Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:19, 28 February 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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

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)

Btw, the image on User:Nadia Kittel supposedly of her (!?) is a copyvio too: magnumphotos.com vs Image:Kay33.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice of magnumphotos: Image:MMBLA3.jpg is also a copyright violation to this agency. Geo-Loge 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A few hours after Image:Kay33.jpg was deleted as copyvio, the user uploaded a different photo of Marilyn Monroe with the same filename and a "PD-self" claim. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to send this to IfD. This is knowing and decpetive circumnvention of copyright laws and should be deleted on sight. I'd say a last warning to the user and potentially escalating blocks are in order. I haven't looked at the positive contributions of this user, but behavior like this is uncondonable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Afwiw, I'm convinced this is a dude. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 28 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)

• As I said, all this user did since he was unblocked was harass his detractors and attack the checkuser process. Oh, and remove sock tags from his socks. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No reason, as far as I can see, to unblock. This guy has done sweet FA in his time here bar spam us with self-promotional articles, all of which have been deleted as being about as notable as my left sock. AGF only goes so far. And then sockpuppet. Moreschi 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Can I take it that "FA" in this context does not stand for featured article? Newyorkbrad 16:06, 27 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)

• Plus, he is lobbying to have the article on Matt Walker mention him. (See this diff and I won't even bother linking to the pettifogging on your talk page.) This is exactly the kind of garbage that got him banned in the first place. I was surprised to see him at AfD again and that he got unblocked. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:56, 28 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)

• Fine, then learn. Please, learn. First up, when voting on a deletion, remember it's not a vote, and remember too that if someone has researched the issue and concluded that the article is a novel synthesis, that means you need to check for that argument, not whether you personally think the topic has merit. If it can't be verified from authoritative sources then we must delete it even if we are personally convinced that one day it will become important so we will one day have to have an article. Right now there are no reliable sources for that article, the sources cited do not support the actual content. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 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 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Sorry for not signing.Lee Nysted 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocks by User:Raul654

Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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)

