User talk:Peter/Archive7

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, you are welcome to bring it up on my active talk page. Full archive index

I see you deleted that vandalism report for 195.93.21.102 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log) with the comment that he/she had probably "moved on". On the contrary, this IP address has been used consistently to vandalise the page on British Summer Time by inserting hoax information. This is becoming quite a nuisance for those editors who are watching the page. This is not a random act of vandalism, it's calculated and deliberate, and it always comes from that IP. Is there no way that an IP can be prevented from editing a particular page? I'd bet money on the British Summer Time article being vandalised again from that IP. JRawle (Talk) 20:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That IP is an AOL proxy server. AOL IP's are shared by many users at once, and one user can receive many different IPs. I think the way the IP allocation works means that the same page gets the same IP, but the same user on a different page might get a different IP. So basically AOL IPs are only blocked for short periods if there is vandalism going on right now. In that case the user had moved on, hence my lack of block.

It is possible to request page protection (in this case semi-protection) to stop all IPs and newly registered users from editing a page. However there is no way to stop just one particular IP from editing a particular page.

Sorry I can't be of more help, believe me I'd be happy to block if it wasn't for all the collateral damage it would cause . The best thing to do is to keep the page on your watchlist (I'll add it to mine as well) and revert vandalism as you see it, requesting a block or page protection if it’s under heavy attack. Petros471 08:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens again, I'll request that the page is protected from unregistered users for a couple of weeks. Hopefully the vandal might give up then. JRawle (Talk) 11:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. I'll be happy to apply the protection if I'm online when it's needed. Cheers, Petros471 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's done. Petros471 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The strange thing is, protecting the page made it disappear from my watch list! I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't left me a message. It's back again after a minor edit. JRawle (Talk) 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, that is a bug (IMHO)- one that can be worked around by adding the sprotect template after applying the protection. I try and do that, but with lots of tabs open at once I sometimes submit in the wrong order... Petros471 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the same thing happens when pages are moved. JRawle (Talk) 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for pointing me in the right direction with the request for Admin. investigation on that guy who was vandalising the United States National Team page. It's much appreciated.Batman2005 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1] This guy is out of control and needs to be reprimand or removed. What can be done? Travb 14:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be appropriate over this incident, as he has clearly heard the views of the community on the noticeboard and on his talk page. If it becomes a repeated pattern of behaviour then it can be considered, but let's assume for now this was a one-off case of acting over the top when under stress. Petros471 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hii,

I noticed the user page award thingy you wrote on the esperanzan talk page, and i was kinda thinking about nominating myself. But, before I do that, can you check out my userpage and tell me if I stand a chance against everyone else. Since only 15 user's can be nominated I wouldn't wanna take the place of some other user who might win the award. Hope you understood my query and I hope its not against the rules or something to tell me if I have a chance. Thanks a lot! Cheers! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 16:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the overseer, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to pass judgement on your userpage. However, as the nominations are hardly flooding in, and this is not the first (and hopefully not the last!) round, you are very welcome to add your self-nomination without fear of 'taking up' a place. :) Cheers, Petros471 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,k...Thanks a lot for clearing that up for me. I'll add my name right way. Cheers! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 17:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added myself. Can you check if the format is fine. I didnt quite understand the instructions on top of the nominations list. Thanks a lot again! And wish me best of luck!! Cheers! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the vandal returns want me to sprotect? Petros471 20:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, please! Thank you very much! - CobaltBlueTony 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know when you want it lifted. Petros471 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that User:Shaitan Al Mahdi moved the article without discussion. (His edit summary says it all.) The article should be at Assyrian people. A move request is pending (and "River people" isn't even a candidate); could you revert back one further, to Scientizzle's version, or move it back to where it was before Shaitan decided to "discipline" everyone? Thanks. Kafziel 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the move, and applied move protection to allow consensus to form on talk page first. Cheers, Petros471 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Petros -

I failed an RfA back in March (but not by a significant margin), and so I vowed that the second time would be the final time. I've diversified my edits, as some people in the last RfA mentioned, and now at this point I have over 6100 edits and over five months of active experience. I have also changed my user page to be less Islamo-centric and more universalizing (I have received no negative comments about it since then). I requested an editor review now long ago and contacted several of the oppose voters from my last RfA to comment on the review page. I participate in many areas of the project, bringing Mosque up to featured article status, reverting vandalism, participating in AfDs on occasion, and pointing out errors on the Main Page frequently (as you can tell by WP:ERROR's history). And now, I feel I am ready. Or so I hope (perhaps I could quit pointing out all those errors on the Main Page and just fix them myself). Your user page indicates that anyone interested in becoming an admin is free to ask you whether the potential candidate would be suitable and if the candidate can be nominated.

