Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive103

User:SPUI move warring (shocking, I know!)

So I create a page,[1] and then SPUI comes right along and moves it,[2] despite many, many warnings that moving these pages pending resolution of the dispute is a blockable offense.[3] Is there anyone here who entertains even a fraction of a shadow of a doubt that he's going to move any other pages that I create, thumbing his noses at you guys yet again, if he is not blocked for this stunt? —phh (^t/_c) 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to check, you're absolutely certain that creating pages like that given the current situation isn't just a teensy bit provocative? —Phil | Talk 21:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been creating missing pages, one every few days, in numerical order, for several months[4] [5] [6] [7] [8], so I would have to say… no. It is true that I chose a name that is consistent with the standard that was in place before Freakofnurture moved them all in what appears to have been a deliberate attempt to be disruptive regarding a matter that's currently before the ArbCom because of his and SPUI's actions. I was asked, and agreed, not to try and move the pages back in the meantime, and so I haven't. But I certainly have no intention of rewarding Freakofnurture's and SPUI's bad behavior by adopting their pet naming convention when I create entirely new articles. I've put a lot of time into creating missing articles for the WP:WASH project, since long before SPUI decided to start move warring with everyone, and I don't intend to allow two editors' disruptive behavior to stop me from continuing to do so. —phh (^t/_c) 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

While it may have provoked SPUI into moving by creating these new articles at the name he current says we're all stupid for using, that's no reason to for him to go on a move spree, AGAIN. JohnnyBGood t c 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope - nothing wrng with his creation of these. The naming conflict shouldn't affect the writing of articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't be the only person thinking that arguing over whether the word Washington goes before or after the words State Route can scarcely be worth the wear and tear on keyboards, hard drives and fibreoptic cables that this dispute is causing. The Land 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims

I have deleted User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims as it was listing Users by Username as having persecuted Muslims because of actions taken on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good delete, fair play. Snoutwood (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, a permblock may be an order, but then again, I am not an administrator. Could someone promote me for all the good advice I've placed on this board? And my roommate would like one too, because he has been invaluable at helping me research these matters.Transcendetitized Artist 17:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to step out of line up there, but my roommate is one of those people that thinks he knows everything. He told me to ask for a promotion on this board. I told him that this was the wrong board! Sorry.Transcendetitized Artist 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of action needs to be taken against this user; he's just not "getting it". Also, Transcendetitized Artist needs to be blocked indef ... it's our favorite, the ANI troll, again. --Cyde↔Weys 17:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting: I am well aware, that you have the power to block editors for vandalism any time you assume bad faith.[9] And I am well aware, that Zoe did not intend to persecute Muslims, but blocked them, because he wanted the cartoons to stay in the article.[10] Since I'm obligated to assume good faith, I consider the persecution as collateral damage. Furthermore I am well aware, that you have the power to censor critique on administrators.[11] Raphael1 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"I wonder what it is, that I'm not getting:" I think it's WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:AGF and WP:NPA mean, that any critique on administrators is prohibited? Raphael1 02:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusing any user of "persecution of Muslims" is a personnal attack, not a critique. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never accused anyone. "Persecution of Muslims" has been the title of the article in which I've listed editors, who have been blocked for (re)moving the cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. I'd consent to change the title to "Victims of the J-P cartoons controversy article", but I'm not sure whether I'd still be blocked indefinitely. Raphael1 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not try working to create an encyclopedia instead of editorializing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that you'd feel more comfortable, if I'd forget about it. OTOH there are currently at least four editors unwarrantedly blocked, who could not only help writing articles, but they could help balance the bias too (which is IMHO even more important). Please tell me: Do you want a neutral encyclopedia or do you want to block editors for not sharing your POV? Raphael1 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have another question ... can we just block Raphael1 and get it over with? He's clearly not going to change his ways. --Cyde↔Weys 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, with the exception of this incident, some spamming and some repetitive (read vandalistic) image altering on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (with corresponding neverending talk about how they need to be removed/hidden/etc.) Raphael1's editing hasn't been the perfect example of a truly disruptive editor. This list making does strike me as a bit egregious but only due to the language he used for the title and the fact that it wasn't done in a public "RfC" style format and he was spamming a select group of other editors talk pages to inform them about it. At this point the only reason that I could possibly see for blocking Raphael1 would fall under the "exhausting the community's patience" clause of the blocking policy... but imho that reasoning isn't currently applicable. If you're serious Cyde, I'd suggest you start with an RfC and go from there but unless Raphael1 repeats the behavior I'm mentioning here (for which he'd merit serious blockage), I'd say it's too soon. Netscott 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to know, that I've just filed a Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims. Raphael1 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jones/JJstroker

Usernames:

• Jerry Jones (talk · contribs)
• JJstroker (talk · contribs)
• 68.126.232.191 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.180.37 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.185.95 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.243.216 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.245.179 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.255.2 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.12.137 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.15.213 (talk · contribs)

• 71.131.176.109 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.178.83 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.203.101 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.214.151 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.234.218 (talk · contribs)
• 71.131.254.118 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.13.65 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.16.64 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.21.184 (talk · contribs)
• 71.132.8.144 (talk · contribs)

Problems:

• Plagiarism: On many occasions this user has copied material verbatim, has revert-warred in order to re-insert the information, and a couple of times has used sources to make it appear that the writing is his own. Three of the excerpts were copied from Professor Kevin B. MacDonald, whose work has been called "anti-semitic" by commentators from across the political spectrum. Due to this editor, virtually an entire article, Immigration Act of 1924, has been copied from MacDonald and from an article in American Renaissance (magazine) (another fringe source).
  • [12][13][14] from [15]
  • [16][17] from [18]
  • [19] from [20]
  • [21] from [http://www.amren.com/0304issue/0304issue.html]
  • [22] from [23].
  • [24] from [25]
  • [26] from[27]
  • [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] from [38]

• POV: The editor has worked to identify Jewish people [39][40][41][42][43][44] and insert derogatory information about them,[45][46][47][48][49][50], as well as Democrats and African Americans.[51][52] while at the same time promoting Neo-nazi groups and sympathizers,[53][54][55] and removing critical information about them.[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]
• Here [67] he removes the entire list of Polish American criminals, saying the article needs to be shortened and only positive stuff should be included, while here [68] he fights against the deletion of List of Jewish American criminals and victims, saying every group has its criminals and they shouldn't be hidden.

• • HE MAY HAVE A POINT HERE, if a list of criminals were added under "Jewish Americans", many of you would object. How is that fair and NPOV to include Polish criminals only? Anyone?75.0.145.231 07:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's another issue. The point here is that he single-handedly removed the Polish American criminals list while working against deletion of the simialr Jewish American list - a double standard, and, in the case of his removal of the Polish American list, a precipitous act. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• POINT: After insisting that "far right" and "racist" were not terms that should be allowed in articles because we should "allow the reader to decide for themselves",[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] he inserted "far left" into a number of articles. [77][78][79][80]

• • AGAIN, HE MAY HAVE A POINT. How can the term "far left" be controversial as applied to those organizations? Wikipedia should treat the issue fairly and equally.75.0.145.231 07:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And again, the double standard he has implemented is in his removals of "far right" from some articles, while including "far left" in others. The double standard is the issue. Pinkville 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Other problems include a combative approach to editing and removing source requests without answering them.

Solutions

• The edit warring over plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor until we can straighten out the improper edits. -Will Beback 10:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a block is warranted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to cherry pick my edits and then show pages of edits and take them out of context and show pages from another account go ahead and ban me. It's not like you will let me defend myself anyways because you continually ignore what I have to say. You just have rocks in your head. You do not follow through with wikiNPOV policy and you continually put your opinions in the article because its common censensus among leftists. I even showed you my reasoning from wiki NPOV policy and you didnt even respond. With all due respect you are probably one of the dumbest people I have ever met in my life. I am going to make 5 edits right now applying what I am doing to "racist" articles and "Far right" articles and watch them get reverted. Just look at my next 5 edits. Jerry Jones 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You certainly may defend yourself. What do you say about the plagiarism? -Will Beback 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, making personal attacks while a flock of admins are eyeing you with blocking on their minds is not the wisest course of action available to you. It continually puzzles me why people think prefacing an attack with "with all due respect" somehow means it's not an attack - apparently by magic. It is probably already too late, but I strongly recommend you reverse course, and explain your actions civilly. I assure you, no matter what you think, if you make your case cogently and civilly, it will be listened to. Kasreyn 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've run into the same editor, and noticed similar issues. He continually insists on inserting edits insinuating that "Jews are commies" [81] [82] Here's another "Jews are commies" edit: [83] Note, the source he is using actually says the Jews and communists are separate groups: J. Edgar Hoover said the Front was planning to murder Jews, communists and “a dozen Congressmen. Not only that, he is obsessed in general with identifying people as Jews, particularly as left-wing or liberal Jews. Here are a sample of his edits as Jerry Jones: [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]

He's also been sockpuppeting, as User:JJstroker, making the same kinds of edits: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] etc.

As well, when he's not identifying people as Jews, he's whitewashing Nazis and right-wing groups, insisting that the Nazis weren't racist. Here is a classic edit in which he insists that the Nazis were not racist, but rather just patriots defending Germany from Jewish Bolshevism.

Even more disturbing is his lying about his editing. When confronted with the fact that he has been continually identifying people as "Jews" etc., he denied it, even after being shown the evidence (of which the links above are only a small part). He has also continually denied sockpuppeting as JJstroker, even though his edits make it obvious, and it has been confirmed by a CheckUser. This, combined with his multiple copyright violations, makes it clear there is a fundamental dishonesty here that makes his editing incompatible with Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of this behavior in isolation I probably wouldn't censure. The copyvios are bad, but he seems to plead ignorance that he copied too much or didn't properly attribute; that could be fixed. But, all of it taken together, along with his weak responses (especially saying Will is "one of the dumbest people" he's ever met) -- well, I think it's a pretty damning portrait of a user with a certain agenda. The continual whitewashing of "racist" (to include changing "racist" to "racialist") and removal of critical information from the SPLC is what swayed me, and the throwing stones to hide his hands doesn't help. We don't need to waste time cleaning up after someone who edits in this fashion. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've yet to see anything constructive come from from this editor, but no shortage of disruption. Time for that to stop. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is sufficient reason to block this editor. Adding improperly sourced material is a problem in any case. Doing it after explanation of policy and warning makes it completely unacceptable behavior and destructive to the mission of the 'pedia. FloNight ^talk 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding ignorance of copyright and plagiarism, there are numerous threads on user talk:JJstroker about copied material. He has referred repeatedly to the plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr. [113][114] so he is familiar with the concept of plagiarism. When asked to source the material he never indicated where he'd obtained it and instead gave original references from the original source as if he'd done the research himself. He wrote " I did a lot of work please do not remove it"[115] when defending one of the copied sections. That shows he's consciously lying about the copying. -Will Beback 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: If the user engages in any more plagiarism or whitewashing, indefinitely block the user. JoshuaZ 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the evidence above is fairly overwhelming, but I'll just chime in that in my personal experience with this user agrees with the above, especially in regards to his POV-pushing. The edits to the "Racism" page linked above are classic -- first he removes a statement saying that the Nazis' racial policies had some role in the Holocaust. Then in its place he adds a line about how the Nazis believed the Jews were Bolsheviks. When this gets reverted, he asks innocently on the talk page why people didn't like his edits, and tries to argue that he was just trying to counter the idea that racism necessarily leads to a Holocaust-like situation, which was clearly not what the page said and not what his edits were trying to do. Personally I think he's an obvious and pernicious hardcore POV-pusher, and I am sure it is only a matter of time until he is blocked permanently. My only hope is that it won't take a long RfA to do so, since his behavior is so blatantly unacceptable. --Fastfission 01:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76#User:JJstroker uploading problem images for old discussion. Sorry, I can't contribute at this time. -- ADNghiem501 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that JJ is a highly disruptive editor. I think that he was given more than enough chances to correct and would support an indefinite ban. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First sock puppet: USHistory (talk · contribs) -Will Beback 11:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE Everyone this is Jerry Jones. I'm disappointed to see that I have been banned and I wasn't even able to defend myself. When the committee was making a decision I was very busy. I came back and I have found that I was banned. I called Will Beback stupid out of frustration. I feel that it was an accurate description of his actions. He reverted my edits continually for having a difference of opinion (Which is fine) but I contacted him many times to handle the situation like gentlemen and I was continually ignored. After my attempts to handle our issues in a decent respectful way he weaseled behind my back and did everything in his power to get me banned. I do not feel bad one bit about the remark and I felt that it was deserved. If he wants to act like a gentleman I would be more then happy to take it back because I am not here to be disruptive and cause problems. I want to contribute to wikipedia and address any issues that anyone has with me and cooperate fully.

