think I may have misunderstood, I was thinking the Autoblock option not the account creation option. If we are talking about the account creation option then we may actually be making a lot of fuss out of nothing. The "anon only" and "prevent account creation" options will be silently ignored on username blocks. being the appropriate quote from when the new options were implemented, unless of course things have changed since then. --pgk 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• ACB effects IP address, so blocking account creation indefinatly on an IP address is a bad idea since we don't know what the IP address is. If we block account creation on thousands of non-static IP address then we are doing much harm to the project. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  As I note above when the feature to select was implemented 6 months ago it states that the flag has no effect when blocking usernames, the subject of this discussion. No on is suggesting randomly blocking IP addresses for account creation. I will however note, that until 6 months ago if you blocked and IP account creation was also blocked, no option to disable it. Up until then the sky didn't fall in, and I've no reason to believe that with an option to impose less harsh blocks (as the tick box is) that it will start to fall in now. --pgk 10:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• BugZilla is that-a-way, and it is the appropriate venue to report this issue, if you want something changed in the default blocking options. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sixty Six (talk • contribs)

I'm increasingly tiring of this user. Of his past twelve contributions, nine have been concerning me, and I'm getting annoyed of his "he got what was coming to him" attitude, and also his attitude to MatthewFenton. There's also a strong suspicion that he is [(link removed by Musical Linguist) User:Die clown die on ED]. Can something be done about it? Will ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've seen apparently he is attacking me on EncyclopediaDramatica as well, he also leaves rude messages about me (and also Will) - attempting to insult where he can. It appears he is also attacking another user as well "Can't sleep clown will eat me" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence"/diffs. of harassment/stalking/incivility against me (as Sixty Six): [40][41][42][43][44][45]

The above diffs. are only those directed towards me, there's a lot more incivility and rudeness if you check his contributions towards other users, and also indirect incivility.

Previously the user used an IP address, however I've just presented the attacks above from his registered account. He has also been interacting with "Can't Sleep Clown Will Eat Me" and has apparently created a hate user page ([(link removed by Musical Linguist) User:Die clown die on EnDr]) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, why do I see two links in violation of an arbcom ruling? — MichaelLinnear 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't anymore. I've removed them. Musical Linguist 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• The obsession with the age of the admins concerned is also hauntingly familiar. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sixty Six claims to be blocked and is requesting that an independent admin review recent discussion on his talkpage. My attempt to defuse the situation was met with an edit summary urging that someone other than me intervene, so I'm posting here. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet of banned User:Rumpelstiltskin223 vandalizing pages

User:Rumpelstiltskin223 has been blocked for a week for repeated 3RR violations. [46] As of Today an anonymous IP editor is editing in the exact same articles Rumplestiltskin223 edits, using the same line of rhetoric and engaging in the same practice of blanking text without explanation while demonstrating an awareness of WP policies at the same time (see edit comments). The IP shows a short editing career, and yet immediately jumps into some of the same articles Rumplestiltskin habitually edit wars in, making the same claims and arguments. [47] [48] What cements the arguement that the two are the same person is their shared view of Devdasi, including their rebuttals against it being considered a form of prostitution.[49][50] [51] MinaretDk 21:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a week, and reset Rumpelstiltskin223's block (also one week), per [52]. Daniel.Bryant 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

MinaretDk seems to be a sock of banned anti-Semitic troll BhaiSaab (talk • contribs), seems reasonable given his obsession with fantasies of Hkelkar supposedly being on wikipedia..Bakaman 03:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with user re-adding unlicensed/possible copyvio images

Imtrogdor (talk • contribs) is starting an edit war over the addition of improperly sourced/unlicensed images. The user has reposted an image that was Speedy deleted earlier due to it being a copyvio. The user has again added the pd-self tag even though the image is easily found on Google images and is clearly not the work of the uploader. The user has also ignored WP:CIVIL on a couple of discussion pages in his apparent anger over not being allowed to use his incorrect/dishonestly tagged image. Some assistance please. Thank you. 156.34.220.42 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a small block on the account and posted some pointers to their talk page. Ta/wangi 03:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:141.152.249.214

