Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willie Stark (talk | contribs) at 12:57, 26 February 2007 (→[[WP:BLP]] concern: comment on the situation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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)

    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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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. AecisBrievenbus 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, two names similar to, but not easily conused with CS,CWEM were blocked on sight. Zbl 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • '"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)[reply]
    • Betacommand, I've spent some time thinking about this comment, and I hate to say that despite your intent to not offend, I'm afraid you did. First, I don't believe that 98% of cases there are administrative reviews - that's not been my experience at all. Also, I'm concerned by the "don't question me" attitude that statement might convey. I'm sure that's not what you mean- I know you agree that the being an admin is No Big Deal and that it certainly doesn't mean immunity from explaning the reasoning behind something. I would think that a healthy way to approach this might be to look at it as an opportunity to teach - to show folks at WP:RFCN why you did something, because I know that's how most of us would view it. Philippe Beaudette 00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • No, what the discussion here is about is people consistently ignoring policy. This post isn't a debate about a username, that's what RFCN is for. Ben as usual has made it into that, but if you read my original post, that's not the point. When a process like RFCN goes off into insane-space, people should be looking and complaining about it though. pschemp | talk 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop accusing fellow editors of "consistently ignoring policy." The username policy isn't as clear-cut as you claim it to be. Yes, extremely long usernames are not allowed, but as long as the word "extremely" is not explicitly specified, it will remain ground for discussion and interpretation. Other users may come to other conclusions than you. That can happen in a community-run project. But that does not make those conclusions wrong, and it definitely doesn't mean that they go against standing policy. AecisBrievenbus 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When there is not a single other username in use that long, yes it does mean they are interpreting policy wrong. And they are going against long standing practice. It doesn't need to explicitly stated. That being a bizzare outlier proves it beyond a doubt. I hope you can see that, because the other alternative is that they just don't know what the heck they are talking about. pschemp | talk 07:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might help if you would cite where in policy "excessive length" is defined as "longer than the longest username currently being used". I was not under the impression that Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, at 38 characters, had set the absolute maximum permitted length, merely the record to date (if indeed that). If and when Moshe becomes inactive, will the maximum permitted length then be set by his runner-up, perhaps at 37 characters? Then 36, and downwards, as the longest-named users drop out over time? -- Ben 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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 ( [[4]] However, she continues to make false accusations based on accusations of others, which were determined to be untrue and were unfounded. [[5]] 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 DPetersontalk 23:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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??DPetersontalk 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I didn't see this earlier but I was off having a whale of a time offline this weekend. NO WAY am I an administrator, and I hope I didn't say a single word to suggest I was. I have just been keeping an eye on Grace E Dougle since experiencing her on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-BPD and I thought she seemed more stressed than anything and might respond very well to a good night's sleep and some words of advice from an experienced admin. --Zeraeph 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    DeKalb, Illinois

