Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive304

Some hyper-enthusiastic Britney fan has changed the title of this article to Blackout without any sources. The article itself has been changed back to Britney Spears's fifth studio album, but not the talk page. My concern is that since the Blackout article is tagged for speedy deletion, if it is deleted, the talkpage for Britney Spears's fifth studio album will somehow disappear too. Can someone who is more technically inclined than I am please lend a hand? Thanks. Jeffpw 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

They is extraneous text at the end of this article, which I cannot attribute to any edit. The text is overt vandalism. Whay can be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Part (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The text was transcluded onto the page through {{Zimbabwe-bio-stub}}. I reverted it. WODUP 16:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jamietna23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This editor's soul reason for being here seems to be to upload images of dubious copyright validity and then repetitively insert them in their corresponding articles. Despite numerous notifications, they continue to do so. I've attempted to communicate with them, as has at least one other editor I'm aware of. Perhaps an admin could take a look? Thanks, Into The Fray ^T/C 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report the same person. There have attempts at discussing this with the user.[1][2][3], they clearly have no concept of copyright violation, and even upload images under a different name when the original one gets deleted[4], and their 'contributions' to

WP:3RR. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)}

18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also guessing that Special:Contributions/67.68.245.48 and Special:Contributions/65.92.130.191 (both BellCanada IPs) are the same user, logged out, to try and avoid 3RR. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please can someone look at this, it's getting silly. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 20:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of these images are clearly copyvios. [5][6][7][8] With that in mind, and the editors lack of communication, I would be surprised if the others weren't. The editor hasn't given any copyright info on any of them. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I third the request for attention. User keeps uploading unlicenced images, regardless of being warned numerous times and does not respond at all to communication. --Kudret abi^Talk 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Pretty obvious copyvio case. Wizardman 21:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt attention and also removing all the copyvio images. Best, --Kudret abi^Talk 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

- my network was being sluggish today. --Solumeiras ^talk 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

...anyone else noticed?? --Solumeiras ^talk 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jean-Paul Ney article is a bloody mess due to the POV-pushing of various parties (CastroSUX and Castelmore are currently the two worst culprits) and an edit war that has been ongoing since June of this year ([[9]]). At the beginning, it was mostly anonymous users edit warring (Tamiflu42 admits here [[10]] to using two different IPs (128.178.124.121 & 83.219.98.225) to make edits, requests an end to the edit war and suggests settling the issues on the talk page) after which anon 82.67.185.164 soon became the most active editor (changes to this article are nearly the sum total of this user's edits [[11]] until the aforementioned CastroSUX and Castlemore became involved in August ([[12]]). (My personal suspicion is that the anon 82.67.185.164 and CastroSUX are one and the same person.) Attempts to settle issues on the talk page have failed, with all parties involved rewriting talk page comments ([[13]], [[14]], [[15]]) and making various threats ([[16]]. Users Castlemore and CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 have also carried the war to Castlemore's talk page ([[17]]]]) wherein Castlemore made the accusation that CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 is, in fact, Jean-Paul Ney himself.

At this point, the article should be protected from editing until various issues (including any conflict(s)-of-interest and the factual basis of the claims in the article [the sources used are highly suspect, including Mr. Ney's personal website]) have been worked out. Users Castlemore and CastroSUX/82.67.185.164 should also be strongly cautioned against edit-warring in future. ---

17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to take a slightly different approach to this article than usual. The edit warring is not that severe and the article needs work. I don't think locking it down is the best approach. Instead I am going to institute a state of 1RR. Anything more than 1 revert by any user will result in a short block. Any type of threat, personal attack, or harassment will also result in a block. I have also blocked User:82.67.185.164 for the legal threat on the talk page. Anything disputed should be discussed on the talk page, but the dispute and a slow edit war should not stop needed improvement. I will copy this comment to user talk pages of those involved in the dispute and the article talk page, so there will be no "I didn't know" excuse for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Any approach that will lead to the article's improvement and the end of edit-warring, sock-puppetry, article ownsership, etc., is fine with me. I have no axe to grind on this topic, nor any preferred outcome other than a proper article. Thanks for taking this on,

The'FortyFive'

20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on this article. I came on to just take a look at the translation aspects and to correct awkward syntax, and haven't had time to really do much else. Your approach seems a good one and is productive as well since it allows the article to continue development in a positive way. (olive 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Private_Salt_pages. Regards, Navou ^banter 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

, he has made so many accusations of pedophilia and "pedophile activism" towards other editors, it's getting to be a joke now. I'll list the most recent examples, to make it simple.

After I reported him for possible socking, he continued his habit of accusing oppositional editors of "pro pedophile activism" (the name of the article that he continually bombards with POV pushing sentiment).

He then deleted the three possible sock tags that I placed ([18][19][20]) on his possible socks' userpages. When I warned him that they were required by the accepted policy, he reverted them again. He is now attempting to speedy delete the sock report that contains the evidence against him. Dyskolos 19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers have confirmed several times that there is no link between

Squeakbox and the three users whom Dyskolos claims to be his socks. Sam Blacketer

21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Read my complaint. This is not the subject, hence my listing of the sock evidence on the appropriate board, as opposed to here (BTW, IP tracking is not the end all of sockpuppetry). I have listed one disruptive comment and six clear contraventions of policy (three after warnings were given). Could you now please carry out the process properly, i.e. argue why such editing is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and then declare the topic resolved.

Thank you for your co-operation Dyskolos 22:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dyskolos seems to be engaging in forum shopping here. Obviously were the checkuser results inconclusive the SSP might be necessary but given that the accounts he claim to be SqueakBox edit from a different continent, allegations of socking seem to be rather far fetched. I agree with Sam that there is nothing further to be done here - if anything these allegations have already had more admin attention than they deserved. WjBscribe 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, an admin ignores the actual complaint. As explained ad nauseum, I am not complaining about the SqueakBox - Pol64 connection. If I were, yes, I would be forum shopping. My complaints relate to his consistantly disruptive editing which includes page blanking, filthy accusations and reverting against policies agreed upon by admins like yourself. We should not be tolerating partisan and disruptive editing, especially when it involves the bullying of others, ignorance of consensus and the wrecking of a fine resource.

Now, please give me some response in relation to the listed complaints, as opposed to the complaints swept under the carpet elsewhere. Dyskolos 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making new accusations without diffs, please don't,

SqueakBox

22:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The diffs of the new "accusations" (in fact, mere confirmations of violated policy) follow directly after the diffs of my changes, as explained. Providing the first diff link, when no intermediate edits were made, allows the admin to follow the incident through. But this is irrelevant for as long as these admins continue to employ the Chewbacca defense. Until some lightbulb turns up, I might as well give up for now. Dyskolos 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to continue this I want the diffs for your allegations of "page blanking, filthy accusations and reverting against policies agreed upon". otherwise following scribe's advice would be a good idea,

SqueakBox

23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the header, I will not be listing all of these violations (this is not a RfC), although you have previously blanked the articles on APA, Danish Pedophile Assoc, History of Pedophile Activism, one of Tony's articles (can't recall now) and 90 - 95% of the PPA article without consensus or AfD. Your record of accusations includes agendas, pro-pedophile activism and clear implications of pedophilia. These are all things that you have done, which I do not currently wish to bring to justice. You should be happy about this. I have provided diffs for the violations of policy. If an admin cares to click forward three times on each diff, they will see all six violations in full. Dyskolos 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But that isn't the whole story, is it?