I'm posting this here instead of WP:AIV as the user appears to have gone offline and is done editing for the day. A quick look at the edits of 141.152.249.214 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) will show a pattern of vandalism over the last several days. Is it appropriate to block this address so that it would only be able to be used by registered users? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked for a week and left account creation enabled. Cowman109^Talk 04:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review requested

I've just blocked 72.69.213.21 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a month, anon-only, account creation enabled. Recent edits are all vandalism and joke edits about global warming. Earlier edits are mostly on Doonesbury. I believe this is a static IP (or temp. static, probably DSL), and that our Doonesbury fan, for whatever reason, turned into a vandal. But since I can imagine other viewpoints, please review. Chick Bowen 04:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, already creating sock accounts: Max Headroom has Austim (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is the first. Chick Bowen 04:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser request

Frater Xyzzy was blocked, but has a contrib where he "returned from Wikibreak" after apparently moving (per his talk page) on Jan. 26 here. Four days later, the IP 204.122.16.13 makes his first edit: a reversion of Obligations in Freemasonry here, claiming a "single-purpose account". not only is that a very interesting first edit to make (it's certainly not what i'd go to right off the bat as a new user, much less know enough about the content to make the judgment about other accounts), the IP's hostile tone on talk pages is too similar to Xyzzy to be an accident, and the gravitation towards the same article seems no accident either. I would like a checkuser on the IP as related to Xyzzy's edit address to the last two edits he made (to his talk page). MSJapan 19:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please post to the checkusers' page at WP:RFCU. You'll need to show why this is a serious enough problem to justify the check under the privacy policy. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would, but it's not a clear "vandalism" issue; rather, it's POV-pushing by a banned editor or a well-hidden sock, which seems to belong here as per the RFCU page (which makes little sense to me). MSJapan 20:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered WP:SSP? --Ideogram 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Will Beback

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Roger the red

-Will Beback · † · 07:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated personal attack by User:Nationalist

Nationalist has been repeatedly making accusations on Jerrypp772000 for reverting his edits (See diff links in recent contributions). He apparently ignored my advice to comment on the content instead of the contributor, and he has received two warnings of personal attacks prior to this report. He was also blocked once for personal attacks (3rd block of all-time), so he should know better. Vic226_(chat) 03:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerrypp772000 has also engaged in several personal attacks on me. I am not engaging in personal attacks, but Vic226 has been randomly accusing me of doing so. -Nationalist 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never attacked you.--Jerrypp772000 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This, this, this, this, and this shows that you are accusing him for "destroying Wikipedia", being "a hypocrite", and "because of your English". I don't even want to bother adding more. Vic226_(chat) 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It offends me when he says that I dont discuss before I edit, because he is doing that. He is being hypocritical. There is nothing wrong with this fact. This is not an attack, but a reality-Nationalist 05:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Reality or not, you have violated the personal attack policy again just by "comment[ing] on the content, not on the contributor" in the above statement. And please stop stating all of your opinions as fact, as it shows strong flavor of POV even if it's true. Vic226_(chat) 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As a third part observer, Nationalist (talk • contribs) has a consistant patern of making edits with summaries that range from boardering on not assuming good faith to outright personal attacks. For example this user has been blocked recently for telling another editor to "Fuck off" [53], and I've noticed this behaviour contiues after Nationalist's numerous blocks have expired. User talk:Nationalist contains a number of links to offenses, which include calling another editor an "extremist POV pusher" in an edit summary while engaging in an edit war[54], to continuing abuse on article talk pages here [55]. These are older offenses, showing that this has been a long term problem. Yankees76 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For reference, Nationalist has used socks to evade blocks. I'm involved in a peripheral way, but it's probably of no matter. There is a RfC underway. Teke ^(talk) 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend temporary block for 65.170.106.193

A user with the IP 65.170.106.193 has repeatedly defaced random articles and been warned multiple times. I just reverted a change made to the Tortilla Flat page. Judging from the comments in the User's talk page, there have been a number of incidents. Here is a link to the last edit reverted: diff on Tortilla flat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenLTitzer (talk • contribs).

