Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive303

Keeps vandalising

Stuff like this should be reported to

WP:AIV, not here. I've blocked the user, however. EVula // talk // ☯

// 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How did everyone get the sarcasm but you. If you had not noticed I resulted to sarcasm when dealing with Chaz because I find him amusing as well as the community of editors who have filed 7 RFCU's all that have been shown to be false. Stop forum shopping, there is a pending RFAr. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of the amuzing community is The Evil Spartan who has accused me of edit warring because of one revert. But not his friend DHeyward who reverted against 2 users, 2 times: [32] [33]. Good job with that second link. Who is zer0defaults? As for accepting the block as a sockpuppet, you can see the previous comment here [34] where I do not "confess" at all, just give up trying to defend myself and wait for the Arbcom ruling. I believe The Evil Spartan has now filed 3 unsuccessful RFCU's, no wonder he is now forum shopping. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Evil Spartan, there's really nothing remotely productive about this thread. You clearly misread SOD's comment, as he and others have shown. We get that you think he's a sock, but it's time for you to realize others don't agree. Let the arbcom do its job. - auburnpilot talk 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked IAF (talk · contribs) (aka "Indian Air Force"). He was blocked for one week. He has since edited as an IP user to continue his campaigning and disruption, including curiously accusing me of being a Jain involved in some conspiracy.[35][36][37][38] He has shown an intention to continue disrupting the wiki, so based on advice I received when I put the one week block up for review, I instituted a block with an indefinite duration. I have blocked the three IP addresses he has used with an anon block, including preventing account creation, for one month. I tagged all three IP talk pages with {{anonblock}}.[39][40][41] I have also semi-protected Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for one week to help prevent any further disruption.[42] I have avoided semi-protecting the talk page, as it is generally frowned upon, but may do so if he continues to use multiple IP addresses to disrupt discussion there. Feedback, comments and suggestions are quite welcome. Vassyana 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While I believe it normally inappropriate to use admin tools when engaged in a content dispute (no matter how marginal the content may be) I note that IAF has never attempted to disguise that he continued to edit as an ip to evade their block, nor have they attempted to request unblock. In this instance I believe the actions were appropriate, but I think a better course would have been bring this matter to this board before taking action yourself (especially as the user was still under a one week block). Of course, this will not stop the user from editing via ip - and I strongly suggest you get an uninvolved admin to deal with any future edits. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who implemented the one week block. I asked for a review of the block, because I was reminded after the fact that I had engaged with the user on a similar issue about six months ago, by reading his talk page. I did not want to engage in an inappropriate action by community standards, so I made sure to solicit input. In the most recent action, I acted in harmony with the advice of the only editor to respond, who suggested an indefinite block if there were any further issues. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive104#Block review (possible_conflict). I hope that helps clarify the situation. Vassyana 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fine by me. It's just that indef is - while not permanent - a serious block. Extending a short term block (to ensure prevention of damage to WP) while you seek input is possibly a better course of action. Again, there is the question of the initial block but if you were following consensus (even if part of that community) then that is okay, too. Ultimately, if you believe that the most expedient course is (was) to block and then seek retrospective agreement then that is your decision. In this matter I feel you were justified. LessHeard vanU 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the concern and feedback. You are correct that a shorter extension while soliciting further feedback would have probably been best, regardless of how justified it may have been. I will bear this in mind in the future. Cheers! Vassyana 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This might not make sense unless you're familiar with the history of Proabivouac.