• I trust Raul's judgment; and your badgering just reconfirms this for me. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  To quote the oft-repeated phrase: "comment on the content, not the contributor." Tango is looking out for adherence to policy on blocking, not attacking Raul. Your comments, meanwhile, aren't doing anything but turning this into an argument - do we really need more of those around here? Picaroon 21:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also trust Raul's judgement. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  And that's why admins get accused of being a cabal. All you have to do is click on the link I gave, check out of couple of the blocks and see what you think. Saying you trust his judgement doesn't help anybody. --Tango 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I trust his judgment too, but it wouldn't be a horrible idea to have a reasonbale explanation. Without prejudice, I went back over his recent blocks and made the list below. This list contains all of his blocks over the last two or so weeks. The bolded ones look, on the surface, like they could use additional explanation. I flagged those blocks that were either of a likely dynamic IP (in which case the block is useless) or where there was only one edit and no obvious reason to block. --BigDT 22:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 129.67.128.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only contribution was blanking Oriel College, IP part of a large block from Oxford University, so probably static
  • 71.31.47.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - only contribution was replacing Free speech zone with "Star Trek rocks, IP allocated to Alltel, so it might be a hotspot
  • 67.173.128.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Vandalism) - I don't see any non-vandalism edits from this IP, most are November and before, maps to Comcast, so almost certainly static
  • 217.41.28.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 month (Troll known as 40 year old tenured professor) - IP requested unblock immediately after another user was blocked, almost certainly a static IP
  • 68.220.23.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Spamming) - three edits, all spam - IP is Bell South, though, which is probably dynamic
  • 72.254.8.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - only edit was to blank Avatar: The Last Airbender
  • 75.21.241.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - I don't see any vandalism here at all ... it looks like this user was simply involved in a dispute and was discussing it on a talk page.
    • Deleting large chunks of cited material from an article is vandalism (or, in the most optimistic light, very POV editing). Raul654 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Um... Raul, he gave a reasonable explanation of his action in his edit summary and expanded upon it on the talk page. That wasn't anything remotely approaching vandalism. Four days later you came along, reverted it, and blocked him for a week. That was wrong on several levels... blocking without warning, calling a good faith content dispute vandalism, blocking someone you reverted, making a punitive block (four days after the fact it can't be described as preventative), and blocking for a week on a first 'infraction' (which actually wasn't). --CBD 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I just looked at the segment that was removed. It was sourced by denverspiritualcommunity.org, therazor.org, and newshounds.us. Two of those are editorials that Some Guy On The Internet (tm) wrote and none of them are what I would call reliable. Jimbo himself has said that instead of slapping a "citation needed" tag on unsourced facts, we ought to remove it. One of the passages started off with, "It is unknown whether the number of supportive or critical letters is indicative ...". Well, Misplaced Pages isn't a crystal ball - our job isn't to guess what Bill O'Reilly's letter selection process might be. Unless I'm missing something, not only was this a good faith edit, but there's little question that it was the right edit. I have removed most of the passage that the IP removed. I apologize for my "vandalism". --BigDT 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • While that might be true of the first paragraph, you have conveniently ignored the fact that he removed *three* paragraphs, not one, and that the latter two were sourced to reliable sources (Media watchdog Mediamatters, and the documentary they produced, Outfoxed), and that those paragraphs should not have been removed. Raul654 01:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
            • He explained his removal in the edit summary. He had removed three paragraphs - I only removed two of them. I left in place the one about "Outfoxed" as it is the most meaningful and sourced of the three ... but even that is barely worth having in the article. That's an editorial decision that I don't see how anyone could be faulted for removing it. There's a whole article on criticism of O'Reilly and a section in the main article accusing him of conservative bias when he doesn't claim to be anything but a conservative doesn't make too much sense. If you have to argue about which paragraphs should have been removed, it's a content dispute, not vandalism. --BigDT 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 60.241.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 24 hours (Harassment)
  • Nate1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indefinite (Nothing but vandalism)
  • 72.10.105.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 6 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, probably a school. Maybe {{schoolblock}}?
  • 71.192.43.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 3 months (Repeated vandalism) - Nothing but vandalism, static IP
  • 68.88.7.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit was a partial section blanking of DNA - given where the text is cut off, it may have even been accidental, IP is SBC and possibly dynamic
  • 74.36.76.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Only edit is blanking DNA, IP is Frontier Communications, so probably static
  • 217.42.228.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, but IP is dial up and likely dynamic
  • 70.117.205.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Page blanking - from Road Runner, which is static, I think
  • 65.95.167.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (Vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, ISP is Bell Canada, so I have no idea if that's static
  • 142.167.172.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - Three edits, all vandalism, static IP
  • 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 week (vandalism) - blocked on February 27, after this whole mess started - this IP has exactly two edits and . One was to remove a statement about Israel's casualties in proportion to the US's experience in Vietnam and another was to say that the statement was misleading. There's no good reason for the statement to be there - this isn't Americacyclopedia so we don't need to compare things to America. The second edit wasn't a spectacular edit, but it certainly wasn't vandalism - it was a newbie making a newbie mistake.
• 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)
• Good grief, even after this whole mess started, he blocked another IP - 68.253.217.64 (talk · contribs) who made exactly two edits, both in good faith (albeit maybe not good edits, but definitely in good faith), with no warning. --BigDT 14:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Marked as vandalism in the block summary, too. I checked the diffs, and though I don't agree with the edits, it's not like he put a penis picture in the middle of the article. just a typical POV edit that should have been reverted and the user welcomed to Wiki and given the generic letter referring to policies. ~I notice it was a FA, and wonder if Raul is just very protective of those articles. Jeffpw 14:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that seems over the top. They looked like good faith edits to me, and certainly deserving of a note/warning first. Trebor 15:06, 28 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)

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)

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)

• Academy at Dundee Ranch checks out ok Jeffpw 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aspen Education Group (I've edited this one down so I think its now OK - WjBscribe 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Aspen Achievement Academy edited to make NPOV Jeffpw 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Carolina Springs AcademyPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Casa By The Sea No good version to revert to. – Steel 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Copper Canyon Academy stubbed by Proto, I made one more small change to improve NPOV GRBerry 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Cross Creeks ProgramsPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Eagle Academy (Belle Glade) one small change, article was ok. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (Probably because it was stubbed by Doc beforehand WjBscribe 17:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Hidden Lake Academy Questionable and poorly-sourced content removed. Seraphimblade 19:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• High Impact, Tecate
• Judge Rotenberg Educational Center removed some material sourced to broken links. Strong allegations remain but seem well sourced (article predates Covergaard) WjBscribe 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• New Leaf Academy controversial unsourced content removed, PROD for non-notability WjBscribe 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Paradise Cove
• Pathway Family Center removed some unsourced statements and added a tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rocky Mountain Academy stubbed – Steel 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Royal Gorge Academy(removed unsourced statements and made language more neutral WjBscribe 17:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Spring Creek Lodge AcademyPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) STUBed also WjBscribe 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tranquility BayPRODDed with the rest Jeffpw 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Stubbed, highly prejudicial unsourced statements removed. WjBscribe 19:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Turnabout Ranch DocG and I appear to have done this one Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:06, 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:

• World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools Sourcing was questionable in criticism section, removed until it can be sorted out. Seraphimblade 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Academy at Dundee Ranch duplicate of top list GRBerry 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Academy at Ivy Ridge Negative material here appears reliably sourced, but someone please double-check me. Seraphimblade 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Behavior modification facility tagged for neutrality problems, but no serious issues WjBscribe 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Carolina Springs Academy duplicate Jeffpw 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations
• Majestic Ranch Academy has been stubbed by Seraphimblade WjBscribe 18:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Royal Gorge Academy duplicate of top list GRBerry 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Spring Creek Lodge Academy duplicate Jeffpw 17:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tranquility Bay duplicate
• June 17, 2003
• June 2003 only transcludes the prior date page, no separate attention needed GRBerry 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Wasp (disambiguation)
• Northwest Association of Accredited Schools material sourced to partisan website removed

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)

Note that checkuser cannot confirm two accounts are not owned by the same person; all it can confirm is the absence of evidence of sockery. 09:50, 28 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)

• The vandalism seemed rather blatant so I gave him an indefinite block instead. Next time report such obvious vandals to WP:AIV so administrators can see it sooner.¤~Persian Poet Gal 21:57, 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)

• I agree that the user's behavior is suspicious. Doesn't remind me of anyone in particular, though. -Hit bull, win steak 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just thank Netsnipe. Grandmasterka 09:13, 28 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 have unblocked both. They do not look like sockpuppets just two editors having some vague pro-nationalist Ukrainian POV. (Chuprinka in more moderate form) Alex Bakharev 22:51, 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)

• At this point I suspect many people question Betacommand's ability to be reasonable in his use of blocks. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Betacommand 2 should be opened on this issue? Friday (talk) 22:57, 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)

• Arbcom seems willing to let the community make its own remedies. Do we need to take their time with this issue? Friday (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we do. Do not forget that unfair blocks do hurt people. Only ArbCom can either restrict Beta's right to continue with blocks and/or desysop him. --Irpen 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we know this, until we try. Why not RFC and see what happens? Friday (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you guys asked him about this incident? —— Eagle101 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked him yesterday, yes. Please read the original thread. --Irpen 23:05, 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)

• ArbCom is definately not needed, these are all good faith blocks although there is a concern of newbie biting RyanPostlethwaite 23:41, 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)

• Could I just point out Doc, if people bother to read they will see that that block came about following Beattacommand's lying about me on IRC - a blatent fact which those "editors" who advise Jimbo chose not to make him aware. Giano 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A question for Giano; so how many people have "lied" about you on Misplaced Pages exactly? LuciferMorgan 13:56, 28 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. —Centrx→talk • 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).

Like I said above I am stopping blocking users until there is an agreement on this issue, it might be a month, it might be six months, it might be a year. Also I think you misunderstood my last post I said that I was sorry for not being able to respond to further questions for several hours I had personal matters to attend to. I think this issue needs to be settled too. Betacommand 15:03, 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)

**In light of recent goigns on, and probably this covnerstaion, Betacommand has dumped about 30 names to be blocked at WP:AIV. Some of them are blatantly obvious but i feel that he is doing this to Make a point and i feel it is innapropriate. Does anybody else have feelings on this? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Never mind, i talked to him. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I did too. I am concerned that many of the names he did submit on this list were clearly block-worthy, a bunch of them were nowhere near blockable. They've since been removed. Proto ► 15:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If I might ask if you would respond which names you thought were not blockable, Please respond on my talk page. Betacommand 15:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • about a 3rd of the names seemed appropriate for WP:AIV, penis, poop, vandal in the name is generally ok. I am fairly sure Beta knew what he was doing when he flooded the page with the rest of the questionable names. He knows that is not where they go and i very strongly believe he was doing it to make a point. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a point I would have block those. If you dont think they should be blocked then we have a difference of opinion that started this issue, and that I am trying to solve. Betacommand 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact you would have blocked accounts such as User:Asdfgrewq purely on their user names is precisely why you cannot be trusted with username blocks at this moment in time. I note now that you have reverted to adding them to WP:RFCN. Perhaps you could stop having anything to do with usernames until this is resolved? Proto ► 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proto, Asdfgrewq is a collection of apparently random characters, this is an understandable block. "Productionpaul" is the one I don't understand. InBC 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If i remeber corrently, we closed a recent WP:RFCN as allow with the username qmwnebrvtcyxuz. asdfrewq is much less random than that in my opinion. But, for that reason alone, the controversial state of such usernames, a WP:RFCN would have been very appropriate in my opinion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 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)

According to Netsnipe, Ivebenndead5000years (talk · contribs) has "previously been spotted operating from 70.104.121.185 as User:Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme." Hunted by A.K.G. has been blocked as a Zbl sock. User:Can'tnapWillyonWheelswillmoveme, User:Ivebenndead5000years and User:Hunted by A.K.G. have been added to Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Zbl. Aecis 12:36, 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)

For the record, vandalism of the main page cannot be done through templates thanks to cascading protection, which automatically prevents any editing of any template on the main page. Ral315 » 20:07, 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)

