A new sockpuppet ofZephram Stark (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) appears to be active.The Mirror of the Sea (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). He restoredCoving (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) to an old ZS version. Separately,Grace Note is defending his edits with perhaps inappropriate vigor.[1] -Will Beback ·† ·02:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you not think it would be "appropriate" to let me know you've written about me here? I don't have this page on my (very short) watchlist and I only know you wrote here because I suspected you would, rather than just let a minor issue go, seek to extend a conflict as far as possible. Why you think that is a better course than just letting the article stand is a mystery to me. There is nothing inappropriate about my defending the edit. I think it is useful. I don't know what went on with Zephram Stark. I know that editors I trust were opposed to him and I have some idea that he was pushing a POV. I had some idea of an ongoing engagement because he edited pages I have edited or looked at, but I don't usually read these long unfocused narratives that some people on those pages indulge in. I don't really have any awareness of his goodness or badness, or take any sides in the conflict, except, as I noted, that I know he was opposed by editors I trust. That is all.

But the article seems interesting to me. I think it can and should be allowed to live, regardless its provenance. Destroying interesting articles because of who wrote them doesn't seem a good idea. If Will has a problem with the content, he could perhaps focus on that. Otherwise, we seem just to have an extension of personal conflict that doesn't serve the encyclopaedia. As I say, I don't watch this page, and frankly, the days in which Iwas interested inpointless fighting over issues that neither I nor the other combatants are particularly interested in are long gone, so this is all I have to say about it.Grace Note02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to consist almost entirely ofunverifiableoriginal research, which, as I recall, was the original objection to it as well. Has something dramatically changed since it was last re-directed in August?Jayjg^(talk)03:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has, the practice of coving has been peer reviewed in the New York Times and other notable publications concerning topics such as these, seems its reputation is growing--Edchilvers03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, though, currently only two sentences in the article have citations.Jayjg^(talk)03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in these two citations you will find most of what has been written in the Wiki article. I just didn't see the point of putting the two exact same citations at various points in the article. The article was probably written by the guy who invented the process to be honest, yet the fact that it may have started out as original research does not deter from the actuality of it having garnered quite a large following since--Edchilvers04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some good references have been added and some OR and unreferenced stuff removed. To Grace Note - nothing wrong with removing unreferenced stuff and OR. --Duk04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Zephram Stark. Thanks. —05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not, but you certainly are the indefinitely blocked vandal accountUser:The Iceman Cometh. That's gotta count for something, don't you think?Jayjg^(talk)05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wot, no block?SlimVirgin^(talk)09:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked the The Mirror of the Sea account and marked it as a The Iceman Cometh sock. -Will Beback ·† ·23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a repost from 2 days ago, with addendum. The previous post didn't really receive any attention.

Fraslet (talk ·contribs) recently brought my attention to the fact thatJohnJohnJohnJohn (talk ·contribs), whose editing has certainly raised a few eyebrows, was possibly operatingOrchardbank (talk ·contribs) andJohnowenlangham (talk ·contribs) as sockpuppets. John has now asserted that Orchardbank is in fact Malcolm Nicol, a Conservative Party councillor from Polmont, a town in Scotland which John comes from and has repeatedly made disruptive and bizarre edits in connection with. John also claims that, were that the case,Image:MalcolmNicol.jpg could be legimately licensed as GFDL-self by Orchardbank. Orchardbank has also made edits about Mr. Nicol, including this rather aggrandizing effort:[2]. I don't know if this is ready for aWP:RFCU, but I think it has become important to establish exactly what the real situation is here.