I don't deny that I removed "far right" and "racist" from many articles. I even removed "far left" from several leftist articles but Will Beback didn't mention that in his campaign to get me banned. It simply wasn’t necessary to remove far left from such articles because it wasn’t stated to the extent as far right articles. I removed it for a variety of reasons:

1-I believe it takes away from the quality of the article. I think you should show why they are racist and not tell them. Courtesy of wiki NPOV policy:

Let the facts speak for themselves Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

This is the same exact thing for the word racist and breaks wiki NPOV policy. It takes away from the article to say "The KKK was a racist" and that is why I removed it. You should let the information speak for itself as wiki NPOV tells us to do. Will also didn’t mention that I left that the KKK preached racism in the article and I only removed one use of the word racist. I think the reader should be left to make up their own minds because it is an opinion whether we like to accept it or not. Should I go write for the Adolf Hitler article that he was a "racist far right" politician? It makes the article seem amateur and it's obvious. Don’t tell the reader show the reader. I told Will several times that I do not object to him adding whatever he needs to add to prove that Hitler and the KKK were racist. In fact I encouraged him to do so because I believed it added to the content quality of the articles so I don’t see why it was such a big deal. Will also made it seem that I removed everything and anything that made certain Nazis seem bad but that is not true. I was accused of moving the word "racist" from many articles but what Will failed to state was in the articles where I would remove racist I would actually leave other use of the word racist in the same articles. The plagiarism issue was discussed. In the 1924 immigration article I cited Nuerengers work in the disputed paragraph and added references. I didn't think it was a problem. If I wanted to pass it off as my own I certainly wouldn’t have cited the work as Nuerengers let alone add him as a reference. The rest of the work was from the official congressional record which is free for public use. I have had a thousand something edits and Will chose to cherry pick certain edits and took them totally out of context and completely ignored the reasons why I did it and portrayed me like I was doing it just to tick people off and be a disruptive editor. I feel that it was very unfair to ban me without letting me defend myself. I felt that I was a good wikipedian and I contributed much to wikipedia and I feel that the majority of my work was good. I will be happy to address any issues that you have but please focus on my Jerry Jones account. I will also leave voluntarily but I would just atleast like to defend myself.

Woofie 13:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, several points. 1) No one has impeded you from defending yourself - isn't that what you're doing right now? And haven't you made numerous comments and replies in reference to these issues on many different talk pages throughout Wikipedia? 2) There isn't a tally sheet for users' edits, if you've made a thousand edits of which 950 are acceptable and 50 involve plagiarism, POV violations, etc. it doesn't mean that you come out on top! Those 50 (or however many) errant edits are unacceptable and undermine (amongst other things) the worth of whatever good edits you may have made. 3) Regarding the Neuringer/MacDonald plagiarism issue, both Will Beback and I (and possibly others elsewhere) explained to you that when quoting word-for-word from other people's work you must use quotation marks, otherwise you are effectively passing their work off as your own - even if you include a parenthetical citation. How difficult is it to add " before and after a passage that you have lifted from another source? Apparently, it's impossible. 4) Without going too far into minutiae, inclusion of the word "racist" to describe groups like the KKK is appropriate since such groups' raison d'être is centred on particular and unequal conceptions of race. Regardless, "racist", "far right", "far left" and other descriptive terms have to be employed on a case-by-case basis - they may be appropriate in some articles and not in others (even where they might otherwise accurately describe a given person or group). Your additions and removals of these terms, however, were made a) most times with a double standard, and b) some times arbitrarily (by your own admission). Either way, that kind of editing is contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice. 5) Your summary of your dealings with Will Beback is diverting, but hardly borne out by the record. I have read most of the exchanges between the two of you and have no problem describing Will Beback as patient, constructive, open and fair. In your comments I see occasional semblances of attempts to be constructive, but more often obstinacy, duplicity, defensiveness and rudeness. Even now you refer to Will Beback's actions as stupid and claim that he ignored you (patently false) and weaselled behind your back (again, false). My final point is this, if you should find your way back on to Wikipedia (and it seems you've already found another handle, Woofie, to do so), are we all going to have to go through this process again? How many times has it been now, anyway? I count 21 different usernames (anonymous included) for you on this page alone. This seems to be more than a repeated pattern and almost a plan. If some part of you really is interested in constructive work here on Wikipedia would you please just make use of it, and recognise that any destructive actions will be noticed and dealt with - yet again. Pinkville 14:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar update: new sockpuppet meets naive admin

Community banned user Thewolfstar's new sock Dot_Bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked. (Her obvious sock/meatpuppet Lamb_of_god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already was.) Either username or sock-ness would separately be enough for an indefinite block, and Thewolfstar has even confirmed that Dot Bitch is her account. I apologize to the community for inadvertently enabling yet another soapbox for Thewolfstar by engaging in dialogue with her on User talk:Dot Bitch. In my block message, I advised her to get another account, edit harmlessly, keep her head down, and not draw attention to herself. She spoke gently at first, thanked me, and, well, then things started to go downhill; it's all in the History if anyone's interested. I guess I learned something. :-( The talkpage has now been protected, by User:Andrew Norman, and I've blanked Thewolfstar's rants from it. I won't be caught that way again — not by this user — though I hope to remain capable of extending even unreasonable last chances to problem users in general. Anyway, I advise any admin who might be tempted to assume good faith in dealing with any future incarnation of Thewolfstar to take a look at the development of User talk:Dot Bitch first. It's instructive. Bishonen | talk 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Happens. Meh. Thanks for keeping us up to date. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Newest sockpuppet: User:Laplander. She apparently got logged out, because she continued editing as User:24.161.21.22, posting a long and convoluted message to User talk:Jimbo Wales calling for Thewolfstar to be unblocked and the many corrupt admins to be sacked. This is based on my review of the contributions of Laplander and User:24.161.21.22 . I've blocked Laplander indefinitely and the IP temporarily. Review of my decision is welcome. FreplySpang 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL block

[116] - this blocked user must have been using AOL since I am getting autoblocked. Please help 64.12.116.65 15:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This probably seems insensitive, but If you get off AOL and get another ISP and it probably won't happen again. You might even save a lot of money! Due to how AOL works we have to sometimes block IPs used by multiple users to protect ourselves. We recognize that you may not be the one to blame, but we still get attacked. --mboverload@ 00:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right...that is pretty insensitive. --InShaneee 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

=( --mboverload@ 00:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You might find Advice to AOL users page to be helpful. FreplySpang 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin Jargon

I wish admins wouldn't use jargon (windtalking?) which us users don't understand. Someone asked me to provide a "diff". I see "sock" immediately above. This stuff seems to have only crept in over the last few months. Wallie 18:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would only say 'sock' if I'd already said 'sockpuppet' or made it a piped link to WP:SOCK. However, the word 'diff' is in everyone's watchlist and contributions list and is the accepted technical term (see Help:Diff), so it can't and shouldn't really be avoided. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Glossary is a handy page. It's a necessary evil to have some specialized jargon in any field—having to explain what a 'diff' is every time we use the term would be too cumbersome. If you see something you don't understand, feel free to jump in and ask. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the previous posts to ANI by this user. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What's to note. I don't use jargon. (not that I'm aware of.) Thanks. Wallie 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to your attempted scolding above -- but I also suspect you knew that already. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. Scolding obviously didn't work. I left a note on her page too, re that I must trying to keep on topic, but I thought it was funny. Wallie 18:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe you should consider taking it up. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMG! OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! - Mailer Diablo 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Genau. Wallie 04:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

German isn't easier to understand than jargon (unless of course it is). -lethe ^{talk +} 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That one is. Means exactly. WP:FU in that link had me worried. Means Fair Use. Used to mean something else in my day, eg, SNAFU. Wallie 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've taken my point. This is English Wikipedia, and it's harder for people to look up German words than it is to look up wikipedia-specific acronyms (which usually have wikipedia namespace shortcuts). People might not even know that "genau" is German, and even if they do, they might not know where to find a good online German dictionary (no, not wiktionary). So you've committed the very sin that you're complaining about, using language that isn't readily understandable to everyone here, and I think your transgression is worse. It violates policy (WP:UE). Luckily I speak German, so I can communicate with admins and Wallie. Want to hire me as your translator? -lethe ^{talk +} 05:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Salary. One barnstar a week. Wallie 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not really trolling, Ryan. Too much overtime at the VDU? The question has been answered. The rest is just chit chat. No harm in that. Deleting it is unnecessary, and with that comment. It will die naturally soon. Thanks. Wallie 18:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What Ryan are you talking to, and how did this post get to the bottom again? Are you talking to yourself? I think admin jargon is the least of your worries. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Might seem that way. Refer to log timestamped 7:11 24 May 2006. Thanks. Wallie 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

post removed by Ryan_Delaney (talk · contribs). -lethe ^{talk +} 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Exicornt Vandal

Curt-SchiIIing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note spelling is two capital i's instead of the L's), Curtis_S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), imitating all the worst early behavior of EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my opinion, just a guess, this isn't actually Eddie). Editing from an AOL address, I believe, and maybe some others too. I'm going to sleep now, but admin eyes on Crossover (rail), Exicornt, and the deleted Eddie Smith and X-junction might be helpful for catching further socks of this character. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just caught one Bunchofgrapes. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- there may be others. It's someone pushing the "exicornt" neologism, and pasting the content of that deleted article elsewhere as well. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then there are the pages Eddie_Smith, Eddie-Smith, Eddie Smith., Eddie Smith... and Bunohofgrapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)... I've also S-protected Exi--- uh, Crossover (rail). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just found and deleted two more, and blocked Dsvidortiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FWIW, he's using AOL as you can tell by the voting history here [117]. Antandrus (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also DavidOr tiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Slambo (Speak) 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

db tagged User:DavidOr tiz/exicornt. Slambo (Speak) 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. I hate blocking these (AOL collateral damage, no doubt) so if anyone has any better idea, let's hear it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also now David-wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vandal_buster_288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Y-y-yoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Kingturtel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Main modus operandi is to create redirects to Crossover (rail) from pages like Exicornt; or exicornt,, along with corresponding redirects to the talk pages. Also common is sockpuppet voting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Dragons, messing with the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt, and voting in RfAs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly the "exicornt vandal" that has been hitting various Wiktionaries for a while now; realistically, it is probably all User:EddieSegoura. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Imposters of AlexKarpman

There are a whole lot of imposters of AlexKarpman.132.70.50.117 10:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. The Land 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This user is trolling. He has a history of trying to get his whole school blocked. Just ignore him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

He is trolling, but there WERE a whole lot of impostors of User:AlexKarpman. I've been trying to investigate (see User:Woggly/Bar-Ilan vandal) but the extent is dizzying. --woggly 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User Jylenholm has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Jylenholm has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

NOTE: This user should not have been blocked. Please unblock as soon as possible. It is possible that the user's account was compromised. --Havenstone 11:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely, any unblocks should wait until after compromised accounts are confirmed 'clear' again...? Femto 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed this notice once as instructed as the vandalism has been dealt with, and the user indefinitely blocked. The user wasn't blocked by a bot as pointed out above, but by me. If the user account was compromised they have the ability to point this out on their talk page or send me an email. -- Francs2000 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: they have actually asked to be unblocked on their talk page stating that the account had been compromised, but looking at the user contributions and the short timeframe between vandalism and unblock request, an unblock just isn't going to happen. -- Francs2000 11:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Question No bot has the ability to ban, block, or I think even actually give a test vandalism message to. Someone back me up here. --mboverload@ 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Autobots can be programmed to do anything a user can do on Wikipedia, the question you should be asking is "should they have the ability to..." -- Francs2000 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Tiger-man

Tiger-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has up-loaded a string of images, none of which has a satisfactory source; I and other editors have tagged them, and the situation has been explained to him. His response has been to remove tags, replace images in articles, and engage in personal abuse. Now, however, he's gone one step further — he's gone through my contributions, removing images (whether placed by me or others) with the false summary that he's removing images without a source. As I'm involved in all the articles, by definition, would it be unacceptable for me to apply a block, or warn him that he might be blocked? If so, could someone else take the appropriate action? If not, would a block be precipitate? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a day. This is blatant WP:POINT violation, and the personal abuse is equally unacceptable. --ajn (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Abusive edits

Hello,

I'd like to report vandalism (as in edits) to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.I.T.C.H.