Proabivouac has taken to editing policy pages disruptively, see this. He also said I threatened him because I reverted his edits telling him "don't push it". He also edited

Opinions? --Deskana (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Proabivouac is obviously trying to make a point, only editing for effect. The edit on attack sites alone is proof enough. Jmlk17 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Under Proabivouac's probation, "He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior."
  Thatcher131
  10:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs are disturbing to me. He does indeed seem to be being, in one word, disruptive; this diff is probably the most disruptive. Have you made any attempt to have a polite discussion with him Deskana? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That happened, so it was hardly disruption. Arrow740 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident, this may sound to you a little circular, but if this language had been there to begin with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I aim to prevent another situation like mine.Proabivouac 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've not "edit[ed] for effect," but to honestly apprise potential contributors of what they are likely to encounter here, and spare them from damage which can result from ill-informed decisions. As I don't edit war, I've been reverted, the end: I've taken it to talk.Proabivouac 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

is there a link to the Arbitration probation ruling?

ム

11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not one that won't send Proabivuoac into another conniption fit. Go to

Thatcher131

11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, he's been blocked by

ム

11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Probivouac was unblocked within half an hour, and I actually welcome this decision, provided that he takes his grievances to talk pages (as he promised to do). --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He's on probation for a reason and all he's done for the past few weeks is disprupt. Bad unblock in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not meant to be punitive. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't punitive given the crap that Proabivouac has caused over the past few weeks, I very much doubt it will stop now and this block was a way of stopping that disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are really exaggerating spurious reports of disruption. Probaviouac uses the talk page quite frequently to voice his statements, and I dont see the need to apply punitive, capricious, measures to a user in good standing like him.Bakaman 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This certainly seems like a textbook example of

WP:POINT. Under the terms of his probation, any single administrator may ban him from any page that he edits disruptively. Is there any objection to banning him from Wikipedia:Username policy and Wikipedia:Attack sites? I don't propose banning him from the talk pages of those policies (for now); if he'd like to make any constructive suggestions there he's welcome to. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 12:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And

ム

12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is room for legitimate disagreement with some aspects of how Probivouac's situation was handled a few weeks ago, but edits such as the ones he has made this week to policy pages are not helpful (and editing the page for an already-rejected policy seems particularly unnecessary). Probivouac should be aware by now that the issue he flagged has been noted by arbitrators and other administrators. On the other hand, it is difficult to see what can be effectively changed at this point. He is welcome to continue the discussion on the arbitration talk page if he believes it would be helpful but otherwise I would prefer to see himn and it might be best for him if he would, direct his efforts to other matters. Newyorkbrad 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How is referencing his own situation (which obviously has occured) on an "already-rejected" policy in any way disruptive? What did it disrupt? What's wrong with posting something true on an already-rejected policy page? Arrow740 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to essentially say the same thing that Newyorkbrad did. I see little compelling reason for anyone to be making the type of edit Pro did to what is a dead proposal; it's just completely unnecessary.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivuoac is rapidly wearing out his welcome as far as policy pages are concerned. All he has done in the last couple of weeks is push the same barrow on as many different pages as he can think of. However, the correct application of the probation would seem to be a ban from editing policy pages, not a complete block. (To be enforced by blocking, if necessary, and it could be escalated to include the talk pages if he edits disruptively there as well.) If he voluntarily respects this, there is no need to formalize it for the time being.

Thatcher131

13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The need to formalize it appears to be psychological, not practical.Proabivouac 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As an aside to this

I am concerned how

Hmm, 3RR is not the be all and end all of disruption. Viridae^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this unblock for the same reasons as Viridae and Neil. --Deskana (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The stated reason is somewhat specious. However, under the terms of the probation it would have been more appropriate to ban him from editing policy pages, and only enforce with a block if he continued to edit them. Certainly admins have the discretion to ban users in excess of any prior rulings if the situation warrants it, but since Proabivuoac's disruptive edits are confined to a relatively narrow set of policy pages, I think a topic ban would have been a more appropriate first step. The goal here is not to drive the user away, after all.

Thatcher131

13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So are we saying "Due to an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing, Proabivouac is banned from editing policy (guideline, essay) pages. Editing of such pages will result in a block."? Do we need to formalise this somehow?