Since thenPatstuart (talk ·contribs) has placed a suspected impersonator / sock tag of no less than Willy on Wheels on John's userpage - I find it unlikely that John has even heard of WoW but stranger things have happened - andMikkalai (talk ·contribs) reverted this edit[3] by Johnowenlangham to Orchardbank's talk. What is the story here?talk23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some vandal has decided that the departed UserNorm (talk ·contribs) is Willy on Wheels, and is repeatedly showing up with new accounts to vandalizeUser talk:Norm to that effect. I have reverted the Talk page to the last version left by Norm, and have protected the page.User:Zoe|(talk)00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like something WoW would do to some user for kicks.HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also protectedUser:Norm because it has been receiving similar attacks. --tariqabjotu00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check this out.[4]. Most interesting. He registered the account in 2004, and is right NOW using it for WoW vandalism.Antandrus(talk)04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect account compromize. It wasn't very long ago blank passwords were allowed by the system.68.39.174.23804:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that too; it's so out-of-character considering Norm's contributions elsewhere. Anyway I reverted all the damage on Commons. Seems like there aren't many people watching over there.Antandrus(talk)04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's for sure. I'm amazing some things aren't more disoriented then they are; I've had some nasty runins with that in the past.68.39.174.23806:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Norm was also used on Wikinews for vandalism. After two pagemoves I blocked it.★MESSEDROCKER★02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way someone could glance atCountdown timer? It sure reads like advertising to me, but the creator keeps removing speedy delete tags on it. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong, but think it needs someone else's eyes on it at this point. 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks toUser:Gwernol for the help!Philippe Beaudette00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Spacetimefilms (talk ·contribs) added a couple of articles on films. You'll never guess the name of the production company...Guy(Help!)01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it Columbia Pictures? :3—Ryūlóng ()02:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

About to sleep, have been looking at this but can't follow up. User looks like he's disruptingWP:RFCU (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Art Dominique) andUser talk:Husond, in response to that RFCU linked. Would appreciate if an admin investigated/kept an eye on it. Thanks. –Chacor17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gives the checkuser clerks something to do :)Thatcher13103:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to get more eyes watching this, as it's starting to get absurdly bogged down in disruption, sockpuppetry, vandal removal of other users' comments, etc.Postdlf04:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request administrator review over a situation I am having with an anonymous editor on three articles. The problems first occurring on Christmas weekend when the anonymous editor inserted a wikilink toAnime South ontoList of anime conventions. I removed the link because it didn't meat the criteria listed at the top of the talk and summarized in the lead of the article. The anonymous editor kept inserting the link back in and made several excuses on the talk page as to why this convention should receive an exception before finally saying that the criteria is irrelevant.

During the same time, I also tagged several anime convention articles with the{{unreferenced}} or similar tags, one of which was onAnime South.[5] Later the anonymous editor changed the wording in a sentence that made it clearly speculative,[6] which I then removed.[7] After that, the anonymous editor restored the speculative statement and removed the referenced tag, which I reverted.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

The anonymous editor has also gone toTsubasacon and put up an{{unreferenced}} tag,[15] which I requested another editor familiar with anime conventions to review.[16] so that I can avoid aWP:COI. After his removed the tag and added some sources,[17] the anonymous editor removed the sources and restored the unreferenced tag.[18]

This has came to the point were I think the anonymous editor is now being disruptive. I originally thought s/he was an Anime South staffer until after I foundthis topic on the Anime South forums yesterday. --TheFarix (Talk)13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate the uncooperative-ness of these individuals (or person):

These self-righteous wiki editors have formed a group supporting each other so they don't get 3RR. We need to join up and form a posse of our own to fight the same way they do. Are you in? -Animesouth 08:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly admitting to wanting to violating policy. ::Colin Keigher08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It has came to my attention that the anonymous editor may beMarcyu (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log), who may also use a second accountAnimesouth (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log). known IPs used by the anonymous editor: 68.1.77.61, 68.1.73.33, 68.63.22.57, 68.1.74.54, 68.1.78.129. --Farix (Talk)23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It may also be wished to be pointed out thatTjstriker (talk ·contribs) is likely included. ::Colin Keigher07:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the person has a weird habit of not signing their comments, and removing any signed comments that are added by other users. It is beyond me why this person does this. I have seen edits from July byMarcyu (talk ·contribs) where such is happening. ::Colin Keigher07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Include the IP68.105.60.48 (talk ·contribs) in the mix too. ::Colin Keigher07:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh.68.1.60.33 (talk ·contribs). Appears that the person is just changing their IP address at will. ::Colin Keigher08:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please have a gentle word withUser:Barberio about the advisability of slapping standard warning templates on admins' talk pages in the middle of threads where they are dealing with other users. It's not a particularly helpful thing to do and stinks ofWP:POINT given that he is in dispute with me atWikipedia talk:External links/YouTube and elsewhere.Guy(Help!)18:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, aye. I'm on it. --18:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)#