And so I am asking for your opinion on whether you think I would be a great addition to the administrative community. Your comments, suggestions, and if you so desire, nomination, would be appreciated. joturner 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. I'm off for today but will take a good look asap within a few days. Petros471 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably just nominate myself as it looks like you already have a current RfA (with EWS23). I don't want to put an extra and unnecessary burden on you to review and nominate others (as you are really just doing that out of the kindness of your heart). Thanks anyway, and your feedback will always be appreciated. joturner 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to self-nom I'm not going to stop you :) But if you still want me to review and possibly nominate I'm still willing to do it. Nominated EWS23 doesn't really make much difference- I did his contributions review a while ago and now it's one RfA there isn't much more for me to do there. Let me know either way Petros471 07:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, missed that one didn't I? I started off today by replying to my new messages rather than a watchlist review (which is what I usually do, and looks like I should return to doing that...). Anyway looks like you're doing fine so I'll leave you to it. Petros471 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've talked to Titoxd and he seems to agree that I'm ready for an RfA. [2] He said that since you requested the nom, you get it. So, as long as you are still willing, I would be honored if you would nominate me when you have the time to write one up. Thanks for all your help and support, and let me know if you have any more questions or comments. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great :) I'll be working on your nomination at User:Petros471/EWS23 RFA, feel free to work on your answers to the standard questions there. Once we've finished working on the draft one of us can move it to the official Wikipedia RFA namespace and off it goes :) As I'm sure you realise, my nomination is no guarantee of success. Whilst obviously I think you're ready (and I'm sure plenty of others will as well), you never know what everyone will think! Petros471 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've answered the questions and accepted the nomination, so feel free to add it to WP:RFA whenever you are done (but take your time!). Also, let me know if you have any questions or concerns about my answers to the questions. Thanks again for all you've done! :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a possible block for this user and see you decided not to implement the block. To avoid future requests from myself for this sort of thing can you let me know a bit more about the thinking behind this. I do try to fight the vandals during the day and a large number of IP edits originating from schools seem to be vandalism. If they aren't blocked then surely they can continue to ruin wikipedia. I would have thought blocking was the way forward - the only downside is that legitimate users would need to register as a user. However, I see that as a small price to pay to keep the vandals a bay. Just interested in your thinking.--MarkS 11:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 217.33.207.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