• It appears no other edits were made since the edit on Tortilla Flat since 13:11, 2 February 2007 at the time of this posting. A block may not be appropriate at this time. This is a static what appears to be a static IP, however given the sporadic nature of edits, possibly changing users often. In the future, WP:AIV would be the place for requesting blocks of this nature. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 06:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Searcher007 repeatedly removing "no fair use rationale" tags.

User has been removing "no fair use rationale" tags from the following images, Image:Yas Charming.jpg, Image:Bakekang logo.jpg and Image:White Lady.jpg. With regards to the last image, the user repeatedly removed the tag while personally attacking the other editors with foul (non-english) expletives in the edit summary and the actual image description as seen in this revision. In addition, the user has been repeatedly ignoring WP:EQ with his posts, exemplified by attacking editors in these AfDs: [56], [57] and [58]. Upon reading over the User's Contributions, he has repeatedly put offensive comments and attacks in edit summaries of his edits. He should also be reminded that just because they are not in english doesn't mean his comments are any less inflammatory/offensive. Shrumster 07:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tried to discuss apparent personal attacks, editor dismissive

I've been trying to engage with a user about apparent personal attacks,[59] and in reply I'm getting only a reiteration ("proof of concept").[60] I'm at a loss. Any input or assistance would be appreciated. — coelacan talk — 11:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't go looking for things to be offended by. If you can't get along with that user, avoid them. Jkelly 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And can you suggest a list of other things I should ignore in the future, besides X? Should I wait for Y, or should I set the bar even higher? — coelacan talk — 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that reply was thoroughly inappropriate, Coelacan. You should fix that. However, the editor in question, CyberAnth, has been up on this talk page three times now in as many days for problems. He was supported by Jimbo Wales for his actions in enforcing WP:BLP, and since then seems to be increasing in hostility. It's probably a good idea for some admin to make clear to him that being right once doesn't make him right always, and the behavior on Coelacan's talk page is certainly a personal attack. ThuranX 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry. — coelacan talk — 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ThuranXm, Sir or Madam, that is nonsense. The post to my userpage in question was made some 10 days prior the WP:BLP incidents. See here. Also, this situation is someone writing words, and then claiming that the very words they wrote, when quoted, constitute a personal attack. That is nonsense. I suggest that if people do not wish to have their irresponsible words, spoken in deeper recesses of WP, displayed in more noticeable places, the way to avoid it is to avoid writing such words in the first place. CyberAnth 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just what are you talking about? I came to your talkpage and asked you to explain why you called me a "fuckwad".[61] The whole conversation is right there on your talk page,[62] so I don't see how you could get this mixed up. I don't care about the quote on your userpage and I've never complained about it to you or anyone. Quit changing the subject. — coelacan talk — 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth It does look to me like you did call this fellow a "fuckwad". Could you please apologize? That would be most appropriate now. --BenBurch 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, if only I did. CyberAnth 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a little more digging. And indeed you did not. --BenBurch 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. How is this not calling me a fuckwad?[63] What exactly is it, then? What does "look at this person's actions, they are best explained by fuckwad syndrome" mean, and how can it be construed otherwise? I don't understand why I'm seeing this, you were seeing it, and now you're not. Help? I mean, WP:NPA, what does "Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack" mean if it doesn't refer to this?[64] And when I try to engage with this user and ask about it, I get it thrown back in my face ("proof of concept", CyberAnth says), Isotope23 brings it up and the only reply is "It's all just Coelacan. Trust me" and then CyberAnth deletes the whole thing from that talk page instead of engaging with myself or Isotope23. So what are you seeing that I'm not? If I'm thoroughly failing to comprehend something here, I'd appreciate a tip. — coelacan talk — 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please go read WP:AGF and apply it to your issue. Thanks! --BenBurch 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go read AGF! It's all just Coelacan.