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]
    Agreed. If one can't take the heat, one should get out of the pan, not stoop to the same level. Zocky | picture popups 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [6], then provides a link to a "vandal list" attack page he created on his own talk as evidence [7]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. IrishGuy talk 19:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oversighted. (Oversought? Oversitten? Oversmitten?) Oh bother, disappeared! Essjay (Talk) 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the only proper term to use would be whalloped. :-) Willie Stark 20:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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. -Mask 22:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Other problematic edits [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] .... the list goes on. -Mask 22:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Smells like troll to me. JoshuaZ 00:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Any support for a nice, long vacation being imposed? -Mask
    He needs some kind of block. It would be preventative, because he's been like this even recently. I don't have enough experience with these kinds of things, but he's been warned many times and still hasn't been blocked. Leebo86 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [15], [16].--Crossmr 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    A few months ago I was the target of on-going harassment by another anonymous IP and I put together a record page which made it easier to deal with. I've done the same here [17]. This is complete give or take a few diffs (the vandalism and harassment diffs would be extensive, so I stuck to the main one regarding this) There may already be some proxying going on (which I've included on the page).--Crossmr 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    I already e-mailed this report on Spylab. I hope that someone of serious Wikipedia administrators will read this report and take serious steps in protecting the Wikipedia dignity
    Hello,
    I do understand that Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia - but still some kind of very basic ethicalrules shall be applicable and obliging to all editors.I noticed that you have a person whose nick name is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spylab and whose number of edits goes over 60 per day very often spanning 5-11 hours dayly. This person is extremely agressive and intolerant and his/her edits are causing a lot of damage and irritated many people.
    The best way to describe his/her behaviour and 'contributions' are given by a few people which can be summarised/quoted this way:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Spylab&oldid=65026476
    'I am probably from the USA and like to scrap others' contributions due to what I call "factual correctness" - instead of knowing the facts and reporting them!'
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spylab/User_talk:Spylab/archive3#What.27s_is_the_problem.3F.3F.3F
    'I've noticed that you are editing someone's contribution by altering the text under pretext of grammar corrections - not reading references at all. Moreover, not reading the references nor providing your own - you are demanding new references.
    Also, on January 12th you've made 65 edits on various articles in the span of more than 11 hours(merge, clean, copy, revert, etc). Don't you think that it might be seen as something wrong with you if you are spending day after day, hours and hours - practically not contributing anything serious to Wikipedia, only irritating many people this way???'
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism#About_Basic_Editorial_Ethics_Here
    'When seeing that the existing edition of the Croatia section here, was reduced by User:Spylab to just 6 sentences out of which four were marked by the [citation needed] tag [18]. Moreover, User:Spylab 'completed' his own 'editorial' work by adding {unreferenced|date=November 2006} and {weasel} tags on the top of this page!!! How a serious editor could tag/mark his own edits this way??? I reverted the section demanding explanation for this almost complete section destruction. Ultimately, the existing edits cannot be re-written or destroyed by just throwing claim 'replaced content with info from Neo-Nazism in Croatia because old version didn't focus on neo-Nazism' as he did.
    All my attempts to bring the editorial work on the same start and support any further editorial work with facts and serious observations - failed. Instead even willing to discuss the issue seriously, User:Spylab started throwing accusations 'last edit brok 3RR rule', 'you may be blocked' , 'sock-puppetry' etc. and selfpraising (User:Spylab) work as superior and claiming that I do not know what Neo-Nazism is. My attempt (questions) to ask him why he deleted what he deleted already - are removed from the talk page and when I've put back the deleted questions - User:Spylab ignored them completely.
    I had impression that I have to deal with an extremely cheeky and primitive personality and wondered how this person could have any access to the editirial work here. Then, I went further and examined the whole User:Spylab editorial work and noticed that User:Spylab commited more than 500 changes within 10 days i.e. more than fifty edits per day - (November 28 - December 7 2006). In that period of time [User:Spylab] was busy by the Wikipedia editing on: November 29 - 9 hours, November 30 - 16 hours (63 edits!!!) , December 1 - 18 hours, December 2 - 7 hours, December 3 - 8 hours, December 4 - 21 hours, December 5 - 12 hours, December 6 - 17 hours, and December 7 - 8 hours.
    The content of User:Spylab edits were - spelling check, version reverts, removal of links, copy-paste etc. So it is quite clearly that I had to deal with a mentally challenged person!!!
    I just wonder how it is possible that a serious publisher could allow such access to the articles to a person like User:Spylab.' As per his/her own words, as an Neo-Nazism in Croatia section editor, Spylab publicly claims
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism#Page_protection_sought
    'Actually, it's not complicated at all. The revert war has nothing to do with point of view, and I am not an expert on Croatia at all.'
    My note - how then this person should edit some subject (s)he is not familirar with? Also, all references written in Croatian and given here in the Neo-Nazism in Croatia were removed. As per Spylab question here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Nazism#Croatia:_False_claims
    Can someone explain it in plain English? Spylab 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    it is clear that (s)he does not understand Croatian!!! His/her obsession with 'correct' usage of the Caucassian vs. white does damage and irritation of other editors which is best explained here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slab_Fork%2C_West_Virginia
    'Here, it is not the problem of correct or of not correct term - rather it is of your attitude which includes: disrespect of other editors, not discussing rather 'justifying' your changes, not demonstrating effective knowledge - rather denying knowledge and pointing at 'rules', acting as ifyou have last word, as being a decision maker. That is the reason of entering into conflicts with a great number of editors (I counted at least eight of them, not including me)
    The only 'contribution' of yours - to the Wikipedia - is damage. You are not providing any reference or ever reading or understanding refererences you are trampling over. One example is here, and another in the Neo-Nazism article (subsection Croatia). --BarryMar 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)'
    The best illustartion of the Spylab 'corrections' of this type is visible here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tapa_Charmoyev&oldid=105166571
    Original text 'Caucasian highlanders' - which locates people living on the mountain Caucasus highland is replaced by Spylab Caucasian highlanders- which creates an utter nonsense due to the fact that a vey specific notion is replaced by a generic one.
    My conclusion
    • editor Spylab is apparently a mentally challenged person who spends enormous amount of his/her timeduring each day obsessed by the idea of 'correcting' and 'improving' someone's else work
    • (s)he never provided a reference and many times demanded reference after deleting the existing ones and not reading or understanding them at all
    • my experience: I've added reference which strictly not cover the text where Spylab demanded it and Spylab did not notice that the added reference is not realted to that text at all
    • it is not possible to discuss anything with Spylab nor (s)he demonstrated ever any effective and particular knowledga about subjects (s)he edited
    • Suggestion - for the sake of basic editotial standards and ethics - please, remove this person from any editorial work. It is shame on and disgrace to Wikipedia to have this person as the editor.--NovaNova 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been warned numerous times already...so you come here and write Spylab is apparently a mentally challenged person as well as tell us it is a disgrace to have Spylab as an editor? How is this evidence that you are taking the warnings seriously? IrishGuy talk 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What a heap of tripe, NovaNova. As this editor has failed to heed my warning not to continue personal attacks, I have blocked him/her for 2 days. Heimstern Läufer 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As NovaNova posted this rude missive in three different places on Wikipedia, I believe that would classify as harassment. Personally, I have no problems with the block. IrishGuy talk 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this block. About user Spylab - I've got complete psychiatrist's analysis of his behavior - based on his edits. I still cannot understand how and why it is not possible to see that someone's behavior has nothing to do with the basic editorial ethics??? Also, while writing the report which I've already e-mailed to the Wikipedia I found this 'support' to the Spylab's work:
    • he was supported publicly by a person who publicly admit suffering from a mental disorder!!!
    • Hiya, Spylab! I've never got this sort of reaction. I can only conclude that you're a better editor than I am! Keep up the good work. CWC(talk) 07:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I suffer from Bipolar Disorder Type II (a Bad Thing) with an odd twist: I have never been Manic (which is a very Good Thing).
    • How a serious publisher might ever have people like Spylab and this person on its editorial board???