The three-revert rule comprehends blocks in this circumstance. The language used there to express the principle is "Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive." Clearly these people are edit-warring and clearly it is disruptive; they show no intention of stopping. The page should be unprotected and the users blocked if they perform similar edits to the page; other users shouldn't be prevented from making valuable contributions because of these editors' misbehaviour. --bainer (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For now there are no other editors, and a 24 hour block for a 1st offense will help for 25 hours, if we're lucky. I'd rather find someone who is knowledgable about TLRs and who does not have an axe to grind, like WIkiproject:Biology? I'd be happy to unprotect early if someone else will take an interest, and then block the two edit warriors if they can't get along with the new editors. If you feel strongly, you may reverse my protection and block the editors instead. Thatcher131 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's indeed another factor to take into account, and I wouldn't block them straight away, but only if they persisted in their edit warring (which I would make clear to them if I unprotected the page). The main point I was trying to convey is that people can still be blocked for edit warring even when they don't make more than three reverts in any 24 hour period. --bainer (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've done that on occasion, too. Just thought prot was a more useful response here. I may make some talk page suggestions when I wake up in 4 hours. Thatcher131 07:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. I noticed that there seemed to be some sort of slow-motion revert war going on there, but it hadn't really clicked that it had been going on as long as it had. I had been meaning to take a closer look at the competing versions, but I've been busy putting together figures and last-minute data for a grant application. If they come out edit warring again after the protection comes off, then blocks would be in order to get their attention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 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)

Endorse as well. Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time - please attempt to engage Gene in the AN/I discussion prior to blocking. He's a long time and highly productive editor. --Duk 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?. He has been engaged long enough. Endorse block. I think it's time for an RfArb. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it's enough for some admins to say "lay off the Pakistani cricketers for now" rather than just handing out a block. Gene is a valuable and highly competent editor. And while he gets prickly sometimes, he is usually willing to discuss the topic at hand, rather than making asinine and non-productive statements like "O RLY". --Duk 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gene has made a statement on his user page. --Duk 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to see a big problem here. On the surface there are two serious editors with a content/policy disagreement. Both revert each other and both are sure they are right. One is an admin and complains at an/i; he doesn't take responsibility for his own reverting, he doesn't pursue the dispute resolution process - he asks that the other editor be blocked. The other editor is not a admin and gets blocked before being able to participate in the discussion. Also, there seems to be some article "ownership" issues on the part of the admin. Maybe it is time for an RfArb. --Duk 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. This is a spurious block, in my opinion. This a content dispute, and the block levied against Gene Nygaard is punitive, not preventative. I propose unblocking Gene Nygaard with the conditions that he behave civilly and that neither he nor Blnguyen make any potentially contentious edits until an RfC is opened. It's entirely unnecessary to bring in ArbCom over an editing dispute. A Train 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The block was imposed not punitively, but for prevention. The problem was that Gene was repeatedly undoing other people's edits without discussion, violating consensus on the topic. Additionally, he was incivil - accusing others of intentionally screwing up a version he didn't like - and behaving rudely to those to criticized him. All this is clearly disruptive. Gene has been dealt with fairly - the block is not lengthy either, more a slap on the wrist. If he is the productive editor Duk believes he is, he will understand his error and do something to address these complaints. Rama's arrow 21:02, 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.

Remove rhetoric. Sorry. This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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) (5) 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) (5) times is 3RR violation; it is NOT a case of one edit and (3) (4) reversions, it is (4) (5) 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
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&curid=6768170&diff=111514306&oldid=111513033 And now 5RR

• 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".

Desired outcome: I want the attacks to stop. I want User:Antaeus Feldspar to understand, in no uncertain terms, that he cannot run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards in his apparent desire to "get me". --Justanother 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you specifically cite these attacks for me? I'm looking at the diffs and I see an editor who clearly disagrees with you, but I fail to see any evidence of attacks on your personally. I'm looking into the 3RR violation now too for you Glen 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC) PS; Who's the third admin? :)

