Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 25 June 2007 (Archiving 4 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


docg

Does anybody know what "docg" means (per this [1])? I've seen it before in vandalism edits. -N 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One knows that one has been reading Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard too much … when one sees the above and immediately thinks of Doc glasgow. ☺

By the way: "Nazimism" is, roughly, the following of Nazim al-Qubrusi (the article being edited was Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi), who is a somewhat controversial religious figure. Uncle G 01:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Here I thought it was just a misspelled attempt to invoke Godwin's Law. MastCell Talk 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually did think it meant Doc Glasgow, and I was wondering why nobody had realized this (until I read your comment). --Rory096 04:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion?

I just locked Muhammad due to edit warring - but I'd previously commented on the issue that lead to the edit warring, but not participated. I took a bit of an ambigious stance, and I'm not sure if I locked it at m:The Wrong Version. I'd like a second pair of eyes to double-check and make sure I didn't overstep any bounds. Thanks, WilyD 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your actions were correct. A very quick glance at the page history shows that edit warring was getting way out of hand, and I didn't see an edit from you recently in that list. Just keep an eye out for protected edit requests. YechielMan 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlocking images?

Resolved

Image:Shinichi_Watanabe.JPG hasn't been on the Main Page for over 3 weeks now. Yet it's still locked with the reason given it's supposed to be on or will be on the main page. Minor oversight?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. Savidan 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

Wonder if anyone can help with this AfD? Sr13 07:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - noticed DrKiernan and Samir deleting, too :) - Alison ☺ 07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I've blocked Asgardian (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. The user ignores discussion, marks major edits and reverts as minor, ignores consensus, removes talk page warnings, edit wars and is somewhat intractable. There's currently an rfc set up and we did look to community sanctions, but the discussion was closed as it was felt that the block log of the user did not warrant such action [2]. Therefore I feel the only recourse is to block the user, initially for a period of 24 hours. I believe the user is disruptive in attempting to prove a point across a number of articles, namely that a literal reading of a header named publication history indicates one should only include details of publications in which a character has appeared, and I believe the user is also disruptive in rejecting community input. Steve block Talk 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Loom91

user:Loom91 has just reverted part of mass action in spite of the presence of an inuse tag and after being earlier requested on the talk page to forebear until I had finished the edit. I was simply away on a lunch break when this happened. The article concerned is a piece of chemical history and I have taken the trouble of reading the original meterial. My edit was incomplete and Loom91 has made a real mess of it by some arbitry rearragements. I can state with certainty that the first paragraph that Loom91 has re-inserted is factually incorrect. The re-inserted definition (in quote marks) is also incorrect.

This user has also admitted inserting material into another article which he/she knew to be untrue - see user_talk:petergans#Equilibrium.

What's to be done about this situation? I would hope that he/she be given an official warning to moderate his/her behaviour. Petergans 14:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative decision-making

For context:


I care about the results of this particular AFD/DRV no more or less than about any other. But it left me pretty much alienated, that's the word, at the inner workings of Wikipedia's power structure. I still am, a few days later, after these events made me take my first wiki-vacation ever, for the almost three years that I'm here.

There's one thing I learned from this: next time, stay out of deletion debates — I'll have more influence on the debate if I remain a neutral admin and close the discussion myself.

For crying out loud, this is what it has come to? I don't want to work like that. I don't want to live in a Wikipedia where I CAN work like that. It's dangerous to accept a community where this is possible. I have the admin tools to carry out consensus, and enforce it if need be — not to make consensus. Yet, it slowly appears to become acceptable.

Admins get more and more relied upon as decision-makers and holders of power. Generally, the margin seems to become wider, of what constitutes an uncontroversial decision at the sole discretion of a single administrator. There even appears to exist an atmosphere where it's considered more efficient when an admin cuts corners with the process. When you raise concerns about the process you're told that's not a productive approach. I don't think this particular case is an isolated one.

Just like in the real world, we're under a permanent threat of the creeping erosion of our freedom. A constant pressure from well-meaning individuals to act on behalf of all other people, and to decide for us what is right and what is wrong. All for the collective good of course. I have neither the energy nor the skills to actively fight against this.

