User talk:Yamla

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 12. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Vanessa

Well, there is some idiot pretending to be her on Staroll! If she was a member it would say it along with her MySpace page and what not! -Bronzeshurtugal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bronzeshurtugal (talk • contribs) 00:15, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Hi

Hey wats up. Redhead911

And again

Here. Are you as tired of this as I am? Precious Roy 01:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another admin was considering honouring her right to vanish (which we do not normally extend to banned users). Looks like that probably won't happen now. --Yamla 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. I thought an admin was trying to arrange a semi-graceful exit for her that included blanked (not deleted) pages. Guess that wasn't happening quick enough for her liking. I know that after tonight's hijinks, I won't be blanking my sockproblems page any time soon. (And I have a backup copy off-wiki, anyway.) You would not believe the size of the barnstar I'm building for you for once this is over (it will be over at some point, won't it?). Precious Roy 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping it will be over soon. Really, if she would just prove that she has every intention of leaving, that'd be enough for us to blank some of her pages. At the moment, though, she has shown fairly consistently that she has no intention of leaving and indeed every intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia articles, as you are well aware. And that's not even touching on her other claims. --Yamla 02:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiranjeevi Page

Could you block the Chiranjeevi page from editing , because some guys are trying to modify the contents with some bad words. Please keep a hold on the editing of this page for some days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlnarayana (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be that the problem is the spam. I've blocked the spammer. --Yamla 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spammers targeted the page very much.It would be good to put a hold on editing the page for some days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlnarayana (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

151.199.193.94

Hi. I saw where you unblocked 151.199.193.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) a few days ago because of the collateral damage. I have reblocked it (anon only) for additional vandalism. This shouldn't be a dynamic IP and it shouldn't be used by multiple households, so it's probably two siblings on there. Feel free to change as you see fit. --B 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casper

Can't believe I forgot to add that one. Thanks! Precious Roy 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlubClub

I blocked following a strong suspicion that the account has been compromised, this account was actually created before EverybodyHatesChris and edited in December 2006 for the last time before its current comeback, now the reasoning for my suspicion is the following, as can be seen on Judge Judy's history [1] for the last weeks EHC has been using the exact same editing pattern via several sock accounts, on October 15 I blocked Maleman19 a self confessed sock account, this account's last action was to threaten to "come back under another name in a few hours ". Then after just fours hours of the block on Maleman19, FlubClub decided to come out of its year-long retirement and continue the exact same pattern previously present in EHC's sockpuppet accounts, not that I won't consider unblocking if evidence against it is presented but the chances of a account coming out of a retirement this long to continue a edit pattern presented by sockpuppet accounts of another user just appear to be very slim. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. --Yamla 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block at the Fellowship of Friends page

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Fellowship of Friends. --Yamla 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today I asked you a question on the Talk page of the FOF: "Yamla, yesterday you said "There's been a discussion on my talk page but please feel free to move the discussion here instead" and today you said "All further discussion should take place on WP:COIN, please". Could you explain where are we supposed to discuss this issue?" Could you take a look? Thanks! Mfantoni 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout

An user is adding a fake cover to Britney Spears' Blackout. This user called me a cunt. Charmed36 02:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. --Yamla 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Edits

Hello Yamla, as you noticed there are frequent vandal attacks on Chiranjeevi's page. Would it be possible to block the edits on this page on a temporary basis? Just wondering... Regards, Mspraveen 08:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm getting several complaints about this. Will do. --Yamla 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for condescending! :) Regards, Mspraveen 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Block

Thank you so very much. I did also bring up the fact that it seems the automatic block was set up by Guanaco and in his User Talk section it states quite clearly that "This user may have left Wikipedia. Guanaco has not edited Wikipedia using this account since November 19, 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking the assistance of this user on this page, you may need to approach someone else." Not sure if the administrators want to do something about it. JCSR 15:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)JCSR[reply]

Not really much we can do. Still, the unblock and unblock-auto requests are monitored by a number of admins so it shouldn't be a huge problem. --Yamla 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who else?

