Open main menu

Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2011-11

Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in November 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Sock puppet harassment of Risker

A sock puppet from en.wiki is harassing Risker. The sock puppet relied on dozens and dozens of IPs and account names. It is almost unbelievable how many socks he created.

Risker removed his post when archiving. The post was edited by the guy's blatant sock 217.169.37.146. I removed the readdition because it was 1. removed and 2. trying to push his nonsense article claims that he was using dozens upon dozens of socks to get around his ban on en.wiki to push. He readds from 156.61.160.1 and adds more on 82.198.250.67. 3 different accounts in just a short span of time. His only desire is to harass an admin who blocked him previously on one of his many sock accounts for socking. Can someone handle this? Semi-protect and some blocks? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if consideration would be given to a random period of semi-protection of my user talk page to see if this user can be discouraged from posting at my talk. Because he is using completely unrelated IP addresses, there is no prospect of blocking him. He is attempting to use my talk page as a forum in which to advance his preferred version of a page on English Wikipedia, which is well outside the scope of this project, and is inappropriate use of the talk page of another user. Thanks. Risker 15:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have semiprotected your talk page for a month as per your request. If anything else is needed, please tell us. Thanks, both, for reporting. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Risker 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to ping me directly too if problems persist. -Pete F 16:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jdzarlino

User:Jdzarlino Posted here, which is a page that mentions the name John Zarlino many times. The page is mostly nonsense. There is also spam and many other troubling things. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  Done, I've deleted both pages and given him a notice on his talk page. Savhñ 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Cinzoo man

Threats and harassment on my talk page here by User:Cinzoo man (the indef blocked User:Zhand38 on en.WP). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Blocked, then globally locked. Courcelles 01:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I ran a CU both here and on commons and blocked a few accounts/implemented some IP blocks. Hopefully this will help. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 04:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Davidpatrickda

Please delete User:Davidpatrickda, locally block and/or globally lock the user and checkuser him as he's the known Polish spammer (see the vandalism reports). I'm not able to do this myself atm, that's why I request this. Thanks in advance. Regards, Trijnstel 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cough. You know, you are allowed to do so without asking. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have the rights, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm always able to use them. ;-) Trijnstel 10:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocked locally and on enwp, CU   Confirmed match to Aidanconnelyai on enwp. Courcelles 01:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I globally locked Davidpatrickda. Aidanconnelyai was already globally locked by me. I'll perform a CU on enwikiversity. Trijnstel 10:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I found five more socks: Neilfichternei (talk · contribs), Melaslinaresva (talk · contribs), Floorettariver (talk · contribs), Seraphinvazque (talk · contribs), Richardherrman (talk · contribs). All are globally locked now as well. I can't block an IP or range, because the ranges are too wide. Soon I'll make a list of all spammed domains and blacklist them. Kind regards, Trijnstel 10:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

IPs disrupting Wikimedia Forum

See here and the previous section - no one randomly stumbles upon the Wikimedia Forum. The technical knowledge 71.46.49.251 is stating, the claims that they can't log in when they clearly can, claims that they created accounts (notice the plural) before, etc. makes it obvious that these are logged out sock masters who are using the forum to disrupt. Can admin and local CUs investigate this? A CU blocked the IP on en.wiki because the IP is most likely used by a sock master there. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, I think your assessment is very likely accurate, and thanks for sharing it. But I'm not sure what needs investigating, or what kind of action would need to be taken. It seems better to me to just let the matter drop, since no specific solution about what to do about the blocked IP has been proposed anyway. -Pete F 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising 2011/Jimmy Letter 002/ru

Please semi-protect this page due to numerous disruptive edits from IP users over the last two days, it looks like a flashmob. Thank you. --Microcell 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Using Wikiresearch.org

Hi, I have been searching for something like wikiresearch.org, however, when I choose to view a random page, all that shows are ads for clothing, and etc., and pornograpy. If you create a page, you cannot edit it (says that it is locked for editing), and when you go back and search for it, it is not there, even as an empty page, or stub. It is also seems apparent that the wiki itself is abandoned. Some of the newest "current" events and admin postings go back to 2007, and 2009. If this project is abandoned or in disrepair, is it possible to rejuvinate it, this is a great idea. Norm S. wikiswgeek54@gmail.com user: swgeek54

Wikiresearch.org is not a Wikimedia project, so this is certainly the wrong forum for it. You could try contacting the wiki's creator by email. Jafeluv 01:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Abd's unblock request

User_talk:Abd#Block – I've noticed that Abd's unblock request has been left open for over three weeks.