ム

14:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea, and I'm sure that everyone agree's that this is needed. It's sad, but I believe that we should also attempt to nip this in the bud, with a strong warning to Proabivouac that future disruptive behaviour, however minor, will not be tolerated. Basically, he needs to drop this now. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the probation it should be logged on the Arbitration case page, as well as noticed to his talk page, of course.

Thatcher131

14:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there is no reason to

I also think the unblock was unwise. Disruption does not just mean 3RR. I am often astounded by how quickly admins are willing to substitute their judgment for anothers even when the block has been strongly endorsed by third parties. Objections to blocks should be raised on this board and unblocks should happen where there is a consensus that the block was inappropriate, not just where there is one admin that disagrees with it. WjBscribe 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Policy page ban implemented ([43], [44]).

  ム

  09:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  I welcome the decision to implement the policy page ban. A 1-week block from all pages (including talk pages) was hardly warranted, but Proabivoauc's solicitation of an unblock via private channels was even less appropriate. Hopefully we may archive the discussion at this point. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Soliciting unblocks via private channels happens all the time.Proabivouac 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few more that are popping up in Recent Changes. They all seem to be from different anon IPs —

iridescent (talk to me!)

18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some searches to help...

• [45]
• [46]
• [47] —Preceding
  talk • contribs
  ) 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

iridescent (talk to me!)

20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it appears they are no longer linking it but merely substituting the text. —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed an odd additon to

I have to go too, but any admin who handles this should look at the situation in depth. Rktect has a long history of adding... "idiosyncratic"... perspectives to articles in this general topic area. In the past his perspectives have not necessarily been supported by the sources he provides. Thus, the IP may be making legitimate corrections. Or not. Again, it will take some digging. Raymond Arritt 07:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that as I was inadvisedly spending even more of my sleep time on Wikipedia. The block history of Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does make me a bit more uneasy about the quality of his or her edits. There is a problem brewing here, though, and it would be good of someone who actually should be awake right now to see if they can get to the bottom of it. Good night, all. --Dynaflow babble 07:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

that particular article was deleted as CSDA1 by Jreferee at 2:55 despite a hangon by Dynaflow. The article does looks somewhat incoherent to me, but not necessarily hopeless. DGG (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Looks like Rktect has possibly violated his or her Arbcom ban against editing articles on weights and measures: diff. --Dynaflow babble 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) [EDIT:] He or she is also creating preferred versions of articles in his userspace (User:Rktect/Ancient egyptian units of measurement, User:Rktect/mile, User:Rktect/History of Measurement, User:Rktect/pous, User talk:Rktect/cubit, User:Rktect/degrees, User:Rktect/Imperial Unit, etc.) that he would otherwise be barred from editing. He or she is even creating new weights-and-measures articles in namespace: diff. More: diff, diff, etc. --Dynaflow babble 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now also reported at

WP:AE. --Dynaflow babble

08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for violating the ruling - this is the maximum the ArbCom ruling allows for.

ム

08:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the offending Rktect articles in userspace be deleted under CSD G5? Caknuck 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The ones mentioned in this ANI have been deleted. I will check his contribs for any further that I've missed. SirFozzie 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of material here: Special:Prefixindex/User:Rktect/. Be careful in deleting, though. Some of these things seem to be POV-fork drafts of articles, while others are archives of talk-page discussions which are allowable as subpages. Also, could someone better-versed in ancient history than I am look at that IP editor's contribs, specifically what it defines as "massive POV edits?" Its main activity seems to be following Rktect around and reverting him, even in articles he's not barred from editing. Even though I'd like to AGF, that could possibly be more indicative of wikistalking or vendetta'ish behavior than helpful NPOV policing. --Dynaflow babble 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am reopening this after an archival because a consensus at

Old ANI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#User:Maplefan_-_Unsourced_statement_adding_to_RuneScape

In the discussion above, the only response by one not regulary maintaining these two articles was left in by User:Zscout370. "Think MapleStory" was the response, and I had no idea what did he mean by that. This is not meant as a harassment, only that it left be unclear how was this handled.