    NovaNova 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At the risk of sounding rude...exactly what part of "don't make personal attacks" are you not understanding? You get blocked so you come back here and do it again? IrishGuy talk 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Disappeared. Essjay (Talk) 00:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks IrishGuy talk 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    more phone numbers

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

    And this revision and this revision. Natalie 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These have also been oversighted (sic ?) by Essjay. WjBscribe 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

    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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.115.238.8 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like you folks could benefit from some m:CheckUser. Assuming your depiction of events is true and good (I haven't looked), you could probably persuade the stewards to help you out with a few rangeblocks. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that is edit was not made by Jeffq and the user in question has removed one of your posts on this page as a "GARBAGE EDIT". It is true that this is going on on Wikiquote, but it may not be true that this is Jeffq. Cbrown1023 talk 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys want some "emergency" sysops? I'm sure we can get a few dozen volunteers to spend some time over there helping out on a short-term basis. We could verify the ownership of accounts the same way the commons picture of the year is doing it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To expand on Cbrown1023's note, 24.115.238.8 (talk · contribs) made the above post and two additional edits here:

    We are dealing with an editor who likes to annoy sysops by impersonation, and who knows enough about Wikimedia to make the impersonations credible on the surface by using sysops' names and posts from other projects. I believe this particular cross-project vulnerability should be signifcantly reduced when we get unified login working. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JB196 back again

    See the edit to my talk page, and the long term abuse report. One Night In Hackney 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser confirmed open proxy, can someone do something about his relentless trolling of my talk page please? [19] [20] [21] Thanks. One Night In Hackney 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Deaded.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Inappropriate edit summary

    Inappropriate edit summary:[22] --Doktor Who 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfectly fine, and perfectly accurate, edit summary. -Mask

    bad faith, I have more than 1500 cool edits, and Gene Poole has many more than 1500.--Doktor Who 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhammad/lead image

    I sprotected this to prevent people avoiding 3rr. Since I am arguably too closely involved in editing to be entirely objective, I would appreciate someone reviewing the action. Please un-protect or block if it seems more appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since there has not been a single act of vandalism by an anon I think this is preventative. The new and anon users have not been the primary source of disruption on this issue. But I am also involved, so I welcome other peoples opinions aswell. Who do you think is avoiding 3RR? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not I[23]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a religious issue? The whole "depictions of Muhammad cannot be shown" thing? --Cyde Weys 04:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is exactly that. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The hope was that Muhammad could be unprotected, and disputes confined to the transclusion. Now I have sprotected Muhammad also. Tom Harrison Talk 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this not be in the Talk: namespace, as traditionally anything that isn't a published article is kept out of articlespace and in talkspace? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This disruption is stemming from the very obvious sockpuppetry of editor Bbarnett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who on his user talk page vowed to keep the image of Muhammad on the article (regardless of consensus). He's using Canadian IPs (do note Bbarnett's Canadian centric editing outside of the Muhammad article) to circumvent 3RR because he knows he'll be blocked again for that. (→Netscott) 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Were there any remaining doubt...[24].Proabivouac 04:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the admitted nature of this editor sockpuppeting I've filed a 3RR report citing the sockpuppetry. (→Netscott) 05:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, wouldn't all this image stuff be nicely covered under Wikipedia is not censored? -Mask 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple socks vandalising Ibagué

