Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Interesting edits by Congress (RFC, etc.)

See: [1]

Kim Bruning 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

and [2] - please re-block the IP - the IPs vandalism was reverted, and then repeated from the same Congressional IP; I reverted this. I know an IP block is alleged to block other users. Congress refuses to self-regulate; we must take action; I grow weary of reverting. Elvey 04:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

AND! Has attacked the RFC again, I'm in a slow revert war here. This person has been removing comments by Jamesday. Kim Bruning 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello! They messaged me again. Could someone please block, checkuser, and all that? User_talk:68.50.103.212, thank you for your time. Kim Bruning 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no ability to checkuser, but I have blocked this IP for 12 hours for removing these comments. I'd rather not block for longer, in case they decide to contribute to the RFC more constructively, but if someone thinks a longer block is needed, I have no objection. Demi ^T/_C 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Blocking Complaint

I will post here the same text I posted to WikiEN-l mailing list in search of answers: -- 68.50.103.212 10:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Context

This concerns the article Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, within the subsection "The established conduct methods have not been used." This section erroneously states "Both the Senate and the House have established ethics bodies which, so far as I can see, have not yet been used in an attempt to resolve this matter." (only members of the respective body can refer matters to the ethics committee)

Background

I possibly erroneously removed this [3]. User:Kim Bruning reverted my changes reminding me not to delete comments from an RFC[4]. I then corrected myself moving the erroneous text to the discussion page [5], explaining "Comments are misguided and statements are blatantly false, moved to talk." User:Kim Bruning immediately reverted my changes, ignoring my comment and saying "RV political vandalism. Please watch, block"[6] I later reminded Kim that this was not vandalism and again moved the erroneous material to the discussion page [7], and explained "These comments are in the talk area and contain factually incorrect accusations. please do not revert again (3RR)." User:Kim Bruning threatened me on my user talk discussion page with "consequences" that "can be rather dramatic," and though not an administrator ordered me "don't touch that page."

Blocked

Responding to misleading comments by User:Kim Bruning, administrator User:Demi then unilaterally intervened and blocked me for 12 hours with the brief explanation of "Repeatedly removing valid comments from RFC." I believed this was an abuse of administrative privileges. I do not see how was in violation of any Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia article for blocking policy under the category "Excessive Reverts"[8], links to the Three-Revert Rule. ("The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.") which as you can see I am not in violation of. I was not warned by any administrator and no arbitration was offered.

Follow-up

I have twice emailed User:Demi asking for an explanation, arbitration, or leniency for the excessive 12 hour block.

As explained in these emails to Demi, I am one of the primary contributors to the article in question. I am the original author and primary contributor to the related article Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits. I also was the user who originally uncovered the extent of the abuses by the Congressional IP address beyond Congressman Meehan. I have repeatedly worked to revert vandalism in Wikipedia as represented by my contributions. All of my edits have been in good faith. I believe this absolutely falls under the Wikipedia:Blocking policy for Controversial Blocks.

Plee

I ask that some form of arbitration be introduced to this situation. I still protest that my edits were correct and leaving factually incorrect information in the RFC degrades the credibility of the RFC and Wikipedia as a whole.

Furthermore if you have a review process for administrators I would recommend it for administrator User:Demi as I was blocked with no warning from any administrator, no arbitration was offered. Demi posted on my user discussion page [9] but gave no explanation of my block other than he “disagree[s] with your description of the situation.” Admin [[User:Commander Keane] added to the discussion that “This isn't a democracy, we don't have to present you with laws (policies) that you violated . You did the wrong thing.”

Questions

I ask the Wikipedia Community, are there no rules or regulations for administrators? Can administrators make unilateral decisions as to that what is “wrong or right?” How can any user know what is wrong or right? Were the actions of User:Demi correct?

Can any user post false declarations in an RFC? -- 68.50.103.212 10:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the history of the situation so I can't comment on whether any administrator was right or wrong, but I do know that you were wrong to remove comments from the RFC, especially when you were already told not to do so. If they are factually incorrect as you say, the correct thing to do would be to reply underneath the declaration, explaining why it was incorrect. Simply removing it gives the impression that you have something to hide. Raven4x4x 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Range block / Jack Abramoff

The problem with anons at Jack Abramoff continues, and has now spread to the talk page hist. So:

• Can I sprotect a talk page (yes I know I *can*; is it considered unreasonable?)
• Can I reasonably range block 217.132.174.44/16?

Your input is appreciated... William M. Connolley 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

From Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy : In the exceptional circumstance that you protect a User or user talk page, use {{usertalk-sprotect}} instead. With regard to the range, it's not an AOL IP range, but maybe it belongs to another ISP. Jacoplane 20:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind that, you were referring to an article talk page. Jacoplane 20:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The IP you mentioned: 217.132.174.44 ISRAEL, TEL AVIV, Jerusalems BROADBAND SERVICE. Should be fine to block. Jacoplane 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He's actually asking about the IP range 217.132.0.0/16, which is a lot of addresses—presumably the entire ISP's pool of broadband IP addresses with maybe some collateral damage on the side. It might be better to sprotect the pages in question if that's the only place where trouble is coming up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off the range block for the moment :-), esp as it would have been my first. William M. Connolley 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

Okay, I have to admit my own ignorance here. But will someone good with slow people (read: me) mind explaining to me what exactly a range block is? What is this /16 thing... a multiplier I guess, but how does it functionally work? If this is too much explanation to be reasonable on-wiki, maybe someone could point me to an informational website somewhere. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

m:Range blocks, and no, I don't really understand it either.--Sean Black (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See CIDR for the explanation of the /16. --cesarb 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Our Subnetwork article lays it out pretty well, but it is not a simple concept. Where I work, I need to explain how IP ranges work sometimes in training, but I need a blackboard to make it clear. Jonathunder 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unh, Jewish "vandal" here. You could try to to range block our IP address as part of the CIDR block, which as you can see matches the CIDR prefix but then you would essentually have to block out EVERYONE IN HAIFA, and a little secret. We are rerouting. You might have to block out the entire north of Israel. But going by some of the Israel Bashing attitudes here YOU MIGHT LIKE DOING THAT. 85.250.102.83 22:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Once you set the R-block, we can reset the range until you will have to really shut out the entire world. Or so says our smart Jewish Computer expert. Who we are holding back with a chain.

• • Such histrionics will get you nowhere, sir. Calm down. --Golbez 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that several ranges have been used. Another one seems to be in Haifa. See the history on the main article and its talk page for other examples. If you can keep the article and it's talk page semi-protected for a while I think things will be better. The person (or persons) in question don't seem to be ranging very widely. --StuffOfInterest 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, sorry to be a pest, but the vandal has now turned his attention to Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. Could it possibly be included in the protection? --StuffOfInterest 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And add in with that Talk:Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. Current round of vandalism coming from 85.250.122.199. --StuffOfInterest 22:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And now from 85.250.102.83 --StuffOfInterest 22:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --StuffOfInterest 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

66.237.172.226 (talk · contribs) has just come to Wikipedia:Articles for creation asking for a talk page for Talk:Jack Abramoff, to discuss its semi-protection. ☺ Uncle G 23:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I've already made one Talk:Jack_Abramoff/anon_talk, though it may no longer be needed... [10] William M. Connolley 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC).

I see that that sprotect was removed overnight (Eastern US time). Of course, soon afterward, our friend who contributed above returned. I expect that things will be going full speed ahead again soon. He is now working from 62.0.142.2 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Also interesting to see that he is posting threats and acusations over here now (noted above from IP 85.250.102.83 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). --StuffOfInterest 11:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not for nothing, since I've been a heavy target of this anonymous IP's ire, but I don't agree with how this is being handled. {{sprotect}} on a talk page for over 24 hours is ridiculous. This seems to run counter to everything that the policy at Wikipedia:Semi-protection states. I've done the research and there are indeed multiple other valuable anon-IP contributors from the same ISP ranges, so a mass block is out of the question.

There's two options - return to the table and continue to talk it out, or write up the behavior for RfC and eventually RfArb. I felt that we were making some progress on discussing this topic on the talk page until about February 1 when Brad or one of his cohorts started a revert war on the article, and it's been downhill since. I have no problem with the anon IP stating their viewpoint as long as they are not disruptive or make attacks.

Although I disagree completely with their tactics, the anonymous user does have an iota of a point in wanting to make sure that Abramoff is not portrayed as some sort of Jewish Willie Horton. I don't believe that they should get their wish that the word "Jewish" does not appear in the article, but the subject should be treated with dispassion. KWH 04:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible personal information disclosure, needs attention?

I don't know if this is worth attention, but the articel American Chess Association had someone write up a strongly biased, highly PoV rant on the subject, that also included someones SSN. Is this grounds for revision deletion, or am I overreacting, or...? Thanx 68.39.174.238 21:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Says the guy is dead, so does it matter? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it matters. I have removed the infor from the page history, along with plenty of other reverted vandalism by the same IP. The IP has been blocked for repeated vandalism and legal threats. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Upon notice of your death, the federal government publishes your SSN. I'm not sure why they do this, but if I had to guess it is probably to help reconcile banking and financial records which may be part of your estate. Regardless of the reason, the SSN of a deceased person is public record. In fact I just went and looked it up and I can verify that the name matches the SSN provided. The SSN is not something we need worry about. Dragons flight 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The main reason for publishing the SSN upon death is to prevent misuse. If someone tried to use that SSN to open a bank account, for example, it would raise red flags at the bank as soon as routine checks were done. Jonathunder 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters or not, but it does not seem to add to the article, so I took it out of the text of the article. As for deleting it from the history, it does not seem to me that Physchim62 has actually done this. The information seems to still be there. Johntex\^talk 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All the personal info appears to be gone now. Ral315 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

All SSN info on individuals should be deleted on sight, since they are not, contrary to popular belief, unique. Tomer^talk 10:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik

Ambi has blocked Bobblewik for two weeks for his efforts in unlinking dates and used rollback to reverse his most recent changes. I understand where she's coming from but I feel the block is a bit excessive. Bobblewik has not been trying to force the date linking issue - he uses the edit summary "Make date links match policy ie MoS(dates), MoS(links) etc. Revert or comment in MoS talk". I was happy to see those changes on pages on my watchlist and those who have not been as happy have reverted without problems. Discussion on this issue has been stagnant for some time and it seems to me that Bobblewik's efforts are a good way of generating wider discussion - but I'm obviously biased since I happen to agree with him :) - Haukur 07:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If discussion has stalled, he should post here or at the Village Pump, not just assume "Silence=Agreemant" and instistute his changes en masse.--Sean Black (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I will say this: even though I disagree with the unlinking project, when you revert his unlinks, he leaves it alone. He doesn't edit war over it. Sometimes I leave articles after his unlinking, and sometimes I roll them back (if the article is highly historical, where each year matters a great deal), but, whichever action I take, he doesn't pursue it. I agree that he should get positive assent, not lack of dissent, before making a mass change, but I also don't think a block of that duration is necessarily called for if that's the only issue. I doubt it is. Geogre 12:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can see Ambi's reasons for the block at User_talk:Bobblewik. - Haukur 12:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

She makes excellent points. I agree with her requests and therefore her block. I do hope he uses a separate account for his -bot. Geogre 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Can we document scope and duration of suspension of the Manual of Style? Thincat 13:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• "His efforts are a good way of generating wider discussion" sounds like WP:POINT to me - "state your point, don't show it experimentally". >Radiant< 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  I may be nitpicking but WP:POINT refers to actions which one undertakes but doesn't actually want done just to prove a point. Bobblewik clearly believes that his changes are beneficial. Your new signature is striking, by the way. - Haukur 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  I don't think that's nitpicking - it's an important thing. Just because someone perceives a bold action as "disruptive" doesn't make it a WP:POINT violation. (I hope I should know, I wrote large chunks of the guideline in question!) Personally I think Bobblewik's changes are largely beneficial, though I've disagreed with them in some cases - though not at all enough to demand he stop - David Gerard 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I point out that his edits are strictly in line with the current recomendations of the MoS, and while this guideline has been much debated, a consensus to change it has not yet formed, as far as I can tell. Disclosure: i favor the current guideline, and have made soem edits of the same sort. But blocking soemone for editing in accordance with the current state of the MoS seems improper to me. DES ^(talk) 18:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Has he served enough time now? This is a good, experienced, civil, productive editor. I'm not sure a two week sentence is really the most beneficial way ahead. - Haukur 17:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now been unblocked, thanks to Haukur. I am grateful to those that have spoken out against blocks of this kind. Anyone can try to get guidance changed if they don't like it, but targetting janitorial editors for implementing current guidance is wrong. If have asked a question on this issue at WP:VPP. Feel free to comment there. bobblewik 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As discussed on the mailing list, style is a matter of personal taste and the manual of style is no excuse for bad behavior. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal style preferences are fine until they come into conflict. In a dispute, the Manual of style ranks higher than the personal taste of dissenting editors. bobblewik 11:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Male bikiniwearing

The deleted article Male bikini-wearing has re-appeared as Male bikiniwearing. Can someone delete it?? --Sunfazer (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and protected. Have a nice day. --cesarb 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

With Male bikini wearing already protected, maybe we can look forward to "Ma1e bikini wearing", "MALE BIKINI WEARING", "Male bikini wareing", etc. etc. --Deathphoenix 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. --cesarb 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Male all natural bikini wearing v1agr4? Geogre 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• No need to suggest that, see MALE BIKINIWEARING and its deletion log. Some trolls just don't give up easily. DES ^(talk) 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We may just wanna buy the guy a nice bikini and be done with it. Any cash left over from the Foundation drive last month? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I said "MALE BIKINI WEARING" (with the space), but I guess the existence of the title without the space shows that my attempt at humour is already a reality. --Deathphoenix 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"MALE BIKINI WEARING" has also apparently been a reality. ;) SyrPhoenix 18:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh great. I'd better stop making suggestions, lest WP:BEANS comes into play. --Deathphoenix 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought: why don't we just have an actual article on this fascinating subject? --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we see the AFD of the main/parent article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would males wear bikinis? I don't think the subject actually exists. It seems like a likely hoax. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Men wear lingerie, I seen it on Jerry Springer. Maybe a "protected redirect" to Cross dressing would suffice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 14:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD voters went through Google, etc., and found no instances but those by the contributor of any "fetish" for men wearing bikinis, either fetish by wearers or spectators. The article was a hoax. The repetitions are further evidence of this one person's... interest. I know that no matter how bent the pot, there's a lid that fits, but if there is anything genuine about it, it hasn't managed to be mention in newsgroups or get web discussion. Given the nature of the web, that's a pretty damning indictment. Geogre 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Being a fetish not found anywhere on the web alone is almost enough to make this topic notable ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 07:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs) and unfree images in template/userspace

Hi. Karmafist (talk · contribs) has started reverting userbox templates back to containing unfree-copyrighted images again [11] [12] [13] [14]. I left a message at User talk:Karmafist quite some time ago, and the response left me with the impression that I am not the best person to get through to that user about this. Since it is my impression that User:Karmafist is a valued member of the community, I was hoping that someone who has a good collaborative relationship with User:Karmafist could perhaps have a word with him or her. Thanks. Jkelly 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea for a respected admin to play on the border of the 3RR rule. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC) [15]

Clarification

The real issue with me on this now isn't the icons, but rather the thuggery of certain users, including some who posted in regards to this on my talk page. Is the Wikimedia Foundation really so frightened of one admin who disagrees with them that they have to sick a goon squad out to do their bidding? Or is it just some goons on a power trip looking to exert intimidation over someone, and "decrees" give them an excuse to do so? To me, it's a clear WP:IAR, in this case WP:CIVIL is broken to uphold WP:FU, cancelling each other out.

I can get a decent alternative on one of the userboxes i'm "edit warring" on, and I can likely get permission in regards to the Dem logo (I know several Democratic National Committee members), but I may conduct some civil disobedience just to stand up to those bullies even if I do go down that route, which i'd prefer. I haven't decided yet.

One thing's for sure -- if those dicks are able to rally up a mob and lynch me for standing up for what I believe in, Wikipedia will be a worse place for it. That's my only real concern. I'd much rather have free images in the place of potentially non-free ones, but coercion by force isn't the Wikipedian way to do it.Karmafist 12:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thuggery or no thuggery, I hope you understand WRT fair use, you were probably in the wrong (which is no big deal, as per Raul's law on copyrights -- many of us who think we understand copyright law really don't. I've probably fucked up on this somewhere too). There's no point pursuing "civil disobedience" when it's doing the wrong thing ^TM. Johnleemk | Talk 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Policies don't "cancel out." If one side is violating policy, that doesn't grant carte blanche to the other side to do the same. If people are being uncivil, then take it to dispute resolution, but don't use it as an excuse to act out against policy yourself; it is "sinking to thier level," seizing the lowest common denominator (in this case, all policy is thrown out the window). Also, it creates a never-ending cycle of policy violations: <begin intellectual exercise> They violate civil, cancelling out FU, you violate FU, cancelling out NPA, they violate NPA, cancelling out NPOV, you violate NPOV, cancelling out BLOCK, I block you indefinately, violating BLOCK and canceling out VANDALISM, you violate VANDALISM, cancelling out ADMIN, Jimbo promotes Willy on Wheels to administrator, signaling the beginning of apocalypse. <end intellectual exercise> The appropriate response is to remain safely within the bounds of policy (remember IAR includes the phrase "ignore all rules, including this one") and use the established dispute resolution proceedure to address the base issue, rather than retaliating with your own policy violations. Anytime you're invoking IAR to justify an action that is likely to (or is designed to) create more discord than good, then it's time to ignore IAR. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Karmafist's beef is; I'm sure he doesn't intend to wrongly use the property of other people in this freely licensed encyclopedia. I hope all parties, including Karmafist, will wake up in the morning and think of something more productive to do with their time. This is an encyclopedia, so let's write more good articles. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do know. See the Gmaxwell stuff elsewhere. :-/

In other news, should I block you all for violating WP:WOTTA? ;-) Kim Bruning 01:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This kind of crypic comment does not help. I look on this page and WP:AN and see nothing. Rather than wander all over Wikipedia for enlightenment, I think I should say: please explain more fully. I really have no idea what is going on here. Just explain so that people who need to know will know. --Tony Sidaway 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See start of thread especially, with refs to IAR, CIVIL, DICK, etc etc :-) TMD TLA! ARG! Kim Bruning 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not helping. Why can't you just explain what you're talking about for the benefit of people who don't know what this has to do with Gmaxwell? --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh THAT part! That's easy: Sections Gmaxwell and Gmaxwell2 right on this page... eh where'd they go? OH! they must have been archived already. No wonder I got you confused! My apologies.

