Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:21, 28 February 2007 editGallileo2k (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,065 edits []: endorse block← Previous edit Revision as of 05:27, 28 February 2007 edit undoJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits Attacks and disruption of noticeboards by User:Antaeus FeldsparNext edit →
Line 711: Line 711:


:If it's continuing, I'd post at ] for an IP check/block. —] ] ] 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC) :If it's continuing, I'd post at ] for an IP check/block. —] ] ] 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

== Attacks and disruption of noticeboards by ] ==

This incident is being brought before this board by ] 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

'''Issue:''' ] continues his long-runnning attacks of me and attempts to get me in trouble with admins that I am very used to dealing with on Scientology Series talk pages (and in his edit summaries) but now he has brought his venom to the noticeboards and it needs to stop now. Recently he has disrupted the BLP noticeboard, and this board, in addition to his usual talk page performances. He also recently violated 3RR on the BLP noticeboard in addition to making an unjustified allegation of ] against me there. See Incidents section below

'''History (brief):''' Since I arrived in August 2006, ] has carried out a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing against me specifically and by name for what I can only assume is my being an open Scientologist and editing in the articles to bring some of my understanding to them and to clear out a bit of lurid attack and WP policy violations. While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens; we are not! ]'s belittlement and marginalization started in some of his first interactions with me and has continued unabated and with only increasing fervor.

'''Request:''' I, of course, cannot require it but would appreciate it if the highly POV and involved editors/admins on both sides of the Scientology issue abstain from commenting here. That means the three or more known admins with heavy off-site activity in attacking Scientology and those editors that are involved in the perpetual arguing and edit-warring that goes on in those articles. I mean '''both''' "sides". Why? Because all that will do is carry the same poisonous invective over here and this AN/I report is, if anything ,about that invective. Let's let the neutral uninvolved parties have their say, for a change. I promise that I will try my hardest to not say a lot more than I am saying now and, of course, Antaeus will have his say but if we could limits the POV "helpers" for either of us then that would great.

'''Heads-up:''' ] will likely bring up any and all incidents of my being less that respectful to him as a perceived "defense". I am not going to respond to those; if ] feels that he has a case then he should bring it; but not in this incident report. If I have been short or sarcastic with him, my only defense is that I tired quickly of the attacks and I think it will be clear that my comments are not nearly in the same league as ]'s calcuated disruptions. But this is not about me despite any upcoming attemps to make it so.

'''Incidents:''' I am just bringing up the most recent incidents and concentrating on those that are disruptive of the noticeboards as they are off-topic and are, IMO, intended to get an admin to sanction me without due process. Note that no admin has done that to me so it has been in vain.
*Attacks me on ]: See the last post by ]. Not too terrible but illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic (BabyDweezil) and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard.
*Attacks me on ]: (adding sig) shows a pretty "typical" attempt at marginalization and belittlement of me. I would not bother with it except to show his pattern. See the previous paragraph from him also for more of the same. I brought my questions to BLP noticeboard ] and found that there was merit in my ideas (not "fantastical, ''bizarre''" as ] characterized them after all).
*Disruption and attacking me on ]: In posting, allegedly on ], ] starts out with an accusation against me and goes on to imply that I am a liar and it doesn't get any better from there. If he has a real question for the board then he should just ask it without all the disruptive accusations. That is abusive.
*3RR on BLP: ] has made the same deletion (4) times in a period sufficiently close to 24-hours to clearly violate ] despite a non-involved admin doing the first reversal of his deletion. Deleting the same material (4) times is 3RR violation; it is NOT a case of one edit and (3) reversions, it is (4) reversions.
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111227099&oldid=111166503
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111236141&oldid=111227765
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111256924&oldid=111254870
#http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111487495&oldid=111394273
*Disruptive and attacking me on BLP: As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of ] and made sure to leave my sig next to his "" notation. This would lead someone to think I had actually made a PA. In the he accused me by name in the edit summary: "remove personal attacks by Fossa, Steve Dufour and Justanother". --] 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:27, 28 February 2007

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archivessearch)

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Request for ban

    Continued vandalism from a school. ] There have been repeated incidents, apparently.

    Request block for Phasemc and User talk:68.72.123.53 believed to be same user.

    This user has been repeatedly deleting merge tags on Mancow articles. The IP address and user are being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Mancow articles, and has been left warnings by myself explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop. --Masterpedia

    Hello???

    So once again my report of harassment went ignored, and yet it continues. But we don't need WP:PAIN do we? This editor among a couple others have been after me for over 2 months because he made an off-topic and inappropriate comment on a talk page I removed, and yet it continues , .--Crossmr 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    And the previous ignored report was here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive204#On-going_and_Long-term_Harassment. So let me be clearer. I edited a talk page in accordance with the guidelines and in retaliation I've had months of harassment in the form of talk page, user page vandalism, personal attacks and incivility hurled at me. The biggest response was a single 24 hour block of one of the IPs, who obviously didn't get it as he's admitted to using his IP to vandalize and harass me when he has an account.--Crossmr 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    Crossmer, calm down. I've warned the IP again, though I do find it troublesome that he refers to himself as a 'dynamically assigned IP' when threatened with a block. Can I can some other opinions? --InShaneee 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've been harassed for over 2 months, with more personal attacks and incivility than I can count. The last ignored comment wasn't the only one thats gone posted here and ignored while it continues. If you read the previous comment you'll see that I've provided some evidence as to who the IP is.--Crossmr 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    The survivalist issue was taken care of long ago. The issue on the part of the IP 24.... was that months ago he made an off-topic and attacking comment against kim on the talk page which I noticed when archiving and removed per the talk page guidelines. He's gone on a personal vendetta since that event taking every opportunity to harass me both on the talk page and vandalize my user page and talk page. I don't think dispute resolution is the issue, his behaviour is well beyond that.--Crossmr 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    The IP has been blocked for a week by someone else, and has threatened to sock/continue on his return, so I think some more eyes on this situation would be helpful. --InShaneee 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    A few months ago I was the target of on-going harassment by another anonymous IP and I put together a record page which made it easier to deal with. I've done the same here . This is complete give or take a few diffs (the vandalism and harassment diffs would be extensive, so I stuck to the main one regarding this) There may already be some proxying going on (which I've included on the page).--Crossmr 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    The 131 IP is obviously the same person/someone working with them. Here he restores 24s harassing comment to my talk page and makes his own. This whole range is going to need blocked as I've seen at least two other IPs from this air force on the Kim talk page and vandalizing my user/talk page in relation to this.--Crossmr 13:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Just an update, Jake b was confirmed as the 24... IP address via a check user .--Crossmr 04:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Nadia Kittel

    This user is completely uncommunicative for month and never really reacts to criticism of his edits which are often POV or redundant to existent content. He is uploading copyright violating images since at least December 2006 (the last one I found was Image:MMBLA3.jpg). I tried to reach him in German language (his native language) but my message was deleted just minutes after sending. I'm sorry to say that his ignoring is not caused by language problems but just foully. Maybe someone can solve but I really have no more idea... Geo-Loge 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    There was also a situation recently where Nadia Kittel created a user page for User:Kay. Nadia Kittel claimed that Kay was a new username but did not respond when asked to log in as Kay and confirm. Leebo 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well he ignored the ask for verification in this question. This is due this user is completely incurioused to basics of intellectual property law and problems. Geo-Loge 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    If this person deleted a message, it shows acknowledgement - perhaps it is time to start warning this user for uploading copyrighted images or something? By the way, it's more likely to be a her, than a he, but that's just me. x42bn6 Talk 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Nadia used the image of Kay for a long time and replaced that image with the current image of.. I do not know exactly: Madonna? I think he/she lost the access data to the Kay account. But this is speculation which only can be verified by this user. I do not know how to warn him/her? His/her talk page archive is full of warnings. Geo-Loge 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Marilyn Monroe, I think, but the name is a female name. Either way, see WP:TUSER. x42bn6 Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Just for some background, I blocked this user in December 2006 for being uncommunicative, blanking his/her talk page and also all of these erroneous uploads. The idea was not to punish Nadia but to get his/her attention, i.e. to be instructive. Apparently it didn't work. There is nothing worse than a user who refuses to communicate with others. Honestly, I don't know what to do next. I could block the user, but I see no evidence of change. --Woohookitty 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    There are normal and justified edits among his contributions, I know. But his understanding of copyrights is unportable. Some of his upload license information are lied and he knows that this uploads are illegal. I tried to communicate in German language.. I warned him that I will argue for an unlimited block of his account, if he just blanks this message.. he blanked and so I only see one way: Block this user for an unlimited period. Geo-Loge 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Liist edit to The Holocaust

    User:Liist made this edit to Holocaust, which I reverted and gave a Vandal4im warning for. He erased the warning from his talk page., then proceded to add this image to the Jew page.