So, what do we do to counteract it? Don't say the wiki-process is self-regulating, it isn't. Not when administrators may agree to "disagree with respect to the importance of said process". Femto 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no answer, having just noted basically the same thing on a different subject here and similarly here (without the rhetoric). Short of a series of administrative RfCs (which I am afraid I have neither the time nor patience for) I can see no recourse to stop this kind of administrative "God mode" (for the want of a better expression). Arbcom would never take these as cases individually. Perhaps a large community discussion on the role of an admin, might help reinforce that admins are servants to the community and their opinions never ever overrides community consensus. ViridaeTalk 13:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The similarity of what you say in your first link is almost frightening. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't underestimate ArbCom's willingness to look at wheel warring and other administrative abuses. One mistake by an admin will not be acted on but a pattern of repeated behavior may get their attention. Thatcher131 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not personally aware of a pattern, but there are discussions on Talk:DRV about it. If there is one, it needs to be stopped. — Omegatron 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the point, unfortunately. There are no patterns, no individual wrongdoings that would stand out of the crowd or that would justify going through an arbcase. Nevertheless there's a trend, and paradoxically, the danger doesn't come from admins who act in bad faith but in good faith. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not entirely clear to me what this complaint is about. Is it in respect of Omegatron's undeletion of an article of which he was a significant editor? We already discussed that. Is it about the serial re-creation of this article, which has been deleted by four separate AfDs? I thought we'd discussed that, as well. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    I hoped I was clear enough. It's not a complaint about this case in particular but a warning about how cases like this get handled in general. About the creeping acceptance that administrators use their individual judgement and their authority to "resolve" editorial issues. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It surprises me that people persist in the claim that something not involving the admin tools of deletion, blocking and protection can in fact be wheel warring, as the definition says the exact opposite. The only wheel warring I see here is this. >Radiant< 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the actions of certain users in repeatedly defying consensus and recreating an article which the community has consistently voted to delete should be examined, although that is beyond the scope of AN. Orderinchaos 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


As for my undeletion, we've already discussed it, I've freely admitted that I made a mistake, apologized, and no one has a serious problem with my actions (which were arguably acceptable anyway).

As for Radiant's actions, I don't see how this could be any clearer.

  • Wikipedia:Wheel war:
    • "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it."
    • "Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus; disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power wrestling."
  • Closing a DRV is an administrative action.
  • Radiant closed the DRV with no explanation besides the edit summary "No."
  • George re-opened it, with the edit summary "Don't speedy close DRV on clearly debatable AFD articles."
  • Radiant, without discussion, and knowing that another admin opposed his action, repeated it.
  • See also WP:WHEEL#Possible indications.

Does anyone besides Radiant disagree that this is wheel warring, both in the spirit and the letter of our policies? — Omegatron 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

    • A half truth is a whole lie. You are quoting only half of the sentence, which goes "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article. " >Radiant< 09:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Call it what you want, people didn't disagree with your definitions, people disagreed with your actions. Femto 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If anyone was curious, I didn't approve of the early closing of the DRV. But calling the repeated closing and re-closing of the DRV wheel-warring is ludicrous and misinterprets what wheel-warring actually is. Then again, arguing over the definition of wheel-warring when there are other things to do (like writing an encyclopedia) is ludicrous in itself. —Kurykh 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh, isn't the idea of a consensus that everyone agrees? Or at least felt they not only had their say but were heard, thus will abide by the result? (I think the part about having a say & being heard is implied in WP:CIVIL; if it's not then it ought to be.) When things get to the point of repeated opening & closing of an issue before DRV, I think it's clear that no consensus exists, & the issue needs to be re-opened & discussed further. -- llywrch 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree Canvasing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


This user was making false accusations of my being a sockpuppet [[3]], which I filed previously. An administrator seemed to support my filing,

":You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"

Now he is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[4]] in response to an active mediation case at [[5]] This violates the policy because it is biased and partisan