Policies User:Maplefan has broken

I apologise for the use of headers, but this is meant more as a clear display.

Constantly adding in unsourced text to the articles -

WP:POINT

This is a list of edits by User:Maplefan which got reverted. The edits include in a statement on that the actual number of players are less in the game as a player could create multiple accounts. This is constatly kept to be added by User:Maplefan, all of which have been reverted:

RuneScape:

Mentioned in the old ANI:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=158811794&oldid=158784356
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159289686&oldid=159086968
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159517385&oldid=159498156
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159613370&oldid=159562239
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159705933&oldid=159642939
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159708789&oldid=159706416
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159897925&oldid=159859562

Issues not listed above:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160146785&oldid=160143000
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160149172&oldid=160146873
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160385905&oldid=160367100
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160386187&oldid=160386043
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160570872&oldid=160386832
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=160602446&oldid=160571719

MapleStory:

I found out that User:Maplefan has been unhelpful here too, as seen from these reverted edits:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158361721&oldid=158218487
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158811182&oldid=158784516
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159036958&oldid=159036513
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159290851&oldid=prev
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159475983&oldid=159317200
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159618260&oldid=159566369 - This is a large row of edits which include the both statements the user keeps adding.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=next&oldid=159705719
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160147000&oldid=159904982

The mention that the actual number of players are less in the game as a player could create multiple accounts is kept removed from this article, as seen from here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158636730&oldid=158625718
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158768149&oldid=158638508
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=158811182&oldid=158784516
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159036513&oldid=159009856
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159076049&oldid=159063275
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=next&oldid=159290851
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=next&oldid=159475983
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159618260&oldid=159566369 - As mentioned, the large row of edits.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159705719&oldid=159635284
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=159898194&oldid=159798925
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160386023&oldid=160379957
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160571098&oldid=160386709
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MapleStory&diff=160602084&oldid=160594171

It makes perfectly sense that this is a violation of

In case this is not possible to be included in a whole report to ANI, please inform me to move this part to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.

• Special:Contributions/Runescapehater
• Special:Contributions/Maplefan

Both have made edits to RuneScape, and a single edit by User:Runescapehater to Talk:MapleStory [48] is a strong evidence on that these two accounts are highly likely to be sockpuppets with each other.

In the userpage of

Page-move vandalism -

WP:VAND

User:Maplefan moved RuneScape into Runescape the flea bag. [49] This is highly inappropriate, and shows a bad attitude to RuneScape. The edit was reverted immediatly, and the user has been warned. I also told about this in the old ANI.

Previous reports

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=160394019&oldid=160393747 at
  WP:AIV - by User:Hojimachong. Declined because it seemed to be inactive after a discussion with other editors. This is not so, as the last edit User:Maplefan
  made was in 27. September 2007 04:32:08, so the issue is recent.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=159902805&oldid=159902189 at
  WP:ANI
  - so I did, but the old ANI got archived.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=159524078&oldid=159523666 at
  WP:AIV - by User:OhanaUnited. Declined because it is a content dispute. There is a clear consensus in Talk:RuneScape#10_million_players.21 that this is not allowed to be included into the article, but User:Maplefan
  still keeps doing that.

I request a supervision for User:Maplefan, meaning that this user should not edit MapleStory or RuneScape in any case, unless the edit is useful and neutral to the article. Then I also request a temporary block for him, maybe about a length of 1 week but the length of the block is not really the important part. Plus, an indefinite block to User:Runescapehater, if it is proven as a sock puppet.

