Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
- Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly
- Still not sure what to do? Seek advice at the Teahouse
- Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
{{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
User:Jtdirl locked an article of himself
Possible abuse of admin privileges. User:Jtdirl, whom the community well knows to be Jim Duffy (author) locked that article last night, as shown by diff [1]. Is the feeling of impropriety bad or worse? There is certainly something rotten in the system of checks and balances if an admin can keep an article of himself protected. 217.140.193.123 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Yet another lie from a user incapable of telling the truth. A series of sockpuppets linked to banned user User:Skyring (up to 15 so far) targeted a group of articles for vandalism. To stop the endless vandalism a series of articles were vprotected last night. These included Pope Pius XII, Victoria of the United Kingdom, Jim Duffy (author) and others. I have never said that I am the person in the article. The vandal claims it. User 217's lies at this stage are tedious and childish, like most of his contributions, and attacks on various users, on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 20:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- "I have never said that I am the person in the article." - Should we take it therefore that Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles is inaccurate when when it associates your account and that page? That listing is not a recent addition, and the details you provide on your user page and your username do not appear inconsistent with the person described in the article. Dragons flight 20:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- It looks to me like Jtdirl is being wikistalked and harrassed, and is protecting articles from vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I did express some concern on Jtdirl's talk page about the precedent set by the subject of an article locking it. I am satisfied by his answer that he acted in good faith, though it would have been better in my opinion to have had another admin lock this particular article. I think this anonymous complaintant is not acting in the best of faith, and I think if one looks at the history there is little doubt this is yet another incarnation of a blocked user. Jonathunder 20:15, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
- This doesn't seem like a very nice chap, to be sure. The only one I looked at, however, didn't look like vandalism per se. If this is really SkyRing, however, I wouldn't expect things to be straightforward in any case. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps Jim T Duffy In Real Life could provide a few diffs of this "endless vandalism"? 217's statement above is entirely correct:
- Jim Duffy locked an article on himself.
- There is something wrong in the system.
- Perhaps Jim T Duffy In Real Life could provide a few diffs of this "endless vandalism"? 217's statement above is entirely correct:
- Labelling statements of fact and honest debate as "lies, stalking, vandalism and harassment" and using admin powers to win edit wars is a poor sort of example to set, and being backed up by a member of the ArbComm merely underscores this point. Mineeyes 20:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, the total of behavior of Jtdirl shows sensitivity that has gone too far, and the use of/position of admin aggravates the problem. It really is disruptive if a person with sort of paranoia may use privileged enforcement alone by his own judgement, in his own case. The situation seems such that the judgement of the person in question is heavily influenced by his problems, are they "Jtdirl is being wikistalked and harassed" and/or some other problems. We should understand that already from the language Jtdirl used above desctibing me. For these sorts of situations, there should be clear requirement of recusal. If the suspected "sockpuppet" or whatever (or alleged vandalism) is objectively seen such, another will do things that are needed. I believe that idea is written in many places in WP policies. How is it that it is not followed? 217.140.193.123 20:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Jtdirl did nothing wrong. He removed a statement from an article that did not belong (It was a self reference and it was not notable in the grand scheme of things), and not only that, but it was the first time he had edited that article in over two years. FURTHERMORE, the comment he removed was added by none other than permabanned member NoPuzzleStranger aka Wik. Jtdirl was right to do it, and then people and/or sockpuppets put it back when it did not belong. He was absolutely right to protect it, it was being vandalized. Their summaries show a blatant disregard for the wiki way - "Useful to know so as to watch for shameless self-promotion. *Keep*" "It's a warning, not a self-reference." "Warning of shameless self-manipulation" - Since the last time he'd edited was two years prior, what exact manipulation are these folks referring to? Stalking and trolling. Deal with accordingly. --Golbez 22:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Krhm. "Not over two years"... Concluding from writing style, topics chosen and also from the IP's Irish ___location, the IP 159.134.137.114 which made plenty of edits to that article on 18 March 2005 (see User:159.134.137.114, contibutions etc), in fact seems highly likely to be User:Jtdirl. Of course it is a kind act towards WP that he shares his private knowledge of the topic (and I wouldn't raise such issues as Original Research, POV, etc). It would not be correct to allege that the IP is Jtdirl's sockpuppet, as by definition an IP never is sockpuppet, only accounts may be. If such sitiation arises, David Gerard and arbitrators may then judge whether the IP is same person as Jtdirl. 217.140.193.123 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