Actually, on second thought anything I do or say will be claimed as a COI so I'll step aside. Glen 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make this plain and simple. Justanother seems to believe that Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith simply does not apply to him. He believes that he can make as many personal attacks as he wants, and make them as vicious as he wants, as long as they are in the form of attacks upon the integrity of other editors. To start with just the accusations directed at me: Accusations that I am a religious bigot: "I can only assume is my being an open Scientologist". "While some might feel justified in treating Scientologists like second-class wiki-citizens..." (emphasis added) Accusations that I aid and abet trolls to further this alleged religious bigotry: "Please notice Feldspar's use of the word "our" rather than "your" when describing the trolls claims and opinions" (The post where I supposedly would have made my loyalties clear by using "your" is here, BTW.) Accusations that I have targeted him for "a campaign of attack, belittlement, and attempted marginalizing". Accusations that I engage in "calculated disruptions" and " venom to the noticeboards" and "run roughshod over wikipedia talk pages and noticeboards" to "get him". What is deeply ironic is that Justanother seems absolutely horrified at the idea that his behavior could ever be questioned ("As part of his disruption of the BLP board by the above activity, he each time accused me of WP:PA") but at the same time seems to take it as his right to not just question other editors' behavior but declare the question settled and label the other editors on the basis of his assumptions. Note his behavior at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#Blocked_for_a_week where he labels the editors on one side of an issue as "the POV-pushers" and to other editors as "the NPOV editors". I know I am not the only target of this treatment by Justanother but I confess I am getting really damn sick of it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® or my feelings or ideas. This is about User:Antaeus Feldspar's abuse of noticeboards by using them for attacking me; his 5RR on same, his false accusation of WP:PA on the BLP noticeboard and other specific incidents. --Justanother 13:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT: - I would suggest for the patience of the Admins that you both try to keep your posts a little shorter on this board... I do think that the comments about Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) by other Admins on Previous Administrator's Noticeboard are quite telling. Also, his continued re-insertion of his own obvious violations of Misplaced Pages:No Personal Attacks at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard also seems highly disruptive and non-constructive towards any sort of meaningful dialogue/discussion... Smee 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Can someone else comment on this? It appears that Justanother (talk • contribs • logs) is inappropriately canvassing, in order to solicit/manipulate this process? Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4. I had also thought that this is (generally) a place for administrators to comment? Smee 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

This is not about me® Please note inappropriate attack by highly POV "helper". --Justanother 16:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, DO NOT use my username and make baseless accusations in the edit summary. That is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Smee 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm feeling strongly inclined to prove that this, after all, is about you® Duja► 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there are some people who hate Scientology and make that the main interest of their lives. But at least insulting you on Misplaced Pages is better than burning you at the stake. :-) Steve Dufour 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See, this is a very good example of the sort of things we're dealing with here. Steve has just basically said to one or more editors here 'You hate Scientology and make that the main interest of your life.' How can that comment be anything but a personal attack? Is it supposed to not be a personal attack because Steve did not spell out which of the editors in the current discussion caused him to start talking about how "some people" are hate-filled religious bigots? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly simple: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that your edits tend to violate WP:NPOV and WP:RS and that you edits produce entirely unscientific articles with a clear anti-cult bias. Since there are many like-minded people here and since Scientology has a bad reputation and there are only very few people who actually are interested in Scientology outside of anti-cultists and Scientologists, there is absolutely no chance to get a neutral article here. That's why I at least debunk your proceeding. Call it a "personal attack" if you wish, you do your personal attacks in the article space, which is much worse, I believe. Fossa_?! 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Antaeus Feldspar has violated 3RR, falsely accused User Justanother of WP:PA and continuously violates the integrity of Misplaced Pages by deleting content from a notice board/talk page. Both parties might appear a bit overreacting but this should not be used to cover up or divert from violations of Misplaced Pages Policy. "Feelings" should have no weight on this notice board, also Admins please stick to the rules here . Misou 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, just about everything that Justanother is accusing others of, he himself is in fact the person who has done. It is particularly problematic that he has, while in the middle of making heated accusations against others, has labeled others' better-grounded concerns about his own conduct as personal attacks and disruption.

As Antaeus notes above, it is as if Justanother feels he has the right to criticize others' work (and quite forcefully), but others do not have the same right in return. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; it is not acceptable to proclaim (as Justanother seems to be with his "this is not about me") that oneself must be held above criticism.

I agree, by the way, that the problem here is probably largely one of WP:AGF. Justanother behaves as if anyone who disagrees with him on certain issues -- particularly the relevance of certain information pertaining to Scientology, some of which the Scientology operation itself has long tried to suppress -- is thereby demonstrated to be malicious, or at least deficient in good judgment. This is not acceptable conduct for a Misplaced Pages editor. --FOo 19:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not about me® simply means that, while feelings get hot on both sides on the Scientology Series talk pages, Feldspar has decided that it is appropriate to continue his venom on more general noticeboards and has violated 3RR to pursue an attack against me and others with a false charge of WP:NPA. Making it about me here instead of about the incidents that I raise just opens the door to more of the same and I, for one, will not play that game. I will not argue my actions with you here; if you feel that you have a case then bring it and stop the allegations. Please. The incidents I raised speak for themselves. --Justanother 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Why do you keep putting '®' after everything you bold? John Reaves (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Justanother: you appear to have posted a request for comment to the admin noticeboard by mistake. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

There has been some content dispute at Georgetown University. The IP user User:68.48.79.224 and new users User:CasqueGauntletDmouth and User:Tulaniac4 have made the same edits to the page and no other edits. I suspect the last two are trying to pretend to be from other colleges (Dartmouth and Tulane). Can somebody look into this? --AW 06:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Loop_101_Dead%21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another User:Sklocke puppet?