Copy paste of PAIN report placed. Please make note of the last point. --Barberio18:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent activity:

• Tells others to "F*** off" (without the stars).[19]
• Accuses others of "b**tching".[20]
• Removes npa warning templates from his user page.[21][22]
• Blocks user who complains about it![23]

This user seems to have problems not resorting to inappropriate behaviour in his disputes with other editors. --Barberio18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yawn. Please readWP:DICK in detail, this is becoming wearisome. While I do not condone telling people to fuck off, your npa3 warning was just ridiculous. That editor had made a clear legal threat and deserved his block and nothing Guy said to him was offensive.Moreschi^Deletion!18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and being wilfully offended is just as bad as bad as being wilfully offensive, and probably causes more problems.Moreschi^Deletion!18:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respectWP:DICK is not policy,WP:NPA is. --Barberio18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

May I point you toWP:DUCK? ---J.S^(T/C)18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and removing a warning from your talk page is not a violation of any policy. ---J.S^(T/C)18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the legal threat that the user SlamDiego was blocked for.HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}18:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There was none. He said he 'felt liablled' by another users comments, which is not the same as actualy threatening a libel suit. (For what it's worth, SlamDiego's original complaint that JzG was replying to onWP:PAIN was overblown, but did not deserve the response given.) --Barberio19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling something "Libel, although I won't take action" seems to me to be skirting the edge of No Legal Threats. Kinda like "If I wasn't such a nice guy, I'd sue you. You don't want me to be a nice guy?"-ish—The precedingunsigned comment was added bySirFozzie (talk •contribs)19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Even so, it would have been better to point that out, rather than threaten with a block for something borderline in a dispute that could be settled by getting people to calm down. --Barberio19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ThePAIN report is here for those trying to follow along. ---J.S^(T/C)

To Barberio: my response to him was to thank him kindly for self-reporting his legal threat and express the hope that this indicated he would not repeat the offence. I thought that was a long way from harsh. It's only when he demonstrated that he both understood the message anddidn't ave any intention whatsoever of heeding it that I got firm. It is much easier to deal with disputes if you don't have random people pitching into the middle of them, of course, especially when those people appear to be looking for excuses to oppose you rather than taking a dispassionate view of the case at issue.Guy(Help!)19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue could have been resolved by simply stating the issue was not a grave attack, nor libel, and should be resolved just by a asking for moderated language. I attempted to do so.