BenBurch, I'm afraid that in order to do that, I need someone to explain to me why calling me a fuckwad is not the same as calling me a fuckwad. You know, it's an honest question that I took to CyberAnth's user page. You can see it all there in the links above. I ask this user if this is a personal attack and if not, how not, and instead of getting an answer I get told the same thing again, that by asking, I'm being a fuckwad: "proof of concept". So I see that User:Daniel.Bryant is active at that time, and I ask Daniel just for input or assistance or something because I'm at a loss for words; I don't know what else to say to someone who just keeps dismissing everything I ask. And Daniel doesn't want any part of it.[65] Tells me to take it to ANI. Where I ask again, repeatedly, for some clarification or input or assistance, and I'm told to ignore it, I'm told it's nothing, but no one will actually explain how this namecalling and refusal of discussion is anything but precisely that. What is the problem here? Is it "all just Coelacan"?[66] If this is not a personal attack, why won't somebody actually bother to try to explain why, instead of dancing around my plain and simple question. I'm being nothing but perfectly clear here, and I'd appreciate it if someone, anyone, would bother to do the same. — coelacan talk — 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Coelacan, it was a personal attack, and if it was not intended that way, CyberAnth could have apologized for the misunderstanding and explained clearly what he intended. Since he hasn't done that, you have no reason to assume good faith in this case. An "explanation" to a third editor asking about it which just says "It's all just Coelacan. Trust me"[67] says it all: instead of adressing the (real or perceived) personal attack, he blames the other person (not much WP:AGF there). I would suggest to just drop the matter and try to ignore the user, as it isn't worth wasting your time on anymore. You are right, he is wrong, and I suppose it is no coincidence that he has removed the matter from his talk page alltogether instead of archiving it, but continuing this discussion will not benefit anyone, I'm afraid. Fram 09:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• It was archived days ago.[68]
• I explained.
• I ceased replying extensively to this user because of repeated evidence from weeks back that I could not AGF with him, which has been confirmed to me by multiple users with the same issues with him.
• I have better things to do with my time than take the matter further.

CyberAnth 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not archived it, it is not in the archive and you deleted it without comment a day after youcreated that archive. I'll assume good faith and suppose that both the deletion and the insistence that it was archived are a honest mistake. As for your other points: as I said above, at this point I think it is better to use everybodies' time for better things. However, this is not about assuming good faith with Coelacan, but about you making an intentional or unintentional personal attack on him/her. Your "explanation" was clearly insufficient and looked more like a confirmation of the attack than anything else. And it has been perceived as a personal attack by Coelacan, me, Janusvulcan, ThuranX, and (to a degree) Isotope23, so there must have been something in your choice of words that could easily lead to the conclusion that it was a personal attack, even after you explained it. Fram 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is about a history of this user you have no knowledge of whatsoever and of which I do not wish to take the time to document. CyberAnth 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe you on your word, and the history of this user is irrelevant to any personal attacks you made. You are not addressing anything I said here but seem to only try evading answering. That's a clear enough answer for me. Fram 12:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Fram is correct that continuing this discussion here is unbeneficial. It occurs to me in retrospect that I should have just gone to RFC instead, as this wasn't quite "administrator intervention" material. I was a bit distracted. My apologies to all for misdirected effort. — coelacan talk — 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Like Fram, I feel this was a personal attack. However, CyberAnth has made it clear he is NOT going to dialogue in this in a positive and meaning ful way, so I suggest we all drop this. He's laughing at us wasting our time trying to 'prove' what we ALL know to be true. Coelacan, avoid this editor. If you find him to be 'pursuing' you hrough pages, bring it to RfC. I've certainly learned a lot about CyberAnth in the last few AN/I things he's been the subject of. ThuranX 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, was that a personal attack? CyberAnth 06:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks (not aimed at CyberAnth, this is regarding the board in general) please don't throw out personal attack calls if another user has made an opinion of editing that is disfavorable. A personal attack as defined by the policy is an attack on the contributor, not the contributions. In this specific instance, ThuranX is uncivil but it is not a personal attack- he's commenting on his perception of contributions and responses. I wish to note that I have been on the opposite side of CyberAnth vehemently before, but that has nothing to do with this comment. This improper use of personal attack has gotten out of hand lately with PAIN being gone. Teke ^(talk) 06:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. This seems a completely fair and helpful distinguishing between policies. Thanks. CyberAnth 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being harassed by anons

