User talk:Yamla

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Yamla/Archive 10. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Problem with IP 74.109.244.5 and new account

I'm sure you remember vandalism trouble with this user, and it seems to have gotten much worse. They appear to hold a grudge against me because of my frequent reverts of their vandalism to Southwood Secondary School, and reporting them because of this vandalism. This user has indeed created an account in a parody of my own, with only one letter being different. You can compare my User Page with their own here. I realize that this may not be against the rules, but with this account that is so similar to my own they have continued to vandalize SSS, as seen in this edit, which I have since reverted.

I just want information on Wikipedia to be accurate, and since you were able to deal with this user last time, I thought it best to bring to your attention what has transpired. MelicansMatkin 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to it. Nobody is permitted to impersonate your user account here. I'm sorry you had to go through that. Happy editing, let me know if things turn sour again. --Yamla 03:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your quick response. It was certainly a shock to see that happen. I'll be sure to drop you a line if that user creates any more trouble for me, or any other editors. Once again thanks, to both you and Netsnipe MelicansMatkin 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this users IP block has expired - he immediately began to vandalize every page listed on my User Page that I have worked on/created, and also vandalized my user page. Thanks to revisions by Zarius and Raven4x4x, all of the vandalism that I know of has been fixed, but the user seems to once again be free on Wikipedia. MelicansMatkin 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked, this time for six months due to the immaturity evidenced by this user's edits. --Yamla 14:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for your help! MelicansMatkin 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring this up again, but this guy just won't quit: his new account MelicansMatkin 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being such a sissy.PelicansPatkin 23:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the link http://freecomputerbooks.com/langCppBooksIndex.html

Three different wikipedians (independently on each other) suggested to talk to you about removal of the link [1]

Can you please elaborate why did you remove it? The page contains links to 41 freely avaliable documents (the documents are opened in the browser; for these documents there are no links to amazon.com or other similar links) and 9 links to documents avaliable both freely and from amazon.com (for each of these links, there is a choice between reading it at the browser and buying at amazon.com; the amazon.com links have a refid, however)
Are you sure that removal of the link was right?

--Urod 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (slightly rewritten --Urod 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, let's take a look through the criteria outlined for WP:EL. As you know, external links should be kept to a minimum. We are not allowed to link to sites which violate copyright. This may or may not be an issue with this particular link. I did not see any copyright violations in this case but it's worth checking out whenever a site provides a PDF of a book. But again, I don't think that's the case here. So, let's see how the link fairs under "What should be linked to". It debateably meets the third criteria there. However, we already use a number of C++ books as references in the article itself. We also have a number of links already. And many of the other links could better be provided by linking to a DMOZ category.

So, let's take a look at links to normally be avoided. It definitely falls prey to number 4. The site primarily exists to make money on amazon referral links and to sell "deep discounted Computer Books [sic]". It may also fall prey to number 3, though probably not. Note, though, that I am assuming this is not your site. If so, please let me know and I'll explain the problem there.

Okay, so we know that Wikipedia does not like external links. We prefer keeping the list small, so on an article like C++, adding a new link requires justification. This particular link debateably meets one criteria for inclusion but definitely fails a criteria for no inclusion. Also, the link does not add substantially in a manner that a link to a DMOZ category would not do better. For all of these reasons, the link should not have been added. Remember, the "links to be considered" does not cancel out the "links to normally be avoided". A link should normally be added only if it avoids all reasons not to link. --Yamla 15:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely not my site! --Urod 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed that the site, although it has an unobtrusive ad for discounted books at the bottom, primarily provides "free" reference material on the subject. I find that the fact that you would highlight the unobtrusive ad and ignore the primary purpose makes it very difficult for me to assume good faith. Comparing the proposed external link to the others in the article suggest to me that it is at least as high quality as the others. I intend to replace the link and remove some of the less useful. AnAccount2 21:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our friend continues to add his favorite external link to C++ while taking care not to violate WP:3RR, a clear case of WP:GAME. I wonder what can be done about this peculiar friend of ours? Xerxesnine 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urod == User:AnAccount2 ?