A guest with IP address 85.101.33.217 editted it several times adding herself to the characters list, believing she would be in the next comic then.

We tried to reason with her, but it was of no use: we got ignorant mails in return ("Why the hell is there an edit button on it, then?"). You can read the discussion over here: http://www.tv.com/w.i.t.c.h./show/29931/a-new-guardian-/topic/13689-247766/msgs.html&msg_id=3503844

We would appreciate it very much if this user would be banned from editting the article.

Thanks in advance, Aaron van Geffen.

Please forward this to WP:AIV if you haven't already done so. 18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this ges here or not, but there is also a page dedicated to the non-existant character here, Aylin. At least I think she's non existent...don't watch the show. Anyways, it says it's up for speedy deletion, but that was a while ago, and I don't see it on the WP:SD history page. Krisorey 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Username?

I think User:Kandal the Vandal is an inappropriate user name, but I don't want to march in with a sledgehammer before checking with other admins first. (WP:USERNAME doesn't appear to explicitly ban the word "Vandal"). Comments please. --kingboyk 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that user a little while ago, but this post made me look a little more closely, and it seems that it is a positive contributor, so I'll leave a message on their talk page. Prodego ^talk 19:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The name is a bit suspicious. If someone merely identifies with the Vandals (ancient Germanic tribe), per WP:AGF I wouldn't have a problem with the name per se. OTOH, if they engage in vandalism, then the behavioral association is clear and WP:AGF is off. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they identify with off-Wiki vandalism (like the spray painting of subway cars) ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Which you see would justify a block under username policy, since vandalism is illegal! --kingboyk 15:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the saying "If you were a real Goth, where were you at the sack of Rome?" Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupidest history joke. Ever. But I'm still laughing, thanks! =D --mboverload@ 07:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as he's not using the name to make some sort of point, I don't see a problem. Chick Bowen 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Demiurge011 evading block

User:Demiurge011 is clearly a sockpuppet of User:Demiurge010 (itself the N^th sockpuppet of Ndru01 for N → ∞), created to avoid the block of Demiurge010. --Lambiam^Talk 20:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• And User:Demiurge101 and User:Demiurge110 are already lying in wait. --Lambiam^Talk 20:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Demiurge010 (result: 24h) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Demiurge011. --Lambiam^Talk

Dealing with vandalism

What is the policy regarding people who vandalize, then revert their own vandalim 6 minutes later, then apologize? It's 65.79.36.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Should they be blocked anyway? The IP is owned by a school.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we often issue a {{selftest}} tag for a first time of doing that, if it is being done repeatedly it is still disruptive to wikipedia and hence further warning and a block maybe required to prevent the disruption. --pgk^(talk) 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Pansophia and article Kaiser Permanente, return after block, 9RR, personal attacks, blanking "on departure" of user talk page with warnings...

The article was sprotected because of Pansophia's multiple adverse edits from a collection of open proxies. POV warrior now returned. Immediate action has been to set about reverting again, but also at this point inserting a link to the whale.to site which has been determined by RFC etc to not be either WP:EL or WP:RS [118]

No discussion of any of the changes in the talk page.

No response in the RFC on her conduct

Action please. Midgley 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Something should really happen here, and soon. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Any suspected open proxies should be reported to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies immediately. Chick Bowen 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We did that last time. Pansophia is, as well as blatantly using WP as a platform to launch an attack on KP (I suspect they fired her, I begin to be unsurprised) editing disruptively not least by flaunting consensus on acceptable links. I'm also tired of the personal abuse. Midgley 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"'Flouting, damnit,' he said pedantically." --Calton | Talk 00:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Flaunting his flouting. Midgley 10:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"'Dammit, dammit,' he retorted with as close to parallel structure as he could muster, lacking an adverbial form of 'parallel.'" JDoorjam Talk 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

For convenience - a link to previous discussion and block[119] Midgley 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks not sticking

Today two separate editors whom I thought I had blocked indefinitely managed to resume editing. In both cases they were already blocked when I extended the block to indefinite - I unblocked them then reblocked, but the indefinite one still didn't stick. See the contribution histories and block logs of The Middle East Conflict Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I'm N' Mad-dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Am I doing something wrong here? Just how are you supposed to extend blocks? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

An admin recently placed a one-year block on an IP address which didn't seem to "take" either (see here) - it was used a few days later. - David Oberst 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a go at fixing the Middle East Conflict Man block. I searched and destroyed all extant blocks and autoblocks on that editor, then reimposed it. Fingers crossed. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets confirmed but not blocked yet

See here. This vandal is a repeat offender with an active farm. As directed by Essjay, I am reporting this incident here. Anwar 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats from The Middle East Conflict Man

While on the subject (two doors up), TMECM (indefinitely blocked per exhausted community patience not far up this page at time of posting) is now using his talk page to issue legal blather [120] [121] [122] Apparently, I "may be in trouble". Presumably Viking lawyers will be rolling up the Itchen tomorrow and rampaging through Southampton waving battle axes and subpoenas. Is this worth protecting his talk page over, or threatening such? I don't care myself, but someone might want to close his trollhole so well-meaning users can't throw food into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected by HappyCamper. Chick Bowen 23:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of Robert Byrd

The Robert Byrd article is being disrupted (again) to make a point. A User:DanKorn and some IPs keep adding usourced info that hints that he is still a member of the Klan. youngamerican (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user:TheMadTim

User is blocked, but keeps creating new accounts using proxies etc to beat block. User has created RFC against me. And has started 3RR against me and Request For Investigation against me.

• TheMadTim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AggieTheTeaLady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 공수 아이는 수음자 이다 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user name is a WP:ATTACK
• VeryJollyGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hahahahahahahaha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StanTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.4.230.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• DoctorHooDoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ﺾﺸﻏﻞﻤﻌﻏ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.38.53.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 211.48.37.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 82.201.176.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 218.48.229.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.20.37.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.225.37.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 221.114.194.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 216.155.95.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• BiII the Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created RFC pretending to be Bill_the_Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who he claims is my sock, but isn't

"Request For Investigation"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFI --pgk^(talk) 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFI#Requests Yeah a South Korean IP address has put a request up. I can not get it to proxy but, I would be surprised if the person is from outside of Britain or Ireland.

Alexis97 posibly opening an open meatpupet

• User:Alexis1997's only edits are to his userpage. He stated his password and left a message in his talkspace to the effect of "I hate you all". Much mischief in this do I see, young Padawan. Pat Payne 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I tried the password and it didn't work, so either he changed it or it wasn't true. No reason for action for the moment, I don't think. I'll give him a {{welcome}}. Chick Bowen 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Or perhaps somone else tried it and changed it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar

User:Antaeus Feldspar reverts[123][124] my indication of dispute (reliability of source) in an article[125] that has a case at the mediation cabal.[126] User makes no comment in talk page about this dispute until after I message his talk page.[127] He removes my messages to his talk page without discussion[128] with personal attackin in edit summary[129] and then makes personal attacks and general uncivility on the the disputed article's talk page.[130][131] --Nikitchenko 02:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The actual state of affairs is that Nikitchenko is trying to abuse the {{dubious}} tag -- he wishes to apply it to a statement of the form "X claims Y", not because he actually finds it dubious that X claims Y, but because he claims to find Y dubious. Despite several editors explaining to him several times how this is not a correct usage of the tag, he persists in this behavior -- and then trumps up reports like this one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:BorgHunter

This sysop speedy deleted a file violating deletion policy: Image:Lock-icon.jpg. The file was used for weeks on all template talp pages using Template:Protection_templates. As JPG it's clearly no dupe of any SVG. -- Omniplex 04:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's actually pretty strange. Have you contacted him? That's the first thing to do in this situation. It is probably just a misunderstanding on his part --mboverload@ 04:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a duplicate of Image:Padlock.svg? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, CSD I1 only covers images in the same format. However, it is often used, in a sort of semi-WP:IAR manner (apologies for the jargon), to delete redundant images in different format when the admin considers the deletion to be uncontroversial. As Mboverload said, I'm quite positive BorgHunter meant no harm by it. Chick Bowen 04:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I suppose I should start defending myself here. First, I replaced all instances of the JPEG with Padlock.svg, because they were the exact same image but in different formats. Then, I deleted the JPEG under CSD I1. And finally, I left a note on Omniplex's talk page, which he has yet to respond to, when I saw him reverting my changes. However, per WP:IUP, the JPEG clearly is unnecessary, and the SVG is far preferable. Keep in mind that I changed all links from the JPEG to the SVG before I deleted the JPEG. This is common practice, and I've seen it on Wikipedia all the time. Once I even deleted a slew of PNGs that were replaced with SVGs, and nobody complained then. I'm not sure what the issue is currently, though I'm open to complaints. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaint posted on WP:DRV. It's impossible to misinterpret an edit summary "working with more browsers". -- Omniplex 05:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate user name

Sorry, but couldn't seem to find another location for this.

Stawkerbot3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left a bogus vandalism warning on my talk page yesterday (I'm guessing a sockpuppet of Bongout (talk · contribs), from context), but it occurs to me now that the username is inappropriate both for using "bot" and for apparently trying to confuse readers with User:Tawkerbot. Shouldn't it be blocked? --Calton | Talk 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Daloonik (talk · contribs) seems to be a part of what looks like a sockdrawer, but I don't know if my suspicions rise to the level of being enough to request Checkuser. Would an admin mind taking a (quick) look and offering an opinion? --Calton | Talk 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Stawkerbot3 indef as an impersonator, is definately a sock of Bongout, checking for other socks. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive on Daloonik, no other socks at the moment. If anything else suspicious turns up, bring it to RfCU. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A Troll supports Vandal and takes over my talk page

This is a bizarre issue. A troll keeps editing my talk page insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it. Now what exactly is the policy, if any, on talk pages? Anwar 06:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandal in question here had an active farm and his 13 puppets awarded each other fake barnstars [132], [133].