I don't see how we can mediate these issues at this time with this behavior. He is clearly an SPA on this article. I'd like him to stop making false accusations and stop fishing. Administrative action is required. DPetersontalk 01:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am not an administrator; I just have a nose for messy situations. I do strongly recommend a block against User:FatherTree. He continues to accuse the complainant here of sockpuppetry despite the fact that Checkuser proved he is innocent. Unless I'm missing a critical detail, it's really simple, and the dispute resolution process will be better served by temporarily removing a bad influence. YechielMan 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser cannot prove innocence. It can only prove strong likelihood of guilt. Lsi john 23:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how asking one editor to look into a dispute is "canvassing." I also don't understand YechielMan's assertion that a RFCU proved "innocence" as that is simply not true. I reserve judgment on FatherTree's other actions except to note that many editors involved in that dispute appear to be closely-related and focused very tightly on one group of articles; I have my own suspicions that several editors involved are sock or meat puppets but I'm keeping those suspicions to myself. --ElKevbo 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The primary issue here is FatherTree's violating WP:CANVAS. An administrator should look into this and decide. All other diversions by other editors are just that, diversions...to avoid the primary issue of this AN/I. In addition to his knowlingly making false accusations of sockpuppetrty...All in all a very disruptive set of violations. RalphLendertalk 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you have a nose for messy situations Yechie you'd like to stick it in a bit further and tell us what you thing about the constant personal attacks of COI and financial chicanery DPeterson makes on the talkpage against other editors and his accusation that those who oppose him are meatpuppets, made on the mediation referral page no less. And the fact that he has filed two ANI's against the editor without telling that editor, and his supporter RalphLeneder a further one, without telling that editor. This a very complicated dispute and you seem to have taken a very extreme view from one snapshot.Fainites 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with RalphLender that diversions, such as the above, are diversions from the focal issue: FatherTree's violation of Wikipedia policy. As I read the WP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I think YechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive. MarkWood 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I agree. JohnsonRon 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
About canvassing, an arbitrator said: Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. How can calling on one other editor to give his opinion be considered "aggressive propaganda"? It seems crystal clear to me that this falls into the "reasonable amount of communication about issues" category. Also, the purported sockpuppetry accusation was made in reply to a very similar accusation "It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now.", and the "accusation" is more to me like a musing: "How does anyone know that you are not Becker?" Nobody accused anybody of anything directly. These are flimsy, I would dare say inappropriate grounds for any block whatsoever.--Ramdrake 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a repeat of this same allegation here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:FatherTree_Violating_WP:Canvas_policy] Ramdrake of you're interested. Fainites 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I filed one. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPetersontalk 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I had not noticed this thread. It seems that we have THREE of these open, two on AN/I and one here. And, rather than asking for two of them to be closed, as duplicates, DPeterson is updating them all at once with the same posts: here, here and here

That sure looks like DPeterson is using these boards, repeatedly, in order to get the system to remove editors with which he is currently engaged in mediation and against editors who opened an RfC on him. Lsi john 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed one. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. Another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. Try to assume good faith and not make personal attacks by assuming motivations. In this instance you are incorrect. DPetersontalk 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Then give me something to work with. How about you pick TWO and ask that they be CLOSED? Saying it was an accident is one thing, I can accept on AGF that you got confused between AN and AN/I and thought your post got closed. What I don't accept is that now you know that there are three, rather than picking one (and closing the others), you continue to post in all three, . Lsi john 23:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I respond to other editors...I'll leave it to an administrator to decide how to handle the two I filed and the one another editor filed, focusing on the two issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvasing issue. DPetersontalk 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Which one is the longest thread? Keep that one open and close the rest. Easy as that. Identical discussions should not occur at opposite ends of the earth (figurative meaning intended). —Kurykh 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That response, combined with his AN/I response:

Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open.-DPeterson AKA CANVASSING

pretty much confirms what I said about this issue. He asked for AGF but offered no Good Faith gesture in return. Thank you. Lsi john 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of User:Chainsofhell

This user page was tagged with db-spam. The contents were in full "chains of hell death metal band from new york city formed by drummer jay persad in 2007"

I removed the tag on the grounds that this did not constitute blatent advertising, and that this was a user page, where soemwhat more latitude is usually given. I explained this to the tagging editor (here and here). I included the phrase "If this user is trying to use wikipedia as an advertising platform, s/he is dooing a pretty poor job." but tried to focus on the qualifing adjective "blatant" in WP:CSD#G11. Seizing on this phrase, the editor re-tagged with the edit summery "re-added tag - spam is spam, and there's no competetency test to exclude it" and another admin duly deleted.

First, am I out of line in thinking that this page did not constiture "blatent advertising"?

Second, is it unreasoanble to think that my view should have been considered before finally deleting, either by discussing on my talk page, or by bringing the matter here or some similar forum? I know that if I had deleted and another admin had wanted to undelete it would be considered very poor form not to discuss with me first. Is this unsymetrical?