Hello, have you done much in attempting to expose these likely sockpuppets? Since this person is an especially persistent nuisance, I would be willing to pursue it myself. I only ask because I don't want to step on your heels if you've already started. Xerxesnine 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. There's not much I can do without checkuser access, especially given that neither account is currently blocked. It does look at least strongly possible that they are the same person, though. --Yamla 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe that then I demand that you request a checkuser at once. Such accusations are reprehensible and if you continue on this path you will do little more than make yourself a poster child for administrator review, the time for which is ripe given the Essjay scandal. Hours before you wrote that you already decided you were wrong, so why would you continue such insinuations? With the mop comes responsibility, and I suggest you start taking some instead of continuing to abuse it with your many violations of WP:BITE and WP:AGF. AnAccount2 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser is pointless with all the open WiFi points and Internet Cafes but I am truely shocked when it does occasionally return a positive hit. So a false positive (or is that a true negative?) does not mean much. Also, no actions have yet warranted a checkuser according to their policy.

I have a bit of history with Urod so here is my opinion: User:AnAccount2 has a short temper just like User:Urod but AnAccount2 has a much better usage of the english language. So I do not think that they are the same person, but I believe that they are both non-native speakers, possibly Russian, and that they are friends at work, school, military, or someplace else. What I would like to know is how/why did AnAccount2 enter this angry hornets nest that is swarming over at Urod's? All of AnAccount2's edits focus around electric cars, so why enter a C++ dispute? I'd also like to point out that Urod is not a wiki-newbie and AGF was nullified after the 2nd or 3rd warning. Those who act in bad faith do get bitten. (Requestion 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I brought this up because their wiki-personalities appear to be identical. The same quixotic semi-threats (including one toward me), brazen challenging of common-sense actions by others, and a bizarrely inflated sense of "purpose" for the link spam in question.

Incidentally, freecomputerbooks.com is owned by "Ju Rao", which is phonetically similar to "U Rod" (perhaps more so in another language). Of course this is nothing substantive -- just a minor curiosity. Xerxesnine 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they do have the same defiant and aggressive personality. Urod once said to me "Remove it if you can! I will not let you to remove external links." It is interesting that "Ju Rao" and "U Rod" are similar but I don't think that Urod lives lives in the U.S. I have no idea what motivates Urod. It's puzzling. It is almost like random lashing out at any sort of authority. (Requestion 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I went back, read some old talk pages and analyzed Urod's AfD. Urod mostly edits on the Russian Wikipedia [2]. I thought the large number of WP:SPA's and/or WP:SOCK's that arrived for the AfD was amazing. Even a couple dormant wiki accounts woke up, commented, and have since fallen back asleep. It was all very strange. Now I believe that help was WP:CANVAS'd in from the Russian Wikipedia. I suspect the situation we currently have with AnAccount2 is similar. (Requestion 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As the offerer of a third opinion on the talk page of C++, how the heck did we switch from a link conflict to a sockpuppet accusation? Maybe we should focus on the underlying issue. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to know check out User_talk:Urod. Also look at the AfD and the AMA request. It's a swarming hornets nest over there so be careful. (Requestion 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, and apologies

Thank you once again for helping me out, but I have to apologize about all of this. You must be really tired of blocking this user and his many sockpuppets by now. I feel really bad about bothering you so often about the new accounts. MelicansMatkin 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not a problem. :) --Yamla 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johhny T: Another sockpuppet of Alfredosolis

I wasn't sure where to report this but given your involvement in the block of several of Alfredosolis's sockpuppets, I figured your talk page was a good start. Johhny_T's recent contributions have led me to believe he is another sockpuppet of Alfredosolis because of his similar editing style and problematic image uploads. Note the similarities of R.bobby's(another sock of Alfredo) edits here and the edits of Johhny T here and here. A look at his talk page also shows evidence of more problematic image uploads. TheHornyBug 07:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one should probably go to WP:CHECK. It looks at least possible but I'm not convinced enough to block out of hand. --Yamla 01:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Continued vandalism by 70.56.114.160 reverted. AnAccount2 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there.

Hello there. I've just had a look at this user called User:MGAME who signed up yesterday and uploaded a load of images under public domain and I'm slightly concerned. A lot of the images are about Brock Lesnar (hence my concern), however none of them are ones I've seen Verdict upload so far (along with the fact they look fan taken unlike some Verdict have uploaded). I'm not exactly sure how to handle this and I really hope I'm wrong about this. :/ -- Oakster Talk 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure as well. I've requested a checkuser on that particular account. --Yamla 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BatistaTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Sebastian P 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Oakster Oakster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- Oakster Talk 10:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfriendly Warning on My Userpage