SqueakBox

23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If its already been confirmed that those aren't his sockpuppets, how is the tag removal a violation? Shell ^babelfish 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The sock enquiry was in process when he reverted six times, and three times after warning. 205.196.208.17 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My favorite new redirect is Good music. Obviously these are bad redirects. Someone needs to either fix them, or delete them. — Moe ε 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I left him a message. Obviously some of these redirects violated

WP:NPOV and some were just misleading. There were some that were just blatant typos that were redirects to the wrong location. Most I tagged for speedy deletion per {{db-r3}} and some, like the acoustic redirects, I redirected to Acoustic music. — Moe ε

20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all the POV redirects have been either deleted or re-redirected now. Marking this as resolved for the moment, but this user probably bears keeping an eye on. Natalie 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ClaimJumperPete (

) is apparently at it again.

Mytur Banisdirty (

Following this request, he created what he titled his "Lineup", a list of CJP socks with their number of vandalisms and commentary about their success rate (made in CJP's signature "hillbilly" dialect).

When User:Aecis checked his contribs and noticed his smoking gun, the user stated "Actually, its a friend of mine that's making all those accounts. He told us about it in the truck yesterday and we couldn't stop laughing. I'm not the one doing it, but I am his friend; I don't know exactly where that would place me on the issue." [22]

Aside from the obvious evidence, this matches ClaimJumperPete's MO of getting amusement from "putting his head inside the lion's mouth" using his socks. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an edit war on

22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has been prolifically edit warring within the past 24 hours on Afghanistan-related pages, such as

23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Afghan singer" is the correct phrase. Calling someone racist should not be considered personal attack. Instead of reporting just one person, you should have reported all the people involved in the edit war. You don't sound as a neutral person, this probably means that you dislike Hon203 based on his ethnic grounds has stated that that's what he is.--Hindu-Boar 00:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a wild guess at what my ethnicity is. I claim complete ignorance of the ethnic groups in in the Middle East. The only remotely Middle Eastern thing I have done is to dispute a rfu tag for an image of some Afghanistan leader that was killed in the 1990s.

WP:RFAR is, plus the pattern of edits from Hon203 and Qbzad was extremely fishy. The other two parties have done anything like that, as both have long contribution histories before this recent edit war. hbdragon88

00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here on Wiki, especially regarding what they claim or say about themselves. You say that new users are bad people but those who have been blocked multiple times for edit-warring are the good people? That way of thinking is totally stupid.

talk · contribs) and Anoshirawan (talk · contribs) have both been editing the same exact articles for several months now, and User:Anoshirawan is considered a new editor. Both Anoshirawan and Beh-nam have the same agenda, make same particular changes, (example: changing "Afghan" to "Afghanistani" everywhere they see it, targeting Pashtun ethnic group but never do they mess with other ethnic groups of Afghanistan).--Hindu-Boar

00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and edit warring. --Haemo 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I reported Anshirawan as well, and he's been blocked for a week. Picaroon removed the ArbCom case. I believe we can call this resolved. hbdragon88 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of his edits of the past 10 days:

Examples of sources being deleted:

• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

Examples of citation requests being deleted:

• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• [34]

Examples of changing sourced information:

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

Hoponpop69 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why was this not even acknowledged by anyone?Hoponpop69 22:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Steindavida (talk · contribs) continues to use anon socks to repeatedly add himself to The Amityville Curse and Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver). As a new sock pops up it gets blocked, but he just finds another anon IP address and re-adds himself, making sure to make uncivil comments about other Users in particular and Wikipedia in general. Repeatedly reverting him does no good, as he just reinserts himself and his vandalistic edits. Even edits which do not directly address him (such as changing a link from Helen Hughes in The Amityville Curse to Helen Hughes (actress) get reverted. Corvus cornix 01:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Both articles mentioned have been semi-protected. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This article appears to be being edited by the subject; he's added a lot of personal, unsourced bio. ThuranX 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced to a Norwegian website. If the claims are legit then he's notable as a former international athlete. The claims themselves look credible - specific enough and less grandiose than a typical hoax. Suggest templating it for better sourcing and leaving a COI caution on the editor's talk page. BTW this kind of report normally goes to

WP:COIN. Cheers, Durova^Charge!

03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did a revert a few minutes later, to the sourced version... but I'll tkae it to COIN next time. ThuranX 03:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good call. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit from the IP address 172.206.200.27 changed a safety warning on Pinch (plasma physics) to make experimentation with high voltage appear to be harmless. The edit summary, in contrast, claimed to be making a technical change, and even went to the length of citing a reference in the edit summary to disguise the true nature of the eidt. This IP should be immediately and indefinitely blocked. --Art Carlson 07:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I warned the IP. In most cases, we don't block IP's indefinitely because even static IP addresses are routinely reassigned to different people.--Chaser - T 07:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure you know best how to handle this. --Art Carlson 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive286:

09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked, see

WP:ANI#User:Igor_.22the_Otter.22.27s_anti-Semitism above. --Stephan Schulz

09:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User Posting Spam

User 81.105.14.60 is posting some strange messages on people's talk pages [41] with a link to his mobile phone number asking them to call him. Not sure what this is all about but it looks dodgy to me (apologies in advance for not assuming good faith)! As an aside he was also incivil to a bot here [42]. Kelpin 09:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked and then unblocked and left a message. I'm not sure if anything more than this is necessary. Incivility to bots? Meh.--Chaser - T 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bots have rights too!  :-) Thanks for your help. Kelpin 09:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

'Incivil to a bot'? That's a bannin'! Thanks for the laugh, R. Baley 10:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the comment is made to a bot, though, the accusation of shoddy programming is pretty clearly directed to the non-bot programmer. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the comment was directed at several wiki-programmers or "wiki code monkeys" as he called them. Aside from the facts that is pretty incivil the people who write the wiki code know far more about their job than I do (and I suspect far more than this ip poster does) and they do deserve respect from those of us who use wikipedia not abuse like this. Kelpin 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt is subject to various restrictions under Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt. He has recently been acting under the name User:Tressider; this can be deduced from his contributions history and from his discussion on Denotational semantics. He has used this sockpuppet to create a new article and to create a new category. I think he has been banned from doing both of these. I am not sure whether the article and category should exist. Sam Staton 11:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider filing a report at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Hewitt was not completely banned, and he is still allowed to edit in certain areas, though his use of sock puppets seems unlikely to win any friends. He is declining to follow consensus on Talk:Denotational semantics. He was originally criticized for pushing his POV about concurrent computation and that seems to be continuing. Per Arbcom he is banned from autobiographical editing, and as User:Tressider he has just now been editing Carl Hewitt. See also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/CarlHewitt. EdJohnston

16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot bezerk

Resolved

It would appear

12:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it for the time being, and will unblock when the owner gets back from vacation and can fix it. Natalie 13:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether or not this belongs. There isn't any thing from MySpace itself that states this is why the profile was deleted and as such, there might be some speculation here. Drumpler 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I started to have a look and got sidetracked when I realised that although this article looks well referenced and legitimate, of its 35 references, 26 are from its own website (nccg.org), 8 are from groups.msn.com, and 1 from geocities. Its own website is on geocities, and its only "real" media references are in 2 local Swedish newspapers. Hmm. AFD?