    If it's not vandalism, it's skirting the edge--but there's enough wiggle room that I wanted an admin to look at the situation. Justin Eiler 18:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'd also point out that these "POV edits" (if nobody wants to believe it's really a lot worse than that) seems to be a habit with Liist - he's made a bogus redirect in a similar vein ("stolen land" to "Israel"). That's a pretty strong agenda for a kid in high school. MSJapan 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Blocked 24h (vandalized Jew in a similar manner after that final warning) - but someone needs to see if this account was compromised. I don't see anything anti-Semitic in any of his edits before today. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Unblock/reblock of confirmed sockpuppeteer

    Early today, admin User:Yamla unblocked Lee Nysted (talk · contribs), a recently confirmed sockpuppeteer, stating that the user promised to stop socking, spamming, etc. I've reblocked the user, because the unblock was not discussed with either the blocking admin or on the RFCU. I'm not entirely sure if this promise was made on wiki or via email, but in any case, there should be more discussion about the issue before we unblock the user. Shadow1 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    Indeed, I approached Yamla about the unblock and raised the issue that this was done without communication, which is not a good move, in my opinion. Checkuser has information that normal admins do not, and these blocks should only be repealed after communication with the checkuser.
    It should also be noted that since his unblock his only contributions have been removing sock tags from his sockpuppets and harassing users that he sees as his opponents on their talk pages. When the sock tags were removed, administrator JzG restored them and protected the article. I think that his lease on good faith has expired and should remain blocked. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I left Yamla a note on their talk page and invited them to join the discussion here. A Train 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Of course. As she is the one that unblocked Lee in the first place, I would value hearing what promises were so compelling to repeal a block without any discussion at all. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. If this user is willing to commit to using one and only one account, not asking other people to create meatpuppet accounts, and being civil, there's no harm in an unblock ... but I don't see any evidence of such a commitment. --BigDT 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    It is not the case that I unblocked this user earlier today. The user was unblocked more than three weeks ago after discussion on unblock-en-l. The user did at the time commit to having read WP:SOCK, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and some other policies, and agreed not to violate them again. I unblocked the user because blocks are preventative, not punitive, and iirc (which I may not), notified JzG about my actions. I was rightly criticised by JzG for unblocking without first discussing with him, and apologised for doing so. --Yamla 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    • The user was unblocked on the 6th, to be precise. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see it now. My mistake; it was three weeks ago. Shadow1 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So, having cleared this up, what is it now: has he done enough disruptive things within those last three weeks to deserve a new block, or not? In particular, is there evidence for renewed sockpuppetry? He's currently on Category:Requests for unblock. Fut.Perf. 15:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't know if there is evidence of renewed puppetry, but at the same time I can't really say he has had a lot of high quality edits since the block was lifted. His claim of wanting to be unblocked because he in involved in 2 AfDs rings a bit hollow. One he apparently became suddenly interested in after JzG showed up and opined delete. WP:AGF, but it is kind of hard not to see this as a WP:STALK. The other is apparently Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena 2, which is closed. That said, I'd be willing to extend him a bit of AGF and see if he actually wants to contribute positively here, but any more socking should result in a ban discussion.--Isotope23 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Just a couple of bits on the issue: I haven't seen his checkuser, but he claims to be connecting from several different places, each of which could be shared by random and disparate users. He has read and agreed to several policies (including WP:SOCK and WP:COI. Yes he violated the policies, but he didn't really know them? He wanted to participate in the AfDs, but they're both closed, so those are moot issues now. People have been making a big deal about him becoming an enemy of JzG and just joining the opposite bandwagon. People have been throwing words around like "proof" but I've yet to see anything besides circumstantial evidence. Maybe there's some evidence that I'm missing, but I think we should AGF, and allow an unblock, watching what he does for a while to see if he'll contribute to wikipedia. McKay 15:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Okay, as not much fresh material has come to light here that would necessitate an ongoing block (we're talking indef here!), and since the previous block was based at least in part on a factual misunderstanding, I'm unblocking now. Fut.Perf. 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it rather depends. I'm the original blocking admin, and not known for long periods of absence, but this is largely news to me despite the thread I started at WP:AN. Nysted's contributions thus far are of approximately zero worth, as noted above, and the text below implies a legal threat, which hardly helps his case. Discussed on unblock-l? For what value of discussed? I posted a strong request not to unblock when he first asked, and although I subscribe to unblock-l it looks like I missed that debate as well. So once again Nysted is loose and !voting "keep" for syntheses of original research and other "helpful" input. No doubt one day he will be a really productive self-publicising vanity spammer... Guy (Help!) 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Please, Mr. Jzg,

    Let it go. I threaten no one here. I mean no harm. My thank you, is just that, a thank you. I am trying to learn. I voted on an issue today and you suddenly showed up? I would like to be allowed the opportunity to learn here, and eventually add value.

    That is all.

    Lee Nysted 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you.

    You know, my main concern in all of this is that even when I am an "asshole" and deserve to be stepped on, the innocent people around me do not deserve same. I go to meetings (for going on 13 years) to help me when I get crazy. But the people getting squashed while trying to do their jobs are innocent victims.

    I have over 20,000 employees to think about at AGE and at NM, as well as, all the people on all the wireless outlets.

    Lee Nysted, Owner; Managing Partner NystedMusic, LLC.


    Managing Director, Owner Senior Vice President Investments

    A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc. Lake Forest, IL. St. Louis, Mo. N.Y., N.Y.

    U.S.A.

    Tierra del Sol, Aruba

    Amsterdam

    London


    www.NystedMusic.com

    Lee@NystedMusic.com

    www.MySpace.com/LeeNysted

    www.isound.com/lee_nysted

    Legal Counsel:

    Frank W. Pirruccello, Esq. www.Musiclaw1.com

    Roger White, Esq. and Associates, Ltd. Lake Bluff, IL. U.S.A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted (talkcontribs) 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Sorry for not signing.Lee Nysted 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Blocks by User:Raul654

    Could someone please review the recent blocks (last half dozen, say - I haven't checked the older ones myself yet) made by User:Raul654 (). He has repeatedly blocked IP addresses for prolonged periods following very small amounts of vandalism with very few if any warnings. Raul654 is one of our most experienced administrators, which makes this all the more concerning. WP:BLOCK says: "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." That description definitely applies to at least some of Raul's recent blocks. I have discussed this with him on his talk page and, while acknowledging he may have overreacted is trying to come up with various excuses, none of which are particularly persuasive, and he still hasn't unblocked any of them. Am I overreacting, or are others equally concerned by this apparent "policy does not apply to me" attitude? --Tango 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I'd characterise the brief discussion on his talk as a "policy does not apply to me" attitude, though your own attitude seems to be a bit off (IMO). I haven't looked closely into the blocks, but as a general note the block stuff is often a guideline and a judgement call needs to be made, looking at individual blocks in isolation can miss patterns of vandalism the blocker may note (though Raul654 hasn't suggested this to be the case). --pgk 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I believe Raul is fine here; a lot of that vandalism was made to the main page, and he was just making sure they wouldn't do it again. The last thing we want is to give a person three chances to blank a main page FA - one of our key publicity points. I applaud Raul for having the correct mindset when it comes to TFA vandalism. — Deckiller 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    That justification works fine for a 24 hour block, it doesn't work for a 1 week block, and certainly not for a 1 month block as some of Raul's blocks have been. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I suggest you do look closely into the blocks. Take the block of User:129.67.128.222, for example. One edit, blanking the day's featured article, is the only thing in the IP's contribs, and Raul blocked it for a week with no warnings. As I said on his talk page, it being the featured article may justify not issuing a warning first, but it doesn't justify a longer block than 24 hours (the article is only featured for that long, for a start). It's not the discussion on his talk page that suggests his attitude, it's his logs - policy says one thing, he's done the other and apparently has no intention of changing his ways. I can't see any reason for him doing that unless he feels above policy. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    The IP given looks static to me, it's an Oxford Uni IP blanking a featured article about an Oxford Uni College. Policy doesn't give absolutes, but even if I agree it seems a long block one on it's own doesn't seem to indicate a huge problem. I'd have to look through mutiple, filter out ones where similar vandalism is going on and so maybe connected, filter out any where there is suspected "sockpuppetry" (I'll assume Raul marks those resulting from his checkuser privileges as such). I'm not sure how you can divine an attitude from looking at a block log. What I can see from the dicussion is Raul admit an overreaction, you following up with some rather patronising comments a bit more discussion where Raul doesn't appear to be being obstructive and again your comments seem far from constructive in trying to reach a reasonable conclusion. --pgk 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Endorse blocks • This post seems a bit vexatious. And the "I suggest you explain yourself there" line was not very nice. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Could you explain your endorsement, please? If you are endorsing blocks which go against policy you must have a specific reason. --Tango 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    Your repeated badgering of Raul, and now it seems anyone who disagrees with your position, kind of justifies why I say this post is vexatious, methinks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't ask you to explain that, I asked you to explain your endorsement. --Tango 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You have to realize that Raul is a checkuser, and in many cases, you get a user vandalizing TFA from a ton of sleeper socks. Titoxd 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That's fine and that's a reasonable explanation ... but if that's the case, it should be noted as a {{checkuserblock}} so that if the vandal later comes along and claims that their IP is dynamic, an admin won't unblock, not realizing that there was a checkuser reason for the block. --BigDT 23:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Precisely. The blocks I'm questioning have block reasons like "vandalism" despite the blocks clearly being for something more than that (assuming they are justifiable blocks). If Raul has a good reason for the blocks, he should be including it in his block reason - that's what the box is there for. --Tango 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Block request/Intervention: User:Master Cheif 001