If you look at the block log (link above) you can see that this particular IP is used by an admin. There is also a notice to this effect on its talk page. So blocking it would probably do more hard than good. I do block school IPs when it seems like there is less chance of collatoral damage. "the only downside is that legitimate users would need to register as a user" - if only... Blocking the IP also blocks all registered users using that IP. See this to join the list of people wanting this changed (I think it will be changed, it just needs Rob, a developer to implement it). Hope that answers your question. Petros471 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the info. Didn't realise that blocking the IP would also block registered users who are on that IP address. Most useful. --MarkS 11:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked Cicero_Dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruption. What's the situation with Ciraric? Petros471 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for dealing with Cicero Dog; I don't know what the situation with Ciraric is: I suspect it's a sockpuppet (given edit patterns), but I'm not sure. A CheckUser request was denied earlier today before Cicero Dog's worst excesses - it may be worth trying to revive that one now, or we could just hang around and see if Ciraric does anything now Cicero Dog is blocked. Again, thanks --Pak21 14:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ciraric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - to watch. Petros471 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It would appear Ciraric has been contributing to Wikipedia since August 2005 on various articles. Cicero Dog has only made a contributions on select articles and in a far shorter period of time. So I wouldn't consider Ciraric as appearing to be a sockpuppet. Craig451 18:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cicero Dog hacked my account. He knows me personally and so was able to take my account. I am glad he has been banned. Ciraric 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, considering you've been around longer I'll accept what you said. Just make sure you use a decent password and log out when you are away from the computer in future (accounts aren’t really hacked, so yours can only be used by someone else knowing the password or using it while you are still logged in but not at the computer). Also be careful with your edits as things like this might be seen as vandalism (yes even if you know the Craig). Petros471 19:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, I've had a password request - as has Ian13 - in the past from an IP similar to a susp. sock IP of Cicero Dog. Computerjoe's talk 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petros471, I'd appreciate your thoughts on a future RfA for myself. I've been trying to learn the ropes here on Wikipedia for the last several months, and have been involved in vandal patrolling, commenting on AfDs, RfAs and some small editing on WP talk pages, in addition to working on articles. I don't feel I'm ready yet but I'd appreciate your counsel on where I need to improve and learn further. Many thanks, Gwernol 01:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my to-do list. There is at least one person I need to do the same for first, so might take a little while. Petros471 08:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. No problem if this takes a while. As I said, I'm not looking to start an RfA any time soon. Best, Gwernol 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks multifactorially for all your help this week. I see that you're developing into a fabulous administrator, and I hope that you're enjoying the mop. Thanks again. -- Samir धर्म 06:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting the offer on this, I've just sent you an Email containing information about what I've done so far as well. I'm hoping that the college will be responsive on this. Beno1000 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again. I just thought I'd give you an update on the situation. I've spent about half an hour sifting through all the vandalism and I've found a few names of probable purportrators. I recognise two names on the list as definate students at the college as well. Anyway, it's all at the bottom of User talk:195.194.185.41. Thanks. (Sorry for not signing before. I'll sign now.) Beno1000 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, just an update. I've been speaking to the admin staff and I've handed the list of names in as well now and they've promised me that they'll speak to the people mentioned in the investigation about it. Beno1000 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving asside the issues of not leaving edit summaries, discussing any edits, and removal of warnings (none of those good things, but not blockable in their own right) - are there some recent edits you can point to that specifically are vandalism as defined by WP:VAND? Failing that any WP:3RR violations? If so I'll be able to take action a lot quicker, otherwise it'll have to be treated as dispute (i.e. using dispute resolution procedure). Petros471 18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mines45 has not engaged in any blatant vandalism. It's simply a case of him/her dogmatically restoring old edits in the face of opposition and sources to the contrary, and ignoring requests that he/she provide sources or at least a rationale. I don't anticipate a speedy response, but the situation has continued for over a month and I had hoped that these continual infractions of etiquette would amount to, at the least, a formal warning from someone in a position of authority. McPhail 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try and think of something :) Let's see how much of RFI I can clear tonight... Petros471 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not a pressing concern, but it is a continual annoyance. McPhail 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a most interesting email today, it made my decision to block Mines45 that much easier! I've given a week block; let's see if that has any effect on editing patterns on return. Petros471 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for intervening. McPhail 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user recently reverted the Hulk entry again, saying "Leave it alone, DrBat, you fucking moron." [3] --DrBat 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bat doesn't like people replacing his crappy pix. Sorry, D Man. [4] --DrBat 20:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still learning a lot around here. BTLizard 11:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind looking into a user dispute? I have a rather lenghty evidence I posted at ANB/I that has been siting there for some time now.

I believe user:Moby Dick is also stalking me. An arbitration hearing found Davenbelle to be stalking. I feel User:Moby Dick is a user:Davenbelle sockpuppet and hence is attempting to evade arbitration restrictions.