ム

13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has had vested interest in this article, I think it may well have to be done. Not much has been written about this group and it isn't as widely known outside of its local Swedish community. Likewise, the entire history of the page has been such that its resorted to a mudslinging match between a few editors who are arguing as to what does (and doesn't) belong. I would suggest perhaps AfD and maybe put a ban up so it can't be recreated. I'd do the same for New Covenant Church of God (Sweden) which redirects to it. It should be known that the group has a private Opera community and admonishes its members to "keep the Wikipedia article accurate" in its links page [43]. Drumpler 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just wanting to point this guy out to you guys. He's been blocked a few times before (see block log). Now, he keeps putting {{helpme}} on his talk page, asking for his IP to be unblocked. I don't know what he things he will achieve by using the helpme template since not too many admins check that. Anyways, I left the helpme template there, so hopefully somebody can give him an answer as to if his IP will be unblocked or not. There is a whole mess of discussion on his talk page User talk:Whitmorewolveyr#Blocked (2) that I don't even understand. - Rjd0060 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a checkuser block, better let Jpgordon handling it. I removed the helpme template. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 15:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. - Rjd0060 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This individual is posting a lot of nonsensical vanity/attack articles and removing the deletion notices to boot. Lots of warnings from lots of responsible individuals, myself included. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal-only account indef blocked. -- Avi 16:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The user is tagging multiple articles that they created for deletion based on the fact that as they work for the UN they should not be the ones to write them. It this an acceptable reason. I'm sure the user is acting with good intentions and not meaning to be disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who is affected; a particular group is making issue out of these due to confidentiality reasons. - Dragonbite 22:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of all the deletion templates. Until this matter is sorted out here, please do not reinsert the templates. I do not doubt your good intentions here, and I am assuming good faith, but let's allow the matter to be sorted out rather than getting into a revert war. Your reasoning is, quite frankly, baffling to me. Are you saying that there are people at the UN who are making an issue about the existence of these pages? ---

The'FortyFive'

22:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Dragonbite 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At a quick scan, a lot of these articles look to be of dubious notability anyway.

ELIMINATORJR

22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a couple you missed, RepublicanJacobite. As for the dubious notability I agree, but isn't dubious notability a case for AfD (or possibly {{

prod}} rather than simply blanking and adding a non-standard speedy template? Tonywalton  | Talk

22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking as someone who had actually deleted a couple of them (I've restored them until this is worked out), I'd say that regardless of the template applied, lack of assertion of notability is sufficient for speedy deletion, full stop. The ones I saw really didn't assert notability. But, given that it's contentious, I've restored 'em to let someone else look at them. - Philippe | Talk 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I am affiliated with UN too. Writing articles about UN-related subjects need permission (for me). I was informed. So I suggest Wikipedia itself, if the community wants to retain these articles, send permission request (for images too for all language Wikipedias) by contacting Ms. Renu Bhatia, Deputy Executive Officer, Department of General Assembly and Conference Management by sending email at [email protected]. Thank you. Please send me a copy (cc) via my email only. - Dragonbite 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that's going to work... the bell has been rung, and they're in the 'pedia. If the images truly were appropriately licensed when uploaded, we don't need permission to use them. We certainly don't need permission to have a bio of someone on the 'pedia, either. I still believe notability is not asserted for most of these, but that's just me... - Philippe | Talk 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if deleted from Wikipedia some are still available on the mirrors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles were actually based on third-party sources published. But why can't just respect request by original author. Thanks. - Dragonbite 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with those above who question the notability of many of these individuals. I had the same thought as I was reverting the speedy requests. The notability, it seems, is rather a different issue, though, than the question of whether we need "permission" from the UN to have articles about some of its employees. Could they not all go to AfD as a group and let the matter of notability be sorted out there? ---

The'FortyFive'

23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works Rodsan18. We don't need to ask permission from the UN to talk abotu a subject in Wikipedia. It's not our duty to contact you; it's the UN's duty to contact the foundation if there is a complaint.

23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While true, I don't find that relevant. The {{

db-author}} is a valid speedy deletion criteria. From the couple of articles I have looked at, he's been the only contributor (cats, linking, & formating are not substantive edits). What is the basis for ignoring our speedy deletion policy and keeping the ones that no one else has contributed towards? -- JLaTondre

23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is that this seems to be primarily an issue between the U.N. and its employee(s). There doesn't seem to be any outright gross violation of WP policy with the articles, so an appropriate judgment of what's best for the encyclopedia needs to occur. That said, both lack of notability needs to be given due weight and the db-self request ought to be a robust tie-breaker in favor of deletion. If they're truly notable, someone will add them back. Studerby 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD G7 is a criteria for when administrators may delete things immediately. It is not a criteria for when they must do so, absent other considerations. This issue came up in respect of another user very recently. Sam Blacketer

23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please just respect deletion request: CSD 7:Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. - Dragonbite 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A deletion request is not the same as a deletion order. It is perfectly legitimate for an administrator to decline to delete an article even if it meets several speedy deletion criteria. Sam Blacketer 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be an order but it still needs to be respected nonetheless? - Dragonbite 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other editors who want to look over the articles should see User:Rodsan18#United_Nations-related_subjects. This is the set of 35 articles that are listed there as being related to the UN. My view is that a number have notability, and others don't. Perhaps this might be acknowledged by setting up a group AfD for the ones that lack notability? Once the articles have been created, copyright has been released and there is no reason to go back. It's only a question of notability. EdJohnston 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the position you're in, please understand that we're trying to figure out what is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. If the articles that you submitted are notable and appropriate, we can't just go around deleting them all willy-nilly. If they're not notable, then we sure as heck need to get them out. The issue between you and your employer is not something within which we care to be involved, probably. As Studerby said above, we're trying to make a judgment upon what's best for the encyclopedia. In my case, I'm leaning toward speedy-delete on the ones that don't assert notability and AFD for those which are of questionable notability. My guess is that most of them will end up deleted. - Philippe | Talk 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A group AfD is exactly the suggestion I made above. I think it is the best way to put this issue to rest. ---

The'FortyFive'

00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? I think Wikipedia should be sensitive to security problems; may I suggest

office action? The Evil Spartan

00:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the notion of "security problems" comes from, to be honest. I'd agree with RepublicanJacobite here - group AfD for the apparently non-notable entries. Or for all the entries; let the WP community decide what's notable in WP terms. I'm not sure that {{

db-blanked}} appies in all cases either. Tonywalton  | Talk

00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This has never occurred to me before, but surely the very idea of CSD: 7 violates

WP:OWN, since, the moment they hit save, the article becomes free to all, and surely by existence of CSD 7, except when mistakes are made in the name(even though a re-direct is more appropriate), they are breaking WP:Own, by assuming they are within their rights to have a page deleted because they want it to be--Jac16888

01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the deleted content is still available to admins, and complies with GFDL. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to delete anything. Everything ever published is still recoverable, unless it has been oversighted. If there are no other significant contributors, and the deletion would not harm the encyclopedia, I see no problem with honoring the author's CSD request. If someone else feels strongly about a specific article, they can request a restore, and work on it.