Okay, first up I am actually an administrator on Wikipedia. Right, I have recently started to be harassed by a series of IP addresses, all with the same prefixes, the 201.71.156. range with some nasty remarks and vandalism. These edits each time consist of replacing my talk and user pages with items along this line [69]. This has happened 4 or 5 times now, all from the same root IP address. Now as far as I can tell the IP addresses are originating in Brazil, but maybe someone has more experience of tracking these things down. Normal vandalism I can deal with, but this seems to be a concentrated campaign by someone with a grudge for some reason who obviously isn't happy with my Northern Irish related neutrality. Is there anything that can be done about this? If the IP range is all owned by one person or area can the range be blocked? Ben W Bell talk 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing they are anonymous IPs, wouldn't semi-protection solve that problem?-from K37 08:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of breaking WP:BEANS I'll add: It's not good to semi-protect your talk page, which is a likely future target. —Dgies^t c 08:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I could semi my User Page, but I can't do any protection on my talk page so that wouldn't solve that problem. Ben W Bell talk 08:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the frequency is only once every couple days and it looks like all the same ISP, my guess would be it's just someone getting different DHCP leases and not a proxy or botnet problem. —Dgies^t c 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to take this to WP:ABUSE? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a wireless provider in Brazil. The only edits from this range (201.71.156.0/24) in the past three months (since November) have been from the very same person, alternatively vandalism and POV pushing. I have blocked the IP range for three months. —Centrx→talk • 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much for that. I was unsure how to go about checking the ranges out myself. I'll let you know if there are any more that appear. Ben W Bell talk 09:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat by CyberAnth (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user made a legal threat on Talk:Ejaculation. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." John254 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see CyberAnth threatening to sue anyone. Could you explain to me where he does so? Kusma (討論) 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth's legal threat is phrased implicitly, but the meaning is obvious. Merely re-working the sentence structure of a legal threat to avoid the use of the personal pronoun "I" does not make it any less of legal threat. John254 15:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So if I say that Wikipedia could get sued for having libelous comments about a specific individual, that is grounds for me to get in trouble? Considering that CyberAnth is an established editor like yourself from the looks of contribs, I don't think he is implying what you're stating. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If one is complaining about libelous comments in an article, one should merely state that the comments are libelous and should be removed, without any discussion of a lawsuit. Explicitly invoking the prospect of a lawsuit, both against the Wikimedia Foundation and the editor(s) who inserted the comments, would be considered a legal threat. John254 16:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading what he stated properly, because what he states is this, "BTW, did you all know that anything beyond a clinical drawing in this article places not only the person who added the content but Wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit?" He is not making the threats himself, but pointing out that someone could. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Explaining that certain actions may expose Wikipedia to legal problems is not a legal threat, even if that claim is incorrect. A threat implies some sort of... intent. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you see a difference between "Look both ways when crossing the street or you might get hit by a car" and "Look both ways before crossing the street or I'll hit you with my car"? CyberAnth's comment was a caution, not a threat. Frise 05:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was reading through the commentary in the talk page and on Jimbo's talk page, and I honestly feel that there needs to be some sort of intervention on this article. i am not certain if a penis shooting its load is appropriate for the article, but others may feel reason to differ. I believe that instead of trying to get users permanently blocked that you should be trying to take this issue through some sort of mediation process instead of edit warring. Honestly, it's a penis, get over it. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that these two links could be relevant in this discussion: [70] [71] 193.219.28.146 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what relevance these two links have to do with this. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth's statement isn't an attempt to make a legitimate complaint about a legal problem. He isn't saying "the picture is obscene, and should be removed", but is instead invoking the spectre of a lawsuit against the editor(s) adding the picture to the article in an attempt to intimidate them. This isn't acceptable behavior, even if, as an editorial matter, the picture is inappropriate. John254 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I am not sure what I would expect to see on the ejaculation page, but a picture of an ejaculation would not be something that surprises me, considering it is the subject of the article. But then, this is a very old argument. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I am a bit worried over getting sued from having a penis in Penis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)! :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, were you kidding? If not, then no we cannot be sued for that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