I am breaking my "Wikibreak", but only because I felt that something had to be done about this. I won't be commenting about this unless it is very urgent and you need to get in touch with me (

Thank you, ~Iceshark7 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The sockpuppetry is pretty obvious here; I'd say you might be in better shape filing this report at

WP:SSP though. The users I would say need to be blocked for POV pushing and sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan

18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Maplefan and his obvious sockpuppets after a checkuser. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Very much appreciated. :) Legendotphoenix 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

A quick look at his editing history will show that every single one of his posts has disrupted the Wikipedia community. He was brought to my attention regarding the DirectBuy article. I am guessing that he currently works for the company because he always edits/reverts it to a version that is written as an advertisement, and removes any information that is critical of it. Please block his IP address from making further edits. Cmcfarland 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Article has been semi-protected for 1 week pending a resolution on the talk page. I will post a notice for the anon editors on their talk pages advising them not to remove cited material. Caknuck 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Now it's fully protected. A possible sleeper account User:Wiseard made the exact same deletion. Caknuck 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• You shouldn't have to guess. Clicking on the WHOIS link at the bottom of the IP's talk page shows it is allocated to UCCTOPS aka
  Spryde
  19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've come here out of despair more than anything else, this IP has been constantly adding uncited info and messing up infoboxes on roller coaster related articles. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but almost all of this IPs edits have had to be reverted or amended and they continue to ignore warnings placed on their talk page. In particular, there has been continued addition of "none" to infobox fields, despite being told numerous times that these need to be left blank, as well as unecessary decapitalisation. A few examples:

• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]

Edits from this IP address are becoming too much for a few regular

It is possible that the ip hasn't seen your messages. There is a bug that means some ip's don't get the "new messages" bar. I will perform a short block, so they are "forced" to read the talkpage, with a comment to please use the page to talk to concerned editors. In the meanwhile, have you tried the various article talkpages? LessHeard vanU 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I haven't tried the article talkpages - there must be hundreds of such edits by this IP, all on different articles, I'm not sure that they would be able to read the talkpage in such a short time. Hopefully this block will force them to read their talkpage though! Thanks again, Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone fancies some current event work,

Can a few admins please help watch out for ban-evading socks of Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs) (aka Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs))? He's ban-evading on a daily basis with massive editing sprees, partly through throwaway socks and partly through IPs. I've had to take drastic measures by repeatedly range-blocking two /16 IP ranges, plus semi-protecting a dozen or so articles.

Every activity of 151.44.0.0/16 or 151.37.0.0/16 on Turkey-related articles should be stopped immediately, and all appearances of new accounts on Turkey-related articles making long sequences of edits, especially relating to the choice and positioning of images, are highly suspect.

He was banned for repeated edit-warring and he's now evidently waging a war of attrition on Wikipedia: just go on editing until admins tire of blocking him. This must be stopped by all means. (Here's a complaint by an affected user; I couldn't have described the situation better: [54]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, first time mentioning anything here, so unsure of exactly how to go, hope I am following correct procedure. Now, a silly change was made to the "Empress Matilda" article, and didn't seem worth mentioning. However, I looked at the IP's talk page, and it is full of cautions and 2 temporary blocks so far. The blocks don't deter the person, however the person (or people maybe) doesn't seem to make silly changes often, only once a month maybe. I'm not going to suggest anything really, but would be interested to know what happens to him.
For details of the change, see here
Bistromaths 22:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User blocked, in the future, obvious

WP:AIV. Mr.Z-man

22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppets?

Resolved

 – all obvious socks, and per WP:DUCK, all blocked

On talk page Talk:Resident Evil (film), User:201.141.242.199 created a vote to not merge the article. I find it very strange how the user accounts that contributed have been recently created (about 2 minutes apart) and went straight to the talk page and voted "yes."

This includes:

The difficult arbitration concerning external links which harass rumbles on, and there are some very significant resolutions being considered here. Most controversial probably 'Malicious sites' and I have serious concerns with this one.

The way these decisions are made is of vital importance to Wikipedia, and because they are being made now, I have brought this to the attention of this high traffic noticeboard as a rather unusual 'Incident'.