Your threat of a block against the complaining editor was clearly escalating the issue, and your following this up with personal attacks of your own by telling the editor he was "b****ing* over it was further escalation, moving on to directly block the editor is an action I simply don't understand. --Barberio19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• [EC x several] HighInBC, SlamDiego characterised comments made against him by another editor as being "libel" while at the same time making equally aggressive and hostile comments about that user. I was in discussion with him about this and he made it perfectly clear that in his mind only attacks against him are libel. Full-on legal threats are grounds for immediate banning, in this case he was merely being aggressive anddeeply uncool so I gave him a short block to calm down, with a comment to that effect on his Talk. Unfortunately Barberio chose to wade in and add further heat, for reasons known only to himself. I can't see any evidence thatWP:PAIN was on his watchlist for any reason, although of course it could have been.Guy(Help!)19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has in fact been on my watch list for quite some time, due to reporting some personal attacks. --Barberio19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes,so you did.Guy(Help!)19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have commented out a slapfest above. I suggest we talk about the underlying problem of templating experienced users.Hipocrite -«Talk»19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The comments by editors have been restored. --Barberio20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users reading this may wish to review my new essay (in progress, other editors welcome, and if you can think of a catchy name please move it, butWikipedia:Don't template the regulars, because templating the regulars is a mistake.Hipocrite -«Talk»19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now all we need isWP:NOJERRYSPRINGERMartinDK19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not have left templates, but at the time of the incident, that's whatWP:PAIN required. I agree that the requirement to add specific templates to the talk page, rather than being able to phrase a more suitable warning, was probably a bad part of the process. --Barberio19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I like - to both :o) Incidentally, Barberio, you seem to be confusingWP:PAIN withWP:POINT in your above comment.Guy(Help!)19:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Having mulled this over on the way home and also prompted by Hipocrite, I have unblocked SlamDiego. He was being a dick, but probably not to the extent that he needed stoppingright now, which is what blocking is for. However, I have also told him that describing other users' comments in a content dispute aslibel, however heated things might have become, is extremely unlikely to help.Guy(Help!)21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

How is calling another user a 'dick' more helpful than describing another users' comments as libel?KazakhPol22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone awp:dick isn't the same as making a statement which could be construed as awp:legal threat.Argyriou(talk)23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And after being pointed that way,some people realise they've been stupid.Guy(Help!)01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that, having looked atWP:PAIN, I agree with Moreschi's comments above. there are some genuine cases, but most of the complaints boil down to little more than "Mummy, he called me silly...", and are usually made by people who are engaged in an editing dispute and are trying to use this as back route to getting their own way. Admins should surely be trying to douse these flames, but too many seem happy to pour petrol on them. --Mel Etitis ()22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Martin, that's precious enough that I've created a redirect:WP:JERRYSPRINGER.Patstuart^talk|edits23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• The issue here is reallyexternal links and YouTube, but rather than resolving the dispute Barberio is attacking people on the other side of the dispute, specifically JzG and Dmcdevit. I warned Barberio earlier this week against attacking or falsely accusing other users; in reaction, he forbade me from editing his talk page. If he doesn't stop he should be blocked.>Radiant<09:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I committed a lot of vandalism. I apologize to all affected. I´m now redemped and going to fight vandalism. Please unblock the IP and the account. Thanks

This AfD was closed as aDelete byKhukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy byPd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar withKhukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope2318:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in theWikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell¿?18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment onUser_talk:Khukri.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually,Khukri also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as aDelete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope2318:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing atWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head.AnonEMouse^(squeak)19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope2319:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed thatWikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not,Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe.Carcharoth11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD was closed as aDelete byKhukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy byPd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar withKhukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope2318:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in theWikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell¿?18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment onUser_talk:Khukri.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually,Khukri also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as aDelete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope2318:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing atWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head.AnonEMouse^(squeak)19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope2319:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed thatWikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not,Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe.Carcharoth11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on theReuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violatingWP:NPOV andWP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violatesWP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings onUser talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. Ireported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, andremoved the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block.JamesMLane t c02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked forWP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked.Morwen -Talk12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site[25]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked.Arnoutf12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report atWP:AIV).Kusma(討論)12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Arnoutf12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:71.80.36.167,User:71.80.39.173,User:24.151.175.18 and160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of bannedUser:Scottfisher /User:Scott_fisher; as may beUser:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, sinceImage:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. SeeUser_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.86.36.97 (talk •contribs)

• I have blocked for a monthUser:71.80.39.173 andUser:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months.User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g.Image:Popper.JPG orRick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name ofImage:Popper.JPG?Alex Bakharev17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See[26]

