Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

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

This user has been repeatedly deleting merge tags [1] [2] [3] on Mancow articles. The IP address and user are being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Mancow articles, and has been left warnings by myself explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop. --Masterpedia

User:Grace E. Dougle uncivil behavior

User:Grace E. Dougle has made false accusations regarding sockpuppetry and has been uncivil. She has edited my commnents on an Rfc by moving them and continues to revert those changes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMihai_cartoaje&diff=110339531&oldid=110311196 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMihai_cartoaje&diff=110426900&oldid=110416682 In the second diff you can also see her false accusations, which are also posted in the Rfc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mihai_cartoaje where she states, in part, "I have made remarks and hints several times to other users about the sockpuppet situation and they seem to ignore this like the infamous elefant in the room, in the sense that they do not even deny its existence. The multiplying effect of the sockpuppets has successfully created a hostile atmosphere towards Mihai among other users who are on this article."

Her comments on the RFC are not appropriate, they are uncivil. The following diff is from my talk page and is another example. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADPeterson&diff=110424527&oldid=110133457 DPeterson^talk 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found this editor somewhat abrasive myself, particularly in terms of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-BPD‎, but she is very new, and she does seem to be doing an awful lot of very useful "donkey work", also, she seems to be editing around the clock sometimes, which could be either a sign of tremendous strain, or the cause of it (he who hath suffered no "Wiki-junkie" 24 hour edit frenzy, let him cast the first stone - which rules me out).

Perhaps if somebody experienced in the workings of the Wikipedia community could just take her aside, persuade her to take a step back, and explain things to her? I would really hate to risk losing such an useful editor just because she gets edgey and overenthusiastic. --Zeraeph 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a wonderful suggestion and I would be very happy with that as the resolution. I agree that if it can be handled so as to not loose a valuable contributor/editor, that would be good...as one who has had a few helpful suggestions made to me by admins and advocates, it is helpful and supportive. DPeterson^talk 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now she continuing to make false accusations regarding sockpuppetry: see diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrDarcy&diff=110546844&oldid=110484304 I really think that this needs to stop. DPeterson^talk 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

People who have real evidence of sockpuppetry should open a Request for CheckUser case. Otherwise, what they're doing is personal attacks, pure and simple. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox

SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under Arbcom sanction - "If {SqueakBox} makes any edit which is judged by an administrator to be a personal attack, then he may be temporarily banned for a short time of up to one week." Does anyone reading this believe this is a violation? this, at Slim Virgin? this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that these edits are a big concern, myself. At any rate if he's going to be blocked he needs a good explanation of why, I think. Friday (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been in sharp disagreement with Squeezebox this evening, but this block is unwarranted. I would like to remove it, or at least see it reduced to a matter of a few hours. Any objections.--Doc^g 23:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to see this (looking on events above). I completely disagree that this block is warranted. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree also. Tempers are hot, this isn't a preventative block, and it won't help calm things down. GRBerry 23:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The comments may be uncivil, but they're not attacks. John Reaves (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur, based on the diffs provided (with the proviso that there could be other diffs that haven't been noted here, but that may have been taken into account when making the decision). They are somewhat rude, but hardly justify a week-long block. I would encourage a short (< 24 hour) block and a polite, but firm message on his/her talk page.--BigDT 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A bad block for sure. None of those are even on the edge of a personal attack. I can't even understand why the first one is even listed. The Arbcom remedy is inapplicable. Furthermore, now is hardly the time, is it? 86.148.127.202 23:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are SqueakBox editing from an IP, evading a block is NOT the way to convince someone to lift it. --BigDT 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but this IP does have a significant contribution history, so I have doubts that it is correct. GRBerry 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear, dear, do at least check which country I'm editing from, which countgry Squeakbox lives in aand do step around the notion that anons are generally doing bad things!! 86.148.127.202 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whois says the IP is from the UK, which is apparently several thousand miles from Squeakbox. – Steel 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, those edits deserved a mild warning/reminder at most. I request that the block be overturned. If sockpuppetry by SqueakBox is proved then I would support the block. Johntex\^talk 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus here. I've unblocked. – Steel 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you didn't hear my view before unblocking. I blocked SqueakBox for the uncivil comments in the DRV, which I saw as disruption, which is a violation of his arbcom case. I didn't block for personal attacks. It should have been a 24 hour block though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas. The remedy is exactly as Hipocrite quoted it. Squeakbox can naturally be blocked for disruptive editing as any editor can. He cannot however, be banned (note: banned, not merely blocked) under the terms of the Arbitrarion remedy which makes no reference to disruption on the wider scale. Unless you meant to say "assumptions of bad faith", of course... 86.148.127.202 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly remember that taunting people that are being harassed off-wiki about their personal details is not a "personal attack." I will also remember that calling for the excommunication of someone wis not a personal attack. Finally, I will also remember that cheering when bad thing happen to people I am in a disagreement with is not a personal attack. I think see a bunch of users I don't really think are helpful to the project on the verge - I should probably get my links to Gone Daddy Gone ready. Coming soon to the next failed RFC: Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Throwing a hissy fit is not going to convince people to listen to you more in future. Proto ► 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were to actually do those things, I would strongly agree with you. Of course, I'd never do those things. However, doing those things has just been basically approved for users who are under personal attack patrol. If you can look at the contributions of Squeakbox to this entire fiasco and show me one positive thing he's done, I'll eat my hat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Although a week was long, I'm surprised at the consensus to unblock altogether. Squeakbox's deliberate and obviously unhelpful personalization of a dispute, taunting of other users, etc. seem to be exactly the sort of thing the parole was intended to control. The fact that he's not cussing doesn't change the fact that the behavior is deliberately disruptive. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would re-read the Arb Com parole statement. Whilst the edits cited by Hipocrite above show SqueakBox being a cock, he's not making personal attacks. Proto ► 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear; I think those are personal attacks. "Daniel got you scared?" "We the undersigned think he should be excommunicated for heresy." etc. In these three cases Squeakbox is inflaming a personal dispute in a way that can only be described as deliberate. The message of NPA is to comment on content not contributors; approaching someone with disparaging personal remarks in an effort to twist the knife is a personal attack, despite a veneer of civility. Ordinarily this would be cause for a warning but given the history a short block is not out of order. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless Squeakbox is continuing to make such edits since being warned for incivility, which I assume he has been (and as opposed to personal attacks), I don't see how that would be preventative. Proto ► 01:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Squeakbox got right close to the edge of the cliff here, particularly as his parole "is to be interpreted broadly to include unwarranted assumptions of bad faith." His last comment was a bit of inappropriate cheerleading at Yanksox's desysopping; if it had gone any farther I would endorse a block, and if indeed goes farther I will block per the previous arbitration case. Disruptive users are on a short leash for a reason, and we don't anyone dancing on anyone else's grave, so to speak. Thatcher131 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• SqueakBox is very passionate about certain issues, but in my experience he waits out blocks, even week-long ones, which is a good sign. I think he can be guided and helped, I'd certainly hope so anyway. I blocked him over an edit war at brown people, I was actually quite impressed at his equanimity in accepting this and in not ascribing evil motives for the block. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the block you are talking about Guy! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe the block that Guy is thinking of is this one: 19:38, January 22, 2007 Bucketsofg (Talk | contribs) blocked "SqueakBox (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of 1 week (violation of personal attack parole, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas#SqueakBox_and_Zapatancas_placed_on_personal_attack_parole) which was a result of a request for arb-enf that I submitted due to personal attacks at the aforementioned article. IIRC, Bucketsofg just beat Guy to enforcement of the ArbCom decision at the time. ju66l3r 21:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs)