Ok, short summary:

This complaint is so similar to Slimvirgins complaints about Gmaxwell that at first I thought they were directly linked. Perhaps they are even.

There's some set of people who are checking for copyright violations on wikipedia, as well as removing "fair use" images that aren't. (Even trying to remove all fair use, if at all plausible). There's some set of people who will not let people remove images from their user pages, except over their cold, dead bodies. The stage is set for wikidrama :-/ Kim Bruning 13:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, we haven't voted on that page yet. :P >Radiant< 01:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

As many here will have noticed, this article has received a mindblowing amount of user attention over the past few days. Because the article is still linked to from the main page, it cannot the protected or semi-protected. The result of that is that the cartoon is removed from the article on an almost minute-to-minute basis. This is being done despite a clear and overwhelming consensus on the talk page to keep the cartoon in the article (currently 161/21/12), and despite massive warnings surrounding the image, telling the user that the image should by no means be removed. I believe that these warnings are not enough, and that removers won't listen to talk page warnings, since Allah is more important to most of them than Wikipedia. I propose a drastic measure. It has probably never been done before, and I hope it will never be done again. I believe that it is necessary to immediately block anyone who removes the cartoon from the article for 24 hours for blanking vandalism. This should stop the influx of vandalism on the article, which would reduce the need for full-protection/semi-protection once the article is no longer linked to from the main page. This in turn would allow good-faith IP's to contribute valuable information to the article. I'm afraid that the situation on the article is getting out of hand. We currently need around-the-clock vigilantes on the article, which costs valuable editor time that could be spent much more effectively on other articles. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, we can 3RR block persistent image removers. I just blocked 211.43.206.161 for example. howcheng {chat} 23:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Rgulerdem is also rapidly approaching a block. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to exempt those restoring the image from 3RR, but I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of blocking someone because they're expressing their faith, even if their methods are less than productive. Block persistent edit warriors (like with any article), not passerbys.--Sean Black (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that insta-blocks will work; most such editors are drive-by. I'm beginning to think we should semi- the article for a little while since it is probably being hit harder than George W. Bush on a pre-semi day. -Splash^talk 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to complicate things, current reversions are coming from Saudi Arabian block proxies: anyone care to turn off Wikipedia in Saudi Arabia, 'cos I don't... Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be an exemption from 3RR for people who restore the image. The IPs go through 8,9, 10 removals before being blocked, and all the conscientious users exhaust their three reverts. This should be regarded as simple vandalism, and we should be able to restore it as many times as necessary? Do people agree with that? The community consensus is well over a supermajority here. Babajobu 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. These reverts are blanking reverts, which is 3rr exempt. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and I've said before this may be the exceptional case where it makes sense to protect an article linked from the main page. However, consensus is not actually established by polls, it is also established by action, and going down the road of discounting the opinions of those people removing the image from the article in your definition of consensus is a dangerous one. It is a tempting thing to imagine that having the image missing for a while is a terrible consequence, but it isn't really, and the article will eventually stabilize on a good (accepted) version. In the meantime, many people will have learned they can edit Wikipedia, and a few of them, even if they might not be making such great edits to this particular article, may stay and do something useful. There is precedent for restoring consensus being exempted from the 3RR (Gdansk/Danzig) but that was very well-discussed for a long time, while we have actually not been discussing this for that long. Demi ^T/_C 23:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why Demi, you cur! You fiend! You Judas! ;-) Yes, your points are well taken. I agree with you that polls are a crude manner of gauging consensus, but this one has produced an unusually emphatic answer. Regardless, I suspected that not everyone would agree that this situation warranted an exemption from 3RR; some agree, some don't. Perhaps a poll? ;-) Babajobu 00:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instablock is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. That's my 2¢. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm happier with sem-protecting than with instant blocking. Semi is unfortunate and un-wikilike - and leaves noobs wondering what wikipedia is. But a good-faith drive-by noob who sees an image he passionetley objects to, reads 'anyone can edit' and decides to do just that, then gets blocked without any warning? That will look like draconian anti-Islamic censorship. If we have to do something (and do we?) lets semi for a time. --Doc ^ask? 23:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Main page articles can't be semi'd, but I think IAR was meant for cases like this. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, forget instablocking, what about allowing restorers of the image to do so as many times as necessary? Are we agreed this is exempt from 3RR? Babajobu 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd not really necessary. There are plenty of people avalaible. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Baba here. It's not fair to block one way and not the other since the image is a disputed item here. Most people who visit the page probably didn't visit the poll on the talk page. Also the poll is full of people whose only edit has been to that poll and also IP addresses. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They may not have visited the poll, but they will have noticed the two massive warnings directly above the image. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well at least three people have disagreed that exemption from 3RR is appropriate as of now: Anonymous Editor, Demi, and Theresa. So for now I think that's enough to conclude that there is no consensus for exempting restorers of the image from 3RR. Though I've only very rarely engaged in revert wars, in this case there's really no other way to defend consensus, so before anyone blocks me, please give me a warning because at this point I have no clue where I stand in relation to 3RR! Cheers, Babajobu 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove sourced and valid information against consensus can be classified as vandalism without being unreasonable. Warn and block. Phil Sandifer 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Phil 100%. Removing the image is vandalism; it's black-latter policy that reverting vandalism does not count against the 3rr . Raul654 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Raul, so how should I and others proceed? Many admins do think this calls for exemption from 3RR, but at least three have stated that they don't...for those of us trying to ensure the image is kept as per the very strong consensus, do we regard 3RR as applicable here or no? Babajobu 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not breaking 3RR if you're reverting vandalism, that's all there is to it. So don't break 3RR—but restoring an image with strong consensus, when it's removed without discussion, isn't breaking anything. If an admin blocks or warns over your actions, politely refer them to this discussion. -- SCZenz 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodness! Then I've discovered a terrible vandal--right in our very midst! And the vandevelopers are in on it, too! Sorry--as much as we might wish we could dismiss the opinions of people we disagree with as "vandalism", this isn't it. Twisting the definition of vandalism to include everything you disagree with has become a common tactic--I think it might need to be added to our guide to discussion. However, it's engaging in sophistry to avoid dealing with an actual dispute as what it is--a dispute. You may disagree with the disputants, you may even be right, but that doesn't in itself make them vandals. Demi ^T/_C 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Slamdac is being awfully non-productive on the talk page... I think he's running dangerously close to some violations of policy. Anyone else? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's indicated that he agrees it's not helpful and he seems to be willing to back off. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Some admins are instablocking for one hour, even on shared IPs. If you must block, can you keep the time shorter on these IPs (for a first offense, obviously), there seem to be plenty of admins around to treat the problems on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I said to Babajobu before that these people need at least one 3rr warning. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that people must get at least one warning before being blocked, I don't support instablocking. However, AE, it seems like there is a lot of support here for regarding removal of the image as vandalism, rather than a revert. Also, I'm not blocking anyone on this article, I only blocked one person who showed up on WP:ANI/3RR after I'd been away for several hours.Babajobu 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does the insta-block suggestion have to be for 24 hour blocks? Why not issue an hour block or something to start? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the image is vandalism, but vandals get warnings. At least one hand-written explanation inviting the user to use the talk page would be the minimum appropriate before any block, I think. -- SCZenz 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even support instablocking, there should be at least one warning, then block. Babajobu 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been using {{bv-n}} for first offense on thsi one, with an added msg explainign that ther is consensu to leave the image. On repeated removals after the warning, i will block as disruption -- but only for a short time if the IP might be shared. DES ^(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but these vandals are being meatpuppets/sockpuppets; a justification to block on sight. Calling your (cyber)-terrorist cell mates to come over and help vandalise Wikipedia puts them in the same boat. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf, your remarks are way out of line. There is no evidence these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets—in fact, I rather suspect they are not. -- SCZenz 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:BITE and WP:NPA. -- SCZenz 00:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the "terrorist" remark is in EXTREMELY poor form given the topic under discussion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...natalinasmpf, I actually do suspect there is some meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry here, but the terrorism remark was totally inappropriate, cut that out. Babajobu 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My experience on the Qu'ran page makes me suspect meatpuppetry. (The cell remark was just out of sarcastic exhaustion, pardon, I meant it mostly with the "cyber" prefix in there.) We already have a warning on the editing page. One should notice how the majority of the removals are mostly uniform, in the same kind of style. This kind of suggests someone posted about our article in some forum and asked people to help them vandalise it. It's just like voteflooding at AFD, only within a vandalism context. I don't have good opinions of people who are out to censor Wikipedia. I do have compassion for clueless newbies, but this is clearly malicious editing. I rather like the protestors' form of eye for an eye in expressing free speech, but it's the vandals who I equate with terrorism, I admit my remark it was a bit risque. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the situation is frustrating... But for any given vandal, you can't tell if they're a clueless newbie or malicious; you can only see the general pattern. That being the case, I think we have to warn them—the situation is not so dire as to suspend basic Wikiquette. -- SCZenz 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well one warning and that is it, IMO. Looking through most of the diffs it appears that most have a bad faith intent. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created Template:Mohammed as a warning template for users removing the image. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected for a while, and that seemed to work fairly well. I realize its disadvantages for brand-new editors, who simply want to genuinely add the article. (A template on talk suggesting accounts?) Septentrionalis 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See template:anon. We already have one! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Look up the user history of the IP User:165.230.149.152 - and you'd see that there was no repeat cartoon blanking vandalism on the Mohammed controversy from that IP. 165.230.149.154 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) That means that there was no reason for that IP to be blocked.

I second the idea that protection in this specific case is probably the best of the remedies available, if remedy we desparately need. Part of the notion of our attention to this is that we should not be changing our editorial rules to accommodate Muslims--and yet, here we are making up special warn-and-block schemes and 3RR violation exceptions we don't usually carry out. Protection is better, and might actually drive some objectors to the talk page or other discussion venues, which is what we want anyway (rather than an unstable article). In contrast, "requiring" people to keep reverting in the face of a wave of "attackers" will just make everyone a lot angrier. Demi ^T/_C 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem is this. We do not protect articles linked from the main page. "Well it doesn't say it in the policy". Yes, it says it's "best not to protect". But you know, for those of us who actually protect pages, it's a rule we follow. I'm tired of those admins who have done 20-25 protections in their entire admin careers (if that) telling those of us who have done literally hundreds that we are just wrong. We're not. It's a convention we've been following for months and months. We follow it on all FA articles and on everything else linked from the main page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Reneec

Reneec (talk · contribs) has been (1) edit warring in the Memphis, Tennessee article about the inclusion of a blurb on a seemingly non-notable musician (and his picture), first in the intro, and now in the "arts" section, of the article, (2) has altered other editors' comments on talk pages ([16], [17] and (3) has made personal attacks (or at least made uncivil comments) about three editors ([18], [19] & [20]). Reneec is adamant about inclusion of David Saks in the Memphis article, despite growing consensus on the article's talk page that perhaps he's not even notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. - Jersyko talk 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Though this deletion was on Reneec's own talk page, since the comments removed were merely exhorting Reneec to stop making personal attacks and provide verification of the David Saks information, I wanted to post notice here as this might demonstrate a complete lack of interest in compromise or following Wikipedia policy on the user's part. - Jersyko talk 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reneec (talk · contribs) is also engaging in blanking his/her own talk page. RadioKirk talk to me 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User has broken the three revert rule on Memphis, Tennessee - at least three reverts in the past 24 hours to replace the disputed picture of Mr. Saks, [21] [22] [23] and at least one to replace text regarding how many of Mr. Saks's songs are 'official songs' of Memphis. [24] There have also been two reverts, one for the picture and one for the text, by IP addresses belonging to the same ISP, XO Communications. [25] [26]. As neither IP has had any other edits in the past two months, these seem suspicious.

Reneec has even reverted a user who disambiguated several links on David Saks. [27] S/he does not seem at all willing to even attempt to work on reaching consensus on these articles. -- Vary | Talk 22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reneec just made this edit to this page. I would appreciate it if someone else agreed that it is merely a personal attack and removed it. P.S.: not that it really matters, but I am from Memphis. - Jersyko talk 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have added a totallydisputed tag to the David Saks article, as the language used in this article is violative of NPOV on its face, and the factual accuracy is disputed on the Memphis talk page. Reneec has removed the tag twice. - Jersyko talk 20:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • . . . and now has vandlized my comment on the talk page of the same article. - Jersyko talk 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • . . . and has rebuffed good faith attempts by more than one editor to attempt to get a source for claims regarding Saks here. - Jersyko talk 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reneec has posted this on my talk page. It seems that we will not get that elusive source from him/her and that he/she has no interest in providing one. Thus, all we are left with is unsourced information, which is probably best termed a vanity article at this point, and incivility/vandalism from Reneec. Though I am not an administrator, I see no reason why a block should not be instituted at this point. - Jersyko talk 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I posted a checkuser request regarding this Afd and Reneec. As backlogged as that page is, though, I wonder if someone would mind taking a quick look? The relevant users are Reneec, 70.248.228.85, and 66.239.212.48. Thanks. - Jersyko talk 14:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Argument Sandbox

The talk page for Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy repeatedly gets bogged down with debate and discussion about the underlying issues, rather than the relevant matter of article content. Consequently, I've created Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments and placed a notice at the top of the main Talk page asking to restrict all discussion of underlying issues to that page. That way, people can argue on the Arguments page, and hopefully useful discussion can take place on Talk. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. We shouldn't be encouraging people to treat Wikipedia like a message board.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's specifically telling people to use Wikipedia as a message board. I quite frequently will create a sub-page of my own user page to mock up a page I'm editing (this is generally during a rewrite or substantial copyedit). While I'm typically only involving myself, at least a few times, I've posted a link to my "scratch pad" on a talk page for an article in the main namespace. I think this is common practice, as I got the idea from somebody else. Anyways, giving people a space to mock up an article or to "hash out" differences is A Good Thing. It hopefully will prevent people from having "revert wars" on the main article. I think it provides an alternative to "harmful" behavior (eg revert wars). What was your take on it? Avriette 01:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't bother with discussing it anywhere. Just remove it with the edit summary, "Rm- off topic poltical/religous/social discussion."--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly wrong to call it a Sandbox, which implies it can be deleted at any time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the idea that it should be. Jkelly 04:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that people who want to argue about this be redirected to the POV wiki. This is the kind of thing that the POV wiki was created for. It is open to arguments of all kinds, and can really help remove the clutter from Wikipedia and its Recent Changes page. Danny 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Being a vandal patroller as well as a Protection patroller, I wish they'd just take the darn thing off of the main page so we can SP it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We should have a template for this to stick on talk pages. It'll be a great help when I deal with POV pushing Malaysian editors. Johnleemk | Talk 06:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, I've MfD'd this talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:New newness

New newness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) registered in January and made enough low-level edits to qualify for the ability to move articles, then did a three-round move of User:Jason Gastrich and User talk:Jason Gastrich requiring deletions to fix the moves since you can't rollback across double moves. I've blocked them indefinitely and have fixed the moves. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The user also created a bunch of nonsense redirects. (e.g., AEU to Courtney Mitchell, AAX to Reflecting Skin, etc.) — TheKMan^talk 02:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Their first edit was vandalism, their second was to their User page, their third was to create an article which is currently on AfD, and all the rest were nonsense redirects until they got into move vandalism mode. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The sound you can hear is me biting my tongue... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Simon Says

You've had your fun with me, now I'm going to have my fun with you. I have placed 30 nihlartikles throughout wikipedia, and your job is to find them. Be careful, over half of them have graphics and look very unassuming.