    Ibagué is being vandalised by multiple socks some of them have been blocked already but some have not.--ChesterMarcol 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article semiprotected and socks blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Apostrophe

    User:Apostrophe Keeps on trolling me, annoying me, and reverting my edits to Kingdom Hearts II. I attempt to talk to him on his talk page, and he removes my comments completely. I am often insulted by this user,a nd he's getting on my last nerve. Perhaps a block is in order? Toajaller3146 05:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, this user is intent on adding [25] (3RR violations in this page which he was blocked twice for) to another page (and editors besides me had removed it). If he doesn't get his way, he often resorts to silly applications of policy, such as "warning" users that he disagrees with about vandalism/trolling and threatens to report them to an admin. To be blunt, my patience is low and I'm not going to use kid gloves for this guy. ' 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I sort of have to to fix your Bullshit, don't i? Besides, i was told to add the FN promo to that page.-Toajaller3146 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User is currently banned for 3RR and harassment. ' 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors concerned could afford to read WP:CIVIL a few times, IMHO. Heimstern Läufer 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Huaiwei and Instantnood, continued revert-warring in violation of probation

    Earlier discussion here of disputed behaviour by Huaiwei and Instantnood seemed to stall while a RFAr filing was attempted, seeking a "refined" sanction: that's now been declined, on the basis of adequacy of the existing probation remedies applying to both. Accordingly, I've given notice of enforcement of probation remedies (page bans), and raised the issue of enforcement of "general probation" sanctions (site bans), at the arbitration enforcement page. Please comment there. Alai 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liftarn

    User:Liftarn, has both ignored and erased a double warning tag on his talk pageerasing warnings,not accepting source improvement and continues to disupte descriptions to images even when they are generic - "nazi word as OR" Nazi images made by artist:[26][27][28][29] etc. would appreciate some admin intervention on this "dispute". Jaakobou 20:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks more like a content dispute then something that needs an admin, unless the escalation persists. dispute resolution is down the hall, second door on the left, that would probably do you a lot more good. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think dispute resolution would be fitting once an admin intervention is introduced to the warning removals... your thoughts? Jaakobou 10:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're allowed to remove material from your own talk page if you like. It's still preserved in the history, so if someone prefers not to leave a message on his/her talk page that's fine. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 10:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but if you remove warnings, you should take them to heart not ignore them. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see where he's coming from with the OR tag. It cites several pages in one tag which are usually not considered reliable sources. Besides, a lot of links are on the same domain, can't you link to the index page listing all the images instead of citing all the images separately. It would certainly cut down on needless links. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DeanHinnen

    I guess I am involved party these days, so would someone with no history with the guy please go and sort out DeanHinnen (talk · contribs) in respect of his disruption at Peter Roskam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he is in an "everybody else is wrong" edit war. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full proctection applied until there is movement on his arbitration case. Thatcher131 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JoJo and Too Little Too Late

    Just a warning... the subject of these articles has been repeatedly editing them under the following user names:

    and I expect she will continue to edit these articles. Please see the history of the article. --Suzannemcguire1980 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why would a popstar bother editing Wikipedia? They've got other stuff to do with their time. Also, please link to some objectionable edits, because I haven't found any in the 3 edits I checked. - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is her, no doubt about it. Had it confirmed this morning. The truth is exposed. --Suzannemcguire1980 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You shouldn't put up notices that someone is blocked when they aren't. And if it is confirmed, please point to the Checkuser case that verified it. Numerous of those edits you mention were disparaging of JoJo. I doubt she'd say that about herself. Please point me to that evidence.- Mgm|(talk) 12:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLP concern

    Barrywelham1009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in adding information to the Cheryl Cole article stating that she is a closet lesbian and involved in some type of secret gay marriage. As this information seems to me controversial, and the only "source" cited by its author doesn't even mention Cheryl Cole, I have been reverting it, I can't find a thing on this except some rumor-mill type stuff. However, I would like this to be evaluated by someone, unless I'm correct and this is a BLP issue I would be violating 3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have acted entirely correct and I do not see a violation of 3RR as you are removing unsourced and such material from a BLP article. --Fredrick day 12:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly a troll - check out this edit summary - can an admin step in with a block so we don't all waste our afternoon's reverting this nonsense. --Fredrick day 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from WP:BLP, this is just nasty vandalism. Willie Stark "Believe in Me!" 12:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=111066877"