The troll in question here is a fierce ultra-conservative nationalist who has been stalking me, for a fortnight now, for reverting his fascist POV and opposing his friends' unfit RfA candidacies and substandard contributions. Anwar 08:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Prin's Sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this debate, I have already stated below that I did not support Prin's sockpuppetry. However, I believe some of those barnstars were awarded by others as well. You deleted them all nonetheless. In relation to the rest of your comments: How can you say those RFAs are unfit when Blnguyen's made it to WP:100 in terms of support!! In relation to the Fascist Ultra-Conservative Nationalist stuff...that's funny :). Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, it's probably untoward of you to alter the text of his message (viz., by removing bolding, since such bolding isn't overly intrusive and is illustrative here; the header, OTOH, you may, in my estimation, alter as you like, though nevertheless consistent with WP:NPA and not where clarity is lost), but it is likely similarly untoward of him to revert your alteration. Nobleeagle, even assuming arguendo that he was trolling here (and I don't think he was; the tenor of his message is rather cordial), is not a troll, and your using that appellative likely won't help to mend the rift. Joe 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the only one with issues with Anwar. But if I am requested to do so, I will refrain from making any form of contact with him. That is if I am requested to do so. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, completely agree with Joe. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - right to refactor and reorganise doesn't mean you can give uncalled for apellations to other users. Also, this doesn't call for administrator intervention, so placing this comment here is wrong. Anwar, you may want to file an RFC and see what others have to say. --Gurubrahma 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific quote from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Also avoid putting others' comments in the wrong context". From the following diffs, I think Anwar is going beyond re-organization by changing titles and adding emphasis: [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]. It places the comments of others out of context. -- Samir धर्म 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have a little more time now so I'll have a look at Anwar's claims. I believe they are false:

He claims that: a troll keeps editing my talk page insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it.

The first two words a troll are debatable on their own and Anwar has been noted to label very good editors as trolls simply because they do not fit his POV. keeps editing my talk page, I have reverted once and once only, I doubt that qualifies as keeps. Insisting I don't have the right to re-organise it, when did I say that? A falsehood if I ever saw one, instead in my edit summary (in the instance in which I did revert his talk page) I have said: you may categorize as you wish but you will not change anyone's comments against their will. Therefore Anwar's claims are false and purely fiction. Instead I believe he's just trying to get rid of me by hook or by crook. That's my say. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding formatting to change the intent of a comment by someone who didn't make it is at the least not very nice. Changing someones content goes far beyond your userpage, when people see someones comment they assume that is is verbatim from his keyboard. Other than spellchecking someone's comment to improve readability (and only when it's REALLY bad or you know that person) I do not beleive in changing them. --mboverload@ 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he likes tips on his talk page at all. I told him to remove some copyright fair-use images from userboxes in his talk page so that he could remove them himself. But he labelled them as troll [139]. I reminded him again, but can't find that on his talk page. Later 2 other users forcibly removed them from his user page. There are many other issues with Anwar, but it would be pointless to list them all here. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's discouraging. Accepting advice from your peers is a great way to further yourself. *mboverload gets off his high horse* I recently came away from a fight with Cyde and I think I'm a better person for it. Not sure about him though, haha. =D --mboverload@ 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting words in people's mouths is completely unacceptable, whether it's on your talk page or anywhere else. Fixing typos is probably okay, fidgeting with clearly unintentional formatting (like if they accidentally start a line with a space, or somehow screw up lists, or whatever) is okay too, moving comments around or removing them is acceptable on your own page (although not always advisable), and adding a heading when one didn't exist is good practice. Putting words in people's mouths includes changing the semantics of their post, including the addition or removal of words, emphasis, and punctuation marks, and it extends to headings. All those are presumed to be part of the user's original post, and I would definitely revert any changes to such a post on sight, user talk page or no. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to talk about the heading of this entire discussion:

A Troll supports Vandal and takes over my talk page

A troll supports a vandal?? When did I say Prin's sockpuppetry was legitimate or alright? All I said was that Anwar's conduct with Prin was shocking, removing Barnstars from other people's user pages is a serious act. In that case I supported the editor that received the barnstar, and would have done so for any other editor, not just because this editor was a sockpuppeteer.

Next comes the takes over my talk page, you have categorized all my edits as Troll and have not responded to ANY of my concerns at all. Have I deleted your headings?? No. How on earth am I taking over your talk page?? I don't think there's anything else left for me to say. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that another concerned user has posted a further complaint at Anwar saadats talkpage is in violation of WP:NPA below.

Bar-Ilan vandal

I've been forced to block the Bar-Ilan IP 132.70.50.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This is a vandal who has been actively trying to get the IP blocked for some reason, but he is up to some serious shenanigans. He is apparantly a notorious vandal on the Hebrew wikipedia. I've been trying to keep track at: user:woggly/Bar-Ilan_vandal but the extent is dizzying. Expect woggly impersonators in the near future... --woggly 07:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, there is a legit contributor coming from that university's IPs. Be on the lookout for collateral damage as well; we've already had reports of imposters on RfCU earlier today. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this vandal has been very active on several different Wikimedia projects in at least two different languages, and his vandalism is particularly insidious, as he impersonates other users trying to implicate them as well. While I realise that the block I put in place is playing into his hands - after all, he WANTS Bar-Ilan blocked - I don't quite know how else to handle him. This is long term serious abuse. Perhaps even justifies his own Wikipedia:Long term abuse subpage? Again, see: user:woggly/Bar-Ilan_vandal (shaping up to be readable.) --woggly 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, I didn't say you shouldn't have blocked it, I just said to be aware there is a legitimate user on the IPs, and that collateral damage may turn up. Any new socks should be reported to RfCU so we can track his IP shifts. Essjay (Talk • Connect)

No need to calm me, just calling attention, not upset. :-) --woggly 09:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

Here [140]. Arniep 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week (will obviously renew if he continues threatening after it expires), but it looks like he has others. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I note that the 'controversy' he was removing is unsourced, however (not that that justifies legal threats). I've brought it up on the talk page in question. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bev074

This user name has recently been created and used on a page on which I have edited, presumably in an atempt to appear as me. What can, if anything be done. Bevo74 10:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It now seems that Bev074 is now Prince123 as they are vandalising the only article Bev074 was editing. Bevo74 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Bevo74 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally Ahoerstemier who has not started reverting on Attenborough has a very similar name to Ahoerstemeier— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevo74 (talk • contribs)

Dschor banned indefinitely

In the midst of serving yet another week long block under the terms of his probation, Dschor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in another round of abusive sockpuppetry (see Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Dschor). Accordingly, I've banned him indefinitely for abusive and disruptive behavior. I think it incontestable at this point that he has any interest in decency or positive contributions. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support block, this says it all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the "confirmed" tags I have a small thought. I should probably understand this, but if checkuser can confirm someone is a sockpuppet, why doesn't the autoblocker, err, block them? And I'm not objecting to the block, but I don't get the link. I just picked a few at random and they all looked fine. You don't like skiiing? - brenneman ^{L}

Well, part of the problem is that they all weren't banned at the same time. Another is that the autoblocker only hits a specific IP address, unless a range has been specified. I think Sam's point about the link is that we're looking at the sum total of Dschor's mainspace contributions. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point wasn't number but timing. Apart from two edits a month ago, he stopped editing the encyclopaedia at the end of January. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those two edits, [141]. — May. 26, '06 [06:12] <freak|talk>

I think Aaron is incorrectly assuming that all socks use exactly the same IP. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support this. I deleted User:Huy User:Cyde/Flatulent as vandal pages created by the same Dschor sock. --Doc ^ask? 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

He may have stopped editing the encyclopedia as User:Dschor because he was blocked. --Djumbo 05:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently blocking doesn't work so well. Sockpuppets are easy to come by. More troubling - the original block of User:Dschor constituted a gross misapplication of Administrative powers. Adding someone to a case after it has already been opened is bad form, and failing to assume good faith on that person's part is even worse. If a ban is instituted in a manner that violates the spirit and rules of the wiki, is it really a ban? How can it be a ban if it can never be enforced? --71.36.251.182 17:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick check?

I've blocked RK (talk · contribs) for 72 hours following a report by PinchasC (talk · contribs) detailing a contravention of the 1RR aspect of his his arbitration ruling on article related to Judaism. 2 clear reversions, 22h 16m apart [142] [143]. As his one year parole which began 7 April 2005 included a reset clause, apparently last triggered by Essjay (talk · contribs) on 15 January 2006, this seems the appropriate action. However, it is my first block dealing with a listing at WP:AE, and I'd like an experienced admin to check it over? Nice one, Deizio talk 12:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Can somebody keep an eye on Ted Kennedy. It keeps getting vandalized. Someone had previously asked that it to semi-protected, but it was turned down. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Lots of us have it on our watchlist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Could some other eyes take a look at First Amendment to the United States Constitution. User:Pythagoras repeatedly attempts to add a rather opinionated essay to the article. Several others have repeatedly removed it citing OR and POV, among other concerns. Pyhtagoras appears to know enough to avoid 3RR, but now there is User:Just The Facts, which may be a sockpuppet (although the account has been around since October 2005, the only edits have been to that article and the talk page. Article edit history older ≠ wiser 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the user has violated 3RR as well. I've notified AN/3RR.

New sockpuppet of User:Thewolfstar

User:Thewolfstar has been banned for exhausting the community's patience, including her use of User:Dot Bitch as a sockpuppet. Today I blocked User:Laplander as another of her socks, editing both under that username and as User:24.161.21.22. She posted a message to User talk:Jimbo Wales that bore all the hallmarks of Thewolfstar's writing style. After reviewing Laplander's and 24.161.21.22's contributions, I am certain that this is Thewolfstar. Review of my decision is welcome. (I'm reposting this from above after a suggestion that it would not get read way up there) FreplySpang 16:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks right to me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, quite. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop hating and start re-educating. This is... What, fifth sockpuppet now? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's been tried, but it didn't take. FreplySpang

• I'm not sure I understand you. We're supposed to unblock if they become a persistent nuisance because it means we did something wrong? We shouldn't reward trolls just because they bitch up a storm. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think he's just saying that an ideal admin would have patiently and calmly sat with Laplander, explaining about civility and collaboration, for however long it might take until a mutual enlightenment was attained. Perhaps he's thinking of User:Boddhisatva. FreplySpang 16:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't require the admin mop to do that kind of stuff. Maybe Avillia would like to volunteer to be a mentor to Thewolfstar? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's already been a great number of users (including myself, as one of the few that she actually liked) who tried to do just that. Absent any conciliatory gestures on her part, I see no benefit in spending time on a repeat abuser that could be better spent elsewhere. Tijuana Brass^E@ 17:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User:131.211.42.152

I may have stepped into a problem with user boxes and offended this user: User:131.211.42.152. However, I have apologized and am not edit warring over it. Anything I have edited in poor taste or in error can be easily reverted without a fight from me. I ask though, that User:131.211.42.152 may be a vandal sockpuppet and should be warned for intentionally modifying my user page which I purposely posted via the {{subst:template name}} method to avoid unwanted changes on my page. If you see User:131.211.42.152's talk page at User talk:131.211.42.152, you will see that User:131.211.42.152 intended to make trouble. Wombdpsw 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Byrd

An anon using several different IPs linked to the US Navy and Marines keeps inserting his unsourced POV remarks into the article. Not quite a 3RR vio, since they are using dif comps for each edit. Maybe the article should be locked for a while? youngamerican (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is likely best that requests such as this go to WP:RFPP. Joe 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Block on school IP address

209.18.49.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I blocked this IP address for one week for repeat vandalism. This is not much longer than two previous blocks from User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me of 99 hours. In the past there has apparently been no collateral damage or need to unblock this IP address. However, as this is a fairly long block on a shared IP, I decided I would post here and put the block up for review. If consensus is to shorten the block, another admin is free to overturn it without further word from me. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. This IP (and the related ones) have a history of repeated vandalism, with historically little collateral damage. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is frequently true with shared school IPs, the recent block on 207.245.40.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) being a case in point. HKT^Talk 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job, frankly I don't see this as ANI-worthy. --Cyde↔Weys 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cyde (and everyone else). I'm sure you know the whole routine about new admins not wanting to step on any toes. I'll try to limit "unworthy" posts. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If the vandal decides to make a reappearance soon after this block expires, please do not hesitate to report it to WP:ABUSE for further investigation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian spam

For a number of weeks now, Wikipedia has been enduring a large amount of spam originating from the Ukraine. Can someone please ensure that the following domains are added to the SPAM block list?

