Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Editing restrictions of User:Diego Grez

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Diego Grez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Almost nine months ago (ANI discussion), Diego Grez (talk · contribs) (formerly MisterWiki (talk · contribs)) was released from an indefinite block under strict conditions, which confined him to editing only within his userspace. Just over six months ago, a discussion at AN reached consensus to loosen those restrictions to:

Diego Grez (talk · contribs) is restricted to a single account (excepting the employ of an approved bot), shall abide by all policies and guidelines, and continue to work with mentor HJ Mitchell.

Six months on, I think the mentoring has had a positive effect on both myself and Diego. Therefore, after consultation with Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (the admin who closed the original unblock discussion), I think it's time to allow Diego to edit without restrictions, so I come here to ask if the community shares my assessment and if they are willing to remove Diego's name from WP:RESTRICT. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to work with Diego on an informal basis. Any takers? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Diego has come a long way from his days as MisterWiki, and I see no need for the ongoing listing at WP:RESTRICT. –xeno^talk 00:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I can vouch for those who have said he has improved dramatically over the past full year. –MuZemike 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• This restriction is still in force? Definitely support lifting it for all the reasons above. (Of course, it should go without saying that lifting the restriction does not mean DG can stop "abiding by policies and guidelines". :) --Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Wait, he's still under restrictions? - He's come a long way. I think his MrWiki days are past. (this is a support, btw) (X! · talk)  · @124  ·  01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove them; he's come a long way and although he makes occasional mistakes like everyone else, I can say that he's ready now. His time on Wikinews (where he is an admin) has also helped. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Per Xeno. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Per Fetchcomms. sonia♫ 04:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  Re your edit summary - non-admins and admins have equal ability to contribute to discussions regarding community editing restrictions and have their contributions taken into account. Which is why AN is a funny place to have these discussions because it's meant to be a noticeboard to get the attention of admins. But WP:BAN says it's the right venue.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order, what is the relationship between this request and the confusing series of usurpations and renaming accounts that went on today regarding Diego Grez? --Jayron32 06:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  he did one on s:; s:User talk:Zhaladshar#Rename request, citing privacy concerns. Cheers, Gold Hat (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• He had an off-wiki privacy issue and thought it best to change his username from his real name for the time being. The issue then resolved itself and he decided to go back to DG, which created an enormous mess with redirects, hence the usurpations, moves and deletions. There's no relationship to this request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cautious support, per teh Biguns high in this thread ;) Gold Hat (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although I do acknowledge that there have been some issues (although pretty minor), they are not serious enough to warrant continued mentoring. I've been asking this since like 2–3 months back. I see no reason not to give Diego the opportunity to create doppelgängers, nor why HJ should continue mentoring him. HeyMid (contribs) 10:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Yepp, kid's come a long way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Can't say I'm impressed with reverting users to put back his own pictures on multiple articles and calling their edits vandalism. [1] [2] [3] [4], and responding to a civility warning with a "Meh. I don't really care about this place anymore." --Onorem♠Dil 15:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Would have to agree seeing those that I am some what troubled by them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Do I have to explain the whole problem I had off-wiki? Yes, I did respond badly, but there was no bad intention behind these reasonings. I was just angry with some other thing. Sorry. Diego Grez (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Cautious support – There were a few temper tantrums ([5], [6], [7]), but he isn't doing any harm to Wikipedia, so I don't see any problems with lifting the restrictions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I believe he's an established and good editor worthy of unrestricted editing. I do miss the image of his grandfather, however. Basket of Puppies 18:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support – I have seen Diego be a useful contributor on Wikipedia and other projects. There is no need for any more restrictions. —mc10 (t/c) 19:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I remember the original troubles as MisterWiki (I might have been peripherally involved too, I don't remember exactly). The impression I got was he seemed like a good kid at heart even back then, but with a bit of trouble to adapt to the serious tone of this project. Kudos both to Diego Grez and HJ Mitchell for getting this far! henrik•talk 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Diego has matured a lot over the past few months and I trust him a lot more than I used to. Keep up the good work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per my trust in the proposer. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I recently gave a civility warning and his response was "Meh. I don't really care about this place anymore." I don't think he's changed, but we shall see. Fences&Windows 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Since the indefinite block? HeyMid (contribs) 15:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • See the above diffs by Onorem Dil. I believe there is some underlying interpersonal dispute at play there. Diego's response to F&W was suboptimal, but I don't think it warrants maintaining the listing at RESTRICT. –xeno^talk 15:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I was wondering whether Fences and windows meant that Diego is still behaving the same way as he did a year ago. HeyMid (contribs) 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I think he meant that, and he's free to express his opinion. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah yes- I misread. –xeno^talk 16:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
          • No worries; anyone may misread another user's post sometimes. HeyMid (contribs) 16:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I noticed a thread about restrictions a while ago (I believe it was lifting some of the former restrictions or unblocking or something; not sure, it's been a while), and shortly after that ran into the user in IRC. Most (but not all) of what I've seen of Diego has been through IRC rather than onwiki, but what I've seen of this user has led me to believe he's a good contributor (both on wikipedia and in IRC), and I don't think editing restrictions are necessary any longer. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support lifting the restrictions. DG has changed a lot in six months by what I've seen. Jafeluv (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Pile-on Support He's really changed from a year ago. The restrictions are no longer needed IMHO.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 11:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