I assumed you would volunteer to investigate. --Cat out 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think he's a sockpuppet, I'd think the first place to go would be RfCu... --InShaneee 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done, see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moby Dick --Cat out 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here, but I think InShaneee meant a checkuser request (RFCU)- obviously you've already done that. A RFC probably isn't out of place anyway. You might also want to point out the ANI post and any talk pages discussions as evidence of trying to and failing to solve the dispute, if you think they are relevant. Petros471 10:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACK. I will do as you ask and point the ANI discussion. Should I pull back the rfc? --Cat out 11:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I for one would be interested to see if anyone does actually have any comments to make first. Petros471 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. However the RfC procedure requires at least two people certifying the basis of a dispute or else page will be deleted. Since you feel there is something that requires investigation you might want to say so in the rfc page. --Cat out 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, as the notice on my talk page says life is getting busy... Anyway I don't really want to see the RFC deleted, but can't really certify it as I am not really someone who has 'tried and failed to resolve it'. I've endorsed the outside view though. Hope this gets sorted out. Remember always behave better those accusing you- then you can't have your own actions turned back against you. Petros471 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. All of us lead a busy life. You did not even have had to comment at the ANB/I page or on the RFC. You have my most sincere gratitude. As per equavalent trade, I'd like to do something for you. My skills with tables and templates superceeds me interwiki... But modesty aside, what can I do for you?

Don't worry, at least one thing I learnt from my encounter with Davenbelle is that his constant baiting was why things got out of control. Moby Dick is probably trying the same thing but this fish just isn't going to bite the bait this time. Besides how cana future administrator set an example if he degrades into the level of people stalking him.

--Cat out 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise for my behaviour of late and assure you it will not happen again. Cicero Dog 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the story was behind this user. It looks like he did have some vandal edits, but also contributed an interesting new article that appeared on DYK. Did he recently create some nonsense articles to get him/herself banned? Just wondering. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that user as part of a mass blocking of sockpuppet vandals. I.e. lots of usernames vandalising a small group of articles with exactly the same bit of vandalism in each one. Having a look know I see that it was this and this that made me block this user. As you pointed out it seems like MillipediaNES has actually made some useful edits as well, so I'll WP:AGF, issue a warning and unblock. Another reason to thank you for pointing this out- just noticed that the other user (User:GoGoGodzilla) I pointed out in the above diff slipped through the net, so I've just applied a block on that account. Cheers, Petros471 20:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your block on 144.134.49.105, since (s)he did not vandalise past a test4. If you disagree with this, let me know on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! Prodego ^talk 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I only saw the second test4, sorry! (IP reblocked) Prodego ^talk 21:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your work in real life - I hope it soon becomes unstressful! -- Natalya 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you take a look at this: [5]. I've brushed up against this a few times, nominated some prods and had the templates removed, he keeps coming back and doing the same thing. I'm new as an admin so not really sure what's next, and I noticed your name at the LTA board. Can you look into this, and if you have a second, orient me a little bit so next time I can just take care of it myself? Thanks, Kaisershatner 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Krab has made it easy to detect the socks by the lack of originality in thinking up new usernames. If one of the accounts has been editing longer than the others and has some useful contributions assign that as the 'puppet master'. Indef block all the others as sock accounts, no need at all to have them hanging around, and no need to warn them first (as it's obviously the same person). If the 'puppet master' account has no useful edits give an appropriate block to that (which might also be indefinite). Any further accounts that show exactly the same editing pattern indef block on sight (i.e. re-creation of same articles, same 'Krab*' username etc. The IP can be treated in a similar way, just blocks will have to be shorter than indef. Hope that helps- enjoy the use of your new block button- looks like you need it here :) Let me know if you have any more questions. Petros471 20:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been doing a pre-archive sweep of my talk page before archiving, and I wanted to check: has the above has been sorted or do you need any more help? Petros471 17:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do this manually or did you find some more automated method to get the linked topic headings? Petros471 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do it semi-manually with the replace tab. I copy the contents table over, search for [0-9]\s([^\n]*), replace with [[(archive location)#$1|$1]], fix up possibly duplicated headings, append 2, 3, etc, where required, and then format it into one large-ish block of text. Then I move the actual content of the talk page to the subpage, etc. Quite simple, really! Which reminds me that I should probably get around to doing it... Jude (talk,email) 10:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll see if I can get it to work for me next time around. Cheers, Petros471 10:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and post the final scores, but let me know the winner a few minutes in advance. I'll be checking in throughout the day. Sorry for not responding earlier; I've been camping all weekend. - Pureblade | ^Θ 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks with your help semi-protecting the Scottish Knights Templar article. The IP Vandal has now returned to using a registered account not used for some time (at least admitting it is the same as the user of IP addresses at Millersville University PA.) Having posted further references I will wait to see if this user stops deleting information from this and my new article Alexander Deuchar, and if not will post the usual warning again. I just noticed that the semi protection is supposed to work against banned editors? I supposed User:BlueTemplar13's block has expired?