A policy is being formulated which is intended to supersede the ArbCom's decisions (in time) - I entreat all admin.s to comment both on the talk pages of the Arbitration, and at the policy proposal Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment. Privatemusings 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out this [[55]] lovely statement after a block for vandalism. For those who watch/have seen this user before. the full talk page discusses some other sock drawer activity. --Rocksanddirt 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Empty threat. It's not like it a) hasn't happened before or b) is going to matter who the original person was. I think

revert, block, ignore should be applied liberally if the person is to return and he/she can be identified.—Ryūlóng (竜龍

) 00:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just received the first threat against me during my time at Wikipedia (diff), and would like to ask that action be taken against this editor; checkuser seems warranted in this case. Thank you in advance for your help on this matter. Badagnani 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the user for trolling, harrassing and vandalising. It is likely that he/she is a sockpuppet of the other Burma protester users. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 02:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is located in the Talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HD_Radio#Banning_Gata4001 - We editors of this page have tried & tried & tried to get him to stop. We talked to him, we asked him politely, we gave him links to help him understand the purpose of Wikipedia, but he refuses to listen to any of us. Every day, there GATA4001 is, making another destructive edit of the HD Radio article. Frankly we're tired of undoing his damage.

Please block him from any further editing. Thank you. - Theaveng 14:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(Non-admin) I note that there are several NPOV violations by this user, but am unsure if blocking is quite in order. Perhaps a final {{uw-npov4}} warning might suffice. [56], [57] and several other diffs are of note - the user seems to be complaining about sources while introducing original research himself/herself. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the user is making POV edits and talk page style edits, all to the same article, mind you, at times using improper edit summaries ("grammer"). I think someone should give them a "clue", like the one mentioned in the comment above.--Sethacus 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He just did it again. Even though we specifically told him, "Do not include opinions without citations" he ignored us and reinserted the exact same anti-HD Radio comments/opinions/unsubstantiated claims that we have deleted over-and-over-and-over. I've had enough. - Theaveng 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's things like this, not just GATA4001 but other disruptive persons that I've seen ruin various articles, why I think wikipedia should end its "anyone can edit" policy. There ought to be a restriction that (1) only people who are registered can edit and (2) until that person reaches, say 100 edits, his changes must be approved by an experienced user.

That would help eliminate the schoolkids in study hall just randomly vandalizing articles for fun. And it would help stop inexperienced users (like GATA4001) from making foolish changes, until they become familiar with how wiki works. Just my humble opinion. Most importantly it would help keep my blood pressure down, because I wouldn't have to worry about these jokers destroying several YEARS worth of work in just 30 minutes time. Just my humble opinion. - Theaveng 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that

WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU

21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As for wikipedia's policy of allowing anonymous and/or newbies to trash articles, it seems rather silly to me. Like deciding to eliminate border guards along the Canada line. Yeah sure, MOST canadians are decent people, but there are also those whackjobs who ought to be kept out until they've been properly "naturalized" to comply with the new U.S. rules (i.e. Registered). Wikipedia ought to have some kind of barrier to keep out the riff-raff, until they've proven themselves to be decent editors with, say, 100 established user-approved edits. (I guess what I'm trying to say, is that ALL articles ought to have semi-protection, by default.)- Theaveng 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That kind of stuff is brought up almost monthly, and that would be tantamount to (a) falsehood in advertising ("Anyone can edit _{provided you're registered}!") and (b)

biting newcomers. Vandals are easily dealt with; it's POV-pushers that need to be kept an eye on and reported to the proper authorities. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!}

) 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What you say is partly true, but this "anyone can edit" policy is also the reason why various persons refuse to accept wikipedia as a valid citation of information. And why students are banned from using wiki for their reseach. I've lost track of how many times I've said "Wikipedia says this and that", and the opposite party replies, "You might as well have cited nothing; wikipedia is not a valid resource." Quite frustrating.