• *.stvincent.od.ua - spam domain
• *.odessa.ua - spam domain
• *.rovno.ua - spam domain
• *.pru.in.ua - spam domain
• *.uzhgorod.ua - spam domain

Thank you much. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That would need the attention of a meta administrator. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely meta administrators monitor this page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We do, but not every thread. I keep thinking we need a "Requests for blacklisting" page, but I know it'd be overrun with reports that didn't come near the need to blacklist. I'll take care of those listed here. For future reference, Mindspillage, Raul654, & I are all Meta admins, and fairly quick on the blacklist; there are, of course, many others, and anyone can leave a request on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Essjay. The domain suffix of this particular spammer seems to shift about every week or so, now I know who to harass when that happens next.  ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• .ua is Ukraine, not Uruguay. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

John Adams High School

71.193.97.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please take a look at this users conduct at John Adams High School. The user is adding questionable content while taking away credible information. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

HoY Vandals Returned

64.185.45.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made the exact same, lengthy PoV edit to House of Yahweh that has been treated as vandalism multiple times. Previous to this instance, the vandalism was committed by 64.185.45.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as you can see, coming from the same general IP field - probably the same person. Can the page be re-semi-protected and this IP be blocked pls? - pm_shef 02:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• both seems to be non-portables, from some business in texas, registered through NTS Communications, if the block doens't work you should be safe with a range block (i think), on second thought, this seems more like a content dispute--152.163.100.65 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

RoF

Should report that I blocked User:RingofFire and sock User:RoF indefinitely and speedy kept their AfDs... seemed to be going through articles and bringing them to AfD for nonsense reasons- ie. biographies, userpages etc. with "not a real movie! Just a hoax!" Blatant trolling, probable role account, some of their pages were speedy deleted. Please review if there's any reason to shorten the block/unblock. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User unilaterally and repeatedly removing image tags

Evrik (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly and deliberately removing {{PUIdisputed}} from images listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images despite being told by myself and other users to stop. He has so far refused to defend his notion that these images are PD or refute (or even comprehend) our arguments: seehere, here, and here.

In any case, since PD itself is disputed, he should not be using PD to justify the removal of PUI tags. He has been told this several times, but insists on continuing: see discussions linked above and here and here. Yet, he persists.

I am requesting help here to ask for 1) more users to tell him that removing PUI tags before the discussion is over is inappropriate and/or 2) a block him for persisting just like how any user who repeatedly removes afd tags would be blocked.--Jiang 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Left a message for Evrik asking him to stop removing the tags until discussion is complete. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And he went and removed the tags once more. --Jiang 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And again - can someone help here? How can we get him to stop? --Jiang 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Challenge to User:Rgulerdem's indefinite block for "Exhausted community patience"

IMHO User:Rgulerdem has been unwarrantedly blocked indefinitely for "Exhausted community patience". Apparently Rgulerdem has been using sock-puppets for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet#Segregation_and_security, which is a legitimate use for sock-puppets. His sock-puppets User:Mokotok and User:Light&Truth disputed the NPOV tag on Fethullah Gülen, which has been inserted by User:Azate for questionable reasons. Admittedly User:Mokotok has been rather incivil in his edit comments, but this is IMHO still no reason for an indefinite block. Raphael1 13:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no excuse for using sockpuppets to misrepresent consensus. The block is valid. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Resid Gulerdem's editing habits are bad. This is further confirmed from the block report found for his user name on the Turkish Wikipedia. He was previously permanently blocked for the same behavior and subsequently unblocked to be mentored by User:Johntex. He failed to abide by his mentor's suggestions and again engaged in disruptive editing in relation to several editors. At this point this permanent block is ridiculously warranted. Netscott 13:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict with Netscott) Check out the block log: [144]. Rgulerdem hasn't gone for more than a month without being blocked since he started editing in early January. He has received blocks for an assortment of policy violations and general bad behaviour, including WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, talk page spamming, WP:NPA, and now sockpuppetry.

I note that while an editor may use a single sockpuppet for 'segregation and security', it becomes much more difficult to assume good faith when there is more than one. It's also not appropriate to use a sockpuppet for the purpose of prosecuting an edit war.

The community is patient, but not infinitely so. If Rgulerdem were allowed to return, I can only imagine that it would be after an enforced break to cool down and allow him time to review Wikipedia's policies. Such a return would no doubt be under personal attack, revert, and sockpuppet paroles, and he probably would be barred from the article and talk page of Fethullah Gülen and related articles. Per Netscott's comments, I'm not persuaded that implementing and enforcing such a solution would be worth our effort. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately User:Raphael1 is further encouraging User:Rgulerdem to continue being disruptive. Netscott 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. He's entitled to make a request on the mailing list. That request will be ignored and possibly belittled, and if he makes too much of a nuisance of himself, he'll get dropped from there, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

@Netscott, pleace let me remind you of the quote I presented to you yesterday. I know, that this is not part of any Wikipedia policy, but it is in your own interest to still follow it. @Johnleemk and TenOfAllTrades: I accept the reasons you've given for the block. Raphael1 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe User:Cyde is right and I am wrong that the time for your own disruptive editing is drawing to a close Raphael1. Netscott 14:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, are you trying to intimidate Raphael1? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice demonstration of good faith there Irishpunktom when in fact I was making the case above that User:Raphael1 should not be blocked for exhausting the community's patience (as User:Cyde was suggesting doing) I illustrated his previous disruptive behavior, perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that he shouldn't be blocked. Netscott 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, the socks cannot exist for "segregation and security" purposes if they are not segregated. --bainer (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia community says: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The community isn't going to make the same mistake twice. Rgulerdem's block stays. --Cyde↔Weys 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Chadbryant

Chud Manzier (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I indef blocked Chud Manzier as a fairly obvious sockpuppet of Chadbryant who is constantly reverting to his version of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: I wonder if I should block They Call Him Flipper (talk • contribs) too, but as a sockpuppet of someone else. Perhaps a Checkuser is in order? --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Following an obfuscating email request from Chud Manzier requesting that I unblock him, I hvae decided to unblock him and will continue to keep my eye on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. If I see Chud Manzier reverting to Chadbryant's version again, I will block again. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

serial fair-use policy violator blocked

Mike kelly09 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). — May. 26, '06 [09:07] <freak|talk>

Zapatancas

Facing an arbcom for harrassment of me, has vandalised my user page this morning [145] not for the first time. Can an admin please block him? SqueakBox 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? It's a very uncivil edit. On the other hand, you really shouldn't have advertising links on your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of license plate images

72.12.81.2 (talk · contribs) has been unilaterally removing images of U.S. state license plates from articles. At first this was done without explanation or edit summary, but the user has been recently claiming that they are "copyrighted" photos taken from his website. This website is not identified, and these are straight-on shots of the plates, so as to be nothing more than 2-D images of the plate design that I highly doubt could be copyrightable under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In one article, he has also been claiming that an image is "fake", and was Photoshopped from his image. Postdlf 16:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue's being resolved in further discussion. Postdlf 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great example of a happy ending... KWH 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Where can I report open proxies?

Hi, I'm a sysop on HuWiki and I believe that there is a global list of blocked open proxies for all wikimedia servers. Where do I report them? Thanks, 129.59.139.191 16:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You can report it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. DGX 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116

Can someone block this person for username or for trying to impersonate the real person named Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. Thanks! DGX 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

According to that article, that name was actually rejected by the government; there is no real person named that. Postdlf 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but it's still an obscenely long username, don't you think he should be encouraged to change his username to something a little shorter than Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. DGX 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, our user name policy does expressly forbid "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers." and "Names that are extremely lengthy." Postdlf 16:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and pgk just blocked him for both. ;-) Hopefully he will recreate an account that has a little bit of a shorter name. DGX 16:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

24.161.21.22 (talk · contribs)

It would seem blocked user Thewolfstar (talk · contribs) is now vandalizing userpages under this IP. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, already blocked. Thanks. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Life and Times of a Dick Passion'

I'm curious as to why this article was deleted... Dick Passion is a character that came into existance somewhere in the past two years via a xanga blog and has since gained a small cult following. There was a book put out sometime last year, a small chap book called, I believe "a day in the life of a dick passion" and contained some very funny situational humor centered around the character of Dick Passion. I understand that the article I submitted wasnt very thorough but it was meant only to be a starter page, something I'd planned on expanding as time allowed.

It's even more interesting as the identitiy of the author 'the truth about dick' is unknown, with the exception possibly of the folks (there were two, I beleive) who edited the chapbook.

It's far less nonsense than it is an intriguing (and humorous) character study.

Could someone help me understand its deletion please?

It was deleted because it is non-notable; only 3 exact Google hits. It didn't warrent it's own article. DGX 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, DGX.

One more thing, if I may... how many direct google hits does it take to make something 'notable'?

I would suggest reading WP:N to find out what is notable and what isn't. Enjoy!--MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Moeron, that answered a few questions for me.

I like to watch BasebaIl

I_like_to_watch_BasebaIl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this is EddieSegoura / The Exicornt Vandal again. Though this account hasn't obsessed about "Exicornt", it has shown very very similar editing patterns regarding the "New Jersey Dragons", including creating duplicates over and over again with punctuation at the end. Also, some likely Exicornt socks participated disruptively in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Dragons. Exicornt Vandal or not, the account is acting disruptively enough that a block is close to being in order, but maybe someone else wants to check on my train of logic here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep I'm convinced. I'll do the honours. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that above the exicornt vandal has been revealed to be sockpuppets of Eddie Segoura, and the same vandal was making the same New Jersey Dragons edits, this is definitely a sock of Eddie. Support Theresa's block. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Might want to keep an eye on the newly created User:I love to watch baseball!!. --InShaneee 22:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Bunchofgrapes said train of logic about the exicornt vandal. HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's endlessly hilarious to me. Phew... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I have referred to Eddie "derailing" the exic*nt AfD? :-) FreplySpang 16:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Care to share with the rest of the class, or is your hilarity merely a form of a personal attack? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What!? Nothing nefarious there. "Exicornt" was a neologism for a type of rail crossing. Train tracks, train of logic... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

<fwump><fwump>... Is this thing on?... Bueller?... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's a new one on me: an anon IP, 205.188.117.69 (talk · contribs) has tried to recreate the "New Jersey Dragons" page using the talk page. This stunt has been tried at least twice that I know of. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he tried the same thing earlier at Talk:Exicornt. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI again… does anyone give a crap yet?