Guess the talk page for 142.205.212.203 needs protecting. Precious Roy 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it is, but: Claraparks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Precious Roy 21:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 68.94.96.54 and report of threat to Plano PD

Thank you for catching this one and taking the serious action you did. You should know that IP address connects to Mmbabies, and that we've been dealing with him since at least February of this year. He's a long term vandal and has a long term abuse page stating his aggresive editing patterns, including his own world for Houston TV and many other death threats against singers and actors, especially Christian singers. We also coordiate on WikiProject Television Stations since most of his vandalism is directed towards TV topics. Thank you again. Nate 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tweety21's latest sock

Just to make sure you have a good day, I thought I'd let you know that she's back (and vandalizing) as Claraparks‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). :) Ward3001 23:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely accused of vandalism (the term 'wardrobe malfunction')

I'd appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of 'vandalizing' when I remove bias-like content, and rewrite a few lines from an article. --p4 04:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)P4poetic[reply]

Image talk:Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg

That title above is malformed. Please move that page to Image talk:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg for me, then delete it. 75.36.251.163 04:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I posted here two days ago. The title (Image talk:Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg) has an additional, spurious "Image:" prefix after the "Image talk:" namespace. The correct title of the non-existant talk page of Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg is Image talk:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg. You left a message, however, on a wrong page here (please double-check the header above). As an IP user, I cannot move the page. Please do that for me. 75.36.251.163 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion?

I'm not involved enough to care if this is pursued, but I thought you might be interested if you're not already aware of it, as the blocking admin and a contributor to the relevant RfA.

One of the pages on my watchlist is the disambiguation page Libero. Shortly before his last block, User:Daddy Kindsoul made several edits, which were reverted by another user as they conflicted with WP:MOSDAB guidelines regarding pipelinks. The edits in question are here and here.

Today, this edit was made by User:Soprani. As can be seen by their edit histories (Soprani's oldest edits versus Daddy Kindsoul's block log), he began contributing to Wikipedia approximately eleven hours after User:Daddy Kindsoul was blocked. Given that their interests coincide so broadly—Italian football clubs, and a dislike of WP's use of the words "football" and "soccer" (see their respective contributions to football (soccer) and football (word), noticed via the Kate's tool edit counter)—I thought this to be an eyebrow raising co-incidence.

There may be further evidence, or even other usernames, but as I said, I'm not really bothered enough to chase it down myself. --DeLarge 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, calling me a vandal in two edit summaries (here and here) got me bothered enough. Further evidence to consider would be (a) the way both users are so interested in attaching the {{Infobox Football biography}} to article talk pages: Soprani vs Daddy Kindsoul, and (b) their shared interest in A.S. Bari (revision history).

I guess I could start monitoring their respective linguistic patterns next, looking for common spellings, words, phrases, etc... --DeLarge 19:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the same person, I'll block immediately. --Yamla 15:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the Daddy Kindsoul issue, and I know you ou are eligible to revert all of his edits according to our current policies due to his indefblock, but in any case some of such contributions were actually valuable, so I would have first had a look at them before rollbacking it all. --Angelo 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:DENY, I'm rolling back everything with a rollback button. If you find any of these rollbacks were valuable contributions, please feel free to reinstate them under your own authority. I placed a note on WP:ANI about my blocking. --Yamla 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'm gonna have a look at them all. --Angelo 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you might at least wait and check before deleting all the pictures he uploaded, as almost all of them are actually valid and valuable images. Let me also note WP:DENY is an essay. --Angelo 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are but I had already removed them by the time you commented. Yes, WP:DENY is only an essay but this editor is particularly abusive and needs to know that setting up additional sockpuppet accounts, as he has done several times today already, will not help him out at all. --Yamla 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've seen it yet, but you'll need to hit Banadara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SpringInOctober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well :-( --Pak21 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else caught these already. --Yamla 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destrasinistra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well... --Pak21 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Revelinit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); not actually vandalising as yet, but I don't think it will be long. --Pak21 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked. I'll try to keep up but I may not note additional blocks here as the sockpuppets are coming too quickly. --Yamla 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thanks for your work. I've got to leave now, but I believe there's at least one other editor on the case... Cheers --Pak21 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Corfu