Perhaps if wikipedia modified its policy to make all articles semi-protected, such that modifications can only be made made by registered users, then wikipedia would be accepted as a valid citation. - Theaveng 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Then go pester Citizendium and stop wasting time here. AFAIK, Citizendium does not allow anon editing. Either that, or cite the source behind your argument, not the article. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 18:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to be rude ("pester" and "wasting time"). Learn some tolerance. All I did was express my opinion, and all you needed to do was say, "okay" or "I disagree" without the juvenile, insulting tone as if you think I'm scum.

As for Gata4001, it appears the warning worked. He's stopped vandalizing HD Radio. Hopefully he'll now learn to *cooperate* with the other editors. - Theaveng 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I unprotected my talk page—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please ask User:Ryulong to unprotect his talk page at user talk:Ryulong. He has had it protected for over a month now and it makes it impossible to respond to his, well let me just say it makes it impossible to respond. 199.125.109.35 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While I should remove the semiprotection on my talk page, I have specifically requested to you to make any correspondence to me on your talk page, where I initiated the discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Which I never saw until 5 days later because I don't get the same IP address every time. You aren't the only one I have been trying to contact who has a protected talk page, Bishonen, mentioned below is the other. I am not replying on the IP talk page because if I did I would not be able to see any followup from you for the same reason. I often get bumped off the net mid edit and come back on with a new IP address. And don't ask me to register a name, I'm not interested. Aren't there plenty of bots and others that revert nonsense? Your talk page is not the only target for vandalism on the net. 199.125.109.35 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's against the letter and spirit of the

protection policy? ➪HiDrNick

! 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While not why. Viridae^Talk 08:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

! It took me over a minute to parse your comment, Viridae. I even Googled the phrase "while not why" thinking it might be an idiom. You mean '"While" not "why"'! That makes much more sense; sorry Ryulong, I misread your reply. ➪HiDrNick! 09:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, why does asking someone to respond on their talk page make it okay to protect your talk page for a month? You are certainly with in your rights to ask someone to respond in the way you want, but it's unacceptable for you to use your sysop bit to force someone to acquiesce to your demands. Further, Dr. Nick is right that semi protecting a user talk page for an extended period of time is violating the protection policy. Natalie 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not "forcing" anyone to acquiesce to my demands. My talk page has been semiprotected because of someone who thought it was funny to replace my talk page with "fuck you" or changing the transclusion of my header template from User talk:Ryulong/Header to User talk:Sucksondong/Header (I consequently registered that username so if I felt like it, I could just create a new subpage there). Right now, because I realize my user talk is semiprotected, I would prefer not to unprotect it, but rather reply to the IP on his talk page, which is what it is used for.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the second such instance of an admin protecting their talk page this week; User Talk:Bishonen, see [{WP:AN]]. To me, this is abuse of admin powers.Rlevse 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of user and usertalk pages are fine, if the admin

of abuse. Sometimes being an admin is grounds for abuse. Will ^(talk

) 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No editor should have their user talk page protected more than briefly. If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Wikipedia is not for you. Friday (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If being abused by random strangers is an integral part of Wikipedia, then there is something horribly wrong with it. --B 15:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure. But, as part of the internet, the things that are wrong with the internet are also generally wrong with Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Admins should be contactable, even by anonymous users. If there is a coordinated attack on an admin's talk page, they may briefly protect it, but long-term protection should never be used on talk pages of active editors, especially not when they're admins. Communication is vital to the workings of Wikipedia, and denying anonymous users the right to communicate with an admin (who needs to take responsibility for his actions) is a bad thing to do, even though it may seem necessary.

talk

) 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense...so long as his/her email is enabled that's fine.--MONGO 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Only registered users may use the email function, as far as I know. - auburnpilot talk 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I've received quite a few Wikipedia e-mails and they always have a registered user in the From line. Allowing non-registered users to e-mail would be a complete disaster! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)