And here we go again. For the record, we now have multiple admins vowing to block anyone who move-wars over these pages AND an editor who's made it clear that he intends to continue these violations unless prevented from doing so. I agreed to "take the high road" here, but you know what, screw this. I couldn't possibly begin to guess why none of you are enforcing these multiple warnings, but if SPUI isn't blocked for this I'm going to go ahead and start moving pages back, because why the hell shouldn't I? Seriously, someone give me one good reason why I shouldn't. —phh (^t/_c) 19:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Even as one who tends to take SPUI's side in the naming conventions debate, I can't see this continued pagemoving as anything but disruptive; I understood/hoped that no further move warring was going to take place, but perhaps a brief block in order to prevent further disruption is the only solution. Joe 19:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not going to block someone for moving pages around unless he's Willy on Wheels. This is a content dispute. Mackensen (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, we do block for disruptive behaviour in content disputes. I've warned SPUI ([146]) that sterile move warring is disruptive and pointless, and that he should wait for a more permanent solution through the Arbitration case. I'd appreciate it if any Arbs reading this would pop over to WP:RFArb and decide what to do about the case; it's been waiting for votes for the better part of a month, and this problem isn't going away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Go back and look at my sentence. I said that *I'm* not going to do it. The editor appeared to be asking all admins why we weren't doing anything; I'm not involving myself in a content dispute. Moreover, the arbcom case won't solve anything, because the arbcom does not rule on content disputes. They need to hammer it out amongst themselves and stop bringing it here. Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • How about we have a community-wide poll to see which naming format is preferred, and then everyone just lives with it? --Cyde↔Weys 20:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Makes sense to me. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
        • mboverload@ agrees with Cyde for some reason
        • That's been tried before. The result was (drumroll please) no consensus. And in this case Arbcom can decide since this is a disruption point and has been for 4 months. This isn't a simple content dispute. JohnnyBGood t c 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think it was seriously tried before. Let's do it again here: Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please inform anyone you can think of who has an interest in this issue. --Cyde↔Weys 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
            • A consensus of members of the community is certainly preferable to an ArbComm decision (though I surely understand why ArbComm members would see no way out of this dispute other than their deciding a content issue). Mackensen, though, should note that the ArbComm case may solve things (though I'm certain we'd all be happier were we able to reach a decision as a community of editors); Fred Bauder and Raul654 have suggested that the ArbComm will/ought to decide the underlying substantive naming issue. Joe 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
              • It would be an interesting step for the committee to intervene on that point. We'll see about that. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Raphael1 blocked for a week

Raphael1 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly complaining about the deletion of User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims and the upholding of the deletion at WP:DRV, repeatedly accusing the people who won't let him vandalize the Muhammad pictures article as persecutors of Muslims. Enough is enough. I have blocked him for a week. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. He is getting rather disruptive. And don't forget his latest arguing for leniency for doubly-indef-blocked user Rgulerdem. --Cyde↔Weys 20:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this block but just for the sake of transparency in justification of it, some diffs should be added so that other editors/admins can easily concur with this deciscion or not. Netscott 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorse block. There's instructions on how to remove it on the edit page of the article. Will (^E_@) T 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you a few diffs ... [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], plus the whole discussion above. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zoe, now this report appears a bit more complete. Netscott 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some more diffs to further illustrate this report: [152], [153] and [154]. Netscott 08:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

General Eisenhower

Can General Eisenhower (talk · contribs) be banned per WP:USERNAME and sockpuppetry confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/May 2006#General Eisenhower? Computerjoe<span style="color:red">'s talk 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Absent disruptive behavior...no. Sockpuppetry, in itself, is not bannable, and the username policy is selectively enforced. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, nobody could plausibly believe the user was General Eisenhower. -- SCZenz 04:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Just as no one could believe that I'm August von Mackensen (though he did live quite a long time). Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • User:SuperDeng was forced to change his name from DengXiaoPing. And the real person has been dead for a long time. He should be forced to change his name. He is in violation of "Names of VIPs or well-known historical figures (e.g. Benjamin Franklin; Chuck Norris)." --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And he does claim on his userpage that "I'm General and future president Eisenhower.", coupled with a picture of him... Ian13/talk 08:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • But Eisenhower's first name is Dwight, not General. So this user is only using the last name of a real person (and their rank). NoSeptember ^talk 09:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, so if I was to create an account called President Bush would that be fine, as I'm not using a first name? Computerjoe's talk 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
          • The fact that Bush is alive and in office matters a bit. If someone created an account called Ambassador Bush, I doubt it would be rejected, even though at one point that was what GHW Bush was known as (and unlike Eisenhower, GHWB is still alive). Besides, he's an established user, it would be different if someone registered this name just recently. NoSeptember ^talk 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
            • So would an account called President Lincoln be fine? I suggest the user is forced to change him name. Computerjoe's talk 15:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I can see grounds for possible offence here personally too. THe fact the user is so established complicates matters. And couldn't editing under the name he is and being disruptive be a little defamatory too? Ian13/talk 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Would support block as user has been disruptive in the past, using {{admin}} in his sig to refer to himself when he isn't an admin. Otherwise, ask him to change his name to something like GenEis. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:29 UTC (2006-05-27)

How is a month old block relevant here? If he is disruptive now or in the future, he can be blocked again. NoSeptember ^talk 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Anwar saadat's talkpage is in violation of WP:NPA

Hi - I respectfully ask for administrators to intervene on user talk:Anwar saadat. This user is using his talkpage in complete violation of WP:NPA.

He is refactoring comments made by others on his talkpage (see user talk:Anwar saadat#My Wheel Bin) and branding civil comments placed by user:Sundar, user:Aksi great, user:Nobleeagle as that from "trolls." His is using headers like "A Troll's Melodrama," and when I warned him regarding his insulting behavior, he branded my comment as "A failed RfA's melodrama," in reference to my recently withdrawn RfA.

He has been warned 3 times by me, and repeatedly advised to take down those insulting headers but he hasn't obliged. He has been twice blocked over WP:NPA violations by user:Nichalp and user:Essjay, yet this problem persists. He was also recently warned right here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_Troll_supports_Vandal_and_takes_over_my_talk_page that what he was doing was wrong, yet he has made no attempt to correct his errors.

That he is persisting in displaying comments by some users under those insulting headers despite repeated requests, warnings and punitive measures is a simple, clear indication to me that he wants to insist on branding the users as "trolls." This is a direct violation of WP:NPA, and in view of Anwar's repeated failure to understand this and correct the situation, I ask administrators to intervene and issue punitive measures, or guide me on how to solve this problem with him. Thank you, Rama's Arrow 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See this. The abusive format has been reinstated for some reason. I request administrative action. Rama's Arrow 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why has no-one responded or considered this matter?? User:Anwar saadat has serious issues on Wikipedia, especially his failure to conform to NPA. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing for votes

ObRoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in wholescale canvassing to influence a requested move vote. A warning template has been placed on his talk page. He shows no interest however in obeying the rule. (But then he has engaging in widespread unilateral page moves for ages now.) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 22:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)}

What policy is that the FearEIREANN is referring to? I never heard that asking people to participate in discussion and survey is explicitly forbidden - and now is there some forceful rule to forbid it? ObRoy 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rule against vote-stacking and talk page spamming and there has been one for a long time. --Cyde↔Weys 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to link to the policy or guideline in question rather than just saying "yes, there is." Than the person can read it, look over the talk page, and come to a fuller understanding. - brenneman ^{L} 03:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Wikipedia:Spam#Internal spamming. Snoutwood (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

SNAP. I've just come here with than on my clip-board, dammit! I refuse to waste it: WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming. ^_^
brenneman ^{L} 03:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Am surprised to see that policy written down! However, he seems to ahve stopped. The Land 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Timorrison

Could someone take a look through User:Timorrison's contrib history (not long): the majority of his edits seem to be problematic, but often just on that border where other editors feel they have to assume Good Faith. He's just back on after being blocked (or perhaps just caught by a bad IP), and has created Mal Pedazo de Basura y Chatar, which is probably a hoax. Not sure what to do about such a splatter of incidents, but can someone keep an eye on him? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated sleeper account vandalism of Tenebrae (film)

A vandal is repeatedly defacing Tenebrae (film), in spite of semiprotection; it looks like they've been collecting sleeper accounts. Protect? Just keep reverting them? -- The Anome 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say protection for a brief amount of time. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I've now protected it and will lift it shortly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done likewise, and will lift it shortly. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible to work a system into the software that would delete unused accounts after a certain period of time. --InShaneee 01:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I would guess it is possible. Antandrus (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Legally, we have to keep every account that's ever made an edit. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Let's have a system to delete accounts that were created, but never used. --InShaneee 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Because this situation seems to be getting worse, I've thought about this a while and come up with an idea (it might have been proposed before or brought up tangentially). During the initial discussion about semi-protection, the number of edits was proposed as a criteria for the "cut-off point". However, the idea was rejected in favor of time restraints because it would require significant changes to MediaWiki to keep track of each user's edits. However, what if a new class of users were created? All of the vandal sleepers do not have any edits prior to the vandalism. A new class of user would be given out liberally, to pretty much everybody who has a history of good edits (i.e. 10+, etc.). Admins would have the right to promote regular users to this new class of users. A class of protection could then be created, restricting editing to everyone except "normal" users - in other words, anyone with a history of good edits, not just a 4-day old account. There are, of course, some downsides. First, it would take more work for administrators to promote users, but I don't anticipate that to be a problem. Secondly, vandals could also "get around" this new type of protection by making several good edits first. Regardless, this would make it more difficult for vandals to vandalize, and the "good edits" would also benefit Wikipedia. Finally, this would also require a change in MediaWiki structure - adding a new group of users - but I'm sure if the community comes to a consensus in this, like it did with semi-protection, it could be done. The benefits, I imagine, would be immense. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Whew...I won't lie, that's a big scary idea, but I'll be glad to discuss it if you open up a page for it. --InShaneee 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll be bold and go ahead and do so. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sleeper accounts seem to be a growing problem. One user I have been tracking seems to have a host of them to enable him to vandalise sprotected articles. The moment I block one, hey presto he pulls another one out and uses it for the same vandalism. I have blocked at least 5 from that one user at this stage. The timespan suggests that he creates them, then leaves them there until needed. I have no idea how many other sleeper accounts he has hidden around WP, but whenever he needs one he seems to be able to produce one. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)}

Hence my suggestion above. --InShaneee 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Deleting accounts that have never made an edit would have the same concerns as assigning the account to another user. See the proposal and ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Usurpation. Thatcher131 11:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

4 sockpuppets at WP:FAC

See here the suspected sockpuppet activity. I've blocked each of the sockpuppets for extended periods, and blocked FruitsAndVegetables133 (talk · contribs) for 1 week. If you think the block times should be increased/decreased, feel free. --BRIAN0918 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seems appropriate. As these things go, it's fairly tame sockery. One week might be excessive, but not by much. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I was going to do 1 day per sockpuppet, but I didn't want to take the time to count to 4. --BRIAN0918 04:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nah, this is better. Plenty of time for the FAC nomination to run its course. Mackensen (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this is supposed to go...

...but I hope an administrator can deal with it quickly. Someone posted personal info in an edit summary again. Don't know if its true or not or what, but it should be deleted? Responsible edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zez-Kai_Ell&oldid=53682585 . 68.39.174.238 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it; Deleted the version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An indef-block case from September 2005

Going through the requests for unblock backlog yesterday, I found a case which was an indef-block from September 2005. The user had made only four edits before he was blocked. Since then he's continued to edit his talk page asking for unblocks, or discussion, and has remained remarkably civil. I've notified the original blocking admin (User:Fawcett5), but he hasn't been on in a bit, so I'm sending it here (possibly again; see below).

User blocked is Jacknstock. Request for unblock was made with the following reason:

1) I believe I have been banned for sufficient time. 2) My edits were not intended as vandalism. 3) I did not receive any warning, notification or opportunity to discuss Fawcett5's concern prior to my banning.

I'd also like to point out User_talk:Jacknstock#WP:ANI, and possible history of this case being posted to here without much resulting discussion. Quoting the user,

Given the opportunity, I would have argued that my edits were an attempt to provide additional or alternative information, and thus were not vandalism. I certainly wouldn't have persisted with similar edits against the objections of other contributors (even without the possibility of being banned) because it's simply not that important to me.