Simon says find the nihlartikles and revert them. - MilkMan

Okay, we will. Thanks for letting us know in advance, it's much appreciated!--Sean Black ^(talk) 06:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

range block

I have had to implement a 5 minute range block on 212.138.47.0/30 because of the huge amount of vandalism coming through those addresses. The block includes the state run proxies for the country of Saudi Arabia through which all their traffic is filtered thus the reason why the block is only 5 minutes. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable image

I want to get everyone else's opinion on this image, Image:Dylan jams with campbell.jpg. It was deleted once for being a orphaned fair use image/possible copyvio, I deleted once before for it being recreation of deleted content, but it has been uploaded again. The source of the photo, for those using AGF, is from a friend of a Wikipedian. But, from reading the image license, it says it is "a non-commercial publication." Can someone look at it please? Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedied again as a recreated copyvio. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we allowed to {{deletedpage}} the image, so it cannot be uploaded under that same name? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also blocked User:JDG for 24 hours for blatantly violating Wikipedia's copyright rules, he's been warned several times and has stated:

"I will be uploading this image again. It is 100% Fair Use (the source is an acquaintance of mine) and I won't have a posse of paranoiacs interfering... Zach, I've been contributing to Wikipedia approximately 4x longer than you, so your threat to "make sure [my] stay on Wikipedia will be very, very short" is as amusing as it is idle. Warning: don't push me. JDG 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

which besides being a personal attack states that he plans on repeatedly violating Wikipedia's rules on copyrights which is something even Jimbo Wales has stated is grounds for an immediate indefinite block though I'd like wider feedback before implementing one. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: As per the ruling from Jimbo that we are supposed to take a hardline on blatant copyright violation and ignoration of our copyright rules and regulations I have extended to an indefinite block. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 06:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One more comment, yes, I did say that if the user uploaded the image again, I would have made his stay at WP short. Was it out of line: maybe, but with the block above, I guess Jimbo meant it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was out of line since you should never threaten other users like that, that being said he was clearly warned on the image's talk page that the image did not qualify as fair use and as such would be deleted, he was also warned not to repeatedly re-upload the image which he continued to do. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I also wish to note that extra discussion is taking place at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDG#blocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced this block to one week. We shouldn't be blocking good contributors because they upload one potential copyvio.--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue wasn't one potential copyvio, the issue was blatantly re-uploading a copyvio when told not to and after having policies to that effect explained to him as well as him blatantly stating (see quote above) that he would entirely ignore policy, and his blatant incivility towards me on his talk page after being blocked. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote: I issued an apology to the blocked user about my conduct with him. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If the issue was not the copyvio, but the issues surrounding it, then I'd say that he deserves, oh, a week. ;)--Sean Black ^(talk) 07:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above makes no sense to me. The user was blocked because they stated (and demonstrated) that they were determined to continually re-upload an unfree image without providing source or copyright status. Blocks are not punitive, so once the user agreed to abide by image use policy, they should be immediately unblocked. Blocking for a week sends the message that they are being punished for an arbitrary length of time for being a jerk. That's not our job; the behaviour problems should go to WP:RFAR whereas the "protect the project" admin block should stay in place exactly as long as that protection is needed. Jkelly 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears he has gone through with his statement that he's leaving the project though hopefully he'll take me up on my suggestion that he use this only as a wikibreak and that he come back with a new outlook on things when the block is over. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks are an ArbCom matter. We're getting way to cavalier with these. If there is no proven case against a user, no matter how obnoxious, RFar. We do indefinite blocks for user names that are obviously inappropriate and for sockpuppets that are vandalizing and for vandalism-only accounts. Other than that.... I know this has been taken care of now, but I'd like to urge folks to watch out for the temptation to block indefinitely. Geogre 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Capital Punishment - request for semi-protection

Article Capital Punishment is vandalised quite often; current problem with an anonymous IP user (71.107.80.90), quite knowledgable but definitely heavily pro-death penalty who runs through the article subtly (and unsubtly) deleting anti-death penalty arguments or shifting the emphasis. Caravaca 07:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but not advisable to be used for content disputes unless it is frequent simple vandalism. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for intervention or semi-protection

At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/65.182.172.x, there is an attempt to resolve an ongoing dispute with an anonymous user. An integral component of the disagreement is that the anonymous user is posting people's personal information at wikipedia and obfuscating their discussions to intimidate them and is engaging in repeated Ad Hominem Attacks. Could someone please look and advise - you will have to look in the history of the page most likely to make heads or tails of the situation. Thanks. Cyberdenizen 08:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Overnight the page was edited so severely and the formatting intentionally destroyed by the anonymous user, to the point of what I would consider vandalism. This is what the RfC looked like before he mangled it [28] and this is what it looks like now. Since I am an involved party, I don't want to just revert away his edits, and I also don't know if I should move his new 50 or so unsigned edits to the already defined format of the RfC - he has placed his rebuttals at the top of the page and interspersed comments and rebuttals throughout the page to the point of unreadability. If anyone reads here, would you please comment or advise me on what I should do? This is /was obviously an attempt to resolve a dispute. Cyberdenizen 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Being uncertain what is appropriate in this instance, I have moved all of his edits to the 'Response' section. Again, any comment or advice would be most appreciated.-Cyberdenizen 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked one of the IPs for a month after it was reported on the personal attack intervention board. If further conduct of the same nature comes from that range, let me know and I'll block. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Under the Plotinus "Plotinus and the gnostics" bio a group of posters have insisted on reverting from comments published about Plotinus from scholarly works to POV. They have now not only refused to answer questions. But after refusing to clarify their theories through accepted scholars'works now revert back to opinion rather then accepting posted comments by a renowned scholar. Please interven. Opinion and theory have no place being presented as history here on wikipedia.

LoveMonkey 20:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub problem

Help is needed at Template:US-journalist-stub, which is now placing the bio of a woman named Madeline on every journalist's article who uses the stub. I don't have time to untangle it myself, so help would be appreciated. Elonka 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Just needed to revert the template to the last good version. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't get on wikipedia

I posted this at the Help Desk and no one responded, so I'm putting it here. I'm having a rather strange problem. English Wikipedia seems to be blocked on my computer. I can't access it on any browser, including IE, firefox, and Opera (not that I can't edit Wikipedia, I can't even view the site at all, nor can I link to it from a google search). Firefox gives an error message saying that it can't establish a connection to the server. I can access any other website, including any other language wikipedia, but I can't get to English wikipedia. I'm writing from a public computer right now. No one else on the network in my dorm is blocked from Wikipedia, so I find this very strange. can anyone offer any help, or any possible reason why this could have happened? I'm sort of clueless right now, wondering if my computer got hacked by somebody who i blocked on wikipedia or something? I don't know, please help if you can. Thanks, --Alhutch 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

can you acess other sites with firefox?Geni 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Any chance someone with physical access to your computer is pulling a prank on you? Possibly by adding a line to you HOSTS file or similar, redirecting en.wikipedia.org to a bad IP? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can access any other site with firefox. I don't think the people who have physical access to my computer are smart enough to do something like that. If they did, how would I fix that?--Alhutch 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved.--Alhutch 22:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL

The previous unsigned comment is by 64.12.116.65, previously blocked for disruption on this page. RadioKirk talk to me 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, all AOL users who edit the same page have the same ip

Nice try, 64.12.116.65; anyone at that IP who is editing this page would be taking part in the disruption, would they not? RadioKirk talk to me 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, AOL uses shared ip ranges, they change from page to page, anyone who edits the same page using AOL has the same ip, if you're confused, ask someone who is smarter than you, they'll explain it--64.12.116.65 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What? do you think only one(1) AOL user has ever edited this page in the entire history of wikipedia?--64.12.116.65 19:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You sure seem rather defensive about this... — TheKMan^talk 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, just annoyed, everywhere I go, people pull up unrelated things from my ip history and blame them on me, there should be a template:AOL for dummies to help people understand this without so much fuss--64.12.116.65 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me attempt to explain this in a manner you can understand. You speak of IP ranges, which is a smokescreen. I refer to a specific IP, and the propensity of people from that specific IP who make edits to this specific page. The likelihood of multiple users (with no accounts) from the same IP who are aware of this page (or who have the wherewithal to check the IP's user history and go from there) is so small, it could probably be narrowed to one or two people. Meantime, yes, you are oddly defensive... RadioKirk talk to me 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand, all AOL users in the same range who edit the same page, at any time in the history of the planet earth, all have the same IP, as long as they're on the same page... say we're both using AOL, I edit a page, then you do... we would have the same IP, but still be different people--152.163.100.65 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

10 years on the 'net, this is the first time I've heard of any such thing. So, 64.12.116.65, was this edit yours? RadioKirk talk to me 20:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to create an account. Takes about 30 seconds, and most of that is spent deciding your username and password. Much less annoying to do than getting bugged for being on a shared IP. — TheKMan^talk 19:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

The paedophilia template has been the source of a huge debate at WP:AN and a wheel war over the template, even though a TfD for it is already running. He is the wheel-war log [29]. This is getting out of hand.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a wheel war. Some people think it should be deleted as a troll template, others disagree. Who's to say which party is right? If it's a troll template, then obviously it should be deleted without mercy, no matter how many times it's created. This kind of disagreement is inevitable as the community grows and administrative standards diverge. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you are an admin, and your admin action was reverted three times by three different people, that is a sure sign that you better seek other ways of making your point. :) Hopefully User:Ashibaka got it.

That regardless of who is in the right or in the wrong. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Obviously it should be deleted without mercy, no matter how many times it's created." I strongly disagree with this statement, applied to anything. Nothing trumps civility, and civility means engaging with other editors in discussion instead of reverting them. It means leaving Wikipedia in The Wrong Version while pursuing respectful dialogue. Reverting repeatedly without constantly attempting to discuss and build consensus is always wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Numerous things "trump" civility, violations of law to begin with. Civility takes a distant second place to protecting Wikipedia. ➥the Epopt 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think he means nothing excuses incivility. I fail to imagine a scenario where incivility would be good for the encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But GTBacchus is defining reverting others instead of engaging in discussion as incivil (particularly in regards to deleting things, I think). Incivility, defined in that manner, could be good for the encyclopedia if, for example, it meant ridding a page of clear libel quickly, no? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the encyclopedia need never "trump" civility. There is no case in which it is necessary to be uncivil in order to protect the encyclopedia. If someone is adding illegal content, then you still should address that person via their talk page each time you revert them. Even then, doing it more than twice should immediately feel fatuous and silly. At that point, it's appropriate to get more Wikipedians involved. Just reverting is never the right way to go about things. This applies to deletions, content disputes, whatever. The main problem with just reverting is that it doesn't work. After two reverts (with no discussion), the problem is exactly as it was before two reverts. That's unproductive; don't do it. And making remarks in the edit summaries is no substitute for discussion. Why don't admins hold themselves to a higher standard of civility, and not the lowest that's technically within process. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RFC, an example of the attitude I'm suggesting: "Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less." Why not try to live that way? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I mostly agree with you in the current case, but I caution you that your use of absolutes ("Reverting repeatedly without constantly attempting to discuss and build consensus is always wrong", "Just reverting is never the right way to go about things") is silly. If someone is defacing today's featured article with a large number of penis images, "just reverting" is perfectly appropriate for a while (though eventually a block becomes necessary). There's a fuzzy line somewhere where it becomes inappropriate, but things are not black or white and talking as if they are does nothing to further the conversation. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, I see where you're coming from, and every absolute claim has exceptions. Sometimes though, it's a very good idea to take an adage as non-negotiable. I'm attempting to describe an ideal, which, if all editors held themselves to it, would raise the bar around here considerably, regarding both how we treat each other and the quality of encyclopedia we end up with. An ideal has to be couched in terms of absolutes. In your example, by the way, it would be acceptable to warn the penis-image vandal once, and block them on the second offense. Only two reverts are necessary in that scenario, and communication takes place in between them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By Tony's reasoning I could revert war on any article and the only defense I would need is that I was right. It wouldn't even be a revert war. This is the exact same reasoning that got at least one editor severely restricted by Arbcom. I understand things change when you have pull, but this is ridiculous. — Phil Welch 03:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By Tony's reasoning there was no wheel war, despite 3 reversion. Maybe that is not unusual for him, but most of the time that is considered wheel warring. I reverted a block once and people called it "wheel-warring" and said that "wheel-warring admins should be blocked"...looks like reason and consistancy have gone way out the window here.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 04:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil, if you were reverting vandalism you could revert it until the cows come home with my blessing. We do allow reversion of damage to Wikipedia, and a template created avowedly for the purpose of trolling may well be classed as damage to Wikipedia. Rather than condemn those who deleted and those who undeleted, I'd like to look at the situation and see what we can learn from it. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ashibaka's repeated restorations, at least, were a clear case of wheel warring. And it is not okay. This whole fiasco was shameful, and quite avoidable. Dmcdevit·t 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony, there is always the possiblity that your judgement may have been wrong, that you misread the situation, or that there exists an alternative explanation for the facts you see. Deleting or undeleting a certain template/article/category till the "cows come home" is not acceptable, in any circumstances. Get to talk to the other admin, seek a third opinion, do something except a show of force of who will give up first. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone missed it... 05:40, 6 February 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Joeyramoney (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (I desysopped karmafist for reverting my block -- no more wheel warring) [30]. Assuming that this is going to be spread around to all and sundry, I cannot help but think it's a good thing. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, though technically I reblocked first (a few seconds before Jimbo). Wow, two desysopings in one day...Jimbo must really be pissed.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

the wheel warring had to end at some point. maybe people will finally get the message.--Alhutch 06:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually he has desysopped five so far. See [31] TacoDeposit 07:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

indeed: Borghunter, Carnildo, El C, Karmafist, and Ashibaka have been desysopped.--Alhutch 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Allies (band)

Walter Görlitz insists on adding the claim that the Sweet Comfort Band is "seminal", but refuses to offer any evidence for this. His response to my requests for references or sources (aside from merely reinstating the word) has been to restate the claim, to say (in an edit summary) that many bands have said that they were influenced by Sweet Comfort Band, though he is unable or refuses to name any of them, and to tell me that I shouldn't be editing the article as I'm ignorant. His messages on my Talk page ("since you don't know anything about the subject, I suggest that you stay out of it", "You seem to have your fingers in a lot of pies, but don't seem to have grown any of the fruit. This is one pie I'd like you to refrain from ruining"), and edit summaries ("an attempt to satisfy Mel Etitis--the man with too much time on his hands and no knowledge of CCM") have become more and more insulting. Could someone else explain to him that the onus is on him to justify the claim, not on me to disprove it? I'm getting nowehere. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a lengthy note. Jkelly 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My last attempt to explain anything ended in tears. Would it be appropriate to call this a really severe case of WP:OWN? Allies (band) also led him to war over another band ("The Allies"), because they apparently stole the name before he could write an article about the Allies. When your ownership of an article leads you to try to take out other articles as well, it's probably gone Too Far. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain

Brokeback Mountain is semi-protected after a few waves of vandalism from several anons with IP's in the same range. I'm wondering if this is from one individual using multiple computers in a school. is there a way to investigate where the range of IP addresses originates? -- Samuel Wantman 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

ARIN is a good way of determining ownership of an IP address. — TheKMan^talk 19:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears the IPs in question come from Bell Canada. — TheKMan^talk 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Fahamli Ghi

Fahamli keeps recreating Danielle Cunio, which I have deleted four times. I suspect that Fahamli is a sockpuppet of User:Danielle Cunio, who herself is a sockpuppet of the North Carolina vandal. What should I do? Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put the {{deletedpage}} tag on it and protected i. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Sam Sloan

User left this edit on my talk page, which seems to me to be personal attack, given that it contains the sentence "You are just a crackpot."

To give some background, this user is angry at me because I removed some uncited material and asked to reinsert only with a citation. The user responded with this comment calling me a "menace to wikipidea" and a "non-discriminating vandal. He deletes content randomly...If allowed to continue, soon there will be nothing left in Wikipedia." This is a clear violation of WP:AGF.

It would also be also helpful if an admin explained to him that content needs to be accompanied by citations. He keeps accusing me of being a "Wikipedia policeman" for insisting that content be cited. --Pierremenard 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Know-It-All is a sockpuppet of Ruy Lopez

Ruy Lopez (talk · contribs) has come back as Mr. Know-It-All (talk · contribs) to evade ArbCom action. I've blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. However, keep an eye around Ruy Lopez's usual haunts for further hot sock action - David Gerard 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats

Zothip (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has made legal threats against Antaeus Feldspar (talk • contribs • Feldspar page moves • block user • Feldspar block log) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Donald Kring, PHD. Stifle 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as per WP:LEGAL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

MilkMan threats

Lactose_Oracle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has warned that there's going to be some sort of POV-pushing / brute-force attack on Wikipedia within 72 hours. Just keep an eye out for this. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Conrad-14 year old socialist

Conrad-14_year_old_socialist (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Some more admins might want to keep an eye on this one. He self-identifies on his userpage as a "part-time Wikipedia vandal", for one thing. Has made no contributions to the article namespace, and has already been blocked once for personal attacks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think a block here would be less problematic than some others proposed (and done!) today for two reasons. First of all, we shouldn't have self-admitted vandals on Wikipedia. He should be given the option of either disclaiming his vandalhood and removing that message from his userpage, or being blocked until he does. Secondly, our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. I think people should have a lot of leeway in userspace to keep them happy and productive, just like I think that workers should be able to put pictures or comic strips up on their cubicles if they want to (and managers who try to stop this behavior generally find out that such restrictions aren't such a great idea due to their effects on morale and productivity). But this presupposes contributions to the encyclopedia, and so far there are none. This smacks of simply using Wikipedia as a homepage provider, which it is not. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• This would appear to be a reincarnation of Conrad-14 year old boy (talk · contribs).-gadfium 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have left a message here, and hopefully the editor will remove the offending comment of his/her own volition. If it is still there after, say, 24 hrs, then perhaps a short block, followed by increasing blocks for further non-compliance may be appropriate. Hamster Sandwich 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that he left some anonying comments on my talk page in reply to a small comment on his talk about whether it is "hail Lenin" (as in chunks of ice falling down on poor old Lenin) or "heil Lenin" as is honour Lenin or Greetings Lenin. Chooserr 05:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What? "Hail" is English, "heil" is German. FreplySpang (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing's clear: Lenin and Lenon are both no longer hale. Geogre 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I do not pretend to know the copyright laws that we abide by here, but this seems to be a possible violation. [32] 151.199.14.213 05:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've marked this for speedy deletion as a blatant copy/paste from NYT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

speedied.--Alhutch 05:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks - that was 3 paragraphs, out of about a dozen or so, which I pasted to store in my user space for an upcoming edit. I didn't mean to violate copyright - does an excerpt like that count as a copyvio? Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ryan...glad to see a pretty face in such ugly situations as of late. You should fix it up first (somewhat) and then re-submit. No one should delete it then. Perhaps consider using the inuse template. Thanks.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage of an excerpt of copyrighted material would be permitted under fair use, but that would only be permitted in the article namespace. Making slight modifications to the text really isn't adequate to avoid a copyright violation. It might be a better idea to store the NYT article on your hard drive (I assume you're using it only as a source anyway). — TheKMan^talk 06:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I mean that she should trim/add and modify and paraphrase before putting it in here...even if much of the topics are the same.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I sort of acted in haste, didn't mean to imply any bad faith on RyanFreisling's part.--Alhutch 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries, folks - thanks to everyone :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection images (Padlock)