By my definition, none of the edits I looked at are vandalism. They don't look like good edits, I agree, but that's not the same as vandalism. I feel calling these edits vandalism is a way of fitting them into a certain box in order to enable them to be dealt with more easily. Everyking 22:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I prefer the term "trolling" myself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether or not Jtdirl is the writer Jim Duffy; nor does it particularly interest me. What bothers me is that such an assertion would be made when a user has deliberately chosen a username. On the same note, I think it was in rather bad taste for Skyring constantly to address him and refer to him here on Wikipedia as "Jim". Whether his real name is John Smith, Jim Duffy, or Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, he has a perfect right to be anonymous on Wikipedia if he so chooses. I may really be J.K. Rowling, but if I chose the username Ann Heneghan, I have the right to expect that people use that name to refer to me. In any case, Jtdirl had not edited that article for over two years, and it took him over four months to discover that User:NoPuzzleStranger had inserted into it the statement that Jim Duffy was editing Wikipedia under the username Jtdirl — hardly what you'd expect from someone who has got over-possessive about an article because he's the subject of it. Can we drop the speculation, please? Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Are you asking for your contribution to be deleted then? 8^)
- The above is all very precious, as a lawyer would say, but there is no doubt about the equivalence of user:jtdirl and Jim Duffy. Regardless of whether he takes a long time to edit his own article (and as noted, a Dublin anon made a major rewrite in March this year), the information is certainly pertinent to the article. The article itself mentions various publications from which Jim Duffy presumably derives some income, and the question needs to be asked as to how far Wikipedia is prepared to go in promoting a writer's interest, or self-interest. Just how does this differ from the various promotional pages we see for bands of little renown which are intended to drum up recognition? Selectman 22:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I prefer the phrase "edits made by sockpuppets of a user banned for a year for wiki-stalking." That's clear-cut. Really clear-cut. I just found and blocked another likely sockpuppet of Skyring. Whether the edit is good or not is really beside the point–coming from Skyring it isn't in good faith. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Ann, when people choose usernames we must assume they want anonymity. Presumably that is why User:217.140.193.123 sometimes calls himself User:Arrigo and sometimes uses other IP addresses anonymously. I've known Jtdirl for, what, two years plus? -- and I still don't really know if he's the subject of the article in question. Deb 22:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Disputed VfD close of ExamDiff up for relisting Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination)
This was peremptorily deleted by one sysop who disputed the close. I don't see any harm in having a proper discussion as there were only four votes in the original VfD, so I've relisted it--it clearly isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this be exactly the sort of thing that should be taken to VfU, this being an undeletion? Whether or not you're an admin? -Splash 23:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Tony has unilaterally decided that VFU is broken ([2]) so is once more bypassing it. Sounds like WP:POINT. Also, speedy deletion doesn't come into it; the original VFD had consensus to delete. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- No. The deletion was closed with a no consensus result. Someone then contacted me and asked if it was okay to relist on VfD. I said he should do that with my blessing because it was a close result and there were only four voters. Someone else went ahead and listed in on VfD. It was then that Radiant simply edited the original VfD page to reflect his preferred result and summarily deleted the article. The article was restored and is now being discussed in the right place: VfD. It was a failed attempt by Radiant to hijack a legitimate VfD. Whether VFU is bust or not is moot; the article never belonged there. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Coq-bloody-Sportif and his sockpuppet legions
Are mostly coming in through two ranges assigned to Prodigy Internet in Melbourne: 202.147.97.0/24 and 203.82.183.0/24. I dunno if these are a business or a net cafe or what, but there has been literally nothing from these two ranges in the last two months except trolling, vandalism and sockpuppetry. I've blocked both /24s for three months. That's a fairly extreme block for an IP, but those who've had fun with the sockpuppet legions might like the following list:
Newshounder, Terpt, Bertzenfartzen, Chokitoass, Barnabyhanson, Plunger, Rebeve, Longterg, Edwardlongstreet, Towelhedzras, Justase, Osamabeenlaughing, Adam Corr, AdamEve, Thecunninglinguists, Shintaro, Shukidalam, WhereIsTheLove?, Cupcaketwinkie, Frankly, Carlaz, KarlJetter, Dirtyboo, Ericcantona, Hansolocousin, Dertyharry, Planetaustin, Moodaltering, Rousterspor, Pewtang, Hooters, Peacenick, Woozer, Coqsportif, Gookoid, Reject, Toshiba, Jakemelen, Huchi, DavidGlick, Sunak and Wakemeupwhen.
All of those are the same user or one of two people. It doesn't really matter which, IMO, as (as I said) there's been literally nothing positive from those IP ranges in the last two months. I urge you not to unblock those IP ranges without referring them to me first, because I'd like a few words with the listed contact for the ___domain about this rubbish - David Gerard 22:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, then knowing the origination of this person is practically impossible. I have only encountered "Thecunninglinguists" otherwise, who was ostensibly a juche enthusiast. Weird people on teh internets. --TJive 22:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- He's back as 203.206.81.110 (talk · contribs). --Viriditas | Talk 10:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Socknet
User:Socknet may herald something on a larger scale than currently seen daily with Willy on Wheels. Nothing links to this userpage yet, so I assume I'm the first to notice / report this account user page. I sincerely hope that the proposed vandalizations are not implemented yet in his/their scripts. AdamRock 22:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh fuck. I think this will be repulsible, though. Could someone mention on wikien-l? ~~ N (t/c) 22:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thought I'd summarize: threats of mass-scale sockpuppet vandalization on August 25, 2005. AdamRock 22:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Why not just block it for threats of mass vandalism and impersonating a user banned by the community (WoW). Jonathunder 22:59, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
- Won't help. Read the description. ~~ N (t/c) 23:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- I left the folks on IRC know what is going on. I am also stunned by it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted the user page as inappropriate under the user page policy. We don't have to tolerate user pages consisting solely of instructions for "improved" vandalism techniques. The likely vandal fighters (i.e. admins) can still view the deleted user page. Let's not recreate or duplicate that content, if at all possible, and let's not put ideas in people's minds. If we're lucky, it was just a trolling attempt. --MarkSweep 23:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I have to say that 500 good edits in order to be able to vote keep to a school article is a bloody bargain. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, usually most school articles are never put on VFD now, right? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Shhh don't tell them that! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Theresa! If I read that page correctly, people are agreeing to gather in a drive to improve Wikipedia! I think that's good news. Oh, we'll just kick them afterwards, of course. Bad edits are bad edits, just as good edits are good edits. People could get less hung up about identity anyway, in those places where hardly anyone collaborates. JRM · Talk 23:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Damn. I can't believe that some people can be so depraved. I'll be keeping an careful lookout over the next couple of days. Anyone have any idea how credible this threat is? Seems odd that someone would intentionally announce their intentions for mass vandalism on this scale on Wikipedia itself. -Loren 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's not credible at all. It's just some kid doing a spot of trolling.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Could someone ban this guy properly? Theresa only blocked "User:User:Socknet". ~~ N (t/c) 00:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Doh! I'm an idiot. I've sorted it now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
C'mon Theresa, you've been an admin for how long now? ;) Anyways, I think this is quite funny...if it does happens I will never have to worry about being bored again (maybe I can get a wiki-M16 or something) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Naaah, I think it's clear, Theresa must be the admin that they say is secretly supporting them. Look at her record. First she says it is a "bloody bargain", and then she tries to deflect criticism by saying it is "just some kid", and then she "accidentally" forgets how to block the account. And think how useful it will be for them to have a member on ArbCom. That was your vicious plan all along, right Theresa, oh queen of the secret vandals? We see right through you. ;-) Dragons flight 17:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- one slight flaw blocking User:User:Socknet will block User:Socknet. In fact you can use this bug to double block people.Geni 22:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Two possibilities here: (a) Just another joke (from someone with an axe to grind about school inclusionism, by the sound of it) or (b) They're serious, in which case such activities (page-move vandalism, voting to keep porn, etc.) would stick out like a sore thumb and make the socks easy ban-magnets, regardless of their edit count. On the positive side, WP gets some good grunt work like stub sorting done. Either way, nothing to get worried or upset about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
69.118.228.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is reverting the article Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century to remove mention of the recent removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip. This is a relevant event in the "Timeline of Islamic history 21st Century." I have reverted once, which the user re-reverted. They are obvioulsy watching the article, and I do not wish to become engaged in an edit war. — Linnwood 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect spree
I received this message today from another user:
I noticed this user has taken numerous (apparent) legitimate articles and seemingly needlessly redirected them to other relevant articles. Could you take a look at this please? Thanks. NickBush24 07:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I checked into it, and indeed Indrian (talk · contribs) has been redirecting a large number of articles. Since I don't know anything about archery, I thought I'd bring it up here and let others take a look. Is this something we should be concerned about, or are the redirects legit? -- Essjay · Talk 01:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, at least some of them are legit, if somewhat discardist. Example: Takaharu Furukawa is now a redirect to Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics and the target confirm that person did compete as described. However, he only redirected the page, without a merge. That is just being WP:BOLD, but does seem to discard a fair bit of information. Still, the editor would seem to be within their 'rights' to do that. I checked a handful and they seem to be the same thing. The only problem is that he hasn't delinked the now-redirected articles from their target, so they've become circular links. -Splash 02:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- He indeed does have the 'right' to do it. And I have the 'right' to revert it. --Golbez 04:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, which is why I did not revert them. I did not have time, and I would have wanted to discuss it first. I too noticed no one had brought it up on Indrian's page. And I agree with Indrian - this is a matter that should have been brought up on his talk page first, rather than as an Admin Noticeboard Incident. --Golbez 18:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- The complete lack of edit summaries for these major changes is also worrying. - SimonP 04:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I think what is truly worrying is the complete lack of notification to a user that his edits are turning into a source of major discussion (thanks to --fvw* for being polite in this regard). The archery articles that I have redirected I did so because the articles in question contained no information that was not already contained on the archery page. One who examined the matter more closely would notice that I did not redirect several archery articles which did, in fact, include more information than country of origin and finishing place at the Olympics. I did not merge any material because, quite simply, there was nothing to merge. Obviously, if a large number of users disagree with these assertions, I am not going to start a protracted edit war or anything silly like that, but I challenge anyone to inform me as to the value of articles that contain nothing but the nationality and finishing place of athletes when this information is already contained on the main page of the subject. These articles are not deleted, and any editor is free at any time to expand these redirected stubs into well-written and informative articles, or even poorly written and uninformative articles as long as they contain information that is not already found on the archery page. Note that I also have been deleting the links in the archery article as I have been redirecting the articles, so any that I did not delink were mere oversights. (EDIT: After examining the archery page more closely, I realize that the contestants are linked multiple times on the page and that I have only been delinking them from the main listing. This was, as I said, an oversight and not on purpose) In the future, if anyone has problems with my actions, they should come to me first; this is only polite. Indrian 16:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for all the fuss; I didn't know enough about the subject to start a discussion with Indrian over whether it was a good idea or not. My hope was that bringing it up here would allow someone who knew more about it to take a look and take the appropriate action. In the future, I'll just ignore anything I can't handle myself. -- Essjay · Talk 04:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Amorrow (talk · contribs) began making some really odd, rambling comments on the Talk page of Elizabeth Morgan, then went onto Jimbo's Talk page and put other rambling comments there. I don't know what went on between him and User:Xaa, but Xaa was reporting that he/she was getting emailed death threats from Amorrow, and has since left Wikipedia as a result. As 204.147.187.240 (talk · contribs), Amorrow is now making threats to User:Geni. Zoe 07:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I've gotten a few too. Considering the Xaa situation, this should not be taken lightly. --Golbez 07:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Amorrow sent a pile of these to me and various others. Diagnosis: batshit. If in doubt, contact the authorities - David Gerard 15:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I was just about to say, and not facetiously, that he might benefit greatly from medical attention. I hope that wherever he is he is able to get it. Soon.—Encephalon | ζ 16:33:59, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
- I mean it about the authorities. He appears to have cracked up substantially - David Gerard 21:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we know where he located. His native IP appears to be earthlink so we can't get much from thatGeni 21:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- And seemed to pop back again, as User:Andysocky. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I blocked that ccount as well.Geni 22:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- He edited my Talk page as User:172.198.170.230, another head-scratching diatribe. Zoe 22:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Could somebody take a fresh eye at this user's edits? He/she seems to be making a large number of articles about non-notable motorcycles created by a marginally notable bike shop. His edits are beginning to read more and more like an ad campaign. If others think his edits are acceptable, then I apologize. Zoe 08:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I think the edits are too advertisement-like in tone. However, I do consider Orange County Choppers to be plenty notable, because of the American Chopper connection. The show has many fans (a little embarrassed to confess I'm one of them). Bishonen | talk 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Check out this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AN%2FCYZ-10&diff=21659218&oldid=17988204
I reverted it, but the IP actually resolves to the USMC in San Diego. Maybe there is something to this. It looks like a legal threat, and we'd be giving USMC IPs a carte blanche to blank at will if we let this stand. What do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to ask the editor who put the information there where they got it, it's probably public ___domain somewhere. But I doubt that a Lance Corporal would be blanking the article if it were really classified, a Colonel would be contacting the Foundation. Zoe 17:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it: it comes completely from the Navy Information Assurance site, which I suspect the USMC knows about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the editor in question and I have added sources to the article. This is likely a hoax and if it is from a USMC IP address, the USMC might want to know about it. --agr 21:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation; if the article really does contain classified information, and the chap who has just blanked it is justified in his actions and has been authorised to do so, then he has actually confirmed that the information - which is persistent and available in the page history - is classified information, in which case he is probably breaking a rule or two himself. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Quite. My initial impulse on seeing this was to consider saving a copy to my hard drive, although I didn't bother because it's nearly certainly a hoax. Given how Wikipedia content gets dispersed to mirrors and database dumps, it's likely that the best thing a goverment entity could do if its secrets were posted on Wikipedia would be to simply ignore it, and not draw attention to it in any way. Alternatively, they could have a mole editor list it on VfD as "unverifiable", which would be workable if Wikipedia were the only public source (and if it wasn't, they've lost the secret anyway). — Matt Crypto 23:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
It can't be that secret if you can buy one for yourself. --Calton | Talk 00:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keeps blanking my comments on his user talk page. Refuses to archive. Insists on his right to blank this and everything else on his talk page. eg here, SqueakBox 18:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly, unless someone's blanking a vandalism warning, I don't complain about it. If you are trying to communicate about a dispute, however (and it appears you are), I take blanking of a page not only as an indication to move it to the next step in dispute resolution, but also as excellent evidence to be presented on your behalf. But I would say that it, in itself, is not vandalism. Deleting instead of archiving is a perfectly reasonable method; I've seen admins do it. However, it's very poor form to do it mid-argument. --Golbez 18:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I have replaced someone else's 2 day old notice of his arbitration and flagged his deletion mid conversation You may well be right about taking it further. Maybe time for a 3rd Rfc. Cheers, SqueakBox 18:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
If you actually read the above you will have to see that there was nothing wrong with my removing the discussion and your insistence on putting it back is clear harassment. Furthermore, the argument was not-mid argument because Squeakbox here insisted upon getting the last word in and continuing to press his harassment during his bad behavior. Furthermore I notice other people on his talk page complaining about his agressive behavior and baseless threats. Perhaps it's about time I started filing complaints against editors who are breaking policy instead of just sitting back and waiting for them to file false accusations against me. I have reverted my talk page again... but you are right about one thing: It is not over, because something needs to be done about admins who think they are above the policies here and how go on crusades of harassment against people who point out that they did something wrong. DreamGuy 19:07, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I can clear a few things up
- Nobody has to create an archive if they don't want to.
- If someone removes an old comment from their talk page then assume good faith and believe them when they are saying they are clearing out old stuff.
- If someone removes a new comment from their talk page then this implies two things
- They have seen that comment
- They do not wish to respond to it
- Since they have seen the comment, reposting it is pointless. At RFAr we ask for evidence that a notice was posted about the RFAr.That's all. We do not require that the person has to keep the notice on thier talk page.
- Since the person has indicated that they do not wish to discuss the matter, and nobody can force someone to discuss things, then reposting deleted conversations serves no useful purpose whatsoever. All it can be used for is harrasment, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have not been harrassing DreamGuy but he most certainly has been harrassing me; without justification, SqueakBox 22:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Well if that is true then your best course of action is not to go to your harraser's talk page at all. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Blocked User Evading Block (Again)
User:67.182.157.6 AKA Donald Alford AKA "DotSix" was blocked yesterday for 3RR. Today he has been using sockpuppets in the AOL range of IPs to resume the reverts on Epistemology, and the pages for the Arb Committee case that the Arb Committee voted to accept last week. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Evidence. Since AOL IPs are highly dynamic, there's not much point to blocking them. He'll just login with a new one. But you could extend the block on his main user id: User:67.182.157.6 to punish him. That is what was done the several times earlier this month that he evaded a block with sockpuppets. But could you extend it for more than 24 hrs this time? Also, you could protect Epistemology? --Nate Ladd 00:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Protected. --cesarb 02:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Trollderella blocked
I see that this user was blocked. I don't know if simply having "troll" in the username is a good reason to block, especially since I haven't seen much disruption take place from this user, even though s/he appears to be very inclusionist (though not disruptive, and not a "blanket" keep voter on all VFD debates like User:Chubby Chicken was). I think the subject of having/not having "troll" in the username has been discussed before and that the most common opinions were that it is acceptable to have "troll" in the username but that one is far less tolerant of vandalism or disruption coming from them. I see that Rossami discussed his concerns about the username with Trolderella, and perhaps a further admonition of the wisdom of such a username choice might be appropriate, but was a block really neccesary when most, if not all, of the edits are legitimate? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- The idea that someone could be banned purely on account of having a "troll" user name baffles me. If there's another reason, OK, but just the name? If we're going to have to contend with trolls anyway, isn't it nicer if they label themselves so we can easily keep an eye on them? Everyking 07:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't always agree with your mild views on banning and blocking people, but I tend to agree with you on this one. I will unblock this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Another impostor?
See Special:Contributions/Erwin_Walsh (that's "Erwin_Walsh%C2%AD%C2%AD") and Special:Contributions/Erwin_Walsh (just "Erwin_Walsh"). Can someone double-check? (I truly think unicode support for user names should be switched off or at least only display in signatures, but not in RC and other lists (there, it should be displayed as %...) Lupo 09:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Update: I can't even block him! The block page tells me that "There is no user by the name "Erwin Walsh%C2%AD%C2%AD". Check your spelling." But there is such an account! What's going on here? Lupo 11:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I blocked Erwin's main account after he vandalized Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit this morning, but he immediately hopped onto a sock account and vandalised it again. And then again. User:Sjakkalle has indefinitely blocked two of his puppets so far. To say that Erwin has become a serious problem would be an understatement, I think. He's starting to tie up a lot of administrator time. Fernando Rizo T/C 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's because in the username to be blocked field the unicode facility is enabled, allowing it to be displayed. I don't know how to switch that off or to block the username. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 11:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Posting my response on Lupo's talkpage here too: I'm in fact not entirely sure. I blocked two Erwin Walshs now, they are not the same user because the userpage of the second Erwin Walsh I blocked is a redirect to the first one. I think the "indefinite" block of the first one is not permanent because he was blocked for 24 hours by Fernando Rizo. When that block expires, Erwin Walsh no. 1 will be unblocked, regardless of the indefinite block I imposed right afterwards.
I blocked Erwin Walsh no. 2 by accessing the block button from the Recentchanges page.
I suspect Erwin Walsh is a sockpuppet of someone anyway, out to make a WP:POINT. 80% of his edit summaries consist of the word "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- just copy and paste the name from the top of thier user page.Geni 11:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- But that reads "User:Erwin Walsh" in both cases, and even in the HTML, there is no difference! Lupo 11:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- That is a real problem. If you take a look at the list of blocks I made I caught the second Erwin Walsh at 11:22. There I was able to catch him from the block buttons on the Recentchanges page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
From Special:Ipblocklist, I think Erwin Walsh is out of business for 24 hours thanks to the autoblock. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yup. However, Unicode or UTF-8 support should still be switched off for user names. Anybody knows whether the developers are aware of this problem? BTW, %C2%AD is a soft hyphen in ISO 8859-1. Lupo 13:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I searched the list of open problems and found a ticket, bugzilla:2290, open on the issue. The proposed solution proposed in this ticket of canonizing look-alike characters into a single character before creating a new user is probably a better solution as it could be applied to other languages by substituting an appropriate table. --Allen3 talk 13:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I've unblocked Erwin early, please see his talk page for my rationale. If this turns out to be a mistake on my part, apologies in advance. I'm personally considering this Erwin's last chance for some leniency. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Harrassment
I seem to have incurred the wrath of some anon after blocking him for a string of Michigan-related vandalism ([3]). He apparently took exception to this, and began a string of attacks against my user page and on my talk page ([4] [5]). The IP addresses resolve to a Grand Rapids, Michigan-area dialup. I'm not irritated so much as annoyed–surely someone from GR has better things to do with his life than vandalizing articles (or maybe not)? Theresa blocked one of the IPs, if I'm not mistaken, and I blocked the latest one for a week. I'm tempted to start taking stronger measures–I'm at work nine hours a day and can't watch my user page. Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Don't sweat it. Admin user pages get vandalised all the time. The very worst thing you can do is allow it to annoy you. You don't need to watch your user page, someone will revert vandalism. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 11:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a problem with an admin protecting his own user page, in case this gets out of hand. Radiant_>|< 12:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you can protect your user page -- but be careful, because User:UninvitedCompany will send the boys round if he doesn't agree it's vandalism. Deb 18:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Nah, I'm not going to protect it. I figure he'll give it up, or I'll eventually have the entire city of Grand Rapids blocked... Thanks all for the support, I just found it rather disagreeable this morning. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Archiving
I just snipped the top part of this page and put it in IncidentArchive40. Then I thought that it would be pretty pointless to just cut/paste it, and I should instead keep only the interesting sections. Then after I snipped those I had almost nothing left, so I decided not to snip. How exactly is this page archived, then? Radiant_>|< 14:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Archiving? I just assumed the archive fairies did it after they were finished archiving Talk: Armenian Genocide. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- you put everything in in theory you should interweve it with 3RR reports but it is a lot quicker to decide on a cut off date then remove evrything that is not active and dump it in there.Then do the same for 3RR this messes up timeings a little but not enough to be a problem.Geni 15:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw assists spammer
Observe the spectacle of an admin, User:Willmcw, reinstating spam to a talk page after it had been removed by User:Zappaz. --goethean ॐ 16:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. One has to more ask why Zappaz reverted in the first place some info on a talk page that clearly was not commercial spam, SqueakBox 16:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The user was spamming several talk pages with links to their Yahoo group about cults (including unrelated ones, like Talk:Cult film. I don't see anything wrong with removing the spam. It's a nuisance and it clutters up talk pages. Rhobite 16:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- But is spam grounds for removing someone else's comments? Genuinely curious · Katefan0(scribble) 16:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely. If the only contribution a person makes to this encyclopedia is to peddle his wares, he needs to be shown the door. I'm tired of selfish, clueless marketers who think it's their god-given right to abuse every new medium of communication that comes along. --Ardonik.talk()* 16:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you -- corporate press releases clog up Wikipedia every day. But this wasn't exactly commercial, was it? It was a link to a Yahoogroups discussion forum. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to be commercial spam. But that doesn't mean that it isn't commercial spam. Many Yahoogroups are advertisements for commercial enterprises. --goethean ॐ 17:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you -- corporate press releases clog up Wikipedia every day. But this wasn't exactly commercial, was it? It was a link to a Yahoogroups discussion forum. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely. If the only contribution a person makes to this encyclopedia is to peddle his wares, he needs to be shown the door. I'm tired of selfish, clueless marketers who think it's their god-given right to abuse every new medium of communication that comes along. --Ardonik.talk()* 16:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- But is spam grounds for removing someone else's comments? Genuinely curious · Katefan0(scribble) 16:34, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The user was spamming several talk pages with links to their Yahoo group about cults (including unrelated ones, like Talk:Cult film. I don't see anything wrong with removing the spam. It's a nuisance and it clutters up talk pages. Rhobite 16:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's a judgment call. A short, polite note on a single article's talk page would be fine. This user put a large note on 13 different talk pages - and the group is practically empty too, 7 messages total. Rhobite 17:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Again --goethean ॐ 20:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not going to re-add them again. -Willmcw 22:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Left a polite message on user's page and deleted blatant soclicitation, not beffiting a talk page --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 01:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
FilePile
Could someone take a look at the war at FilePile? I've already protected the page once and I would like another pair of eyes on it to see what the appropriate action is. Thanks, BanyanTree 18:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"Fake Place" vandal 63.19.*.*
is back today, as 63.19.202.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please everyone be alert for any subtle edits to place articles by an IP beginning with 63.19. It also doesn't hurt to look through Special:Newpages for creations by similar IPs. It's the same person who has vandalized Luxembourg hundreds of times. Antandrus (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- He's also been on tonight as:
- 63.19.212.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 63.19.210.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 63.19.198.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- I range blocked him finally (just 3 hours though). This edit is a perfect example of why this is so insidious [6] -- sneaky little changes like this, hundreds and hundreds of them, all from different IPs are his style. Antandrus (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Mike Garcia
Mike Garcia is going around deleting everything I post (even multiple reverts on me reporting his 3RR violation of Hypnotize at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR [7] despite being reverted by several users. I don't know what he is trying to do. 66.36.133.229 00:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Advance warning
It wouldn't surprise me if the Plyrics vfd went much the same way as the Flying Spaghetti Monster one as the latter was mentioned on the Plyrics forum. Interesting that Wikipedia is now listed as one of the main sources at which to find information about the FSM. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 03:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Uploading pornography
Bmpower (talk · contribs) has apparently decided to systematically illustrate Playboy Playmate articles (see contribs). Most of the images he is uploading to do this look like professional pornography for which he asserts fair use (a couple are professional but non-pornographic). I commented on his talk page that fair use seems an unlikely claim for these images and immediately after I said that, he appears to have went away.
Strange as it seems, upon reflection, I am not actually sure he was trolling. Which is to say he may have been uploading pornographic pictures in a good faith effort to illustrate the pages pornographic actresses, without realizing that these were probably no good for copyright. But the question comes in, what to do now? Should one revert the changes to the models' pages and send the images to IFD? or perhaps just delete them? And I can't help wondering about the larger question. Since wikipedia is not censored, if there was a legitimate way to obtain the images, would we illustrative the pages of Playmates with porn? Dragons flight 05:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I would list all of them for ifd because of bogus FU claims, and revert them from the articles until the ifd vote is decided. Zoe 05:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Damaging page move
SmarterChild3 (talk • contribs • block) -- moved Seth Morales (currently on VfD) to 4395682439564395643956 a nonsensical title for the content. The move broke the link on the VfD page. An admin is needed to undo the move properly. DES (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- He moved a lot of stuff. Look at the move log [8]. It's difficult to fix but it looks like a couple of us are on it. I blocked him indefinitely. Antandrus (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- My congratulations on catching this quickly and thanks for reverting, but does it worry anyone else that he did all those in less than 2 minutes and that the string of numbers he used had a systematically increasing counter (the 6th digit from left). Dragons flight 05:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- two minutes would be doable manualy. That count means he is probably useing s bot though.Geni 10:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- For those not in the know, SmarterChild is the name of an AIM bot -- grm_wnr Esc 12:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- two minutes would be doable manualy. That count means he is probably useing s bot though.Geni 10:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Fenian Swine
...has moved his userpage to User:Muc Fíníneach, but there is no registered user by that name. This is kinda weird. Radiant_>|< 09:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. It would have been nice if we'd just, you know, let it go. But some people need to have some kind of excitement in their lives, even if it means just poking at somebody with a stick. Anyway, my uneducated guess is that this new name means "Fenian Swine" in Irish. Everyking 10:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh noes! He's claiming to be part of an outdated monarchical system! That is so inappropriate! (anyway my point was that since we have so many impersonators these days, this might be an enticement for them, so I figured I'd point it out here)Radiant_>|< 10:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't care what it means. I do know that what he has done doesn't work to well with the softwear and there is going to be trouble when someone regtisters that user name. Incerdently is there any way under the rules to block User:Mr Swine?Geni 10:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. It's a sockpuppet made for trolling, and nearly all of his (few) edits are personal attacks. Radiant_>|< 11:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, assuming they do not get blocked, maybe ask them to change their username to that, seeings they want the userpage so bad. ∞Who?¿? 11:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Abusive image added to Lesbian [9] by User:Klonimus. Odd, this seems like a helpful user, so this is only a "heads up" I guess. Wyss 11:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like it was added in good faith to me. In what way is image "abusive"? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Posted a note on my talk page about being banned by Jimbo. I am assuming this is User:Irate since I added {{indefblockeduser}} to that userpage. The name is mentioned many times in the comment posted on my talk page, specifically mentioning the reason for the block quoted from the block log: Personal conversation in IRC in which he assures me that our rules are rubbish and that he intends to continue "following" them as he always has. I assume this user would need a block as a sock? Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 12:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)