Loop_101_Dead%21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(*note the need for a "space" character at the end of the name - User:Loop_101_Dead vs. User:Loop_101_Dead!)

• This user appears to be another iteration of the blocked Sklocke and his/her series of sockpuppets. The editor is following a similar pattern of page moves, strange edits, and "requests" for user name changes for people other than him/herself. There was also an edit here referencing BiancaOfHell, a reputable editor whom Sklocke was harassing in January. Is there any way for an administrator to track down the IP this guy is working from and put a stop to this rubbish? Thanks. --Ckatz_spy 07:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I indef-blocked him preventively; I'm not aware of the Sklocke case, but it definitely quacks. Can anyone more familiar with the case check please? Duja► 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Support the indef block. Harassment of User:BiancaOfHell and page moves are both part of User:Sklocke and his socks' vandalism patterns. -- FayssalF - 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the swift response... although I suspect I've now blown my chances of getting more "Jelly Belly" awards from Sklocke! --Ckatz_spy 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Isaiah13066

User:Isaiah13066 (talk) (contributions) should probably be blocked temporarily. He received a set of WP:NPA reminders/warnings for personal attacks such as and . In response to the {{uw-npa4}} warning, the user did this. It seems that the NPA warnings are not having an effect. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done.- Mgm| 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:210.4.102.168‎ and massive edits to articles that contains Kapampangans

210.4.102.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made massive edits to different Philippine-related entertainment and sports articles that I don't think are unhelpful. What this anon user does is this: if a noted personality hails from the Philippine province of Pampanga, this anon user will wikify these names and have them link to the article Kapampangan people instead of, say, adding a category on each of these person's biographies. I've reverted a few articles and added a couple of warnings until I noticed that this anon was (to put it mildly) diligent in doing this to a good number of articles, so for the time being I posted a single warning that refers to these articles as a whole. --- Tito Pao 12:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppeteer still at it?

Planetary Chaos was blocked after sock puppetry using IP's on binary prefixes, and appears to still be at it. (See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Planetary Chaos, and this edit, as well as a new IP up to the same behavior. The IP ranges are very closely equivalent to the ones used in the previous puppetry. Seraphimblade 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:70.165.64.249

The user on this fixed IP is engaging in what I can only call 'slow-vandalism'. Nothing serious, but increasingly annoying. It started when he added a link to Whippet that was reverted more then once by several editors. He then started arguing that all external links should be removed, citing WP:EL in all the wrong ways. He comes in every couple of days and removes the links and then arguing the same WP:EL rethoric on the talk page. Comments from me or other editors fall on deaf ears.

Seeing his contributions, the only articles he ever edited are Whippet and FidoNews. His user page states this he is a confirmed sockpuppet of WackerWhippet and therefor blocked indefinitely, but his block log only shows a 48-hour block for 3RR. He also recently adopted the username 'Dude' without actually registering it. What would be the best course of action here? I know IPs are never indef blocked, but it is clear that this user is not intent to make any positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. --Edokter (Talk) 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but we can ban them for 6 months, as they appear entirely static. Which is what I've done. Proto ► 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Proto! --Edokter (Talk) 17:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Matrix scheme

I'm partly involved in this situation so I'll bring this issue here - there has been quite a long revert war going on in Matrix scheme, and the parties involved in the edit warring appear to be using the three revert rule to allow them to make a maximum of 3 edits within 24 edits, which is gaming the system, and much throwing about of the word 'vandalism' to other users. There are only 2 or 3 users involved in this edit warring, so protection does not look like the most feasible option, but instead blocking may be necessary if things escalate. It needs to be made clear that any edit warring of any sort is unacceptable, so I'm seeing what other sysops have to say. Thanks. Cowman109 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked (24 hours) the IP address who's been reverting it three times daily last night. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

revert war at Template:Crash series

I issued 3rrs to both, but they've blown right past them. Check out the history of Template:Crash series--they're both on a dozen or so recent reverts! Could somebody with admin tools step in and force them to cool off? -- Scientizzle 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked them both... They both said they would stop in the edit history, but I'm not sure if they can or not. So if they promise not to continue the edit war, please unblock them without a need to consult me. Grandmasterka 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Skoppensboer

User:Skoppensboer has a chronic history of BLP violations, personal attacks, using edit summaries to tendiciously taunt other editors, general incivility, and "soapboxery", particularly revolving around the article and talk page of Matt Drudge. He appears to have no respect at all for WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, or WP:SOAPBOX, and has ignored multiple warnings over time from multiple editors to stop adding material about Drudge's alleged homosexuality, information about his mother's mental illness, (and anything else he can come up with to smear the subject), to stop adding unsourced statements, to stop reinserting previously removed unsourced statements without even attempting to source them, and to stop attacking numerous editors. (And also to stop referring to me as Crackpot). He removed a valid and well sourced NPA warning from his talk page today as well. I have tried to be civil with this editor for months, but last night, he accused me of "obsessively editing" the article in question, when the edit history shows that I had not edited the article since December 7, 2006, so I pretty much lost it and regrettably became uncivil myself. I have calmed down and am attempting to continue to be civil, but this editor just keeps on behaving badly.