Our various "protected" templates have a padlock image on them. Recently, it was discovered that this was apparently uploaded under false pretenses and may be a copyvio. See User talk:Guanaco and User talk:Locke Cole for details on this. I pointed out that a free SVG image was available on OpenClipArt.org, and this was promptly uploaded as Image:Padlock.svg. Since the protection templates are themselves protected, we need an admin to go through and replace these uses. I'd do it myself, but I am not an administrator. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do most of them already. If there was one I didn't catch, change it. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Phyrex is a sock of Antistatist

Phyrex (talk · contribs) is a sock of Antistatist (talk · contribs), being used for nothing but stoking the userbox wars. Check the contribs. I have to get to work now, but could someone please block Phyrex indefinitely, Antistatist 48 hours for being an inflammatory sockpuppeting dick and delete the rubbish created by Phyrex. Thanks - David Gerard 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

phyrex is already indef blocked by Jimbo. see here.--Alhutch 07:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also has nothing on their contribution page, so I assume all of their edits were already deleted.--Alhutch 07:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jimbo himself nuked them out, as he said on his talk page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo blocked Phyrex indefinitely for trolling:

• 04:31, 6 February 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Phyrex (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (blatant trolling)

It follows that Antistatist should be blocked indefinitely. --08:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

After discussion with Tony Sidaway I've blocked Antistatist (talk · contribs · logs) indefinitely, per the general conventions that policy applies to people, not just accounts. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cunctator's attacking userbox

I've removed three times a very aggressive userbox from Cunctator's userpage: [33] [34] [35] on the grounds that it goes against civility pillar. The fact that one dislike some wikipedians does not justify namecalling. Requesting politely to stop has been fruitless, so I'm requesting help on enforcing policy and guidance for further channels of action if this continues. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that subst template meets the new CSD Template #1 requirements by Jimbo. It is nonsense and should be removed on sight. People who put that kind of stuff up should be warned and blocked if they revert war.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a template, but a modification on a substed template. So there's nothing to speedy, nonetheless, it's a very incivil and inflammatory userbox -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL, it's true, CVU is fascism/totalitarianism. Alias Wooga 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's not the problem though. Anyone is entitled to disagree or dislike. It's the uncivil namecallign that it's uncalled for. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling an organization "retarded" is not a personal attack. Eli Cartan 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was a personal attack. I claim it's uncivil and therefore against official policy. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL doesn't say anything about removing everything you find to be uncivil. It says "Try and discourage others from being incivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally." It's hard to say that this editor's opinion is negatively affecting the editing of articles. WP:CIVIL offers a number of different ways to discourage incivility, of which removing the incivility is only one (controversial) way. Another few you might try are:

• Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict.
• Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist.
• Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place.

KWH 13:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes...we should delete it. Let us not allow an "anything goes", "tolerate whatever the hell anyone says no matter what" "laissez-faire" policy. Now that is against common sense.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill kill kill! The Cunctator 03:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!?--Sean Black ^(talk) 03:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it burns at Fahrenheit 451. Is Anything Goes really that bad? VoA is right to reference Common Sense: "O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!" -The Cunctator 03:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Paulo Fontaine

This appears to be a role account used for the creation of nonsense articles. The pattern is pretty consistent: articles created by this account are then updated by other accounts which have no or nonsense-only edit histories. The latest block having expired, a whole load of new bullshit edits have been made (see Paulo_Fontaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). This time, Greatgavini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved, but I only have time to go through Fintaine's edits right now so if someone cout review Greatgavini's diffs and look for nonsense edits I'd be grateful. I am inclined to indef-block Fontaine because I'm sick of cleaning up after him. Right now I'm ap[plying a 48-hour block while I clean up. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Mahabone

I'm requesting, at this point, an indefinite block, partly under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, specifically, "excessive personal attacks", but also for the regular disruption of "...the normal functioning of Wikipedia." Citations (not including recent) are available on the users talk pages, & in-depth looking will see nearly all of this user's edits constantly reverted, the user repeatedly asked & then warned to desist, & other disruptive & Vandal behavior. I've tried to refrain from interacting with this user lately & leave it to some Admins what with some possibly valid sockpuppet tags, but it has gone too far for too long, especially after his "Vandal" & "insane user" comments, & slander towards Freemasons. Grye 11:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading the diffs... and going through the users contributions... All I have seen are abusive comments, personal attacks, complete ignoring of WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and vandalism. As this user is CLEARLY disruptive, I have blocked indefinately. Grye you also need to pay more attention to WP:CIVIL you came quite close to if not slightly over the edge in some of your responses.  ALKIVAR™ 13:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou . & most importantly (about the rest), is yes, I recognize that I let myslef be "pushed over the edge" & /or otherwise show incorrigible behavior myself, & stand ready for consequences, but I have, & have often showed, a new restraint & thus that I'm learning & (I hope) applying at near the speed of light (OK, I admit, cable...) ;~D Grye 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OneFourOne

[I've moved this from RfAr as, err, it's not an Arbitration case matter; he's already banned from such activities. James F. (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)]

Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al

Involved parties

• Ted Wilkes ("party 1")
• Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al ("party 2")

Summary:

Previously the edits by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al to the Nick Adams and other articles had been orchestrated through referencing and targeted linking to insinuate that Elvis Presley was gay. On the issue of repeated insertion of information that Elvis Presley (and other celebrities) were gay, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al was found guilty by the Arbitration Committee here of fabricating information and inserting "fraudulently doctored text" into an article as seen here: [36]

As a result, the Arbitration Committee ruled as follows: "Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. "

User Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al has continued his exact same orchestrations and has inserted fabricated information into the article on Nick Adams. His actions have put Wikipedia at serious risk of a substantial lawsuit for libel from a vile fabrication that defames a living person in the most vicious and degrading manner possible.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ted Wilkes- is the initiating party and has notifed "party 2" here at User talk:Onefortyone.

Statement by party 1

In the Nick Adams article under the heading Rumors and sexuality, it says "at the time of his divorce in 1965" after which Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al inserted degrading and libelous text against Carol Nugent here that states:

• "He won this bitter court battle after proving that his wife was an unfit mother because she had an affair with another man."

In fact, Nick Adams and his wife were never divorced. This fact is confirmed by the IMDb biography Nick Adams at IMDb that is on the article's External links. In addition, as seen here Image:NickAdams-deathcertificate.jpg in the image of Nick Adams' 1968 Death Certificate from Findadeath.com (and available for purchase at here or also at here, the name of his surviving spouse is listed. NOTE that there is an article section Nick Adams#Marriage, divorce and death that specifically quotes exact words from the Death Certificate.

Previously complainant Ted Wilkes and User:Wyss attempted to put an end to the massive and disruptive fabrications and orchestrations by Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al but were then banned by the Arbitration Committee here from ever editing anything related to sexuality. User:Wyss is afraid so treaded carefully but did her best to at least qualify Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al's libelous fabrication here.

Further, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al inserted here in the same Rumors and sexuality section that Nick Adams and Elvis Presley may have had a relationship in violation of the ArbCom probation order

In addition, here, Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al knowingly and deliberately doctored (in red) the writing by his Wikipedia Mentor User:FCYTravis to falsely state that gay gossip writer Gavin Lambert knew Nick Adams:

• The basis for the claims, thus, are "statements by gay people who knew Adams well such as Gavin Lambert and" personal interviews allegedly to have taken place with third parties, the veracity of which are subject to debate and interpretation.

Motion and request by party 1

1) That Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al be permanently banned from editing all celebrity articles and that he be banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality;

2) That Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al post an apology to Carol Nugent on Talk:Nick Adams;

3) That Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al post an apology to the Talk pages of Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee members User:Marudubshinki, User:FCYTravis, and User:NicholasTurnbull for his conduct because they will be named in any libel lawsuit as parties liable for his conduct;

4) That, as Jimmy Wales did with respect to similar libel at Alan Dershowitz and John Seigenthaler Sr., delete permanently the libelous statement in accordance with Jimmy Wales Talk] that says:

• It is not possible for us to keep revisions public which are libelous. - 12:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• It has always been our policy to delete libellous revisions - 18:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Statement by party 2

It seems as if User:Ted Wilkes, who is also placed on probation for frequently having removed my edits (see [37]), still tries to denigrate my contributions as he did in the past. To my mind, he made an unfounded request for arbitration falsely accusing me of having inserted fabricated information into the Nick Adams article and claiming that Adams and his wife were never divorced. Significantly, this request was immediately deleted by a Wikipedia administrator. Indeed it is not necessary to re-open the case. It should also be noted that Ted Wilkes more than once made such requests in order to denigrate other users including reputed members of the arbcom, such as Fred Bauder. See [38]

Nick Adams's divorce from his wife is mentioned on the following webpages:

• "... he had waged a long and tedious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife, Carol Nugent... Nick won an expensive custody battle after proving that Carol was an unfit mother because she was having an affair with a fellow named Paul Rapp." See [39]
• "He had a troubled life, which included separating from his wife (but retaining custody of his 2 children)..." See [40] and [41]
• "His personal life was in turmoil as well, as he and wife Carol Nugent became increasingly estranged." See [42]
• "... unfortunately by the time he got back to the states it had already severed his marriage with actress Carol Nugent." See [43]
• "Married to actress Carol Nugent, and his divorce from her was expensive. However, he won the case, since it was proved Nugent had an affair, and he was given custody of their two children." See [44]

Here is the best account of Adams's divorce from his wife:

• "While appearing on 'The Les Crane Show' the following evening to plug Young Dillinger, Nick shocked audiences by announcing that he was leaving his wife. ... After that announcement, Nick's career and personal life went into a tragic free fall. Nick and Carol publicly announced a reconciliation a week later, on Jan. 19. ... Alienated from Carol, Nick fell in love with actress Kumi Mizuno and even proposed marriage to her later. ... Nick and Carol's reconciliation didn't survive Japan. At the end of July 1965, they decided on a legal separation. Carol filed for divorce in September. Nick was still in Japan when Carol was granted a divorce and custody of the children on Oct. 12. On Jan. 26, 1966, Nick and Carol announced another reconciliation on a local television show, 'Bill John's Hollywood Star Notebook.' It wouldn't last. ... On Nov. 26, 1966, Carol resumed divorce proceedings and obtained a restraining order against Nick. Carol alleged that Nick was 'prone to fits of temper' and in a special affidavit charged that Nick had 'choked her, struck her and threatened to kill her during the past few weeks.' 'I'm going to fight this thing all the way,' Nick said. 'I want to keep possession of my home and possession of my children.' It was the beginning of an acrimonious, contested divorce and child-custody battle. Nick became enraged after discovering that Carol's boyfriend was physically disciplining his children and telling them that Nick was 'a bad man' and a 'bad daddy.' Nick hired an attorney, former L.A.P.D. officer Ervin Roeder. Robert Conrad says, 'He (Roeder) was a very, very tough guy and he was a kind of man that was tough to like.' Nick got a restraining order prohibiting Carol's boyfriend from coming to the family home and being in the presence of the children. On Jan. 20, 1967, while waiting for a court hearing to begin, Nick was served with an $110,000 defamation suit by the boyfriend. Ervin Roeder's job was to wrest custody of Allyson and Jeb Adams from their mother. It was one he did well. On Jan. 31, Nick won temporary custody of his children. It was a hollow victory in his tug of war with his wife. Jeb Adams said, 'He saw it as a competition, basically, more than anything of getting custody of us. But, a matter of a week or two later, he gave us back to my mom.' She later regained legal custody of her children." See [45]

Now Ted Wilkes seems to have discovered a new document relating to the death of Nick Adams. I am not sure what this means. Could it be that Carol Nugent is mentioned as Adams's official widow because the divorce was not through at the time of his death? If so, this information may be added to the Nick Adams article. That's all. Onefortyone 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Response by Ted Wilkes:

• As stated above, Onefortyone does what he always does and uses massive text and blustery to obfuscate the facts. He provides "sources" that are personal websites in contradiction of official Wikipedia policy and others that simply quote from the them. However, the issue here is that in falsely asserting Adams and his wife were divorced, Onefortyone maliciously libeled Carol Nugent-Adams by stating: "He won this bitter court battle after proving that his wife was an unfit mother because she had an affair with another man." - Ted Wilkes 13:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ted, the truth is that this information comes from journalist Bill Kelly: "Nick won an expensive custody battle after proving that Carol was an unfit mother because she was having an affair with a fellow named Paul Rapp." See [46] Further, would you please stop calling me a "convicted liar" (see [47]), as this is certainly a personal attack. Onefortyone 00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey 141, I don't think it's helpful to call you a "convicted liar," since you may sincerely believe this codswallop and may have spun and manipulated all that text to fit what you in good faith believe to be true. I mean, maybe you're only gullible or whatever. That's an easy trap to fall into with celebrity bios. However, the old tabloid assertions that Adams and his wife were divorced are brought into serious question by his death certificate, which lists him as "married" and further names "Carol L. Adams" (his wife) as the informant. Wyss 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom says about sources for popular culture:

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources do not specifically address the reliability required with respect to popular culture such as celebrity gossip, but it is unrealistic to expect peer reviewed studies. Therefore, when a substantial body of material is available — e.g., that shown by a google search for 'bisexual "James Dean"' [48] — the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes and Wyss's view of the standard of editing

8) Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James Dean#Removal of "Rumors" section [49] and Talk:Nick Adams#Rumors, gossip or speculation contravene official Wikipedia policy

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
3. James F. (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Raul654 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a clear statement. Onefortyone 02:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Why does this need a case reopening? From the statement, it sounds like we just need some administrators to enforce the previous ruling. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Moved.

James F. (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that I have a hope anyone will listen to me :) ...But I think this RfA should be re-opened. Wyss 22:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"...Nick Adams and Elvis Presley may have had a relationship in violation of the ArbCom probation order."

Ha! who knew the ArbCom had this kind of power? :D --Tabor 00:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Double degree and User:Howardjp

For some considerable time this user has been obsessively removing a list of universities from this article, as well as trying to turn its original British English into U.S. English, often with edit summaries like "rv vandalism". No amount of reasoning affects him (after ten or so editors had all explained on the Talk page and at Wikipedia talk:External links that the list wasn't linkspam, for example, he continued to insist that it was). One or two admins have tried to calm him down and get him to stop, but he accuses them of harassing him, and contiunues to insist that his behaviour is correct. Any help would be appreciated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a note on his talk page about the use of British English and American English as it pertains to the style guide. --Deathphoenix 14:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that it works. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Howard blanked his talk page but hasn't made any other edits as of the time of this posting. Hopefully it means he's gotten the point. --Deathphoenix 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User page deletion

SOmeone deleted a set of links I had off my user page, non content was the reason, but geez I didn't even get a message on my talk page. Can someone please restore them? They were for an article. Deletion Log Entry Dominick ^(TALK) 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Undeleted. That was a rather silly deletion, but to avoid this in the future, you may want to put some sort of descriptive text on your user subpages. android79 17:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, they were at Dominick/links instead of User:Dominick/links. I moved them. Friday (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(after EC) Ah, now I see why this happened. You put it at Dominick/links, not User:Dominick/links. Friday moved it into your userspace for you. android79 17:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Dominick ^(TALK) 20:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

216.100.215.5

Yet another vandalism, this time to the Area 51 article. *sigh* Her Pegship 20:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Chinggism

Keeps deleting Afd and speedy tags and is talking about censorship. User has been warned several times and has been engaged in several edit wars over the removal of tags from his articles. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

165.247.91.219

This editor has consistently appended unencyclopedic and unnecessary information to the Michael Schiavo article and has violated 3RR. I imagine that either the user should be blocked (perhaps for 24 hours) or that the article should be semi-protected (perhaps for the same period). Joe 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Peruvianllama took care of this himself, for which I thank him. No need for any further admin action, then, I imagine. Joe 22:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may wish to use WP:AIV to request administrator attention against vandalizing, WP:RfPP for requesting page protection, and WP:AN/3RR to report violations of 3RR. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I've been removing a copyrighted image from Remington 870, and have now exceeded three reverts. This is a copyrighted image (it's all over remington's site and gunbroker.com). Am I violating 3rr by continuing to remove it? I have "welcome"'d the user, requested that they stop, etc. I'd like some administrator intervention here. Thanks aa v ^ 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone arrived before me. However, reverting copyright violations will not count against 3RR. In this case, both the image and the added text are apparently not licensed in a way that is acceptable for Wikipedia. So I would say you can freely remove it. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently the user's activity has included blanking. Sigh. aa v ^ 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Nextbarker

This guy has been going around on a bunch of highway articles, changing the shields to deprecated (redundant), wrong, and nonexistent images. I know this guy from outside Wikipedia, and he has some mental/comprehension/whatever problems (possibly autism?). I have asked him multiple times what he is doing, with no response. I would appreciate if someone else would look at this and try to get through to him, and also to advise me on whether I will get blocked for 3RR if I continue to revert him (as it is not quite vandalism) - or more precisely, will someone unblock me if another admin does block me for such a reversion? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well he seems to have stopped for now. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Derek R Bullamore

I need a few administrators to keep a close eye on him. He's been editing since December, and appears to be adding a lot of sneaky vandalism. For example, he's changed birth dates to be a year out, has added false middle names, and has changed cities of birth. I don't want to block as some changes, such as adding Kurt Nilsen's middle name, are proper. I need a few experienced admins to keep a close eye - He's been warned, and he doesn't seem to answer queries, so if he does sneakily vandalise anything I think he should be blocked. Hedley 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dante26