"If I knew what I did, I could apologize. The evidence in the request that led to this block made no sense to me."

Could someone at least explain to him why he was blocked?

"However, regardless, I will respect the conditions of unblock set by any administrator, until and unless the community allows otherwise."

Abd says that he would agree to any concessions that the unblocking sysop might demand. I guess that this might mean acting more civilly, refraining from interacting with a certain user, or some sort of topic ban.

"I do have occasion to use meta process to support Wikiversity, where I'm an administrator, and to support global antispam and antivandalism efforts."

Abd might need help from Meta in the future. --Michaeldsuarez 14:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize it's probably difficult to provide a soundbite reason for Abd's block (other than "making it hard for people to do constructive things because Abd insists on having their full attention"), but it does seem a bit unfair not to at least make some small effort to explain the problem to him.
As far as "conditions for unblocking" go, I would like to suggest that one condition be that he actually provides some evidence about what the English Wikiversity's community's opinion is before he endeavors to represent it. En.wv is a very small community, we seldom have communal interest in political issues on meta, and Abd's particular long-form style of debate makes it very time consuming for any of us to "fact-check" his representations of our interests. Thanks. --SB_Johnny talk 18:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the detail of the block, though the two statements above do have a level of oppositeness. I can reflect that if Abd needs to have access to meta because nobody else in their community has or wishes to access meta, than maybe Abd needs to have a change of approach. Alternatively, the WV community needs to get better representation of their opinions to meta. Manners and consideration are self-regulation, where they are not self-regulated, then they will be regulated by other means. billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the incredible amount of Wikilawyering in which Abd blatant makes up "policies" or radically reinvents our way of handling matters is the reason why he was blocked, and this is a constant everywhere for him. He will never stop. This problem is compounded by huge posts in which he floods discussions en masse. Abd is a good candidate for a global ban because of his disruption across projects, especially when he uses the Wikilawyering and flooding to try and justify some of the worst offenders while absolutely falsifying history to claim that the huge and significant proof of their harm doesn't exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For those needing some background, the discussion leading to Abd's block can be found at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2011-10#User:Abd. Abd has also left some responses to the comments in this thread at User_talk:Abd#Responses_to_unblock_discussion. --Michaeldsuarez 03:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Abd contributes almost nothing of value. Wherever he goes, he wastes the valuable time of others dealing with his endless shenanigans. The reasons for his block on Meta are laid out here quite cogently. There's no reason to unblock, now or ever. Raul654 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  Not done I don't see any new element since the last unblock request. --Vituzzu 20:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  Comment I endorse his block at that time and decline of this particular request, with afraid the user hasn't got no lesson yet from his statement in request "The evidence in the request that led to this block made no sense to me." I hope however there will be a reason enough to unblock someday, but at this moment, I concur with all the people who gave comments by now. --Aphaia 14:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WCI submission pages

Hello, maybe all of you remember that more than a month ago we agreed (per organizers' request if I remember correctly) not to delete the off-topic, incomplete, and rejected submissions to WikiConference India 2011 until the conference is over. And now it is over. The off-topic pages and rejected submissions can be regarded as spam/off-topic per Meta's current policy, and the incomplete onces can be deleted for housekeeping. I have already talked with Jayantanth and Shijualex, two people who were widely involved in the submission process (reviewing, selecting, rejecting etc), and they both suggested to delete those pages.

Therefore, I plan to delete these 500+ pages by myself. Does anybody object? — Tanvir | Talk ] 09:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete :Please delete all-Jayantanth 09:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If the project people agree and they're no longer necessary, I don't see a problem with this. Jafeluv 09:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
As they won't be useful to the project, looks like a non-controversial deletion.” Teles (T @ L C S) 09:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jafeluv. If Indic community/organizers have agreed on, there is no problem. Then go forward and thank you for your work in advance! --Aphaia 14:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
All gone! — Tanvir | Talk ] 02:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)