Hi, I just noticed this user making what seem to be rather contentious and possibly inappropriate edits to Wikimedia Foundation (see contribs). He's been reverted and the page has been protected as a result, but nobody seems to have spoken to him on his talk page or taken any other sort of action. Given the size of the block log I'm assuming this user is something of a persistent issue. Just thought people might want to know – Qxz 05:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I almost wonder if it's time to discuss a community ban. He's shown time and time again that he simply will not follow policy, and his wikilawyering is becoming tiresome. --InShaneee 05:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He was gone for a good four months before the last few edits, so I suppose we can see if he really sticks around or not. --Delirium 07:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, if he continues this campaign, a block for disruption is more than deserved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• The edits are problematic, I blocked for 48 hours while we consider what should be done. Please see block rationale at user talk:Tobias Conradi. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  The logical thing 'to be done' would be to politely answer his questions / listen to his complaints and see if the situation could be resolved to everyone's mutual satisfaction. As that obviously isn't going to happen (why would we start now?) I'm fresh out of ideas. Seriously folks... what good purpose is ever served by mocking and belittling someone? --CBD 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

IP sock(?) proxy(?) block for review

I just blocked 207.67.84.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three hours. WHOIS says it's a static IP in Indianapolis [4].

It caught my eye with this attack on David Gerard in this thread on David's talk page.

I made the assumption that the individual is a banned or blocked editor somehow related to a conflict over Scientology, as his only other recent edits were to an article on one of L. Ron Hubbard's books and he specifically alludes to 'anti-Scientology' attitudes in one of his edit summaries.

I'd appreciate it if someone else could have a look at this. If it turns out to be a sock or an open proxy, then the block should be extended. I'm about to leave the house, so if someone wants to shorten or lengthen the block don't worry about waiting for me to get back. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear to be an open proxy. Prodego ^talk 20:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet, proxy, or banned user. I've made changes, left comments, and added entries to the discussion pages as appropriate. If you have a problem with my edits, take it up there. If you have a problem with me personally, or the comment I left about David Gerard, let me know on my talk page, or add a note to his. 207.67.84.171 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This comment was made by 74.132.130.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The first IP belongs to the Indianapolis Zoo. This one is from Louisville.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

True. Same person, different IP. 207.67.84.171 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, This is me logged in. Marbahlarbs 20:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very very odd to see one edit from Indianapolis, Indiana and the next from Louisville, Kentucky.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

74.132.130.71 is my home ip in Indianapolis (Insight broadband), 207.67.84.171 is my ip at work (VPN). Marbahlarbs 21:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall that handle (not username) vaguely - anyone else? - David Gerard 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN has lost its marbles

Here's a perfect example of the recent insanity at WP:RFCN. A large number of people have completely ignored our username policy against names of excessive length, and decided that User:Throughout HIstory Man Has Observed Society And Its Changes should be allowed. This is madness. The name is a clear example of too long. It is too long to type, it will take up half the page in a signiture and it doesn't promote collaboration when it is so long as to be annoying. If people are afraid of newbie biting, that can be completely circumvented by asking this person politely to shorten their name. This kind of blatant disregard of the written policy is continual and problematic. Because no consensus defaults to allow, this name will end up being allowed. It is not ok to disregard policy just because of a neurotic fear of newbie biting. We can enforce policy and not bite the newbies at the same time, yet people don't seem to understand this. There is not a single active user with a name this long that's been allowed. That should tell folks something right away. pschemp | talk 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• There was a discussion of this case on WP:RFCN, in which pschemp and everyone else had a full and free opportunity to express opinions and advocate outcomes. There was, as far as I could see, no mistreatment of pschemp or anyone else. If meta-discussion was required, WT:RFC and WT:U were and are available. I am at a loss to understand why WP:ANI must be alerted to respond with all urgency to the fact that there exist people who disagree with pschemp's own, undoubtedly correct and inerrant, views on exactly what constitutes "excessive length", especially since the actual outcome was the one pschemp had advocated. There are places where mere opposition is considered madness, and its very existence is considered a crisis, but I'm astounded to discover that Wikipedia is one of them. -- Ben 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• For reference, from the top of this page: "Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. [...] This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. [...] this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration." In which category does the present topic fall, to bring it here? -- Ben 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I love this, "Allow it's not too long, only a sentence of poetry." What? there is a poetry exemption in WP:U now? pschemp | talk 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Presumably a line of poetry, or even well-written prose, is easier to read, remember, and write again, than an equal length (or even half that length) of random gibberish. What constitutes "excessive length" might vary accordingly. "And Death Shall Have No Dominion" isn't too long to remember (I'd have loved it for a username!), but "Fj1nfx3gjgf7jm" would be a strain. -- Ben 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but let us remember that WP:RFCN is for consensus building and discussion. AND...many of the username policies are not clearly and operationally worded nor set in stone. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed a lot of people putting their opinions over policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, perhaps, we need more people involved in WP:RFCN. I have also noted that policy has developed a good deal in usernames in response to the board recently.--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 19:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. I brought this nomination to WP:RFCN on the grounds of excessive length, and I didn't think it a borderline case. The longest active username I have found was Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs) (38 characters). This one has 59. Sam Blacketer 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