Dante26 (talk · contribs) was previously blocked for a week for creating hoax articles and deleting the AfD tags when the articles were tagged as hoaxes. Has now come back and is recreating the hoaxes and even creating more. I have blocked him indefinitely, but apparently blocking him causes collateral damage to lots of AOL users. See his Talk page. He was also posting as User:Opy67. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleting his account might be the only way, he seems intent on cycling thorugh every AOL range after he's sure of his block, seems like an intent driven denial of service attack--152.163.100.65 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Τroll penis

The user has openly given out his password on his talk page. I can see trouble ahead from him and those who access his account. Pat Payne 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this user was given an indefinite {{UsernameBlock}}. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

He's flooding his talk page now. — TheKMan^talk 02:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Indef-blocked user's password also now changed to random string. -- Karada 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

koteka

Could somebody semiprotect this, or something? The fark-flood are vandalising it. :( aa v ^ 02:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected it to ward off vandalism flood from fark. Babajobu 02:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

gracias, jobu. aa v ^ 02:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may wish to WP:RfPP to request protection or semi-protection of articles. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User RFC page

I take this step only reluctantly, but the explosion of incivility in the past couple of days on Wikipedia has convinced me to do it. I've nominated WP:RFC/USER for deletion since the process is so badly broken that we couldn't come up with a worse replacement if we tried. All it does is serve as an opportunity for bile to be spilled and as a step of paperwork on the path to ArbCom. It is most certainly not a method of dispute resolution, as I can't think of a single dispute that has been resolved through it - only escalated. WP:AAP shows the community's unhappiness with this page, which is near-universal and that I feel justifies this unusual nomination. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The nom has twice been reverted, the second time was by me and I speedy closed the nom. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You and Netoholic could try discussing it instead. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to discuss WP:RFC/USER without placing it on MfD. — TheKMan^talk 03:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be the only way to break the logjam. Is anyone happy with the current RFC process? The discussion on WP:AAP was scathing, and few people who have been through it (on either end) are particularly pleased with it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From a narrowly please-tell-me-again-how-wonderful-I-am, I am pleased enough with Requests for comment/Bishonen, but it's also an extreme example of the vexatious litigation that plagues WP:RFC. I'm with Crotty, please throw out this broken degenerate crappy bad-faith-encouraging system and start afresh. Bishonen | talk 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

I speedy closed the nom since it was a ridiculous first step when there are much better solutions (discussion being the first one that comes to mind) to fix it rather than putting it up for deletion and putting it up for MFD in itself is fairly out of line due to the fact that deleting the CFD page would mean taking out an eseential part of the dispute resolution process which I think most editors will agree is quote crucial. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ----

It already has been discussed - see WP:AAP. It's time to do something about it. What other method would you recommend that {A} respects community consensus, and {B} will actually break the logjam? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Like disruptively nominating a page for deletion just to generate discussion traffic? Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point -- propose a replacement system and get people to use it. -- Netoholic @ 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked for 3 hours User:Crotalus horridus for repeatedly editing a closed MFD in violation of policy. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I speedy closed the debate and despite being warned on his talk page by both Netoholic and I and being having his edits reverted and being warned again he persisted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to the fact that he withdrew it and blocks are not punitive I am going to unblock him immediately. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, let's see if we can figure out where to start a discussion on the User RFC issue. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:MFD is a discussion (it just has a vote/poll along with it to decide if it's kept or deleted). Letting it continue would not be disruptive in the least if it resulted in serious discussion/debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... isn't it well within Crotalus horridus' right to nominate pages for MfD? Is someone failing to assume good faith here? Shouldn't they discussion have at least taken place before being speedily closed??? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's my thoughts as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is, but it is also my right duty to get rid of disruption and I felt that this was unecessarily disruptive and a possible WP:POINT violation so I speedy closed it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? By not assuming good faith? By closing the discussion without letting it ever start? By blocking an editor who was doing what he had every right to do? Also see my thoughts on Crotalus' talk page. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of certain pages for deletion is considered disruptive (unless of course it's the Main page and it's April 1 :). There are better places to build consensus for reforming the user RFC process than MfD. Physchim62 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts later:) So, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement appears to be the right place for this, why not go there and hammer out some consensus? Dragging pages to MfD is the wrong way to bring attention to the issue; the wrong place for discussion. Clearly, in the time I've been trying to post this appeal to reason, people get blocked for being stubborn and ignoring common sense. Just advertise at WP:VP and be willing to work for consensus. Act like you're trying to get blocked, and you'll get blocked. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than attempting to continue fighting an edit war, I've opened Wikipedia:User RFC reform. Do not vote there yet, as it is still under progress, but feel free to include poll questions if you have them. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The poll is now open. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

what is this guy up to?

User:Mission BSS.Geni 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, quite clearly he is coming to represent Mumbai-style for the Dalit. That's fine. I was just saying the other day that the Dalit voice wasn't heard frequently enough around the wiki. Babajobu 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

World War II Special Protection Request

IP 24.167.137.112 has been blanking/vandalizing the World War II and page for the last hour (5 edits) Bo-Lingua 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours. Thanks. Babajobu 04:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How prompt! Thankee! Bo-Lingua 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may wish to use WP:AIV to request administrator attention against vandalizing, and WP:RfPP to request protection or semi-protection of articles. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti

His arbitration case concluded today. He was placed on both probation and general probation. Here is the final decision. I'm posting this here because he's been rather active on nuclear power lately and we need as many admins as possible watch his actions on that page...similar with Price-Anderson Act. I'm involved so I can't block or ban him myself. So any help in monitoring his edits on those 2 articles especially would be appreciated. He has also hit Hubbert_peak_theory hard in the past. Thanks for everyone's help. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Location canonicalization"

Can someone give a second opinion on whether the recent edits by User:Quarl to change [[City, State]] to [[City, State|City]], [[State]] are as totally useless as they seem? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved: I've moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Location Format —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-09 10:24Z

User:24.224.217.39

Based on this I have blocked this user indefinitely. Please review. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IPs change, so an indefinite block doesn't seem like a good idea, but I'd favor at least a month-long block. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok if you think so but he sure is a cheery fellow now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's done, a month now for two death threats and an offer to blow up the Wikipedia offices. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If an IP is permablocked, and it is a dynamic IP, it is horrible. If the IP is static, it can get reassigned by some reason or another by the ISP to an unsuspecting user. That's the only reason an indef block isn't a good idea. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I realize that and I admit it was an overreaction and frustration from other things. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking someone does not stop murders of wikipedia users or the plot to bomb the headquarters. We will get a lot of sympathy and publicity when this hits the press. Lapinmies 09:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly the first death threat recived by wikipedia.Geni 12:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not going to hit the press because it's not going to happen. Death threats are a dime a dozen on the Internet and generally do not deserve to be taken very seriously. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:VinnyCee

Following posted on AIV:

• VinnyCee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disrupting police state. Already there is a check user request. Today once again he is inserting the claim the US is a police state. Despite numerous requests to substantiate that claim, no proof is advanced but the claim is inserted still.

Furthermore, this person has been violating the 3 RR rule, inserting warnings on police state talk page[50][51][52] which were deleted from editors own talk page[53][54][55], and disrupting my talkpage[56][57][58]. -- Nomen Nescio 09:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked VinnyCee for 24h for vandalism, WP:POINT per [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] and technically and WP:3RR although I guess that doies not really apply on Talk pages - in any case, he was warned more than once re adding contentious tags to the article and continued after deleting the warnings from his talk page. In my view the user was well aware that they were in the wrong and continued anyway, but bringing here just in case someone feels that they should be given a little more rope. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Autoblocks

User:Rodw ahs just emailed me to say that 164.11.204.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is blocked as being recently used by Paulo_Fontaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Which is possible, but I can't see any block that I can undo, the IP does not give a block history. If I block and unblock will that fix it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way is to look at the last 24 hours of the ipblocklist for the name of the blocked user. If there is an autoblock, it will show there. I couldn't find one, so it probably has already expired. --cesarb 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, you won't ever see that IP, you'll see a special mask, i.e #456856. But, you can hand unblock the IP and it will have the same effect. Just go to the unblock page and enter the IP in the field; it will be unblocked even if the block was an autoblock. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

DSM IV TR Criteria Question - Again

The question of using DSM IV TR criteria (as discussed here and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder ) is again arising on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&action=history.

Chad Thompson of the apa ( CThompson@psych.org ) already refused permission in December, it was decided to play safe and go with a link before the APA got mad and started going over the whole of Wikipedia with a fine tooth comb and issuing writs.

If I owned Wikipedia I would take a stand against them on this, but I don't, and am having to revert edits I actually believe in to accord with concensus and the wishes of the APA who own the copyright. This next will be the second revert I make today.

Somebody please advise? --Zeraeph 13:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice

This user is showing "contempt of court" for the recent ArbCom ruling regarding her behavior, and has deleted the ruling unread from her talk page, an annoying tactic she does to anybody she doesn't like. Perhaps a ban is in order? *Dan T.* 13:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is justified for those particular actions, but please pay attention to her and if she does engage in the kind of attacks she has made in the past, please enforce the personal attack parole she is on. Fred Bauder 13:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

She has, and I've blocked her for 48 hours accordingly ("Don't bore me with your simplistic/idiotic assumptions"[73], "Jayjg [is] an abrasive, notorious POV warrior"[74]). My personal view is that Deeceevoice should be made to acknowledge the ArbCom ruling if she wishes to continue editing here. We might as well ban her outright if she's just going to ignore it, and save ourselves the hassle. — Matt Crypto 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To add further, Deeceevoice has stated: "I am no longer contributing new information to any articles on this website" and "an earlier post of someone notifying me of the ArbCom's "ruling" was deleted without having been read. They have no authority I am obliged to respect, IMO, none which merits respect"[75]. While I will follow the provisions given by ArbCom, I personally don't see why we should give this user any more chances, given the above. — Matt Crypto 18:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If she violates the terms of it, block her. She doesn't have to respect ArbCom, but she does have to follow their rules- plain and simple. Ral315 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.154.22.36

Wreggles, perhaps in the Manchester area. Block please, trail of schoolboy vandalism. Midgley 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a shared IP address for loads of UK schools. Secretlondon 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I made a report to their abuse address, about the same time. Midgley 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may wish to use WP:AIV to request administrator attention against vandalizing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Midgley 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Mao Zedong political war

The Mao Zedong article seems to have attracted the attention of a non-registered user who switches IP addresses (history looks like a group, but the edits come in series, and the style is pretty consistent), editing it to "clarify some ubiquitous rumors commonly used by antimaoists" and the "revert the CIA propaganda" Editing history. I can't call it outright vandalism, but to my non-expert eyes, it's pretty clearly political, not NPOV, not attributed, of poor quality, and should be reverted. I tried once, but since he's not giving up, and since I'm neither a Mao specialist, nor interested in getting into a revert war, I'm going to alert the admins here, and bow out. GRuban 14:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Any possibility you could put Mao Zedong under the same "As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection." protection as Jack Abramoff?

It's hardly been edited - a handful of times from IPs today - and we don't semi protect for edit disputes. Secretlondon 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Still going on, though not involving me. [76] It's clearly one guy with a "CIA is sensering the internet" bee in his bonnet. If he had an account, people could talk to him, and find a compromise, since he doesn't, it's kind of hard. GRuban 14:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat ban on Queensway

I have found STC to be in violation of his probation with his editing on this page. Per my notice to him on his talk page:

I have banned you from editing this page for violating your probation with this edit, that change has been previously contested, you changed it without discussion and a misleading edit summary of "fix rdr" (implying something was broken when its merely contested). Previously contested changes to articles should be discussed and consensus achieved before you change them.

--Wgfinley 15:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

category: living people

While I personally find this cat to be insipid, what is the policy on it? Is an edit which reverts its addition to be reverted? aa v ^ 15:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted as he's clearly still alive. Secretlondon 16:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For the policy on it, see Category:Living people. --Fastfission 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I see every reason to believe both serious and casual users can and will benefit from Category:Living people and its opposite, Category:Dead people. Entire websites are devoted to answering that age-old question, "hey, I wonder if (FitB) is dead or alive?" More to the question, I would try a dialogue with the reverter and ask if there was a specific reason therefor. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If we have a dead people category, are we getting rid of the death-by-year categories? Phil Sandifer 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't see any reason; a research tool is a research tool :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Death-by-year cats should be subcategories of Dead people (rather, subcats of the decade, which is a subcat of the century, which is a subcat of deaths by year, which is a subcat of Dead people). Category:Dead people isn't on any actual articles. -- Jonel | Speak 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet, I presume. Whoever's been adding the living people cat may be doing one at a time ;) RadioKirk talk to me 21:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

209.175.47.158

209.175.47.158 has been vandalizing many articles, even though he/she has been warned. Sophy's Duckling 19:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IP has been blocked several times. Per whois.illinois.net, external47-158.cps.k12.il.us is Chicago Public Schools, primary level. RadioKirk talk to me 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may wish to use WP:AIV to request administrator attention against vandalizing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:PhilSandifer

This user is not me, and I have blocked him indefinitely because of that. Phil Sandifer 19:49, 7 February th2006 (UTC)

If he promises to be you in the future, can we unblock him? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel like that would be wikistalking. Phil Sandifer 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I just indef blocked User:Dustimagic is a Nazi!!!!!!!!!!!. Apparently there is a User:Dustimagic who's a RC patroller. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, you may wish to use either the {{imposter}} template or {{usernameblock}} message to mark either imposters or inappropriate usernames. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I might, but that requires keeping track of even more templates, and I refuse to do that. Phil Sandifer 22:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There's good reason Snowspinner created WP:TFD ... - David Gerard 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG Userpage edit war

[77] Admins holding an edit war over a userpage? Ouch! Who dares protect?

-- Kim Bruning 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Already protected by Matt_Crypto (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Also, to everyone involved: 1). You shouldn't have to edit someone else's user page. 2). Alex Linder is not going to sue, or be at all concerned, most likely, for being referred to as a Nazi, considering the fact that he's an anti-Semitic asshole. 3). There are far more important things that you could be doing.--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope that, at least, this doesn't lead to yet another episode in the wheel-warring novel... Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I protected in the hope that it would encourage these admins not to do that, but it's been unprotected again. — Matt Crypto 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: I am blocking anyone else who wants to revert war. This is not acceptable admin behavoir, even a newbie would get warned and possibly blocked for this.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree, but why did you unprotect? Just because admins can bypass protection doesn't make it right to do so, and I think edit warring on a protected page is a particularly egregious violation. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what some people are playing at. Kindly go and do something productive people. Secretlondon 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I initially removed this because it accused Igor Alexander, the founder of Wikipedia Review, as being the Nazi Alex Linder. When I was reverted (using admin rollback), I was not contacted in anyway, nor was an edit summary given. I then rolled back the revert due to the lack of information as to why it occured, and asked why the admin who reverted me did so. I've taken no further part in this other than to ask why people are using admin rollback on non-vandalism edits (I consider reverting non-vandalism edits without edit summaries to be vandalism itself). However, I am curious as to why people keep reinstating an statement calling someone a Nazi (especially without proof). I can only think of a few worse insults. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes...the rollbacks where highly inappropriate. Give reasons if you are reverted (or someone else making the same edit). Here is my idea on this: Wheel-warriors should be blocked, and if anyone unblocks a blocked wheel warrior, then NO ONE will re-block, but instead will report it to Jimbo.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, immediately after my reversion, I left a note discussing the page on the person who rolled back my edits' talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Talrias, please try to be more accurate with your use of terms. It would be more accurate to say that you find reverting non-vandalism edits sans summaries to be unacceptable, not that it is vandalism, I hope. --Improv 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is unacceptable, yes. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you find the use of rollback unacceptable, you should not have used rollback to re-instate your edit. If you find it acceptable for you to modify other people's user pages (especially ones you have a history of conflict with) you should not have your user page protected. If you have a problem with people reverting before they talk, then you should have talked to me before you rolled back my reversion to your initial edit. To begin with, if you found El_C's page disturbing you should have asked him to change it - he's on a break, but who knows what that means. Guettarda 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, if you think it wrong to user rollback in that case, then your actions were intentionally wrong. I did not think it wrong to use rollback on your edit to El_C's page, because, as a person who was in conflict with him recently, it looks like you meant to kick him when he's down. Which is unacceptable. Guettarda 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, I don't find the use of rollback unacceptable - otherwise I would never have drafted a proposal such as Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges. My user page is not protected. In fact, it was recently edited by an anonymous contributor. I can't respond to the rest of your comment, as it is based on incorrect information. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversions and extra edits

I've come across a peculiar situation on this article page: Apollo moon landing hoax accusations - it seems that 20 hours of reversions have been taking place on the article. When I protected the page, to my surprise, two other administrators came by and edited the page and changed a significant amount of content on it. Based on a comment on the talk page, I've reverted back to the original page which I protected in the interests of fairness. However, as a result, I would feel more comfortable if someone else were to look at this situation so I can step aside from it. Many thanks! --HappyCamper 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, not paying attention. Sorry, won't happen again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, you are one of the most professional Wikipedians I have met in recent memory. I'd like to mention in passing [78] and [79]. Well, it looks like someone else (Katefan0) might be helping out, so I guess all is well! :-) --HappyCamper 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Music of Nigeria