    User:Master Cheif 001 has consistently vandalized Halo related articles and now has launched personal attacks against User:Peptuck of a particuarly gratuitous nature. Editor Peptuck has helped remove his vandalism and while also attempting (with other editors) to mediate with him regarding his changes in effort to resolve any dispute, but User:Master Cheif 001 has resorted to vandalism of talk pages and blanking out vandalism warnings from his own talk page along side personal attacks. Can any admin intervene and attempt to put an end to this? Qjuad 00:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    He has not had a vandal warning in two days. Be sure to put vandal notices on his page, he can only be blocked for vandalism after violating a level 4 or blatant warnings.Rlevse 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Possible doppelganger

    Hi, I am an admin, but I'd like a little outside assistance on this case. User:67.53.78.15 appears to be posting on multiple talk pages while emulating the signatures of multiple non-existent users. Obviously something's amiss, although I'm not exactly what I should do in this case. Help requested. — Edward Z. Yang 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I told them how faking signatures is unacceptable and they should either sign so their IP appears or register an account. If they continue faking sigs, the IP can be blocked. - Mgm| 09:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I went to the list of contributions and have undone all the fake signatures. This user appears to belief big corporations are evil and work for the government. - Mgm| 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Block review

    I have indefinitely blocked PhilPhague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is obviously one in the same with the indefblocked PhilMakesMeGroan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and HeyPhil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly AZJustice (talk · contribs) as well, but that's conjecture), despite his claim otherwise or that Jesus endorses his work here . Both PhilPhague and PhilMakesMeGroan created an attack page Phil Gronowski, Portrait of a Sad Young Man. (Philip Gronowski (talk · contribs) is a user here). Some concern had been expressed on WP:RFCN that the name PhilPhague was itself an attack on Philip Gronowski. (I have no idea what "phague" means, but ok.) At any rate, please review this block and feel free to reduce the time or to allow the user to make an account under a different name that doesn't contain "Phil" in it, if you feel that the user should not be banned. Thank you. --BigDT 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    A phage is a virus that attacks bacteria, and 'phague' could be pronounced as "fag". The attack page backs up the idea that this is a single-purpose attack account / sock. Completely support the block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ok ... either of those make sense ... thanks. I have added a request for checkuser at WP:RFCU#PhilPhague to find any other potential accounts that there may be. --BigDT 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Request of block

    The IP addresses User:68.91.91.194, User:68.89.129.226, User:68.91.253.8, User:69.149.104.72, User:66.142.89.8 and other similars are believed to be the same person. They recurrently edit in Clásico Regiomontano over a supposed NPOV dispute. The claimant will always leave accusations and other comments in the talk page, and then proceed to vandalize the page by deleting material. At his request, the materials has been recently re-written, sourced and referenced. However, since the result was not of the satisfaction of his point of view (of which he has referred to as "the truth"), he has continued to vandalize the page by deleting said sourced material. Administrator intervention, and guidance, is requested to resolve this dispute. Hari Seldon 07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Content dispute and edit warring. I've protected the article in order to discuss further your edits. I've left a note at the article talk page asking the IP address to get an account instead of trying to game the system by avoiding the 3RR (it hasn"t happened yet anyway). -- FayssalF - 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Sockblock requested

    HolyMoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has helpfully identified himself as a sockpuppet of the indef blocked SneakySoyMeat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log): . Could someone kindly block him? (All the accounts listed in the linked SSP case have been blocked.) --Akhilleus (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Done. -- FayssalF - 09:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Blocking open proxies on home IP's -- a few words on process & policy

    Hello,

    I was recently asked to verify a purported open proxy, and opine on the length of the block established vs. it.

    After looking into current de facto standards for blocking home users running (suspected) proxies, I'd like to give a little bit of guidance.

    I encourage admins blocking home DSL and cable IP's suspected to be proxies to avoid using indefinite blocks, due to the potential for collateral damage, and the potential for these machines to shift IP's. When indef blocked, there is a significant possibility that non-proxy machines will end up on these IP's, and thus be inappropriately blocked.

    In general, systems with *dhcp*, *dsl*, *dynamic*, and related strings in their hostnames should not be being blocked indefinitely. I've included, below, an excerpt from my reply to the user who originally asked for verification:


    80.42.49.227 is verifiably a home dynamic DSL IP, and not currently running an open proxy as of Fri Feb 27 16:59:31 EST 2007. Based on the foregoing, and the stated block terms of "(anon. only, account creation blocked, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected open proxy but registered/logged in users are allowed to edit)", this block should be lifted.
    My reading of policy infers that proxy blocks are for the life of the proxy, regardless of the type of system in question. When it ceases to be a proxy, it should cease to be blocked. For practical purposes, blocks are against IP's rather than against specific machines, so when a machine gets a new IP, the previously blocked IP is de facto no longer an open proxy.
    The metapolicy on open proxies affirms this reading, stating: "Non-static IPs or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP is likely to be transferred, the open proxy is likely to be closed, or the IP is likely to be re-assigned dynamically."
    dhcpd defaults the lease length for a given IP to one day. Many DSL and cable providers use "sticky" dhcp, which means that clients will continue to receive the same IP when they renew under many but not all circumstances.
    An informed blocking policy would then be for a length of at least one day but no more than seven days. Ultimately, when blocking a nominally dynamic IP, the blocking admin should take responsibility for ensuring that the benefit to the project outweighs potential harm, and for re-checking (or having re-checked) the proxy status of the IP if the block is for any substantial ( > 3 days ) length of time.
    Hope this helps :)

    In summary, it just takes a moment to check the hostname of an IP -- you can do it at a number of sites, including this one. In the case of the IP referenced above, the output is 80-42-49-227.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com, which is clearly dynamic DSL.

    The metapolicy on proxies lives at http://meta.wikimedia.org/WM:NOP, and is also good reading.

    There are more accurate ways to do this, and this one will produce both false positives and false negatives, but it's better than nothing, and the most accessible to non-technical users.

    If you have doubts as to whether a system is still a proxy, please ask someone on the Wikiproject on Open Proxies approved user list to check for you. The Internet community will thank you for keeping Misplaced Pages sane, while still protecting end-users from collateral damage.

    Thanks for reading. If anyone else has considered this issue, I welcome feedback : )

    User:Adrian/zap2.js 10:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    This is a bad place to put this kind of advice, because discussions here are archived very quickly. The other noticeboard is better (slower archiving), and even better is to also put on a relevant talk page (where it can take months or years to be archived). --cesarb 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I Wish To Report An Infraction!

    He did it again. I thought that this user was blocked! Apparantly, I was mistaken. RichardRonnie 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think a bit more detail might help here. Admins are not mind readers... WjBscribe 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Hold on. I have to look it up again. I seem to have forgotton his name too. Darned.RichardRonnie 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Is this your new account Richard? -- FayssalF - 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I had to create a new account, because I lost the password to my other one. Anyways, once I remember "Mr Infraction"'s real name and offense, I will re request a total block.RichardRonnie 11:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oki. -- FayssalF - 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Potential incident at List of Internet phenomena

    Content dispute. However, some incivility is shown by the IP. -- FayssalF - 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    The diff cited is almost a month old, which is roughly the age of the IP's edit history. In general, adverse action against a user is preventative vs. punitive. Is there an instant offense? :)
    User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:15Z
    Nope and as i said above it is mainly a content dispute. -- FayssalF - 11:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Death threats on my user and talk pages

    Recently, some vandals/IP addresses have been attacking my talk page and leaving nasty messages, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:SunStar_Net&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:SunStar_Net&action=history

    Please can someone delete the offending revisions for me?? --sunstar net 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you. It's also on my talk page too. --sunstar net 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Theratman

    Not sure if this is the correct forum, but this user name and behavior is suggestive of a sockpuppet for the blocked Theman00 based on this edit . Is it possible for admins to check the ip address to confirm this, or do we go through the test1, test2 procedure? Thanks, AntiVan 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Indef for block evasion. -- FayssalF - 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Nrh15