Nice revert Yamla. Thank you. Dr.K. 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ArgentinaFootball.png removal

You have removed "Image:ArgentinaFootball.png". I do not question the motives (which I do not fully know) but be advised that it was used in Template:User WikiProject Argentine football so it has now broken many pages that use the template. I have posted a note in the Template's Talk page for interested people to come up with a replacement. We do need something for the Wikiproject, unless you reconsider the deletion. Have a good day. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was uploaded by an abusive sockpuppet of a blocked vandal. I'll take a look at just removing the image from the template. A replacement image would obviously be a better fix, though. --Yamla 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, just wanted to notify you that 86.151.116.92 has vandalized again (Electronic Oscillator; I already undid it). Maybe one has to block that person (I don't know how to do that, just wanted to let you know).

Someone to block.

Hi Yamla, just wanted to notify you that 86.151.116.92 has vandalized again (Electronic Oscillator; I already undid it). Maybe one has to block that person (I don't know how to do that, just wanted to let you know). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.147 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for comment

The user might be very obviously guilty but I haven't studied the matter. He has the right to request unblock. You haven't acted on the request which is the ethical thing to do since you blocked him. (Good for you!) How did you determine sockpuppetry? Uetz 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fair amount of evidence of sockpuppetry, not least that this user set up the account hours after the prior account was blocked and immediately resumed editing the same articles. More damning, this user has edited a number of images uploaded by the other account. There's a fair amount of overlap between the two accounts generally, actually, and the editing style is identical. And then there's the explosion of sockpuppetry and abuse from other confirmed sockpuppet accounts once I blocked this one. The sockpuppetry wasn't previously a callsign of Daddy Kindsoul/Deathrocker but the abuse most certainly was (and was why those accounts were blocked numerous times over the past two years and why the RfA eventually happened). --Yamla 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're being stalked...

...by Shakeitlikeitshot (talk · contribs). Check out his/her contribs. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), a banned vandal. --Yamla 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Verbian (talk · contribs). Though the COA you are reverting to are rotten. --Rumping 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently unblocked me because I have the same dial up address as a blocked user - Can't sleep clown will eat me. Then the box with the unblock was changed to say my request was declined, followed by a message from Clown to email him. Had the same problem with user Ryulong and got a box saying I was not autoblocked and my request was declined, with another message asking me to email Clown. Am I being spammed? I certainly don't want to give this clown my email address. I managed to unblock myself by disconnecting and reconnecting to the internet. This is what I usually do when I get a blocked message concerning another user. Is there anything I can do about the repeated false blocks and also getting this clown off my back? Thanks Moon Rising 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dial up blocks and I think I'm getting spam

You recently unblocked me because I have the same dial up address as a blocked user - Can't sleep clown will eat me. Then the box with the unblock was changed to say my request was declined, followed by a message from Clown to email him. Had the same problem with user Ryulong and got a box saying I was not autoblocked and my request was declined, with another message asking me to email Clown. Am I being spammed? I certainly don't want to give this clown my email address. I managed to unblock myself by disconnecting and reconnecting to the internet. This is what I usually do when I get a blocked message concerning another user. Is there anything I can do about the repeated false blocks and also getting this clown off my back? Thanks Moon Rising 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Clown" is an admin. The blocked user will be someone else. I can assure you that it is perfectly safe to email him. However, if you are able to leave a message here on my talk page, it means you are not currently blocked. --Yamla 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clown's name kept coming up when I saw a block - I thought he was the one blocked, I guess he was doing the blocking. He's got such a great name!--Moon Rising 00:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:COIN

Yamla, I reopened the FOF IP range block case since no decision has been made. Meanwhile, 70 people are unable to edit any Wikipedia page using the Fellowship connection. That doesn't sound fair to me. Mfantoni 05:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]