closer needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden

Unresolved

 – be back in a few days

It's been thirty days now since it was opened. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• He said five days ago he was preparing a response. Probably best to give him a hard deadline to do that by. Fences&Windows 02:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to let it run a few days over. I'll check back here when there is a consensus to go ahead and close. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?

Not sure if this is the right place. [8] - basically this seems to have been created for an AFD, and is no longer needed. So should this be deleted? Sorry if I'm asking in wrong location. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the file is in public domain and is in Wikimedia Commons, the wiki that hosts multimedia files. Diego Grez (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway! 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Gabrielle Giffords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Death is not confirmed, please edit and freeze this page Sswonk (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

CNN & other news webiste have confirmed her death. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time of my post, hospital spokesperson speaking to MSNBC live said she is not dead. Still not confirmed at 2:49 EST. Sswonk (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest reports are that she is in hospital, alive.[9] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reports are she is undergoing surgery, and as I can't think why they would lie about that, I think we should accept that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is also a topic on WP:ANI. Could someone please merge the two threads? NW (Talk) 20:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – My initial concern over unconfirmed reports of death have been handled as the page is currently protected. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Gabrielle_Giffords_Debate_over_Death

per Sswonk (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Avicenna: Need experienced admin help

Avicenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The ethnicity of Avicenna is stated as "Persian" or "Iranian" in Encyclopedia Britannica. However, according to Encyclopedia Iranica, Avicenna was born in Afšana, a village near Bukhara (in Uzbekkistan). His father, who had moved in from Balḵ (in Afghanistan) a few years previously. Furthermore, Iranica states that The Tajiks are an Iranian people, speaking a variety of Persian, concentrated in the Oxus Basin, the Farḡāna valley (Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan) and on both banks of the upper Oxus, i.e., the Pamir mountains (Mountain Badaḵšān, in Tajikistan) and northeastern Afghanistan (Badaḵšān).... By the eleventh century the Turks applied this term more specifically to the Persian Muslims in the Oxus basin and Khorasan" (i.e. the homeland of Avicernna). So basically, the use of Persian or Iranian for the ethnicity of Avicenna is improper. He lived during Ghaznavid rule who were not part of Persian Empire. I believe Britannica is not a valid source for Iranian studies and a more valid source must be used which is Encyclopedia Iranica (a project from University of Coloumbia), with 4 decades research in Iranian studies. Iranica doesn't use any ethnic origin for Avicenna and only states his birthplace and the birthplace of his father.

I have requested for mediation and Mr Ruud believes that my reference to the sources is a form of WP:SYN. However, WP:SYN allows "A and B, therefore C", when a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. My reference to the definition of tajik DOES publish the same argument in the relation to the topic: Avicenna was a Persian, and Tajiks of his homeland are Persian people and therefore Avicenna was a Tajik too. I believe that the historical facts in the region must be considered too and I believe that Mr Ruud is not eligible enough to mediate and I request an experienced administrator with a good knowledge of the history of Central Asia should mediate. For further details, please refer to the Discussion page of Avicenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and to the [request for mediation] page. Many thanks, --Artacoana (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand Ruud's insistence on the application of Goodman's Avicenna as "a reliable source". Jūzjānī (980 - 1037) is a pupil and THE biographer of Avicenna, whose citations have been used by the medieval Islamic bio-bibliographer Ebn al-Qefṭī (in Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā) as the source of his entries on the life of Avicenna. Taʾrīkh al-ḥokamā, "The History of Learned Men", was translated by J. Lippert in 1903. NOWHERE IN THIS VERY RELIABLE SOURCE CAN BE SEEN ANY REFERENCE TO THE PERSIAN ETHNICITY OF AVICENNA. As a result, the primary sources such as Iranica and the Encyclopedia of Islam have avoided using the term Persian for the ethnicity of Avicenna. The application of the term "Persian" is unfair and leads to the unfair claim of Iranians for these scholars, as today the Persian speaking Iranians are the only ones who are unfairly called Persian in the official statistics This unfair application can lead to division and hatred among people of the region. An experienced administrator with a good knowledge of the history of Central Asia is required for mediation.--Artacoana (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Need experienced admin help