    I have no idea how to deal with this problem so if this is the wrong forum I apologise and would be happy to be pointed in the right direction. Since early February I have been attempting to revert a series of edits from one user, mostly to Claudette Colbert, Talk:Claudette Colbert and to a lesser extent Vivien Leigh, and to a very minor extent Charles Boyer. The other editor has been consistently removing cited material and injecting a non-neutral POV into these articles, or has added "cite needed" to areas that are cited. It's petty, but annoying. Has also engaged in vandalism to the user pages of several editors, including myself, but this seems to have stopped. The first user name, User:Wbrz was blocked temporarily and emerged as User:Wptfe who was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Returned within a day or so as User:Nrh15 making similar edits. The edit summaries used to revert my edits are dishonest - for example they often say "reverting unexplained deletion" when I've clearly explained my edit, saying it is "potentially libellous" when it's not, or replacing cited text with uncited POV, with cryptic edit summaries such as "POV or guesswork" which seems to have been taken from a comment I made in one of mine. It's all so odd. The edit summaries make no sense at all particularly those relating to Claudette Colbert. I don't know what to do, but having an edit war every few days is obviously counterproductive. Claudette Colbert is semi-protected because of numerous edits made by this person as an anon, but has easily gotten around this by creating user names to make the same edits. I've left messages on the talk pages of these identities, but the replies I receive make no sense. User talk:Nrh15 contains a couple of replies - but they are incoherent and downright odd. Would appreciate any help or advice. Thanks Rossrs 13:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm looking into it.--Isotope23 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    OK, I've reverted Claudette Colbert and created a redirect at the copyvio Lily Claudette Chauchoin. I've also protected Claudette Colbert for the time being and left a message for User:Nrh15 on his talkpage about adding unsourced POV into articles. I'm waiting to see his response, if any, before I unprotect the article. Hopefully this clears it up.--Isotope23 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Tmac68 and the Zodiac killer page

    I completed a major rewrite of the Zodiac killer page to bring it into conformity with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. To do this, I had to delete approximately half of the 72 KB article, since it violated WP:V, WP:BLP WP:RS and WP:OR. It still does, to some extent, but it is much better now. Tmac68 has now begun reinserting material that is unsourced and inaccurate. . He was warned three times, but then did it again: . Ordinarily I wouldn't bring this to ANI, but on the talk page, he promised me an edit war about this, in conjunction with other editors who own the article. . Given that the article grossly violated WP:BLP, I thought it best to bring this to the community's attention. Jeffpw 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC) He also blanked the article completely Jeffpw 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours.--Isotope23 13:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Fisc EuroTour spamming by User:Fisceurotour and 81.206.231.18

    I really hate to report things this way, but I'd like to draw attention to this issue because Fisceurotour (either logged in or via his IP address 81.206.231.18) has done some major link spamming for the Fisc EuroTour page.

    I have removed approximately 150 (!) references to this page, done on virtually every obscure article there is on automobilia from the 1950s and 1960s. While the page about FISC EuroTour itself read like an ad and I have my doubts about the contents (I put the advert template on it, but Fisceurotour has removed it), the blatant fact that he linkspammed this page all across Misplaced Pages made me convice this is a deliberate act of spamming. Also, he has been warned before.

    I hope one of the administrators will look at his edits the coming days, as I don't want to repeat this excercise in mass article editing.

    Cheers, Brinkie 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    There's a username issue as well. -- FayssalF - 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I've notified him of the WP:RFCN discussion. Sam Blacketer 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Editor is associated with the FISC Eurotour and probably wrote the article. I ran into him many months ago as an IP editor for some reason (adding links or maybe I was deleting a lot of car images he had uploaded). I encouraged him to register a username and he did. Conflict of interest editing is discouraged but not prohibited. I'd suggest this editor is enthusiastic about his topic and just needs some guidance on COI etiquette (such as suggesting links on the talk pages and letting other editors decide if there is enough notability to add it). Thatcher131 15:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    March 11th Madrid train bombings

    I am afraid that user Randroide has decided to ignore yet again the disputed nature of this page ] and add an entirely new, and strongly, disputed section ]. The long running dispute on this page is about to go to arbitration, but somebody really needs to tell this user that this is not the way to resolve the dispute. The only possible result of his actions is a worsening of an already difficult dispute. Southofwatford 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Mediation. If not → Arbitration. I already know that the talk page hasn't served to solve the issues related to this article. -- FayssalF - 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    FYI → User talk:FayssalF/11M on July 2006. -- FayssalF - 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    This is Southofwatford´s idea of solving disputes:
    The RFC, and anything else, should be put on hold until we resolve the new problem created by Randriode's actions on Friday
    And what "terrible" thing I did last Friday: Hiding unsourced blocks of text , restored three times by Southofwatford.
    Southofwatford rejects RfC. It is time to simply ignore him. Randroide 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know much about this topic, but an ArbCom or mediation looks like the way to go and someone may want to consider protecting some version of this page after it is filed... and they might have to dig back into the history to find one that is actually decently WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I'd do it, but like I said I'm not that knowledgeable about the topic. I do know enough to say the article is kind of a mess right now.--Isotope23 14:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Arbitration seems to me to be the only way out now, in the meantime I think something should be done to protect the rights of those parties to the dispute who have voluntarily refrained from making edits to the article whilst attempting to resolve it. Southofwatford 14:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    School Block

    I have applied a 6 month schoolblock/soft block to User talk:216.152.229.82 if another admin thinks the time period is too harsh please adjust. Gnangarra 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    6 months is tooo harsh for a second block especially that we all know it is a high school. I shortened it to a week. -- FayssalF - 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    OTRS related assistance needed

    In response to a justifiably angry e-mail I have deleted an article Academy at Swift River as a sophisticated attack page on a school for children with behaviour problems. It was unsalvageable and purposely POV. On going throught the contributions of its creator Covergaard (talk · contribs) I'm seeing various other instances of similar articles with obvious weasel words, 'sources' with bad links, and apparent POV pushing and potential libels. They look well sourced, but dig down a little deeper. Rather than get into a head to head with the user, I'm bringing it here. Please review all his contributions, and revert, delete or de-POV as necessary. This is urgent.--Doc 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Even the term Behavior modification facility is loaded and pejorative.--Doc 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    You'd think so, but that's actually a term the industry uses, as shown here Eugenitor 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I need to rush off but I think http://en.wikipedia.org/Peninsula_Village certainly requires a deeper look. --Fredrick day 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    MUST go but.. I urge most strongly that someone looks quickly at the article I cited above - the sources I quickly checked either were misquoted or were not anywhere near a standard that WP:RS would go for - this for example. --Fredrick day 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Turnabout_Ranch was a disaster. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Pretty much every article in there is very close to a POV screed...--Isotope23 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Aspen Education Group. I've removed a lot of content that was OR or pure POV and made the language generally more neutral. Think this one's now OK but another pair of eyes wouldn't be a bad idea. WjBscribe 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I think someone needs to delete Peninsula Village. There's no way of knowing what's salvageable there: it uses the term 'detainess' throughout and the alleged use of straightjackets seems unsubstantiated. (also see Fredrick day above on this article).WjBscribe 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    The user has created loads of these pages. I am going to delete a bunch that have recieved no other edits - many don't actually provide any evidence of notability, are badly or unreferenced, and are very loaded POV-wise. Proto  16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Some I have also stubbed right down. I have to go, but a bunch remain. Someone badly needs to look at the root articles, behavioral modification and teen escort company, also curfew and Brat Camp. Proto  16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    These are what I managed to pick out from January and February. I've no doubt missed some, there's a lot there to wade through. – Steel 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I suggest we add to this list as people find articles that are problematic. Those that have been dealt with can either become redlinks or someone can add a note saying that that they have edited it to bring it into line with policy. WjBscribe 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, some kind of annotation would be a good idea. – Steel 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Or nuke 'em all, and let people start again if they wish?--Doc 17:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not an adminstrator, probably because if I was I would have done that already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds like a bloody good reason to sysop you.--Doc 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    If nominated, I will not run. If running I will not win. If winning, I will not serve. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    It might be worth checking through the contribs of Eugenitor (talk · contribs). He appears to edit mostly the same pages, though. – Steel 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Having checked, I don't see anything on this user's contributions needing attention other than the lists above and below. With less than 50 edits, this one was simple. GRBerry 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Looking at a pattern from the two users, it might be worth checking World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools and everything that links to it. I see the following articles on that list:

    GRBerry 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Another path to find articles; use Category:Behavior modification. GRBerry 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Given the severe damage that could be caused if this user has done the same thing to other articles with an alternative account, I'd suggest a checkuser investigation might be in the encyclopedia's best interests.--Doc 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Another new user with interest in the same article topics. Rmagick (talk · contribs). Probably has been trying to help cleanup; see Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Rmagick. GRBerry 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Didn't Misplaced Pages already go through something like this before with Scientology, with the Scientologists not really willing to talk about what happens at the upper levels, and trying to get such information removed?

    Trying to get any truly substantiated reports of the details (particularly the level systems) of these facilities is even more difficult.