Dean Wormer

02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will argue against that idea. When one nominates a page for speedy deletion, they're still leaving it up to others (and/or the deciding admin) whether or not the deletion notice stands, or if the article gets deleted. The original creator can place a hangon notice, or another editor can merely remove it. --健次(derumi)^talk 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I note belatedly we're discussing G7, not A7. Still, some other editor or admin could remove the tag if they feel the article should stay. --健次(derumi)^talk 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My own view, and I should stress this is merely an opinion not a decree of any kind, is that these are borderline notable people at best (and probably not), that the articles were created in good faith under circumstances that nevertheless give rise to conflict-of-interest questions, and that the original creator is making a good faith request now. I see no special reason not to honor that request. I would be very concerned if we get into some kind of weird "gotcha" mode where someone has created an article that perhaps should not exist, and only decide to keep it because they want it deleted. If any of the individuals are of any super special notability, I am sure someone else could create a brand new article from scratch.--Jimbo Wales 10:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have been bold and deleted all the articles that IMO qualified for deletion as non-notable biographies. The following biographies remain;
  • Jeffrey Tao
  • Alberto Reyes
  • Elisabeth Heyward
  • Pavel Palazhchenko
  • Igor Korchilov
  • Jean Herbert

and the following non-biographies.

• • United Nations Interpretation Service
  • United Nations Art Collection

Some consensus to what should happen with these is now required.

ELIMINATORJR

11:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Were this an AfD I'd be saying "delete" to all but the two non-biographical articles, for what it's worth. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly; some are borderline. Reyes probably passes

ELIMINATORJR

15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the last two (Igor Korchilov and Jean Herbert) to be informative articles about notable people. There shouldn't be any security issues about Herbert, as he is dead. The non-bio articles are notable and interesting. If they are all the work of User:Rodsan18 (and they do seem to be), then an off-wiki discussion to sort out exactly what can and can't be kept should sort things out. I suspect the problem is with material added that might not be available from public sources (eg. lists of interpreters). Such material should be oversighted. See the article history of United Nations Interpretation Service. Any material that is sourced to publically available sources should be kept. One possible solution, to disassociate Rodsan18 from the material, is for a cut and paste copy of the article to be made in his userspace (minus any non-public information and any extra edits from other people), for the original article history to be deleted, for Rodsan18 to release the edited copy in his userspace into the public domain, and for another user to restart the article using that material, with an edit summary like "using author-released public domain copy of edited version of previous article that was deleted". Does that work? Carcharoth 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was dealing with user BigGabriel555‎ and his violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. I previosuly made a report to AN/I [44] and was told to (1) bring this issue up with him (which I have) 2) explain the significance of the photo (which I have on the page) [45] . After he kept reverting, I started giving him many warnings. [46] . Which he chose to ignore and continue reverting edits. As previously stated User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [47] Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [48] [49] [50] [51] Removes tags [52] and has ignored requests to discuss [53] UnclePaco 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because you aren't putting any kind of caption on the picture, so no-one can tell what it is and why it's significant to the article. If you think it's necessary to the article, you should add it in the format [[Image:PICTURENAME.jpg|thumb|right|CAPTION SAYING WHAT THE PICTURE'S OF]]. —

iridescent (talk to me!)

22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What a rather

ELIMINATORJR

22:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I followed Iridescents advice and placed in a caption and an improved rationale behind it. Iridescent than fixed the sizing. BigGabrial simply deleted it once again. He doesn't even reply to why he is removing the photo. He has done this with multiple other edits. [54] UnclePaco 04:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again after repeated warnings as well as asking him why he's removing the photo. I have followed all advice given to me. [55] UnclePaco 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is currently on what can only be described as a unnecessary rant. I was "wiki-friends" with this user in the past, but now am reporting her here. User would like to leave Wikipedia. She has left vulgarity on my user talk page, as well as the admin Phil Sandifer. She is clearly trying to get blocked (based on edit summary she left here. User should be blocked and her page be deleted (at her request; she already tagged it for speedy). I am concerned that this user may continue to vandalize/act uncivily Wikipedia unless she is blocked. - Rjd0060 02:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In the time it took me to write this report, her User page has been deleted. I am not sure if anything else needs to be done from here, as far as her vandalism and vulgar edit summaries. - Rjd0060 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She hasn't edited in an hour. I don't think a block is necessary at this point, but I will block her if she makes further disruptive edits. Picaroon (t) 02:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was point out this erratic behavior and

WP:AIV directed me here. I see that this page says I should notify her of this report, should I do that even though her user page has been deleted and her user talk page has a "RETIRED" tag on it? - Rjd0060

02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She socked in order to use profanity: [56], and was open about it. Even if she's trying her best to get blocked, maybe we should oblige. The Evil Spartan 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No it was not really a sock, per se. Same IP though, as she is my caretaker/nurse. And logged in while I had left the room. I had logged out, and she logged in, and I thought I was still logged out. Truth. But, I understand if I am not believed as there are so many liars on Wikipedia. Jeeny 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite dramatic. She should go on a week long Caribbean cruise with ScottAHudson.

02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

She may continue to vandalizeact uncivily as she is clearly waiting to get blocked/banned (as evident from a number of edit summaries including this one. - Rjd0060 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe she could find Dexter in the Bahamas. [57]
  Funkynusayri
  02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's probably inappropriate.

Dean Wormer

02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely inappropriate trolling. ThuranX 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Whew, take it easy, boyos.
  Funkynusayri
  14:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want us to 'take it easy', then avoid pouring fuel on fires. ThuranX 02:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider [58] this a gross violation of AGF and CIV; Igor the otter is resorting to anti-Semitic attacks to push his point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only case he's done that? Use "subst:uw-agf3". Rlevse 12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No Igor was "discouraged" from editing the

Holocaust Denial article by JP Gordon. I think that Igor is basically a troll. Have a look at that talk page. He has been warned and blocked by ad min before.: Albion moonlight

12:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See this in reference to Albion's comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FFS, people, this is obviously a troll. He's not here to contribute productively, he's only here to push his ridiculous POV (Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, fringecruft in general). Look at his contribs, old revisions of his userpage, his talk page. We have no place for such types: blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly concur in the block. There's no place for stuff like that in civilized discourse, including Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Only problem with this block is that it was overdue. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Why the holy feck was he not blocked earlier? I have more compunction about blocking PENIS vandalism, this is ridiculous. Moreschi ^Talk 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because an admin would've come along and disagreed with the block on grounds that "he's just being ganged up on for holding an unpopular viewpoint", or "why not try 12 escalating blocks before indef?", or "he just needs mentorship (which I personally am not interested in providing) rather than a block"? Or perhaps it's just because Guy isn't here anymore. My, I am feeling cynical today. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cynicism being an excellent cure for naivety, another of Wikipedia's problems. Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. He was a

shitty little Nazi asshole without redeeming useful edits. --Stephan Schulz

19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Even I feel like agreeing with this block, mostly on the grounds that he came here intending to solely edit in favor of an antisemitic POV. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Contributions seem limited to undoing people's work and promoting holocaust denial on talk pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur; block overdue and endorsed. -- Avi 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

. The ban term was reset a couple of times for socking and expired earlier this month. This morning, FourthAve returned to Wikipedia and immediately resumed the activity for which he was banned, posting to the talkpages of a former administrator who opposed him in the arbitration case as well as the arbitration clerk who closed it, with posts including personal attacks, harassment, and a legal threat. As a result, FourthAve has been blocked indefinitely.

The arbitration decision provides that upon return from the ban, "FourthAve is indefinitely placed on general probation. For good cause he may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators. Bans made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve#Log of blocks and bans." Pursuant to the decision and FourthAve's conduct in deliberately resuming his misconduct immediately upon his return, I request that three administrators endorse a ban on this user. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"you dimisssed it as only a dictatorial drag queen L. Ron Hubbardite Steward would. Any failure of any Wikpipedian to advance $cientology is a banable offense, particulary when the drag queen, Ron Hubbardite YOU is exercised about his/her view of truth (yes, you like to be called Brenda). Ban me again. I may sue you in Florida."