Last month I speedy deleted Power Le Poer Trench as A10 as it duplicated existing article William Trench (archbishop). The speedy request seemed reasonable to me. Soon after, the original requester moved the William Trench article to the more common name of the deleted article "Power Le Poer Trench". Case closed or so I thought. Another editor complained some edits were lost and should have been merged. In the heat of the end of year holidays I forgot about this and when I archived it with the December postings the second user resurrected the issue requesting I fix it. I am willing to help but this is getting too complex. Unsure of the procedure, deleting, removing, merging, re-deleting, is an area I have not delved in and the danger of messing it up is greater for me than for somebody with more experience in this area. Can anybody take a look and fix it or give me clear instructions so it doesn't get messed up? I see both editors requests as valid and well intended. Would not do to make a mess. Thanks for any help. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. A sysop can tell you whether the deleted revisions are worth restoring. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

1. User A created the article under the wrong name (not a 'less common name').
2. User B created a longer and better article with PD text correctly attributed.
3. User B realises what happened and informs user A
4. User A takes better text, replaces own text in "William" and requests correctly named article is deleted as A10. User C does that and User A moves it as a 'more common name'.

This has all been discussed, it is uncontroversial to restore edit history, and user B invested some time in copyediting and linking the text. User B (me) has also spent a lot of their time chasing this about now, and not inclined to waste even more peoples time, however, it is alarming simple when one realises user A and C messed up. Please restore the revision history of this article. cygnis insignis 18:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Expired RfC

A naming RfC at Talk:The Gambia has expired and has been silent for well over a week. Could an uninvolved someone take look and summarize the discussion? Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. You are welcome to beat the rush & tell me now that I have mush for brains, then look at my closing decision. -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposing indefinite block for dynamic IP hopping editor

92.8.146.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This editor was originally blocked for 55 hours at 16:35, 31 December 2010, and since then their block has been extended several times for block evasion. IPs used for block evasion include:

• 92.12.168.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.11.253.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 92.4.17.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Since the last entry in the block log (the one month block at 21:30, 8 January 2011) the block has again been evaded as 92.3.53.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Obviously for technical reasons we do not generally block IPs indefinitely, but I do not see this as being a reason why the editor behind the IP should not be considered indefinitely blocked? O Fenian (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For some additional background on this editor, see in particular the edits of 92.11.253.184 linked above. As well as Irish republican related articles, they also include Bruce Jones (actor). The history of that article shows a large number of similar IPs, in particular 92.1.67.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which edits both that aticle and point-of-view pushing on Éamon de Valera regarding his stance in WW2. That brings us neatly round to Talk:Éamon de Valera#NPOV issues and questionable Reliable Source in this context and Talk:Éamon de Valera#Missing information and the edits of this IP.

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

This editor made this edit which is wholly unacceptable, and it was followed by this from another IP.

As you can probably see, this editor has been a problem for a considerable time. O Fenian (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This editor is certainly troublesome, edit warring, pushing a particular POV, sometimes making aggressive comments, and repeatedly evading blocks. However, indefinitely blocking would not serve any purpose, as the editor just comes back with new IPs, as O Fenian's very thorough account above shows. This is, of sourse, additional to the usual reason for not making indefinite IP blocks because of collateral damage. A range block is out of the question, even for a short period, as it would have to cover 92.0.0.0/12, which is to say 1048576 IP addresses. There are many edits from this range, and on the basis of a sample of a couple of dozen fairly recent edits it seems that the vast majority of them are perfectly constructive, and probably nothing at all to do with the editor under discussion. Perhaps by "be considered indefinitely blocked" O Fenian does not mean that the IPs should actually be blocked, but that we should view the editor as permanently disallowed from editing, so that we can treat any future edits as block evasion, even if the actual blocks have run out. I'm not sure whether that is what is intended, but if it is then does that differ in any way from proposing a Community ban? I certainly would not oppose such a ban, though I'm not sure what effect it would have in practice. We would still be left having to revert and block as each new IP comes up, which is the situation we are in now. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well at present, the block on the editor is due to expire in a month. If the editor was actually using an account, it is likely that the account would have been indefinitely blocked for persistent block evasion. Obviously as they are using IPs, that cannot be done since we do not generally block IPs indefinitely. So if people want to call it a ban that is up to them, I am just trying to find some sort of consensus that the editor is de facto indefinitely blocked that can be pointed back to at a later date. O Fenian (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A range block is required here. As for innocent IPs? let'em create an account & sign in (it's not that difficult a task). GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A note to those dealing with the IPs edits that are being discussed here. They fall into the range used by prolific Sock Puppeteer and banned editor HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not know if these edits fall into his pattern of editing but I thought I would make you aware of this in case it is of help. If it isn't my apologies for wasting your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock is impossible here. The range is just too wide. T. Canens (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My IPCalc tool shows that the minimum range is 92.0.0.0/12, which is technically impossible through the Special:Block interface. (X! · talk)  · @200  ·  03:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We do have the technical ability to block that entire range by implementing smaller /16 range blocks. But this range is highly dynamic and highly used, so long blocks on this range is not feasible. At most an hour or two. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Hundreds of /16 range blocks. (X! · talk)  · @901  ·  20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking to have a range block implemented. As the editor concerned has yet again evaded the existing block (fifth or sixth time now?) as 92.8.58.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 92.12.206.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), is there a consensus for this editor being considered de facto indefinitely blocked? O Fenian (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons discussion about copyrightability of security camera recordings