This AfD was closed as aDelete byKhukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy byPd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar withKhukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope2318:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in theWikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell¿?18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment onUser_talk:Khukri.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually,Khukri also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as aDelete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope2318:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing atWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head.AnonEMouse^(squeak)19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope2319:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed thatWikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not,Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe.Carcharoth11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on theReuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violatingWP:NPOV andWP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violatesWP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings onUser talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. Ireported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, andremoved the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block.JamesMLane t c02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked forWP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked.Morwen -Talk12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site[27]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked.Arnoutf12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report atWP:AIV).Kusma(討論)12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Arnoutf12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:71.80.36.167,User:71.80.39.173,User:24.151.175.18 and160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of bannedUser:Scottfisher /User:Scott_fisher; as may beUser:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, sinceImage:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. SeeUser_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.86.36.97 (talk •contribs)

• I have blocked for a monthUser:71.80.39.173 andUser:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months.User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g.Image:Popper.JPG orRick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name ofImage:Popper.JPG?Alex Bakharev17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See[28]

I have indefinitely blockedHuansohnrecordz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) for continuously uploading images without source or copyright information. Since November, this user has uploaded 100 images all of which have been, or will soon be, deleted. The user has no contributions outside of these images. If you look at his contribution log, there's maybe 3-4 things in there and its his current uploads that haven't been deleted it. He's never actually used these in articles as far as I can tell. I post this here for block review.Metros23214:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhhhh... Maybe he needs a human warning explaining things to him? An indefblock without a non-bot warning seems a bit stiff. Maybe a short block with an explanation (to keep him from uploading today), and then monitor the account to see if he keeps up? And then block away. --14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the indefblock, perhaps with an added note about how to use{{unblock}}. The account had 6x10^23 botwarnings with no indication of reaction. I'd rather the user have to go and email or post an unblock than have to discover in 2 more months another 100 images to be deleted.Syrthiss14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. What Syrthiss said. --14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As a disinterested observer in this matter, I would like to support Syrthiss'above comment. I think the{{unblock}} should be presented as a matter of course to users who are being given an indef block, since many are relatively new users who may not be aware of what recourse they have.Jeffpw14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I brought this here. In many situations, I would have gone Merope's route: given one final warning. However, it was the lack of contributions outside of the images that led me to this block. If he was attempting to improve the encyclopedia with the images and was just misguided with the licensing, that's one thing, but since he's just uploading for no real purpose, I went the block route.Metros23214:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on unblocking atUser_talk:Huansohnrecordz#Blocked. Thanks for the input.Metros23214:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I go with the unblock remarks; a new editor who just doesn't what he is doing may get blocked indefinitely (no argument there) and confuse it with infinitely. Giving the unblock reference shows the difference.Arnoutf15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a while back that we include{{unblock}} instructions in the standard block notice templates, but was shouted down. I still think it can't hurt.Guy(Help!)15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vblock}} includes such instructions, but it's a vandalism-specific template. When I can remember, I try to use that or include a note after the template with instructions, if I use a standard template at all. Knowledge of{{unblock}} is crucial. --Consumed Crustacean(talk)16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to mention the{{unblock}} option. But seriously, blocking this user was much better than giving another warning. 