RFCN should be like the IFD of RFC. What I mean by that is the best description I ever heard of IFD is that it's usually not as much a discussion as it is a list of images for admins to delete. Names should be blocked or allowed soley based on whether they violate policy, not based on counting votes. I have closed several IDONTLIKEIT nominations today - we need to rewrite the page description to discourage bringing them there. This name clearly violates policy ... there's no point in keeping the discussion open. --BigDT 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Clear-cut, indisputable violations ("grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate usernames") go straight to WP:AIV for blocking. Usernames go to WP:RFCN (a requests for comment page) precisely because there may be some doubt, some chance of reasonable dispute, about whether they violate policy. Sometimes there isn't any dispute after all, and we get a unanimous "allow" or "disallow", and we may even wonder why any question came up. Other times there is a dispute, opinions differ, and we get a mixed vote. Of those cases, some still reach consensus and some don't. This is entirely unremarkable, considering what sorts of cases are sent to WP:RFCN in the first place. ("News flash! Disputable cases often get disputed! Film at 11:00!") What's amazing to me is the amazement with which pschemp reports that people on an RFC page, discussing disputable cases, sometimes dispute (or at least fail to agree with) pschemp's own firmly held opinions. Such dissent is "insane", it's "madness", because no sane person could possibly disagree with pschemp! I can certainly see a valid point in pschemp's position, the name was indeed long, I just don't think it would have been as much of a problem -- though I did ask the user whether the signature might be shorter than the username, before that question was made moot by the blocking. I'm not shocked that others disagree with me, on this or any other issue. I just wish there was a bit more forbearance, a bit more toleration of differences, a bit more acceptance of others and especially of newcomers. It saddens me a bit to see The Rules being *thumped* at people quite so strictly and inflexibly. "The Law Was Handed Down By Our Sacred Ancestors" phase of Wikipedia's social evolution seems to have arrived early. "And *I* Am Its One True Interpreter" seems to be following close upon its heels. Oh, well. -- Ben 00:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RFCN is cute, but the Username policy is just that - a policy, and one that forbids "Extremely lengthy usernames." I don't see why a rough consensus on RFCN should be allowed to overrule policy in the case of a clear violation. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Policy is also determined by consensus, in matters where Jimbo, the Board, and the legal counsel have not ruled from above. Specifically, username policy in WP:U often reflects consensus on the talk page WT:U, where the question of defining "excessive length" has been discussed, and still is. One thing to remember is that Wikipedia is worldwide, cultures differ, and what one culture considers an "excessively lengthy" name is elsewhere deemed ordinary and unremarkable. Recently, Vivekvaibhawdwivedi (Vivek Vaibhaw Dwivedi) was brought to WP:RFCN as "apparent nonsense", and collected some "disallow" votes (later changed to unanimously allow). I await with resignation the day that names like Einojuhani Rautavaara, Raimo Hämäläinen, and Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde; Parekura Horomia, Kōmihana Tirotiro Whanonga Pirihimana, and Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi; Simeonie Keenainak, Irene Avaalaaqiaq Tiktaalaaq, and Kenojuak Ashevak; are all blocked as "apparently random sequences of letters or of extended repetitions of particular characters, some of unwieldy length, and all of them hard to read, remember, track, and type." (They haven't logged in, but someday they might.) -- Ben 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to talk about that other case, then... Ben, you know I respect you, but this is the second time I've heard that argument in two days, and with all due respect, it doesn't make sense. ANY combination of letters (and numbers!) can be a name, so there's no way we should be expected to recognize a name on sight. I think if the username is apparently random, folks are right to designate it as such. Once it's explained as a name (which that one was), then folks were right to change their suggestion to the mods (which is what that board is, eh?) and designate it as allow. This isn't bad news, this is GOOD news. The system worked, and RFCN was a crucial part of that system. Without people saying "hey, wait, let's look for a second", that one could have been disallowed - RFCN served its purpose. Philippe Beaudette 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• "this is the second time I've heard that argument in two days" -- and if this were the same setting, I'd apologize for repeating myself. But since pschemp has decided to go forum-shopping here, it seems fair to make the same counter-point. ... "there's no way we should be expected to recognize a name on sight. I think if the username is apparently random, folks are right to designate it as such." -- without, of course, doing any research first. ... "The system worked, and RFCN was a crucial part of that system.[...] RFCN served its purpose." -- I agree, but you might want to re-read this thread's title and take the matter up with this thread's originator. Possibly this whole thread could be moved to WT:RFC or WT:U and continue merrily there, but bless me if I can understand why it's on WP:ANI. -- Ben 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on "why is it here". Philippe Beaudette 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That argument doesn't work well with this particular example, since 1) all your counterexamples are actual names of people, whereas this one is a statement and 2) this username is roughly 50% longer than the longest extant username found by pschemp. No one here is arguing that a user with a very long name (real-world name) will have to shorten it to comply with the username policy. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• "And Death Shall Have No Dominion" is also a statement. "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" is also a statement. WP:USERNAME does not forbid having statements as usernames. If the reason for the limiting length is to keep names easy to remember and therefore recognize the author, "Throughout HIstory Man Has Observed Society And Its Changes" is surely memorable enough -- and easier to type than "Raimo Hämäläinen" or "Kōmihana Tirotiro Whanonga Pirihimana", if one must type names at all. Myself, I copy-and-paste. Long or short, complex or simple, the copy-and-paste functions don't care. -- Ben 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp, the problem with the policy you quote is the word "extremely". When is a username "extremely long"? With 30 characters? 35? 40? 45? 85? With 9 words? Until the moment that we have a clear limit on the number of characters in a username, the application of this particular policy will inherently be subjective. Please do not accuse people who may come to other interpretations than you of "continual and problematic" "blatant disregard of the written policy", etcetera. Yes, this username was long. Yes, if it had been a song it would probably have been included in the list of songs with particularly long titles. But whether this particular username is "extremely" long will always be ground for discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, two names similar to, but not easily conused with CS,CWEM were blocked on sight. Zbl 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal note: I dont want to offend anyone but RFCN is a joke. 98% of the cases there are reviews of username blocks. RFCN is not a review of admin actions. There are users who patrol the backlog who report blocked users who should have been blocked, but because the people on RFCN dont know the whole story they end up unblocking a valid block. one recent case was when some admin blocked UserFatwhale for vandalism and 10 minutes later I blocked User:Fatterwhale for a WP:U violation of having a username too similar to a vandal. Because I didnt see the RFCN until after it was closed a vandal was unblocked. There are other cases but that sticks out the most at the moment. RFCN has fallen to a bunch of people who for the majority are not admins and dont know the whole story nor do they try, then instead off creating a discussion with me they filed a RFC which was out of line. there are reasons that admins block users. we shouldnt have to file a report on every case for the reasons. admins are trusted to use the tools, and should be left to use them without having to file a report for every action. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't include in your block summary the reason for the block. Nor did you make mention of it on the user's talk page. I think it should be made mandatory that the blocker be warned before a "reverse-RFCN" takes places. That doesn't mean that I don't think they should happen at all though. There are certainly some very questionable username blocks that have taken place, and providing a means of questioning them doesn't seem unreasonable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Per your suggestion, I've added this in the top section of WP:RFCN: "If requesting review of an existing username block, please: (1) quote the reason given for the block, and (2) notify the blocking admin of the discussion here." -- Ben 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• I've also created a short template to ease that notification: {{subst:un|disputedusername}}. -- Ben 22:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• '"the people on RFCN dont know the whole story [...] dont know the whole story nor do they try [...]" -- Betacommand, to be fair, I have asked you at your own userpage to specify your reasons for username blocks, using the optional parameter in {{usernameblock}} -- a request to which you never replied. That same request is in WP:U#Blocking, is at the top of WP:RFCN, was posted in Template talk:UsernameBlocked, and was posted on WP:AN. After all this, if we "don't know the whole story" of why you blocked users, whose doing is that? Your specifying the reason, when you block the user, would not only let the rest of us know why, but would tell the user what he's doing wrong and what to do differently (shorten the name, remove the non-alphanumeric characters, or whatever). Not that it matters, since when you told many of them to choose different names (but not in what way different), you also left "account creation disabled" so they couldn't choose different names. -- Ben 07:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anythign wrong with the name. It's not designed to be offensive, crude, rude or whatever. at worst, the editor so selecting comes off as a bit of a literati snob, but 'eh?' to that. THIMHOSAIC, as I,and many, many, MANY, editors would no doubt refer to him, can either accept, like FAAFA does, that there are times where we'll be lazy, and abbreviate, and enjoy the project; learn how to build a personalized signature like many others, thus reducing his footprint on the page, or he'll get sick of it, insist on full proper address form at all times, and deal with the natural reactiosn of others. Big deal. If this is where wikipedia's admin arguments are going, there are sure to be bigger hurdles beign passed by. I say let him in.