Thanks again. --SKT1314 14:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection stops IP and newly (within a few days) registered users from editing a page. A block on an IP or username stops that IP/user from editing anything except for their talk page (unless that talk page is also protected, a separate thing). Therefore you are correct that BlueTemplar13 is able to edit that article because the block has expired (it was for 24 hours). Now from both your usernames it seems like you both have some sort of connection with the subject of the article, and recent edits look like a content dispute- not vandalism. Therefore the WP:3RR applies, and you should follow the dispute resolution process. See WP:AN3 for reporting 3RR violations, WP:RFPP if you feel full protection is needed to force discussion on the talk page (something I recommend you do). Petros471 19:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I am still learning the ropes. --SKT1314 20:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Third opinionprocedure invoked. --SKT1314 21:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure appears to be working. Thanks again. --SKT1314 07:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)''[reply]

Hi Petros. I reported a vandal last week who uses many sockpuppets to insert nonsense into location articles on upstate New York. It appears that NerfSpecialForces might be one of the archetypes. You asked me to let you know if he comes back. Well, he's back with at least the following sockpuppets:

• WikiCreedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NocturnalAdmission (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IWashMyselfWithaRagOnaStick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stepp Wulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.58.187.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Tracking down all of his insertions of nonsense is a much larger task than I have energy for right now, I'm afraid.

I'll post this on WP:RFI as well, since you may be away. But when you have a chance, I'm interested to know if there's anything more I can do other than passively wait for him to strike and then reverse the damage. Can anything proactive be done against sockpuppets? Also, is WP:RFI the right place to report sockpuppets, or is there a better place? Thanks, --Tisco 04:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if just one or two articles are being hit you can request page protection, but other than that I think we generally block accounts as they appear. That sort of report is fine for RFI, though now an established trend has been shown you might want to try WP:AIV, with a note explaining many previous socks have been blocked for same edits (to stop the report being removed because of lack of warnings or similar reason). You can also message me if you see I'm online, as again I know the pattern now so will block on sight. Btw, all those accounts have already been blocked by others. Cheers, Petros471 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on second thoughts it might be possible to request a checkuser (another shortcut: WP:RFCU) and if an underlying IP is being used by all accounts have it blocked. However, that won't work if the user is using a dynamic IP ISP. Petros471 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting some homophobic attacks from this IP since I reverted vandalism they made to the "anus" article, and I was wondering if there is anything you could do in the way of disciplinary action. Thanks.