Ya, endorse ban, legal threats, violation of parole. (

('Stop') : ('Go')

) 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. This isn't the behaviour of someone who wants to build an encyclopaedia. We can manage without them.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And I will be the third. Posting to the arbitration page. Newyorkbrad 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (EC). Completely unacceptable behavior.--

talk

) 17:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely endorse a ban.

ELIMINATORJR

17:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse a ban. —[[Animum | talk]] 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (I've never been to Florida). LessHeard vanU 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He definitely needs to get his ethics in. (Someone had to say that. :) -- llywrch 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

01:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think his whole plan is to contravene policy in the hopes that I will block him...then he can claim admin abuse. He already attempted to claim: Since Irishguy has the power to block me, this is an admin abuse which is ridiculous. You can see where he alludes to this again here. Mind, he claims he will stop is another admin tells him to...and as noted above that has already happened. IrishGuy ^talk 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely invite anyone to explain this policy to me (whichever one Irishguy is saying applies at the moment). Irishguy refused to continue the discussion with me once it became obvious that he had no argumentative leg to stand on. Instead he prefers to edit war. [59] RedSpruce 02:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this: You're linking to a blog. 99 out of 100 times, that's a guaranteed no-no. The use of blogs is very restrictive for good reason; as a rule of thumb, they're unreliable. It is thoroughly incumbent upon the editor seeking to add such a link that it is inherently valid and valuable to the article to which the editor seeks to add it. Positive blog examples include two MySpace examples: Tim Story, director of Fantastic Four 2, and Jon Favreau, director of Iron Man, both have had their myspace pages cited in the pages of the relevant film articles, where their direct quotes are sourced, or wherein they discuss progress on the film. Those are certainly far more valid, and were reviewed at the time on the talk pages and with talks with admins, about having those particular MySpaces moved to the whitepage, because relative to those two films, they are/were notable. Simply linking to a blog about films in general, as you seem intent on doing, is unacceptable. Had you sought to add some particularly insightful commentary found in a given entry, to the relevant fim, a reasonable case could be presented on the talk page, consensus to include be developed, and then an admin found to whitelist it. Heck, you could've even presented a good argument to an admin, and skipped the talk page int he interest of being

BOLD, then brought it to the article, where talk page might discuss removing it, but you'd have still followed a reasonable procedure. It appears you've done none of the above. Instead, you continue to insist it's a good link, and edit war. IG shouldn't be edit warring, but neither should you, and given that he brought it here, he clearly won't be blocking you per COI citations you and others would invoke (fairly). Someone else, however should block you, or at least give you a final warning. In fact, Let's go on record. As an otherwise uninvolved, uninterested editor of Wikipedia, This is a final warning, "Knock It Off." ThuranX

03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I'm afraid you haven't looked into the situation you're commenting on. I am not "linking to a blog about films in general"; what's under discussion are links to articles by noted film noir authorities. And in any case, as CBD notes below, the

WP:EL policy page doesn't support anything like the policy toward blogs that you describe. In sum, since my edits are entirely in keeping with WP policies here, I'm not clear on what it is I'm supposed to "knock off." I ask that you either clarify your ultimatum or withdraw it. Thanks. RedSpruce

10:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins may not use their extra buttons to 'win' a content dispute. Citing

WP:EL

doesn't stop this from being a content dispute because that is a guideline, and indeed says only that we should generally not include;

• "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (emphasis mine)

WP:EL

says about links which can and should be added;

• "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
• "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

He's got a reasonable case. There is no COI here. This is a good user with a long contribution history and empty block log. It's a content dispute. Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stop edit warring. Stop threatening admin action on a content dispute. Discuss the actual issues. Why is this link less worthy than the other four included on The Big Heat? Does it really contain anything which can't be gleaned from the article and/or those other sites? --CBD 08:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the blog he wants to link to consists of reprints of copyrighted work, why should he cite the blog and not the original printing of the works in question? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no reason not to (that I've been informed of), and because the online versions are freely available online. A great many online resources are also available in print; I haven't seen that cited as a reason to avoid linking to the online versions. RedSpruce 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

'Cited references' and 'external links' are fundamentally different things. A citation can be made to any kind of source (print, online, television, radio, et cetera) for the purpose of providing verification for some fact(s) in the article. External links on the other hand are only to online sources and for the purpose of providing additional information not found in the article. Listing an 'External link' to a book obviously doesn't make sense... it's not a link. Some pages include books and other print media as 'general sources' (rather than inline on particular facts) in the 'References' section, but it isn't common and again is intended as verification of the text IN the article rather than something like a 'bibliography' section for further reading on the subject. The only 'bibliography' equivalent commonly used on Wikipedia is 'External Links'. --CBD 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been told by ban editor "never again" to do the editing I've done. It sounds threatening to me. The above expression is Antisemitic, I've traced it to Hitler and Nazism. But I believe the editor, Mikkai (or something like that) wishes to keep his Antisemitic version (against scholarly sources) and seem to be threatening me. Also, I do not with to engage in an editors war with him. Please advise what to do. Thanks. --Ludvikus 05:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, Only lovers of
  WP:NPA, so I will not make it or suggest anyone do so. Secondly, you already have gotten into an edit war by reverting a reversion. Talk first, revert later, if at all. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆
  05:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Here is a good candidate for
  Return the fire!
  05:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not all that lame. The original article is about the expression and the particular conspiracy theory. Ludvikus objects to the article about the expression and wants to change it to an article about a particular obscure Jew-hating pamphlet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, but how does moving the article about the expression solve that issue? Mikkalai is move warring together with Ludvikus but he has a point when he tells Ludvikus to create a seperate article about the pamphlet rather than move the other article.
      Return the fire!
      06:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Some of the participants have asked other editors, myself included, to help on the topic. Talk:Belarus#White_Russian_vs._White_movement for reference. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • They now have two identical articles except for the lead so I suppose that's one way of stopping a move war. They also have a merge debate going on so this seems beyond what ANI needs to get involved in now, especially since ANI does not resolve content disputes.
          Return the fire!
          19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

. - Brickexistab and 2 other socks blocked indef and EditorEsquire has 24 hours for the 3rr. I semiprotected the article for a week.

19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Loyola Law School wikipedia, we're trying to:

1. Add a quote from the school's Dean. The quote is from a WSJ article. He removed the quote, explaining "Deleted alleged career prospects quote from dean; Bootstrapped from prohibited Loyola 2L discussion, built on bias, and independently fails wiki policies for same reasons." I have no idea what he's talking about. The quote is directly copied from a WSJ article. [60]

2. He is removing comparative career statistics, which have been on the page for months. [61] (Link from three months ago with these statistics [62]). These statistics help us to understand Loyola's career placement statistics. A statistic on its own isn't very helpful, so we found and added the same statistics for Loyola's local competitors.