    But please, for neutrality's sake, don't delete anything actually sourced and don't take anything anyone says at face value, particularly when they write it in angry letters.

    What looks like blatant POV is, unfortunately, actually what is going on (although it could all be phrased much, much more neutrally, I'm sure..) Difficult as it is to believe, some parents out there really are paying top dollar to have their kids kidnapped and "behavior modified". Much of this is third-party sourced in news articles.

    Oh, and Covergaard's not intentionally using weasel words- the man doesn't have the English skills to do that. He's just calling it as he sees it, which is probably not the best idea when trying to maintain neutrality.

    What this whole business needs is a good and thorough editing by experienced Wikipedians willing to knock out POV crap on both sides of the issue and find sources, not rampant deletion. Eugenitor 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    In the long run, it does need editing as described. In the short run, it needs a cleanup for adherance to the policies WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Copies of newspaper articles maintained at an advocacy group's website aren't reliable sources. The links can remain in history though, for someone to go find when and where the article ran, then go check that article, then add the content once they have confirmed that the reliable source actually said that. GRBerry 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    To be fair, some of these places can be pretty horrible. Granted, anything I could tell you would be dated by about 15 or 20 years, but it was nasty. HalfShadow 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've stubbed Majestic Ranch Academy, and I encourage anyone going through these to look out for claims that are supposedly sourced through a newspaper. One in that article was supposedly sourced from the Salt Lake Tribune, but it was on some other website, and I can find no evidence that the Tribune ever actually published such a story. (Even if they did, the site linked to is very likely in violation of copyright.) Were the deleted ones that godawful? Seraphimblade 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yep. WjBscribe 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I must have to protest that you have deleted some of the pages without tagging them for speedy deletion. Maybe such facilities or the concept of therapy is not wide-wide based subject, that can be on wikipedia at all. But surely they could have been tagged instead. Covergaard 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    If it makes you feel better, consider this thread the tag. Clearly the need to evaluate was indicated above. Speedy deletion criteria do not require tagging, nor any particular delay prior to deletion. Those speedy deleted were mostly done under WP:CSD#G10 (not necessarily with those letters in the summary), which has its own category and gets faster than average processing - my guess is the average tag to bag time is well under an hour, probably under 15 minutes. Many admins choose to only tag and let another delete, but the policy does not require a two person process. GRBerry

    User:Serafin

    To my astonishment, Checkuser has confirmed that User:Deszcz is not a sock of User:Serafin. I have thus unblocked this account. As I am no longer certain that Serafin evaded his block (some IPs have been brought into question, but no confirmation was ever received), I have reset the block to the original expiry time. I must also acknowledge having clearly been much too rash my assumptions of sockpuppetry. Heimstern Läufer 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Review block of YeLLeY511

    YeLLeY511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was recently indefinitely blocked with the rationale "spam-only account. dozens of spam images. apparently a paid promoter for a wrestler named 'brimstone'". YeLLeY511 was a new user who created an article Brimstone (wrestler), uploaded several Brimstone-related images, and inserted references to Brimstone in a few (apparently carefully-chosen) wrestling-related articles. The writing did not seem overtly promotional to me, but it was certainly fawning and non-encyclopedic in tone, which gave me the impression more of a young, enthusiastic fan than a professional promoter. The user has been in continuous contact with me (after I tagged her images as unlicensed or improperly licensed) on my user page and with the rest of the community on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions and seems to have made good-faith efforts to abide by policy.

    I ask that this block be reviewed, as though it is indeed possible that the user is a paid promoter, it's a bit premature to have blocked her without better evidence and without advance warning. This situation could have been better addressed through article {{cleanup}} and {{NPOV}} tags, and directing the user to read our WP:NPOV and WP:COI policies. —Psychonaut 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Rather depends on whether the blocking admin had good reason for believing that this is a paid promoter. Has anyone asked? Moreschi 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I was the blocking admin. Sysop user:Jersyko concurred offwiki. Please see blocked user's upload logs, and mine and Jersyko's deletion logs for the extent of the spamming. See also additional explanation on the blocked user's talk page. - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    YeLLeY511 was responding to and abiding by policy notifications in a polite and courteous manner. Even if she were spamming, there's no reason at this point to think that a {{welcomespam}} message wouldn't have solved the problem (or at least prevented future ones). —Psychonaut 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    It seems more likely than not that the user is a paid promoter: (1) the user wrote a fawning article on an arguably NN local wrestler (CSD G11 definitely, possibly A7), (2) all of the user's contributions were related to promoting or building this article and the wrestler, and (3) the user uploaded 32 images, by my count, all related to said wrestler. E-mails purported to be from the wrestler were posted by the user on several of the image talk pages, further lending credit to the view that the user is a paid promoter. I believe NYC JD's block was appropriate. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Unblocked... sort of

    I only now see this thread after I've provisionally unblocked them, as they made a (in my eyes, credible) promise to stop spamming. Feel free to re-block in case of any recidivist behaviour. Anyway, I came here to ask a technical question: even though unblocked, they say they still can't edit, and a {{unblock-auto}} shows them as editing from 127.0.0.1. Can anyone figure out what's the problem here? Sandstein 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Inappropriate user page

    I note that User:The Nazi's username is being disallowed, but am also concerned by his user page. In my opinion, the current version () is abhorrent and offensive and request speedy action. --Dweller 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Ah. Persian Poet Gal has dealt with this now. Thank you. --Dweller 18:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I actually deleted the history of it too. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Good thinking Chris.¤~Persian Poet Gal 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks all round. --Dweller 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Personal attack by User:HongQiGong

    User:HongQiGong has made a personal attack, labeling me a "Japanese porn fanboy," for defending articles on Japanese erotic cinema, a subject which he has threatened with mass AfDs numerous times, after commenting on POV-pushing on another user's talk page. Dekkappai 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    So, politely tell him you're offended and ask that he stop. It's not that insulting and it's obvious there are some personality conflicts going on there among several users. Why not just back off and let the whole thing cool off? This isn't the Tattletale board to come running to. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Ah. I was under the impression that there were some sort of official policies on communication to be followed here. My mistake, Schmuck. Dekkappai 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    There are also policies about not playing tit-for-tat. You'll note I said personality conflicts among several users, I suggest you all cool off. And thicken your skins, or at least not pretend your skin is so thin as an excuse to go running to "authority". SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    He could use a reminding of civil communication, but you need to tell him specifically what you were offended by before any action can be taken (assuming he would then ignore your warning). Leebo 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I placed such a reminder. SchmuckyTheCat 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Well, let's see what choice words Dekkappai had for me...

    • narrow-minded and blind
    • white-washing an article
    • I've never had the stomach to associate with such people
    • Now watch him parrot back the words like some 5-year-old thinking he's making a real point
    • thug

    Hmmm... maybe I should file a complaint on this board. And no, I'm not ashamed to use this rhetoric: he started it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    It's clear that the three of you should avoid direct conflicts if you can't refrain from passive-aggressive banter. Leebo 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I was just responding to Dekkappai's colourful description of my behaviour. And I've stopped after Schmucky here left a message on my Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Banned user reappearing?

    The recent edits by User:132.216.104.200 suggest to me a reincarnation of a banned user. This user is simultaneously rejecting low numbers on the number of Romanians and high numbers on the number of Roma. In neither case is he presenting any real arguments, just saying that these numbers (which seem as well cited as others in the relevant articles) constitute "POV pushing". Use of that term strongly suggests experience with Misplaced Pages, so this is presumably not a newbie.

    Following up on this, I see that the IP is McGill University in Montreal. I believe that is where banned user NorbertArthur was, and these edits would be typical of him. If so, this IP should definitely be blocked as a sockpuppet and the edits reverted. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Edits reverted and I'm issuing a block. WP:DUCK applies here.--Isotope23 19:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I issued a 1 month because it is an IP. I don't have a problem with another admin coming along and adjusting this block... I'm not too sure how McGill runs their IP's so I was not comfortable issuing an indef myself.--Isotope23 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


    Recent Vandalism?

    The recent edits by User:84.13.87.135 on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Matrix_scheme show repeated reverts and prolonged vandalism. I have asked for page protection already on the relevant page, but ask that this IP address be banned to stop further attacks. --Cybertrax 20:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Blocked 24 hours. In the future, however, please take these reports to AIV (for vandalism) or AN3 (for 3RR violations, which we have here). | Mr. Darcy talk 20:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    User:Cybertrax should also be blocked for 3RR: by my count, he's reverted at least nine times in the last 24 hours. I'm fairly certain that User:84.13.87.135 is the same person as User:Arzel and User:Webwatch (nine reverts between them in the past 24 hours).
    You are incorrect. I have signed all of my changes. Arzel 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


    Some background on this conflict: there's been a long-running edit war between User:Cybertrax (the former operator of a matrix site) and User:Arzel (presumably the owner/administrator of matrixwatch.org, an anti-matrix site). Cybertrax has been pushing the view that a matrix scheme is a valid business model, while Arzel has been pushing the view that a matrix scheme is a scam related to pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes. The most recent skirmish has been over whether the article should link to Cybertrax's matrix-advocacy site, Arzel's anti-matrix site, neither, or both. --Carnildo 21:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Mostly correct. However, I am neither the owner or an administrator. I do assist in moderating forums, but that is the extent of my capacity regarding MW.