I note that this user has made no substantive contribuitions to wikipedia, and delting this page page hardly harms the encyclopeida. But I think there is a reason not to go overboard on deletions, particularly of user pages. DES (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the usual convention was to WP:PROD user pages of inactive editors. There should be no rush to delete user pages. hbdragon88 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I am the deleting admin. First of all, if I was the one crossing the page, I would probably have prodded the page as I usually do. I crossed the article while I was deleting speedy deletions. The page was a 1 liner about the band, the user didn't make any contributions outside this page. That was clearly an attempt to circumvent our inclusion criteria and a misuse of the article space. I am usually a process freak, but this time I might have gone a bit fast. -- lucasbfr talk 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me (from viewing the history of the deleted page) that the user's only two edits were to the userpage four months ago. Some latitude is given to userpages, but if it is apparent that the user uses the account purely to promote something, it should be deleted with or without process. Sr13 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
As the original tagger (and thank you for notifying me, DESiegel -- oh, wait, you didn't), I wasn't aware that the adjective "competent" was included in the spamming criteria. Is an effectiveness test on spam pages required to see if they qualify for speedy?
Yes, a serious and valued contributor, as Sr13 points out. I note that this user has made no substantive contribuitions to wikipedia? No, try "no contributions", period/full stop.
Not to mention the whole issue of how a band (or company, or website, or organization, or any abstract grouping of people, whose alleged user pages I also tag regularly) can qualify as an individual editor. So, nope, perfectly in line with policy -- and common sense -- as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The "G" criteria are, well, general, and apply to anything in any namespace. A hypothetical Category: Best products in X category, created and populated to obviously promote one company's products, could certainly be deleted under G11. User pages aren't allowed to be ads either. I'll certainly grant some leeway to established editors if they have a link to their band's Myspace, company's website, whatever, on an otherwise fine user page, but if all the person's done is to put an ad on the userpage, it certainly falls under speedy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused merged articles

St. Joseph's High School (South Bend) was just merged into St. Joseph's High School (South Bend, Indiana). Unfortunately, the South Bend article had the longer edit history, so it probably should have merged the other way -- but then the title would have been wrong. Thoughts on what to do, if anything?--SarekOfVulcan 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll merge the edit histories for you. Sasquatch t|c 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I'm not an involved party, but it seemed like the right thing to do....--SarekOfVulcan 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Danah Boyd or danah boyd

There is an ongoing discussion over whether the article should be named Danah Boyd or danah boyd. Admin help on this first was requested on June 17, 2007 on this AN board and most recently on June 21, 2007 on BLPN. The matter is not a BLPN matter and I listed it as resolved on the BLPN board. There already is a discussion on the article talk page about this. If there is a consensus in that discussion, perhaps an admin uninvolved in the matter would be so kind as to step forward, summarize the consensus, and close that discussion with archival templates so that everyone can move forward. Thanks! -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved Resolved

Currently, there are 3 subcategories, 119 pages and 80 files waiting for speedy deletion. Please take care of this as fast as possible. --MrStalker talk 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"as fast as possible"? I see that you just now placed some speedy deletion tags. Be patient, and they will be dealt with. 118 is not a particularly large backlog for CSD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, 100s isn't that huge a deal. When it starts getting over 150-200, then we have problems, but its hardly unwieldy as of yet... anyhow, its down to 90 now.. David Fuchs 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland crime family

Several anons have been slapping inappropriate speedy tags on this article. It is completely unreferenced and hence a whopping BLP concern, but I don't think it meets any of the formal speedy criteria. Comments and intervention welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me who finds it interesting that the IP addresses of the anons applying speedy tags all resolve to Cleveland? I think someone has a personal interest in getting this article deleted. If that's the case, we should make it clear that they are welcome to use the talkpage for discussion about specific concerns, or e-mail our OTRS team about... even more specific concerns. Riana (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

PROD is mildly backlogged (haven't seen it at 2 days in a while)... anyone willing to get their hands dirty? Riana (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Got most of the 16th of June (someone got the last two) I love firefox tabs. ViridaeTalk 05:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted about 140 expired prods in the last 20 minutes, someone else can take over. ViridaeTalk 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam, ToFA, June 23