Another user again tried to delete them, accusing us of picking cherry picked schools to make Loyola look bad. In fact, these are the only other ABA law schools in LA. We're picking schools from Loyola's market (Los Angeles.) A few users are turning the page into a Loyola ad, and preventing any objective description of the school from being presented. --Brickexistab 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All in all, editoresquire seems to think he owns the page, and that it's a marketing tool for his law school. This has gone on for a week now. Please warn him.--Brickexistab 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He's doing it again [63] and again. [64]--Brickexistab 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

He did it again. [65] This is now four times in 24 hours and I reported him to 3RR.[66] Please issue him a warning or further discipline as appropriate. --Brickexistab 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: related archived discussion --Onorem♠Dil 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That was about the Loyola 2L controversy. This is about adding a sourced quote from the dean, and preventing the deletion of statistics. --Brickexistab 18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's not about the exact same issue, but it is the same editor and the same article, so I thought it still might be worth linking to. --Onorem♠Dil 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Update. Editoresquire posted a response on his talk page, which he forgot to link here. [67] He seems to think that by adding these statistics, and the quote, we are engaging in a conspiracy to denigrate Loyola Law School. Keep in mind these are statistics from U.S. News & World Report and a quote from the school's own dean. I think he needs a reminder re: ownership of articles. --Brickexistab 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:WhatThisIs has started to edit the same type of articles as banned User:Daddy Kindsoul [68], and left this rather [69] pleasant edit summary on one such article. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed an RFCU for him, even though I think it's bleeding obvious. -- Merope 17:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at 4 of the user's edits. They seem reasonable and are not vandalism. Therefore, shouldn't we AGF. Using the excuse of "this is the same person as a banned user" is lack of WP:AGF. My guess is that many of the contributers of this article are from Rome. If there is more or specific diffs that are troublesome, then that's a different issue.

Furthermore, the above complaint says "has started to edit the same type of articles". Quite a few people edit the same type of articles, be it sport, botany, history, etc.Mrs.EasterBunny 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the complaint may not be very clear, but four edits by only one user is hardly enough evidence to draw any conclusion. The editor has made edits to the same article that Daddy Kindsoul was involved in editing, and, furthermore, made the same edits to the article. The editor also has the same habit of calling any removal of his text "vandalism", and shows the same degree of civility that Daddy Kindsoul exhibited, as evidenced by his edit to the United Roma Crowd Trouble image (which, naturally, Daddy Kindsoul uploaded). I think a checkuser is a logical next step. We're not required to assume good faith when there's clear evidence to the contrary. -- Merope 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually more the nice edit summary they left, which I link to above, which I think hardly complies with

WP:CIV. I brought it here because of that diff, as I didn't feel comfortable taking it to checkuser, though I to have my doubts. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!)

18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the RFCU turns up +, I'll tell Mr.EasterBunny not to leave any eggs there next year.Mrs.EasterBunny 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 206.40.96.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 206.40.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can somebody block all IP's in this range? They have been added potentionally libeous information into the Martha Hart article, see [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Can someone block IP's in this range please? Thanks, Davnel03 17:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• 206.40.96.0/24 blocked 24 hours. Mr.Z-man 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that this appears to be a dynamic IP targeting a single article, I think semi-protection of the target article is the best approach rather than a range block. I've therefore temporarily semi-protected Martha Hart. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you do with edits from a banned sockpuppet? Even on talk pages?

This user, User:HarveyCarter, just talks trash in all of his edits, from no less than 26 sockpuppet accounts.

I propose to revert every single contribution he has made due to the track record of his edits. They are made just to make controversy, stir the poop, are insulting, vulgar at times, etc. His track record makes it clear that he does not care to make Wikipedia a valuable resource and promote Wikipedia in a positive manner or light. When we have sockpuppets such as him, I want to AUTOMATICLLY revert all edits regardless of content or whether they are on talk pages or not. Because of the way that they have seen fit to conduct them self, I want no readily available evidence that they were here. Thanks.

IP4240207xx 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

See

WP:BAN... you are allowed to revert all of a banned editors edits made while they were banned, though generally I'd suggest you don't revert edits to other users' talkpages but rather just inform them of the banned status of the editor and let them deal with it as they will.--Isotope23 ^talk

19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rogue Gremlin Violation -- Sockpuppetry

According to Wikipedia rules, in cases of accusations of sock puppetry, the suspected Sockmaster must leave notice on his talk page for at least ten days. Rogue Gremlin removed the notice within 23 minutes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARogue_Gremlin&diff=161597563&oldid=161592414 JerryGraf 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Rogue Gremlin (talk · contribs) does have the right to remove content or blank his/her userspace. nat^tang 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this for more information about userspaces. nat^tang 20:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:RS1900 has made personal attacks and threats against me since I reported him as a suspected sockpuppeteer of User:Jai Raj K. The personal attacks include calling me a "piece of crap" and a "loser in real life." On his talk page, he calls me a liar and a blackmailer, and threatens that "Your days are numbered." [76] The threats also include saying that he "will not leave" me, which sounds like intent to wikistalk. He also tells me to be "ready for some firework" (sic), whatever that means. At the page for the sockpuppet case, he again calls me a liar, and falsely accuses me of blackmailing him and making legal threats. [77] Nick Graves 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RS1900 (talk · contribs) has been warned. If he acts disruptively again, I would fully support a block of RS1900 (talk · contribs). nat^tang 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv has repeatedly demonstrated an attempt to impress a political agenda on Wikipedia (specifically, Quebecois Nationalism/Sovereignism - see Talk:Quebec). I do not know if this user has broken Wikipedia edit policies extensively (although he has been in an edit war regarding the status of nationhood of Quebec), therefore I am not recommending blocking/banning. I am recommending a review of this user (if possible) to determine how he can be stopped from continuing his agenda. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Left a note on his/her talk page; we'll see if anything changes. Other input welcome. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Against my will, I find myself involved in discussion on this page. Since I am involved, could another admin review the contributions of 70.18.5.219 in this discussion, and offer some advice on when incivility becomes something that should be halted with a short block? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

71.234.159.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to drop in every week or ten days to do a little vandalism. They are up to final warning status as of Sept 27 I think but just did another run. Pig^man 01:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly the same guy every time. Blocked for a month. Raymond Arritt 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And tagged. -- Avi 06:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User blocked; Pages move protected.

Someone moved it. Please revert. --

02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: the user was indef blocked. --

eybaná

02:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

The Wendy's article just came off protection and the person who had vandalized it for weeks before the last protection has started again with his fictional country (long and very stupid story). This user, who is going through various IP addresses, also did this same type of vandalism on the

article. could we please put both if these articles back on protection so the editors that regularly patrol these articles do not have to keep erasing this guys constant moronic vandalism?

I really would like the protection to be permanent as fast food articles in generally are fodder for vandalism.

Thanks,

Jeremy (Jerem43 05:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

N Declined. I can't see much recent persistent vandalism warranting (semi-)protection. Next time, please go to

WP:RPP. Sandstein

05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, I will go there instead. - Jeremy (Jerem43 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Given my involvement through seemingly failed attempts to mediate and advise editors on policy, I'll recuse myself from taking action on the page and editors on this one. A quick summary of events:

• WP:V and others finding out how difficult the task of mediation is here. Were I uninvolved, I would block melonbarmonster 3 ~ 24h for the trolling, investigate the 3RR report against Badagnani and fully protect the article for at least a few days. Deiz talk
  06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Netmonger for 24 hours for his recent harassment of User:Wiki Raja, culminating in an extremely harassing and vulgar email sent to Wiki Raja (I will forward a copy to any admin who requests it). Mr.Z-man 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Request forwarding, please. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To first go over what happened, Wiki Raja engaged in extensive vote canvassing related to a straw poll at Template_talk:Sri Lankan Conflict. An editor then posted a comment at the straw poll indicating he was canvassed by Wikiraja.[78] Wikiraja subsequently moved the editor's comment from a subsection of it's own, to a much less prominent position hidden among other discussions.[79] I reverted his edit, and he reverted back. I reverted again, and posted the {{uw-tpv2}} warning on his talk page not to edit other user's comments. Wiki Raja removed the warning with the edit summery "rm. vandalism", [80] but heeded the warning and stopped moving the other editor's comment on the talk page.