John, I would certainly agree it is not a legal issue. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• The real problem is that illustrations in sex articles divide into three classes: drawings, copyright violations and vanity. Some fit more than one category. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• That is probably the single most succinct description of the problem that I have ever seen. For some reason, discussions on topics like this one tend to bring out the WP:DICK in people. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John254 that this is not acceptable behaviour, and I also believe WP:LEGAL doesn't cover it yet, so a discussion with the user is all that's called for. From what I've seen, this is a common type of intimidation and we need a policy or guideline for it. I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No legal threats now. Kla'quot 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Without investigating further, it is difficult to say whether CyberAnth is genuinely pointing out legal concerns, or raising them as a threat to persuade people to change their minds. On the issue of medical drawings and photos, genuinely free photos will always have a taint of "possible vanity" attached to them, unless they are set up in as educational and clinical a way as possible, rather than designed to show sexuality. I added the links at the bottom of the current article to a set of medical illustrations. Someone on the talk page then tweaked some free pics (well, I hope they were free) to show an erection, which seems to miss the point to me. Tweaking pictures like that is actually misleading, as the new picture fails to show all the physiological changes from non-erect to erect status. I am sure a professional anatomist/medical illustrator would pick several large holes in what the current image is showing. Carcharoth 13:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert Wesley Purdy spam + outing editors

I came across this spam while reading the Coal mining article a week ago:

• gilbertwesleypurdy.blogspot.com, blacklisted 5 February 2007

It turns out there were links to this ad-heavy literary site all over Wikipedia. Mostly to authors but others too like Hawksbill turtle. My personal favorite was Longwall mining, a coal mining method invented decades after the time period covered by the ad-heavy historical piece he linked to. You can check out my 25 January diffs to see what I'm talking about.

He's linking to copies of things like famous poems on his web site, but I think these are probably out there on line with a lot fewer ads -- take a look at this edit[72]

He used a bunch of different IPs (many of them shared) to add these links -- I wish I'd recoded them last week.

I deleted 60 links, but I notice he's been adding some back using 63.3.17.129 and 63.3.17.1.

This editor turns out to have some history with Wikipedia over spam-links, outing editors and making legal threats -- see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive92#Legal threat against editor.

That dispute led him to create:

• vgs-wiki-watchdog.blogspot.com blacklisted 5 February 2007

I only skimmed this briefly; it's a long page and the meet appears further down the page. It appears he used it to attack Wikipedia and Dalbury in particular. Note that he also posted stuff from wikitruth about another editor's real life identity.

Related websites -- some of were also linked to Wikipedia, some weren't:

• gilbert-wesley-purdy.blogspot.com blacklisted 5 February 2007
• vgs-index-and-specialty.blogspot.com blacklisted 5 February 2007
• vgs-pbr-reviews.blogspot.com blacklisted 5 February 2007
• vgscomputerarchive.myblogsite.com blacklisted 5 February 2007
• virtual-grub-street.blogspot.com blacklisted 5 February 2007
• catalyzerjournal.com blacklisted 5 February 2007

As for the name "Virtual Grub Street" -- there was a prominent article written in the 90s entitled "Virtual Grub Street" but I don't think it had anything to do with Purdy:

• Paul Roberts, "Virtual Grub Street: Sorrows of a Multimedia Hack," Harper's Magazine (June 1996), 71-77 (http://www.salon.com/media/media2960521.html)

--72.149.166.221 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this 2006 discussion

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Mar & Apr#Repeat spammer on dynamic IPs

Partial list of accounts and articles edited (I only got about halfway through my list of articles despammed last week):