As for the 'foreign people have funny names and should be blocked for it' above... wow, just wow. I agree with Ben. Does Wikipedia really want to project ignorance like that? We aspire to beign a repository of learning, and as active editors, and some of you admins, shouldn't we strive to boldly embody that? especially when that 'boldness' consists of a simple note like 'hi, we at RFCN aren't familiar with a screen name like yours, is it your name, and what language is it in, so that we might start recognizing similar names in the future?" Maybe we don't have to be so Suzy Homemaker abotu it, but somethign polite can alleviate a LOT of this without creating abosultist policies. ThuranX 07:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this on AN/I? One editor thought a username was inappropriate, other editors disagreed. There's nothing more to it. There's such a thing as different interpretations of policy, and that does not make one user wrong and another user right. There's nothing to do here. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• I might suggest to the user that he use a shorter version of the name in his sig, for legibility, but I don't think this is some crazy violation of protocol that's worth all the hand-wringing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti on yet another rampage?

Hi, permabanned user JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · block log) editing as IP anon 68.123.141.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has once again munged the talk page of the wikibiography of a living person whom Sarfatti dislikes; see these edits. (Note that Sarfatti talks almost exclusively about himself, often in the third person; these edits exhibit the same writeprint, same thoughtprint, and same ISP as Sarfatti's other recent edits as an IP anon.) These edits exhibit two of the problems with letting Sarfatti edit: he's so incompetent as a wikiuser that he invariably renders any page he edits almost unreadable by randomly inserting unsigned rants or personal emails into comments by other users, and he tends to be abusive and egomaniacal. Neither of these characteristics in an editor tends to advance the goals of the Wikipedia. Plus, I think it's a bad idea to look the other way when permabanned users return repeatedly to continue to use the WP to abuse people they dislike, in this case the author of the Crackpot index.

Is there anyone at WP currently who is responsible for dealing with IP anon edits which are obviously by some specific permabanned individual?

Another single purpose account, 67.160.247.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (signed by another "chris", someone unknown to me, but with an email address appended) has spammed a long critique of a web page by myself into the same talk page; see this edit. The irony here is that I long ago took my own contact information out of that website (which I created c. 1992, when I was a graduate student) because of unrelenting abuse from Sarfatti and others prone to similar misbehavior, so once again I appear to be damned if I do and damned if I don't :-/ But the website in question clearly states that it was written by myself, not by Baez, and suggests a avenue for complaints. Because the complaint by the other "chris" has nothing whatsoever to do with the wikibio of Baez, I feel it was inappropriate to put in Talk:John Carlos Baez.

I feel someone should archive the mess on this talk page (and remove the email address naively offered by the other "chris"), but as an inactive former Wikipedian and as the frequent target of rants by Sarfatti and as the real target of the complaint by other "chris", I don't think I should be the one to do this.

I haven't been here in a quite a while, so I apologize if things have changed and this is no longer the appropriate place to ask these questions. Thanks for your consideration!---CH 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just mention it at WP:AIV next time, and I don't see any problem in you archiving or removing that rambling nonsense, which seems to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. (I'm just too lazy to look the archival templates up right now.) Sandstein 21:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Should be fixed now, let me know if that's incomplete. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Problem solved; thanks, Guy! ---CH 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate statement?