Page has been vandalized more than 25 times in the past hour and 15 minutes. Why doesn't an admin just protect it, and just ignore the rule about not protecting pages linked from the main page. It is vandalized by the same vandal over and over, with a different username. Pepsidrinka 22:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should go to WP:RfPP; also, I urge administrators not to protect the page. Please see User:Raul654/protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page before I saw it was linked from the front page. I would suggest looking at the recent edit history before unblocking. (but feel free to do so). Eugene van der Pijll 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, but they shouldn't be semiprotected. Hoping you won't be offended, but I've lifted the protection. Rather, I added the article to my watchlist and will help revert and hand out blocks if needed. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not offended, I was just going to unprotect it myself. There was a similar attack on Costa Rica presidential elections, 2006 earlier, which also stopped after it was semi-protected for a few minutes. I would suggest that a short block like that is useful in these cases. According to User:Raul654/protection the page should not be protected because Vandalism is cleaned up very quickly, often in only a couple of minutes, but in this case the page was vandalised litterally once a minute for over half an hour... Eugene van der Pijll 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly a bot attack. Seems possibly GNAA-related? Could be wrong. Anyway, SP long enough to turn the bot off was a good call. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It has started at the Costa Rican page again. I've semi-protected that one; will unprotect in a few minutes. Eugene van der Pijll 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

When this keeps up, is there anything else we can do? Can we find out the IP range of the (presumed) bot? Reverting more than once a minute is not good, but having to semi-protect pages every 15 minutes is not a good solution either. Eugene van der Pijll 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, so much for that. It's obviously a bot attack. I was goign to re-SP but Splash beat me to it. I've left a message for David Gerard to see if he can checkuser and do something to foil the originating IP. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I protected the Costa Rica page at 23:04; the Nigeria page was vandalised at 23:05. Both are protected now, so I wonder how long it will take him now to start on another page. I'll keep an eye on the Main Page's "related changes". Sigh. Eugene van der Pijll 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941) apparently. I won't protect it; he will just move to another page anyway... Eugene van der Pijll 23:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We've been watching this all afternoon (we've jokingly begun calling the vandal the "Rapture vandal" as much of the early vandalism involved the phrase "Wikipedia will meet it's maker"). I had a checkuser run earlier and placed a rangeblock; unfortunately, it's an AOL/Netscape range, and I've had to pull it. Simple blocks won't do, as the accounts are throwaways (one edit and they get a new one), and page protection is useless, as they just move on to another page. All we can do is continue to revert until they get tired. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the bot should be pointed to Template:User its2 ;) RadioKirk talk to me 13:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection of Wikify template

Due to some nasty vandalism, {{wikify}} has been semiprotected. Other admins should feel free to lift it when they feel the threat has passed as I'm off to bed now. David | Talk 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough

...of this issue and being singled out for accusations of wrongdoing here. I'd block the user for making a personal attack but I'd only be accused of "misuse of administrative powers" as the user puts it. Someone else needs to keep a watch on this because after going through my watchlist today I'll be on wikibreak. Thank you. -- Francs2000 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for that friendly display of blatant personal attacks but I suggest that people keep an eye on this IP as well as the article and Franc2000's talk page just in case. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor

Despite the fact that I have stayed out of the userbox debate so far and for the most part plan on continuing to do so I would just like to note that I removed two {count them 2) userboxes from Dschor's userpage. The first was a blatant attack against Interiot, the second one was against Kelly Martin. I couldn't give a damn about the other templates but I will not (and have stated as such on his talk page) stand by while other editors are attacked. I have warned him not to replace those attack userboxes and have told him that if it takes getting an injunction from Jimbo himself I will do everything in my power to make sure he does not attack other editors. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He's about to be banned by the ArbCom (by a mixture of injunction and remedy), so hopefully the problem will go away. -Splash^talk 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If he replaces them, I think removing them and protecting the page would be appropriate. I wouldn't do it myself since I previously blocked him for creating {{user oppose Kelly Martin}}, the substituted version of which you just removed. If possible, I'd like to avoid blocking him while his RfA is ongoing (unless he were to violate his injunction, of course). — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Since his injunction allows him to edit his user and talk pages it wouldn't be a direct violation of his injunction to put them back but I agree that if he does the best remedy probably is a revert/reprotect combo. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that if he insists on doing blockable things on the pages he is allowed to edit, he can still contact the AC by email if necessary - David Gerard 16:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Dshor was under the prerequisites of an indefinite block. If that's so, It really shouldn't matter, as the only avalible page at his disposal is his talk page.-Zero^Talk 16:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He is, he's only unblocked so that it's easier for him to contribute to the arbcom case. If he restores the attack templates though I think he should be indef. blocked and then he could still contribute via his talk page or via email. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer that Dschor's link to my homepage not be seen as a blatant attack. The link was added as the final edit in a string of back-and-forth edits [80] [81] [82] [83]. I added 100% of the text to his page, and Dschor only added the link. My edit (the third) was done in more of a joking mood, and I was pleased to see the fourth edit turn out to be something that didn't seem to escalate the situation. I don't particularly care whether the box is included or removed from Dschor's page, but I would prefer that its history not be involved in any future increase in tension. --Interiot 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Donate to Wikipedia

I've just blocked Donate to Wikipedia (talk · contribs) for an inapropriate username, but I'm off to bed now (I'm on UTC), can someone keep an eye out for any autoblocks resulting from this. Cheers, Thryduulf 03:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could this user be related to the Bank of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) sockpuppets created by Iasson (talk · contribs)? Ral315 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it; look at his sole contribution. What Iasson wrote was often held to be nonsense, but not patent nonsense.Septentrionalis 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hasty Pudding Theatricals

A user is having a serious edit war with User:140.247.155.84 and I gave unclear instructions on the Help desk. Dr Debug (Talk) 06:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked all of the offending IPs for 24 hours. --Golbez 06:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Dhommo

Dhommo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently a sockpuppet of blocked Wik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is causing disruption at Bat Ye'or. Previously, he used sockpuppets Dhimmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dhummy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both blocked now. Pecher ^Talk 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the connection to Wik from? Secretlondon 11:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg dealt with the issue yesterday [84]. Pecher ^Talk 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Without any evidence being given, with those two having LOTS of history, and with Jayjg having been a controversial editor on Jewish topics. Come on - someone else could have done it. People should recuse if they are involved, always. Secretlondon 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this is a Jewish topic. Anyway, could you run an IP address check? Pecher ^Talk 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see that as being an issue here, and an address check is almost certainly a waste of time. I'm just switching {user} to {vandal} above, but I checked it this morning and it is very clear that the three (Dhommo, Dhimmi and Dhummy) are one and the same. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

They appear to be the same per checkuser (same dialup block), but IP matches are really secondary evidence - the editing style is the same - David Gerard 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Secretlondon 16:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, Wik could be such a fantastically productive and wonderful editor if he could just stop ... being a dick. If he stopped being a dick and told the AC he was going to stop being a dick and stuck to it, he'd be welcomed back as the prodigal son. Really - David Gerard 00:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Paulo Fontaine and Barbara Osgood

Could somebody please tell me WTF is going on with Paulo_Fontaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Barbara_Osgood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? They keep interleaving edits to the same articles, sometimes Osgood revertes nonsense inserted by Fonatine, other times she adds to it, and the comment on her Talk page about Fontaine is downright confusing. Fontaine keeps popping up as different people (e.g. Paul_Fountain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and his edit pattern is invariably to work through a series of minor edits through nonsense to creation of a hoax article. I am completely bemused. I strongly suspect it's or more students (Fontaine is operating out of the University of the West of England, as I found out yesterday) playing silly buggers. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

New Huaiwei Block

I have blocked Huaiwei for two weeks effective immediately, he just came off a one week block in the past few days. Per my notice on his talk page:

You are blocked for two weeks for violation of your parole effective immediately. Specifically, causing disruptions in articles, reverting without discussion on talk pages and continued edit warring. The following edits in question are the cause for this block, will be posted on AN/I, your block log and in your current arbitration case. You can still contribute to your arbitration case by using your talk page.

Disruption of Wikiproject Airports

[85] [86] [87]

Continued barbs in edit summary in lieu of discussion on talk page

[88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

I'm certain there is more for me to post here but this will do. Your continued edit warring, causing disturbances and methods of editing continue to violate your probation.

As always this has been noted in the block log on his probation page.

--Wgfinley 13:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Donation trolling

On Talk:General Medical Council one editor editing under a few different usernames is making an enormous fuss, including threatening to influence others with regard to donation to Wikipedia. Is this in itself a blockable offense? JFW | T@lk 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be inclined to ignore the campaigning, inasmuch as there is nothing that the editor would like more than attention. Refactor comments not directly related to the article into their own section if they get to be too much of a nuisance, and consider archiving them. The personal attacks on Jfdwolff and others are over the line, however, and if they persist would warrant a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's amusing how consistent POV pushers are: they are always the injured innocent, victims of a conspiracy by the establishment that prevents their voice being heard, champions of the emergent truth which will shortly - any day now! - bring the establishment to its knees in abject shame. And always it is Wikipedia's role to lead the charge against an obstinate and disbelieving world, and editors and yet the noble aim of the project is betrayed by editors and admins who oppose them by slavish insistence on precisely the kinds of evidence the establishment bias prevents them from producing and which Wikipedia is supposed to rectify. It's a remarkably consistent pattern, isn't it? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This comment should be added to some project page. It describes them perfectly. --cesarb 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not lead the charge against an obstinate and disbelieving world"? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I came here specifically to be obstinate and disbelieving! --Aaron 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

JzG got it in a nutshell. I have indeed seen similar patterns on Talk:Cancer, Talk:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, Talk:Simon Wessely etc etc.

I would be obliged if someone could do a brief civility block of 86.134.167.39 (talk · contribs). This user has insinuated mental illness in myself[97], been calling various names not worth repeating, and is a general nuisance. JFW | T@lk 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The inexcusable behaviour has not resumed from that address after the anon received a warning on his talk page, so it may not be necessary. The address is from BT and probably rotated among a large pool of users; from a practical standpoint the block probably wouldn't hit the right person now. If he comes back and can't keep a civil tongue in his head, I'd support an immediate block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Braaad

This individual is behind at least 2 blocked sock puppets, has now returned, and is harassing again. I also suspect he's added another sock puppet, for which I've put in a CheckUser request. At the very least, he is violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and is vandalizing with his edit summaries. Again. McNeight 16:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryan Delaney

Ryan Delaney, one of the non-elected, non-ratified, self-appointed "clerks", has been maliciously deleting parts of people's statements at WP:RFAR. This is excessively misleading and highly disruptive. By deleting the statements he is deleting, results in the case appearing to be quite something else, and I would like someone to put a stop to him doing so, if possible. Thanks, --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide some evidence of this, please? —bbatsell ¿? 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that nobody even bother dealing with this blatant trolling. Ril has been trying to scuttle the clerks idea since the beginning by any means possible and this is just another one of his little attempts to do so. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ryan Delaney is deleting threaded unsectined replies to statements that amount to "coloring outside the lines". They are being deleted becuase they are misplaced and are therefore themselves misleading. Robert McClenon 19:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney ("Tough luck") is incorrect in that. One does not delete comments. One moves them. If one feels that they are inappropriate, then move them to a user space or a separate page and leave a link. If I know that, then surely a Clerk will know that. If the clerk does know that, then one wouldn't be too far out in assuming intent. Geogre 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: I disagree thoroughly with clerks giving summaries. I'm sure that that will mean that I, too, "have been trying to scuttle the clerks idea." In a world without nuance, much less reading skills, anyone who disagrees with a part must be without credibility. Clerk away, but let's not impose summarizers. Geogre 00:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You realise of course that skill with summaries was precisely why Snowspinner and Tony Sidaway were picked for the job ... in any case, anyone can provide a summary, 'clerk' or not - David Gerard 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Were picked?" I love that passive. They "were picked" by whom? Who is it who decided that their skills with summaries was what tipped the balance and that these two people could and should be imposed on litigants with whom they might have personal history? Also, in another great straw man, you say that "anyone can provide a summary," but, if that's so, why is there an official summary by the clerk? Why is the clerk writing a special summary on a page that the litigants can't write to? Why invent a special function for a special position, if it's something anyone can do? Like I said, it's a world without nuance or reading skills. Geogre 12:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

By the AC, fairly obviously. Tony Sidaway particularly impressed the 2005 AC in his summarising of the Baku Ibne case (the evidence was completely incoherent beforehand). In Snowspinner's case, also by Jimbo. Because then they have it as a specified job that they've volunteered to fulfil. Further questions welcome insofar as I can answer. If you could attempt to assume slightly better faith, that'd be nice too - David Gerard 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Assume better faith? That's somewhat hilarious. The first time I brought up the structural problems of clerks writing summaries, you attacked my judgment. Ryan Delaney (remember him) said that it was "tough luck." Jtkiefer said "tough luck." So, basically, if you demonstrated better faith, that would be very nice as well. What you are not saying is "by the old AC fairly obviously." What you are also not saying is "many members of which are now troubled by this function." What you are also not saying is, "And several users have objected to me, in particular, and how I have pretended to speak for the Board." What you are also not saying is "And these particular people have already been accused of bias." And what else you are not saying is "And I keep saying that there is no change while I say that there has to be a status to the summary." I'm glad that you are not presenting summaries, David, if your attempt at seizing the high rhetorical ground here is an example of your presentation of an issue. Keep the clerks. Have fun wearing tiaras and adding lines to your CV's, but don't impose summaries that are "official" on people who don't agree to them. I've offered a solution that satisfies all the needs and imposes none of the risks, but, unfortunately, it doesn't allow three or four greedy people to grab more power, so they oppose it. (For those who never saw it due to the every-10-minutes-archiving-the-page, the solution is quite, quite simple: have the present ArbCom select ten to twenty editors with good writing skills and temperament, and then allow the disputants to pick the person who summarizes his or her evidence. That way, we don't feed the trolls.) Geogre 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Even with the best of intentions summaries will always be colored by the perceptions of the person writing them. In the 'pedophile wheel war' case the summary described supporters of an action in a particular discussion as "many" and opponents as "some"... when the actual numbers were 6 supporters and 19 opponents, and a few of those supporters later reversed themselves. Now, is this evidence of 'malicious intent' by the clerks? No. Most of the supporters chimed in immediately and thus appeared in a group at the top of the discussion... the opponents grew as people looked into the situation and started pointing out details which had not been considered (thus causing some of the supporters to later switch). It would be easy for the summary writer to, at a quick glance, mistakenly assume the strong support at the top of the discussion to have been carried throughout... even without the possibility of assuming a particular view prevalent if it happened to match their own. This isn't a big deal if someone can just comment on the summary and note the discrepancy... but for that reason such summaries should not be placed on the main arbitration page or the 'proposed decision' page where edits by others are discouraged or prohibitted. Put them on 'evidence' or 'workshop' and allow everyone to comment. If the comments are clearly of little relevance then move them to the associated talk page. Summaries are good, but care must be taken for them to be as impartial as possible and objections to any characterizations therein must be given serious consideration. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. But also please remember the AC aren't stupid. The summaries will be noted, and if the clerk's summary isn't good then (this being a wiki) people will weigh in! And the AC (and clerks) will give that due consideration too. The clerks don't do direct opinion dumps into the AC's brains - David Gerard 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding their own summary is quite different from deleting someone else's. One is fairly acceptable, the other is not whatsoever. --Victim of signature fascism 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There were some problems with the original summary. These were outlined by an editor in a discussion on User talk:Radiant! and (although I have recused myself from the case now because of a related action) I understand that the errors have now been fixed. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Violation of probation?

I think User:Ted Wilkes is now continuing edit warring and, together with User:Wyss as it seems, still harassing me. For their behavior, see the following Wikipedia pages: Talk:Nick Adams, Memphis Mafia, Talk:Memphis Mafia, Boze Hadleigh, etc. In my opinion, this may be a violation of the arbcom probation order which says that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." [98]. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, Wilkes again goes as far as to call me a "convicted liar" which is certainly a personal attack and unacceptable. See [99]. On the Memphis Mafia page, he has added a fabricated text to my direct quote from Peter Guralnick's book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley. In the book, the original passage reads:

"Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum..." See [100]

Ted Wilkes's version reads:

"Nick Adams and his gang (roommate Dennis Hopper, Russ Tamblyn, Red West) came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum ..." See [101].

This is of much importance, as another source, namely Rona Barrett's autobiography, Miss Rona (1974), says that "Nick had become the companion to a group of salacious homosexuals." It seems as if Ted Wilkes, with such additions, tries to obscure the impression that the members of Adams's gang were homosexual. Wilkes has also repeatedly deleted two external links to websites concerning the Memphis Mafia, presumably because the content of these sites is not in line with his personal view. See [102]. He only accepts hyperlinks to external personal webpages he likes. This is POV and not O.K. Perhaps some administrators may have a look at the related pages. Thank you. Onefortyone 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Onefortyone's continued misrepresentations to deceive Wikipedia Administrators and fabrications and another violation of his probation:

Wikipedia Mentor FCYTravis removed this Rona Barrett reference from the Nick Adams article as per his Revision as of 19:56, 6 December 2005 here. FCYTravis then informed Onefortyone of his deletion and his reasons on the Talk:Nick Adams page on 20:40, 6 December 2005 as seen here

I worked with FCYTravis to achieve a consensus and the last edit to the Nick Adams article by Wikipedia Mentor FCYTravis was on 02:01, 8 December 2005. However, Onefortyone waited a few hours then disdainfully ignored his Wikipedia Mentor and violated his Wikipedia:Probation and reinserted it in this Revision as of 04:33, 8 December 2005 - Ted Wilkes 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, Ted, you should have mentioned that, before he made his statement, administrator FCYTravis had repeatedly reinserted the Rona Barrett quote together with some other quotes frequently deleted by you at that time (December 2005). See your own statement here. On 8 December, this administrator only said that he had removed the quote from Rona Barrett because he "didn't think it adds anything." About two hours later, I reinserted it together with an additional quote which now made more sense. FCYTravis was online at the time when I included the additional source. As there was no further discussion about the matter, there can be no doubt about the fact that he accepted my contribution. It should also be mentioned that my version is still included in the article. Onefortyone 00:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another instance of Onefortyone violating his probation and defying his Wikipedia Mentor

In the article Elvis and Me, Onefortyone inserted text that was deliberately taken out of context from completely different parts of the book and on different subjects entirely. And, after deleting key words that would reveal his fabrication, Onefortyone merged them to create a completely false impression of what author Priscilla Presley had written.