After that, from what I can see,

WP:AIV that Wiki Raja was removing the warning on his talk page.[81] When he was advised by an an admin that Wiki Raja could remove the warning from the talk page and he shouldn't add it back again again, he replied "I agree with what you said on my talk page".[82]

From what I can see that indicates he didn't know user's could remove warning from their own talk pages, and when told by the admin that they could, he listened to that and stopped adding it back.

In the meantime, Wiki Raja added a message on Netmonger's talk page[83]

This will be my first and last time that I warn you to stop posting on my talk page.

I admit I have no idea about this email you talk of, but would you mind explaining how you got to know about it and if you are certain it is genuine? I'm not sure what email address was used, but for the record, the email Netmonger once sent me was from his personal email address (a Gmail address), not something like "[email protected]" or "[email protected]" or a similar address. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything Netmonger did that I would consider harassment. He did revert talk page warnings until he was told that it was ok for WikiRaja to remove them, but I can't imagine that deserves a block. Could you forward that email over to me as well please? Shell ^babelfish 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Removing warning on your own talk page is exempt from 3RR and Vandalism. I looked at what was forwarded to me and... There are somethings odd about it. Based on what I was forwarded, Netmonger knew Wiki Raja's email before this incident... or did he? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wiki Raja does have "email this user" enabled, he would not need the email address. If you are referring to the header, I believe that was automatically done by MS OutlookGmail when it was forwarded to me. Mr.Z-man 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (modified 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Are you certain the email was from Netmonger, and it was not forged? Anyone can duplicate text based email headers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't be absolutely certain, but I have no reason to assume that bad of faith on Wiki Raja's part. (And the header includes HTML, not just plain text). Mr.Z-man 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As Shell said, and I agree, I don't think his edits could be considered as harassment, let alone warrant blocking. As for the email, there obviously was bad blood between the users, and the threat by Wiki Raja was extremely uncivil, and, in my opinion, more than enough reason in-itself not to automatically "assume good faith" on the part of Wiki Raja

This will be my first and last time that I warn you to stop posting on my talk page.

It was followed by Netmonger posting this

The joke you added to User_talk:Netmonger is getting old. Humor is great sometimes, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

on Wiki Raja's talk page. You have to question whether Netmonger's violation of the "last warning" resulted in this

Joe Job

punishment?

Also HTML can easily be duplicated. As long as the email was text based, I don't see how you can use it as evidence. If it was sent to you in the form as an attachment, I believe that would be harder to fake, although I think it's best if we get an opinion on that from a more technically proficient admin --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked Wiki Raja to send me the header info from the original email:

Delivered-To: [email protected]
Received: by 10.142.162.20 with SMTP id k20cs37375wfe;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:40 -0700 (PDT)

Received: by 10.70.76.13 with SMTP id y13mr7388353wxa.1191146979295;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[email protected]
>
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])

        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h34si11144474wxd.2007.09.30.03.09.38;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com
: best guess record for domain of [email protected] designates 66.230.200.216 as permitted sender) client-ip=
66.230.200.216;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass [email protected]
Received: from vincent.pmtpa.wmnet
 ([10.0.0.17]:57070 helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by mchenry.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <
[email protected]>)
	id 1Ibvk2-0007Kp-K8
	for [email protected]; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 +0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (vincent [
127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8UA9c0a026094
	for <[email protected]>; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Received: (from apache@localhost
)
	by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l8UA9cco026093;
	Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Message-Id: <
[email protected]>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to [email protected] using -f
To: Wiki Raja <
[email protected]>
Subject: Have you considered?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Netmonger <
[email protected]>

This shows it was either sent by Netmonger through Wikipedia's email feature or Wiki Raja is going to significant lengths to get a short block (which I shortened to 12 hours per concerns her) on Netmonger. Mr.Z-man 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for going through all the trouble answering the questions Z-man, I just want to make sure a user wasn't wrongfully blocked here. Did you notice that the email address is netmongers@gmail.com (note the s), and do you know for certain that User:Netmonger uses the email netmongers@gmail.com? Is there a way for admins to verify that? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As a test, I tried creating an account for "[email protected]" (No "s"). The account was already registered so it is possible that it's a impersonator. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is Netmonger contesting his/her block, or claiming that s/he didn't send the email? Natalie 13:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

D_arkF_alls, multiple accounts can be registered with the same email address set. But in order to send email the new 'imposter' account would have to be confirmed using access to the real email address. --Gmaxwell 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly support unblocking as soon as possible. This looks like someone created a throwaway account in order to implicate Netmonger; unless this editor suddenly lost all ability to use grammar, spelling and capitalization, its a pretty obvious troll. Shell ^babelfish 14:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this was done by mistake,

shall we made a comment on his block log saying that it was a mistake? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box}

16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Netmonger has a confirmed email address of "[email protected]". Barring some unlikely yet unknown software glitch there is no way to get MW to send out messages from an email address without confirming from that email address. This doesn't mean that Netmonger is the author of the above email: The copy here could be a fabrication, netmonger's (wikipedia or email) account could have been compromised, or netmonger could have been foolish enough to help someone else complete the confirm process on his mailing address. I'd normally regard all of these as unlikely, but those of you who have looked into this will be in a better position to say how likely those alternatives are. --Gmaxwell 18:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

On 13 Sep 2007, I created Miranda Grell, who is a Labour local government councillor who has been convicted of spreading false allegations in her election campaign that her gay Liberal Democrat opponent was a paedophile. She was, notably, the first person to be convicted of such an offense under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

On 22 Sep, I edited the

, by an independent Labour candidate and, allegedly, the Liberal party (a predecessor to the Liberal Democrats). I felt that the Miranda Grell case was similar in that this was another scandal involving the sexuality of a candidate in a London election. Similar cases are sometimes listed in "See Also" sections.

On 23 Sep, Fys reverted my edit to the by-election page with the comment "you must be joking, she's got nothing to do with it".[84] I re-reverted with the comment "It's another case of homphobic political campaigning; "see also" is often used for comparable cases". Fys re-re-reverted with "rv, don't be so stupid, it's not remotely comparable".[85] I then took the matter to

in order to seek a wider consensus. I proposed the change there and sought further opinions. Neither Fys or anyone else has commented there. I am minded to drop the matter.

Immediately after his/her first revert, Fys nominated the Miranda Grell page for deletion,[86] ending the nomination with the comment "Also, probably created as a POV campaign by a political opponent." Four people (myself, Nedrutland and two others) have responded to the AfD, all arguing to keep. The AfD was subsequently closed and the article kept.

On 24 Sep, Fys created a page for Maurice Burgess. Burgess is a former Liberal Democrat councillor who was convicted of paedophilia (indecently assaulting an underage boy, some years before being elected). Fys then edited the Miranda Grell page, adding a "See Also" section linking to Maurice Burgess with no explanation for the edit beyond "see also".[87] Nedrutland subsequently put further work into the Burgess page, including correcting at least one important issue (Fys had said Burgess was jailed for an earlier offence when he was actually given a suspended sentence),[88] but removed the link on the Miranda Grell page. Nedrutland discussed the change on the Talk page, arguing that Burgess "was not convicted while a councillor, the conviction did not lead to him losing his seat legally (as Grell's will - if she does not appeal successfully) and his offence was not electoral and predated his election". (I should note that Burgess was, however, charged while a councillor.)