Astrotrain, whom I've already blocked for making personal attacks and warned for misuse of AfD, made the following statement on another AfD today (diff): Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Christianity will have been abolished and so we won't even use this system of years anyway. I can't imagine that that's appropriate, but given my history here, I'd like a second opinion. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not the most civil commentary but calling it "hate" strikes me as a bit severe. Sounds more like uncivil criticism of the BC/AD year numbering system. (→Netscott) 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking more about the hope that one of the world's major religions would be abolished. He's entitled to that view, but I don't think anyone should be expressing that type of view about any religion; users who have had anti-Judaism or anti-Islam content on their userpages have generally had it deleted and been warned or blocked. Expressing this same sentiment and directing it against another user is a direct violation of WP:NPA, for example. (BTW, I called it "hate speech" because that's the general term for that kind of language in the U.S., not because it's "hate" per se.) | Mr. Darcy talk 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :In addition to being a very poor argument, this is also a very incivil religious slur. Given that this is not the first incivility block for Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I've issued a one week block. Any administrator is welcome to review this action. Sandstein 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well there has been a regime or two that has tried to "abolish" religions... and we see where they've ended up. I've tried a thought experiment by saying, "Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Islam will have been abolished..." and, "Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Judaism will have been abolished..." to see if it'd change my mind and other than the incivility of it I don't see it as being a slur... particularly given the history of +^athiestic movements to abolish religions. (→Netscott) 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that the block is too harsh. Christianity is the largest religion in the world, criticizing it without naming a specific individual is unlikely to create an atmosphere of fear and violence, though I'm not Christian. It's like criticizing a government, which is a sovereign right of everyone in the free world and is done in Wikipedia all the time. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think any block for this is quite inappropriate. - Kittybrewster 21:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt know my last[[5]] statement was out of line. I was only trying to make an ironic point.What Said 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find the criticism silly. But he's entitled to his POV. Pushing it in a deletion debate in such terms is dickery, but not in itself disruptive. I really see no reason to block. Maybe by the year 10,000 all heathen swine will be singing choruses and begging forgiveness from the Holy Church. Is anyone going to block me for that remark. Let's have thicker skins.--Doc^g 21:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a world with no religion, no property too; imagine a Wikipedia without people being blocked for expressing what they imagine too. WAS 4.250 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As noted below, I agree now that the block was excessive, but the comment was indeed inflammatory (and I'm no Christian). If people want to express what they imagine, they can do so elsewhere. WP:NOT a soapbox. If people work with us here, we expect them to behave in a civil manner; that includes not making offtopic swipes at others' beliefs in a procedural forum. Sandstein 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, we can always have an unblock policy WP:ANDTHETRUTHSHALLSETYOUFREE. Wiki-heretics that recant get to be reborn with new accounts.--Doc^g 22:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This block strikes me as profoundly unwarranted. His comment was somewhat Astrotrain's comment was off-topic and vaguely trollish, but hardly a big deal. If he really must be blocked, try 15 minutes. A week is simply ridiculous. At first glance, I thought it might be justified by what looks like an increasingly ugly block log, but read the discussion on his talk page, and these blocks, too, both the last one and its subsequent lengthening, seem rather unjustified. My impression is that Astrotrain is being harassed here. Certainly, he should be unblocked.Proabivouac 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this milieu for some time (as has MrDarcy, and we have been monitoring each other furthermore) and I can assure you that Astrotrain has been doing a lot of harassing, one the most recent being to delete a perfectly reasonable edit with the summary of rv POV Vandalism, then even refusing to discuss it with the other editor. If you really want to see all the unpleasantness that's been going on, then you'll have to trawl through the actions of the last few weeks, which I am very familiar with. The actions you are looking at are not isolated incidents. Kindly have some faith that admins are acting for good reasons. Tyrenius 06:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, all for the comments. I see now that I judged this poorly, and am going to unblock him. Sandstein 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Crazyneeds

This user is a WP:SOCK for User:Venrix who created Joshua G. Cantor-Stone. He has re-created this article after AfD, re-uploaded Image:Joshuapng.png, and vandalized a couple of user talk pages. 100% of his edits have been non-constructive (either hoax or outright vandalism). Since it's a bit more complicated than simple vandalism (though it includes elements thereof), it seems like a good idea to post a notice here. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do to sack this vandal. Rklawton 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Venrix for 1 week for sockpuppetry and indefblocked User:Crazyneeds as a sock. Article has been deleted again as has the image. -- Heligoland 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ApocalypticDestroyer's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) request for a lifting of the permanent block.

About 3 weeks ago I posted a request from Apocalyptic for a lifting of a permanent block (not a community ban). In response, there was one supportive comment and no opposition. If there is still no net opposition to a lifting of Apocalyptic's block, I will be asking Apocalyptic to put an {{unblock}} request on his homepage. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody, and I do mean everybody deserves a second chance.RRUOK???k 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but some people are constructive around here.Bands of Hands Stalk The Land 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Still support, with the same qualification as earlier. Shimeru 07:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the block log, it is a community ban for disruption. When his talkpage User talk:Guardian Tiger was protected, he created a new sock called User:ApocalypticDestroyer's. This case has already been dealt with and enough time has been wasted. The community's patience was already exhausted. Please don't bring up this issue again. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As you were aware when you made this comment, the block log is wrong. He was not banned, he was blocked, and blocked for using a sock at a time when his previous account was not blocked and had not been used for some time. In fact, that account is still not blocked and is still unused. You may choose not to accept his explaination that he lost the password, but that is your choice. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ChrisGriswold's block of User:MatthewFenton.

I think that Chris is being very out of process with this block, seeing as he had blocked Matthew about fourty minutes ago, which Matthew had contested ([6]). Majorly had unblocked Matthew, which Chris followed up with an indefinite block (with no reason at all). This is pretty much all that I know of the matter, I'm just bringing up. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 22:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He may have been trying to unblock him, but seems an odd way to do it, especially without a summary. And he's stopped editing. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an inadvertent block. A Train ^{take the} 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an honest if disruptive mistake at first glance. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just had assumed the worst, that's all. Will ^{(Speak to Me/Breathe)}_{(Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash)} 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah... on further investigation it looks like Chris hit the wrong button when going to unblock him. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did. Sorry about that, everyone. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No harm done, so long as it's all fixed now. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Let's hope so... he hasn't edited since though. There are moral ethics here that have been damaged. The guy has been blocked enough times, and two wrongful blocks in one evening is no doubt stressful and offputting for any contributor. Let us hope he returns and continues editing productively. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

... "moral ethics"? :) A Train ^{take the} 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well I don't know about him, but if I were in his place I'd take a walk or something to clear my head, so I wouldn't be editing the second after an unblock, either. Time will tell, though, if he intends on returning. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 00:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Grace E. Dougle continues to make false accusations of Sockpuppetry

