Today I noticed that someone had posted a PROD tag on an article that I have contributed to. Clicking through to see who pasted it and then seeing this persons contributions revealed that the person registered a few days back and theironly contributions are nominations for deletion of articles that I have been contributing to. Have a look:Special:Contributions/Carl_Timothy_Jones. Now I'm not sure what's going on and what to do. Can anyone help?WietsE23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I am not "targetting" you. I explained that 1) I have previously edited anonymously 2) Found your article viaRandom article and 3) Found your other articles via your list on you user page. I have merely followed the correct procedure for listing articles which I believe cover non-notable people or groups (which, by the way, you seem to be directly involved with).

• When I had earlier explained that I had found your articles from your user page, you then proceeded to directly remove themhere. A strange thing to do, perhaps you could explain why. Were you trying to make me look like a liar? You seem to have immediately assumed bad faith, by raising my contributions rather than arguing your casehere.

• Furthermore you have now changed you initial accusatory heading to one that ismerely sarcastic.Carl Timothy Jones23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've indef-blockedUser:Carl Timothy Jones as a disruption-only account. User's only edits are to tag WietsE's articles for deletion. |Mr. Darcytalk01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The second line of this userpage looks to me like a threat. Should I (or anyone else willing to do so) go ahead and remove it?Scobell30223:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The part about "no longer uses Wikipedia" is garbage, as there was more vandalism after it was put there. User's been temp blocked and the User Talk page (where s/he was trying to use the same tactic to eliminate warning messages) has been protected. Block will be up in a few hours and we'll see for how long.Fan-196723:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The threat should go, of course.

Beyond that, though, I thought there was kind of a consensus against blocking and page-protecting for "removing warnings" as the warnings are available in the page history. Not sure if that applies when vandalism is still ongoing, though.

While we're on the subject of this editor, is "West wikipedia" an acceptable username given that names implying official connection with the project are barred by the username policy?Newyorkbrad23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a consensus abour removing warnings. Could you please point me to where it is?Khoikhoi00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen seemingly dozens of discussions on this issue, and the weight of opinion has been against blocking just for removing warnings. Having just looked at the centralized discussion again, "consensus" may have been too strong a word. Any thoughts on the username?

I have removed the offending line from the person's User page.User:Zoe|(talk)23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. The account name is clearly inappropriate (remember, Wikipedia is a copyright of the Wikimedia Foundation), and besides, it just isn't on the level for that guy to be claiming one's account will be deleted for reverting his edits. --Cyde Weys01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Now I suggest that his talkpage can be replaced with the username blocked template, which will moot the other issue. (Technicality: "trademark", not "copyright.")Newyorkbrad01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can something please be done about the over-zealous editor who keeps reverting my page? Sadly I am unable to edit his talk page to discuss the matter with him, and he ignores the messages I leave on my talk page. This version[1] gives a concise version of events, showing I was incorrectly warned. As such, I am perfectly entitled to remove that warning. Many thanks81.155.178.24800:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

81.155.178.248 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log) Has ben reported toWP:AIV for multiple removal of warnings, vandalism to his talk page--Hu1200:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) and 3RR.

As far as I can tell, the IP user did not vandalize, hence blanking them was appropriate, although contentious. I have blanked the page to save everyone some grief. Move along, everybody... -- ()00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, Resolved --Hu1201:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This user insulted user:jadger on jadger´s talk page:MeinGott, sind alle Pfälzer so doof wie Du? Peinlich, das alles "My god, are all people from the Palatinate as dumb as you? Embarrassing, all of this"--Tresckow01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

besides this he seems zto have messe around with this site: [[2]] --Tresckow02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Warn, then, if user persists, report toWP:AIV.Patstuart^talk|edits06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is suggested thatWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected_identity_theft, above, should receive attention.Carcharoth01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get that awkward, stilted, horrible, passive-voice, weaselly phrasing? Oh, never mind.Newyorkbrad02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that situation very confusing. Deltabeignet seems to have attempted a breaching experiment of sorts, which certainly isn't cool. But then the accusations start getting weird--he is an impostor editing as himself in order to edit anonymously and then revert reversions of the anonymous edits which aren't really him anyway but someone else pretending to be him. . . ?Chick Bowen04:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain what happened over the past few minutes? Many pages were filled with a repeated imageImage:Right.jpg.Dmn€Դմն00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism atTemplate:Please check ISBN - seeTalk:Macedonia (terminology) to credit the guy who tracked it down.Carcharoth01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's fixed now.165.21.155.11 vandalized the high-risk{{Please check ISBN}} template and it carried over to many articles. Also, the template is now protected.Nishkid6401:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

God I hate the Commons. We should have been able to delete that image as soon as it appeared everywhere.Dmn€Դմն01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We could upload some milder image locally using that same image name.User:Zoe|(talk)03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was onTemplate:Please check ISBN. Can we block a range of IPs? These were from 165.21.155.10 and 165.21.155.11. I suspect he's alsoUser:Fairxento as well (see the edits toDown Syndrome from 21:49 to 21:51 on December 5), but it may just be a shared computer. In the past few days, he's put genitalia on the front page (on two separate occasions, with two separate images), and he's given Bill Gates and George W. Bush Down Syndrome. But the other editsseem very constructive! What to do?tiZom_(2¢)01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem prudent to alter the procedure for featured articles, by protecting any template that appears on the page.Dmn€Դմն01:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to come to that, sadly. It will take a considerable amount of time to do each day, too. But considering we see this kind of vandalism more days than not lately, it looks like we might have to do it. --W.marsh01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He added the image to{{ref label}} as well and thus had himself back-uped when the first of the two templates were reverted (which was{{ref label}}, and you don't want to know how stressing it was to look through 20 templates, finding the vandalism, removing it, and than seeing the articles still having penises all over them...). Anyway, shouldn't templates such as those be protected on a regular basis? They should not generally be edited, and{{ref label}} hadn't been edited since April this year before he came along. – Elisson • T • C •01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this incident may have convinced me. I have been looking at the dozens of templates on a country page, such as{{AGO}} and{{Country alias Angola}}, and shudder at the thought of trying to locate a piece of vandalism in this haystack. These templates are extensively transcluded and almost never edited and I see very little reason why they shouldn't be protected as a matter of course. -BanyanTree02:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it doesn't have to come to blocking everything. Is it possible for an admin to block a page fromviewing? This vandalism was well thought out, and took a while to get fixed. If an admin could stop all views on a page while they worked on reverting it, I think that would be helpful...tiZom_(2¢)02:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop all views of Today's Featured Article (the main target)? I doubt that would go down well –Gurch02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image of choice is nowImage:Smegma_Penis01.jpg --Bshrode03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image says it links to two articles, but I can't seem to find it at all.— ()03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

UseMediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent the use of an image on all but select appropriate articles. —Centrx→talk •03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have (temporarlly) put all images listed in the commons category into the bad image list. We no doubt will want to remove them all again soon but maybe for now it might help... ++Lar:t/c04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

recent changes in Template namespace <- please keep an eye on this. --74.109.173.2303:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I alsocaughtthem attemplate:Loc (though the image wasImage:Image_of_frenulum.jpg). careful monitoring is needed for a few hours. these aresneaky.Circeus04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By my count, about 11 of the templates within today's Main Page FA,Macedonia (terminology) were vandalized. I know there's stilldiscussion on whether the Main Page FA itself should have protection or not, but there's really no reason that the templates on the Main Page FA, or even Templates in general, shouldn't have semi-protection. A new IP user making a good faith edit really has no business mucking around in the Templates.--DaveOinSF04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mk icon needs protection. Its just been targeted by the same vandal[3].Gdo0107:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected.Luna Santin07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does Commons even HAVE so many pictures of penises? And can it not set up some "blacklist", and have images on that listnot be automatically fetched from commons when a local copy doesn't exist? Seems to me that would solve a lot of problems –Gurch08:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That sort of defeats the purpose of having Commons, though, and it would presumably be new development. I did add all the images in the category (there may still be others) to the blacklist as a temporary measure (thank youAWB for making generating that list easy!). Other hardworking admins (Centrx and BanyanTree) reviewed the list and made it permanent. That really should help. Don't forget there ARE legitimate uses for some of the images, after all...) ++Lar:t/c12:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fromthis it looks like the template vandalism is still going on. Can someone protectall the templates used in this article, please? Plus the templates used in the templates...Carcharoth12:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Found another atTemplate:IUCN2006, used on 4903 pages, including the 1.5 millionth article. I got geni to sprotect. --Rory09601:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions on this topic arehere,here,here andhere. Please add more if you find them. Someone may wish to consolidate all these disparate discussions into one location.Carcharoth12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, we've been seeing a lot of more of this as of late: template vandalism to the FA (and often penis images as well). I wonder if it's the same idiot, or if they're somehow connected (hope no one said this before).-Patstuart^talk|edits14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was getting the same problems withTemplate:Lang-ru last night, which caused penis images to appear on various Russian articles. I am hoping most of the damage got fixed.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And he strikes again. I just saw a penis on a template linked to bytemplate:see, which istemplate:esoteric. This guy's making us protect every template in existence.Patstuart^talk|edits11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard a few rumblings about this in the past so I thought I'd better post it here. A user,User:Jonaz5197 has posted his personal details on his user page and also uploaded an image of himselfImage:ImageName(022).jpg. As he states he is in 4th grade that would make him around 10 years old (if my research is correct) - that would also mean that his username could contain his D.O.B? What is the normal course of action for this? Thanks,Localzuk^(talk)12:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

His DOB is in his username: he's also put it in a userbox on his page.Dev920 (Have a nice day!)12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

His DOB would be 4197, so not in his username. --Majorly12:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cute kid. One would assume that he has had a parent or guardian's help uploading/editing. Might be advisable to leave a notice on his talk page with the leader "For your mum or dad - please show them and ask them to respond" or similar. We could then warn them of the pitfalls of having a childs details on wiki. However if it is being released with his parents permission then I'm not too sure that it is wiki's problem.Viridae^Talk12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, however it might be a better idea for someone else to do it as it is looking a little like I am attacking everything about his edits at the moment and I am feeling uneasy about that. Could someone else post the message please? Thanks,Localzuk^(talk)12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the potentially insecure details.El_C12:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy should provide guidance on what to doNil Einne20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you El C and Nil Einne. That was very helpful. -Localzuk^(talk)21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've been in migraineland too long toassume good faith, but doesn't it strike anyone as odd that this person's birthday isApril Fool's Day?Anchoress07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, no. Given how large we have become, I would not be surprised if everyday, one of our editors will celebrate a birthday.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the nice folks involved in the "White House Propaganda" thing are still at it; I justremoved the manifesto from the Village Pump (News), which was added within about three edits of it being unprotected. Haven't investigated further yet, but be on the lookout.Tony Fox(arf!)19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Again? ...sigh...DocTropics20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Again.Patstuart^talk|edits06:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This editor's userpage indicates that he has created his accounts for the purpose of "trolling and inciting drama." With a series of inquiries about the deletion of the ED pages, he appears to have started. Perhaps someone should have a word with him.Newyorkbrad01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a candidate for speedy deletion.Mackensen(talk)01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• It could simply be a crap attempt at humour, and given the total inability of ED denizens to be funny it doesn't seem that suspicious. There are attempts at good faith edits at least from the account, so I don't feel a block is justified at this point. --Sam Blanning^(talk)03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's still a username policy violation, and should either be changed or blocked outright.06:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We might have a related user (User:Alakazam9891) whose user page I had to remove maybe seven fair use images from.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)08:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be an account that is solely used for holocaust denial[4]. For example, his first edit inTalk:Rudi Ball is:

"How was this Jew allowed to live in Germany all through the war playing hockey in the time of the so called Holocaust?"

The edit summary of his very next edit reads-

"Another nail in the Holocaust myth?"

Many of his other edits consist of showing up at talk pages and making strange comments about discredited racial theories.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk08:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever disgusting his comments are, Admins' noteboard is not for witch hunt. Did he do any real harm to articles or trolled a talk? Not to say that his holocaust denial is very naive, and the simplest solution would bedon't feed trolls. `'mikkanarxi09:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that a single purpose troll account would be blocked, he hasn't added anything to the encyclopedia so I don't see how the witch hunt allusion is applicable.-Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |Talk11:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:JB196 was banned in September for edit warring over tags and creating conflicts on numerous pages that have to do withprofessional wrestling. He continued to vandalized pages as an anonymous user to the point that some articles had to be semi-protected several times over.User:BooyakaDell registered in Mid-November, and has virtually the same modus operandi, editwarring over tags and adding PROD's to wrestling articles he thinks are not notable (not a valid reason for PROD'ing on several articles). Due to length of time between original user being banned, and this possible sockpuppet account being created, checkuser was not an option, although there is still a suspected sockpuppet account page. Any suggestions? Thanks!SirFozzie14:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with this, and thanks for adding the incident, Fozzie! If my view is worth anything, I believe that this is definitelyUser:JB196. For those who are interested, I put a note about this inW:RFI (I think that's the right acronym!) as well under section 4 (registered users).Curse of Fenric21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on my talk page (am Adopter of BooyakaDell -WP:ADOPT) -User talk:Lethaniol. For the record I don't think that dealing with the Sockpuppet case is the way to go - as a Checkuser has proved not workable - seeWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. CheersLethaniol17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I must note that BooyakaDell signs posts the same way as JB196 did, with no space between the full stop and the signature (i.e. This.––Lid^(Talk) 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) which along with the MO seems to be more evidence of sockpuppetry. ––Lid^(Talk)11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is growing. Thanks for that observation, lid. I consider the checkuser situation to be irrelevant. If BooyakaDell is behaving in the same way as JB196, he should be treated the same way - sockpuppet or otherwise.Curse of Fenric05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

After having his claims of non-notability soundly dismissed onGlamour Boy Shane andThunder(wrestler), BooyayaDell has start adding as many other tags as possible, in the same way JB196 used to do[5]81.155.178.24806:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And it's off to the Mediation Cabal as Booyaka/JB continues to rampage across articles. Not sure why he hasn't been blocked, he's getting obvious now. 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See Cabal debate atWikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell an Admin's opinion there would I think be helpful.Lethaniol15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since things quickly devolved on the Mediation Cabal request, Lethaniol asked that a RfC be started to deal with the edit war that's sprung up (tempers are pretty hot), but I would think that would be seperate from any possibleWP:SOCK issue. The RfC is at [[6]]

I stumbled across this (really, I was running a check on a completely different user, so it was an odd occurrence) case of major sockpuppetry related to the ongoing edit war atBuddhism in modern India. I can say with a high level of certainty based on the IP evidence thatPkulkarni (talk ·contribs),Shrilankabuddhist (talk ·contribs),Buddhistindian (talk ·contribs),Ambedkaritebuddhist (talk ·contribs),Dhammafriend (talk ·contribs),HKelkar2 (talk ·contribs),Iqbal123 (talk ·contribs),Bhangi brahmin (talk ·contribs), andKelkar123 (talk ·contribs) are one person. Note the two impostor accounts. This is potentially a workplace IP, so meatpuppetry is a possibility, but based on the nature of the editing, it looks like a single person to me (scrutiny welcome).Dmcdevit·t11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has been the cause of a lot of edit-wars. I have indef-blocked all the socks/attack users, and also blocked Pkularni for a month as this is a first time offence. I have also made a post at the Indian noticeboard as there were some discussions about the article in question there. -Aksi_great (talk)11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this was previously reported fir checkuser asWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bodhidhamma (but declined).Thatcher13112:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I was thought of filing a Checkuser forShrilankabuddhist (talk ·contribs), andDhammafriend (talk ·contribs).utcursch |talk12:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Dmcdevit helped me nabWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23 and his neo-Buddhist socks. THey are related to this case as well.Bakaman06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Green was on 216.254.121.169, so it's unlikely they're related, as they're on different continents.Dmcdevit·t07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

He is avoiding his block by using a sock puppet accountUser:Indianbuddhist. See the most recent edits[7] andIndianbuddhist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). Determined chap, that, but it's fairly obvious that he is a sock given the name ("buddhist" at the end, same asUser:Ambedkaritebuddhist orUser:Shrilankabuddhist and tendentious editing onDalit Buddhist movement ).Hkelkar12:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job done by you. All these low-caste Hindus are harrassing me asShudra every time. They don't understandHinduism. Thanks for your help.Innocent12316:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

SeeUser talk:Notinasnaid#little aside. I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but it looks like an incensed user (Brian.Burnell) has possibly contacted the president of another user's (Flammingo) university, seeking to force the latter's expulsion over a dispute over what looks to be ... image tagging over a satirical map. Certainly a ridiculous situation that needs to be defused. —Rebelguys2^talk20:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment of this nature is totally unacceptable user conduct demanding immediate action. At a minimum, the user must be strongly reminded of the policy forbidding off-wiki harassment and a promise elicited that such action will not be repeated. In the absence of such a promise, this user should not be welcome to continue editing.Newyorkbrad22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I left this message on his talk page:

You left the following message onUser talk:Notinasnaid:What there appears to be though is a campaign of harrassment and blatant, demonstrable lies, possibly mounted partly from the IP addresses and the computers of the University of Göttingen. The President of the University, Prof Dr Kurt von Figura, has been contacted, and I understand that inquiries are to be made to establish the truth. This is an extremely serious violation of Wikipedia policies. Off-wiki harassment of other users is strictly forbidden under theno personal attacks policy. As a first step, I'd like to see you apologize toUser:Flammingo for your actions. |Mr. Darcytalk 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought post-apology, we could consider next steps. No apology = long block, possibly turning it over to ArbCom for banning. Apology = a workout plan. I'd like to think that this user was just being a blowhard, and hasn't actually contacted anyone. |Mr. Darcytalk01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And I reminded him that it is not acceptable to reveal person information about other editors.02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Brian.Burnell has returned, but only to remove all warnings from his userpage. Still no answer to the question about his conduct. I would like to hear some other opinions on when and whether a block is appropriate, or if this is something I should be turning over to ArbCom. |Mr. Darcytalk03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Tricky one (which is why I waited for another admin to take the initiative ;). Since the off-wiki damage is already done (or not, if he is all talk and no action), I would suggest another stern warning detailing the action thatwill be taken should he not engage. If that doesn't focus his mind then I would propose moving for a ban.05:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian's actions are indefensible. Bullying of this nature, revealing personal information and threatening to get a user kicked out of their university is appalling and should be met with zero tolerance. He should be banned, immediately, and permanently. He is clearly unwilling to engage in any kind of resolution amicably (considering the multiple removals of all the warnings about what he did), and I'm happy to see him gone. Any objections?Proto::►11:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an immediate indef block and community ban, no further questions asked. Mind you, there's no chance he would ever succeed with his threats; German universities don't keep tight disciplinary watch over their students and would never dream of intervening against a student in such a case. But the intention alone of harming the other guy is what matters.Fut.Perf.☼11:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I have blockedUser:Brian.Burnell indefinitely for the above (this comment, to be exact). If anyone objects, please feel free to amend this ban.Proto::►12:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect thatUser:Carbunar,User:Parisian2006,User:Stefanp, andUser:John Mathis are all the same person. I may be wrong, but all of them focus on the same small set of articles related to the Romanian royal family, and all seem to share an identical POV which I would have thought quite idiosyncratic - anti-communist and anti-monarchist. Both Stefan and Parisian have cited Wikipedia's "undue weight" policy in a rather odd way to justify putting (what is, in my opinion) undue weight on their idiosyncratic POV. So if anyone could check and see if they're all the same person, that'd be nice. Also, if anyone would like to more generally intervene, that'd be good to know.john k22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

UserJohn Kenney, in the name of hisunreferenced pro-King Michael POVs, keeps vandalizing theMichael I of Romania article. He keeps: 1. eliminating referenced statements, using unacceptable sources (so-called emails, which we all know can be forged) (see, for instance, the08:02, 10 December 2006 change to the article,explained as follows: "Tom Gallagher most certainly did not say that any such offer was actually made,as he clarified in an email to a wikipedian") ; 2. re-insertingPOV and Expert editor warnings, claiming that the article has too many anti-King Michael edits/"POVs", in utter disregard of the NPOV-Undue Weight policy (see the reasons explained inTalk - NPOV and undue weight); 3.blanking a properly referenced statement, which runs counter to his minority pro-Michael views. Please, stop his vandalisms and abusive edits, which try to aggresively impose the minority view on King Michael. Thank you!Stefanp23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the chance that John Kenney, a longstanding and excellent contributor who has shown only a moderate interest ever in Romanian matters, is very unlikely to be vandalising here.

I will cross-post this to theWikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board in order to try to get a larger number of knowledgable people to keep an eye on the article. -Jmabel |Talk04:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an avowed monarchist, ashis contributions clearly show, could make an otherwise excellent editor and even administrator, like John Kenney, disregard the Wikipedia rules in order to defend the honor of a fallen and contested monarch.Stefanp05:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a monarchist. I find monarchy and royal genealogyinteresting, but I don't see how that makes me a monarchist.john k16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Come off it John, interest in such a reactionary field is proof positive of your monarchical tendencies–you can't fool me!--John's loyal sockpuppet17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a sockpuppeter. Stefanp, however, is. In addition to the puppets John has named we must also addMihutM (talk). All of these are blocked indefinitely now. I've left Stefanp unblocked for the time being. Thanks for playing,Mackensen(talk)17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is suggested thatWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Brian.Burnell, above, should receive attention.Newyorkbrad01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is noted that the topic, above, has now received attention. :pProto::►16:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has been repeatedly creating throwaway accounts to systematically (and vandalistically) replace{{notenglish}} with{{db-notenglish}}. Then, of course, an admin comes along and innocently deletes the article.Please, when deleting articles so tagged, make sure that there really is already such an article in the relevant foreign language Wikipedia. Oh, and ideas for stopping this vandal are welcome. Further discussion is atWikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English#Why this page is so empty lately. --Jmabel |Talk04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Idea - create a new subcategory "Foreign language pages for speedy deletion," then change the db-notenglish template to place pages there as well. This would make policing that subcategory a lot easier. I wandered over to C:CSD, but they're all jumbled together, so picking the foreign-language ones out wasn't easy. |Mr. Darcytalk05:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Which raises the question of whether it might be useful to have separate categories for other CSD criteria. I believe currently the only one singled out is{{db-attack}}. --Fan-196715:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support the idea of subcategorizing them. Different CSD criteria involve different research processes for the admin examining the CSD tag. I would think that the backlog would clear more quickly if admins felt 1) they could attack the specific CSD criteria they're comfortable investigating and 2) they could clear out a whole subcategory, something I find very satisfying :) |Mr. Darcytalk16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. Sanghak has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but keeps uploading images without specifying any source information. Most of them are copies of images fromFlags of the World andworldstatesmen.org, and few (if any) are original creations. He's been warned about this repeatedly on histalk page, but has never acknowledged or responded to these warnings. Now that his images are starting to disappear due to the lack of source information, he's started uploading them again (here's one example,and here's another). I'm beginning to wonder if this user simply hasn't figured out how to access his talk page yet. I can't email him because his account settings won't allow it. Is there any other way of drawing this user's attention to the problem? --Sakurambo11:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h and a message left. Please report back if this does not do the trick.Guy(Help!)14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This IP is from a school where nothing useful will come. I'm honestly ashamed of what they do to the Wiki. Nothing good will come of having this IP unbanned. If you don't believe meSpecial:Contributions/158.123.138.50. The only useful edit is one where I forgot to log in. The last edit (of Bob Saget) uses my name even though I didn't edit it. If you could remove that edit too, I'd appreciate it (it's not that big a deal, just exceptionally stupid.) Thanks in advance for any action against this IP. -158.123.138.5013:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We do not ban indefinetly IP addresses. What you can do is tocreate an account and stop using that IP if possible. --13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to have been a fair number of warnings issued to the IP. Would a soft block prohibiting anon posting but allowing account creation not solve the problem? --Spartaz14:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but i don't see the need for a soft block for now as there's been no vandalism from the IP since a week now. I'd do that if there'd be further vandalism. --14:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody who can read Chinese take a look at this? The user's previous userpage was deleted via MFD as being improper. This one has an external link and a search button, all in Chinese. (Radiant)13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The description of the external link is correct, it is a Wiki that mirrors the Chinese Wikipedia. The thing that looked like a search box was an input box asking you to create a dictionary entry (I think, I'm too lazy to look up all characters) for aWu dictionary. Unfortunately the create page link goes to the English Wikipedia. In particular, clicking the button without entering anything led to the "Editing Main Page" screen. I have removed the inputbox as it was misleading, but don't see a problem with the rest (note: I didn't read the MfD).Kusma(討論)16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed someone adding links of no immediate relevance to articles - it looks like articles of vague genealogical interest are being linked to www.tribalpages.com/tribes/<something>, with the <something> varying. If you do a search on "www.tribalpages.com/tribes/", you'll see what I mean (Search done for you here:[8]. I'm not sure if this is vandalism, newbies, or something else. Could someone take a look, and give me their opinion? I'm sufficiently unsure to not just simply remove the references on sight. -WLD^talk|edits14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove them all. A geneology site written by nn relatives and descendants is linkspam. Not RS; not even relevant, and WP:NOT for promotion. Rem perWP:EL. One puppy's opinion.KillerChihuahua^?!?14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to modify that - onPaliath Achan it actually is relevant, and correctly placed. Whether the site constitutes a RS for that article I will leave for othes to decide.KillerChihuahua^?!?14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

UseSpecial:Linksearch to find these links,Special:Search can miss some. There area bunch but a lot are from user and talk pages.67.117.130.18115:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier -User:SndrAndrss has been making various disputed changes to templates used in sports articles, and has despite many many many attempts to communicate with them - declined to reply or explain himself. He was blocked for 48 hours, and is back to his usual ways after this. I have given him another warning. I suggest if he disregards this, we indefinitely block him, with instructions on how to appeal this block, by agreeing to attempt to communicate with other users. Thoughts?Morwen -Talk14:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First discussion and subsequent block. I don't think an indef block would be fair. What i'd suggest is to block him for a period of 2 weeks because of tendious editing.Obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors may be blocked or banned after a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agrees that their edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies. --14:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean indef block forever, I just mean an indef block until he leave a message on his talk page asking us to lift the block! I don't think a 2 week block will have any effect other than to make him wait 2 weeks. But if you think that's better, then ok.Morwen -Talk15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. However, the problem with that is that there's no policy which backs it. He's free to not to answer any question. If we'd block we'd do it because of his tendious editing. --15:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

After he'd made an edit to the Estonian country flag to remove the border (which he has been asked not to a lot), I've blocked for a week, with a message clearly outlining that if he discusses things he will be unblocked. Hopefully it gets through this time.Morwen -Talk17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done Morwen. I support the block. --17:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

UserEmbargo has an image from the anti-semitic bookJudaism Without Embellishments adorning their User page.[9] This image and the book it is taken from is racist and not appropriate for display on Wikipedia.Abe Froman15:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw, the page has been blanked.Abe Froman15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am dealing w/ that. --16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While running throughtoday's Afd debates, I came across this new user who seems to just be mass voting "delete" on everything with no reasons listed. I noticed he was warned about it on his talk page, but I'm not entirely confident these edits were done in good faith. Should the votes be striked out or anything of that nature? ---RockMFR15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd make a comment directly below his !vote and say that the above statement was from a suspected single-purpose account. Strike it out if you want (I probably would).EVula//talk //☯ //16:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't strike them out, the closing admin can make that judgement. But by all means note that all the user does is vote delete in every AFD. If they have failed to explain their reasons, most admins will ignore it, anyway.Proto::►16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)