On 26 Sep, I posted to

, nor entered into any discussion on their Talk pages.

I wish to raise a number of concerns. First, I feel Fys is ignoring

). Fys' past behaviour should not be held against him, but there does seem to be a consistent pattern of behaviour.

What concerns me most is the

WP:BLP

context and the link to Maurice Burgess on Miranda Grell's page. Grell was found guilty of spreading the allegation that her gay Liberal Democrat opponent was a paedophile. A link to a page about a Liberal Democrat councillor who really was a paedophile is not only inappropriate but could be seen to carry the implication that Grell's allegations are true.

I do not know what to think about the Maurice Burgess article. The reasons Nedrutland gave earlier (for not including a link to Maurice Burgess at

15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fys edited my comments above to remove a paragraph that he felt identified him. I didn't specifically identify Fys, but did make bioraphical comments about Fys that seemed pertinent. I apologise if these were too identifying in their nature. I restore below the paragraph Fys removed, but edited to say less about Fys:

There are some pertinent conflicts of interest here. On 26 Sep, in investigating materials to write this summary, I came to realise the identity of Fys as someone I have encountered online and I presume Fys may have recognized me from my Wikipedia account name. Fys is a Labour party activist. He has been repeatedly blocked by admins in the past for various incidents, including edits of a partisan nature. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom is particularly relevant here, covering edits around Peter Tatchell and resulting in Fys being desysopped. I must also declare that I am a member of the Liberal Democrats.

Bondegezou 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, and not something that admins have any special authority (or ability) to mediate over. Please discuss this at the article talkpage (or each others) until you reach a) consensus, or b)the realisation that there will be no consensus. After that,
  dispute resolution is thataway... LessHeard vanU
  22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I recognise that there are content dispute issues here and have tried to discuss these on the relevant talk pages (as I detailed above). However, to clarify, I raised the matter as I am concerned about the
    WP:AGF and follow-up to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom), which I understand is the remit of admins. Bondegezou
    09:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone from various IP addresses in southern California has been following the edits of

) and either reverting his edits, or blanking sections of the pages. Some of the IP addresses include:

• Jewpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked indef, bad username
• Jewpedia1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked indef, vandal-only account
• TheJewss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked indef, vandal-only account
• 63.16.172.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 63.16.197.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.85.144.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 206.148.188.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (with the taunt, "you guys are so stupid, anyone can drive around these days and connect to any IP range haha")
• 66.81.157.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 64.209.150.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (with the taunt, "JEW-PEDIA will end soon Hah")
  • 66.81.157.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 216.175.101.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 75.51.173.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 75.51.160.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 75.51.173.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Pages include:

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Kalash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now sprotected)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Hippias (tyrant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Kurgan hypothesis (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Kurgan hypothesis|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (which has been hit pretty heavily, so I protected it)
• Sredny Stog culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • User talk:Into The Fray (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Into The Fray|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Talk:Macedon (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Macedon|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
  • Maryannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • User talk:Harout72 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Harout72|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Armenia, Subartu and Sumer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )

There are undoubtedly more articles and IP addresses involved. Dachannien (talk · contribs) has been cleaning up a lot of the mess, which has been a big help, but it might be useful to see if these IPs are zombie proxies or if there's a discernible pattern of vandalism that can be addressed here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Elkman asked me to stop by and give any info I can. The articles listed appear to be recent entries in Dbachmann's contributions list, and the vandal is doing revenge reverts after an editing disagreement. See also User talk:Dbachmann#Action?. There may also be some useful information located in this contrib log, which suggests that the conflict has to do with edits made to the article Mitanni on or around 29 September 2007. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The pattern of stalking is alarming. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We had the same this morning, and the anon claimed he was User:Ararat arev, wanting Dab to give him his phone number. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block all IPs as open proxies. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. All these IPs have been blocked indef as open proxies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

64.209's block log doesn't have any indef on it; just the 24-hour for vandalism. Likewise, 63.16.197.113 doesn't have a proxy indef, just a 3-hour block. Are they not OPs? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we know they're all open proxies? I think I missed the message in this thread that declared them as such. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked a few of these at the time and there was no evidence that they were open proxies. Maybe someone has some evidence to the contrary? Otherwise, please undo your indef-blocks Jossi. Can we also not indef-block even proven open proxies? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I assume that this was the vandal that

20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice one IP's listed twice above. and I notice that 75.51.160.83 has a clean blocklog. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Fixed. Into The Fray ^T/C 20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming these are all OPs given the message above by Fut.Perf.. If that is not the case, we can simply softblock these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, my numerous typos and duplications aside, there are definitely more IP's. Let me know if you want them, I'll dig them out of my contribs and the pages. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks to everyone who helped take care of this. --

06:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with Vandal-only accounts that are not active

I came across an account that seems to be a vandalism-only account, and even stated as much on their own user page. This account has not been actively vandalizing since I discovered them, though the last occurance was 3 days ago. How would this best be handled? Obviously WP:AIV does not really apply here... Thanks! Arakunem 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's a self-declared vandalism account, and it has indeed vandalized, the answer seems obvious enough. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought so too. The account in question is EndlessLight for your review. I came across this account after their page was vandalized... after a quick review of page history and edit history, seems obvious to me. Arakunem 13:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request some more comments about my block at

. Marvin Diode is continuing to argue that the evidence is not very strong. I think he's wrong, but a few more comments will settle the issue.

By the way, anyone who cares to watchlist that page and help deal with future issues, your help is welcome. Picaroon (t) 00:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just watchlisted this. I don't think you should worry about this. The block as reviewed and upheld and MaplePorter can make further unblock requests if there is anything new to add. Marvin Diode is making very poor strawman arguments and I wouldn't put veyr much credence on them.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rich568117

This gentleman is a bit unclear on the concept of vanity pages. He's writing self-promotional bios on himself and his business, he's adding himself to disambiguation pages and rationalizing all the while that if his home-based computer business can't have an article, than neither can Microsoft. Go figure.  :) --PMDrive1061 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Another admin deleted all the A7 stuff.--Chaser - T 08:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Morhveem has added excessive flagicons to the infoboxes of various football/soccer players' articles by tagging all the youth clubs and pro clubs listed in an infobox with flagicons, and in one case (Theo Walcott diff]) removing the nationality flag. He's got 40 some-odd edits, so could an admin auto-rv them all and talk to the user about that? Generally a player's country of origin is where he plays youth soccer, and country is generally discernible by team names or by using wikilinks, which is what they are there for. MSJapan 05:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin-based rollback is usually reserved only for clear

vandalism (read the lists). You're correct that the first step is a talk page message, but you don't need someone with sysop tools to do that. Please try yourself first and repost here if you need a page protected, an article deleted, or an editor blocked.--Chaser - T

08:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate image

Resolved

The image Image:Baconator222.JPG, uploaded by User:Raglios (User talk:Raglios) is inappropriate and isn't used in any articles. I put the image up for speedy deletion (not sure if my category is right though). User was previously warned for uploading an inappropriate image. I suggest the user be blocked at this time. -Bonus Onus 05:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted, editor warned.--Chaser - T 08:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive304&oldid=1147966748"