    It is simpler than that. I deleted an external link as it contravenes the External Link policy, but the people who are moderators of the site the link goes to are adamant that the link should stay. I have NOT reverted at all today. I took the action of deleting the link - the others reverted. I did not revert, I made NEW edits based on my original action. This means that I was simply upholding the Misplaced Pages policies, and should not be punished for such.

    As it stands, it is actually Carnildo that I have asked as an administrator to protect this page - I am still awaiting a response.

    --Cybertrax 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    As I have stated numerous times the link has been viewed as relevent to the article at hand for some time. It is quite simple though. Cybertrax is a former matrix site owner who has been attempting to sue MW for the better part of a year. When his link was deleted by a third party his response was to delete the link to MW. Arzel 01:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Reverts of edits on Genesis article made by Codex Sinaiticus

    Please have a look at the reverts of my edits of the Genesis article. I have given a detailed reason for my edits on the talk page of that article. I sthink that putting this article into the Categories Category:Creation stories and Category:Mythology is justified and even demanded by the NPOV principle. Misplaced Pages must not treat any single religion special. The mentioned user seems to have taken ownership of that article. This kind of behavieour is threatening the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. Please note his answer.

    Moreover, his comment on the last unedit, he writes "(rm POV pushing supercat)". I take this to be a personal insult! On a similar revert of the edit of another Users he commented "(rv per WP:NPOV - POV-pushing cats, this has been tried with many religious books, but it is not neutral to state that the Bible or Quran are "mythology". You can attribute the opinion, not a cat)". I think this is wrong and the choice of words is going too far!

    Can this User be blocked or can the page be protected after puting those categories?

    I respect the belies of Christians, but Misplaced Pages is a multicultural project with editors from many religions. It must by allowed to do comparative studies of religions and put the creation stories of - for example - the traditional religion of the Baluba into one Category with the creation storiy of Jewish and Christian religion. In Misplaced Pages, the Christian or Jewish religions must not receive any special treatment or status. Some of the editors and some of the users belief in other things and so there must be neutrality here!Nannus 20:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I have had a quick look, but it seems rather low profile. In my view, the categorization is deserved. I encourage you to continue to try and use the talk page, and any user who chooses not to when dealing with such a sensitive topic is quite revertible. Only if the comments or scale were significantly higher would it be likely that protects or blocks would be made. Revert wars do generally lead to comments from both sides, but I don't think much can be gained in the form of resolution if one were implemented. We do not punish, only prevent and deter in the least disruptive way possible. Ian¹³/t 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    request for block for User talk:marvinstalin

    He just vandalized triple entente, whatever that is, and has copious warnings on his talk page. I think a short duration block might set him straight. --Savant13 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Requesting a block for two IPs

    76.23.128.114 71.241.67.14 diffs: Acmlm's Board -has- moved to acmlm.no-ip.org, at least if you consider both the eponymous founder of it and the largest part of the community having relocated as enough evidence to call it a move. The old administration, however, has decided to retain ownership over the domain and run a new board under the name and claim of being the official "Acmlm's Board" at the old URL. Now, undeniably, the internal politics of said forum should not be carried over to Misplaced Pages; however , the fact that the users performing those edits clearly tried to avoid any discussion/arbitration regarding that topic by editing anonymously, trying to flag both the editing in of the new URL and an as objective as it could get version as "vandalism", in my eyes, justifies blocking those IP addresses. In case this issue continues under changing IP addresses, I would even propose semi-protection of that site to force the perpetrators to perform the edits under an accountable identity, thus encouraging dialogue or even arbitration. --Blackhole89 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Suspicious behavior by a new user

    I noticed the user Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) make a vote at an RfA for his second edit ever. The user then commented on blocked user's page and made an unsolicited comment to a user who had no previous dealings with them. This pattern of behavior seems very strange for a new user and makes me suspect they may be a sock engaging in block evasion, so I'm posting here to see if anyone recognizes it. —Dgies 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    user posting spam links

    First had Jonglob (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) posting links to luckycharmsusa <dot> com, then an anon (69.84.104.230 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)). I've cleaned up what I can, but is there any way to globally search for outgoing links to a specific site or domain? And is this enough activity to request a blacklist, or just clean it up unless he/she tries it again? Justin Eiler 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Sure, you can use Special:Linksearch for that. There is some more helpful information at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Sweet. There are no hits for the spammers domain, so I'll call it taken care of. Thanks for the info. :D Justin Eiler 23:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Trigger-happy blocking by Betacommand

    The issue of unwarranted blocks in connection with this admin Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been brought up several times, including lately. We now have a new incident. The users Hillock65 and Chuprynka being blocked for no reason by Betacommand yesterday. I commented on that earlier here and here but chose not pursue this further since the user blocked by Betacommand said earlier that he has left. So, ultimately, it did not matter except as another example of eager blocking by Betacommand. Today, however, the user in question posted an "unblock" template. I honestly, have nothing to do with this. Moreover, my interaction with said user haven't been pleasant but purely due to some content disputes.

    Anyway, to summarize the issue briefly, Hillock65 was among several users who stood up to trolling by the confirmed puppeteer Yarillastremenog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see list of confirmed puppets of that user. In retaliation for the Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yarillastremenog the puppeteer submitted the frivolous report at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65 where he alleged that Hillock and Chuprynka are socks. I have edited the article in question and observed the behavior of all users involved. There was no similarity between these two accounts and report was clearly submitted in bad faith. It stood idle and unaddressed by checkusers for a while, and yesteday, when it was already too late for checkuser to give any result, Betacommand, who is neither a checkuser nor has any familiarity with the problem, decided to "close" the puppetry case himself, blocked them both as socks for no reason and placed the sockpuppet templates at both user's pages. Only after I raised the issue, he posted his "report" on the very same page where he merely says that he concludes towards sockpuppetry based on the fact that among the articles edited by the users, there was one common one (!).

    My analysis is presented at User talk:Akhilleus#Proper tagging of blocked users and Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65#Response to report. As I said, I had my problems with Hillock65 due to the content conflicts but before he decided to leave, he wrote several articles himself. Most notably the comprehensive Battle of Konotop article was written by Hillock single handily. At the same time, user:Chuprynka's entries at the talk pages were clearly civil and measured, while Hillock's was more combative (but this is not incivility we are discussing and incivility was not a major problem anyway).

    To conclude, whatever issues one might have with these editors, the sockpuppetry accusations were brought in bad faith (by Yarillastremenog) and decided on sloppily (by Betacommand). The users needs to be unblocked and the unblocking edit summary should include the apology for the inconvenience and false accusations. On a side note, Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should be reminded one more time that block buttons should be used responsibly. --Irpen 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


    • I generally concur, especially with Betacommand going commando again. One person asked, "Why else would someone want to be an admin" except to block. I was aghast at that, because people who do want to be admins so that they can block can end up acting like Betacommand and causing the whole project grief. One mantra: discuss, confer, and act multilaterally. That's all a person needs. Discuss, confer, and act multilaterally, and especially in public and not on IRC with whoever happens to be in channel at the time. Geogre 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I say, ArbCom. Has there been not enough times Betacommand's unwarranted blocks have been discussed to demonstrate the other methods to address this recurring problem? --Irpen 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've just stumbled across this after someone mentioned Beta being dragged in front of the Arbcom, Irpen, please relax, you seem very aggressive in tone here and there's no assumption of good faith by you on the part of anybody else here at all, it really seems your intent on dragging this to Arbcom, which to my mind is, at this time, unnecessary. We're dealing with usernames here, something that some people see as fine and others see as being excessive, it has been suggested on IRC that Beta stop blocking users for a little while (a couple of weeks) and instead, should watch others performing username blocks and looking through the RFC/N page to see what usernames are being thought of as unacceptable there too. ArbCom is really not the place to discuss the good faith functions of an admin, rather, it should be a last resort if the admin or any editor refuses to change their behavior, is seriously damaging the project, is doing nothing to help the project at all, and all other avenues to rectify the situation have been exhausted. We're not their yet and I think if you try a less confrontational approach, we might be able to make some really significant headway here. -- Heligoland 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