PS: Thanks for your swift revert of the vandalism they made to my talk page just now. Beno1000 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've already blocked. Thanks for that. :) Beno1000 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of the vandalism on my userpage. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petros! Thank you SO much for nominating me for my RfA. You did an amazing job on the nomination, as several of the voters pointed out. I know you will continue to do a good job evaluating requests for nominations and making them the best they can be. For that, consider this barnstar both a well-deserved thank you and a pre-emptive reward for a job well-done. Thanks again, and if you ever see anything that I could do better, please let me know. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed about above, it wasn't like you were the hardest person to nominate ;) Thank you for the barnstar- I'll certainly try to live up to it! Cheers, Petros471 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed a bit stressed over on the WP:ABUSE talk page, so I just thought I'd drop by and give a friendly 'hey' :) Remember that vandal edits (and accounts) usually last far less time than the good ones. Sure vandals are always a problem but they can't always do what they want; and whilst there aren’t always enough admins around, sometimes there is! Now I'd have dropped you some chessy Esperanza cup of coffee if I could find some, but I'm not quite sure what good just a picture is... So anyway keep it up, fight on! Be fair in your blocks, be ruthless in your pursuit of those who abuse Wikipedia, and try and have fun at the same time! Cheers, Petros471 17:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. Don't worry, I'm not stressed. Just wanted to get your attention :)... I'm concerned that we have no system in place currently for dealing with this sort of situation, and that needs to be remedied. Thanks again for your concern and your cheering on! See you around, Snoutwood (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Link for reference: User_talk:Petros471/Archive7#Biff_loman9) Petros471 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Don't fall for DrBat's little trucks. He just doesn't like that I've replaced some of the photographs he uploaded. That's it. I have no history of vandalism. I should add here what I added to DrBat's page: Sympatico users from Ontario will all have IP addresses in 60s and 70s (and possibly others, I don't know), so I don't see how he thinks there's any proof that any anonymous users from that whole province (of ten million people, though of course nowhere near that many will individually have internet access) are all me, somehow. In fact, I have only once or twice edited anonymously since I created an account, and then certainly it wasn't to perform vandalism, but to correct a typo or something (for which it didn't seem worthwhile to log in). If the consensus is that his pix are preferred, then I'll step back; however, he seems to be the only one objects. It's not that his images are necessarily inferior, I just thought it was time for a change. Biff Loman 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then I guess someone else, whose edits happen to be exactly like yours, vandalised my page several times? Not to mention that the images you keep on uploading violate Wikipedia's fair use claim, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#Images_which_cannot_be_.22fair_use.22 --DrBat 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never vandalized your page. You seem like the type of person who has the time for that nonsense. I don't. I have to say, you have amazingly bad taste, if you think those images - which are almost godlike in their badness - are superior to ones I uploaded. Hopefully someone will put up something better. Biff Loman 11:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat has a history of edit warring and revert warring to maintain images that he feels are superior. He has provoked many "votes" because of his inability to let loose of "ownership" of many comics-related articles. Check out Rachel Summers, Jean Grey and Wonder Woman for just a few examples. CovenantD 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His idea of what is superior is laughable. Oh well. DrBat has the time for this, and most of the rest of us don't. Or don't care enough about comic books to continue an edit war. I guess it's beyond his comprehension that someone else could agree with me, and like my image better, reverting his. (It's not beyond the reaonable that an anonymous editer could share my ignorance of what is fair use. I didn't know that Handbook images don't count.) And - gasp - they're also from Ontario. A province populated entirely by me! As I said, I didn't realize that Handbook images weren't allowed, but I wish someone else would put up images better than the ones he likes. Biff Loman 11:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean: everyone else wanted to keep the previous image, as the vote showed. Wonder Woman: as the vote showed, plenty of users also wanted the Bolland image. --DrBat 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notice at the top of this page, I will not be looking at this situation very quickly. If you feel it is urgent I suggest seeking admin attention on WP:ANI. If you can wait I will take a look "sometime". Petros471 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever is fine. He's not likely to change his attitude so I expect there will be plenty of evidence when you get to it. CovenantD 22:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not talking about me, because despite what DrBat says, I haven't actually done anything wrong. At least, not intentionally. I see now my images did violate fair use, since they were from the Handbook. However, I have never vandalized anyone's page. I may be guilty of a personal attack when I called him an idiot on his talk page (at least, I think I did). It is clearly beyond his comprehension that someone besides me could have preferred my image over his, and reverted it on their own. I know now that Handbook images aren't allowed, but I wish someone could put up something that's a bit better than what he keeps reverting to. (I wonder if DrBat and T1000 are the same guy, as they have the same bad taste.) It doesn't really matter, as guys like DrBat have soured me on this place and, while I'll remain a reader of Wikipedia, I doubt I'll do much editing in the future. What's the point, when 99% of in-good-faith edits are reverted, and you're accused of vandalism? Guys like DrBat ruin it for everyone. Biff Loman 11:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd let you know that DrBat is once again changing pics on lots of different articles. Check out his contributions for today. CovenantD 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous thread: User_talk:Petros471/Archive7#The_Krab_nebula