Administrators who work with copyright issues, and lawyers, may be interested in the discussion at Commons:Commons:Village pump#Copyrightability of security camera recordings.  Sandstein  20:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions appeal by User:Koavf

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The restrictions placed upon Koavf (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf and in User:Koavf/Community sanction are terminated, effective immediately. Koavf is reminded to edit in the future in full accordance with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 05:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Undo move of Governors of Arizona

A new editor with 28 edits, Tyhlerb, has moved List of Governors of Arizona to Governors of Arizona. The Governors of Arizona is a new page created by editor Tyhlerb. The page was moved without discussion on the talk page. The page was then edited by another person, so I don't have a clue on how to undo the move. Generally there are 2 articles on Governors, List of Governors of <State> and Governor of <State>. For example, List of Governors of Kentucky and Governor of Kentucky. If there is no Governor of <State> article, it is then redirect to the list article. I believe he also moved List of Prime Ministers of Barbados to Prime Ministers of Barbados incorrectly. I will leave a notice on the user's talk page about not making moves without discussion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Governors of Arizona" seems like a better name for the article, which is actually a true article not a list, per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If a move is to happen, it should be discussed on talk page first. Other moves like this have been recently shot down for lack of consensus. Examples, Talk:List of Governors of Texas#Requested move, Talk:List of Governors of Delaware#Requested move, and Talk:List of Governors of Florida#Requested move. Full disclosure... I stated I was neutral about the moves on the Delaware talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like the kind of issue where there needs to be a general RFC on the topic, maybe a discussion at WP:VPP or something, where we centralize a discussion on the general conventions for these types of articles. --Jayron32 13:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an article, not a list. But it is a featured list. Maybe the lower standards for featured lists when compared to featured articles are at the root of the problem? Hans Adler 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I needed a peer review of an edit warring block I did of an editor. The details are here. In case any administrator wishes to change the block if I've made an inadvertent mistake, please feel free to change the same. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good block. That one of the parties in the edit war was an IP address is no excuse for a named editor to revert war, as was done here: [10]. Since they were previously blocked for the exact same edit war less than four days prior, it looks like a very good block. Have you blocked the IP address of his opponent as well? --Jayron32 13:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Nakon's already blocked one of the ips for two weeks. But the ip keeps changing the address; if the edit warring continues, I'll make a list of all the ips. Thanks again. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 14:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:

• Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
• Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:NestleNW911

NestleNW911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor is blocked as a sockpuppet, based on checkuser evidence and behavioral indicators. The editor claims, via their unblock request, that they are not a sockpuppet. The request is two days old, and I'd like to clear it from queue - is there any ongoing checkuser review of this one? Could I get another set of eyes here? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to follow up on this some - KarenViceroy (talk · contribs) and NestleNW911 (talk · contribs) are in the same (very large) city and on the same (very busy) ISP. The technical data points to at least a  Possible match. TNXMan 17:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say as some one who is familiar with Scientology members on Wiki, He doesn't smell like one. His edits have not been like past User:Shutterbug socks, I welcomed the user pretty early in His/her editing. I decided not to Report him/her because behavior was radically different from past socks. This could be a new shuttterbug strategy but I think not. I would endorse an unblock and would keep an eye on it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also this is the first case I am aware of that an alleged Shutterbug sock has contested a block after an SPI. There have been one or two friendly fire blocks but never has one declared itself a Scientology member then been reported for SPI. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)