Is anyone willing to assume good faith and unblock this user? I personally would like to, but would rather have input from blocking admin (or, as in this case, failing that, everyone else). NSLE _(T+C) at 06:45 UTC (2006-05-27)

Latest update: Theresa knott says she has unblocked the user. Thanks. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:57 UTC (2006-05-27)

Seems a pretty straightforward case to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like an inappropriate use of admin powers by Fawcett5 half a year ago. I look forward to hearing a justification, maybe I'm wrong. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes maybe you are. I take it you did actually look at jacknstocks contributions, the previous discussion on AN and the history of the article in question prior to the edits? I also take it that you are familiar with the GNAA and how they tend to operate? I undid Fawcett5's block because I feel that the time elased has been plenty enough and want to assume good faith and welcome a potential good editor, however i don't feel that Fawcette needs to justify his actions from months ago. That would serve no particluar purpose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the GNAA nor how they tend to operate. Do the 4 edits by the blocked user suggest a GNAA vandal? -lethe ^{talk +} 02:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure either way, however I can see why Fawcett5 might have thought so. However Jacknstock assures me that he is not, and so I like to AGF. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of Theo Walcott

Over the past two days, Theo Walcott has been repeatedly vandalised by a succession of anonymous IP addresses. Is there anything that can be done about it? Angmering 10:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:15 UTC (2006-05-27)

Personal attack from admin

In this, User:Jtdirl is calling me a vandal: [155]. It seems that Jtdirl is a sysop, so (s)he should know better than to flame such personal attacks when disputing about content. Such accusation in a debate disrupts Wikipedia consensus-seeking process. Seems that Jtdirl treats many people in a disruptive way. ObRoy 11:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He didn't call you a vandal. He warned you that you would be blocked if you continued to canvas for votes. Nandesuka 11:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In what part of Jtdirl's writing is there such a warning - Jtdirl wrote "Note: "vandal|ObRoy" has been engaged in widespread canvassing of users to explicitly influence the vote here. His behaviour has been reported on the WP:ANI page." Whereas I find that Jtdirl used the term "vandal". ObRoy 11:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of worrying about what the template is called, I suggest you stop canvassing users. It is considered improper. Continued activity of this sort will result in a block. Nandesuka 12:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We do need a new name for that template though. It's needlessly offensive. Henry^Flower 11:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde proposed this a fortnight ago on Template talk:Vandal, and there seems to be agreement (I certainly agree), but no-one seems to have done the move. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, we should rename {{admin}} so that the use of it does not necessarily indicate a claim to be an admin. NoSeptember ^talk 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the admin template includes links that are only relevant to an administrator (blocks, protections, etc). So admin is an appropriate name.

I do agree that the "vandal" template should proably have a less offensive name, simply because the most common uses of the template do not refer to vandals at all. Though for operational reasons (and because not everybody will immediately switch to using any new name) the redirect from Template:Vandal must remain in place. --Tony Sidaway

I think we could use something easy as full, as it gives the fukll set of links to information. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some non-admins we can use {{admin}} for, such as the growing ranks of former admins. As an aside, I never liked the text space that {{admin}} uses, which is why I use {{admin-abbr}} instead, which gives me this: NoSeptember (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) NoSeptember ^talk 13:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm glad my suggested {{userlinks}} change was accepted. I've been using it for over a week now, and it definitely doesn't have the same kind of stigma that {{vandal}} did. Now, how to get people to start using this one? Or should I just have Cydebot go through, replace all of the old redirects, and then delete {{vandal}}? --Cyde↔Weys 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article "ALI ZAFAR"

Hello, I had asked my associate to write an article on the pop music singer "Ali Zafar". He did an awful job of it. Hence, led to the deletion of the article, otherwise. I tried to write one, again. I did and saved the page. Yet, it has been deleted by the admins. Please, tell me what needs to be put right, for it to meet the wikipedia standards. Thank You, User: Ali Zafar!

WP:MUSIC is a general guideline for notability of music artists. See if you are notable Will (^E_@) T 14:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this to User talk:Ali Zafar, as this is more of a newbie issue than one needing admin intervention. At first glance, we should have an article on this guy, and I have an interest in the topic so I'll probably have a go at writing a decently sourced article myself. However, there are issues of either autobiography or inappropriate usernaming with User:Ali Zafar. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Mostssa

The user keeps inserting vandalism tag on my discussion page. As I find this slanderous, I have reverted his attempts over the last 2 hours on almost a dozen occasions. However, he just won't give up. Moreover, he refuses to resort to RfC. The move is obviously motivated by the content dispute on Tourism in Croatia where a decision is pending concerning his breach of 3RR. This has now become an open harassment and I want him to stop or be stopped. I have refused to engage in personal attacks or retaliatory actions such as insertion of a similar tag on his page because it is plain abuse directed at diminishing one's reputation. EurowikiJ 14:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, on closer inspection I have noticed that User:Mostssa has been insinuating that such warning is warranted as I had received such warnings on previous two occasions. He is right, as they have come from this reputable user user:Primadol. EurowikiJ 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The situation has now been aggravated by the user's decision to start canvassing support by leaving messages on other users' pages [156] [157] The vandalism tag is now also reinserted by user:SrbIzLike. EurowikiJ 16:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is you who is acting against rules. I have informed several admins about your actions, and a few other users. I would seriously advise you to stop your disruptive behavior, and start following wiki rules, like discussing, not removing sourced material, etc. What you do will lead you nowhere. - Since EurowikiJ removes my comments from his talk page (and refuses to talk to other Serbian users too), I make this appeal to him here. Mostssa 16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

EurowikiJ I see multiple reverts by you on Tourism in Croatia but not a single post from you on the talk page of the article. This is no way to conduct yourself.

Mostssa start a rfc already! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Rasimkilic

Rasimkilic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing Wikipedia articles, replacing content with spam links. (Blocked indefinitely.) - Mike Rosoft 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Kasuro

A very new user (less than 10 edits) keeps inserting his interpretations of Jimbo's actions and motivations at the Jimmy Wales page. I responded this morning to the points the boss himself had left behind at the talk page, and I though that they were valid and changed the page accordingly. I would like to solicit the reponse of other on this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems from the last comments at the talk page thatbhe has something against Jimbo, calling him a dictator. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ask him to try improving the Criticism of Wikipedia article? --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert war on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach

A user is erasing suspected puppets from the list, claiming that I added their names vindictively. This is not the case. I added users with single-digit contributions to Wikipedia (sometimes only one or two edits) whose only edits were to take sides in an ongoing dispute or to attempt to vote on AfD. I have explained this on the talk page for the list of suspected sock puppets, and reverted the list twice. I cannot revert again without violating 3RR. I would appreciate it if other admins could look into this and handle as they see fit. For the record, though I do not believe one needs to be an administrator in order to create and maintain such a list, I am in fact an administrator. --woggly 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it clearly says "suspected"-- if he has proof refuting your assertion of sockpuppetry, he should post it and perhaps strike the name of the user. The purpose of the page is to determine which ones are sockpuppets and should be blocked, after all, so discussion about whether they actually are is helpful. However, I don't think this user is doing this productively.--Sean Black 18:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nikitchenko linking to Wikipedia Review

Nikitchenko is currently linking to Wikipedia Review via his user page, a forum lately known for getting Phil Sandifer harrassed by police in real life and other wacky hijinks. MONGO removed it once (after I suggested it to Tony Sidaway), Nikitchenko reverted (after coming off block), I reverted back, he's reverted me, and given that it is his userpage I'm not going to push him to the 3RR limit on this by myself. However, I do believe that Wikipedia should not be linking to this site from anywhere. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He also, apparently, is the reincarnation of indef-blocked User:AI: see here and here. Any reason not to indef-block User:Nikitchenko as well? FreplySpang 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also here . FreplySpang 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The link he provides is odd. Sometimes it goes directly to Hivemind while others get linked to Wikipedia Review (which in my opinion isn't quite as disgusting). In any case I regard the use of the link once told not to do so as pretty bad.

I have blocked him for 48 hours for various attacks after his 12-hour block by MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (fuddlemark). I recommend an indefinite block. He's a hostile troll up to no good. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Daniel_Brandt#Redirected_to_wikipediareview for discussion of the redirection and note that wikipedia-watch is already in m:Spam blacklist because of this. Wikipedia Review has been blacklisted and unblacklisted a few times itself, but I do not think he was intentionally linking there given the context of the link. Kotepho 20:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just tried to indef block him, will just be over to make sure it takes.... The Land 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Now done. Now where's that sockpuppet template ... The Land 19:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock drawer? :-) FreplySpang 20:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How disappointing. Chenko seemed civil on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza, he repeatedly apologized for accusing someone. I guess it goes to show you that you never know who's a sockpuppet.-- The ikiroid  20:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured he would continue to wish to display that link...I support the indefinite block based on that and the sock issue.--MONGO 20:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've protected User talk:Nikitchenko due to these two edits: [158] [159]. I reverted both. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well he's been blocked to buggery. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I found the first diff very illuminating. I assumed that everyone who spent their free time clicking 'rollback' to ensure that information on the Internet was accurate would have no sex life whatsoever. Yet now I find that everyone is having sex with prostitutes of indiscriminate and indeterminate genders left right and centre. Why was I not informed? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Did User:AI go insane or something? Why did he turn against the encyclopedia? Was there an event that set him off? I remember a certain userbox debate made User:Blu Aardvark lose it.-- The ikiroid  02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

AI was here to push a pro-Scientology POV. There was no event to "set him off", he was simply a bad user who made life on Wikipedia difficult enough that he had to be restricted from editing Scientology-related articles. Then he made legal threats, and was banned as a result ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of new article Plasma Universe

I've just started writing a new article on Nobel Prize winning scientist Hannes Alfvén's "Plasma Universe". I have been very careful to reference all my statments with verifiable citations. See my original draft[160] (just a few introductory paragraphs).

Another user, user:ScienceApologist has begun disputing the article by repeatedly adding a quantity of unsubstantiated material, using biased non-neutral POV language[161]. Even aftering requesting citations, highlighting outright errors, and acknowledging a lack of understanding of the subject, I feel unable to expand the article past its original couple of paragraphs.

ScienceApologist has previously stated that he think that the Plasma Universe subject "Plasma Cosmology" is junk[162] and labelling it as pseudoscience[163] (despite it all being peer reviewed). I suspect that his personal opinion is influencing his objectivity, as can be determined by the use of language added to the piece, and unsubstantiated information.