Thanks for the followup. His repeated additions of unsourced material to that article seem to have temporarily stopped, so I didn't take action. I appreciate the primer, however, and will let you know if I need your help. Thanks for checking in. Kaisershatner 17:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petros; I decided to remove User:68.226.23.44 from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because it appears the edits were a content dispute, rather than straight vandalism. I was about to leave a message on his talk page telling him that I would not block him, but that if he refused to take it to the talk page of the article that I would and that he was on the edge of violationg 3RR. I won't undo your block of course, but you might want to reconsider the circumstances. Take a look? It looks to me like a content dispute. What do you think? --Durin 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was rather expecting that message from you when I saw your edit summary on AIV :) It was the edits that inserted commentry into the article [6] and [7] that made me block, however I also realise that this could be seen a lack of good faith. How about me dropping a note on the IPs talk page saying I'll unblock if he/she agrees to take it to the talk page? Petros471 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Placing message on his talk page; Works for me! --Durin 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Could you keep that IP on your watchlist in case he/she replies when I've gone off? (i.e. please unblock if a positive response appears) Petros471 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Meep! And now I blocked User:204.209.59.11 as you removed him from WP:AIV :) In this case, I decided to block because there was ongoing vandalism and the IP had been repeatedly blocked before. We're just working at odds :) --Durin 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. If it was a static I might have blocked, but being shared I generally treat them as if it's a new user at the computer. Btw, I haven't seen you at AIV much- is it the calls for more attention recently that brought you there? Petros471 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just pop in there every so often. It's on my watchlist, and when I'm looking for admin stuff to do, I check it out (among other things). I agree the anon-IP could be a different person. My own metric is that if I can't find any real contributory edits from the IP in the recent past, and there's a history of blocks for prior poor behavior, then I move to block. Maybe that's too hasty. --Durin 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every admin has there own blocking style, and often it's only the very extreme ones that are doing anything wrong, so I'm not going to worry to much about it either way. Petros471 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros, first many thanks for taking time to write such a thorough and complimentary review. I was impressed by the depth you had gone to and the time you had clearly spent. Many thanks. Regarding your offer to nominate me for an RfA and my expressed hesitation to do so. I am actually about to take a semi-Wikibreak. I'm changing jobs and coasts: moving to New York. I'm taking a week's vacation in Hawaii starting tomorrow between gigs. An RfA would have to wait until that's all out of the way.

Once I'm settled into Manhattan, I would be interested in trying for adminship. Your kind thoughts on my talk page have encouraged me to take that step and apply for the sysop bit. Perhaps I could contact you in a couple of weeks to start the process?

You raised some interesting points in your review. [8] was an (admittedly weak) attempt at humor. I wasn't trying to suggest the IP be indef blocked, just that this particular user had asked to be, which I thought indicated he was likely a real vandal and not just a confused new user.

I read your comments on admin review with interest. I think you're points are well made. The more I've heard both sides of this debate the more I realize that in practice this would be difficult. I've come across two admins whose behavior has struck me as low-level abuse and we don't currently have a mechanism to deal with this. However 2 out of 900 is actually an astoundingly low rate and I don't want to create a process that is more of a problem that the disease it seeks to cure. More discussion is needed on this.

Finally, thanks for pointing out the ease with which my personal information can be found. The good news is the cell number you found is not current. The truth is my identity could be uncovered quite easily if someone was persistent enough, as could most of the other admins'. The Daniel Brandt issue shows this. I am neither worried by people guessing who I am in "real" life nor particularly inclined to make it easier for them to do so.

Anyway, again, I greatly appreciate the kind words and would be truly honored to accept your offer to nominate me some time in June. Thanks, Gwernol 23:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the RfA prep page. I'll work on that over the next couple of weeks. I've added the wikiBreak template to my talk page as I'll be traveling for the next week. So progress on the answers may be slow over the next few days. Again, thanks for the (future) nomination. Best, Gwernol 13:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. :o) I'll certainly consider asking people on IRC if I have any questions. I feel like I don't see you very much on IRC; which channels are you typically in, and around what (UTC) times? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lbmixpro has a nice user page. It's great that he won. Why does the Award have your name on it? FellowWikipedian 01:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My name's on it because I was the overseer of the last round. Rune.welsh is on it as the previous overseer. The other overseers are on long term wikibreaks at the moment (some probably permanent) so that's why they were not put on. I didn't create it though, and can't say I'm terribly bothered who officially signs it :) There will be a new round starting at some point (as yet not determined) point in the future- so keep an eye out so you can sign up if you want. Petros471 08:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. FellowWikipedian 15:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've tagged that as CSD G4 (reposting of previously deleted content). However, that particular page doesn't have any deleted history. Could you please let me know where it was previously posted? Cheers, Petros471 08:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can change the speedy tag, but I saw the same exact article by the same user posted under the title, "SPERIMENTA ENSEMBLE FILMMAKING FRAMEWORK." I may be wrong, but that is what I recall. Yanksox 14:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't seem to find it. Anyway most of the other related articles are passing through AFD or PROD so they should be cleared out soon. Cheers, Petros471 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not sign your post the right way? FellowWikipedian 15:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I accidentally typed ~~~~~ (date only) rather than ~~~~ (name and date). Now fixed by adding ~~~ (name only) :) Petros471 15:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) After reading your comment, NOW :) I understand what to do in the future. However, I have already created the new page Dadashri, so please advise how to precede. I am assuming delete Dadashri and move the page, or just delete Ambalal Ambalal Muljibhai Patel?Sethie 17:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, did you do a copy and paste page move (i.e. just copy the content from one article to the other?). Petros471 17:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well looks like it, so I've done a history merge. It is important to use the 'move' tab when re-naming an article, as this preserves the page history (a licensing requirement). Also it leaves a re-direct behind, which is often useful. Let me know if you have any more questions. Petros471 17:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up- I have never encountered this situation before... now I know what to do. peace Sethie 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, that's ok. There's always something new to learn, and at least that one wasn't a very hard one to fix (it gets really messy if an article has been copied and then a load of edits are made to both articles!) Cheers, Petros471 08:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Petros, and thank you for your thoughtful comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! I'm really glad you liked the way I did my questions, your detail level was a real inspiration for me and I appreciate your letting me crib from it... Thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Well, its the penis vandal, might as well stop em both if I can, a range block usually stops them -- Tawker 23:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it did work and stop him. I swear he's talking about the penis vandalism edits being "good" edits, and that usually gets a block out of me often sans warnings -- Tawker 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shane,

I was thinking about deleting those (authors request), however I saw you removed the speedy tags, so I thought I'd check with you first. "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created." I would argue that the author was the only person to add substantial content to those articles, as all other human edits were tags and minor Wiki formatting issues. So any objections if I go ahead and speedy those, or did you have some other reasoning? Cheers, Petros471 18:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that they fell under the 'mistakenly created' part, and I was concerned that they may have been the start of good articles. But, I'll be more than happy to leave it at your discretion. --InShaneee 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can see by the current red state of the links, another admin has decided that they meet db-author. Did you see the legal argument happening on Tawker's talk page about them? I just thought if we could delete them under a CSD it would save trouble for all parties. My take on 'mistakenly created' was 'didn't fully understand GFDL license', but I'm no legal expert! Thanks, Petros471 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, I hadn't seen that! In that case, I fully endorse the deletion. Thanks for keeping me informed! --InShaneee 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) Petros471 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick heads up. An article PROFIT that you once speedied is back up and listed for AfD. The AfD looks like it will result in a delete.

However, it appears your speedy deletion was invalid. WP:CSD G4 is not valid against pages that were previously deleted via WP:PROD, as was the case here. This was a harmless mistake, as the article as it stands does not appear to meet notability requirements, and the AfD is heading for a deletion. However, I do think out-of-process speedies are potentially very troublesome, and I figured I'd make you aware of that explicit exception to G4 for future reference. Thanks. lowercase 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right of course. What's more I was actually perfectly aware of that exception before, so I've no idea what go into me (especially as I actually closed the AFD so I can't claim ignorance about it being originally up for PROD). Sorry about that.

On another note, what do you mean by your previous user name being "outed"? Petros471 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I made no attempt to hide my identity on my previous account, and it is trivial to find my real name and address from it. After seeing one too many good users being chased off by real-life harassment, I figured it would be wise to switch to a different account and keep my identity secret, to avoid the same fate. I'll have to reëstablish myself as a vandal fighter, but I think that's worth the avoidance of potential abuse. lowercase 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds sensible. It was pretty obvious you are not a new user, which is why I was surprised to see your nearly empty talk page until I read your userpage. Cheers, Petros471 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]