51 weren't enough, so I sincerely doubt 52 would have been. And users who don't care about copyright issues can createGinormous Messes.Mangojuice^talk17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth,MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the page displayed to visitors on the receiving end of a block, already contains explicit information for appeals, including {{unblock}}.Can't sleep, clown will eat me17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked this vandalism-only account ofWhatno (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). -- -14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even really need a review, FayssalF. Good riddance to a waste of pixels. I've also speedied his two vandalism images he uploaded.Syrthiss14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thinkdeleted makes more sense as a verb thanspeedied (sorry, minor grammatical annoyance). --Cyde Weys16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. Someone mind explaining to me again why keeping the history would deter new Esperanzas and show other users what a horrible mistake it was?Dev920 (Have a nice day!)17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit POINTish to me. –Chacor17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's alsoUser:Feureau/UserBox/EsperanzaReturns. Borderline T1?>Radiant<17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So much for my canned smart-ass remark about needing a userbox...Mackensen(talk)17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked Geo.plrd'scontribs, he's mass spamming every member of Esperanza he can find.Dev920 (Have a nice day!)17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A block for gaming the system might be in order? –Chacor17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support this. WP:POINT violation + an attempt to skirtabundantly clear community consensus. —bbatsell¿?17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Can someone block/add stiff warning to everyone who signed up and edited it?Dev920 (Have a nice day!)17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just left a note re this issue at their talkpage. Let's wait and see. -- -17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on giving a cooldown block to Geo.plrd for this double-whammy violation. --Deathphoenixʕ17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about an immediate block. He's just received the first/final warning re that. They are offline now. Once they are back we'll see what their reaction would be. -- -17:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He made a comment after your warning that seemed to indicate that he was going to continue the "Phoenix" project anyway, but that doesn't matter. The best indicator will be what he does after his recreations are deleted. --Deathphoenixʕ18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the warning at17:25, January 4, 2007 while their last edit was at06:02, January 4, 2007. Nothing to lose if we wait anyway. Yes, knowing about their reaction to the deleted subpage would be interesting. -- -18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I read "06:02" as "6:02pm". --Deathphoenixʕ18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why I shouldn't just nominate this atmfd? --Spartaz17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already there:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. —bbatsell¿?17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd contend it's speediable. Not explicitly inWP:CSD, but quite obviously a flagrant breach of consensus reached at the Esperanza MFD, which is what a new MFD would turn into. –Chacor17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dang! --Spartaz17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conlict x 4) (now slightly out of date) It is a concerning violation ofWP:POINT, going directly against the opinions and consensus generated at the MfD of Esperanza. Are the project pages there deletable/redirectable toWikipedia:Esperanza, rather than hashing out an Esperanza Mk II MfD? I don't feel that a block is appropriate unless Geo goes against the warning posted.Martinp2317:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just speedied the userpages per CSD G4. I don't think that a block is in order unless the user persists. The userbox is more problematic; I'll let some other cold-hearted bitch admin take care of that. --18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Should have guessed that JzG would be the "cold-hearted" admin I referenced. --18:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Though"not the way to do it" is not the most informative deletion summary ever. I'd have expected some link or reference to the Esperanza MfD, and/or a CSD criteria.Carcharoth18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The user can hardly be ignorant of it, but in any case I left a lengthy comment onhis Talk - much more than would fit in a delet summary.Guy(Help!)22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. On a side issue, I was actually, out of curiosity, trying to figure out the timeline for when they created the userbox and Phoenix respectively, but as they were deleted, that is more difficult to figure out now. Could you, or someone, note the date and time of creation of the pages in question? A day later, a few hours later, or whatever. Thanks.Carcharoth00:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix created 05:13, January 3, 2007, userbox created 06:43, January 4, 2007. —bbatsell¿?00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Phoenix was a working model..18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a working model complete with bureaucracy and talk page spamming for members. --18:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_5#User:Geo.plrd.2FPhoenix -- Speedily deleting it yesterday had no effect; deletion review is now up. Any other admins want to take a stab at this? --19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd has withdrawn his DRV. The userbox is back, however.Dev920 (Have a nice day!)19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD was closed as aDelete byKhukri but the article was never deleted. It was subsequently tagged speedy byPd THOR because it was not deleted. I'm not familiar withKhukri so I don't know if they are an admin who closed the AfD and just didn't delete before logging off or if they are a non-admin who just closed the AfD, but could someone have a look?--Isotope2318:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Khukri does not appear in theWikipedia:List_of_administrators, but AnonEMouse has taken care of the deletion. —bbatsell¿?18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