On the Talk:Elvis and Me Wikipedia Mentor FCYTravis agreed, stating in his Revision as of 19:19, November 13, 2005 here "I agree that inserting those out-of-context passages in that section is not helpful to the reader and potentially misleading."

Again, Onefortyone waited for time to pass then on 23:46, December 24, 2005 he defied his Wikipedia Mentor and reinserted and again did it in an out-of-context position to mislead and change the entire factual meaning to suit his agenda. - Ted Wilkes 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, Ted, you are the person who has added fabricated passages to the text. You have repeatedly included the words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" in the Elvis and Me article, thereby deleting the direct quotes from the book I had inserted (see [103]). The fact is that these words nowhere appear in Priscilla Presley's book, as an Amazon search proves. See [104], [105] and [106]. Therefore, I rewrote the said paragraph which included the correct quotes for many weeks. Now you are continuing edit warring, Ted, as you have reinserted your fabricated version of the text and removed another paragraph including critical remarks by Suzanne Finstad about Prescilla Presley's book (see [107]) which certainly belong to the Elvis and Me article. It seems as if you are trying to suppress critical remarks about one of your favorite books. This is not acceptable and not NPOV. Onefortyone 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Nibby

Nibby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), declaring himself to be Willy on Wheels, just popped up vandalizing user talk pages [108] only to find himself smacked down almost immediately by myself, Pgk, and BorgQueen. howcheng {chat} 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he hit me just after I put up my manifesto[109]

Guess he's opposed to it :-) Karmafist 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I will have to admit his vandalism was relatively innovative one :-D I protected his talk page because he has messed with it as well: "There is more to come!" --BorgQueen 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Zephram Stark sockpuppet

This one's pretty obvious: Mr. Stark (talk · contribs) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh definitely. Good block. --Deathphoenix 21:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

User:HaleyBaley

HaleyBaley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also declared himself to be Willy on Wheels [110]. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Curps. --Deathphoenix 20:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country under attack; semi-protected

I just semi-protected {{Infobox Country}} because it is under a vandalism attack by a user (or more) who likes to add penis images to the template. Because this is a high visibility template, I thought it better not to add {{semiprotected}}, but feel free to add it if you think it's a good idea. Or maybe it could be added without being transcluded or something, but I don't know that wizardry.

I blocked 129.71.62.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for one week for this, because I assume it is the same person as 68.211.42.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has been blocked for the same kind of vandalism by Thames yesterday, and 212.138.113.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who vandalized five minutes earlier and was warned for it by Jacoplane. Maybe that one ought to be blocked, too. Please let me know if you think the block is too long or unjustified. I think I'll un-protect the template tomorrow. — mark ✎ 21:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the semiprotected template, but marked it with <noinclude></noinclude>, so it won't appear in articles using {{Infobox Country}}. Canderson7 ^(talk) 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Upon reading this message by 129.71.62.4 at Curps's talk, I think one week is justified; and I'll gladly give one week to every other IP that displays that same pattern. — mark ✎ 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The risk of collatoral damage is very high with a 1 week block. Do we know it's a static IP? Secretlondon 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

{{User paedo}}

I have deleted this template. It was created by SPUI (talk • contribs) and is clearly nothing but trolling. I know it's a joke, but it is not funny in the current climate. It is, in fact, blatantly out of place. So shoot me. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an act of blatent trolling. Please feel free to speedy delete any more infringements to the integrity of wikipedia. I also suggest a slap on the risk for this action (Although a block seems more warrented).-Zero^Talk 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

SPUI also went ahead and did this. — TheKMan^talk 22:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

*yawn* Secretlondon 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps SPUI should have a brief time out. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked for an hour over the template-trolling, and ArbCom are looking to include him the general Pedophilia case. Physchim62 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

page-move vandalism - needs checking

Robin Williams (talk · contribs) moved some pages and was blocked. However, his page moves seemed somewhat confusing. I hope that I didn't break anything. --Ixfd64 23:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

GreatBarrington is harrassing other users

GreatBarrington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is harrassing other users (see here), saying such things as "I know the Wikipedia rules like the back of my hand, so you should know that I'll never do anything that could allow me to get kicked off" and "You've earned a spot on my watchlist. ... Don't worry---we'll be in touch." (which sounds almost like a threat). I don't know exactly what this person's purpose on Wikipedia is but it certainly doesn't seem to be in good faith. He might be worth keeping an eye on. See the rest of his contribs ... it's pretty much just more of the same, telling people to "watch out". --Cyde Weys 00:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, another user has identified him as a very likely sockpuppet of Theblacklarl. I'd request a Check User, but it's been moving so slowly for awhile now it doesn't seem worth it. --Cyde Weys 00:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the continuing personal attacks [111] [112]he has also continuously taken down his sockpuppet notice [113] (though he's stopped short at violating WP:3RR [114]) and vandalised the user pages of Cyde [115] and myself [116] [117] in retaliation. He has also brought this to this noticeboard himself (see 'This will be short and sweet' below) - why he thinks that further scrutiny will do him any good I can't imagine. --Malthusian (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN

help! we've been hacked! and they deleted our noticeboard to prevent us from organizing a resistance!--Helllo 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I nearly had a cow. Deletion log shows that Sean Black (IIRC) deleted temporarily to remove personal information. With over 16,000 revisions, it'll take him a while. Hermione1980 00:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. For future reference, please try to refrain from deleting pages with large page histories (such as this and George W. Bush); the deletion and restoration causes a huge strain on the servers. Instead, contact a developer directly, who can instead remove the edit from the database directly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Either that, or we might need to stop using large pages that we can't maintain eh? Kim Bruning 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Quiet, you! =) -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also a good note: When the page has far too many revisions to easily undelete, the best move is to undelete the bad revisions first, move them elsewhere, and then delete. Then, you can just undelete all the remaining revisions in one fell swoop. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 22:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for change to archiving

Rather than edit the page to archive it, the (bot?) archiver should move it to the archive name, though not move the talk page; then edit to put back the last week's entries. That way the page will be archived, but the history won't be ridiculously long - David Gerard 08:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the bot archives several days to the same archive page. I suggest, instead, that periodically (once every six months, perhaps), the page be moved to somewhere else (/Historyn) and recreated. --cesarb 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Imposter of me that's vandalizing

Tharealest316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an imposter of me vandalizing at the article NWo. He is an account created from the IP address 24.86.76.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Will someone look into this. File:HIM logo.jpg SWD316 ^{talk to me} 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. And I'll block the IP for vandalising temporarily. Sasquatch t|c 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

BCE/BC lame edit war alert

They're at it again, over at List of monarchs of Kush. I'm off to bed, but if they keep reverting could someone please protect the page (in m:The Wrong Version) and remind them not to do that? Thank you, and good night. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, Chooserr involved. NSLE _(T+C) 08:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Londoneye

I have unblocked Londoneye having consulted with David Gerard, the blocking admin. The evidence for sock-puppetry proved to be insufficient to justify continuing the block (and frankly I was unable to locate it in any case), so we're going to AGF. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe User:Zordrac/Poetlister is the page that contained the investigation about sockpuppetry. -- Netoholic @ 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. On the strength of that page (rampant paranoia on the talk-page notwithstanding), it doesn't look like I've done anything too dreadful, although time will always tell . HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Nrcprm2026

I am currently in an Image for Deletion discussion with Nrcprm2026 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 9 regarding Image:Former BSA.jpg. On discussing copyright issue relating to commentary and parodies, he made an edit to Wikipedia:Logos here, deceptively labeling it as "grammar," but, instead, completely changing the meaning of the sentence.

When I first nominated the image for deletion, he did not assume good faith on my part. He came to my talk page to question my motives; before I could respond, he had removed all deletion tags and struck out my comments on the IfD board for February 9. Based on an edit here and a comment here, he is obviously pushing a very POV agenda here. I hesitate to continue assuming good faith on his part, as I have for the past few hours, given these inflammatory POV edits and their relation to the BSA's stance on homosexuality.

With the combination of inflammatory POV edits and his questionable edit to a Wikipedia policy page, I was wondering if an editor knowledgeable of copyright law take a look at the Image for Deletion discussion. His deceptive editing of the text within a fair use policy page also makes me question his motives. I was also wondering if an administrator could take a look at User:Nrcprm2026's edits and recommend a course of action. I will probably not continue to participate in the IfD discussion tonight. Thanks! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked the paragraph in question, and I think the grammar is now more nearly correct, although there's some complicated sentences in that article: please check that the new wording still says what it should. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you consider this edit to be evidence of "POV pushing". To me it looks like one of the most sensible things anyone has said during this whole fiasco. Maybe there's some context that I'm missing, but I'd urge you to calm down and assume good faith. It's usually a good idea in any case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I assumed good faith for hours, even though his first response to my nomination was: "I am intrigued by the motivation behind your nomination of the image in Template:User former BSA for deletion. What is your opinion on the question of whether gays should be allowed to be scouts?" After his editing of a guideline, I am hesitant to continue doing so. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also stricken one of the diffs I provided; there's no doubt that the first example is that of POV-pushing, however. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The page in question was in a heated edit-war when I got there, with disgruntled students adding unsourced gossip about recent school controversies and experienced editors reverting there work with obtuse and sparse comments. I spent several hours on that article over the past few days, and I stand by the fact that was added to the infobox (as non-disputed and confirmed by secondary sources who were also editors.) It was quickly reverted, and I made no attempt to replace it. The article has been growing steadily, and seems somewhat more stable. As soon as the students find something to say about their faculty, get some better photos, and source their contorversial statments, I intend to remove it from my watchlist. --James S. 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. trademark law

The 1916 Act of congress did not create any copyright interests because the Constitution specifies that copyrights may only be granted for "limited times," and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do not claim any copyrights, using the registered trademark (R) symbol alone in conjunction with their logo, and not the (C) symbol.

U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by nonowners for purposes of criticism and commentary. First Amendment considerations override any expressive, noncommercial use of trademarks. "The Constitution is not offended when the [Maine] antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services. ... The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context." (emphasis added) L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987).

Similarly, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 does not apply to the "noncommercial use" of a famous mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(4)(B). The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose[s] a commercial transaction." Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976).

The only limit on that right is whether someone might think that the commentary was produced by the trademark owner, and this limit is explicity defined in reference to Boy Scouts. "[A]n author certainly would have a First Amendment right to write about the subject of the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts. However, this right is diluted by trademark law insofar as that author cannot present her subject in a manner that confuses or misleads the public into believing, through the use of one or more trademarks, that those organizations have produced or sponsored the work in question." Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1112 at 1121, n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1992.) --James S. 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that this issue is resolved, per my talk page. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --James S. 17:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This will be short and sweet

I am upset because one user keeps on posting a message on my userpage which accuses me of being a sockpuppet. I am (relatively) new to Wikipedia and only recently found out what a sockpuppet is but I am certainly not one. I don't know what to do and don't know what to do to stop this individual. Quite frankly its becoming disturbing. This individual offers no proof but just accusations. Please let me know what to do via messsage through wikipidia preferably. You can see the history of these actions on my user page history. Thank you very much for your time and asisstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatBarrington (talk • contribs)

You can also see why GreatBarrington is being accused by checking his own contributions, or for a quick summary check the 'GreatBarrington is harrassing users' section on this very noticeboard. --Malthusian (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the evidence is strong enough to warrant blocking, myself, but I guess I am very jaded about sockpuppets. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Alexander 007

I've blocked Alexander_007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for personal attacks against User:Theodore7. I'd appreciate review to make sure this was appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

seems appropriate to me. there appears to be a pattern of abuse on Alexander 007's talk page.--Alhutch 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandal's page moves

• Question: What is the proper procedure for rectifying a vandal's page move? I couldn't find any guidance except to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves, which seems too slow.
• Request: The moves in this case, Kip Thorne → Kip Dent → Wohoo legend, need to be undone by an admin.
• Note: these moves, and another incident of vandalism were done by James James (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), who, from the look of his history and talk page, has always been a solid citizen. Likely a third party is on his account. ×Meegs 17:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reversed the page-move vandalism and blocked James_James (talk · contribs) indefinitely pending an explanation; it really does seem as though his account has been compromised. android79 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

When you have a chain of moves such as that, it often works to reverse the chain (if the article was moved a → b → c, you do the moves c → b → a), due to the rules on when moving over a redirect is allowed by the software. I did that in the past, before becoming an admin. When you can't for some reason, asking for help here is probably the best option. --cesarb 19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not try it that way. ×Meegs 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked James James; according to a post on his talk page, he was the victim of a prank. I'll be keeping an eye on his contribs in case this is a ruse by the prankster. android79 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And according to an anon who claims to be the real James James, the apology was made by the person who was actually doing the vandalism. The account has been blocked again. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Basil Rathbone

Pursuant to content disputes on Freemasonry, User:Basil Rathbone has seen fit to repost his uncited and unprovable edits on Freemasonry his userpage, thus violating the policy that userpages are to be about users, and not encyclopedic articles. I would request that the material be removed and a warning issued. MSJapan 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is looking highly likely that this is another sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, blocked from that article by order of Arbcom. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It suuure is, per checkuser. Blocked - David Gerard 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the checkuser evidence available? I was going to add {{SockpuppetProven}} to the userpage when I saw it wasn't already there, but couldn't find the evidence on WP:RFCU. On a tangent, perhaps his personal essay should be removed from the user page per WP:NOT a soapbox. --Malthusian (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence is not made public; it involves IP information that is not publicly disclosed per the privacy policy. It is generally accepted that when a user entrusted with the checkuser function declares the two to be sockpuppets, the community trusts them. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially when stating something which is (a) pretty obvious anyway and (b) exactly what we wanted to hear :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Ewlyahoocom

Help! Lots of page moves, its getting tangled, someone more experienced take a look?

Special:Contributions/Ewlyahoocom

KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for 15 minutes to give someone time to look. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the user's recent changes look to be good faith. I am not sure exactly what they are trying to achieve but perhaps they should be unblocked and a request made for an explaination. Cheers TigerShark 20:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The ones prior to 12:46, 7 February 2006 seem to be made in good faith, at which point they went on a move and merge spree, with 250 edits of which a large number are moves or merges, sometimes several layers deep. I want a second opinion. Some of these are very poor choices IMHO. And one move or merge per minute today? Some of the edits seem reasonable, but as I said I am concerned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no explanation as yet, but apparently decided (after Reverting my revert) to revert themselves... I'm still not terribly happy but it does look like good faith, if non-communicative or consensus, edits. There have been a couple of complaints about the merges also. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction: second revert of move was reverted by 8bitJake. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the user has now responded on their talk page Cheers TigerShark 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More vandals against me

One of my real-life friends gone bad has threated to vandalize Wikipedia. He did previously came here to edit a page under the name User:WoWjUnKiE7290. I confronted him in real-life and he said he made several sock-puppet accounts. One of which is blocked indefinantly. Since my friend is only here to make trouble we should block him indefinantly.

The only known accounts I know he made include:

• WoWjUnKiE7290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fiodinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Does anyone else think they should be blocked permanently? File:HIM logo.jpg SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, his threat to vandalize is just a threat. I don't think it's a good idea to do pre-emptive banning. If he decides to follow through, that's a different story. howcheng {chat} 07:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet whining about being found out by William M. Connolley

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABasil_Rathbone&diff=38743585&oldid=38731436] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Rathbone (talk • contribs)

DMr. Connolley has posted a template about suspected sockpuppetry on that account, with a link to some evidence. I did not examine the evidence, but it seems over the top to label this vandalism. Martinp 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As the edit comment sez: I reverted an edit by SeraphimXI; because I couldn't see on what grounds S was editing that page. Note, FWIW, that Basil and S have managed to get Freemasonry protected (oops sorry, mostly BR not S; note BTW that BR is lightbringer, see DG at the other end of this page... why is this section out of order?). William M. Connolley 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC).

David blocked Rathbone as a sock of Lightbringer, so alls well. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, that was short and sweet. Can I change the title of this section to "Sockpuppet makes false accusations against William M. Connolley? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, Guy - yours was better than my idea. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon user page attacking other editors

I'm peripherally involved in some of the content disputes related to 86.10.231.219 (talk · contribs), so I'd like some outside opinions on how best to handle this. User:86.10.231.219 contains a number of borderline attacks on a number of editors, particularly targeting Midgley (talk · contribs).