I previously filed a notice here about her conduct. An administrator, User:Zeraeph left a commnent for someone to talk with her and an admin did leave a notice on her talk page ( [[7]] However, she continues to make false accusations based on accusations of others, which were determined to be untrue and were unfounded. [[8]] I really would like her to stop spreading false and malicious statements about me. It is uncivil and does not Assume good faith. It is a personal attack WP:NPA DPeterson^talk 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I do not believe Zeraeph is an administrator. I certainly hope that they are not impersonating an administrator. I see no blocks, deletions, or protections on Zeraeph's logs. In my past dealings with Grace E. Dougle they have been overly vexatious and incivil, so it seems par for the course, so to speak. Don't let them get you down. Just follow the rules and you will be fine. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Zeraeph...I assumed (incorrectly) that only admins commented here. I will follow our rules and practices and modes of interacting..but, how can I make her stop??DPeterson^talk 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in utter shock about Peter M. Dogdes comment here... I am just speechless. The link that DPeterson gives in the above paragraph (MrDarcy's talk page)were in response to Mr Darcy asking me for a comment on DPetersons suspected sockpuppetry. I did not make that statement anywhere else. Note that there are two pages on Wikipedia where people accuse others of being sockpuppets. Dodge even threatens to block me on his talkpage if I do anything about the sockpuppet-situation. All of this is going on totally behind my back and I discovered this by accident. I am so shocked I am shaking. A quote from Peter M Dodge above: In my past dealings with Grace E. Dougle they have been overly vexatious and incivil, so it seems par for the course, so to speak. Note that I have never been in contact with this person (Peter M Dodge). Are you confusing me with someone?--Grace E. Dougle 14:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do about personal attacks by Peter M Dodge, a place to complain about admins behavior?--Grace E. Dougle 15:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Peter isn't an administrator. So he can't block you. Secondly, this is not the Wikipedia complaints departments. Thirdly, this is not the Wikipedia flamewar department. Fourthly, unless you have strong evidence of sockpuppetry - such as acheckuser-confirmation or maybe identical editing patterns, evidence for which will have to laid out very carefully - continued allegations of sockpuppetry are disruptive and yes, we do block for disruption. Does that cover everything? Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. The above section gave me the impression I was not allowed to file for checkuser, because that would be continuing the accusations. The evidence is strong. --Grace E. Dougle 15:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, then WP:RFCU is the way to go. Please read the instructions on that page carefully: checkuser is not for fishing. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not being a native speaker I don't understand what 'fishing' means and I am going to leave this for now because it is too much for me right now.--Grace E. Dougle 15:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fishing is requesting a RFCU where proofs are hard to provide. File a RFCU if you believe you got hard evidences. Nothing would be attained here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And what I found on my talk page: I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks. by MrDarcy. Not Dodge who personally attacks me right here, but I am the one who should be blocked, the singular they. Again, I cannot tell you how shocked I am at how I am being treated here. Preventative blocks I think aren't even allowed. --Grace E. Dougle 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to have left Wikipedia - and just to be clear, here's the meat of my post on her talk page, not just the half-sentence that she chose to quote above (diff): You need to stop claiming that DPeterson has used or is using sockpuppets unless you can prove it, with checkuser being the best way to do it. I'm also extremely disturbed by your implications that DPeterson has a personality disorder. At this point, you're dancing on the edge of violations of WP:NPA and I think you're well past WP:CIVIL. If you don't alter the way you deal with this user, I'm going to have to block you to prevent further attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Attasarana

A bit of a situation seems to be developing between Attasarana and Ryulong, an uninvolved admin might want to step in here (not suggesting that Ryulong is handling this badly but for the sake of process someone uninvolved should take a look) before it escalates. --Fredrick day 00:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Homeontherange sock

User:Rugelbein self proclaimed Homeontherange sock (see this edit and definitely sock of blocked user User:Fulsome prison. Natalie 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sick person has been blocked byy CanadianCaesar.--Doc^g 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, one of his requests was to bring back The Game (game) - I wonder if there's any connection with User:Light Grenade, who reposted that article today. FreplySpang 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's little point in psychoanalysing a sad troll. Block and move on.--Doc^g 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dueling sockpuppet reports at WP:SSP

Moroder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and HarmonyThree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have filed reports at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets accusing each other of sockpuppetry, and have made several posts to WP:AN regarding these accusations: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Harassment_by_anonymous_user_130.126.15.145_.2F130.126.15.57 Wp:an#False_report_filed_by_newly_signed_up_sockpuppet_HarmonyThree

The cases are:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ati3414
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gregory9

It would be appreciated if someone could swing the mop at these. Heck, it would be great if someone would review any of the cases at WP:SSP, there's a ginormous backlog... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The first and last time I posted a report there, it took months for anyone to comment, by which time checkuser data was stale. If no one starts dealing with this page, I suggest it be deleted, as it only helps sockpuppeteers by keeping them off of ANI and RfCU.Proabivouac 02:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The history of the page and the associated process is actually rather interesting. It was created as part of a major rewriting of WP:SOCK. However, the rewrite was later found to have been fundamentally influenced by an infamous banned editor and sock puppet user, which caused the near complete abandonment of the reform attempt and reversion of the changes, and some animosity and confusion among various legitimate editors and administrators. And when the dust finally settled, we were left with the old policy, with the "suspected sock puppets" process tacked on in a somewhat awkward manner. The pages still conflict with policy, since they were written for the ill-fated revision. --Philosophus ^T 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DeKalb, Illinois

Situation: First I filed a report at AIV, which this situation was beyond the scope of. Here is the original report.

• JazzButcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Kinda long. I would like someone to monitor this situation. This user has continually inserted information about a non notable arcade into the DeKalb, Illinois article. Two editors have explained why it shouldn't be there, this action screams of an attempt to use the Wiki as an advertising service. After the explanation it was reinserted and a long screaming post appeared unsigned on my talk page from the user. The information first turned up about two weeks ago from anonymous 71.57.61.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which was warned once. After the user Jazz reinserted the info I did give him a harsh warning. If someone could please monitor this situation I would appreciate it.A mcmurray 12:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Essentially this user is asserting notability for a non notable random business. See my talk page and his. I am trying to defend the Wiki against what I see as obvious spam. I mean the information he was inserting was ambiguous and ended with something like "the owner serves his guests a big bowl of popcorn." I was unsure of what to do so here I am. Any help? Thanks ahead of time.A mcmurray 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically I was hoping someone could watch this situation and/or explain it to the user. I am not quite sure how to.A mcmurray 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess this isn't the right place either. If no one here can help could someone at least point me in the right direction. I feel like my concerns are being completely ignored.A mcmurray 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The place to start resolving this is on the Talk:Dekalb, Illinois page. Get the community involved and see what the consensus is. If you feel that the addition of the arcade truly violates notability guidelines, bring up your concerns on the talk page and see what the community consensus is. Justin Eiler 19:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So it doesn't matter that this is obvious non-notable spam that has no place in an encyclopedia? If the community likes some arcade it gets to be in the article? That seems heavily favored toward a spammer.A mcmurray 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the community as a whole is pretty good about squashing spammers. The issue here is not that he's an obvious spammer--it's that you and he have a content dispute. The dispute resolution process may also provide you some assistance. Justin Eiler 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, nonetheless, I am taking your advice and trying to build community consensus, I really don't want to grace this user with the benefit of dispute resolution, as much as I would like to assume good faith here, it is just not possible. They are here to be disruptive, that I am pretty sure of. If the community builds consensus (probably via WikiProject Illinois) and the user persists, do I report it here or AIV?A mcmurray 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How about you just assume good faith for now and work from there? --InShaneee 21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Habbo vandalism

There is a user that keeps vandalizing the infobox on Habbo Hotel with a Screenshot as opposed to alogo, and will not stop (see edit history) Toajaller3146 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. This is a content dispute. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism continous attack - on National Development Front

• 128.83.131.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),Lionheart5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), India Rising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 70.113.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continuesly attack the page National Development Front again. Administrator user:Dbachmann had tried to resolve it but they are attacking on this article again. Please lock the page again and protect it from the new user and IP addresses.