Here are a few of the most recent examples of his incivility and attacks. A scan of Talk:Matt Drudge and examination of his edit history will no doubt reveal many more violations. I'm pretty much fed up with being nice and diplomatic with this guy. I have never asked for sanctions against him in the past, but now I am asking for a block. He may try to claim that I have violated 3RR there today, but I maintain that I am protected by WP:BLP from a 3RR sanction.

• Recent example 1.
• Recent example 2.
• Recent example 3.
• Recent example 4. (Even bots doing their maint. duty are not immune.)

- Crockspot 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has finally written a neutral and sourced version of the statement in dispute, which I have accepted, yet he continues to attack me, and charactarizes my user page in a completely inaccurate way, violating WP:AGF as well. He gave me what I asked for, and I was about to back off and come here and retract this complaint, but he continues to lie about me, and attack me and other editors. Unbelievable. - Crockspot 17:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's ok! Remain COOL, im looking into it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I hvae given this editor a warning. It is generally appropriate to try and confront the editor about their actions before requesting administrative assistance. Should this continue, let me know! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe I have (as have others) confronted him several times about his behavior. I very rarely request admin assistance, and only when I feel I have no other option. I'll cool my jets. - Crockspot 18:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Sweet, thanks! cooling down always helps. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ROOB323

User:ROOB323 has again resorted to reverting pages, in this case the article on Erivan_khanate. After I've edited it, in accordance with all the accumulated discussions on its own and other Talks pages in which I regularly participate, user ROOB323 reverted it without making a single factual objection or reason . User ROOB323 rarely participates in any factual discussions, instead, spending most of the time reverting pages -- his record is easy to check.

I have re-iterated why my edits should stay, as he has removed the following important facts from the article: 1) stub about this page being part of Azerbaijan related pages; 2) that Erivan khanate was an Azerbaijani state (like other khanates, such as Karabakh, Naxcivan, Baku, Shirvan, Kuba, Sheki, etc) and was nominally independent at times, and at other times fully independent; that 3) khanate is not a principality (like melikdoms), but a state or kingdom (which is reflected in the military historians' John F. Baddeley presented quotes); and 4) that along with all Armenians, all Jews and all Muslims (Azerbaijanis and Kurds and Persians) were deported by Shah Abbas (discussed at length at the Nakhichevan page). All this has been discussed on other relevant pages, sometimes at length, plus several quotes were provided.

After I pointed out that I am tired of these constant reverts by these users, user ROOB323 made the following insulting and uncivil comment: . This is the type of pressure, insults and attacks I have to constantly endure from a group of several ideologically motivated editors here. --AdilBaguirov 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Emackinnon

This user is continually adding spam links to both Kingston, Ontario and Kingston Student Ghetto. The links are either to his personal site, which offers services, or to a site that names an individual as a slum lord. When I have reverted the editUser:Emackinnon personally attacked me, see User talk:72.38.139.247 (please note I do not use my IP address as a Sockpuppet. It shows up due to a software glitch that for some reason doesn't always seem to allow my computer to remember logins). I posted a warning on User:Emackinnon talk page and he has removed them several times, having been warned about it by another editor plus myself. Could someone please explain to this user, or deal with them, in regards to Wiki etiquette. Jsp3970 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Slow, sneaky vandalism from 12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs)

12.208.153.82 (talk · contribs) has a history of silently altering figures in articles. This IP was blocked on Feb 15 for doing so, but has continued since (just some random examples: , , , , , , most recently: , ). This kind of vandalism is particularly pernicious because it is likely to go undetected (as a several of his edits have). The contributions suggest the IP is not shared, consistently editing hip-hop musicians, and he has been warned multiple times, with no response; but he edits so slowly that reporting to AIV is probably not the correct course. Is a block in order here? Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan

I've blocked Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent trolling and edit-warring on Indigenous Aryans, plus a 3RRvio in reaction to a warning. I am also uncertain of his sock status (we get many trolls of that kind that may or may not be identical). Since I am involved in the article being trolled, I am posting this block here for review, and I will not consider any adjustment "wheel warring" but will accept it as uninvolved advice. dab (𒁳) 18:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

unblocked upon his promise not to edit the article in question for 48h. dab (𒁳) 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as having bee a very poorly judged block. You were one of the ones engaged in edit warring with Sbhushan at Indigenous Aryan Theory and Indo-Aryan_migration, and using the administrative rollback button when in a content dispute is not appropriate. Reverting an editor you are in disagreement with, and then blocking them is an explicit violation of the blocking policy. "Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute." Rather than blocking and then reporting here, you should have come here first to request help from uninvolved administrators. I would ask you both to pursue dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I used the rollback button since I do not consider this a "content dispute" but straightforward disruption and/or patent nonsense, see talkpages. dab (𒁳) 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As a public servant for anyone looking into this:

• Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• DBachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Indigenous Aryan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grouped edits by by Sbhushman (series of edits in a row without other users intervening), most recent first:
  • ("rv: All additions had proper citation, edit summary expalined reason for each edit. If you have problem with an edit talk on Talk page.")
  • (four edits)
  • (three edits)
  • (three edits)
  • (three edits)

The above is added as a public service. As Dmcdevit said, it's a very bad idea to block someone you are in a dispute with. It may have been POV pushing and probably was 3RR (there are at least four partial reverts in that mess somewhere), but it was not patent nonsense, vandalism, or simple disruption. --BigDT 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Clancy2000

User:Clancy2000 is a fresh new editor with all vandalism in all edits. Don't have time to follow this guy around and undo his damage. Left a blatantvandal warning on his talk, he's still at it. Can somebody nip this guy in the bud? Thank you. - Crockspot 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not fresh or new... has the hallmarks of a sockpuppeting vandal I dealt with a while back. Blocked indefinitely.--Isotope23 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another possible sockpuppet of banned user Zarbon

Just by looking at 149.68.98.18's contributions and comparing it to Zarbon's contributions you can easily tell that it's coming from the same person. The IP user has clearly broken 3RR, used the same uncivil and repulsive comments as User:Zarbon once did here, and shows some obsession with the Zarbon article, just as the banned User:Zarbon had WP:OWN problems with. I already explained to the anon. IP user (which seems to be a shared IP) that a consensus had been reached at WP:DBZ about Zarbon's and Dodoria's articles being merged with the lists' and that others will be merged soon. The user refused to assume good faith and acknowledge my explanation that was reached out to him. I suggest a block for every single IP in this block that shares the ISP because I had the exact same problems yesterday with 149.68.168.154, another User:Zarbon wannabe. Please see the user's list of suspected puppets for more evidence. Also, one little thing I forgot to mention, can an administrator temporarily fully protect the following articles: Dodoria and Zarbon to before they were vandalized by the IP's? This is so the main articles which aren't supposed to be made doesn't happen again, as consensus was already reached about their merger. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: An IP isn't a sockpuppet, it just means that Zarbon is using a computer that's not signed in (not surprising, since his login is blocked). And I'd recommend against blocking the entire IP range, since it belongs to a university, and there's a good chance that he's not the only person at that university that wants to use/update Misplaced Pages. The best situation here seems to be simply partial-protecting the two articles in question, so that IPs can no longer edit them. --Maelwys 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad unblock?

Per an earlier thread on AN/I, I blocked Jayzel68 indefinitely for making this legal threat against another user. Jayzel refused to admit that he made a legal threat (claiming that "libel" has a meaning outside of jurisprudence, which, while true, is positively Clintonian in its word-parsing) and refused to retract; attacked me by claiming the block was "fraudulent" and "politically motivated;" and finally issued this profane rant, where he once again claimed he didn't make a legal threat. Doug Bell unblocked him with no discussion with me or, as far as I can tell, any other admin. As I see it, the legal threat is still open, Jayzel68 was rewarded for forum-shopping, and he still won't admit that he violated a pretty firm policy. I'm posting here for other admins to review. I'm pretty ticked off at how Doug Bell handled this, and I believe Jayzel68 should be re-blocked until he retracts the legal threat in explicit terms, but I'm going to recuse myself from further actions in this matter. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I object strongly to Mr. Darcy's characterization of my unblock being a result of "forum-shopping". After initially being approached, I completely supported his block. I'd appreciate if he would assume good faith. I will also recuse myself from any further action in this matter. —Doug Bell  21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the unblocking since it does not appear to be an overt threat of litigation by any means...certainly not enough to warrant an indefinite block. Make sure in the future, if possible, to reach consensus for any unblocks here and or discuss the reasons for the block with the blocking admin before doing any unblockings.--MONGO 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, unblock seems arguably reasonable. The followup rant however is so far off of civiltiy and personal attacks, that I'm tempted to reblock just for that. JoshuaZ 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ec I don't think that I would have blocked for this, although it is out of line, but, seriously, what is it going to take for people to stop undoing other admin actions without discussion? Jkelly 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot