Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140

Article deleted and both accounts indef blocked by someone who is not me. --InShaneee 00:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks,

Aaron

00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The admin below blocked Stephencolbert, just so he could get on the show. Look at the comment he left when he blocked colbert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:Stephencolbert

"04:59, 1 August 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) blocked "Stephencolbert (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (please confirm ownership of this account per the email I sent before I unblock. That, and mention me on the show... (put me on notice!!!))"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysmartmouth (talk • contribs)

The username is in violation of

sense of humor. -- Merope ^Talk

20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the block or the block message. If Tawker said "GTFO N00B LUSER," that is when the block message would be considered no-go. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOL. Can't sleep, clown will eat me

21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to change the heading here to "SHIFT KEY ABUSE" but some rouge admin beat me to it. Something must be done! Friday (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Better watch what you say here, I blocked an attack-only account called User:SHIFT KEY ABUSE a couple hours ago. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, the only edits from the account are minor vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingstonjr has a "Work Gallary" on their userspace (User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery) which, for the lack of a better term, is simply a porn gallary.

The "Work Gallary" has nothing to do with work he, or any other wikipedian, is doing for wikipedia. Another user who checked this "Work Gallary" confirmed that the majority of pictures there are linked to only on his, and a small number of other users, userpages.

I believe this is breaking guilelines at

Further more, it is clear from this user's talk page that many of his pictures on that gallary are not free images, and do not fall under fair use guildlines.

The user seems to be

THe user's talk page also shows evidence of other WIkipedians trying to reason with this user regarding the gallary in the past, but has recieved no replies.

This Gallary really does concern me, i stumbled upon it by accident from these stats because it was one of the most highly viewed userpages. I was quite shocked to end up on a porn gallary. WIkipedia may not be censored, but WIkipedians' having personal gallaries of such pictures on their user pages really doesn't send out the correct message.

I believe this "Gallary" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Gallery (which is linked to by User:Kingstonjr on his userpage) also needs to be checked.

I do not wish to start a debate with an established wikipedia user over his personal userpage, but i really do think something needs to be done about it. Can an administrator please look into this, and if it is indeed not within wikipedia's guildlines, please make sure this gallary is deleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.163.5 (talk • contribs)

It's currently being debated at

Bryant

02:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the Wikipedia is not censored. I doubt you'll have too much luck, I don't think you're not the only person to try this. The user also doesn't seem to be breaking any particular rules, as he's only linking to images around the Wikipedia, as many others do on their userpages. The fairuse images should definately be removed though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually many of those images are not currently used on wikipedia and only exist on commons, as other versions have been selected for articles.pschemp | talk 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to comment on that, but was edit conflicted. I could have sworn someone MfD'd one of these galleries before, but I could be mistaken. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep—Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Markaci/Nudity. Someone from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery went and MfD'ed Markaci's page 'again already. Hyenaste ^(tell) 03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That user keeps replacing the free image on Kelly Clarkson with an unfree one, and has been edit-warring with several other editors over this. *Dan T.* 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Chelsea Charms § Undeleted

Moved to User talk:JDoorjam § Porn actress deletions

It'd be good if there are a few more fellow sysops to review all the few dozen speedy deletions of porn bios by

JDoorjam has apologized and said he will be more careful. However, deletions done before the discussion started should be reviewed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-06 18:46Z

Could people please stop spamming sockpuppet tags onto AOL sharedip talk pages? and could someone please undo the latest spam spree? thanks--64.12.116.65 11:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's a bit overkill really--AOL account 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to get in the middle of this but it was brought to my attention. Apparently an anon user has a RfC filed against them and they are not being permitted to reply, the person who filed it, or one of the supporters at least keeps reverting when the anon user attempts to comment on it. I am asking for an admin to either close the RfC if appropriate, since you cant have one sided dispute resolution or simply ask the people reverting to allow the anon to comment. I am not sure if they are even blocked or banned and if they can post to the RfC while under those conditions.

The RfC is here and it came to my attention because some information is being reverted on an article on Gundai, New South Wales, I asked why and he responded on my page, apparently its his information that keeps being removed. The user who is removing the information genuinely feels they are removing lies and so its justified. I tried telling them that you cant have ones sided dispute resolution. Can an admin please take care of this and get it far away from me. --NuclearZer0 12:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I recently sprotected the page because of edit warring by the anon. I suggest the parties apply to the mediation cabal for help, where they can create a page for discussion that the anon can participate in, and have an uninvolved moderator. It's a content dispute, not vandalism, and the anon may have a good point to make, however he is going about it entirely the wrong way. He may really just need wikification rather than to be treated like a vandal.

Thatcher131

12:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was trying to find out the locus of the dispute, I noticed a story the anon tried to insert was removed, it seemed sourced (I did not verify them) and so I was confused especially since it was a popups revert (no summary). I found the story apparently its true and documented history [9] but I hope they can come to some resolution, one of them is threatening to quit if the anon users information gets included. Again thank you Thatcher, if I could, I would change my vote, you have been quite a respectable admin thus far. --NuclearZer0 12:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Leyasu, who is currently indefinitely banned, has made a return under a new IP address, 86.132.134.161. Edit made today: [10]

This IP posts under Leyasu's name here: [11], and the IP's WHOIS info matches the info for several of the other IPs on the Leyasu sockpuppets listing.

flowersofnight (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Naconkantari

16:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has posted a legal threat on his talk page.--

Indef blocked by Sean Black. — Moe 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people have created the

This incident is really about a long term abuse. Galatasaray article and some Turkey related football articles are heavily vandalising by two IPs (User:82.168.59.236 and User:82.92.94.108). At first i don't want to interfere, for thinking it was a revert war. But then take a look what is happening on Galatasaray. And see that this IPs are just reverting page to a version, they even revert newly added interwikis, notes section. And they don't mind warning messages or talk pages. I request for semi-protection, then it's semi-protected and then User:Burak18 started to revert page with same pattern to same version. I report them several times to 3RR page, they blocked several times. But they don't stop. I even request for checkuser, but the result is Obvious 3RR evasion should be treated as such by Mackensen. Actually i know that, blocking one ip or users, or protecting an article is not the solution. Because, this user is coming with many new IPs, and vandalising several articles.

His general motivation on changing and reverting articles are. He wants to Turkify Galatasaray (or other clubs) manager carriers with removing foreing coachs etc, adding conjectural coach assignments, like X'll be coach of Galatasaray next year, removing fact, POV tags, and many other things.

Thanks to User:Robdurbar, he's trying to help on this subject but one admin is not enough. There must be a different solutions because it's really not managable. His last anon block are all about this user.

As you can see he has several socks, As far as i know a login sock User:Johnny200, and many other ips trying to evade his blockings.

I want to write every ips used for evading by him here but it would be difficult. It would be easier to check history part of Galatasary article, nearly all anons which are reverted by other users are his socks. And it would be better to check this users other contributions, [12], [13], [14], [15], these are just ips used lastly. All of them used for distubing contents of Wikipedia. --Ugur Basak 21:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that

User:HertzPHI's only edit was on my talk page, saying something about my upcoming birthday. He/she seems to know me personally, just like User:OhmyΩ and User:Dr.Gauss, both sockpuppets of each other who have attacked me in the past. I would like this user to be blocked because his/her edits was a personal messages on my talk page which reveal private info, and this person also seems to be the same as the other sockpuppets. Thanks! Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

During all of the {{Pokepisode}} nonsense, I had filed an RFCU on several of the user(name)s involved, but due to the new mode of operations there, the request was declined. Now, another user has popped up after one of the IPs was blocked for a month, and has come and started to edit (although not maliciously) but still has the exact same interests, writing styles, an intermediate knowledge of Wikipedia, as well as the same method of signing their posts on pages. I do not know who is the puppetmaster and who is a puppet anymore, but they have definitely become abusive.

• talk · contribs
  ) - Either a puppetmaster or a less abusive puppet
• Yugigx60 (talk · contribs) - More than likely the puppetmaster
• 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Yugigx's IP, currently blocked for a month; may have been anon only blocked (repeated vandalism to {{Pokepisode}} when it was not a fork, recent undoings of the forks)
• 72.232.215.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - IP in similar geographic area
• Jcox6656 (talk · contribs) - reverted a page to a version that used the massive fair use templates; is a newbie, and cites a random discussion made by the above IP.
• Agumon54 (talk · contribs) - makes {{Pokepisode2}} which is used on another page by the last IP.
• Sentaitx (talk · contribs) - created the above template first; blocked for incivility
• Judai105 (talk · contribs) - newest one, somehow knows how to edit the new templates.

I know now that it's blatantly obvious that they're all the same person, but this nonsense just needs to be stopped from these preteens who want the episode list pages to be better looking with up to 80 fair use images on them. Ryūlóng 00:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note that this section was removed by Judai105 earlier today and replaced by myself. While I don't necessarily believe that all these accounts are the same person, that was definitely bad form.
  Danny Lilithborne
  04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I only learned about this now. And it's blatantly obvious that they are the same person. It's all just too similar for them not to be. Ryūlóng 10:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, SPUI is interested in leaving Wikipedia, as he blanked his userpage a few days ago, and today he blanked his talk page. The question is, do we unblank it? Since it has warnings and stuff? Or let him leave in peace?

I am undecided on this issue. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you would be satisfied with the latter option, somehow. —freak(talk) 03:46, Oct. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would be. It would be nice for him... if anybody reallly wants to see the junk it's in the history... I'll go with what the community decides here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. Leave it. pschemp | talk 03:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of precedent for allowing departing users, especially those with long histories, to blank their pages. Deleting talk pages is problematic, but not blanking. In my opinion, let it be. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Antandrus, shame SPUI is leaving though :(

^{wat's sup}

03:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite our misgivings with him, SPUI will be missed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to state that I would like to see the talk page remain, since I archived his talk page (after a year of requests, it was killing all of our connections) - which contains warnings, block notices, etc. that should not be removed from the talk page. Note policy is not to remove the warnings from the talk pages, to which it is linked from the main talk page, so if it is blanked, how will people find out how many blocks/warnings SPUI received? Also, I highly doubt that SPUI will "leave". Remember he pulled this stunt off before, so why should we presume he won't come back and try to start "fresh" with a "new" user talk page? Oh well, at least we won't have to face the crap that goes on at the state highways project again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(tired repeat) Its not policy. And you can read the edit history.pschemp | talk 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Note policy is not to remove the warnings from the talk pages" <--- it never became policy. – Chacor 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So all the warnings I've seen (never received) of people that have removed warning tags is in error? No specifics, but it's interesting to note. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. (I need to make a template so I can subst this) There is a perpeutal conflict between vandal fighters who want to force users to keep warnings visible (or archived in a linked archive) and other editors who think people should be allowed to remove things from their talk page and that forcing people to keep warnings is more disruptive than removing them. At the present time, the vandalism policy

Thatcher131

05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, all you need to do is look at his absurdly long block log to see his history. —Centrx→talk • 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it blank. It's clear that something was there before (by virtue of the talk page existing), so interested parties can easily check the history. Besides, m:Right to vanish might apply. -- Merope ^Talk 04:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, leave it blank. Don't delete it, but there is no harm in it being blank. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Respect is important. Dignity is important. Leave it blank. WAS 4.250 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to forget that SPUI has had blocks and warnings, or that he's been subject to two different decisions of the Arbitration Committee, or anything else that was on his old page. I'll let m:Right to vanish serve as the explanation here. If he comes back in a few months and actually plays nice with everyone, then the past record of warnings won't be as relevant. (In fact, "playing nice with everyone" was pretty much the goal in the first place.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Elkman, You're wrong. Our goal in the first place was producing a high-quality encyclopedia product. That's a task at which SPUI excelled. If there is any editor among you as skilled and productive as SPUI, please point him out to me. If we had a hundred editors of SPUI's calibre, distributed amongst various ranges of topics, we could easily be a top-5 web site. But I don't suppose that matters much anymore. —freak(talk) 04:51, Oct. 6, 2006 (UTC)

I can only second this. SPUI was a right pain in the arse, I told him so all the time. He kicked up a stink on a regular basis, and was nudged back into line just as regularly. He took it well if it were done with even the slightest bit of mutual respect. The vast majority of the "disruption" he caused was from knee-jerk over reactions combined with stubborn insitance that everything was SPUI's fault. Still, a right pain in the arse. Who churned out quality content like a monkey laying pipe. - brenneman ^{L}

I second this completely. I must add, though, that he had a problem working effectively with/around complete idiots. And unfortunately that's not an optional skill on Wikipedia - David Gerard 10:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant the goal of the warnings was to get SPUI to play nice with the rest of us. The goal of Wikipedia is still to build an excellent encyclopedia. And I don't dispute that he's skilled and productive at what he does. But the constant bickering and arguing over roads is a distraction from the task of building the encyclopedia. We need people with expertise and a willingness to contribute, but we also need to do it with a spirit of consensus and collegiality. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Examples? As far as I can tell he did a ton of redirects, wikifications, categorizations, etc. All good and well—though it is confined almost without exception to articles about roads—but nothing nearly as spectacular as you make it out to be. —Centrx→talk • 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, its all about raods. Which are hardly my cup of tea, but then niether are species of bats. SPUI was orderly, consistant, meticulus about sourcing, and had volumous output. And don't knock redirects, they are a vital park of getting people where they need to go. - brenneman ^{L} 06:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not knocking anything, but freak's comment essentially stated it that he was the best editor among anyone on this noticeboard and one of the 100 best editors on Wikipedia, which appears to be a wild exaggeration. —Centrx→talk • 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, the sense I got while reading the two laudatory comments was that he might very well be the very best editor on Wikipedia. I, on the other hand, have trouble even finding a non-trivial edit in his contributions. —Centrx→talk • 06:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • please do. —freak(talk
          ) 08:46, Oct. 6, 2006 (UTC)
        • Route 25 (New Jersey), parts of Route of the Lincoln Highway, U.S. Route 30 in Pennsylvania... --SPUI (T - C
          ) 08:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think his pages should be left blank as he wished. The history is left if anyone wants to look. He did a lot of good work and will be missed. --Dakota 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a ridiculous discussion. It's in the history if anyone cares. (That's why, when someone leaves, we are often very reluctant to delete their talk pages.) Wikipedia talk pages do not exist for the convenience of those who want to place warnings without checking the history - David Gerard 10:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• If he's really decided to go, let it be. If he comes back, either as himself or someone else, the talk page should be restored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it be. It's his choice to blank the pages - why would we go into edit and revert wars over something this strange? (*forsees this being listed in the *LAME wars* page ;)* ) --• master_son^{Lets talk} 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Each new request should invalidate the previous request. At worst, you will have two passwords that work with your account (your current one and the new one).

Naconkantari

04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That's fine - I can handle the one-in-a-million shot for my password. I was just getting a bit worried because, if this continued, the chance of someone guessing could have gone up a lot.

Bryant

04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out bugzilla:6427. —freak(talk) 04:40, Oct. 6, 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting indeed.

Bryant

04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note on the IP's talk page this has happened to several people. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have had 76 password change requests from the same IP. I don't know how or why I've been victimized by this person, but this isn't funny. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I had 90. Big deal, it took me several seconds to delete them, old password still works, ignore the fuckwits. Guy 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that 69.50.208.4 doesn't identify a person. Rather, according to User:69.50.208.4 it identifies an "open proxy". In non technical terms, this is a computer that anyone, anywhere, can use to do things completely anonymously. It has been blocked from editing; it doesn't seem completely unreasonable that it also be blocked from triggering password e-mails. But maybe that technical facility doesn't exist. Notinasnaid 12:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a small group of users that have conspired to attempt to negatively influence Rory096's RfA. Fittingly, this discussion occured on IRC, in the, believe it or not, #wikipedia-cabal-en channel. I'm aware of the ridiculousness of the channel name, and this is all the more reason to nip this in the bud as soon as possible. User:Draicone, who goes by "Draicone" and/or "[Draicone]" on IRC, User:MichaelBillington, who goes by "Mike42" on IRC, and other users who have not acquiesed to their content being publicised have attempted to skew the results of Rory096's RfA and have planned to attempt to influence other RfA's and AfD's. I was a bit amazed that this was being discussed, for it not only goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, but for the sheer stupidity of discussing it in an IRC channel with such a silly name and where many admins were present (upon invititation to the channel, and remained out of curiousity, or so I assume). User:Draicone and User:MichaelBillington have allowed for their content to be publicised.

• [2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> This is a real cabal

[2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> Unlike Elliott's, which after 6 channel takeovers, disbanded so quickly it wasn't funny

[2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> Sometimes its good to have a cabal though

[2/10/2006 4:01 PM] <[Draicone]> We come to consensus and vote

[2/10/2006 4:02 PM] <[Draicone]> Currently, we'll probably result in rory096's RfA not coming to pass

• [2/10/2006 3:59 PM] <[Draicone]> (unnamed user): Good to see you made it. We're discussing policy right now.

[2/10/2006 4:00 PM] <[Draicone]> (unnamed user): ( RE: topic ) We just finished coming to consensus on Rory's RfA

• [02/10/2006 06:39] <(unnamed user)> so, mike, are you strong opposing?

[02/10/2006 06:40] <Mike42> Already did

[02/10/2006 06:40] <(unnamed user> currently: 0xSupport, 4xOppose, 0xNeutral

[02/10/2006 06:40] <Mike42> Oppose - That's not all he's been up to, he did this [2] on my user page. Per Glen S "This is completely unnacceptable for an admin." Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• <Mike42> (unnamed user): the idea is that it wont draw suspicion if we all vote for something, because we are all un-related

• [03/10/2006 03:19] <Draicone> Otherwise, we'll probably start discussing an AfD of DRV in half an hour

[03/10/2006 03:19] <Draicone> Care to join in?

[03/10/2006 03:20] <Draicone> If we reach consensus for a delete, we'll start the AfD and put in about 25 delete votes before transcluding it and listing it at

WP:AFD

These are snippets from the full log. I'm not really sure how to proceed as this is all off-wiki stuff, but this needs to be addressed somehow. There are always rumblings about shady backroom IRC stuff, and this is exactly the sort of thing that propogates that field of thought. It's also beyond me why they would invite random users and admins and label the channel that way... ridiculous. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We've been told by arbitrators that IRC is a reality totally different from WP and that WP admins have no authority over off-wiki discussions. You should complain to the owners of the channel. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"<Mike42> (unnamed user): the idea is that it wont draw suspicion if we all vote for something, because we are all un-related" -- Just to add context, that was a reply to something to this effect: "so why are random people from #wikipedia being invited here?" :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what's being missed is that that channel was just random people from #wikipedia, and that the name and most of the comments there are ironic. There's occasionally some cronyism on IRC, but that's a parody of accusations of making cabals on IRC. Don't mistake a joke for the real thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less. Yes, it's concerning. Yes, I find groupthink to be one of the most harmful things about Wikipedia. No, I don't think we can do anything about it. I think we have far bigger fish to fry. — Werdna talk criticism 08:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no disagreement that disruption to consensus gathering is unacceptable. But these logs are not compelling. Find the debates that these neophyte cabal members are in and do some elmentary network analysis. For a sample size this small either: A) The block !voting users will stand out like a dog's, or 2) Their effect will be so diffuse as to be meaningless. Evidence is what puts bums on seats: Diffs and facts. Talk is cheap, and IRC talk cheaper still. - brenneman ^{L} 10:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears one of the quoted gentlemen is leaving over this. Well, that's his choice. I can't say I agree that the failure of Rory's RfA proves Wikipedia is broken. Although, I suppose that if I'd only been here since June, that would look somewhat bruising (having never seen Sam Spade run for adminship). Too bad. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is unnerving and even somewhat threatening to find out that people are negatively discussing your RFA in an off-wiki format. There doesn't seem like there's much to do about it, though. There are no policies preventing off-wiki discussions, and some (en-wikipedia-l, unblock-l) are actively encouraged. Even if the IRC channel were closed, people could use AIM, or open a new private channel with a less obvious name, or even use e-mail.

Thatcher131

11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so people realize, #wikipedia-cabal-en is publically advertised in #wikipedia (which is open to all), consists mostly of people joking about or griping about Wikipedia, and is heavily ironic and silly (last time I was in there, we were discussing forming a cabal on Klingon Wikipedia). If people have a problem with private groups influencing Wikipedia, that's a legitimate issue, but I think the worst thing this cabal might do is vandalize each others' userpages and make silly Wikipedia-space pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the silliness that goes on in that channel, but humour should not detract from the actual attempts at gaming the system that went on. The snippets I provided were just that; snippets. There's lots of silliness, but there was also lots of serious inappropriateness. If you look that the history of Rory096's RfA (and the participation by these individuals, specifically) and the full logs, it becomes clear that there was an overt attempt to manipulate it. Furthermore, the quotes I provided were not jokes, and the surrounding context would show that, regardless of Mike42's attempt to brush it off as humour. I'm aware that IRC is not Wikipedia and as such, I wouldn't expect any serious ramifications, but it's important to realise that there was/is gaming of the system by these individuals, regardles of how they attempt to disguise it through irony. In short, I fully agree with brenneman, but felt that this sort of shadiness should not be dismissed as simpe humour, hence my elaboration hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 07:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA isn't a vote. Give the log to the bureaucrat that is handling the RFA. They can decide to discount whatever votes they choose.--Tbeatty 07:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty; give the logs to the bureaucrat. --

Aaron

19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I have a problem with an editor who seems unable or unwilling to accept that the discussion pages are for improving articles not for posting fan fiction. I left a message on his talkpage about the purpose of discussion pages. Some assistance would be nice. --

Now we have him adding Bios he made up for characters. --

Pretty please could someone take a look at this? I want to archive old material and start discussing to-dos for the article but that's impossible if it's going to be a story page. --

• Actual quote: "Enemy ZCF#3 took 9281 health points damage and die" Yeah, that's not exactly what talk pages are for. According to the IP's talk page, they've already been given a short block. If they come back and continue, the matter probably warrants further investigation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

this is clearly him as well, other editors have tried to communicate with him, I've tried to communicate with him and well... time for fanfiction! argggggggggggg! --

User:Fisss - serial copyright violations, edit wars (i.e. in Moscow article). Azov 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fisss uploades copyvio and falsifies licenses. For example here:[16] he inserted in his image a license which was copied from another image (the author explicitely gave me permission for a number of images, it was very long ago). Now he vandalizes Moscow and avoids any discussion of any kind.--Nixer 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Might be vandalism is to strong a word for the edit warring about which images to use in the Moscow article (Moscow is a large city and the question of image selection is ultimately a question of taste) but substituting free images with copyvios is a very unhelpful move. Also uploading an image from the photographer who explicitly stated that he donated a few images into public domain but do not want any other of his works on Wikipedia, copying the very same notice on copyvio images was gross. I have speedied the image and warned Fisss. One more of such actions should warrant a long block. Also can somebody look through all other Fisss's downloads. There might be copyvios there abakharev 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A good faith effort to select the best images would include discussing the changes on the talk page, but he's refraining from any discussion whatsoever, despite multiple requests to explain his edits. So, I agree with Nixer's classification of this as vandalizm. As to the images - the main problem is that he's not just uploading dozens of unsourced images, but consciously falsifying licenses and removing warning tags on questionable uploads. I went through a bunch of his uploads and tagged unsourced ones, but I feel like I may be wasting my time as nothing prevents him from just removing the tags as he did before. Azov 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Fisss is not an editor in good standing. The guy does not respond to any queries concerning his actions. I have yet to see him posting on a talk page. He starts one-line articles specifically to illustrate the images he uploaded (e.g.,

WP:OWN of articles written by others. It was you who ousted other contributors from Moscow, replaced a lot of free images with those of unclear copyright status, revert warred about it, reigned over the article for months as if it were your personal diary page, and now come here to complain when Fisss does the same to you? --Ghirla ^-трёп-

14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant saying "vandalism" is that he deleted this Msk all districts abc eng.svg and this Moscow-downtownmap.jpg images both free and illustrative. The former was made especially to illustrate administrative divisions of Moscow in Wikipedia. Another example is that he changed the free image of Bolshoi Theater Bolshoi th.jpg to copyvio Bolshoytheatre.jpg - a fully copyrighted private image. Although I agree that his image looks nicier, in fact it will be deleted soon. I suppose he does not know English well, so he can contribute only by uploading and re-arranging images.--Nixer 14:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have noted a similar problem with Vozas (talk · contribs) who keeps replacing freeuse images fairuse one. Agathoclea 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon user

Revert, ignore, forget. Zocky | picture popups 01:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This user has consistantly engaged in disruptive behavior on

Consensus regarding talk page blanking has not yet been established. The only thing I see that user doing "wrong" is blanking his userpage which, really, isn't that big of deal. I see no problems with edits in the past couple of days. My suggestion, Cacophony, would be to take a break from trying to revert his page and let it drop for a while. Editors can tell that something used to be on his talk page by virtue of it existing. His non-talk page-related warnings are nearly a month old and so I think they can be removed safely. If the user has new problems, the chain of warnings would be started fresh, anyway. I'll keep an eye on the situation (so you don't have to), but at this moment I don't really see anything that warrants an intervention. -- Merope ^Talk 22:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that too, don't get stuck up on user/talk page edits - it they do anything in the encyclopedia then look toward

WP:AIV after giving the full suite of test/warning messages. And it's Bigjake (talk · contribs) by the way. Thanks/wangi

22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping an eye on things:

"Vandalism and disruption might be ok with you, but I feel strongly that it hinders our ability to collaborate in writing an encyclopedia. Just because someone is persistant in their vandalism does not make their actions any more acceptable. Your "let the vandals play" attitude is a detriment to Wikipedia. So if no admins want to take care of it, I will continue to waste my time on this stupid edit war. Thanks for nothing, Cacophony 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks/wangi 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message asking the user to stop, I do not think they realize they are making themselves look bad by these actions as Bigjake is allowed to blank his page, but I believe Cacophony is not allowed to start an edit war over it. I am sure Bigjake can even argue that Cacophony is breaking 3RR and he is not since he is reverting vandalism. --NuclearZer0 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The

• Chai Ling - inaccurate summary of legal dispute, not encyclopedic in tone, undue weight
• Greenwich_University
  - basic problem here is that Capogrossi claims that he's made a good-faith effort towards quality and accredation both at Greenwich and at Akamai. If anyone's interested in working on the article we have contacts and some background information we can share; drop a note expressing interest to [email protected] with "Ticket# 2006091810012695" in the subject if you want these.
• Joko Beck - edit war involving a number of new users adding unsourced material. I have stubbed this but doubt it will remain that way. More experienced hands will be needed.

On watch.

Bryant

08:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 08:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I look too cautious, but I am engaged in a lenghty and hot dispute in the talk page of this article, and I want to double-check all my actions. Thank you..Randroide 11:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't actually protected, the anon just dropped a {{

protected}} template on it. You can pretty much always revert those on sight: if the page had actually been protected, you wouldn't be able to edit to remove the notice in any case unless you were an admin. I removed the false protection notice. Syrthiss

11:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, copy that and now I have a firm guideline for the future. I supposed what you have just told me, but I prefer to err on the side of caution due to the sensitive nature of the page. Thank you very much.Randroide 11:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the article Natalie Portman, user Adamrock (talk, contribs) and user PoetPoems (talk, contribs) have both been repeatedly vandalizing the page, adding in POV, including the exact same phrases.

Adamrock:

• diff
• diff
• diff

PoetPoems:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

Shannernanner 12:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Adamrock bloced 48 hours for

WP:LIVING, PoetPoems blocked indef by Naconkantari as a vandalism-only account. Guy

21:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:-jkb-&curid=902144&diff=79985686&oldid=73379864 here], this is the third time that the same vandalism is made on my page. I am quite sure that the

Done - User:-jкb- indef blocked. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx, i saw it. But now it is this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nol%D0%B0nus (not

A vandal moved Otto Ernst Remer to Otto Ernest Remer and a well meaning editor c+p the content back to where it belonged. But obviously the history will still need to be merged. Agathoclea 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

All done. It's my first history merge, so I hope I did it right. :) --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Beauty.

(talk)

17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to request a block, but

ManOfTke is back to revert-warring on Sigma Pi Phi, using the same phrasing typical of User:Mykungfu, and is shadowing me around Wikipedia as well, showing up wherever I report one of his socks ([18]). User:GrandWizard may also be a Mykungfu sockpuppet, although it's too early for me to tag him as such. I'm requesting a block on User:ManOfTke, but not on GrandWizard unless anyone else finds his username offensive. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And clearly another sock apeared. Agathoclea 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The beat goes on till the break of dawn. Incidentally, the AIV report was for a username I considered offensive (User:GrandWizard, the term for the head of the Ku Klux Klan, an American white-supremacist organization). The closing admin did not consider it offensive, and I respect his decision. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet. I've been following this. Mr. Darcy, Please let me know on my talk page as soon as sockpuppets pop up and I'll block them. No need to keep posting it here. Thanks.pschemp | talk 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The account Arabistani (talk · contribs), who I suspect is a sock of Sargonious (talk · contribs), appears to have only been created for the purpose of trolling. See this, this, and this for some examples. This is not the first time Sargonious has done this, see Shaitan Al Mahdi (talk · contribs).

Anyways, I was wondering if someone could please block this guy, and warn Sargonious again. —Khoikhoi 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, please make a checkuser request and if it's positive I will beat the sockmaster with my cluebat. Guy 21:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Posting here as recommended at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#How_to_handle_long-term_disruption_from_IP_block?.

A user editing from a block of IPs has been causing general disruption for well over a year now. I am not sure how to proceed. See the old Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/65.182.172.x for further links. Currently active at Green Tortoise and Talk:Green Tortoise. What is the historical response to abuse/vandalism arising from blocks of IPs?

The response on the prior RfC was removed due to privacy issues. (response removed for containing personal information: please ask an admin if the user returns and it becomes necessary to view this material. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC) )If possible, could an admin can take a look to help where to go from here? Thanks much! ∴ here…♠ 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article

One of the users involved in the edit war, E104421 (talk · contribs), has now questioned my impartiality on the article's talk page, saying that I am involved in the edit war too. I could use an extra pair of admin's eyes, to check the article and its history, and to review my behaviour in this matter. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I currently work in a Middle School in West Somerset in the UK which is provided internet access via the SWGfL - I doubt anyone would deny that I am a good editor but during working hours I have been unable to do any editing on the site due to a range of blockages.

The following IP addresses are those of the SWGfL's proxy servers (most of which are blocked):

• 62.171.194.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 13
• 62.171.194.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - 45
• 213.18.249.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 213.18.249.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 213.18.249.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have noticed that public IP addresses can be blocked whilst allowing registered users to continue editing. Can this be done for these addresses as I would like to be able to carry on editing in my quiet moments at work?-Localzuk^(talk) 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

About half the accounts were already converted to soft blocks by other admins. I fixed the rest. Account creation is still blocked but if you have an account at home you should be able to log in from school.

Thatcher131

00:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That is much better. I can now 'waste time' more efficiently at work :) -Localzuk^(talk) 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon entering Wikipedia, I was reading a 3rr report, and decided to investigate the matter. I made a report concerning the 3rr violation behavior of User:MrDarcy. [19] He then accused me of being a sockpuppet and proceeded to label my userpage [20] and then stated i was a indefinately blocked. [21] Can you please address this situation. thank you. Sb213 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indef blocked the above user; if he's not a sockpuppet, I don't know what is. --InShaneee 19:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning Sb213, not Mr. Darcy of course. pschemp | talk 20:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. No offence intended, Mr. Darcy. --InShaneee 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Darcy smiled; but Elizabeth thought she could perceive that he was rather offended, and therefore checked her laugh ... nah, really, none taken! | Mr. Darcy talk 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Centrx just recently deleted Naruto2.0's userpage and talk page, for no reason. This is very bad behavior for an admin.--B&W Anime Fan 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That user has no edits outside his userpage and you are the only editor to his talk page. It's apparant that he wasn't here to edit the encyclopedia.

Naconkantari

20:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

He is my friend who lives across the street. Just because he has no edits does not give Centrx the right to delete his userpage and user talk page.--B&W Anime Fan 20:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If people are not contributing to the project, then they don't need a chatroom that this user's user and user talk pages sound like they were. Ryūlóng 21:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

He mostly likes to read. He told me he would start editing though, but now he can't since Centrx deleted his account.--B&W Anime Fan 21:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

His account was not deleted. Only his pages. If he makes constructive edits to the project, he can have a user page, but just using it as a chatroom is against

WP:NOT. Ryūlóng

21:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Ryulong's statement: Wikipedia is not a free web host. Wikipedia should not be mistaken for one of the many social networking sites. Geogre 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have used a clear deletion summary referring to

This is a serious issue and I'm glad you brought it up. This user has been here since 3 September [22] and has no contributions besides to his user space. We have more and more people who build user pages and do nothing of value for the encyclopedia: I see them on RC patrol every day. We should actively discourage this kind of behavior. We are not myspace. I agree with Ryūlóng and Geogre. Antandrus (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we expand or clarify the CSD U2, "Nonexistent user. User pages of users who do not exist. Check both Special:Listusers and Special:Contributions to verify." to include users who have no productive edits outside their userspace? —Centrx→talk • 21:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be sensible. Martin 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely. --

Steel

21:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Would it be worth putting a sentence into the page a user sees when s/he registers, saying (in some words) that Wikipedia isn't a social networking site? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. I've been doing this for awhile now, time to make it official ... Cyde Weys 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I think it might make sense to have a time parameter as well. I'm sure some good users have built their userpage with their first registered edits.

masterka

10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded CSD U2. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 10:30Z

For the record, B&W Anime fan has very few edits outside of his userpage as well, and essentially all of those have been disruptive. He's been for two months, but has been blocked half a dozen times. --InShaneee 21:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Centrx forgot to put the deletion reason or maybe if the reason was already discussed on some thread (albeit a thread that will get lost in the archive later) it got annoying (they bug admins and potential admins like mad about edit summaries I've noticed. It's like it's good practice and well I don't put those summaries in as much as I could). Maybe a solution is to restore it with the reason "forgot to put deletion reason in. restoring to put deletion reason in on next deletion reason." And then delete it again with the reason you gave, but shortened to fit into the deletion reason box or some diff to the discussion. Anomo 20:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I know this isn't the right place, but I need some help. My signature won't show up. I don't know what happened to it, but no matter what I put for my sig, it always comes out as just the text I wrote. Example:

[[User:KojiDude|<font color="blue">Koji</font>[[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="darkblue">Dude</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/KojiDude|^{<font color="lightblue">(Contributions)</font>}]]]]

See? I've tried everything, nothing works. It says there are four ] after the </sup>, but in my preferences there's only two. I seriousley have no idea what's going on here, and it's really starting to get on my nerves. I'd be really grateful if somone offered to help me. Thanks.--KojiDude 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Try clicking on the raw signature box. Ryūlóng 21:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

FINALLY! Thanks. I didn't click on it before because it said not to use templates, and I thought the <font> and <sup> were considered templates... Thanks again.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates are things between curly brackets (like {{this}}). If you use a template (transclusion) in a sig, then each time the template changes, the previously signed signature changes. Since this would require the page be changed everywhere you have a signature, it'd put massive load on the MediaWiki software and bog the site down. If EVERYONE used a template signature on here... well, it'd be a Bad Thing(tm). ~Kylu (u|t) 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The administrator Jaranda had removed me from the RfA list. The bad part is, HE DID IT LESS THAN 4 HOURS AFTER I ENTERED!!! I think EVERYbody should have the oppertunity of a full period because the "good" users aren't online at the time. Who knows? I could have BECOME an administrator. It IS WAS possible. --Cricket Boy 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Get off your high chair already. – Chacor 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Snap...look, there was

Bryant

04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not saying that removing the RfA was a bad thing, but isn't

WP:BB for articles specifically? ~Kylu (u|t

) 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think it was correct to remove the request. Yes, there is absolutely no chance it would have succeeded, but only bureaucrats can close or de-list a nomination. The user in question had been asked to withdraw his nomination, but he did not. Therefore, it should have run until a bureaucrat closed it. -- Merope ^Talk 04:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to note: There has been precedent for clearly-failing requests being removed by admins. – Chacor 04:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then perhaps the instructions on the page need to be revisited. Right now it says non-bureaucrats can do it only in cases of "vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination". -- Merope ^Talk 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a description for someone reading it, not a rule. —Centrx→talk • 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent to remove clearly failing requests, and an RFA by a user with less than 20 edits is suspicious.

^{wat's sup}

05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There most definitely is for ones as obvious as that. Sasquatch t|c 05:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen cries of "

Bryant

05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have no opinion either way about whether admins should be able to close no-chance-in-hell RfAs or whether it should be left to the beaurocrats. Regardless, it's done all the time, and you should be thankful that it was. Voters tend to be pretty hard on someone who thinks they should be an admin with just 20 edits. If it had been left to run, it would have been pretty embarassing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think it's good to remove obviously failing nominations to prevent them from becoming overly negative. We have lost good users that way. >Radiant< 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

4 hours seems to short. It should be two days at maximum. Unless the person up had only 20 edits. Anomo 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi people, I'd like to report 86.145.55.59's vandalism. This person is not an editor, he masks his IP behind an anonymous proxy and flames editors in random articles talk page.
He always act the same way, adding nonsense to discussion page, claiming that the article is atrocious, that the editors are pretentious and claiming that anyway he don't want to edit wikipedia. This vandal is really annoying as i've seen vexed editors answering him. By checking his log I've just realized he was just a vandal having fun by trolling editors. Please can't you block this vandal's IP or something? Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Check contributions log for evidence: Special:Contributions/86.145.55.59 Buenaparte Social Club 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "he masks his IP behind an anonymous proxy"? Is this an open proxy, or are you reiterating that the user is not logged-in/hasn't registered? Also, reports of vandalism should go to the

WP:AIV), and requests for dispute resolution should go to that page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?

) 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

actually i mean both. sorry i will post this report in the right place. thanks. Buenaparte Social Club 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Belgaum page history - here

But I am 100% sure about User:Naveenbm being User:Sarvagnya's sockpuppet and he was used to block User:Mahawiki. Just see how User:Sarvagnya comes out of nowhere after User:Naveenbm reverts 3 times. Certainly, a severe violation of subverting justice for one's own need. Both User:Naveenbm and User:Sarvagnya must be blocked for this.

AryaRajyaमहाराष्ट्र 16:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. – Chacor 16:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether a user is a sockpuppet or not, nobody has the right to more than three reverts unless it's for vandalism.

WP:3RR instead of repeatedly reverting. User:Zoe|(talk)

21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

By giving his views on the pages he has contributed to, this newcomer of a vandal violates