• Also please check the users 128.83.131.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Lionheart5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), India Rising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are biased on this article. See the discussion pages [[9]] and comments from user:Dbachmann. They don't respect the discussion points and they just revert the pages back to their versions. Ganeshco 04:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic ip

Single person with dynamic ip (71.99.xxx.xxx) is removing short name of Czech Republic from the article every day (among his other edits which he does over and over again). Several of ips he used has been blocked or warned but it really makes no sense to issue him new warnings every day since it's obvious he won't stop or change his habits. He often uses personal attacks on user talk pages and in edit summaries almost always in Czech language. Any idea how to deal with such difficult user? As someone notified me recently he is known on other language WPs doing the same. I may include extensive summary of his edits if necessary but I don't think it's worth the time. He refused to discuss his edit writing in edit summary (translation follows) I certainly won't discuss anything with pockmarked poop who comes every evening by editing Wikipedia.[10] And Go to shit yourself you prick.[11] Those are not his first personal attacks and he has been warned before to avoid them numerous times (as well as not to edit war etc.). May be protection of those articles would solve the problem but it would be better to deal only with him. Thank you.--Pethr 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) See his today's contributions for a better picture of what he is like... Special:Contributions/71.99.95.181--Pethr 05:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected Czech Republic for now. Also blocked the IP for violating WP:3RR. Chick Bowen 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this IP resolves to Verizon and is probably DSL. A range block would probably cause a fair amount of collateral damage and should be avoided. Chick Bowen 06:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mention it. Just for the record he supplied correct translations of his attacks on my talk page along with several new ones, so I'm copying here: "go fuck yourself you dickhead" and "i will not argument with somone who comes every night over wikipedia". He is also vandalizing other user pages [12] [13] [14]. I think my report here will only escalate his actions (since he's well aware) so any solution would be appreciated.--Pethr 06:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Block Check

I indefinitely blocked Thekillabeejc for continuously recreating the attack page Tim beck and Bim teck (witty on that last one, no?) as well as L337 lllama for recreating Tyler shutowik which was a nonsense page. Feel free to lessen or reverse the blocks if you feel that I overstepped. I am a new admin but I feel that the two users warranted the blocks. Those articles were deleted multiple times and they would constantly pop back up on the newpages list. IrishGuy ^talk 06:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, those are both clearly vandalism-only accounts. Two tips: check out Wikipedia:Protected titles (I already transferred Tyler shutowik over), and if you do use {{deletedpage}}, make sure to delete the page before puting the template on it; we don't want the vandalism in the history. Chick Bowen 06:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize I left it in that time. They were recreating so quickly that I must have thought I had a clean slate when I didn't. Whoops. Thanks for the tips. I will remember the Wikipedia:Protected titles links. IrishGuy ^talk 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate administrator behavior.

The administrator known as Pilotguy tagged an article for speedy deletion that was then contested. Rather than reply to the Talk, he deleted the article immediately claiming copyright violation. However, this claim was incorrect as the article was (mistakenly) written direct for wikipedia. I rewrote the article to be more neutral and to meet the standards.

Further, his attitude towards other users as expressed below raises serious doubts about him having administrator privledge.

you know you just blocked User:209.247.23.17 for no reason what he was doing was not vandalism.209.247.23.7 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Too bad I don't care. —Pilotguy push to talk 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

this has to do with WP:EW not nonsense pages.209.247.23.7 00:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it has to do with you being a dick. Deal with it. —Pilotguy push to talk 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.164.62.52 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "(mistakenly) written direct for wikipedia." mean? Does it mean the article in the web page was written specifically for Wikipedia, as in "Geez, I don't have sources for this article, so I get a Geocities account, upload my thoughts there, and then use it as reference"? Just wondering. -- ReyBrujo 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, I came across that conversation you've copy-pasted. I believe 209.247.23.17 was caught up in a fantastically pointless edit war, and 209.247.23.7 is a pretty obvious sock that may as well have been blocked on sight, anyway. An admin treats disruptive trollsocks users dismissively; maybe not the shining beacon of truth and goodness, but is it really bad? As for the deletion, I haven't taken a look at that, just yet. Will see if I have anything to say about that one. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So I guess I can be an ass to people without accounts and treat them like trolls. I don't know anything about what's going on with that -- that's just what it seems like to me. --Dookama 16:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the IP was edit warring over MiB or MB with edit summaries such as "Changed from mib to mb give it up you are not going to win". Also blocked as being used by a registered account to perpetuate edit wars. --pgk 11:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pilotguy's deleted a number of pages, today; could you provide a link to the article in question? If there's some nasty abuse going on, it should be pointed out; otherwise, it may as well head over to deletion review, instead. So, link? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• The IP has no other contribs, so that's no clue. I added a timestamp to his entry to help narrow the range to search. Pilotguy often (not always) uses the CSD# tags when deleting, and copyright violation would be CSD#G12, if that's any help. Otherwise search the list for "copyright". -- Ben 16:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this complaint surfaced about ten days ago or so, the first time around, and has been revived here. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a troll. Just move along. There's nothing to see here. —Pilotguy push to talk 14:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pilotguy is one of our best pilots. Fly along. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed with how you treated those annons Pilot. If we lower ourselfs to trollish behavior in response to trolls we've still lowered ourselfs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Propose Indefblock of Buzzards39

Moved to Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Propose_Indefblock_of_Buzzards39 where these types of proposal go now. (→Netscott) 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AlexPU (talk · contribs)s attack page

User is engaged in some kind of personal crusade against several other users and he has openly (and without merit) declared them "vandals". First, he accuses ((user|Irpen}} of being a vandal [15], then provides a link to a "vandal list" attack page he created on his own talk as evidence [16]. This is not kosher. I'm reporting here because I'm not a wholly uninvolved person and don't want to stir the pot by deleting the attacks myself. TheQuandry 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Phone number in edit summary

A vandal left a phone number in an edit summary here. Can that be removed? I don't want someone being harassed. Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 19:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 19:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversighted. (Oversought? Oversitten? Oversmitten?) Oh bother, disappeared! Essjay (Talk) 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess the only proper term to use would be whalloped. :-) Willie Stark 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

With a trout... 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Overseen" (with a cat o' nine tails, or a knout). I trust you donned a curly moustache for the occasion, Essjay. -- Ben 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I though it was "oversightificated". And Essjay, I hope you realise how ominous it is when you use disappeared in that way ... Proto ► 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Self identified minor with personal contact information

Saikano identifies as a 16 year old and has expressed an interest in child pornography and lolicon. He has already had his personal information deleted once. Now his user page contains a phone number. I'm thinking this user page should at the very least be deleted (again), and the user blocked or banned for his own good. AniMate 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this make me think that this editor may not be entirely able to participate in an encyclopedia-type project. Not only for the POV expressed, a minor issue, but his persistent use of 'chatting' about non encyclopedic work through the talkpages and a total lack of command of the english language. After the previous warnings about social networking and the lolicon issues (which, regardless of the childporn/not child porn argument, I don't believe hes legally allowed to look at the damn stuff) (I know, I know, I remember what *I* was looking at when I was 16, but the point stands that its just more trouble then it might be worth). It may be time to wash our hands of this editor. -M^ask 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Other problematic edits [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] .... the list goes on. -M^ask 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that Saikano hasn't been blocked for his disruptive posting yet. The few times I've encountered him, specifically on anime-related pages, the majority of his posts are passive-aggressive or outright uncivil. Leebo⁸⁶ 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Smells like troll to me. JoshuaZ 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello???