... Some people type faster than others. I was just coming to say that. Will make a pointed comment onUser_talk:Khukri.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Actually,Khukri also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carraigin Castle as aDelete but didn't delete it because he apparently isn't an admin. I don't know the protocol on closing AfD's when you are not an admin, but isn't it a rather bad idea to close something as a delete if you can't actually delete it? Someone might want to say something to him.--Isotope2318:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Majorly said something to him about that one, after I did about the first one. It looks like Khukri had also closedWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaps (game) (2nd nomination) as delete,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian extremism as delete (Majorly cleaned up those as well), but then Khukri had alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Sumaya Bint Al-Hassan as keep (missing that the last person showed the most recent revision was a copyvio!), and did something highly confusing atWikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 27#Template:WindowHome. Curiouser and curiouser, as said Alice. Needs a bit further investigation.AnonEMouse^(squeak)18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, I'm willing to believe he worked in good faith; he hadn't done it before Jan4, and got in over his head.AnonEMouse^(squeak)19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Right... I wasn't suggesting bad faith here; I think he honestly is trying to help out on AfD, but in so doing is making alot more work for any admins who try to sort these out. Your message on his talk page looked like the right call to me.--Isotope2319:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed thatWikipedia:List of administrators was linked above, but I get the impression that that list is more to find active admins. To check whether someone is an admin or not,Special:Listusers/sysop is the definitive list I believe.Carcharoth11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tell no lie repeatedly reverts to unacceptable content on theReuben Singh article. The user simply keeps re-inserting the same manifestly inappropriate text (violatingWP:NPOV andWP:BLP), each time with the same edit summary (one that violatesWP:AGF), and refuses repeated requests to discuss the matter on the talk page. Neither friendly suggestions nor vandalism warnings onUser talk:Tell no lie have had any effect. Ireported the problem at WP:AIV, but an admin there considered it to be beyond the WP:AIV jurisdiction, andremoved the entry.

The user generally shows up every few days to do the reversion, so a 24-hour block might not even be noticed until it's over, but it might send a message before we do a longer block.JamesMLane t c02:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked forWP:BLP violations. This person really does seem unlikely to be reformable, but if he acknowledges fault on his talk page, then by all means he should be unblocked.Morwen -Talk12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New account that has made about 100 edits in the last 3 days all to his own commercial painting selling site[29]. In spite of warnings he has continued doing so. This user needs to be blocked.Arnoutf12:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done already (thanks to a report atWP:AIV).Kusma(討論)12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Arnoutf12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:71.80.36.167,User:71.80.39.173,User:24.151.175.18 and160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of bannedUser:Scottfisher /User:Scott_fisher; as may beUser:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, sinceImage:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. SeeUser_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.86.36.97 (talk •contribs)

• I have blocked for a monthUser:71.80.39.173 andUser:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months.User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g.Image:Popper.JPG orRick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name ofImage:Popper.JPG?Alex Bakharev17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See[30]

I have indefinitely blockedHuansohnrecordz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) for continuously uploading images without source or copyright information. Since November, this user has uploaded 100 images all of which have been, or will soon be, deleted. The user has no contributions outside of these images. If you look at his contribution log, there's maybe 3-4 things in there and its his current uploads that haven't been deleted it. He's never actually used these in articles as far as I can tell. I post this here for block review.Metros23214:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ehhhhh... Maybe he needs a human warning explaining things to him? An indefblock without a non-bot warning seems a bit stiff. Maybe a short block with an explanation (to keep him from uploading today), and then monitor the account to see if he keeps up? And then block away. --14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with the indefblock, perhaps with an added note about how to use{{unblock}}. The account had 6x10^23 botwarnings with no indication of reaction. I'd rather the user have to go and email or post an unblock than have to discover in 2 more months another 100 images to be deleted.Syrthiss14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. What Syrthiss said. --14:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As a disinterested observer in this matter, I would like to support Syrthiss'above comment. I think the{{unblock}} should be presented as a matter of course to users who are being given an indef block, since many are relatively new users who may not be aware of what recourse they have.Jeffpw14:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is why I brought this here. In many situations, I would have gone Merope's route: given one final warning. However, it was the lack of contributions outside of the images that led me to this block. If he was attempting to improve the encyclopedia with the images and was just misguided with the licensing, that's one thing, but since he's just uploading for no real purpose, I went the block route.Metros23214:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on unblocking atUser_talk:Huansohnrecordz#Blocked. Thanks for the input.Metros23214:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I go with the unblock remarks; a new editor who just doesn't what he is doing may get blocked indefinitely (no argument there) and confuse it with infinitely. Giving the unblock reference shows the difference.Arnoutf15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a while back that we include{{unblock}} instructions in the standard block notice templates, but was shouted down. I still think it can't hurt.Guy(Help!)15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