In response to my requests, the anon has toned down a few of his remarks, but I still think it falls short of the standards of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF. I don't think that attacks on the integrity of other editors are appropriate for any user page, and I generally believe that IP address user pages belong on a very short leash. Anyway, thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. Anons don't get userpages; they only get talk pages for our convenience. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that he's toned down his remarks, and must note that the page's first edit was an unconscionable personal attack from Midgley (talk · contribs). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That was wrong, but understandable. As Midgley and I commented elsewhere [118], I don't think the attacks have toned down, merely shifted into a more sophisticated form: a kind of filibustering and bombastic needling that's highly disruptive. Here's an example:

At least do me the good grace of finding something that approaches a good criticism and worthy of the attention of my highly attuned and intelligent mind than this attempt at allegations of filibustering. Is that clear enough and specific enough (like all the rest I write)? This is an online encyclopedia. It contains words. If you do not want to read words, there are plenty of other pastimes to choose from. The Invisible Anon 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [119]

Tearlach 12:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, could someone have another glance at User:Whaleto, where there's an even more explicit 'hitlist'? This is another user in the same territory, whose virtually every edit now contains some kind of insult or presumption of bias. It continues despite requests to stop [120] [121] on grounds of the personal attack and good faith guidelines. Obvious the long tedious answer is an RfC, but is he doing anything blatant enough to merit admin attention? Tearlach 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The bias here is breathtaking. The medical editors can get away with anything it seems, so I think I am being remarkably restrained considering they delete at will any external links I put in, also any text, along with attempting to delete most of the pages I create. My "hitlist" is just the log of their activities, as shaming them is the only way to curtail their activity, it seems, as no other editor will do anything. To cap it all they deleted a page I created called Vaccine critics, and merged it into the pejorative termed page Anti-vaccinationists, which is taking the mickey I would have thought. To accuse me of being rude to Midgley when he is making a perjorative page to me is bias, I would have thought. You only have to read his page to see he thinks anti-vax are psychotic (his term), which I am sure he believes. You can't be "arsed" (your term) to look into my complaints, as you know you can't do anything anyway, but it doesn't give me much confidence in your bias. john 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The posting above is persistently untrue:-

• The allegation that anti-vaccinationists is a hijacked page called vaccine_critics has been made repeatedly, and I have pointed out that although there was a previous page called vaccine critics this was deleted. Nothing to do with me. I started the page, [Initial state of anti-vaccinationists].
• and expanded it. adding specificlaly that "a subset of the material shades into the appearance of psychosis" [state of page]. John made an edit to it shortly thereafter [diff], identifying himself by what I've taken as a humourous and even good-natured "Your local psychotic here" which I've made no comment on, nor generally would having not met the patient. There is an example reffered to here with a link on to the New Reformation website (which is actually great fun, and does give an appearance similar to some cardinal signs of psychosis, I write as someone who treats a small number of psychotic patients, and therefore might come from someone psychotic or a group simulating psychosis for their own amusement. (John's writing is not very closely similar, one may have an idée fixée without being mad even in a lay sense)).
• Deleting "his" page and then creating a page on a different topic was not part of a coordinated plan by a coherent group aimed at John. I'm just going to assert that, I can't see how to back it up, other than remarking that the medical editors involved live in different towns, counties, countries and continents, and AFAIK with one exception I don't think I have ever even shared a room with any of the other editors. Technically, vacine critics was not merged into anti-vaccinationists, it was I understand deleted after the usual WP procedure - John often says "delete" when most people would say "edit" or "merge" or "move" or nothing - it is irritating but I assume it is from lack of familiarity with the technology.
• this set of assertions have been repeated by the anonymous IP user referred to above, and by Ombudsman from time to time, despite being demonstrably untrue and that demonstration being provided - they are simply lies, and I object to them. Midgley 11:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems a completely inappropriate use of a user page, particularly one for an anonymous non-password user. I have deleted it and protected against recreation. Physchim62 (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User User:137.92.44.214 on John Howard

User:137.92.44.214 repeatedly inserting unsourced info and personal communications with other editors into the article John Howard, despite multiple messages asking him to stop.

See [122], [123], [124], [125] abakharev 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked (for) now. Shanes 04:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This guy hopped on IRC and chatted with me a bit about this. He claimed to be unaware of the existence of talk pages; I asked him to read WP:NPOV and WP:V before doing any more editing. He may have been editing in good faith, but based on the edits made, I'm rather skeptical. android79 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Lets AGF, perhaps he is a newbie abakharev 11:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ban Wimbo_Jales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

k, thx

Hee hee I beat Curps--Shanel 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gundam Seed Destiny

A user, Danny Lilithborne, has been deleting a large chunk off of the Gundam Seed Destiny section -- mainly, the criticisms section -- presumably due to his favoring the show, as can be seen in his user profile. This threatens the intergrity of the site, as Wikipedia should offer a well-rounded viewpoint on topics and not quash unpopular opinions.Leyviur 06:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and User:Ezeu

User:Ezeu has been verbally abusing other users at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Here is evidence of his behavior:

• [126] - Translation "Damn Danes"
• [127] - Translation "Danish Devils"
• [128] - Removing warning about behavior.

This user is violation WP:POINT and WP:NPA. In addition the attitude is disrupting the process of finding NPOV in the article's talk page. OrangeMan 06:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He apologized, and he didn't actually remove a warning, he just removed the stop-hand image that went with the warning. Please go a little lighter on the hysterics--Alhutch 07:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He apologized only after I dropped this into WP:ANI, and there are no hysterics above, just some notes about a conflict I am not involved in, but was made aware of. OrangeMan 07:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

let's all just calm down. Ezeu has stricken his comments on the Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy page, and admitted he was out of line.--Alhutch 07:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to see this spurred him to do so, which was my intent. As for "cooling down" I don't see anyone getting hysterical but User:Alhutch... OrangeMan 07:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't be any calmer if I tried :-) Alhutch 07:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it with all your calls for "calm down" and "hysterics" I was beginning to worry you were going to blow out your O-Ring on us!! :-) OrangeMan 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that everything appears to be resolved in a satisfactory manner. I suppose the comment about hysterics was sort of hysterical itself, and for that I apologize :-). With all the userbox wars and such these days, I hope we can all stay calm and focus more on writing the encyclopedia. I hope no one's feelings were hurt in this little dispute and I'm glad it was nipped in the bud.--Alhutch 07:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes? OrangeMan 07:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

forget that I said anything about userboxes. You don't want to know!--Alhutch 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:Gaiaonline.png

I've protected and added {{deletedmiscpage}} to this page as since 22 January it's been hit 5 times by a spam bot attempting to add links to other sites (using typical forum syntax markup). Other than this spam bot, the talk page has never been used. What do people recommend doing? Talrias (t | e | c) 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's hilarious, since apparently the spammer is retarded or something along those lines, given the sheer inability to formal url's. (Pardon the crudeness; I'm aware robots can't help being inflexible, but I've always wanted to say that.) Perhaps +sprotect'ing it will do. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiTerrorist

WikiTerrorist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef-blocked by Tony, WikiTerrorist2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped up this morning and immediately vandalised so Tony indef-blocked that as well. Further reincarnations seem likely. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, they've had a unrelenting obsession with the articles I seem involved in, paticulary the Mega Man Zero article. It's very plausible they have a personal vendetta on me, as I researched, and I found they oringinate from my school's IP. I've no doubt they'll return. However, the Socksniffers will be here when that happens. -Zero^Talk 18:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate fountain

Please keep an eye on Chocolate fountain (history · last edit · [[{{subst:TALKSPACE:Chocolate fountain}}:{{subst:PAGENAME:Chocolate fountain}}/Temp|rewrite]]) because someone seems very eager to add a subtle commericial link. I've reached my 3 reverts. Kappa 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism

I suggest that user:65.70.128.137 be blocked, perhaps even permanently. That IP has been blocked before, but since the block was lifted has continually tended to vandalise various pages. Almost none of that IP's edits have been non-vandalism. Check out his edits. Thanks! Wikophile 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• That IP points to Pembroke-Hill School. High schools, in general, have an above average noise-to-signal ratio, but that's not reason enough for a permamant block. – ClockworkSoul 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anittas

anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is fanning the flames of strife again: [129] FeloniousMonk 16:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you calling me a vandal and why are you threatening me on my talkpage? I told you before that I have the right to say that I think that you abuse your tools. Don't you understand that? It is my opinion that I think that you should not be an admin. Recently, you blocked a user for 48-hours for the 3RR; however, that user did not violate that rule and someone else advised you to learn how to count. I think you should apologize for calling me a vandal, or, prove to the community what I have vandalized. --Candide, or Optimism 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ever since the stink you made on the WikiEN-l mailing list over my blocking of you [130] you've campaigned around the project attacking me. [131] [132] Jimbo's warnings to you have made no difference [133] [134] and you've continued to raise the issue in this campaign of yours. A campaign which crossed the line separating the legitimate expression of opinion from harassment long ago [135] and attempts to interfer with my performing my duties. FeloniousMonk 18:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

--{.{vandal|anittas}.}-- What is this supposed to mean? I would like to know why an admin accuses me of being a vandal when I have contributed with articles and other improvements of articles. --Candide, or Optimism 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The {{vandal}} template just generates a set of links that are useful to other admins in assessing the history of a dispute. It does not imply that the user in question is a vandal; it's just the historical name for the template. You can see for yourself what's actually displayed when the template is transcluded. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for the explanation. :) --Candide, or Optimism 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fake block notices

This anon 130.113.226.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is placing notices of non-existent blocks on at least one user talk page [136]. I haven't gone through the entire "contribution" list; one should be enough for a response, given the editor's other conduct [137] [138].

User has been blocked for 31 hours -- he has a history of vandalism anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 18:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:24.186.222.194

User:24.186.222.194 has been linkspamming the Power Tool, Bedding and Shoe articles despite being reverted a number of times. See Special:Contributions/24.186.222.194. He has been warned by User:Kuru. Time to block him. I don't want to violate the 3RR rule. thanks. Luigizanasi 18:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. Thanks. --Golbez 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer sockpuppeting

He came back to be a major POV-pushing PITA on Freemasonry as Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I just blocked him again as PM_GL_PA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have blocked his IP as well to try to stem the flood of socks. Watch out for this one, he acts like he's on a mission - David Gerard 19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sunday_Service (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Braaad

Multiple sock puppets (some already blocked); verbally abusive towards other editors as well as myself; currently enjoying violating WP:NPA and WP:DICK; doesn't care about the open RfC against him; reported to WP:PAIN and WP:CHECK; no useful edits; needs a lesson in civility. McNeight 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Johan Elisson

There was a personal attack on me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive by. All I did was made a simple suggstion in a category then User:Johan Elisson said "Why not just use the common sense you must have hidden somewhere?". Kingjeff 22:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side note, I also had a small problem with him. I think his intentions are good though, but I grant you that his "bedside manner" might need some polishing. In any event, I don't think the attack was serious enough to warrant a block, and after reading the whole exchange it looks like if you both take a step back and remember WP:AGF, everything will be fine. Let me know if you need help. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kingjeff has been repeatedly disrupting that project for some time now and I've blocked him. He has tried to wind Elisson up a few times recently and Elisson has been impressively restrained throughout. CTOAGN (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User:81.76.90.255

Could somebody please have a look at what this IP is doing to the Brentwood School (Brentwood, England) article. Seems to be a combination of vanity and vandalism, but I don't want to keep reverting myself as the distinction isn't clear. Cheers TigerShark 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs to be blocked: 67.109.139.68

This anon's contributions [139] consist almost entirely of changing words to FAGGOT or COCK, etc. Here is one of many examples: [140] He has been formally warned [141] at least once. He needs to be blocked. --AStanhope 00:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The IP address has not edited in a few hours, so a block is not necessary now. In the future, you may wish to bring requests for administrator intervention to the WP:AIV. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Harassment by Cunado19

This guy keeps harassing me. Says I can't delete "negative comments" off my user talk. The rules say I can archive whenever I want to, that's what I did. He just keeps trying to find some new admin to report me to because he doesn't like the way I edit his precious Baha'i pages. Wjhonson 02:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

m:Right to vanish?

What's up with m:Right to vanish? I thought previous discussion here indicated that user talk pages should not be deleted. It appears User:Achille has left the project. He requested speedy deletions of his user and talk pages, both of which were granted. I undeleted the talk page, but carelessly forgot to remove the speedy deletion tag and leave a comment, and the page was deleted again. Shouldn't this be undeleted, even if it is moved to a different account name? Apparently his account has been renamed to User:This user has left wikipedia (which is not an appropriate user name, in my opinion, but that's a different matter). What do others think?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Seeker (talk • contribs) 2006-02-10 21:55:06 (UTC)

While the m:Privacy_policy doesn't clearly support this action, it does leave deletion in the hands of the individual project. Since User:Achille's request was initially granted, it seems appropriate to allow the decision to stand unless the project clearly needs this information for administrative purposes, rather than back-and-forth on it. I don't see an immediate or compelling reason to undelete -- the deleted pages are available to any administrator who needs to review them.

User:Adrian/zap2.js 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you are using a transcluded signature. After the Achille situation with a bot used to modify his formerly transcluded signature two times, isn't this another good reason not to be using transclusion for signatures? NoSeptember ^talk 07:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the other one :) User:Adrian/zap2.js 07:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly encourage others to let this situation go; there were very, very tense moments in the past few days over it that went to the level of involving several individuals who work for the Foundation, as well as the Foundation's legal counsel. This is an issue that needs to be put to rest for the good of all involved. There really isn't anything on the talk page that is important enough to have a rehashing of a very, very difficult situation. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm curious - what is "this situation", why did Achille leave? --Golbez 07:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Essjay made the right call on this one. It's not something that needs to be worried about here :)

User:Adrian/zap2.js 08:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You should realize that saying "it's nothing to worry yourself about" is not the surest way to get someone to not ask a question. So, do we get anything? I see nothing in Achille's (under his new name) history to suggest what's up. --Golbez 08:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I can really do on this one is to refer you to Brad Patrick, Wikimedia's legal counsel; if Brad says it's okay to discuss, then I'll go with that. Until then, I'm not releasing any details other than to say that the situation has been handled at the highest level and that as I understand it, there is no need for further action within the community. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, sirs. As the legal guardian of the bot involved in this process, I had a vague feeling I would soon be summoned into this discussion. Thus I shall come forth right now and clarify that I am completely oblivious as to the motives of our recently departed contributor, and I really don't care to know either. However, I did receive communication from him requesting that I change all the links to point to the alias "This user has left wikipedia" and complied only because I had previously mass-subst'ed his signature template, contrary to his wishes, unaware of the pending name-change, and having believed he had already left the site for good. I might recommend blocking the latter username indefinitely, as it does seem inappropriate to edit from, and I would assume that if he ever does return as an editor it would be under a different name anyway. In any case, let's not mention his name any further, unless he gives us a reason to, i.e. comes back, which seems unlikely. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:51, Feb. 11, 2006

Helpdesk spam bot

The Wikipedia:Help desk seems to be spammed every day with commercial spam. Today it was hit by User:206.75.170.20 who had a long history of spamming. There are other IPs as well. Somehow I doubt very much whether those are real IPs, because the links point to genuine spamming sites, so it is more likely to be open proxies. Dr Debug (Talk) 13:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

IanDavies = Irate

IanDavies (talk · contribs) appears to be Irate (talk · contribs). The provider has changed but the editing pattern and behaviour are identical. I've blocked. He's on a dynamic DSL pool out of Bulldog Manchester, if you suddenly see pissed-off IPs at work - David Gerard 15:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(For a light-duty example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Traditional counties of England and Wales by highest point - note style of personal attacks and typing so fast he leaves out words. When he's really pissed off he leaves out letters - David Gerard 15:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Here he explains a change from "general geographic" name to "traditinal" name with a particularly unusual edit summary. [142]

And here he marks a template for speedy because it is "No existan pov pushing by Owain". [143]

Looking back at his contribs, he started on October 22, shortly after another alter-ego User:Son of Paddy's Ego was blocked on October 17. Looking at his early edits indicates he is no newbie, and he exhibited signs of the pattern right from the start. Apart from a similar pattern of conflict, he also has had a similar editing pattern - see [144] for example. Morwen - Talk 15:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The attacks linked to in this edit are a giveaway, too: [145]. — Matt Crypto 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

More fun on Freemasonry

In the wake of two Lightbringer socks being detected and blocked, I've blocked Sunday Service (talk · contribs) as an obvious sockpuppet or troll. I don't know who of, but you look at that contributions list (it's not long) and imagine any newbie of good will starting their Wikipedia career with that edit summary. I don't bloody think so. Listing here for review/sanity checking - David Gerard 16:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

User12.72.25.181, User:Amplat

This person or persons made a big fat legal threat at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kim Deanda which may cause other Wikipedians to not vote. Ruby 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Request Urgent Help

User 209.215.39.5 aka Wolfin_42 (also signed post as Lisa Trendler) posted a message on Shiloh Shepherd Dog Talk Page [[146]] revealing personal information of other editors and numerous personal attacks on them.

Edit was rv’d by ShenandoahShilohs for violation of Wiki WP:PA and WP:Harrassment policy.

Post was rv’d back by editor Dixen with comment “too late to get self-righteous now”.

Dixen has never posted on Shiloh Shepherd talk page/article previously. I checked Dixen’s other contrbs and found the majority have been made to article “Joomla” User contributions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Found administrator Jareth to be common and frequent mediator/administrator/contributor for both Joomla and Shiloh Shepherd.

Please see: "Hey" on Jareth's talk page: Jareth: "One of my major mediation feats was completely behind the scenes - when Joomla! split off of Mambo, someone thought Wikipedia needed an entry on the new CMS. I did a lot of coaching..." [[147]]

Please see: Jareth's Request for Admin: "One of my favorite mediation feats actually occurred entirely off-wiki -- the community supporting the Joomla! fork of Mambo wrote a page, which was afd'd shortly thereafter for its ad-like quality." Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note, Admin Jareth recently resigned as mediator on Shiloh article, due to conflicts/controversy with other Shiloh editors, and is involved in RFA Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia against them. We find this coincidence, that the common denominator here is the Shiloh Shepherd dog article's former and recently resigned mediator, extremely concerning.

Please block/ban users 209.215.39.5(aka Wolfin42). Please perform check user for Dixen and Jareth. Please monitor Shiloh Shepherd Dog article/talk page for further WP:PA, WP:Harrassment, and and hostile reverts. Please take any/all other necessary actions as warranted.

Thank you. |||Miles.D.||| ^{02-11-2006 18:16 (UTC)}