So once again my report of harassment went ignored, and yet it continues. But we don't need WP:PAIN do we? This editor among a couple others have been after me for over 2 months because he made an off-topic and inappropriate comment on a talk page I removed, and yet it continues [24], [25].--Crossmr 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I've been harassed for over 2 months, with more personal attacks and incivility than I can count. The last ignored comment wasn't the only one thats gone posted here and ignored while it continues. If you read the previous comment you'll see that I've provided some evidence as to who the IP is.--Crossmr 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• You need dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. You should probably all put down the stick and step away from the horse, the survivalist bullshit on the Kim article can stay out, I don't see a lot of dissent from that, and really the number of edits ot that article and talk page display an unhealthy level of obsession on some people's part. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The survivalist issue was taken care of long ago. The issue on the part of the IP 24.... was that months ago he made an off-topic and attacking comment against kim on the talk page which I noticed when archiving and removed per the talk page guidelines. He's gone on a personal vendetta since that event taking every opportunity to harass me both on the talk page and vandalize my user page and talk page. I don't think dispute resolution is the issue, his behaviour is well beyond that.--Crossmr 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Vandal on Associative Economics Page

Here someone insists in deleting discussion on the talk page. Please help. Pete K 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully he'll explain his actions now. --InShaneee 22:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Pete K 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Monmouthshire

Evening all. I would like to report the persistant removal of a few perfectly legitimate sentences of text, by a biased user on the Monmouthshire page. The user is unregistered and I have already warned the user on the talk page that their edits were not helpful, yet I was still ignored and they have made the same edit about a dozen times now. Marky-Son 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a fairly routine content dispute to me, and in fact I'm on the side of the anon because it looks like promotion of a minority political party. You might want to raise it as a Request for comment before it turns into a revert war. Sam Blacketer 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User:NovaNova needs official warning about personal attacks

User:NovaNova has made several personal attacks against me (and some other editors). As far as I can tell, I am the only person who has ever given him formal warnings about his abusive and unjustified comments. He has posted a message on his talk page saying he will ignore all of my warnings, and even that message includes a baseless personal attack. His recent editing and talk history shows that he chooses to offer nothing positive or productive to Wikipedia. Please uphold Wikipedia guidelines and take the appropriate actions. Spylab 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have given NovaNova a final warning and mean to make good on this and block the user if he or she does it again. Calling another user mentally challenged in inexcusable under WP:NPA. Heimstern Läufer 23:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another phone number

Got another phone number in an edit summary here. While it doesn't have an area code, it should still be deleted. Can someone do that please? Thanks. IrishGuy ^talk 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

more phone numbers

This revision of Sword of the Samurai. Natalie 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Multi-user, multi-pattern, cross-project vandal "tester"

en:Wikiquote has been experiencing concerted, rapid-fire, multiple-user attacks for two consecutive days, follwing a pattern that has happened at least twice before in the past few months. The most recent one also included a simultaneous attack on en:Wikinews. The person or people behind this create a bunch of usernames in rapid succession, frequently but not always following several patterns, including *ook, animals, "new user" words, cross-project sysop impersonation, offensive names, and others. Some of these names are leftover from earlier attacks — usernames that made no edits during the previous attack, but are "activated" for the new one. The attack begins with either unassuming usernames starting an innocuous trolling of joke posts to user talk pages or with the scatalogical usernames plastering insults and offensive terms over articles, user, pages, and talk pages (especially from Recent Changes and targeting anti-vandal sysops). Then another set of usernames starts posting local or cross-project vandalism warnings to the sysops, possibly impersonating a sysop from another project (not immediately distinguishable from an actual sysop belatedly registering a username to help in cross-project vandalism fighting). When the real sysops start blocking accounts and/or refusing to take the joke-posting bait, yet another set of usernames or IP addresses post complaints to sysop talk pages and Administrators' Noticeboard. Eventually these are all tied together by a careful consideration of timing, writing style, knowledge demonstrated by multiple users, and, most compelling, outright statement by the multiple users that they are the same person.

Supposedly these complex attacks are a product of someone testing anti-vandalism reactions (see q:Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Coming Clean and the surrounding topics for Wikiquote's recent problem), but this has happened before to Wikipedia (see w:User talk:216.164.203.90#Coming Clean), suggesting the true goal is the vandalism and the confusion it creates. One pernicious aspect of this attack is that the user participates in arguments between sysops of different projects after they've gotten annoyed with each other for blocking impersonators. (Or it may just be that the angry folks are all the impersonating user. It's hard to take time to consider the possibilities when you are manually fighting changes driven by an automated system, apparently leaving the vandal time to have fun pissing off the sysops with complaints against each other.

This is only a partial list of vandals and their sockpuppets (just on Wikiquote) involved in the past two days's attacks:

• q:User:DADOG
• q:User:Sysop
• q:User:MessedupRocker
• q:User:Nigger poop
• q:User:The New User
• q:User:Random Quotations
• q:User:GFS
• q:User:Neutralizer
• q:User:Reduzwaz
• q:User:Loslonleys
• q:User:Help me out!!!
• q:User:Whoawhoawho
• q:User:Como te llamas
• q:User:LnvisiblSun
• q:User:Qffej
• q:User:Rezilartuen
• q:User:Mi nombre es Heraldo

Some of these names (or variations) are also new users on Wikipedia. Some vandalize on one project but not the other. Even though the contemporaneous creations during this rapid-fire, multi-user vandal attack should implicate one username if the other is used to vandalize another project, sysops are reluctant to block the account on the project where it isn't vandalizing. This leaves the untainted account available for future vandalism — see q:User:Mi nombre es Heraldo and its mention in q:WQ:AN for a concrete example.

The resulting confusion while trying to discuss so many new users doing so many different things across multiple projects in a short time makes it virtually impossible for small-project sysops to coordinate.

en:Wikiquote has only a handful of sysops, and has periods where none are watching. We cannot keep spending hours each day blocking such complex attacks, even if we bend or break our own policies to head off likely vandal accounts (which this vandal seems to be trying to encourage). I would like some advice on how we can do a better job of stopping these attacks, given our extremely limited resources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)