Why did you put a warning on my user page? I thought I was properly adding an image license to that image. Way to welcome new users. :P --KermMartian 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You falsely claimed that Image:Smash Hits.jpg was a screenshot of a web page. As noted in the license text, "This tag is not appropriate for images and media found on websites; it should be used for screenshots of websites only." This is clearly not a screenshot of a web page. --Yamla 16:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then I made an honest error. I would think such an action would warrant a friendly notice, not a threatening Talk Page edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KermMartian (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If it was an honest error then I apologise. It looked to me like you were removing a no-license tag and replacing it with an obviously false license. --Yamla 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the unblock! You're a life saver! I couldn't edit Wikipedia for like 5 minutes and I was clawing at the walls! :) Kafziel ^Talk 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you should see how frustrated I get when the database goes read-only for the servers to catch up. Gah! Anyway, I left a message on the blocking admin's talk page. Normally, I'd just bring it up with them but this looked so clearly to be a mistake, I just went ahead and unblocked. --Yamla 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Verdict

What is the deal with this guy and why has he been targeting you? Could you please fill me in. Big Boss 0 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deal is that he refused initially to accept a block placed on him by another admin. I don't recall the original reason but you can take a look at Verdict (talk · contribs). I know he frequently violated copyright and/or WP:FU on images. He started creating sockpuppet accounts to bypass the blocks. These were found and blocked. He requested an unblock review on unblock-en-l and this was declined. At this point, he's created at least 80 abusive sockpuppets. All of his unblock requests have been declined by numerous admins. He's been blocked by at least ten separate administrators. He continues to violate WP:SOCK by creating more accounts. Up through last week, he continued deliberately violating WP:FU and lying about the sources of the images he uploaded. He's repeatedly lied when setting up sockpuppet accounts. As to why he is targeting me, it's because I've blocked over 80% of his accounts and am the admin other people turn to when they discover another one of his accounts. He is banned by community consensus and is not welcome on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

Cheers, mate. Everything great now! SqueakBox 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congradulations!!!

You are now recognized as a recipient of the Big Boss Award. This is for dealing with such a persistent vandal. This is for all of the hard work you have done in an effort to stop this person. I will not allow something like this to go without reward. Thank you for all your hard work. The Real People's Champion Big Boss 0 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This user has been recognized as a
Big Boss Award recipient.

Blocked User:talk page

Is there any chance you could unblock my user talk page please User talk:Greatestrowerever Thank you

Done. It was only protected for the lifetime of the block so it was already unprotected, it's just that the tag was still there. --Yamla 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our best friend

He's now, to no surprise, targeting yours and Oakster's talk pages Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His most recent socks have been blocked, but the images uploaded are still here. Thought you should know so that you can delete them. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 12:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be deleted. Big Boss 0 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the information. Big Boss 0 14:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has requested his most frequent targets (Bobby Lashley, Dave Bautista, and Brock Lesnar) for unprotection at the RfP page. Big Boss and I have commented against this, thought you might wanna know so you can take a look over there. Also, perhaps Wikipedia should contact his ISP and consider legal action. This is just ridiculous already. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 14:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied from my talk page

Greetings. I posted the following to my talk page after you blocked me (Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs)); if you recall, you upheld the block even though there were not four reverts. I didn't argue with your decision but I am curious what to do with editors who consistently revert exactly three times a day.:

Fair enough. Can you tell me where to report revert warring that does not reach 4 reverts? The person who reported me (Isarig (talk · contribs)) is notorious for reverting exactly three times a day. I have reported this before and was told that only 4 reverts in a day may be reported. I feel it is unfair if I get blocked based on a deceptive 3RR report filed by him, whereas when he engages in the same behavior it is ignored, and even encouraged by administrators. csloat 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--csloat 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:3RR would be the correct place. Note specifically, however, that the person is gaming the system. --Yamla 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Action?

Has anyone from Wikipedia contacted Verdict's ISP? It seems the only way we can get him to stop is to pursue some sort of legal discourse. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know. The problem at the moment is that he is now using TOR proxies to hide his address. We have already blocked direct access from his ISP. As such, this makes it much more difficult to assemble an abuse report to forward on to his ISP. Not impossible, mind you, just more difficult. --Yamla 15:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn TOR proxies. That would explain why some of his IP addresses show up as being from Germany, though. But the sooner any sort of abuse report can be filed, the better. As difficult as it has become, hopefully it is done soon. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JessieDaniels.jpg

Regarding your comments on my talk page. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the policy. I have no objection to the deletion of this image. --Wordbuilder 19:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Yamla 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prince Godfather back again maybe

This time as User:86.138.135.30. She/He is showing familiarity with wikipedia and editing the same pages as User:Prince Godfather. He has also reverted one of the pages you reverted when his sock puppets were banned. your edit removing disography his revert and additon of small amount of text. GameKeeper 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]