    After briefly looking over this issue, I think betacommand's blocks have been made in good faith in this particular instance, there has been evidence to suggest that the 2 users are sockpuppets. However there have been a number of users blocked (once again) for username violations; User:Asdf555, User:Sally catastrophe;, User:B;uedog, User:Ihatechillums which are questionable to say the least RyanPostlethwaite 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've unblocked User:Asdf555: I see nothing wrong with the username. --Carnildo 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I know this isn't WP:RFCN but semi colons aren't banned by WP:U and with regards to Ihatechillums well, chillum has its own article, I really doubt it will offend anyone RyanPostlethwaite 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    There is no need for ArbCom, when I looked at the sock case I saw two users who have a very simiar editing pattern and a similar pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. From the evidence they appeared to be the same user. In regard to those listed username blocks ; can cause some problems with templates like I know = breaks the {{user}} template, I blocked User:Asdf555 as being a nonsense username. Might I note even CheckUsers have misread data, it appears I did the same here given further opinion and input. Betacommand 23:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    There was absolutely no similarity in their editing patterns and only one of the two has a "pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV". To see this would have taken spending more time on investigating the report. Admittedly, this is harder than just block. And this is exactly the problem. --Irpen 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Might I point out Alex Bakharev agreed with me, and like I said given the further data I misread the facts, Please AGF as I said I made an honest mistake in this SSPA case, there have been cases where our CheckUsers made the same mistake there is no need to assume bad faith. Betacommand 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    For the record, nonsense usernames are not disallowed. Otherwise a lot of Wikipedians would be in deep trouble. Usernames with a misleading or confusing use of characters, usernames that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers, and usernames that consist of extended repetition of a particular character are disallowed. Aecis 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Pardon my slip in proper policy phrasing that is what I meant apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers is what I should have quoted. Betacommand 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    On the standard US English keyboard, "asdf" is the first four letters of the home row. It's similar to qwerty or zxcvbnm. --Carnildo 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how the user of a semi colon violates WP:U at present, if this is a problem, it should be written into policy before blocking RyanPostlethwaite 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    The good faith issue is a strawman here I think. Nobody's questioned Betacommand's intentions, as far as I know. The questions involve his judgment. Friday (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    if its just my judgment then why was ArbCom the first thing that was suggested? I always try to AGF. if you are concerned please talk to me. regarding the username blocks I have tried to limit them to just the extreme obvious. But in light of this issue I guess I will stop blocking for a while. Like I said AGF and try and discuss it first before threating ArbCom. Betacommand 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not following you- of course people are assuming good faith, but this is not remotely incompatible with suggesting that Arbcom take a look at this. Arbcom is almost never required for bad-faith editors- what to do with them is generally easy to sort out. Stopping with the disputed behavior while it's being discussed is a good thing, perhaps you should have done this previously. Friday (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Time for a few links to illustrate why people are questioning Betacommand's judgement in his use of blocks. His block of Irpen in December was outrageous, a quite undeserved smear on Irpen's block log, widely criticized by the community — not just criticized but repeatedly described as "odd". , And here is a discussion of Betacommand's (also much-critized) role in Chairboy's "NPA block" of Giano, a block overturned by Jimbo Wales.. These are the two Betacommand blocks I happen to know about. I only hope they're the worst he's done. I advise WP:RFAR rather than one of those RFC timesinks, since desysopping isn't something the community does anyway. Hey, btw, should this be here? Isn't it an issue for the community noticeboard? It doesn't specifically affect admins. But Betacommand's admin actions are affecting the community, not in a good way. Bishonen | talk 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

    Like I have said before I did not want that block placed or even know about it till later, All that I asked was for a uninvolved user to remind Giano about NPA. Betacommand 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Bishonen, no desire to go over old ground, but watch the spin. The "block overturned by Jimbo Wales" was explicitly endorsed by Jimbo, prior to his unblocking as a gesture of reconciliation.--Doc 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Watch the spin ? I fucking linked to Jimbo's endorsement in the log, and now I'm trying to hide it? Bishonen | talk 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
    Your characterization of it is inaccurate. You present it as though Jimbo specifically disapproved of the block and overturned it because the blocking admin was in error--and I don't see how Betacommand is related to that block anyway. Your characterization of the Irpen block also seems to be inaccurate; I don't see how the block was "outrageous", though it does explain why Irpen initiated this complaint. —Centrxtalk • 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Click on my links, Centrx, and I believe these issues will become much clearer to you. I posted for the purpose of bringing these links to people's attention, not for any "characterizations" of my own. The links are part—the most important part—of how I "present" (as you say) past events. They show Jimbo's endorsement of the Giano block, and they show how severely the community criticized the block of Irpen. The community reaction was the point I wanted to make—not that the Irpen block is criticized by me. Bishonen | talk 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

    I agree with Heligoland that bringing this to ArbCom would be over the top. About a week ago, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Betacommand was closed early and delisted "to allow time for discussion elsewhere. If that discussion is not successful, the RfC can be reopened." Perhaps, and I need to emphasize that this is a neutral suggestion, the RFC may be reopened, in order to continue this discussion there. Aecis 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    I am sorry but for concerns in life I have to log off for now I will be back on later. (will be several hours) I am sorry for having to leave before this issue could be handled. There is no need to escalate this matter yet I hope that we can settle this issue peacefully without the need for ArbCom or RFC. See you later and best wishes to all including those who dont like me. I hope you all have a good day. Betacommand 00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but blocks really do affect people, a lot. I don't think we should let this go (and go on and on) just because we're sorry. Betacommand, how about a strictly voluntary undertaking from you to not use the block button for say six months? Just pretend you don't have it. It seems to me that would save you a lot of stress, and all of us time. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

    For what it's worth, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Betacommand is open. Friday (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Thank you, Friday. Given that we're seeing the very same list of names appearing in support of Betacommand's blocks this time as last, and some of the same names upset at unilateral blocking (without warning, of course) plus quite a few more, it is time for an RFC, as I don't think that the one important remedy has been accepted: confer. Confer on AN/I. Find an uninvolved person. If your last block got overturned, think twice before the next one. It's no vendetta: it's an attempt to ensure that we don't keep going over the same ground and losing people and escalating into wars. Geogre 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Hunted by A.K.G. and Ivebenndead5000years

    Two new users have joined Misplaced Pages today, Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Let's start with Hunted by A.K.G. His/her second edit, ten minutes after registering, was a support vote in Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Hybrid (2), including a correct signature. Edits 5, 6 and 7 were to Tree63. Edits 3, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 13 were talk page messages, again with correct signatures. Edit 14 was a comment in WP:RFC/NAME claiming some level of knowledge of our username policy including using the correct shortcut. Later edits were an unblock request for Can'trest,myshoewillgetlostinthewasher (talk · contribs), amongst many other suspicious edits. Cut to Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs). One of the first edits by this user was creating a proper redirect to... Tree63, followed by some vandalism and a comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. With only a few edits, this user managed to find this section of Misplaced Pages. Something is fishy here. Aecis 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Sounds like socks, is there a need for a checkuser? RyanPostlethwaite 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Not sure, since I have no idea yet what the main account is and CheckUser is not for fishing. This discussion btw is related to the above discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious behavior by a new user. Aecis 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    They really do seam like they know policy whilst being on wikipedia for less than a day. Same editting pattern could be a good reason for a CheckUser - both to WP:RFCN and Tree63, with the vandalism from the latter account I think it would make an ideal candidate for CheckUser RyanPostlethwaite 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    OK, sockpuppetry has been established for 99%. Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs) has been blocked for vandalism. The autoblock on the underlying (static) IP, 70.104.103.206 (talk · contribs), caused an autoblock on Hunted by A.K.G. (talk · contribs). The accounts posted unblock requests two minutes apart, seemingly editing from that very IP. Aecis 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Think this establishes 99.9% certainty and and an indef block for both RyanPostlethwaite 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    As per the earlier post on this page, I think they're probably a reincarnation of someone else. If both have been indefed, though, the identity probably doesn't matter. -Hit bull, win steak 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Requesting IP Block for Colonial HK page

    Please block these IPs. I have already put a lock on the History of Colonial Hong Kong (1800s - 1930s) page. These 2 IPs are doing too much damage. Benjwong 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    67.86.25.241

    68.198.112.126

    How to add sites to spam blacklist?

    I've just spent some time cleaning out an infestation of blog spam - an anonymous user, most likely the blogger himself, has been systematically going through Misplaced Pages adding links to his personal essays and smuggling them into lists of scholarly references. He's been warned about this before, his links have been removed plenty of times before (most recently only two days ago!), but he seems to be intent on using Misplaced Pages to drive traffic to his blog. Unfortunately the spammer is coming from a number of Verizon dynamic IPs, so I can't simply block him without causing unacceptable collateral damage. The only alternative I can think of is to add his blog to the spam blacklist. Could someone advise on how to do this or suggest any other alternatives? -- ChrisO 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    Make a request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist listing the relevant diffs, and show that it is indeed a problem, more evidence the better. Me or another meta admin will see to it. —— Eagle101 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks very much - I'll do it tomorrow, it's late and all this spam deleting has made me tired. :-) -- ChrisO 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Help with sock puppet army

    I've simultaneously listed a request at RFCU. CheckUser would be nice confirmation but I've detailed a sock puppet army at the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The circumstantial evidence is obvious. Review please? SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've protected the articles until a full review can be completed.--Isotope23 00:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Template on Main Page not protected

    Portal:Current events/Headlines isn't protected, even though it's on the main page. Am I missing something, or is does this say, "PLEASE VANDALIZE ME!"? · AO 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    It's not on the main page. – Steel 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, I get it. It's the almost-identical Template:In the news which is on the Main page, the other is just in Portal:Current events. · AO 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks! · AO 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    New user who needs some ... assistance

    User:Cfinn06 has been removing maintenance templates from articles. When I confronted him about it, he got somewhat defensive, including threatening to evade a block of he got "band" (sic). He did later apologise and agreed that he wouldn't remove any more maintenance templates. However, he then blanked his talk page, added a spam link to his user page, and added a bogus {{protected}} template.