• 216.114.80.202 (talk • contribs • count)
  • W. S. Merwin
  • James Garfield
  • Ulysses S. Grant
  • St. Johns River
  • Seminole
  • History of Florida
  • Seminole
  • Apalachicola River
  • Fort Gadsden
  • Sidney Lanier
  • History of slavery in the United States
• 216.114.80.209 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Economy of the United States
  • John Burroughs
• 209.214.14.184 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Wild Turkey
  • Seminole
  • Canaan
• 209.214.14.15 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Wild Turkey
  • Seminole
  • Claudia Emerson
• 209.214.14.138 (talk • contribs • count) -- blocked twice -- see talk page exchanges
  • Claudia Emerson
  • Wild Turkey
  • Seminole
• 209.215.55.111 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Naomi Shihab Nye
  • Hawksbill turtle
• 216.114.82.71 (talk • contribs • count)
  • University of Mary Washington
  • Claudia Emerson
• 209.214.14.108 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Michael Parenti
  • Robert Jensen
  • Ted Kooser
  • Marge Piercy
  • Ruth Stone
  • Wendell Berry
  • Alberto Ríos
  • John Balaban
  • Roland Barthes
• 216.114.80.210 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Northern Flicker
  • Bobolink
• 216.114.81.226 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Rutherford B. Hayes
  • Henry Adams
  • Ulysses S. Grant
• 216.114.81.228 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Jim Harrison
• 216.114.80.203 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Federico García Lorca
  • Michelangelo
  • Federico García Lorca
  • Potawatomi
• 209.215.55.47 (talk • contribs • count)
  • John James Audubon
  • William Bartram
  • John Burroughs
  • Guy Philippe
• 216.76.208.49 (talk • contribs • count)
• Guy Philippe
  • 209.215.55.85 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Reconstruction
• 209.214.14.130 (talk • contribs • count)
  • History of slavery in the United States
  • Kemble family
  • American literature
  • Reconstruction
• 216.114.80.207 (talk • contribs • count)
  • Fanny Kemble
• 209.214.14.89 (talk • contribs • count)
  • St. Johns River
  • History of slavery in the United States

--72.149.166.221 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Mr/Ms/Mrs. IP, that is a good find. It's not even that COI is the issue, links to blogs are not allowed by external link policy guideline. I'll browse around the contributions. Teke ^(talk) 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! I thought he had gone away. It is kind of silly of him to 'out' me, as I have been very open about my real name (which is fairly uncommon, just 3 or 4 of us with any Google hits). I'll continue to remove spam from the articles on my watchlist, but I will also continue to avoid any other contact with him. -- Donald Albury 15:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flashing message?

The text "Jimbo rapes babies" is flashing at the top of the page. I can't identify where it's coming from and I don't see anything suspicious in the history. John Reaves (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be gone now...weird. John Reaves (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It was our old friend the template vandal: most recently Ryan_the_Tank_Engine (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, how creative. John Reaves (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The worst part, the vandal didn't provide references. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sent to checkuser. MER-C 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And {{Emot}} sent to TfD, since we have deleted more than one such in the past. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal info of a young editor, need oversigh#t?

There is a (relatively veteran) user Patricknoddy who, on their user page, identified himself as being 9 years old and provided his full real name and city of residence. I cautioned the user on their talk page and removed/made unspecific some of their information. Another user wrote me to ask about deleting previous revisions. Since this personal info was in many many previous revisions, I am asking for advice here rather than going straight to ask for oversight. Can someone familiar with the debates over Wikipedia:Youth protection and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy please provide some guidance? —Dgies^t c 01:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a couple of these problems before and the easiest thing to do is just have an admin delete any diffs with the personal details visible. That will hide the diffs from all editors (but not admins). That's normally enough in these cases. -- Heligoland 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So... where would I make such a request? —Dgies^t c 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ta/wangi 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In the future, you can also try WP:RFO. Khoikhoi 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Got there before me :) and also thanks alot for reporting this Dgies.--Jersey Devil 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And for everyone's info... I just removed all versions bar the current one, since this is not a mainspace article and we don't need the logs... /wangi 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be deleted from here as well? John Reaves (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it should. The age is still visible here. It says at the top of the page: "To request oversight, please see WP:RFO". Still, requests still pop up here occasionally. If you look at WP:RFO, it says "Do not post oversight requests on this page, instead, use the "Request removal by email" link below." - something similar should be added above, trying to get people to not post sensitive information on this page either. Carcharoth 12:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin attention required

Can another admin review this unblock request please? Thanks. Viridae^Talk 10:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above. Metamagician3000 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)