I just happened to take a look at the Islam article while reviewing a report at WP:AN3 when it dawned on me (or rather I noticed) that the article is going to make its Main Page appearance as Today's Featured Article on June 23. As many of you are aware, it's generally accepted that we not protect Today's Featured Article. Each day I (or, rarely, someone else) remove any edit protection and add full move protection to Today's Featured Article. But this is a bit different. Currently, the article is on near-permanent semi-protection, due (of course) to vandalism. If we remove the semi-protection from this article, the article will be an utter disaster. Yes, sadly, we all know it. Is it okay if we just leave the semi-protection on or should we (gasp) unprotect and see what happens? -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to our PR, the reason vandalism isn't much of a problem is because other editors will quickly correct it. Perhaps there is some way that can be made more likely to occur.Proabivouac 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of letting the camel's nose into the tent, the ultra-controversial, extremely vandalism-prone nature of this article leads me to believe that this is one case where the FA should remain semi-protected for the day. Raul654 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, at the risk of losing my minty fresh admin tools, I've always felt that TFA may warrant semiprotection under certain circumstances. I'd say this is one of those times, but that's just me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You wont lose them for expressing an opinion on policy matters - you will if you ignore consensus. However, in this case I agree with you. ViridaeTalk 06:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wholly think that this is "letting the camel's nose into the tent" aka setting a bad precedent. There will be additional people helping out reverting to deal with the additional vandalism. At least give it a few hours, if it's too much it can be protected then. -Ravedave 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it a precedent. It's just what happens usually. Very heavily vandalised articles featuring on the Main Page are responsively semi-protected, otherwise neither the bots nor editors can keep up. In this case, the article is usually semi-protected, so I don't think it will require any new action on our part, i.e. pre-emptive semi-protection, because (when/if it features) it will presumably already be semi-protected anyway. Islam is not a good example to use in the MPFAP debate because it is clearly a unique article and situation. DrKiernan 09:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More help

Needs some admin help again with this AfD. Note the redirects as well. Don't we just hate mass noms? Sr13 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems nuked, props to Ryulong and Viridae. Riana (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackranga

Resolved
 – See my reasoning below. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can an administrator look at this user's page please ? he has almost the same name as me and has copied the contents of my talk page and user page accross. If possible could you do a checkuser to be sure it wasn't me who made a typo when logging in or something? I think it's probably a vandal though, I don't see how I could have copied my user and talk pages across by accident. Sorry if it was an error on my behalf, I don't see how this could have happened though. Jackaranga 12:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have ran into a few problems with vandals recently, maybe that has something to do with it. Jackaranga 12:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost 100% sure I was in bed when that account was created but can't 100% sure. I can't find anything about "Jackranga" in my browser history, so I'm guessing it's not me who created that account, I only noticed it existed because I have images on my user page (which the person copied across, and I saw User:Jackranga in the list of links to image on the image page. Jackaranga 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the account in question was only created two days ago, you probably want to read WP:U and then report this to WP:UFA. Before you do that, please consider if this might just be an honest mistake. In that case, it might be best to contact the user directly first. --S up? 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok but why did he copy my talk page, and user page across? Jackaranga 12:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I just noticed that the talkpage was a 1:1 copy. The userpage could be explained (many people copy parts of a userpage they like) but I don't see a reason to copy someone's talkpage. I guess it's probably best to report this to UFA as an impersonation attempt. If it's legitimate account, the user can still take it to WP:CHU. -- S up? 13:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
User blocked under (a) a WP:U violation (similar to another user's name) and (b) suspected harassment account. I deleted the userpage as a GFDL violation (since it was just a copy-paste move). We've got better things to do with our time than coddle assholes. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this seems a little excessive, but I've had my userpage duplicated by someone who was only interested in harassing me (right down to it still having my username on it), so I can understand exactly how frustrating this can be (even if it isn't the biggest of issues, it's still the sort of thing that eats away at the back of your mind). If the user requests an unblock so they can immediately go to WP:CHU, I'd be all for it, but there's no reason to assume jack squat given the details. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, EVula for taking care of this. However even though you blocked User:Jackranga, you left the message on my talk page instead of his. Had me scared for a minute. xD Jackaranga 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, this is evidence that the username truly is confusing. :) Notice has been shifted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has uploaded countless copyrighted images with improper licensing. He's received many notices (from bots) to this effect and his only response is to blank his talk page. He's uploaded yet another such image today. What should be done about this user? -N 16:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, I've issued a 48-hour image deletion warning and a copyright warning. If he persists I'll report to AIV. -N 16:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive93&oldid=140573479"