{{vblock}} includes such instructions, but it's a vandalism-specific template. When I can remember, I try to use that or include a note after the template with instructions, if I use a standard template at all. Knowledge of{{unblock}} is crucial. --Consumed Crustacean(talk)16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to mention the{{unblock}} option. But seriously, blocking this user was much better than giving another warning. 51 weren't enough, so I sincerely doubt 52 would have been. And users who don't care about copyright issues can createGinormous Messes.Mangojuice^talk17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth,MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the page displayed to visitors on the receiving end of a block, already contains explicit information for appeals, including {{unblock}}.Can't sleep, clown will eat me17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked this vandalism-only account ofWhatno (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log). -- -14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even really need a review, FayssalF. Good riddance to a waste of pixels. I've also speedied his two vandalism images he uploaded.Syrthiss14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thinkdeleted makes more sense as a verb thanspeedied (sorry, minor grammatical annoyance). --Cyde Weys16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard--Doc^g19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It appearsFrankyboy5 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is autoblocked: "I cannot edit anything all because somebody with the same IP as me has been vandalising everything, even though I signed in!". Could an admin go and have a look please?Yuser3141518:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we a little short on active admins at present?Yuser3141519:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we just can't do anything without the information in his block message. I seeSyrthiss is working on it now, though. --19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. For the future Yuser31415, if you respond to a helpme on a user encountering a block please ask them to put{{unblock}} at the very least on their page. That guarantees that anyone working on unblock requests will see them in the category of blocked users asking for unblocks.Syrthiss19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol I see you already did they just didn't do it. In any case, Frankyboy5 says he is unblocked so this matter is closed. :)Syrthiss19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool!Yuser3141519:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a dispute some months ago over whetherApartheid wall should be a standalone article, a redirect toIsraeli separation barrier, a redirect toAllegations of Israeli apartheid, or deleted outright. An AfD in June 2006 (atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid wall) settled this issue, with a decision of "The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Israeli West Bank barrier.", and that decision was implemented.

On December 28, 2006, an editor changed the redirect to point toAllegations of Israeli apartheid. Attempts to change the link back are reverted within minutes by that editor. Please take appropriate action to enforce the AfD decision. Thanks. --John Nagle21:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars over an inappropriate redirect.WP:LAME. I am nominating the redirect for deletion; it's divisive and unnecessary, as no articles link there now that I have removed the totally unneeded link onJews Against the Occupation. But regardless of opinion, the AfD decision was a long time ago, and this can be revisited.Mangojuice^talk21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Isplbman (talk ·contribs) spamming? He's added almost a hundred links to the same site... but it's a pretty neat site. Is this a violation? A helpful addition? Something nefarious that I'm not quite smart enough to work out? I could use a little advice. -FisherQueen (Talk)19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's affiliated with the site, adding this many external links is unquestionably fishy, and constitutes spam. -Patstuart^talk|edits19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Theyare all different online books. They happen to be hosted on one website, but they are all part of theOpen Archives Initiative. This is not substantively different from adding a bunch of links to different books onProject Gutenberg. It's being suggested that this isWP:COI, but these are good additions and who else is going to make them if he doesn't? I suggest we let himWP:IAR as long as the edits are good. — coelacantalk —03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)