I would like ScienceApologist banned from editing the article on the grounds of his disputive influence, and his acknowledged inexperience with subject (see the article Talk page[164]) --Iantresman 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The first cited ScienceApologist edit is a merge request, not "biased non-neutral POV language". The second and third seem to be considered opinions. The fourth is best read as a request for clarification. There is nothing bothersome here, and you are not making a good name for yourself by requesting that someone be banned for expressing opinions that differ from your opinions. --FOo 08:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that's not what I complained about. I mentioned the addition of unsubstantiated material, using biased non-neutral POV language. It is also against policy to express one's opinion in an article, which is what inverifiable material is. And the use of non-neutral language is against policy --Iantresman 11:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vlad III Dracula

I put an "unsourced" tag on an enormous unreferenced section on this page, and started a discussion on it on the Talk page. User:Anittas claims that having a "references" section at the bottom of the page is all that's needed to indicate where this passage's references are from. But it seems to me that if something as large as the "nine anecdotes" section (which I have now removed) dominates a large portion of the article, it should be specifically sourced, unless the entire article comes from the one reference. Anittas said that *I* should put a footnote to it, but I don't have the reference, and it's not the responsibility of the person who's questioning the reference to have to do the work of looking it up. When I told him that I would remove it if a reference was not forthcoming, he threatened to "report" me, to whom, he didn't say. Anyway, I've removed the section. You can see what I took out by reviewing the article's edit history. If somebody wants to put it back, and references it, then I will be satisfied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing at all wrong with removing unsourced info from an article. --InShaneee 00:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given User:Zoe the proper reference, which is located at this link. --Candide, or Optimism 05:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but that's a Word document. It's not exactly accessible to Wikipedia readers who don't have Microsoft Word installed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And, I'm sorry, but where did you give me this reference? Not in the article, not on the Talk page, and not on my Talk page. This is the only place you have deigned to present this information. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for quasi-protection

Hello, all: I've written up Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, a proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting. However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Commented. Please don't eat me alive. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not just amend the current semiprotection policy and extend the timespan for new editors to 5 days from when they make their first edit and also make them have 50 substantive edits?--MONGO 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above; there's really no need to have a separate form of protection for a current form of protection that could just be updated. joturner 23:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediawiki doesn't record edit counts.Geni 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Before it was developed Mediawiki supported nothing. --pgk^(talk) 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Hivemind" talk page edits

Just thought someone would like to know about the following users activities. Wikifall (talk · contribs) Ansell Review my progress! 23:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked him.--MONGO 23:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User Khoikhoi's external page vandalism.

User: Khoikhoi has been removing external links of coastal cities of Turkey. I checked and most links are not spam nor commercial. here are the pages with ext links removed. [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] Metb82 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with him? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you haven't, it's not nice to accuse someone you're in a content dispute with of vandalism. --InShaneee 00:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

this is not a content dispute. ididnt warn him because he knows the rules better than me. Can anyone tell me why these links shouldnt be in wikipedia? it will be useful since i will choose the links according to that from now. take a look please Photos from Fethiye Pictures of the city İzmir Guide and Photo Album. Metb82 00:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This started when 82.72.49.135 (talk · contribs) added links to a website to dozens of articles. I discussed it with him/her, and they argued that there were other photo galleries that were in Turkish city articles. Therefore, I made an agreement with him/her that I would go through them and remove such links (most of which were on numerous articles, which gave me the idea that it was part of another spamming campaign) That was when Metb82 reverted all my edits. —Khoikhoi 00:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I already explained to the anon and Metb82 that they're welcome to upload the images, but spamming articles is not ok. —Khoikhoi 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

you didnt do an agreement with me, it was the person who mass added the links ithink. its ok that you fixed it, but why did you delete links such as i pasted above?Can you show me where spam is inthem? you erased hundreds of them Metb82 00:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the anon. I'll re-add the ones you mentioned above. Most of the ones I removed were links to some of the same websites that were on 20-30 articles —Khoikhoi 00:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ok ill help you re add them. btw feel free to explain to me why it is considered spam if you decide to erase a link that i re add. Metb82 00:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just that when you see a link such as "pbbase.com" on 10-20 different articles about Turkey, you know that perhaps a few months ago someone had spammed the articles, with the intent of promoting their website via Wikipedia. And that's not ok. —Khoikhoi 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ok ill keep that in mind but forexample pbase.com and some others have no commercial profit and they give detailed information for each town or city with exclusive pictures. Now if they really have unique info or pictures for a special town, i think it will be better to add them even for more than one place because it will be easier and important for the person who wants to have more information without having to browse the external link. Metb82 01:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but remember that these websites may not always be reliable sources of information. I agree that the good links should be on more than one page, but not 30 different articles. —Khoikhoi 01:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

== IP 74.229.231.123- Threats And Vandalism ==

If you notice I have provided proof of my sources and this user keeps deleting them stating they are false and the user has not provided any sources that say otherwise to my post about Cingular Wireless. If you look at his talk page history you will see he has been wwarned for other Vandalism acts other than this. Also the user has made me feel threatened by stating on his talk page in reference to me " I dare you to try this face to face! " in reference to me warning him. This makes me feel like I am not secure and that he could track me down and do something which I am not sure of. I am not sure if I should call the police but I really want something done ASAP. Also if you not the history you will find it is the same person all the posts I am wanting him to be blocked for. This person has been blocked but for only 3 Hours and I feel this is not long enough because of the threats and vandalism he is causing Locust43 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Incivility like that is obviously unnecessary, though I would advise you not to muse about calling the police - there's absolutely zero chance that you are physically threatened by this, and if you call the police you will be unable to edit Wikipedia per WP:NLT until the case is resolved. That said, I don't think the information you provided on Talk:Cingular Wireless qualifies as a reliable source. Edit summaries like "I work for Verizon and called them" make it look as if you're doing your own research, which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Verification must be repeatable, and phone calls don't qualify. Same for that data in the URL on the talk page - how can we consider it repeatable verification when most readers can't even understand what it's saying? As far as I can tell it's basically a primary source, which can't be used for this purpose either. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sam is correct, not only with respect to the breathless incivility your message displays, but also with respect to the meaning of WP:RS and WP:V vis-à-vis your proposed contributions, and, more importantly, with respect to phoning the police (although I'm not certain that I agree that WP:NLT would act to prohibit your editing here further); one can be relatively certain that, though untoward, the comments of the anon to you are not criminal (or even civilly actionable), and I imagine that the best course of action at this point would be to stay cool and perhaps to try improving whatever article you find when following Special:Random (I certainly hope this won't be taking as patronizing paternalism; I've used this technique many times when I encounter challenging/exhausting situations here, and it's invariably ameliorated things). Joe 02:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have provided a correct Verizon PRL with the link and also cipped some out and posted it also. It is enough proof to meet the Wikipedia guidelines and it can't get any easier due to the format of the PRL. It is posted on the site making it in writing that can be proven. Locust43 02:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Trolling around Svika Pick

A while ago, Haham hanuka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started trolling around the article Svika Pick. He thought it should read that the pop singer is famous for his love of minors. Many others disagreed and he started an edit war, violated 3RR and was banned (he is permanently banned from editing in his mother tongue). Once back he immediately opened a POV fork under the name Shira Manor (she is the girlfriend of the singer) with the same kind of phrases. Although several users protested I inserted a cleanup template and allowed anyone interested to clean up, improve the article and show why she would be notable. Haham hanuka deleted the cleanup message without explanations. There were no signs of notability so I AfDd. Everyone demanded to delete this article (not to merge) except for Haham hanuka. Nevertheless he took the liberty of closing the AfD himself claiming that there was no consensus. An Administrator closed the AfD as delete and another administrator warned him about his action. A third administrator warned him about rather rude incivility against me. The user then recreated the article (as a redirect) and reinserted his line in Svicka Pick once more, using again an uncivil edit summary when I removed, as if he hadn't just been warned. [180] I would appreciate if an administrator can take a look at this.

Similar trolling occurs at many other articles. For example he finds it necessary to open a discussion about the father of a minor whose mom (an Israeli actress) is sometimes believed to be lesbian and keeps reinserting this point, he keeps inserting a neo-Nazi website as the first external link under Adolf Hitler and inserts npov, cleanup and other templates throughout Wikipedia without explaining his opinion on the talk pages. He recently added pictures of naked women to the article woman (wich is fine), but deleted such a picture from the article man.[181] "Not helpful" he explained to a complaint about vandalism.[182] The list is long. His regular edits are usually done before a robot can pick them up (e.g. deleting an empty line, interwiki, changing some foreign characters), but the damage he creates throughout Wikipedia is very time consuming to many good Wikipedians. The frequent warnings and blocks seem not to have any effect on him. gidonb 02:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with a problematic user

I'd like some advice as to how to deal with User:NoseNuggets, a frequent editor to pages related to American sports. I am familiar with him through Current sports events, where his regular edits to the page have seriously lessened the quality of it. He consistently puts his edits in the past tense, italic type and casual style, even though he has been told several times that current-events pages should be in present tense, roman type and headline style. New editors to the page see his edits and follow his style rather than the correct one. I have been told NoseNuggets' edits to other pages are also of low quality. His edits to Current sports events have improved somewhat -- they are less SportsCenter-ish than they were before.

In January, I created an RFC page to bring attention to NoseNuggets' conduct, but he more-or-less ignored it. I've also left messages on his talk page, to no effect. I tried posting a message to Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, but did not get any feedback. -- Mwalcoff 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think another RfC is in order; having partaken of the first RfC, I was altogether happy when NoseNuggets appeared to improve his editing style (although ostensibly not in response to the RfC), but I have since seen a devolution as well. Though he contributes valuably to several articles, his editing is disruptive and often creates a good deal of work for other users. I wonder if some uninvolved users might drop a note at his talk page to the effect that it'd be a good idea for him to participate in the RfC and learn from the comments of other editors; the substance of his contributions is generally very good, and it'd be bad for the project to lose him, but the fashion in which he contributes is altogether unencyclopedic, and he could be a much better editor were he to listen to the constructive criticism of others. Joe 03:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. Nosenuggets' current events editing makes you wonder if he would prefer to be a sports reporter on his local TV news. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sockpuppet

205.188.117.72 (talk · contribs), an AOL IP clearly being used by banned user EddieSegoura, has changed Template:Sockpuppet a couple of times now like this, substituting the word "alias" for "sockpuppet". (EddieSegoura has an old history of revulsion at having accounts labeled as sockpuppets.) What's appropriate? Just keep reverting? Semi-protection? Full protection? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I just realized that if I subst: all the sockpuppet tags on his pages, the motivation goes away. I'll do that; never mind. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In future, semi-protection will do; there aren't a lot of reasons for IPs to be editing highly used templates, as every change recaches thousands of pages. If they see spelling errors or other minor fixes, they can request it on the talk page. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gimme a hand

Could someone give me a hand over at Jesse Jackson, please? I'm feeling moved toward intemperate language and action, and this would not do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; see [183]. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned editor Lightbringer is back with more socks

The editor Lightbringer, who has been banned by ArbCom, is back with more socks:

• Canonlaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as proven by a RFCU
• Naturalism IS satanism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as proven by a RFCU

Blocks would be appriciated. Thank you. WegianWarrior 07:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thank you, drive through. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Would you like fries with your checkuser?" Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with user "renaming" himself

User:Mr.parks has moved his pages to User:Alastor Moody, which is, technically, not a used username. Help? I'm not sure what exacty to do, given that anyone at any time could create that real username. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:45 UTC (2006-05-28)

Side note: User is new on Wikipedia, broaching it with him could cause major confusion. He still edits from User:Mr.parks but signs as User:Alastor Moody. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:48 UTC (2006-05-28)

I had a situation like this not too long ago. Perhaps confirm with him that he does in fact want to change his username, then help him list it at Wikipedia:Changing usernames so it can be done officially. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can get him to confirm it somewhere that he does want to change, ping me and I'll change it; no need to confuse him with WP:CHU. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote 'his' "userpage",

but not to confuse you, this is link is based on the user of User:Mr.parks although I later changed it to User:Alastor Moody.

and

This page has been renamed from "user:mr.parks" to "user:alastor moody".

NSLE _(T+C) at 08:12 UTC (2006-05-28)

Well, it certainly sounds like he wants a rename, but I need something a bit firmer to go on. Has anyone left him a talk page message? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, per above concerns about confusing the user, but I guess it'll have to be done. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:23 UTC (2006-05-28)

Just ask him if that was his intent, and tell him he can answer you there. I'll keep an eye out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As he's still editing from User:Mr.parks, I got rid of the redirect at User talk:Mr.parks to post the message. Posting it to his new username might not have worked, so a heads-up if you're watching his "new" page. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:38 UTC (2006-05-28)

Watching both, just in case. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He has replied to my talk page confirming. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:05 UTC (2006-05-29)