    I've removed the spam link and the bogus banner, but he may need someone with some authority to explain the ropes. I have to admit I've lost my patience--can one of the admins take him in hand? Justin Eiler 01:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Ive offerd to help him out in a friendly way. If i had more time i would put some more effort into it. I will keep an eye on him though. If there are particular issues with him, you can feel free to contact me directly with it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Vandal

    64.229.151.148 just produced this edit on the Waldorf Education article. Thanks in advance for your help. Pete K 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    If he violats again, report to WP:AIV. Rlevse 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Days-long edit war just under 3RR threshold

    There's an edit war underway in the article Toll-like receptor between two users Utriv and Jkagan.

    • Neither user writes an edit summary to explain the reversion.
    • Neither user has discussed their disagreement on the article's talk page. Neither of them have responded to comments about their behavior on the talk page.
    • Neither user has discussed their disagreement on their own talk pages.
    • Both users have been warned about WP:3RR, although the reversions are kept under the 3RR threshold.

    I think a temporary block on both is in order to get their attention. Just looking at the edits (without any edit summaries), it's impossible to determine the basis of their disagreement. -Amatulic 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Correction - they are now arguing about it on the article's talk page, but still reverting each other in the article and failing to use edit summaries. -Amatulic 02:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Not reverting often enough for a 3RR block, so I protected the page for a week. If they can't work it out they can ask for help; next time they'll get blocked. Looks like a turf war of some kind and if so, they need to be cluebatted about COI as well. Thatcher131 02:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    The version you protected happens to be from the editor who seems less willing to engage in discussion, though. Ah well, I know it's a grand tradition to protect the wrong version! Hopefully they'll work things out anyway. Thanks for the quick response. -Amatulic 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    List it at Wikiproject:Biology. If somone there can sort it out the article can be unprotected. Thatcher131 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Shall we give Thatcher131 the reward appropriate for such a dastardly deed? >:D Justin Eiler 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Heh. Why not? Unless Thatcher131 objects, of course. I think 'twould be an honor to be "rouge" though. -Amatulic 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm more of an autumn. Thatcher131 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Awarded here. :D Justin Eiler 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:LedgerJoker

    LedgerJoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was reported at the suspected sockpuppet board, but no action resulted. This editor, also suspected of being blocked Batman Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dr. McGrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) amongst others, has one MO - create redundant and often overly broad categories with multiple capitalization errors, populate them, and repeat. Seems to favor soap opera, reality TV and superhero topics. Please block before this clogs the CfD board again. CovenantD 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


    User:Gene Nygaard

    This user continues to flout established consensus on naming and indexing issues, and persistently reverts despite being told beforehand. This is particularly notable in his persistent attempts to forcibly categorise Muslims and Sikhs by their last name , despite media referring to them by first name. He has partaken in previous discussions regarding this (see link to archived discussion, but persists in reverting them again and again - Yuvraj Singh is a particular favourite . I feel that he is violating WP:POINT and is persistently disrupting the encyclopedia. A quick look at his contributions show that a large proportion of his edits are engaged in this sort of activity, and I think he needs to be blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    I've blocked him for 24 hours, especially as he uses malicious edit summaries accusing others and stuff like this . Rama's arrow 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


    Having seen his edits and insistence on last name indexing, I endorse this block. --Ragib 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Jayzel68

    Implied legal threat: "As for your other charge, libel is not taken lightly. You'd better have a solid case," against User:Jiffypopmetaltop. Bolded in original. Derex 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. Should he retract the threat, I would support an unblock, although having him cool his heels for 24-48 hours might not be a bad idea either - it's not his first block. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Sockpuppet harassment

    Aikenfangs13 continuously recreated the nonsense article Derka. Finally, I just protected it and gave him a 24 block for vandalism. He returned and began harassing me and vandalising other article. I indefinitely blocked him as he had no edits other than vandalism. He has returned as Aikenfangs613, Aikenfangs6113, and Aikenfangs66113. All I indefinitely blocked as socks. He even recreated his nonsense article as Derka derka derka derka that last time. Frankly, I'm getting tired of being harassed by him and having to block new accounts and cleanup his messes. Can someone suggest something to control this person? IrishGuy 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    If it's continuing, I'd post at RFCU for an IP check/block. —bbatsell ¿? 03:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Attacks and disruption of noticeboards by User:Antaeus Feldspar

    This incident is being brought before this board by Justanother 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Issue: User:Antaeus Feldspar continues his long-runnning attacks of me and attempts to get me in trouble with admins that I am very used to dealing with on Scientology Series talk pages (and in his edit summaries) but now he has brought his venom to the noticeboards and it needs to stop now. Recently he has disrupted the BLP noticeboard, and this board, in addition to his usual talk page performances. He also recently violated 3RR on the BLP noticeboard in addition to making an unjustified allegation of WP:PA against me there. See Incidents section below

    History (brief): Since I arrived in August 2006, User:Antaeus Feldspar has carried out a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing against me specifically and by name for what I can only assume is my being an open Scientologist and editing in the articles to bring some of my understanding to them and to clear out a bit of lurid attack and WP policy violations. While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens; we are not! User:Antaeus Feldspar's belittlement and marginalization started in some of his first interactions with me and has continued unabated and with only increasing fervor.

    Request: I, of course, cannot require it but would appreciate it if the highly POV and involved editors/admins on both sides of the Scientology issue abstain from commenting here. That means the three or more known admins with heavy off-site activity in attacking Scientology and those editors that are involved in the perpetual arguing and edit-warring that goes on in those articles. I mean both "sides". Why? Because all that will do is carry the same poisonous invective over here and this AN/I report is, if anything ,about that invective. Let's let the neutral uninvolved parties have their say, for a change. I promise that I will try my hardest to not say a lot more than I am saying now and, of course, Antaeus will have his say but if we could limits the POV "helpers" for either of us then that would great.

    Heads-up: User:Antaeus Feldspar will likely bring up any and all incidents of my being less that respectful to him as a perceived "defense". I am not going to respond to those; if User:Antaeus Feldspar feels that he has a case then he should bring it; but not in this incident report. If I have been short or sarcastic with him, my only defense is that I tired quickly of the attacks and I think it will be clear that my comments are not nearly in the same league as User:Antaeus Feldspar's calcuated disruptions. But this is not about me despite any upcoming attemps to make it so.

    Incidents: I am just bringing up the most recent incidents and concentrating on those that are disruptive of the noticeboards as they are off-topic and are, IMO, intended to get an admin to sanction me without due process. Note that no admin has done that to me so it has been in vain.

    • Attacks me on AN/I: See the last post by User:Antaeus Feldspar. Not too terrible but illustrating the attempt to take it off-topic (BabyDweezil) and make it about me in front of admins. Abusive of the noticeboard.
    • Attacks me on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard: This diff (adding sig) shows a pretty "typical" attempt at marginalization and belittlement of me. I would not bother with it except to show his pattern. See the previous paragraph from him also for more of the same. I brought my questions to BLP noticeboard here and found that there was merit in my ideas (not "fantastical, bizarre" as User:Antaeus Feldspar characterized them after all).
    • Disruption and attacking me on BLP: In this posting, allegedly on Tilman Hausherr, User:Antaeus Feldspar starts out with an accusation against me and goes on to imply that I am a liar and it doesn't get any better from there. If he has a real question for the board then he should just ask it without all the disruptive accusations. That is abusive.
    • 3RR on BLP: User:Antaeus Feldspar has made the same deletion (4) times in a period sufficiently close to 24-hours to clearly violate WP:3RR despite a non-involved admin doing the first reversal of his deletion. Deleting the same material (4) times is 3RR violation; it is NOT a case of one edit and (3) reversions, it is (4) reversions.
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111227099&oldid=111166503
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111236141&oldid=111227765
    3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111256924&oldid=111254870
    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=111487495&oldid=111394273
    • Disruptive and attacking me on BLP: As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA and made sure to leave my sig next to his "" notation. This would lead someone to think I had actually made a PA. In the first removal he accused me by name in the edit summary: "remove personal attacks by Fossa, Steve Dufour and Justanother". --Justanother 04:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    Categories: