Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Onefortyone (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 26 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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



    User:Wyss' repeated deletions of other User comments on Talk: Adolf Hitler

    As of this moment, Wyss has deleted my comments three times on Talk:Adolf Hitler and has also deleted the comments of another user, User:CPMcE. The first time round she claimed it was a server error, but after that she began to deliberately remove my comments blanking them out with personal attack removed. This is NOT the first time Wyss has unilaterally removed comments from Talk pages, specifically mine. I will find those links later. For now I think Wyss should be blocked or at least prevented from making further deletions on Talk pages.

    Here are the edits in question:

    1. 1st deletion of my comments
    2. 1st deletion of User:CPMcE's comments
    3. Wyss' excuse: Note, there were server problems and some comments got deleted accidently. Wyss 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    4. 2nd deletion of my comments after her excuse.
    5. 3rd deletion of my comments

    -- Simonides 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think someone can likely correlate the server problems with the times of those diffs. I was pressing save, getting an error message, backing up the browser to return to the edit window, pressing save again, sometimes twice, and this happened maybe three times. I had no idea comments were being deleted. IMHO user:Simonides is attempting to use this as leverage in a little spat we're having about the intro to Adolf Hitler. I'll be away from the article for at least half a day now anyway but if someone wants to help either there or on my talk page... please!!! :) Wyss 03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As with all of Wyss' arguments (evident on the Talk page in question) this is highly disingenuous. Every editor gets an 'Edit Conflict' message when one message is about to be saved over another, particularly if server errors occur between edits - both I and User:CPMcE were editing at the same time and neither of us 'accidentally' deleted others' messages. It is clear that Wyss is using the occasional server glitches to her advantage and will not tolerate any claims of error and wrongdoing (as demonstrated by the above links and her Talk page). -- Simonides 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't the edit conflict message, it was the multilingual server problem message, white background, green letters. It got so bad I stopped editing for around ten minutes, couldn't even see my talk page or watchlist. Wyss 04:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wyss' other Talk page deletions

    On her Talk page, here, Wyss began by making false or conjectural charges against me and trying to shift the blame of her violation on to my edits (as she does above too.) Sadly for her, the admins did not quite see things the same way. In retaliation she prevented me from countering her false claims on her Talk page and characterized all my edits as 'personal attacks', a by now routine modus operandi she uses with several users regardless of her own lack of civility.

    Some of the edits that she deleted, including replies to other editors addressing me:

    And from Talk:Adolf Hitler, once again

    -- Simonides 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Readers will note that every one of those is either a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA which I removed according to WP policy or harassment on my own talk page which I removed with comment in the edit summary. Wyss 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While some of the comments above may have been at heated moments, others were made in good faith and written as dispassionately as possible; some were not even addressed to Wyss. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Simonides' other accusations are rather hollow, the true problem is that I, along with several other editors, don't agree with Simonides about some word choices in the article intro. Wyss 04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    These are two separate issues. Other users I disagree with aren't deleting my comments. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wyss has requested a stop to the mutual disrespect here and I have replied here. If there is any progress I shall remove this incident. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only add that, for reasons best left to the imagination at this point, Simonides has conflated two separate episodes here, the first involving his taunts and personal attacks which I duly removed (and which he was warned about by an admin), the second being a server overload problem which I explained above. I request that this incident report remain here, by the way. Wyss 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • For any reader still interested, here is an independent discussion of the server problem during that same period, by other editors of the same article involved (AH), noting they themselves were having problems with accidently deleting each others' comments. Should I even bother asking why Simonides has yet to concede there were server issues and that I didn't deliberately or even negligently delete user comments? Wyss 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite accurate. While I assume good faith and accept that server problems were to blame, it's not true to say that "they were accidentally deleting each other's comments". None of my edits deleted any other editors comments, and apparently Simonides never "accidentally" deleted anyone elses comments. Only Wyss and Str1977 seemed to have the problem. Perhaps this was due to them being geographically close? Camillus (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wyss has been repeatedly spreading false accusations against me and other users she is in a Pov disput with. I'm still waiting for her to support her claims, which appear to be complete fabrications intended to distract and distrupt honest editing and good faith discussions. Giovanni33 10:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More deletions, defamation

    Once again Wyss has begun to delete comments at will after preventing other users from defending themselves, after defaming them.

    I have no opinion on Wyss' accusation that Giovanni33 is using sockpuppets; a check revealed that he may have used one sockpuppet, but although she twice repeated that he was using others, and a second check proved her accusations to be unsubstantiated, Wyss continued the defamation through innuendo at the section linked above:

    Although a sock check run by Fred Bauder failed to turn up related IPs for these latter two, User:Giovanni33 had already been caught socking with User:Freethinker99 and User:BelindaGong through the identification of related IPs so it can be reasonably assumed that this user found a way to log on through other IP addresses (this is not so hard to do). - Wyss 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    She used this reasoning to remove her block for the violation of 3RR over here. It is clear from that violation that she did not revert Giovanni at any point, did not revert vandalism, and reverted two different users who according to checks are not the same user, according to Fred Bauder:

    This is a continuation of Wyss' attempts to game the system and create an unpleasant atmosphere for editors who do not share her POV. -- Simonides 08:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you considered a user RfC? From a very cursory look at this it seems Wyss has some issues with, for example, describing Hitler as a dictator, which indicates that her viewpoint may be some way off the balance of informed opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dohfast1

    I blocked this editor earlier this evening for a "heinous" personal attack. Thought I should report it here before I turn in. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's actually kind of vague as to whether it's an attack, as it doesn't say "I will" but rather "I would", but it's really the same as what got User:Amorrow banned indef, and I strongly support that, so this can stay, too, IMO. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Death threats posted even in jest are subject to indef block per word of Jimbo.  ALKIVAR™ 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to give the wrong impression. I don't think the block is questionable at all and death threats are a blocking offense. I was just making a small comment. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be useful for a couple of people to keep an eye on Battle of the Wilderness and its talk page, which this person uses to make, uh, announcements: [9]. (He's also declared war on the article George Washington.) FreplySpang (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not really like these noticedboards because things are so easily taken out of content, but this is a subject that I am familiar with. I do not know the user, but I would like you to reconsider you actions. The Battle of the Wilderness was special, even for the American Civil War. It is notable for the horrible casualties suffered. As a historian, it is easy to get lost in that special and extraordinarily violent and gory little world. It is certainly more real than so-called "reality-based" TV. I encourage you to read this product of that afternoon picnic: William Chester Minor. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have chosen to take the rest of my lecture over to Talk:Battle of the Wilderness. I consider this to be a silly boy/girl misunderstanding thing, but the whole "Dohfast1" account is so light and fluffy as to not merit further consideration. AWM -- 68.164.245.60 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block request: User: 68.110.9.62

    S/he keeps adding the "totally disputed" tag to Criticisms of sexual behavior, will not leave a reason on the talk page, and when asked for one, refuses to give any. -Seth Mahoney 22:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This censor who would like to squelch the disputes on the Talk Page of that article, is trying to hold me responsible for the complaints of others. It is plainly clear that he wants to use strong-arm tactics, when all I did was give a disputed tag so others would see the talk page and hopefully resolve it amongst themselves. I have no interest in the material, but I was being polite. Don't allow me to be his whipping boy, his scapegoat. (I don't like S&M) 68.110.9.62 22:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, let's cool it down a bit everyone, mmkay? It's OK to add a "totally disputed" tag when you see other editors questioning an article's merit on its talk page, even if you are not personally involved. Looking at this article, such a thing happened today. Removing such a tag is OK (and not "vandalism") if it appears such feelings have dissipated, which appears to have happened as well. No need for animosity over such silly things. — TheKMantalk 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, this user has also removed comments from his/her talk page six times in the last 12 minutes, which is both vandalism and a violation of WP:3RR, I believe. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And the behavior continues on Criticisms of sexual behavior, even when other editors remove the "totally disputed" tag. -Seth Mahoney 00:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As many editors have mentioned on Talk:Criticisms of sexual behavior, the article is largely crap. I completely understand the anon's insistence on adding {{totallydisputed}}. The opinions expressed on the talk page seem to support its use. However, rather than revert-warring over a silly tag, those involved should instead look for ways to improve the article. Finding references and removing POV language would be a good start. android79 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the article is total crap. This request wasn't about an edit war over a tag or the quality of the article, but about 68.110.9.62's total unwillingess to help get it changed for the better (have a look at our talk pages to see how that attempt went). Instead, s/he just added the tag again and again and refused to give any reason why (if you look on Talk:Criticisms of sexual behavior, there isn't much in the way of current discussion, and the complaints sort of run across the board). If you have comments on how to improve the article, by all means leave them on the page's talk! -Seth Mahoney 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of quality and conformity, templates are added to talkpages, not the articles themselves. I've since moved the templates over to the talkpage where they belong. -ZeroTalk 07:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, no they aren't they go on the article page to inform casual passers by of the issues. The cleanup tag contains the wording "See rationale on the talk page," which gives a fair indication that it isn't a talk page template. I've moved them back. --pgk(talk) 07:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because I myself don't want to be involved in editing what I deem a worthless and unsaveable article, does not mean the tags and the other expressions of concern are unworthy. My actions were all for their benefit anyways. 68.110.9.62 15:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Said user has just left a courteously written but nasty personal attack on my user talk page. [10] David | Talk 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I get sick of pukes like him pushing their POV about on the Wikipedia. Some people think they are so holy in their mission of infamy, but he was to know that his actions offended me. 68.110.9.62 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.141.107.144

    71.141.107.144 (talk · contribs) An admitted sock puppet of Amorrow/Andysocky/Fplay/Emact, continuing his harrassment of Ann Heneghan. I have blocked for a month. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He also used 71.140.39.89 (talk · contribs) for the same purpose. I only banned it for a day (didn't read this page first...) but it can be extended as needed. - Nunh-huh 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    looks like we got another USer:68.122.73.143.Geni 18:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And probably 69.124.142.231 (talk · contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 21:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PatentAtty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Geni: It is conventional to spell that "User", not "USer". But hey! Talk about the pot callnig the kettle blakc (deliberate typo for humour value). Anyway, I am working on a comprehensive "rap sheet" of myself for you all at http://home.earthlink.net/~amorrow/wiki_rap.html . Come and get me. Toro, toro! Olé. -- 68.122.118.161 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mais oui! and Scottish counties

    User:Mais oui! is running a campaign to obfuscate and remove references to Scottish counties from Wikipedia.

    Page movings

    As can be seen here: [11] the Morayshire article was unilaterally moved to "Moray (county)" with no discussion, and then the redirect page was deliberately edited to prevent anyone easily moving it back. The same user tried to move the page in the past but it was quickly moved back. This time though requires sysop intervention due to the underhand tactics employed.

    Revert wars

    [12] and [13]

    Category deletions

    Category:Cromartyshire was nominated for deletion in July 2005 but was kept.

    Category:Banffshire, Category:Cromartyshire, Category:Inverness-shire,Category:Kincardineshire, Category:Nairnshire, Category:Peeblesshire, Category:Ross-shire, Category:Roxburghshire, Category:Stirlingshire, Category:Wigtownshire have all recently been deleted because User:Mais oui! went around all the articles removing the categories so there were no articles left and then nominating them for speedy deletion with no disucssion. This is clearly PoV-pushing and likely to be interpreted as vandalism. Owain (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    With Moray (county), I'm not sure about )Na h-Eileanan Siar redirects to Western Isles and other Scottish counties use their Anglified names). But you were edit warring, and it was a violation of 3RR. Sceptre (Talk) 10:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, all the Scottish county articles used the anglified names until Mais oui! decided to unilaterally move Morayshire with no discussion and then edit the redirect page so that it couldn't easily be moved back! Surely the policy on the English-language wikipedia is to use "anglified" names for articles? I have no problem with the other name, but the redirect should be the other way around with Morayshire being the real article name. Owain (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User Box deletion

    The one man one women box, along with the pro-life box were deleted. So was the Pc box (although I can't remember too much about that one). There was hardly time for a deletion vote either, so I believe some admin over stepped his power. I'm not sure how to find information on this because the history was deleted, but if anyone can this user should be banned. Chooserr 19:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Try WP:RFC, since what you are describing is more of a possibly mis-use of administrator powers, and only admins can delete stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 19:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just some stupid userboxes. Go write some articles or something. android79 22:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIV.Geni 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The template was twice tagged for speedy deletion (T1 criteria) yesterday; first by Doc glasgow and then by Dbiv. It was actually deleted by Physchim62. I don't see anything unusual here; stuff gets speedy deleted all the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What templates were they? I looked at some of the templates that are on DRV, and I could see why they got speedied. IMHO, if we cannot keep templates that say I support/dislike GWB, then similar templates refering to a different leader, like Blair, Chavez, Putin, etc, should also not be kept in order to be fair and to be consistant. Though, the wording of T1 of the CSD sounds pretty odd. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 03:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment we have a serious problem with T1. It is being used as a battering ram by those who dislike userboxes with a passion to speedy delete too many things. The problem with T1 is not particularly the concept it represents. There are userboxes that are divisive and need to go. However T1 is written in such a way that it is broad in extent, vague in application and open to many different interpretations. Until those are fixed I don't believe that it should be a valid speedy deletion criterion. David Newton 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP: 24.233.53.70

    This user has repeatedly vandalized pages, including Bloods, Tom Cruise, and Stanley Williams. [[14]]

    IP: 84.35.72.183

    This user has been link spamming many articles about parrots with a non-relavent website. Could someone please look at reverting their edits. --Martyman-(talk) 08:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, that was link spamming, I have reverted all parrot articles and left a note on their talk page. Tawker 08:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :) <-Mahomet Lapinmies 18:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hogeye

    User:Hogeye currently on one-month ban, evading ban: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Hogeye.

    Not only that, but he has made a bogus account to impersonate me InfinityO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and make bogus edits.

    Infinity0 talk 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked Volt987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The others had already been indefinitely blocked. Chick Bowen 19:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is known for using open proxies for his block evasions. Perhaps doing a checkuser on these usernames and blocking any open proxies found would be a good idea. --cesarb 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zephram Stark sockpuppet? (Just a hunch)

    This is just a hunch, so I apologize in advance to this user if I am wrong. User:Zephram Stark has created around 13 sockpuppets since his ban in November 2005. His usual policy is to create a new one shortly after his latest has been banned. By my count (see here) his last was on Feb 1, 1006. Now, consider Santa Sangre (talk · contribs), whose account was created on Feb 1 after the last one was banned. This user hasn't been disruptive, as far as I can tell. He mainly does minor edits. However, he does seem to have similar interests as Zephram. See this edit, at inalienable rights which Zephram and his various sockpuppets has been obsessed with for some time. Just like Zephram, he has an interest in philisophical discussion (See here). Santa Sangre has also contributed to articles related to terrorism (which was what got Zephram banned in the first place): Hamas and Osama bin Laden. So, I can't really prove this is the same person, but I just wanted to point it out, maybe someone can keep an eye on this user, or run a checkuser on him. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.92.21.253 adding personal attack sites to bio page

    Lana Robbins, posting from ip address 24.92.21.253, is continuing to add a link to a personal blog of hers attacking Kenneth R. Conklin.

    Could an administrator please give her a warning, and block her if she continues?

    Thank you!

    --JereKrischel 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. Chick Bowen 23:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now blocked this user for 24 hours for making a legal threat at the user's talk page. I would ask other admins to review. Thank you. Chick Bowen 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm actually dubious of blocking a newbie over a legal threat without warning them first, Chris; I don't see how they could know it's regarded as an offense. Bishonen | 美少年 19:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Sam Spade's RfA

    User:SqueakBox removed my comment on this page as trolling and a personal attack. I object to both characterizations, and feel that I have a perfectly legitimate right to comment on Support votes as much as Jack's supporters have to comment on Oppose votes. My comments are NOT trolling, nor are they a personal attack, and any user who removes other people's discussion page comments should be blocked for doing so. I will not block anyone for doing this again, but another admin should. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree completely with Zoe, that was never a personal attack. I'll not be the one to block anybody to escalate this conflict, but I'd like to record my view that removing that comment, out of all the things said on Sam's RFA, was just weird. And I ask everybody to please not remove even real personal attacks, if remove them you must, in that invisible way. Other people have a right to know something was there, so please replace it by a <personal attack removed> plus a link to the original, so people can click to judge for themselves if they want. Please. Bishonen | 美少年 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Personally, I think nobody should comment on any vote in an RfA. If you have a comment about a vote, make it on the RfA talk subpage or to the voter directly on his/her user talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm puzzled why SqueakBox chose to remove something that doesn't even appear to be a personal attack, when there are other, far more inflammatory statements on the page. android79 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Help Desk mailing list

    There were several people who spent a great deal of time and effort working through the hundreds of emails sent to the Help Desk mailing list every day, solely because of our interest in helping Wikipedia. Then out of the blue, without a SINGLE warning, it was decided by someone who was NOT involved in the mailing list, that the list would be discontinued. Thanks for the slap in the face to those of us who were regular participants. And then we're told, "If you're interested in working on the other list" whatever other list that is, "please contact sannse or Mindspillage by email". So I did both, and got not a single response until I posted on their Talk pages, at which point I am told, "no thanks, we don't want you." Well, fine, have fun, I no longer feel the need to help Wikipedia in that way again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Look on the bright side no longer will we have to wake up to inboxes with 100 emails in and I wont suddenly find myself trying to comunicate with uk.wikipedia.Geni 00:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And there I was for a fleeting instant hoping that ukwiki meant a Wiki written in Proper English. Oh well. -Splashtalk 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I set the record absolutely clear on this? For one thing, the failure of helpdesk-l to meet its intended goals has been discussed on wikipedia-l and foundation-l several times. I sent one notice to helpdesk-l roughly a week before it was scheduled to close, and got no complaints, and one more a day before, to which Zoe responded and someone else answered. No, I hadn't participated in the helpdesk-l list; I did, however, subscribe to it as did several people who were discussing it. Where I do participate (and where I have answered well over 2000 messages) is on OTRS, which was intended to be the venue for confidential and delicate requests.

    We took several people from the old helpdesk-l who had been actively giving helpful answers and then decided not to accept any further requests. Yes, it is limited access, because this is mail coming from an official @wikimedia.org address and handling things poorly would be detrimental. The two of us decided it would be best to take only a few new people at a time (yes, some were from helpdesk-l) so that we could keep watch over things, and expand only as needed. The mail desk is not the wiki. It's the official address for private complaints and requests that people cannot ask on the wiki (though a lot of misdirected requests do end up there); people send sensitive and confidential information, including notices of potential legal action, and I'd rather be too cautious than too hasty. Yes, any further requests now will be hung on to until we decide if anyone else is needed, but people do burn out, so we do draw from that list.

    It's not a slap in the face: we simply cannot take everyone who asks, and I'm sorry if anyone feels insulted by it. It's in no way intended to slight the work that people did do (and thanks to everyone for that), simply a recognition that that way it was done wasn't working. (Why it wasn't working is another post, a long one, and not really a topic for AN:I; I'll dig up the links to the mailing list posts about it if it's wanted, though.) If you'd like to help others still, there are plenty of places on the wiki where that's wanted and needed. Zoe, my response to you was intended to be courteous, and I'm sorry that I didn't get to it immediately; my statement that I have been somewhat backlogged is a truthful one, and I'm sorry if you took that as a slight. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't subscribe to foundation-l, and I avoid wikipedia-l as a cesspool. A discussion, a very BRIEF discussion even, on helpdesk-l would have been the appropriate place. One fait accompli announcement that helpdesk-l was being dropped without input from those participating, and then rejection to those who were doing the work there because we're not good enough to sully your little fiefdom is definitely a slap in the face. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Uir

    Apparent reincarnation of User:Dante26, whose raison d'etre is to get us to block him so as to institute a DOS attack on AOL accounts. Please keep an eye on any collateral damage and unblock all anons hit by this block. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's up to developers to solve this problem, not admins. Is autoblocking an AOL IP address for 24 hours a good idea? If not, why does the software do it? -- Curps 09:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Liberty Dollar

    User:BrianGCrawfordMA is engaging in major POV-pushing on this article ([15]), which he has also nominated for deletion. He claims he desires to "hurt this article as much as it has hurt [him]". Kurt Weber 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia administrators can delete pages, merge histories, block users, and protect pages. Which of these are you asking us to do, uand under which policy? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, nothing. Just giving a heads-up to potential trouble brewing. I'm trying to settle the dispute diplomatically, but if that fails (and, unfortunately, I can't help but think it will fail), protection might be in order. It hasn't turned into anything yet, but it's certainly likely to. Kurt Weber 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and not this page, to request page protection. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming and vandalism after block

    Boycottthecaf is back and link spamming after being blocked for 30 days after I reported this [16] and he got a block User talk:Boycottthecaf but has come back on Degrassi: The Next Generation under the IP User talk:207.200.116.139 and is continuing to spam his link for his website (that is not appropriate) [17] SirGrant 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll let a Meta admin know so that site can go on the blacklist. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    K thanks, just curious what happens if a site goes on the blacklist, I'm semi-new to wikipedia so I don't know all the terms, thanks SirGrant 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Any edit containing that URL will be rejected on any Wikimedia wiki. —bbatsell ¿? 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gastrich Socks

    Can someone PLEASE put an end to Gastrich's pattern of serial sockpuppetry? How in the hell has the current CVU allowed Gastrich's BigBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account to make 19 edits, all of which are policy-violating vandalism, or removal of sockpuppet notices? Hexagonal 03:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He does seem to be a growing problem: here is the latest: JLATLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think a lot of us weren't aware of this person until very recently, but now he's showing up a lot when I RC patrol. Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. He's been at this a long time. And now he's at it again. Persistant little bugger. --DanielCD 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't been mentioned so I will. There is an active arbitration case against Jason and people are welcome to give evidence. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up! Here is another one, just came alive- User:Barry Hatchett. JoshuaZ 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And here's another one that needs blocking: User:Mary_Smith. JoshuaZ 02:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    jiang and nlu not capable of being admins

    jiang apparently has been makin biased reverts and edits especially regarding taiwan-china relation issue such as taiwanese independence. he also post images on his talk page provoking racism and hate toward certain ethnic group. Nlu has been blocking and warning users without proofs and didn't follow NPOV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freestyle.king (talk • contribs) .

    Can you give specific examples? Chick Bowen 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Freestyle.king seems to be in a content dispute with jiang and made some personal attacks, for which he was appropriately warned. Nlu then blocked him when he continued to make said attacks, and now he has an issue with being blocked. In my view, just any other troll. NSLE (T+C) at 05:42 UTC (2006-02-20)

    in response to chick bowen, check out jiang's "talk page" and tell me if it is racist or not??? and in response to NLSE, don't make comment if you don't understand the situation here. i didn't even sign on that day when Nlu blocked me so therefore i didn't edit nothin. you kno what i mean???--Freestyle.king 06:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He's continued. I'm going to block again. --Nlu (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Supported. NSLE (T+C) at 06:41 UTC (2006-02-20) 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To explain the situation further -- in addition to the content dispute over such articles as Taiwanese American, Freestyle.king had a major problem with images of a man that Jiang has on his user page and his user talk page, as the man wears a sign that heavily attacks the Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian (whom Freestyle.king apparently supports). Jiang explained to him that he did not agree with the man's message. Freestyle.king was not satisfied and launched personal attacks. (Incidentally, I do not agree with the removal of an anti-Jiang image that he placed on his user talk page by another admin, but I understand the reasoning.) Freestyle.king was clearly not willing to listen to reason and continued personal attacks, and that's why I blocked him. It's a shame, as he appeared capable of productive edits, but with all the personal attacks blocking is needed, I think. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC) what kind of personal attackz did i make?? can you give specific examplez?? the only personal attack i made is on my own talk page which NPOV doesnt apply. plus the image contains the content taiwanese=shame which is totally unacceptable on a public talk page no matter what the rule is, it is an anti-taiwanese message--Freestyle.king 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll let your contribution summary speak for itself. Others can make that judgment. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dtasripin and civility

    User:Dtasripin, at least from my view, has continued to use uncivil and needlessly uncivil language ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) despite being advised against this by myself and others, and previously being blocked for personal attacks by Demi. It might be helpful if someone who wasn't involved in the userbox issue at all have a word with him, as he seems to reject any advice, regardless of the spirit in which it is given, from people who disagree with him. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Parham, you're a real piece of work. I call admins out on what they have objectively done which is act as rogues against consensus and established precedent, who are acting in an inflammatory and divisive way - and you think that's a personal attack? Sorry, but if people can't take criticism, then they should not take actions they know will incite criticism.
    But perhaps I should not expect anything like justice from someone who has continuously harassed me for simply stating my opinion where it is has been solicited. --Daniel 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's done nothing wrong. He is right about userboxes, too. Эйрон Кинни 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think userboxes have anything to do with the issue at hand here. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree; it has nothing to do with the userboxes at all, it is the way he treated other Wikipedians in the above edits. He already has been warned before about such behavior, and he should at least done down the language. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, you're looking the other way at the fact that somehow these warnings just so happen to always come from people who have a vested interest in having me silenced so they can get away with taking some action without being taken into account. Just because the threat in these people's "Shut up, or else!" vandalism of my Talk Page happens to be an admin's block instead of a back alley kneecapping doesn't make it any less an attempt to shut me up for speaking my mind. --Daniel 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is trying to "silence" you. All I'm trying to do is get you to be polite and civil. That's really not a lot to ask. As I told you in the warning that you deleted from your talk page, you are welcome to express your opinion, but there is no need to be rude.--Alhutch 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You should tell your friend Mark Sweep that there is no need to be rude, and maybe he should stop mass deleting userboxes in an attempt to "win" the userbox argument by a fait accompli. --Daniel 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, calm down, relax, and take a nice, deep breath. You can still oppose the deletion of the userboxes but, as below, try not to use words like "racist" and attack other editors. No one is trying to silence you, we all just want you to just be civil. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do people think I'm not calm? I'm as cool as a cucumber on this issue, given that I have been subject to continuous harassment by people for simply sharing my own honest opinion. And yes, that honest opinion is that a lot of the userbox deletionists are using messed up, racist arguments. --Daniel 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This and this are clearly out of line. I would push for a block for CIVIL/NPA violation. Physchim62 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No Psych, with your sheer willingness to destroy userboxes in one fell swoop, without any process, you're out of order. Proof of that is the sheer number of people in the WP:DRV userbox debates, who are calling for you to be disciplined. --Daniel 18:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't block for CIV/NPA violations.Geni 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    this is from the Disruption section of the blocking policy: "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked." He's been warned many times.--Alhutch 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    However wikipedia appears to be functioning fine so I don't see an issue.Geni 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I have done none of the above, 'hutch, and you should know that by now. None of my comments went outside the matter at hand. Criticism is not personal attack, and if you take it that way then you shouldn't be on a place that prides itself on "editing without mercy."
    I live in the Bronx - if I wanted to make a personal attack, I would definitely not stop at saying that you acted like a honcho. As for the rest of that garbage - so save your broad paint brush for a fence.
    As for the warnings, I'll say for the record that I have never received one from a disinterested, neutral party. It has almost always come from some person who had their own personal axe to grind. They leave threats that if I don't stop criticising them that I will be blocked. Those threats have been deleted as quickly as I have been able to, because I don't need to listen to whining, and I definitely don't stand for being threatened or bullied for simply having an opinion.
    Now that that's aside, hutch, why don't you explain why you're really here - which is apparently payback for my participation in the RFC on your buddy Mark Sweep? --Daniel 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't have any problem with you other than you repeatedly calling me and other admins "honcho". I asked you nicely several times not to do that, and then you went and did it again. I am not trying to get revenge on you, I'm not trying to silence you. I welcome you voicing your opinion. I think that it's important that you voice your opinion in a way that is not rude or incivil. I stood up for MarkSweep because I felt that he was being unnecessarily and wrongly accused, and I would do it again. If you were being wrongly accused of something, I would stand up for you too. The present matter has nothing to do with that. I am not holding a grudge against you. I am simply asking you to try not to be rude to other users, including calling people "honcho". That's all.--Alhutch 21:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    THe only edit from the above which is out of line is the last (re: Kelly Martin). And even that pales in comparison to some of the attacks that have come from other users. This is not blockable. Warning him for saying that a template is not divisive or inflammatory is silly. ... aa:talk 19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not advocating a block, either, I just want him to understand that requests for him to be more civil and assume good faith aren't merely coming from those who disagree with him in a specific debate in which he appears to have a lot invested. While I can accept that he doesn't want my particular guidance, he needs to hear the message and understand that civility is taken seriously. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you're not advocating any action be taken, perhaps it's because you can't prove a damned thing, and you're wasting my time (as well as others') for nothing other than an ego trip. This is the height of harassment, plain and simple, and now that you've brought it to the point where you are disrupting the functioning of the admin's noticeboard, I hope someone has the good sense to remind you not to waste all of our time with a WP:POINT. --Daniel 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that I don't appreciate being accused of racism so glibly. An apology would be appreciated. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Canadian schools can't control their kids

    Recently, after a spate of vandalism, 198.20.32.254 was blocked for one week. This IP address is shared by about 50 schools in London, Ontario. One user has requested unblocking citing the inability of teachers to make good edits. What should be done? A look at the talk page shows what a problem it has been in terms of persistent vandalism. David | Talk 15:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It would appear from the history there that the teachers need to supervise what their students are doing - that is part of their job. As there is obviously a lack of supervision, leave it blocked. I speak as a teacher who has dealt with minor vandalism from my school IP. If the teachers want to contribute then they must control their students, it's quite as simple as that. Vsmith 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you propose a teacher supervise the children in the other 49 schools that share their IP?
    The students at all the affected schools should be supervised well enough that vandalism is nearly nonexistant. Yes, I realize that's a very naive position to take, but if students and teachers want unfettered access to Wikipedia editing, they need better controls in place, which should probably include a more sensible network proxy scheme, but I digress. android79 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We usually try to keep blocks on shared IP's like that as short as possible. But I'm getting tired myself of all the school vandalism and won't object at all if the block stays for a week. At least that should help in making all the teachers they claim are editing aware of the problem. Though, if the blocking admin starts geting mails from good users now being blocked I would reconsider and unblock, and put a note about it on the talk page. Shanes 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reduce the block to end at the end of the school day, and keep blocking if vandalism continues, but keep the blocks short. android79 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This is the most sensible course of action. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded. The amount of vandalism we get from this IP isn't anything we can't handle. Not to mention the fact that it is localized to this IP will make monitoring easier. -Loren 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we are supposed to keep shared blocks short but if vandalism from this IP continues endlessly then ban until 15 July, 2006 which will take care of any vandalism from that IP for the rest of the school year. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I don't see a need for people to edit during school time. If kids need to research, they can research. I tend to just block schools first and see if any good users actually complain later (if they do, then unblock). Sasquatch t|c 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sasquatch. If there are legitimate users, they can request unblocks, and we always grant them if they are requested. --Nlu (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Every school will have unruly students. Every ISP that uses proxies will have some vandal users. What we really need is a software change, so that established users are immune from IP blocks or autoblocks. An "established user" would be any user account that's demonstrably not a throwaway account (ie, some minimal evidence of sustained human non-bot non-automated effort). -- Curps 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Like bugzilla:3706? --cesarb 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP is very likely one of many sockpuppets of User:Repartee. There is a request for checkuser for them. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    vandalism from User:66.99.190.2

    A little help, please? [23] ... aa:talk 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He seems to have gotten the message after your warning. If he persists, report it to WP:AIV, along with any other vandalism reports you would like to make in the future. Thanks! android79 17:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chadbryant

    I tried contacting Peruvianllama about this matter a little while earlier since he had dealt with this user in the past, and his contributions show him as not being around here recently. A little background info:

    User:PyterTaravitch was a troll account created by an unknown user. Evidence I cited in this edit [24] showed why I believed that the account was a sockpuppet of Chadbryant. Chad would go onto blank the page [25] and then add in his own accusations about whose sockpuppet the account was [26]. Peruvianllama then came along and posted a compromised version [27] which stayed in place for a whole 9 days before Chadbryant deleted the part that was against him [28].

    Rather than get into a whole new edit war with Chadbryant, on User talk:Peruvianllama#Chadbryant's return I tried to bring the matter to Peruvianllama's attention, and in the middle of that Chadbryant showed up and threw out a personal attack [29]. He also made a personal attack against another user, User:TruthCrusader, on this page [30]. This isn't the first time Chadbryant has acted like this. His contributions showcase dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of personal attacks and trolling tactics.

    Also, Chadbryant has been calling User:TruthCrusader by a name which he believes is TruthCrusader's. The name he is calling him is Stephen Signorelli [31] [32] [33]. TruthCrusader has said that Stephen Signorelli is not his name and has asked Chadbryant to stop calling him by that name. Chadbryant has refused and still persists in doing so. This violates WP:HAR, which states, ""Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." Whether the name is correct or not is irrelevant, according to the policy.

    Any help on this matter would be much appreciated. Thanks. tv316 21:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    To add to the above, the discussion on User talk:Peruvianllama was moving along and Chadbryant just resorted to making more personal attacks [34]. He attacked me for what I chose as my username and insulted my credibility as a person worthy enough to debate him. He claims that he's here to contribute in a positive manner, but then he goes and personally attacks people and tries to discredit their views and attempt to make them look inferior. My response to him on Peruvianllama's talk page was civil and non hostile. He proceeded to reply and break the WP:CIVIL policy, among others. He then resorts to a common troll tactic of saying I'm obsessed with him and are harassing him for pointing out why I disagree with his views. tv316 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. Physchim62 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I wish to add that Mr. Bryant has been throwing the 'Stephen Signorelli' name around at me since I arrived to Wikiepdia and quite frankly, I am amazed NO ONE has done a thing about what appears to be one of the worst kinds of harrassment you can commit on this site. I have asked him dozens of times to stop calling me this, several admins have told him to stop this, and he resues to do so. I have tried to be civil with him, I even reverted vandalism to his user page on occasion. I will be prefectly honest, I feel personally that he should be banned from Wikipedia, if not forever, than for a minimum of at least 6 months. TruthCrusader 23:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chadbryant himself has been the target of a relentless campaign of personal attacks from various sockpuppets over many months. It has been suggested to you many, many times that you take your various issues to dispute resolution including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration instead of carrying on feuding like some over-the-top wrestling storyline played out on the pages of Wikipedia. -- Curps 09:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to take the attitude that a serious case of harrassment is no more important than some wrestling storyline. Noted. I am trying to avoid arbitration for several reasons. I wish to try and settle this maturely (which Chad doesn't seem capable of), I do not wish to open up Wiki to more sockpuppet attacks from Chad detractors/supporters, and to be honest I sincerely doubt that Mr. Bryant would agree to arbitration in any event.

    TruthCrusader 16:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it really Arbitration Committee material if it's just a bunch of blatant personal attacks and revert wars for obvious reasons? I have never targeted and stalked Chadbryant relentlessly with sockpuppets or personal attacks, yet he feels the need to continually make personal attacks against me for of all things, my username. Also, whenever I make a point in the argument, he changes the subject and finds a new way to insult me. I was never a part of his newsgroup war and my first encounter with him was on the WWE Undisputed Championship page. There's a small part of me that would understand the attacks against people who may have trolled against him in the past, but I never have. Just because I had an content dispute with him, I guess he had some sort of flashback and viewed me as a new troll just because I didn't agree with him. That type of behaviour should not be allowed. If Sean and John don't like each other and John sprays Sean with a water gun, can Sean then go to the mall and spray random people with a water gun just because he once was a victim of a water gun attack? It's absurd.
    Also, I'm not trying to have some sort of wrestling feud with Chadbryant. I'm trying to help with this project and false information about whose sock it is takes away from it. I admit that there's a small chance that the User:PyterTaravitch sock isn't Chad's, but we don't know if it's Chad's, Truth's, Cain's, mine, yours, etc. Evidence points to Chad and his evidence points to Cain. We should leave it with both. So, when he goes and changes it, I have to go in and find a way to stop him from spreading falsehood.
    I thought Arbitration Committee was just for the top of the top of disputes. I don't know if this qualifies. This seems like an Admin Noticeboard 'Post it as it happens' incident. tv316 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:-Inanna-

    -Inanna- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked many times for 3RR, incivility, and block evasion. I blocked her a few minutes ago for blanking pages, and she immediately logged out and logged in again on a new IP, 81.213.103.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). As you can see from the contribs, she doesn't really hide the block evasion, since she enters into conversations she has already been engaged in under her own name. I don't think I can keep up with her if she keeps changing IPs, and I have to leave in a few minutes anyway. Other admins are advised to keep an eye on the situation. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now using 81.213.101.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Khoikhoi 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Now I really do have to go, though. Best of luck! Chick Bowen 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. --Khoikhoi 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calmouk

    Due to his/her intransigence and transparent political agenda, I am requesting that Calmouk be permanently blocked from the article on the Kalmyk people. In furtherance of his/her agenda, Calmouk has violated NPOV on numerous occassions and has resorted to sabotaging the efforts of others. Calmouk is now soliciting votes from his/her friends at his/her web site:

    http://forum.freekalmykia.org/lofiversion/index.php/t52.html

    Thanks.--Buzava 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't block somebody from editing a particular article without approval from the Arbitration Committee. You'll need to file a Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration, but in general, a Wikipedia:Request for Comment should come first. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Servers

    I don't want to bug anyone, but are the servers about to die or something, past few weeks some really bad lurches, database failures, and now today's server performance, it's like editing through pea soup, have to resubmit a half dozen times to get anything past the server lag--152.163.100.65 02:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marcosantezana

    marcosantezana (talk · contribs) was brought to my attention for violating the 3RR. Given the circumstance I chose to warn him. He responded to my warning with an impolite reply where he asserted entitlement based on his correctness. I also noticed an incivil statement on Talk:Natural selection. I explained the 3rr again and asked him to remain civil [35]. His response was interesting, he left a rude remark on my talk page, although he also removed the rude comment from Talk:Natural selection. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. Advice is most welcome. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Yet another wiki cheese-ology vandal

    Attacks wiki with articles with varying titles that all contain the text:

    YOU SMELL LIKE TEH WIKI-CHEESE!!!!!~TEH LOLZ!

    Bobby1011 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vowch

    Another wiki cheese vandal.

    -- Samir ∙ TC 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Striver

    User:Striver seems to be outraged about my request for deletion for several of his articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim athletes). As a result, he has decided to add unrelated articles to the request in an attempt to prove that my request is misguided. Although I understand anyone can append to a request for deletion, Striver is clearly doing it for malicious purposes. I have told him to stop several times, but he continues to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate his point. Cleaning up the damage done would require not only removing his additions, but going to each individual article he has added to the request for deletion and removing the errant request for deletion template. I think he needs to be blocked (at least from that page) to give him some time to cool down and stop what has now become vandalism. joturner 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • As far as I can see, the VfD is heading in the right direction (in the sense that, at least to me, Striver's additional nominations are not taken into consideration during voting). I'll bring this issue to Striver's talkpage first. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ology

    The wiki cheese guy again. -- Samir ∙ TC 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkSweep

    Has anybody else seen a pattern of rashness in MarkSweep's actions lately? I do not include participation in the Userbox War (in which I am neutral, having none); but in the last few days I have seen him:

    This is not a collegial spirit, or the behavior one expects of an admin. I bring it here because he has consistently dismissed or ignored all protests on these matters. (Mine have been limited to the last, and least important item, and if the edit summary did not reveal a contempt for consensus, I would not mention it.) Septentrionalis 05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of me applauds him for getting rid of so much BS. On the other hand...his attitude as of late has gone down, such as indirectly attacking God of War because of his essay (which was kind of trollish though). The "last warning" message were not helpful either. He likely needs a short wiki-break.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, back up there, and back up your claims: several closures on DRV? I can see one, not very recent (February 4), I don't even know why it's still listed. I don't see why I can't "quarrel" on my talk page. Have you seen what people have posted there lately? [36] Where did I systematically change Babel boxes??? I like the regular Babel boxes, they're very useful. However, some of them (no more than a dozen) have crossed over into the realm of the polemical, adopting an ill-informed and condescending stance towards various dialects. Those need to be changed. And regarding Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents, if you check the history of those articles, you'll see that I'm not the only one who thinks they shouldn't be so categorized. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone, using MarkSweep's account, performed this alteration, cramming in an English translation into the userbox; this was the latest of a couple dozen edits in a row, all of which seem to be making the same change. I see no evidence of discussion of such a proposal anywhere, including the talk page of the templates.
    • Emptying a category on CfD is improper; any admin should know better. Some users have been removing from one or the other of the articles in the cat; only MarkSweep has been systematically emptying it AFAICS.
    • I believe that checking the logs will turn up some other DRV of closures by Mark.
    But I am not seeking retribution for what he has done; will he not do it in the future? Septentrionalis 20:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That "someone" was me, and if you had checked the diffs [37] you would have noticed that nothing was changed on the surface. All I did was subst a few doubly-indirected templates. Where did you get the idea that trivial changes like this need to be discussed first? Second, the category is silly, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Third, "I believe that checking the logs will turn up [something]" is passive-aggressive nonsense. Tell me specifically what you think is amiss, don't make any hand-wavy accusations. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KDRGibby

    This user was the subject of a recently closed arbitration case [38], in which he narrowly escaped a ban for disruptive and abusive behavior but was put on personal attack parole and probation. [39]

    Just 3 days after being unblocked (he had been blocked for a week shortly before the close of the arbitration case, then unblocked early in order to be given a second - or 1567th - chance [40]), KDRGibby made this comment on Talk:Classical liberalism:

    Like what? From our last conversation it seemed you tended to favor a host of centralization programs, social programs, and trade barriers that original liberals would have found to be anti-freedom and anti-individual. Please explain what a European liberal is like now? Because after talking with you it appears that European liberals don't hold on to the true meaning. Especially since you conflate minimal government interference with having a government that cannot punish cartels or break up monopolies (Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please). (Gibby 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)) [41][reply]
    [emphasis mine; "electionwood" refers to User:Electionworld]

    I may be accused of pessimism, but I sincerely doubt that KDRGibby is about to reform in any way (he made no promises to reform; in fact he boycotted the arbitration case because it was "a total circus" [42]). As such, whenever I run into misbehavior by him (which has happened saddeningly often in the past, perhaps because our watchlists share many common articles), I will record it here.

    I would like to note that I was not a party in the arbitration case, and I do not go out of my way to find incriminating evidence - it's just very hard not to bump into it at every turn. -- Nikodemos 06:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper Admin Behavior

    Greetings fellow WikiPedians,

    In an effort to help improve WikiPedia I'd like make an informal complaint regarding admin Arminius and the following events.
    According to a message posted by admin Arminius entitled "UGH" (04:39, 21 February 2006) (diff)
    on admin User:InShaneee's talk page in response to two posts I made questioning about sockpuppetry
    and User:InShaneee's warnings under the heading Flemming Rose 04:32, 21 February 2006 of User:69.248.237.88's talk page,
    User:Arminius was editing as User:69.248.237.88 when he made the following edits:

    with the first edits being posts attempting to add unsourced info to Flemming Rose's page stating that "He is Jewish." or nameless sources claim "He is Jewish" and the last two being personal attacks.

    In such a case as this what recourse might someone like myself have?

    Thank you,

    Scott Stevenson Netscott 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

    I'll block the IP address but I cannot see why you automatically think they are the same person? Anyways, Ip address is blocked for 3RR and uncivility. Sasquatch t|c 08:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Sasquatch but the block's already in place... I'm sure it would be simple enough to correlate Arminius' login IP address with 69.248.237.88 but if you follow what I've posted., it's already clear. Netscott 08:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if he unblocks then he shall be in deep trouble for block warring and unblocking himself when the IP clearly violated policy. Admins should not unblock themselves period. Sasquatch t|c 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here and you will find it has once. But we'll say. I've clearly stated that no one is to unblock in caps. If anyone does, report it on ANI again. Sasquatch t|c 08:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't jump to conclusions here. Again, InShaneee and I have both stated that we're not sure that they are the same person. Do not make assumptions as assumptions are dangerous. Sasquatch t|c 09:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I think perhaps at this juncture it would be good to give Netscott (and myself) some time to calm down as it is obvious from above that passions are quite inflamed. I also think this would be appropriate to add in order to give his version some balance[43]. Otherwise I would be happy to have some sort of dialogue at a later date but do not have time now for anything extensive at the moment. Thanks Arm 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Disagree, I'm calm and have been throughout. Not quite sure how to 'escalate' this complaint of improper admin behavior vis-a-vis the utilization by Arminius of the IP 69.248.237.88 for personal attacks (and improper highly POV and unsourced edits) as well as Arminius' improper unblocking of said IP address but perhaps I need to move this over to the RfA section. Netscott 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jobe6

    It seems that Jobe6 (talk · contribs) was just blocked indefinitely for page-move vandalism. However, Jobe6 was an excellent contributor. Why would he suddenly vandalize? Was his account compromised or something? --Ixfd64 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jobe6, perhaps it was, or one of them sleepers people have warned us about in the past. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Something is very, very wrong here; this is a contributor who has been here for well over a year! (November 2004, to be specific.) He posted a note that he was going on break towards the end of last month; I'm inclined to believe this is either a compromised account, or an attempt to get away. It is not uncommon for contributors who have a difficult time leaving to do something like this in order to be forced out. My inclination is to AGF and hope the account has just been compromised, and that he will be able to get it back when he returns. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe someone should e-mail him and ask what's going on. moink 07:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Already have. Essjay Talk • Contact 07:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a prior known good e-mail address, or did you send e-mail through Wikipedia? If the account was hijacked it's a simple matter to hijack the e-mail set in the preferences too. -- Curps 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent through Wikipedia; I really didn't expect a vandal to be bothered to change it. However, I'll go see if I don't have a good one, I'm sure I do somewhere. Essjay Talk • Contact 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've heard the possibility talked about a lot, but has their ever been a real documented case of an account being compromised? Nothing specific to this case; I'm just curious about this as a general security matter.--Pharos 09:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The closest thing I know of is this, which is scary but relied on a particular mediawiki bug that has now been fixed. However, I'm sure there have been cases where a puerile roommate or friend has simply used someone else's account for malicious stuff, and that may be what has happened in this case (vandals say this has happened all the time, though we seldom believe them). Obviously there's nothing technical we could do about that. Chick Bowen 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to bring it up, but he did start his Wikipedia career with some minor vandalism, and admitted as much in his failed RfAdm six months ago. Still, entirely out of character with pre-wikibreak editing patterns. Note also a couple of days ago there was ordinary (non-pagemove) vandalism on one page: [44] -- Curps 10:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That recent vandalism was after he "left." All sorts of things are possible with this user... it could be a legitimate account that has been hijacked, or a very sophisticated and patient attacker of Wikipedia, who was hoping to get admin rights and when that failed just started using it to vandalize. moink 11:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the latest posting to his talk page, the account is still controlled by a vandal (himself or someone else). [45] -- Curps 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, are we leaving him unblocked in the interest of Wikipedia safety? That seems to be the safest route to take at this path, though it is still possible that Jobe just decided not to contribute constructively anymore. I sure hope that's not the case. Bratschetalk 04:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another interesting thing. A day before doing the page-move vandalism, he vandalized the Ed Crane article by replacing it with what seemed like gibberish. However, what he pasted into the article seemed to be someone's hi-scores on the MMORPG RuneScape. --Ixfd64 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Batman2005-Personal attack

    This user is listing a personal attack to me, and will not remove it because apparently it's "his" talk page, and he can say whatever he likes. I've tried my best to remove it, but he just reverts it. I need help on what I should do in this situation or to have an administrator help me. J.J.Sagnella 07:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for personal attacks. Sasquatch t|c 08:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, how is this a personal attack, exactly? "Stop screwing with it" isn't a model example of WP:COOL but it's not really personal either. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think saying that he had a "hard on for my talk page" is pushing the line. At least to me? Feel free to unblock if you think I'm overly harsh/sensitive. Sasquatch t|c 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I unblocked and left a warning. Sasquatch t|c 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly Ryan Delaney understands that I had NO personal attacks on my talk page. Furthermore, the administrator who blocked me then started to lecture me on civility and how to be polite and play well with others. Batman2005 02:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaiser Permanente

    Need admin help to address cut-and-protect action of FCYTravis and Physchim62. FCYTravis ignored request of Omsbudsman for inclusive development Kaiser Permanente and my own offer to work with his sourcing issues on the Talk page. Instead,FCYTravis called in Physchim62 to protect the page after FCYTravis made big cuts (using protection to cheat 3 revert rule). FCYTravis has also used words like "stupid" and "fuck" in his edit summaries. I have left a message with Physchim62, Ombudsman, on the Alerts page, and on the Unprotect request page. I'm concerned that admin partnerships will continue to be used to protect cuts instead of encourage article development. --Pansophia 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This has not been addressed yet. Physchim62 has ignored my request on his talk page while replying to others. This reinforces my impression that admins collaborated to cheat the 3R rule. --Pansophia 06:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is page history showing FCY Travis reverting page twice before calling in Physchim62 to protect the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&action=history
    --Pansophia 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only "calling in" I see on User:Physchim62's talk page is by YOU, not by User:FCYTravis. This reinforces my impression that you're trying to do an end-run around collaboration to get your way in a content dispute. And the lack of response I see here reinforces my impression that no one else agrees with your interpretation. I also note no posts by you on the article talk page in the last 24 hours. Why not try discussing things there? --Calton | Talk 07:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    How is *initiating* the talk doing an end-run around collaboration? If you look more closely at the bottom of the article Talk page, that's ME talking, and no one else talking to me. *I* initiated the discussion with an offer of collaboration before the page was protected, and *I* left the last two messages on the article talk page. As you point out, there's been no response since the page was protected. Thus I've "tried discussing". FCYTravis did the end run around collaboration by doing 2 reverts and then requesting the protection. --Pansophia 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ps. User:Physchim62 acknowledges that User:FCYTravis made the request on the Protection page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page :::--Pansophia 08:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is *initiating* the talk doing an end-run around collaboration? Look at the top of this page: this is NOT the Kaiser Permanente talk page. This is the page to report incidents requiring administrator action, and your (mis)characterization of other editors's actions as "cheating" -- especially after the discussion you barely attempted on the talk page -- tells me that you're attempting an end-run around the messy step of actually having to discuss your edits. You're not "inititating" any talk, you're throwing around accusations -- and again, it appears no one in any official capacity is buying it. This is a content dispute: go to the Kaiser Permanente talk page and make an actual case if you want your edits included. As it says at the top:
    Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.

    --Calton | Talk 08:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This is a complaint over INAPPROPRIATE ADMIN BEHAVIOR. Doesn't the fact there is no public evidence of conversation between User:FCYTravis and User:Physchim62 EXCEPT for User:Physchim62's admission that User:FCYTravis made the request on the Protected page suggest they discussed this by IM or offline? As for the content, there is a request by a Kaiser employee on User:FCYTravis's Talk page (Justen) to make the changes. I plan to deal with this through the normal way: by editing the article and working it out on the talk page. It's User:FCYTravis's request for Protection to make his reverts stick that has gone against the spirit of collaboration. --Pansophia 08:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the header shout-out because User:FCYTravis has unprotected page and is now particpating on the Talk page. --Pansophia 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bazelos

    I blocked Bazelos (talk · contribs) as an apparent sockpuppet of banned Irate (talk · contribs). I just got a nice email from Bazelos asking to be unblocked, which clearly wasn't written by Irate (it was polite and all correctly spelled!), so I've unblocked. My apologies to Bazelos for my error - David Gerard 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm kinda curious as to what made you think he was a sock of Irate, without any contributions to go on. moink 10:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shared IPs - David Gerard 11:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. moink 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Normalmouth

    Moved here due to Admin request, from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Mais oui! 12:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in my judgment. Normalmouth is a newbie, there is no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. WP:BITE. David | Talk 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested on User:Dbiv's Talk page that he restore this notice, due to the possibility of a conflict of interests in this case. Unfortunately he has clearly logged-off Wikipedia at the moment, so I have restored it, and request that another Admin review this case.--Mais oui! 12:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Goatmix has made a total of six edits, none more recent than the 20th of January. Two were to Plaid Cymru, and four to user talk pages to remove your sockpuppet notices (three of which are on IP pages - editing while not logged in does not necessarily constitute sockpuppetry, and is not blockable). User:Normalmouth says he's not going to use the other account again and is only going to edit while logged on [46], and David's comments to you are quite correct. Please read what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry actually has to say about sockpuppetry before you accuse people of it. Also, you're raising this a month after the event - why now? --ajn (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Several accounts indef blocked

    Several accounts are blocked:

    The reasoning is that they all edited the Criticisms of Wikipedia article in quick succession: none of them (at the time of writing) have edited user pages and yet they have been on the site for ages and thus bypass the sprotect. User:Pinkdoofus even wrote the following in his edit summary: "An sprotect! Times like these make me glad I have hundreds of old accounts". There is a greater than average likelihood that they were created by the same person for the purpose of disruption. I have requested a CheckUser on the accounts to see if any other accounts can be picked up, but in meantime I have indefinitely blocked the accounts in question for being sockpuppets for the purpose of being disruptive. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    GiantGonzella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PinkDoofus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same individual. Other socks are Raul654, Shanel and Jack Remington on Tricycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Necro.polis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), G-mans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), K-BDG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Robust Physique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arthur Carrington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Bizkit moorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All from 70.48.248.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is a Sympatico address and very likely the DickyRobert vandal. Given their topical interests (Daniel Brandt, Criticism of Wikipedia, Wikipedia) I would tend to suspect that we're dealing with someone here responding to the "call for revolution" recently posted on Wikipedia Review.
    Panjom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a one-off via a Korean IP that has no other edits (and in fact the entire /24 it's in has no other edits), which suggests a botnet or other proxy being used. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINT by User:Striver

    I don't know who is right or wrong here. User:joturner created an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_athletes which covers a number of Muslim lists. Now Striver goes around and hanging the same AfD notice on List of Hindus, List of Jews, List of Buddhists etc. See his contributions Tintin (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Initially, I reverted Striver's addition of the AfD tags, but then I reverted myself. I think this one can safely work itself out on the AfD page (surprisingly); the argument was heated and full of POINTs to begin with but it seems to have cooled off; someone should just keep a close eye on it. android79 13:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of 71.35.54.72

    I've blocked 71.35.54.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for one week for abusive sockpuppetry. This IP, used primarily by editor Jpawloski (talk · contribs), has recently been used to create a handful of sockpuppets (specifically, Fleetwood Billy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Famous Trollassor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Troll Troll Dilly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), some of which have made inappropriate edits. A person claiming to be Fleetwood Billy appeared on the IRC channel this morning and promised to vandalize Wikipedia forever. As a result, I've blocked for a week his regular IP address and blocked indefinitely the entire range (which belongs to a hosting service) that he was using to connect to IRC. A longer block may be warranted, but I leave that to the discretion of my peers. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ultramarine

    Recreated the deleted article Why Rummel is always right under its original title Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples), word-for-word. He removed the speedy delete tag three times, at 05:15, 06:19 and 06:44, 21 February 2006. Before doing a fourth revert, he read the CSD tag and added {{hangon}}. Nevertheless, this is a severe violation of policy, and I would appreciate it if it did not happen again.

    Before he protests again, I did move the first version of the article to the name under which it was deleted. Its past and present name is long, clumsy, and non-descriptive; but I should have chosen a better name to move it to. Septentrionalis 18:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pmanderson has so little substance that he does not even dare to try to report it as a proper 3RR violation but instead reports it here. His move of the contents to an article called Why Rummel is always right arguable violates Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. An administrator removed his speedy delete template and without voting himself replaced it with an ordinary delete template.Ultramarine 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aecis acted after Ultramarine's attempt to simply suppress the CSD nomination. Nor was this a 3RR violation, quite. Septentrionalis 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) revised 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And would someone please explain to Ultramarine that WP:POINT does not cover every edit or move he happens to dislike? Septentrionalis 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the only time Septentrionalis have done this. He also moved the contents of "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to Why other peace theories are wrong.Ultramarine 20:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be worth noting that "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is only about doing something you don't want to happen - not any action that any other person considers disruption. See the examples in WP:POINT - they're all real examples. I speak as someone heavily involved when the guideline in question was being written, so I think I know what it means ;-) - David Gerard 20:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Subaru Impreza WRX on Wheels

    Subaru_Impreza_WRX_on_Wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has committed a bit of page-move vandalism. Help cleaning it up would be appreciated. (Apparently, we bought the line that this account wasn't really WoW and left it unblocked.) android79 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind, all cleaned up. Damned sleeper accounts. android79 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Remington and the Rattlesnakes is back. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He left? android79 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to say I told you so, but... [47]. It was quite obvious (from other factors other than just the name) that this was a vandal sleeper account. -- Curps 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cool cat violation of RfA terms

    Per a discussion with administrator Tony Sidaway, I was advised to report here that User:Cool cat has violated a term of his recent RfA, specifically remedy 4, "Coolcat prohibited from restructuring". To wit, during a vigorous discussion on Talk:Kawaii, he blanked a unanimous consensus poll (refer to this diff) whose outcome he disagreed with. This violates the letter and spirit of the prohibition and threatens to disrupt the fragile consensus that we have forged. I feel a warning should be sufficient unless the situation degrades further. The Crow 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On re-examination I also note he has (on the same page in question) violated the part of the same remedy instructing him not to add new comments within existing sections, instead adding new end edits or creating new sections. A number of examples are in abundance if you visually scan Talk:Kawaii/Archive_1. It has been frustrating and confusing because he often does not distinguish which speaker he's responding to, and has problems on occasion making his point clearly. The Crow
    Thanks for reporting this. I spoke online to Cool Cat and due to personal circumstances he will probably be online very little or not at all for a few days. He has read the warning on his talk page. Do not hesitate to contact me or report here again if he continues to make a nuisance of himself. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentorship report

    In my capacity as one of Cool Cat's three mentors, I advised The Crow to report here. I've placed a formal warning on Cool Cat's talk page, warning that I will ban him from editing the article and talk page if he persists in his antagonistic behavior and inappropriate edits on the talk page.
    Overall, Cool Cat has responded well to the mentorship system set up late last year, and I am very satisfied with his progress and his many excellent contributions to Wikipedia. I have only banned him from editing a page once, for a week in early December, and since then things have been quiet and productive.
    However, the community should provide input on this situation. I suggest that those able to spare the time, and willing to do so, monitor (as provided under the decision) and take action if necessary. Any such action would be subject to review by the three mentors, but we would not reverse actions without good reason and a formal justification here. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User recreating LGBT serial killers category

    This user Special:Contributions/132.241.245.49 has added many people to the deleted Category:LGBT serial killers. I removed people from the category and then posted a warning on the user's page, the user then posted this on my talk:

    Franly while I don't hate gay people it pisses me off that it's wrong to point out a person was a serial killer and gay yet it's ok to point out he was a serial killer and an America. PS the cat is coming back

    The user also posted on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion

    GD! Yes Yes let's get rid of any cat. that make homos look bad and keep all the ones that make them look good.

    Most of their other edits don't seem to be particularly constructive. Arniep 23:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Homophobic post

    User:GodzillaWax has a long record on History and Talk pages of using insulting language, often in conjunction with obsessive minutiae. He has chased one female user away, and now in addition to his usual name-calling ("Will the Virgin Brigade please let their balls drop") that he constantly defends as "humor", he has added homophobia. (I'm not gay, but a straight liberal who finds it offensive; no personal attack is being suggested.)

    Saying that a male comic-book artist he does not care for is "one Elle magazine subscription away" from something (at Talk:Daredevil_(Marvel_Comics)#Greg_Horn) might not in and of itself be worth coming to you, but this is at the end of a long dispute over incivility that I had hoped was over with our Mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Daredevil.

    I urge you to look over GodzillaWax's History and Talk page comments. He has a long history of incivility and being insulting. — Tenebrae 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly libelous attacks on companies

    Please see the ongoing edits at Time (magazine), Quad/Graphics and Time Warner by 24.240.35.49 (talk · contribs). Action by an admin may be required to stop these edits until the veracity of the claims can be assessed. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll take a look at his contributions now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I've left a message on his talk page; all his edits appear to be reverted now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (He just re-added the information.) Don't block yet, if you see this. Let me try and talk to him first. (Just left him another message.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, he seems to have stopped after my last message. Check out the site he links to though: Quad/Watch has done the public service of adding paragraphs of hard truth to both the Quad/Graphics and Time Magazine sections of the fast-growing wikipedia online encylopedia. The public has a right to know. You can find the wikipedia global encyclopedia at www.wikipedia.com. Links to the quad/watch site have also been added. Maybe the corporate chiefs of Time Inc. have a few questions to ask the Quad/Graphics leadership? Ugh. The site definitely doesn't qualify as a reputable source. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like that site is actually boasting about spamming its link and POV onto Wikipedia. And they're too clueless to get our URL right; we're wikipedia.org, a noncommercial organization. *Dan T.* 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a good justification for adding it to the spam blocklist if any Meta admins are watching! Physchim62 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Additions to the spam blacklist should be requested at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. --cesarb 01:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys for picking this up. I've got the pages on my watchlist, and will revert if necessary, but I could see myself hitting 3RR (I'm not clear that this is vandalism). -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 02:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spotthatby210 and Charles Thun

    I speedy deleted Charles Thun under A7 "Unremarkable people or groups" and the editor has recreated it multiple times after being requested not to. At this point as a new admin I am unsure what to do. Should I give up and instead go through AfD or should the page be protected or the user blocked? I would appreciate some advice from a more experienced admin. --Martyman-(talk) 02:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted and protected against recreation. I will warn the user. Chick Bowen 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    SPUI blocked for probation violation

    I have blocked User:SPUI for 24 hours for violation of his probation in disrupting WP:DRV. After Jimbo deleted Brian Peppers I closed the DRV debate. SPUI twice reverted me with a trolling edit summary [48], [49]. His Arbcom probation terms were:

    After he finishes serving out his ban, administrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, SPUI can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation.

    I think two provocative edits is violation enough to justify a 24 hour block. Perhaps he should be banned from DRV in addition, but I will leave that decision to others.--Doc ask? 02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Let's just take this block through to its end and see how he reacts. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with this block whatsoever (certainly, when I voted for the measure, this is what I had in mind). If anything, Doc's block might be lenient. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's sub-optimal to block someone you're revert-warring with. I also wouldn't call SPUI's edit summaries trolling. But ban him from DRV for a while if you must. Would anyone mind if I lift the block and tell him to stick to roadcruft for what would have been the duration of it? I think he's got the idea now that you can block him for smaller issues than normally. Give me a shout in the next hour if you don't want him unblocked on those terms. Haukur 09:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll go ahead with this. Just reblock him if you feel that is more helpful, I won't redo anything. Haukur 11:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to Doc, the edit warring constituted Doc's housekeeping on Wikipedia:Deletion review to remove a discussion that had been rendered moot by Jimbo's office action in declaring a controversial article deleted for one year. To be fair to SPUI, he is outraged by the idea that the boss of the website sometimes exercises control over content. He isn't alone in this, he's just more likely to go out on a limb. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eat At Joes

    User:Eat At Joes is the latest in a VERY long line of sockpuppets originated by Alex "DickWitham" Cain (see [50] for details). He is once again removing sockpuppet tags from his previous accounts' user pages, and vandalizing talk pages to remove comments left by other users. - Chadbryant 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • sigh* I DO so wish Mr. Bryant would stop engaging in such immature and childish behavior. I would ask that you see his contribution page for his recent antics; there is also an entry on him above this one, listed in the index of this page. I would also like to note that using someone's name on here (of which he has no basis, btw) is a violation of Wikipeida policy that Mr. Bryant continues to violate. He is doing exactly what he accuses me of, readding personal insults like "obese" and "a sicko" in describing other users after I have removed those comments. This is stupid; please ignore the idiot behind the curtain and move on with more important business, thank you. --Eat At Joes 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have acknowledged both your real name and your use of dozens of sockpuppets ([51]). Those in the know are not fooled. - Chadbryant 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has acknowledged anything. "Those in the know" refers only to yourself, <removed personal attack - User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)>. --Eat At Joes 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is now attempting to start an edit war on Patricia Ann Priest, where he is using both this account and an "anonymous" account from a public terminal administered by Georgia College & State University to perform style-violating reverts (the correct "1960s" to "1960's"). He has been asked to consult WP:MOSDATE, yet refuses to acknowledge it or cease this behaviour. - Chadbryant 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please leave your paranoia and persecution complex at the door, thanks. No one is "attempting to start an edit war" with you. I merely pointed out your hypocricy in noting how the correct version was due to the article the entry pointed to while the changes pointed to the same article. As for where the edits originate, that is none of yours or anyone else's concern. Regarding the matter of acknowledging or consulting, I have comments at the top of my talk page which state that comments from you will either be deleted or reverted. Perhaps you should read a bit yourself before making snap decisions. You are hearby asked to cease and decist posting/trolling my talk page, and bothering me with this worthless, pointless, idiotic bullcrap.--Eat At Joes 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been asked to consult WP:MOSDATE. Please read it before you edit Patricia Ann Priest again. - Chadbryant 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have been told my reasons for doing what I did above. You have also been told that you will not be allowed to post anything to my talk page. I did not make this decision lightly -- I took into account your extensive past and current behavior, as well as your behavior from Usenet, and realized that I did not want a person such as yourself leaving remarks on my talk page, be they whatever. You have been asked to stop leaving comments to me. Please do so before you edit again. --Eat At Joes 02:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully my compromise will leave everyone feeling decent enough to move on. C'mon fellas, moving forward, let's play nice. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone claiming to be Jack Thompson is making legal threats, which likely deserves a block of some duration. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thompson is, beyond doubt, a buffoon and an all-around weasel, notable mostly for behaving like a jackass in public places and spaces. But something ought to be done about the pages and subpages devoted to him, which seem to be larger than all the other Wikipedia pages on lawyers combined -- OK, that's a bit overstated, but more space than all of the current Supreme Court justices, combined, and we can throw in the Attorneys General of recent memory. Thompson may be the Paris Hilton of the legal world, but that's no excuse for the obsessive, almost day-by-day chronicling of his weird activities. At the rate the articles are growing, there'll be more coverage of this guy than of the Holocaust by midsummer. Monicasdude 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Using Wikipedia:Username as my guide, I issued the above user a {{usernameblock}}. My reasoning is that he chose a username and trying to make disruptive edits with that name, in a manner that I saw as discrediting Mr. Thompson. This person is welcome to come back to WP, but he/she should pick a new username that does not relate to Mr. Thompson and the user should also read out policies about legal threats, civility and anything else they could find useful. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 05:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr... the threat was from four days ago, and do you have any evidence that this user isn't Jack Thompson? Blocking seems premature. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking isn't premature. Issuing legal threats is grounds for an immediate block, no warning necessary. --Cyde Weys 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was not for a violation of NLT, it was a username violation that caused me to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The page I cited above states that users should not pick names to people who are alive or who just died and trying to make disrupting edits in their name. Though the "threat" was made four days ago, then why was it brought up just brought up nearly an hour ago. I stand behind the username block I issued, but if the user picks a new name and does not vandalize again or cause problems again, I will not presure further action. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep on bringing up this four days ago thing as if there is some kind of a conspiracy. There's not. One hour ago was simply the first time anyone picked up on it and brought it to admins' attention. Just as someone who has committed burglary last year can still be tried and convicted, someone who has issued legal threats four days ago can still be punished. Surely the statute of limitations on issuing legal threats on Wikipedia is longer than four days? --Cyde Weys 06:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jacoplane (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin; and he spoke on Jackthompson (talk · contribs)'s talk page. He was warned about making legal threats and has not responded as of yet. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So people who are famous have no business on Wikipedia? What total nonsense. I repeat my request again: do you have any evidence that this user is an imposter attempting to defame the real Jack Thompson? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit done by this person at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=40142795 and he was saying that this is "my favorite Internet site" and that the information about Jack Thompson "him" was inaccurate, such as pointing out the dates of his birth are wrong. He also began to list a bunch of things "he done" relating to academic degrees and what he done to someone after a 60 Minutes interview relating to the video game situations that he is currently involved in. He, again, repeats the statement that information about him was wrong at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=40187027. He also tries to say at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=40194876 that "video game cretins spew" whatever on his article, and he could not do anything. He always signed as Jack Thompson, and I feel that what he done was disruptive. And, in accordance to the username policy, if a user has created a username that is similar to a public figure that is alive and makes disruptive edits in their name (such as this case), I and other any other admin can issue a username block and ask the blocked user to pick a new name and continue editing under that name. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if it really is Mr. Thompson? This guy has said and done numerous similarly-provocative things, on- and offline, for real, so it's plausible that this user is the real thing. Then again, it could be a hoax, too; he's got lots of enemies and anti-Thompson pranksters online. How does one prove this one way or the other? The issue of users here claiming to be notable people is a frequently-occurring one; we've had several alleged Hilary Duffs, for instance. *Dan T.* 15:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am checking my inbox to see if there is any communication that is trying to be made by the blocked user, but I got nothing yet. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 16:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Really, there are two good reasons for an indefinite block. One is the legal threat(s)—per WP:NLT we block people who make legal threats on-wiki until those threats are withdrawn. Two is the username—the account should stay blocked until the account holder can verifiably demonstrate that he is Jack Thompson. (That can be demonstrated in a number of ways.) Until both issues are resolved, the account should stay blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User disrupting & subtle vandalism

    A registered user is repeatedly disrupting an RfC, making attacks and false accusations seemingly to start a huge and irrelevant row in the middle of an RfC. This more subtle form of vandalism is from an experienced User Michael Ralston who knows what he is doing. It includes false accusations of anti-semitic allegations.

    Evidence:

    • the purpose of RFC is summarised [[52]] for this user
    • after each further disruption, this user is requested three further times to stay on point [[53]], [[54]], [[55]]
    • here in a fifth attempt at disruption and causing argument [[56]] he makes a false accusation and pretends he is the one asking for others to stick to the point, whereas that is not the case.

    86.10.231.219 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to inquire how, precisely, adding to a talk page is vandalism of any sort? Disruption, perhaps, but certainly not intentional.
    As for "false accusations of anti-semitic allegations", I'm curious what, precisely, "Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse" is supposed to be other than an allegation of anti-semitism. (The location of said text is in that "summarization of the purpose of RfC", so I won't bother relinking it).
    As for the claim that it's "not about Midgley's behaviour", I'm curious what [[57]] is supposed to have to do with the topic, then. Michael Ralston 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Firm action would be appreciated against this disruptive user Michael Ralston. He will not take the hint.
    Despite repeated polite requests (evidence links above) to Michael Ralston to use user talk pages instead of an RfC Michael Ralston now insists on using the Admins noticeboard as well. Note the false allegation of anti-semitic remarks. The only person mentioning anti-semitism is Michael Ralston and it is clearly done to bait and start irrelevant arguments in the middle of an RfC instead of dealing with the main issues.
    Further request for Admin action posted by User:86.10.231.219 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reposted by User:86.10.231.219 11:12 24 February 2006 - for details see [[58]]
    I do believe I have the right to defend myself against your accusations, 86.10.231.219. And declaring that someoone accuses all religious Jews of child abuse is, in fact, declaring that person is anti-semitic. You did that well before I even commented on that RfC. Michael Ralston 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here [[59]] is direct evidence of bad faith editing by this disruptive user Michael Ralston. Here also is the link [[60]] to the sixth and seventh times Michael Ralston disrupts and raises anti-semitism. But now he is arguing this is part of the RfC when it has nothing to do with it. User:86.10.231.219 16:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I am arguing that you repeatedly link to the diff in which you declare Midgley to be anti-semitic, and declare that diff is what the RfC is about; therefore, you are claiming that Midgley's behaviour is part of the RfC. If you were not claiming this, as I have pointed out, you would present a diff or a new post that does not mention Midgley, or at least does not mention Midgley in reference to religious beliefs. As you continue doing so, I am forced to assume you do believe Midgley's behaviour is part of the RfC. Michael Ralston 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Raymond Samuels

    There has been an anonymous user User:209.226.117.80 claiming to be Raymond Samuels repeatedly blanking and reverting the article on Raymond Samuels. I have placed them on a 24 hour block but they seem to have issues with the information portrayed on the article. I would appreciate it if some other editors could look over the situation. --Martyman-(talk) 10:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I also note there have been legal threats made. [61] --Martyman-(talk) 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to have switched to this IP: 72.1.195.5. Have warned but will bear watching. --Malthusian (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Am reporting this IP to WP:AIV, has continued to blank and make legal threats. --Malthusian (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been more legal threats made [62]. --Martyman-(talk) 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CJCurrie has semi-protected the page and has made an attempt to rewrite the article to remove the contriversial bits. --Martyman-(talk) 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible for us to contact the ISP and get legal retaliation on this person? As I am aware, he is conducting a coordinated act of sabotage, which under both US communications law (we can get extradition), and Canadian law as I am aware (we have used the same justification for preparing a case against the Wikipedia is Communism vandal), and we can promptly shut down this user. I am encouraged by this because from what it seems from this dnstools page that the IP used (209.226.117.182) is "directly allocated" and "non-portable" and the user alleges himself he can get his ISP to change whenever he wants, so we can quickly get the ISP to deny access to this user. This would be a good way to evade his "change IP" tactics. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to update: the vandal is now spamming random pages, circumventing the semi-protection of Raymond Samuels and Talk:Raymond Samuels, and is now posting a link to a blog which contains, among others, the email address of someone supposedly involved. See Special:Contributions/206.172.131.1). --Malthusian (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More Gastrich Socks, Please Block

    James Adams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Mary Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jake Williamson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The users' contributions speak for themselves, and are associated with Gastrich's typical targets. Hexagonal 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Bradley Barlow attack page

    Jenkins24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have registered solely for the purpose of creating Bradley Barlow attack page, and removing all delete tags from it.Bjones 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user also created a bogus template and stuck it on Tom Cruise (Template:Db-agay). I've deleted the template. --ajn (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bedbug Spammer

    The Bedbug article keeps getting spammed with a spammer from live-pest-free.com. He's been warned about four times now, three times by me, once by another user. IP addresses from which the same link has been posted are 61.69.235.129, 210.10.166.101, and 61.69.236.35. Can an admin take appropriate action? Would be appreciated. — WCityMike (T | C) 15:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Money money money fat fat fat

    User:Money money money fat fat fat has been blocked indefinitely for uploading a photograph of me with fraudulent sourcing and for being a disruptive troll. Phil Sandifer 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. He uploaded a photograph of you? While very wrong and certainly blockable, from afar you have to note the humor in such an act (of course, I say that having not seen the actual photo). – ClockworkSoul 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a high quality troll. He got the photo from my webspace. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Briefs vandal

    Jefferylebowski_in_briefs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Dude_in_Briefs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The_Briefs_Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Briefs_Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Check their contributions. This is a new vandal to watch out for! If WP:CVU are reading this, it's important! --Sunfazer (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chad Michael Murray

    Vandal placed a phone number on the page. No idea if it's really the guy's phone number. I've reverted the revision. I know that admins can delete specific edits from the history. Whether the number is his or not, IMHO it should not be left visible. However, being a reletively new admin, I have no idea how to go about removing specific edits from a page's history. Could someone with the time please take care of this? - TexasAndroid 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The personal info is gone. You can remove specific edits by deleting the page, then at Special:Undelete, checking the boxes only for the revisions you want to restore. (Notes: I accidentally had to do this twice, the first time I restored some older copyvio revisions by mistake. Check for older deleted revisions before you delete!) --bainer (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I resored another 89 revisions that were not related to the incident. Now the only deleted version is the one that contained the offending digits. – ClockworkSoul 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJstroker uploading problem images

    Over the past month, JJstroker (talk · contribs) has uploaded several hundred images in the past month, often with false copyright information. For example, Image:JFKagee2.jpg was tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} on the grounds that images from "a public learning institution generally free from copyright", while Image:USAloseyP1.jpg was tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} on the grounds that the source website didn't have a copyright statement. In among the dozens of image-tagging notifications on his page are comments indicating that he does not understand and is not aware he doesn't understand copyright, including this gem:

    "Copyright "violation" for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Davidchockachi2.jpg. This is ridiculous and I would appreciate if you noobie editors would stop wasting my time. Why dont you try uploading pictures for a change? The photo is from a premeire which is always press release. The copyright is fine. Please remove the copyright violation."

    Could someone look into this? --Carnildo 23:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparantly the user has also created copyright-infringing articles as well [63]. Jkelly 23:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now warned them on their talk page. If they continue to upload material that is incorrectly tagged or copyrighted text, they should be blocked from editing. --Martyman-(talk) 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like good-faith ignorance to me. Perhaps just kindly request that he stop uploading pictures until he finishes his law degree? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's uploaded four more problem images:
    • Image:Alvahbessie2.jpg, Image:3c14608t.jpg - From the Library of Congress, claimed as "work of the federal government" which is almost never true for LoC images, source link is dead.
    • Image:Sdickstein22.jpg - Claimed as PD-USGov-Congress-Bio, but it's from americanjewisharchives.org, which doesn't indicate where they got the image. The image is probably PD-old or PD-USGov, but there's no evidence for this.
    • Image:USAcellerE.jpg - Claimed as PD-USGov-Congress-Bio, but it's from www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk.
    --Carnildo 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Left some biolerplate and a personal plea to stop. Jkelly 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also uploaded two images that have copyright problems for the following:
    These are from WireImage.com. I've tagged them with copyvio. There are several of WireImage photos he's uploaded to Wikipedia, however he claimed they were press release. adnghiem501 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for block

    62.255.232.84 (talk · contribs · block log) is significantly trolling. Interestingly, his first edit was on User talk:62.255.232.5, saying "i didnt vandalise". User 62.255.232.5 (talk · contribs · block log) is a known vandal.

    Also interestingly, the second I post on his talk page, I get vandalised by 62.255.236.161 (talk · contribs · block log), who is also a known vandal.

    Could someone block him/them please?!

    Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 00:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Martyman! The Minister of War (Peace) 00:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shane bellinger

    User:Shane bellinger seems to have uploaded a series of images that aren't used in any articles, but are hotlinked from his website. Looking at his contributions shows at least a dozen or so like this. Most have questionable copyright status and a couple are already up for deletion, but I feel like this could be much better served by having an admin just knock off the lot and give him a stiff warning. WP:NOT a free webhost and this is a pretty blatant violation of that. Night Gyr 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at his userpage and website, I'd guess he's not very old, and his intentions are good. I'll make some suggestions when I've woken up a bit more. --ajn (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted half a dozen of what looked to be his own drawings, and left what I hope will be interpreted as a friendly message on his talk page. There are a bunch of other images which are things like wavy flags and rainbow <hr/> subsitutes, and those are all flagged as having dubious copyright and will no doubt be deleted eventually. --ajn (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Janizary vote recruitment from userbox template

    Janizary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently embarked on a vote-stacking campaign to astro-turf the DRV on Template:User fsm, which was speedily deleted as per Jimbo's statement against belief-oriented userboxes. Janizary used the "What links here" functionality from the fsm template to send our vote-stacking messages to the talk pages of people who still had the fsm userbox template transcluded. The use of the What links here functionality was one of the reasons proposed as to why template userboxes should be done away with. That one of the pro-userbox people is offering up such irrefutable evidence that What links here functionality can be and is abused is ironic in the extreme. The exact beginning text of the recruitment message was, "I'm calling out a posse." Clearly this is a plain attempt at disruption. Some sort of disciplinary action is necessary. Note that this campaign has already produced a clear majority of "Undelete" votes in the DRV process, yet I believe the end result should remain "Keep deleted", because we should not allow process to be disrupted in this kind of manor, and if we do allow the template to be kept it will just be used in future attempts at vote-stacking. Here is a full list of diffs of the campaign effort from Janizary: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]

    The full text of the vote-stacking message was:


    I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm. Janizary **date/time**


    Cyde Weys 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyde, I agree that it's tacky, but it happens a lot, and I don't think there's anything more to be done about it than scolding the user. I recently caught a user who is normally believed to be a "generally good user" doing the same thing in regards to an rfc. The user responded with "well, since I only contacted people who were involved with the disagreement it's different than vote stacking." Or words to that effect. While this is something of a social more here, it is only sporadically discouraged, and then only when somebody wants to prove that they are in the right because the other person couldn't possibly be (or why would they need to stack votes, right?). My 2c. ... aa:talk 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to be done but scold the user? This is the most damaging and disruptive thing to Wikipedia that I can possibly think of. Wikipedia is not a bunch of factions who identify themselves by userboxes and recruit each other in the dozens to astroturf any sort of decision they disagree with. In that way lies absolute madness. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde, you really need to slow your roll. I mean, Christ boy, the functionality of these user categories and userboxes can be done by other means, just by linking to an article you make yourself available on a list, which, if grepped through, can be used to collect all the users who are interested in the subject. Removing the boxes won't remove your paranoid fear of people rounding up people to modify articles, the userboxes and categories do make it much easier and entirely more pleasent for everyone involved. What I did was a specific targetted collecting of the people who were directly effected by this unjustified speedy delete of a userbox. Only the people who used it were informed of the attempt to undelete the template, since they were never given a chance to defend it, as they should have been. Janizary 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The key difference, Janizary, is that merely knowing someone is interested in an article doesn't allow you to try to POV push - because if there's a POV to push on that article, there's almost certainly an opposing one of some sort... and some of those watching the article are going to be of an opinion disagreeing with you. This does not apply to these userboxes that expressly take a stance. Michael Ralston 06:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AvengerRSPW

    Can someone put a stop to this guy? All of his edits are vandalism, and given his impersonation of me on User_talk:TruthCrusader, I'm starting to suspect that it's his sock instead of one being run by the infamous "DickWitham" troll. - Chadbryant 02:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    {{indefblockeduser}}. No evidence he was doing anything positive at all in the month he's been here. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Already returned as User:StephenSignorelli - can I request that someone look into what IP's this guy is coming from? $10 US says it's somewhere near the Czech Republic, which pretty much narrows it down as to who is behind it. - Chadbryant 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked and tagged. Essjay Talk • Contact 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And his latest work is as User:PyterTaravitch. - Chadbryant 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that Curps nailed 'em. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That he did - as well as another sock, User:Lord Of Darkness. Clearly the work of one particular individual who is *not* the infamous "DickWitham" troll. - Chadbryant 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Biased Mediator

    There is a mediation on the page Neoconservatism. On Talk:Neoconservatism, the mediator just posted this:

    I respectfully request an unbiased mediator.--Cberlet 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You will need to ask this from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thanks.--Cberlet 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    MONGO is neither a mediator, nor assigned to the case as a deputy mediator. He should not be representing himself as the mediator assigned to the case; as of this moment, no mediator has been assigned to that case because it was just accepted yesterday.
    For the Mediation Committee, Essjay Talk • Contact 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't appear to have done so. In the talk page from which Cberlet quoted, MONGO said, "I am also not here to mediate."[98] Chick Bowen 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just making it clear that he is not a mediator; I didn't intend my note to imply that he had or had not represented himself as one, and I apologize if it appeared to do so. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't, I was also just clarifying. Chick Bowen 04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never did say I was a mediator. I have no interest in being a mediator. Show me where i stated I was a mediator...I simply contested that CBerlet wanted to use references from biased sources such as "antiwar.com" and that he appears to be stating that he wants to argue with talk page edits such as this--MONGO 04:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I didn't mean to imply that you had said that you were, I just wanted to clarify that you aren't, given that at least one participant thought you were. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was to all concerned, not explicitly you. CBerlet made an erroneous assumption, but I assume good faith that he did so innocently.--MONGO 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents

    After going through Cfd and reaching, what I thought, anyway, was "no consensus," the category was speedied by User:MarkSweep. The reason given for the speedy was WP:SNOW, which isn't even a Wikipedia policy, much less a speedy criterion, and it certainly isn't a reason to delete a category that has reached no consensus in Cfd. Maybe I'm simply missing something, and I do not want to rush to judgment. Can someone explain what happened here? - Jersyko·talk 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not an encyclopedaic category, very obviously since it is overly-specific and would have only one member, and is an attack to boot. Thus the deletion makes sense, although I would've cited WP:IAR if I were him—the guideline that says if something is obvious, you don't have to slavishly adhere to process. But if you want to have the decision reviewed, the place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it goes to deletion review, here's what I'll say: the debate appears to have been improperly closed. The Keep arguments were not well-reasoned, and seem to in many cases be from meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets. The closing admin should have used discretion on these matters, and while it's understandable that he didn't, the consensus was clearly the one implemented by User:MarkSweep. -- SCZenz 04:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But the category went through Cfd with no consensus with several keep votes by regular users (User:Adrian and myslef spring to mind just off the cuff . . .). Actually, it had two members: Whittington AND Alexander Hamilton, which is EXACTLY why I think the category is useful!! Nevermind, I suppose this isn't really worth the fuss. I agree that perhaps a delete consensus was appropriate, even if no sock/meatpuppets were involved. - Jersyko·talk 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't we just BJAODN it and go to bed? I admit getting a laugh out of it, but it's really not a serious category, nor is it likely to be useful. (Neat trivia, and perhaps something to be mentioned in the appropriate biographical articles—but not worthy of a category.) And I'll speedy myself any creation of or variation on Category:Standing Vice Presidents who have shot people or Category:Firearms used by standing Vice Presidents to shoot people. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I also voted for it, quite seriously. This is not the worst outcome; at least this way we are not stuck with that awful wording. I am concerned, however, that MarkSweep (who clearly has strong feelings on the subject) should have used his admin powers to settle what was in effect a content dispute. I recall him as a fairly good editor of articles; perhaps he should go back to that for a while. Septentrionalis 05:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The CfD was obviously closed incorrectly (I counted 70% support for deletion from registered users who had made at least 10 edits prior to voting). Instead of going through DRV with a predictable outcome and another CfD, etc., I decided to put it out of its misery quickly. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And he deleted it again; whatever happened to the principle "if it really needs to be done, someone else will do it"? Septentrionalis 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, if there was no consensus to delete, why did you take it upon yourself to speedy it? ... aa:talk 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there was a clear consensus to delete. Even you yourself said that you don't like this category. It's a classic case of WP:SNOW. It doesn't even have to go through DRV. The outcome is predicatble: either it will be deleted by DRV; or it will be relisted, and there is a very good chance (>70%) that a second CfD will yield an outcome with >66% favoring deletion. And that's saying nothing about the inherent merits of this category, of which there are none. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er.. I'm sorry? Where was the harm in the category existing for the duration of the DRV debate? Why not allow the (obviously more cool-headed) people who monitor that handle it? You don't get to decide issues before the community. You are not Jimbo Wales. You are not more important then me, Xoloz or any other editor here.
    I think you're in desperate need of a wiki-break before you drive off anymore editors with your unilateral actions lately. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV debate was unnecessary to begin with, per WP:SNOW. Just acknowledge, per discussion above, that the closing was done in error, and move on. The presence of the category is harmful because it will convey the idea that this and similar categories are welcome on Wikipedia. The community already had decided that this category should go. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nice. Stop citing WP:SNOW, it is neither policy nor guideline. It is an essay, and not one endorsed by the community at large. And if you want to bring up meaningless essays, go read WP:PI before you drive off any more editors over your unilaterism. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is, there was more than sufficient consensus for deletion. Enough so that the outcome of DRV and any future CfD would have been predictable. There is no need to go through all these steps. I had indeed considered bringing this to DRV myself, but it occurred to me that the net result would have been the same. WP:SNOW is a convenient way to refer you to a more detailed explanation of what I've just said. Second, if Xoloz (talk · contribs) thinks he needs a break, that's entirely up to him. The fact that he has continued to edit after blanking his talk page suggests that he has more to say. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's predictable, then you should have allowed the process to complete rather than simply assuming for the rest of us how it would have turned out. It is not your place to decide things for the community. And my reference to WP:SNOW before was the fact that you're citing it like it's some kind of policy in your administrative actions; it is not an excuse to ignore process. The community did not spend time voting on policies and discussing guidelines to have you come along and decide you have a better way. Use your sysop bit with care. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The community has already decided. Have you read the CfD discussion? It's really quite simple; ask yourself 3 questions: What is the community consensus? What is good for Wikipedia? What is the common sense thing to do? In this case, it's the same answer to all 3 questions: delete the category and move on. In such a situation, let's not waste everyone's time. Every subsequent debate will see fewer participants and it will be corrspondingly harder to gauge consensus. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of taking it upon one's self. There are some core policies that cannot be voted away, however many people stack up and scream "CONSENSUS!" We cannot vote away our neutral point-of-view, we cannot vote away our anti-copyvio policy, and we cannot vote away our status as an encyclopaedia. Now, I'm not saying that this is what actually occurred here, but — in theory, in theory! — if "consensus" is that we no longer need to pay attention to what is and is not encyclopaedic, then admins have a responsibility to ignore that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the category survives deletion, how many articles would it hold? Any less than say 6, at mimimum, is a waste and speaks for itself that the category creation isn't warranted. Are there six (to use my own example) such article candidates ready for inclusion? If so, does anyone care actually care and want these articles categorised in this way? Will this lead on to further bizarreness, such as Category:People who've never watched Sesame Street. Ignore obvious trolls. Voting and unvoting about obvious trash contributions isn't helping to progress anyone's encyclopedia. -- Longhair 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recreated

    This was recreated, so I have taken it to deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Category:People_shot_by_standing_Vice_Presidents. I am sorely tempted to just delete it as blatantly non-encyclopedaic for the reasons I gave above, but wheel warring is a Bad Thing. -- SCZenz 06:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MarkSweep appears to have deleted it again; I noticed just as I was about to delete it and close the DRV debate. It should have been deleted in the first place; there was an obvious consensus to do so. TexasAndroid made a newbie mistake; we've all made those and I think no less of him for it. There's no need to run through a process twice to get the same result. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The category has now been deleted after closure of the deletion review. That's fine, that's how things are supposed to work: people disagreed with the closing admin's judgment at the CfD, it was submitted for review, and the closure was overturned. The only problem was MarkSweep's gratuitious and pointless speedying of the category (and then his wheel-warring to keep it deleted), which very predictably antagonized several users while accomplishing absolutely nothing. Process is not all-important, but egregiously trampling on process in order to accomplish nothing at all is quite simply bad for Wikipedia. I hope that we have not lost Xoloz, a very good editor, because of MarkSweep's poor judgment. Babajobu 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My speedying this category was intended precisely to avoid a gratuituous and pointless DRV debate. Xoloz seems to have made a tactical retreat, if you check his contributions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV debate was actually pretty painless, as DRVs generally are. People debate, and then we get an answer. The only pain was caused by the speedy deletion and the subsequent wheel warring, which pissed people off. Babajobu 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, another conflict of this nature? Seems we need to start getting a consensus on the consensus. But then we'd also need a consensus on that consensus. Where will it end? --Shadow Puppet 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, no, we don't need consensus that there is a consensus. In fact, the admin closed it as "no consensus", and then it was speedied by another admin; then undeleted by another admin who thought we might as well just let the deletion review take it's course; then immediately deleted again by the same admin who had originally speedied it. Accept for the wheel warring, the poorly closed AfD, the pre-empted deletion review, and the users who left the project because of all this, I'd say we admins really handled the whole thing quite wisely and effectively! a A cookie for us! Babajobu 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys guys guys, please. I'm just trying to help, I'm not condemning anyone to the scaffold or anything. If my comment is unhelpful or misled in some way, just say so and move on. Please don't be so defensive and don't smack me if you can avoid it. Also: I'm hoping the heavy sarcasm was obvious in that "consensus" statement I made. --Shadow Puppet 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like there was consensus to delete and the common sense approach was to delete it. Let's not waste more time arguing about process. Johntex\talk 15:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yea, it looks plain to me too. Just wondering why someone thought otherwise. But I'll shut up. --Shadow Puppet 15:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was only plain to delete when you went through the Keep votes and tossed out 40% of them as invalid votes. I did not do this. This is the "Newbie mistake" that Mackensen mentions above. I should have vetted the votes. Without invalidating some of the Keep votes, the tally was 45 to 25 or so, short of the 2-1 ratio generally used as the threshhold on CFD. - TexasAndroid 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TexanAndroid, your mistake was understandable, and could easily and painlessly rectified by deletion review, which comes in handly in precisely those sorts of situations. This mess was not of your making. Had MarkSweep not wheel warred over the deletion, and instead just allowed the deletion review to take its normal course, this thread would not exist, Xoloz would still be at the project, et cetera. Babajobu 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, we're to be angry at MarkSweep for doing the right thing which was upheld scant hours later. The right response here, I would think, would be to commend MarkSweep for recognizing that the closing admin had made a mistake. We don't need to deletion review for obvious-and-quickly-rectified mistakes. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Being angry won't accomplish anything, but I'm not interested in "commending" someone for wheelwarring over something trivial that would have resolved itself the next day, anyway. Especially as numerous other experienced editors had asked him to please just let the deletion review take its normal course. Would have accomplished the same thing, would have pissed fewer people off, and wouldn't have required wheel warring. Sounds like that would have been the way to go, commendations aside. Babajobu 18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One other thing, TA ... *fD are not "votes", and the tally is only as relevant as you want it to be. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I entirely agree with that Fuddle...of course fDs are not votes, but Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators still says that our duty is to determine consensus at AfD, rather than to simply review the discussion and determine the correct outcome. So if, say, 70% of good-faith, reasoned recommendations from experienced editors suggest that an article be kept, and the closing admin decides, "to hell with them, I know better than all keep voters, and I'm closing it as a delete", then the closing admin should be prepared to have their little heinie pwned at deletion review for not correctly discharging their responsibility (provided, of course, that they don't just choose to wheel war over the deletion rather than waiting for the outcome of review). A well-vetted tally is a good barometer of consensus, and the closing admin shouldn't disregard it. Babajobu 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've never yet had a close overturned on me, and I don't count votes, on principle. We have to weigh "votes" based on the validity of their arguments (one "keep because of x, y, z" is worth innumerable "nn d"s). I basically read the discussion, and if it looks like a delete, it's delete, if it looks like a keep, it's keep, and if I'm not sure, it's no consensus. I recently closed a discussion where a terrible article about a school was nominated because "it's terrible and unverifiable", and got a buncha people saying delete because "needs cleanup, unverifiable". Someone came along and cleaned it up and verified it ... but delete votes, if one happens to swing that way, still overwhelmingly outnumbered the keeps (nobody commented after the cleanup was done). How do you think I closed? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, well if someone has done a significant clean-up or provided citations for previously unverified info, then consensus that was forming around an older version is no longer as relevant as newer comments. The guidelines for administrators actually say this explicitly. And I do weigh the strength of arguments when a vote is on the border between a no consensus and a keep or delete closure. But when a clear consensus has formed around the present version of an article, and when consensus is not trumped by an issue such as copyvio, then I don't think it's our place to decide consensus is wrong. No one has entrusted us with that authority; no one has stated that they think our judgment is good enough to outweigh the judgment of a large majority of established users. In our role as closers of AfDs, the community has said we're capable of performing the fairly menial administrative function of determining whether consensus exists; they've not expressed any special faith in our judgment as to whether articles should be kept or deleted. That's my understanding, anyway. Babajobu 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with "our judgement as to whether articles should be kept or deleted". The whole point of AfD is that, sometimes, the judgement of a single admin is not enough (that's why we're not speedying everything in sight, and the userbox brigade can shut up at this point ... yes, I see those smirks). My point isn't that it's up to an admin to decide, on the article's merits, whether to keep or delete ... it's that AfD is not a vote. It's perfectly appropriate to ignore a bunch of incredibly stupid reasons to delete an article and go with one or two good reasons to keep (and vice versa). One of the things admins do is weigh arguments. We're not returning officers, we don't just do a head-count and say, no, that's 65%, we must keep, oooh, 67%, that's a deleter. If we can't be trusted to read an AfD and make the right decision based on the discussion (not the tally) then we shouldn't be closing them. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I of course agree with you that AfD is not a vote. That's why the name was changed from VfD to AfD. But the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators still state that the criterion for closure is whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved. It doesn't say that the closing admin should act as a judge, and weigh the merits of the two sides to determine who has the stronger argument. In practice, we all do weigh the merits of the arguments and disregard the sillier ones, especially in cases in which we think existence of consensus is borderline. But ultimately, according to the guidelines we have been given, and presuming we think those guidelines should be taken seriously, we're still just functionaries determining consensus. We're not judges. Or, at least, we're more the former than the latter. Or, perhaps, the style of different closing admins varies depending on whether they consider themselves more the former or the latter. But I agree with you that simple vote counting only in order to determine whether the vote hits a particular sacred percentage is a very poor way to close. Babajobu 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Shadow Puppet - just to clarify, I was not making my comment to you specifically. I was just making a general comment in favor of the deletion and a desire to move on as quickly as possible. Johntex\talk 15:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Awsome. If everyone gets so upset over my teeny input, I guess, Newby or not, my words do have some power (NOTE: sarcasm). --Shadow Puppet 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Happyjoe

    This user has been removing evidence and reformatting this page ridiculously for the past 2 hours. Example here:[99] where I did not remove content, but fixed format and linked to specific sections. Example here:[100] of evidence removal. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Happyjoe pschemp | talk 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to Essjay for fixing this. All taken care of...go back to your naps. pschemp | talk 06:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nestore

    This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images with bogus copyright attributions, even after multiple warnings, to a variety of articles. I've blocked him for 1 week pursuant to WP:COPY#If you find a copyright infringement. I recommend that his edits be monitored when he returns - if he continues the way he has done, I see no alternative to a permament block. -- ChrisO 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review God of War block

    I've blocked God_of_War (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for trolling. This is intended to be a temporary block, with the exact duration to be determined here. Related accusations of trolling have been made elsewhere. God of War has now announced that he will not be bound by the outcome of an MfD.[101] That makes it rather obvious that he's not acting in good faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see him as trolling. I see him as trying to express his view, and thinking that he has the right to have this material on his main userpage instead of a subpage, even if the subpage is deleted. I'm not convinced a block is warranted. -- SCZenz 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the block, God of War spends too much time in namespaces not directly related to the encyclopedia, but has some good contributions as well. Recommend unblocking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose we unblock him, but make it clear that if this material is deleted it will not be acceptable to move a long non-Wikipedia-related essay to his main user page either. -- SCZenz 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    God of War has promised to follow the MFD result. I have therefore lifted the block now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It might also be good if you let someone else block any further "freedom fighters" as you're perceived as being "the enemy". Best not to add fuel to the fire, and there are plenty of admins around. - brenneman{T}{L} 14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that comments like that serve to expand that perception, Aaron. We have no freedom fighters on Wikipedia, and no opressors either—people who see themselves as fighting a war simply aren't going to achieve their aims. I think the most productive thing that users who see MarkSweep as "the enemy" can do is, well, stop seeing him that way. MarkSweep saw what he thought was trolling, responded, asked for administrative consensus, and accepted a reversal when the consensus didn't agree with him—exactly what any admin should do. -- SCZenz 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There may not be any 'freedom fighters', but I apparantly am seen as a crusher of dissent who must be opposed ([102]). I hadn't realized I held so much power, and me not even an admin. :-) -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Nlu

    Nlu's talkpage is taking a heavy amount of vandalism using the summary (-------- >Nlu is a FAGGOT and so is Nescio – They are butt buddies< --------). The vandal is using open proxies to edit. I strongly encourage any admin who sees vandalism with that summary to block the offender as a proxy and list the IP here; I will go through and scan each of them to be sure and then tag them accordingly. Alternatively, block for 24 hours and list the proxy here, and I will scan and reblock. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar activity at Faggot. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, same group. They've apparently moved there since Faggot was sprotected. 82.63.145.182 is an open proxy on port 80. Essjay Talk • Contact 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning vandal at Craigpod

    Nonsense article created by Gumbatron (talk · contribs), speedy notice removed several times by 62.171.194.43 (talk · contribs), 62.171.194.6 (talk · contribs), 62.171.194.40 (talk · contribs), all from a shared network often used for vandalism. More than enough warning given. Gazpacho 10:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both IPs are registered to Research Machines PLC, a company that provides internet services and software for schools in the UK. Most likely more school vandals. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Those school vandals were also vandalizing random articles and should have been blocked temporarily. Any articles they vandalized need to be cleaned up. Gazpacho 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:212.135.1.185

    Non stop vandalism of random pages, inserting little phrases, etc. The IP's talk page is a sea of red "This is your last warning" signs - someone want to follow through on those numerous threats ;) The IP's contribution page Smitz 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's bound to be a shared IP address. Secretlondon 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your definately correct, I forgot to mention that it's a school in warwickshire, UK. Would it be so wrong to block the entire IP block, but allow logged in users to edit, forcing any real editors from that IP block to register an account? Smitz 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RPA in substantial use

    Please review this series of diffs Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Restored comments dubiously deleted per RPA and warned the user about it. android79 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks#Suggested name change. The "R" in RPA is so often misapplied that I feel it ought to be changed to "Refactor". android79 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of User:Grue

    A short time ago, User:Kelly Martin blocked User:Grue because of this comment on an RfA, for 24 hours. While I don't believe the comment helped anyone, I don't believe that blocking Grue does either. Grue wasn't warned, and I think it is a fairly poor reason to block a perfectly decent user (and good administrator). I've removed the block, although Grue may want to reconsider his choice of words on that RfA. Esteffect 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a great example of why "never unblock without bringing it up with the blocker" is a bad idea. This block was obviously inappropriate, and it's proper that it was undone quickly. Kelly, not sure what you were thinking, but if you must block, please be more reasonable about it. Friday (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - worse comments have been said and no one got blocked. --Latinus 15:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Grue's remarks were a breach of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL, there is no excuse and a perfectly decent user (and good administrator) ought to know better. In the current climate we need to choose words with care, and avoid such inflammetory remarks. However, a stern waring, an invitation to retract, or failing that an extremely short block would have been better. I believe Kelly acted in good faith, but too severely, and the unblocking was justified. --Doc ask? 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The remark was snarky. It may reflect poorly on Grue in some folks's eyes. That is all the sanction that is needed in such a case. Friday (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what Doc said. Blocking was perhaps too harsh, but Grue owes everyone an explanation for why he apparently no longer assumes good faith. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Friday. The remark was certainly snarky, possibly uncivil. It was not a personal attack. I believe Kelly acted in good faith to try to move us towards more civil discourse, but the comment by Grue did not merit a block. Johntex\talk 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation was discussed on IRC. I believe the block was warranted. However, I'm not going to get into an extended fight over it, and frankly am not even interested in discussing it at this time. Whatever resolution the community decides is most appropriate in this situation is fine with me. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attitude horrifies me. Secretlondon 19:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an idea for resolution....Apologize. You were wrong. Just because you don't agree with someone is not a reason to block them.(And I assume that one of his/her allies will block me for speaking my mind, since that's been the nature of the cabal in the userbox wars.)Karmafist 18:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...nobody said that they blocked due to disagreement...and most of us agree that the RfA comments where not civil or "snarky" at best. The issue is whether they warranted a block. And bringup up cabal userbox comments is borderline trolling.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume bad faith, you mean? Don't. Dmcdevit·t 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I see a few things I very strongly disagree with: 1) the idea that the block was warranted, and 2) the idea that discussing it in a chat room somehow makes it better, and 3) the willingness to block without an accompanying willingness to discuss the block on the wiki. Blocking is quite controversial, as we should all know, so if you're not presently willing/able to be involved in the wiki much, you shouldn't be using the block function. Friday (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just let it go. I don't agree with the block either but he's unblocked, so we can now all go about our merry way. Demanding apologies isn't getting us anywhere. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the story from my perspective. After making the above remark, I decided to go into IRC to discuss the recent RfA voting patterns and I saw people discussing just that, and also the blocking of some guy. Before I decide to ask whom they're talking about, I was informed, that it's me who is blocked. I was like WTF and indeed, I was blocked (this is the first time I saw what happens when you try to edit a page while blocked). Thankfully I was unblocked rather quickly. I won't call for Kelly's head, but I think that making sudden 24hr blocks is not the practice that should be encouraged.  Grue  19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is disconcerting, isn't it? My first time was last year during the affair which eventually led to Stevertigo's desysopping. It really threw me for a loop. Anyway, I would agree that the block for unnecessary, but I kindly ask that you assume good faith in the future. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it happens once, it will happen again. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Grue made a particularly unhelpful remark in an RfA (minus two cookies to Grue), Kelly over-reacted (minus one cookie to Kelly), Grue was swiftly unblocked, the story is over. Everyone go home and enjoy your remaining cookies. --Doc ask? 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You made a grammar mistake. IIRC, the correct preposition is "from", not "to". Minus one cookie crumb from Doc. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Grue's comment was snarky but not uncivil and not directed at any specific person. Blocking him for it was completely and totally out of line, and I am shocked that it happened. This intimidates participants in RfA. I will endorse an RFC if it is opened. Jonathunder 19:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh FFS, what good would that do? --Doc ask? 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would further point out that RfC is more and more broken. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For one incident? That's a bit overboard. To me, it's a simple matter of, if you're not willing to use the sysop tools responsibly, don't use them at all. This is not an unreasonable expectation. The drive-by blocking with the cavalier attitude of "It was justified and I don't have time to discuss it" is completely inappropriate, so I don't think it's unreasonable in the least to ask Kelly to refrain from using the block tool. The sysop buttons are not toys. Friday (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, IRC rears it's ugly head again. Were the massive oppose votes after closing the result of IRC action? -- Cecropia 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not as far as I know and I was one of the first in the quick burst of opposes. I found some edits I felt were uncivil enough to oppose. Grues comments were uncivil....and snarky and empty of any good faith. The block may not have been justified but I for one am getting really discouraged over the lower and lower standards of communication on Wikipedia. I can understand the frustration she might have felt, people can be as sarcastic and biting as they want and somehow it's seen as an acceptable way of communicating. Rx StrangeLove 19:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Harshness in RfAs has increased lately (see this comment which really was incivil) and it is something I have spoken out against, even when done by those who voted the same way I did. In fact, I voted the same way KM did in the RfA in question, but I really am concerned blocking Grue for his comment will intimidate voters. Let the 'crats run RfA and leave any blocks for disrupting it to them. Jonathunder 20:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking User:Grue merely for that comment he made in that RfA is unacceptable. Lowering the bar on bans so low — down to the ankles — will damage Wikipedia. Alexander 007 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm shocked that someone was blocked for a WP:RFA vote. Sadly, I'm not particularly surprised at this point, nor am I particularly surprised as to whom the culprit was. This is a blatant attempt at voter intimidation. We need about half a dozen good desysoppings to keep these people under control. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Cecropia - This happened after the restart. Esteffect 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No way to know for sure Cecropia; some admins thought it would be a swell idea to have a private channel for admins only, so if some attempt at vote stacking were made there, non-admins would have no way of knowing. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I make an attempt at perspective? Grue said something he shouldn't have. Kelly said something she shouldn't have. Both mistakes were reversed. No long-term harm was done except whatever bitterness people choose to make themselves. Everyone makes mistakes and infallibility is not a prerequisite for adminship. I found the sudden rush of votes to oppose Djr's nomination distressing, but RFA is probably the single area where Wikipedia drama does the least harm.

    Since people are quoting Jimbo's opinions on userboxes until they're blue in the face whenever the subject comes up, here's one of his views I remember:

    "[Adminship] should be no big deal".

    This spat is making it into one. --Malthusian (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed.--Doc ask? 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship has been getting a bigger deal since IAR became fasionable. No big deal is dead.Geni 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with User:Geni 100%. As admins become increasinly enamored with IAR, and as we become increasingly contemptuous of consensus and process, adminship becomes a bigger and bigger deal. "No big deal" is as dead as a doornail. Babajobu 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic problem is that in many instances we have outgrown our policies, they haven't scaled, no big deal almost certainly fits with that to. Yet our basic set up is very resistant to change since most proposals are effectively scuppered by a few who disagree, and many not caring, making consensus difficult to reach. We also face the problem of many users believing process to be the end itself rather than the means to an end, and the rather bizarre belief that consensus is some how a trump card which overides common sense and the basic project goals. But this is nothing new, the "no big deal" line has been trotted out frequently, ususally on failing RFAs, which to me indicates that the person themself does believe it to be a big deal, in much the same way that WP:BOLD is often trotted out when someone knows they have over stepped the mark. --pgk(talk) 08:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with much of what you say, except that I don't think we really have a problem of users who believe that process is an end to itself. I think that's a bit of a strawman. I think users who make a good faith effort to participate in the various processes that have developed in Wikipedia would like admins to generally respect those processes unless they have a good reason not to. Admins who go trampling on process for no good reason whoatsoever win a lot of respect among other admins, but infuriate non-admins and make Wikipedia a less pleasurable, less interesting experience for them. But I agree with you that WP:BOLD, like WP:IAR, is often trotted out in defense of actions that serve no purpose. Babajobu 08:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Monty Hall problem shows that "common sense" is flawed and thus there is no reason no to overide it.Geni 09:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'll be more specific: Becoming an admin may be a big deal, but not becoming an admin certainly isn't. --Malthusian (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF? Grue is one of the good guys! Somethign is borked and no mistake. Just zis Guy you know? 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh...I really didn't want to wade any deeper into this, but since it's the latest in thing to do, I'll shoot myself in the foot. Kelly was wrong. Grue was wrong. Both have had their mistakes undone. It's finished. This is living proof that the wiki system works -- any mistakes (which are always inevitable due to our humanity) are undone as soon as possible. Stop living on them and go write the encyclopedia. Also, please don't blow this out of proportion. Kelly clearly stated she was blocking for incivility, not for the vote. AGF plzkthx. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly's block for incivility strikes me as somewhat inconsistent considering that just a couple of days ago she was calling people "idiots". [103] When the personal attack was removed Kelly disapproved saying that "WP:RPA is controversial". She even took the time to explicitly "stand by" her original comment that certain people are "idiots". [104] It's true enough that RPA is controversial. But blocking without warning, reference to the blocking policy or review at WP:AN/I is pretty controversial too as has been pointed out here. Blocking is a big deal. Please use it carefully. Please apologize when you get it wrong. Haukur 10:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. Grue's comment hardly even qualifies as a personal attack, though it was a bit incivil. Blocking him for it without so much as a warning or a prior request that he chill out was rather a bigger faux pas than his comment, especially considering Kelly was on the opposite side of the debate and absolutely shouldn't have been carrying out a block even had it been warranted. "Blocking is a big deal. Please use it carefully." Babajobu 12:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected Copyvio Image

    Hello, Image:Harrywhittington shot.jpg has been uploaded to illustrate the Harry Whittington and Dick Cheney hunting incident articles. The photo is from an online newspaper and the photo is copyrighted by Reuters. Is use of this picture permitted on these two articles? Johntex\talk 15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not. You should remove them from the articles and follow the instructions here to list the images for deletion. --Aaron 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like someone already removed them from those two articles and tagged it with {{no license}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have previously removed the picture from the articles, but the uploader put it back. I have completed the tagging process as instructed by Aasron. Thanks to you both. Johntex\talk 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, it looks like it was speedy deleted for being a blatant copyvio. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    General rule of thumb: if an image is from a news agency, and the article is tagged as a current event, the image is a copyvio: we're competing directly with the agency as a news source, so the image cannot qualify for fair use. --Carnildo 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User Anotherblogger (talk · contribs) using sockpuppet ScottMiller (talk · contribs)

    He's continuing his link spam of Perverted-Justice.com. There's a checkuser on him here: [105] which is pretty indicative that we have sockpuppetry, aside from the fact that he's continuing the activities of Anotherblogger. Fieari 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Buriednews.com spam campaign

    Buriednews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Merrysoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been running a short-lived spam campaign to link to "buriednews.com", some sort of Drudge Report lookalike. I've blocked both indefinitely, but the block on Buriednews did not affect Merrysoul, AFAICT, so be aware that this spammer may be running other usernames. android79 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user bsuinfosys

    I have blocked Bsuinfosys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent whitewashing of Breyer State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), removing everything which alludes to its unaccredited status and questionable past. Previous block was 24h, on return he came straight back and did the same thing again, so this time it's indefinite. Feel free to reduce if you think that's over harsh, but the fact that the username includes BSU and there are no edits whatsoever to any other article does rather indicate that this is somebody associated with BSU. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a serial issue. Looking at his edits, he's gone for a while, then comes back to the same article, and just that article. I'd say give him a long span; perhaps he'll lose interest. (BTW, I'm not an admin, so I hope I'm not out of line). --Shadow Puppet 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestions are welcome from anyone, admins or not. :-) android79 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WHEELER

    Could somebody have a word with WHEELER (talk · contribs)? He is repeatedly placing external links to his own highly original essays on a number of articles. He seems to think that I am the embodiment of evil, so could a third party please tell him about our external links policies. - SimonP 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought he'd left the project. Heavens. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And here I was thinking that you were the embodiment of evil! Silly me. :)--Sean Black (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Did someone say evil? --LV (Dark Mark) 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to be back, he has just added Revolution within the form and Cretan/Spartan connection. He admits that both are original research. I'm not going to touch these, so could somebody else deal with them. - SimonP 20:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I found the spot. As soon as I posted one External link---SimonP who has NO classical training or education kept deleting the External link (see page history of "History of Crete" as an examle) like Wikipedia is his personal space. Does Wikipedia belong to SimonP? I put asked him: User talk:SimonP#Hostility; he responded on my site: User talk:WHEELER#Links. Anything I do on this Website---he deletes or seeks to destroy the article. (1) I point to xenelasia where an external link to Wikinfo was changed by SimonP calling it "remove spam". (2) I point to synoecism where SimonP puts a cleanup tag with this comment "({cleanup} mix of original research and nonsense)". (3) I point to Classical definition of effeminacy where SimonP also puts a cleanup tag "({cleanup}, this article has a lot of problems)".
    This man follows me everywhere I go In Wikipedia---him and his gang---go around harrassing me and doing immature things. There is no problem with an External link to Wikinfo articles!!! Should there be?? Is there that much visceral hatred by you people???
    Get this man off my back and stop the persecutions. Please stop this immaturity.WHEELER 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not stay on Wikinfo? You understand by now that original research isn't permitted on Wikipedia, but you are continuing to post your own research in Wikipedia articles. I guess I don't get the attraction. I think you've done some interesting work, but it isn't appropriate here. Rhobite 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I caught you guys red-handed with "Article laundering". I don't trust you as much as I can throw you. One wikipedian deletes an external link as " (rv to SimonP; Wikiinfo not sister project). " My external links don't violate your policy!!!!
    Second case of article laundering===Cultural imprint on politics/Revision at Wikipedia. Which was conventently deleted recently. Here is a quote from someone on that page:
    This is a draft for a fair rewrite of an encyclopedic subject that simply discusses the imprint that culture has on politics. The basis for the present text was unacceptable to many Wikipedians as being an original essay with a strong personal slant (POV rather than a neutral encyclopedia report on the development of this self-evident idea, making references and citing sources. Don't make angry edits, try to forget any agenda of your own, and keep the English-speaking reader firmly in mind. Thanks.
    You were attempting to steal an article at Wikinfo!!!! You deleted it. And then try to surreptissiously put it on your site ""Washed"" without tracing back!!!!! This is morally wrong for you people. I see your extermination policy of external links!!!! ala Bill Gates---you guys take lessons from him!!!! Instead of bringing it back on and referencing it back to Wikinfo---You are attempting to "Article laundering" in defiance of copyright laws regarding Wiki's. You people are evil. Do you have that much hatred for Wikinfo??? Is Hate the basis of what goes on around here???WHEELER 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Howdy! I note that wikinfo uses GFDL. As Wikipedia also uses this same license, and the terms of GFDL allow (in fact, encourage) distribution as long as the derivatives remain under GFDL, I'm not certain how this could be stealing, even assuming that it was a straight copy/paste job (which it wasn't). Also, most of Wikinfo's content is copied from Wikipedia as an FYI. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone tell me the downside of external links to WHEELER's articles? Sam Spade 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The main problem is that they are to essays that are at best highly POV, and at worst deeply inaccurate. - SimonP 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I am rightfully scared that anytime I try to put an external link---they will delete it--run out---create another article on the subject--put in on Wikipedia themselves--thus preventing any external link!!!! I see this game you guys are trying to pull. And this should be noted.!!!! WHEELER 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I really am quite congenial. I understand the NPOV policy here. I understand the policy of NO original research. That is why I first tried to put in External links. I think the info is needed to inform readers. You can NPOV those articles but leave a link back to the original post so people can learn more. I am not interested in Turf Wars. Or delete the article and make it an external link. I'd rather you make it an external link. But what I see, scares me, I am forced to act the way I did. Those two article do in small ways violate your policies and need to be edited or moved to external links. I totally agree. But I will not stand for stealing my hard work or the "washing" of articles. And I don't believe in persecuting people.

    Why can't I put an external link such as "Please see SPOV article at [Wikinfo:Subject name]" or "For original research material on subject please see [Wikinfo:Subject name]"? Why is this so hard?WHEELER 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    because literature cited has got to be notable ("notability" is relative to the subject matter). Wikinfo isn't a notable or reputable source by any standard. You have no "right" to link to your articles; the only way to get a policy-sanctioned "right" to discuss or link to your views is to publish them in peer-reviewed journals so that they arguably may be described as a notable academic minority position. 62.202.79.186 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Naked Short Selling/User:Tommytoyz

    The Naked Short Selling page has been a source of repeated troubles in recent weeks -- edit wars that have included vandalism requiring freezing of the page, personal attacks, and a POV fork resolved by deletion of the duplicative page. Much of this was the work of User:Tommytoyz, who continues to engage in disruptive edits and confrontational tactics aimed at intimidating other editors and skewing the POV of the page. Attempt to resolve by third party intervention unsuccessful. Today, after being warned by two other editors concerning his personal attacks, excessive reverts, and edits bordering on vandalism, he resumed his disruptive reverts as if nothing had happened. Please block this user. --Tomstoner 02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    SimulacrumCaputosis and Zombiebaron

    Two editors with very short histories, SimulacrumCaputosis (talk · contribs) and Zombiebaron (talk · contribs) keep trying to insert a link to Unencyclopedia into Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 03:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the place to contest this, but in all honesty Uncyclopedia is basicly the antichrist when compared to Wikipedia. Sorta makes sence to add it to what wikipedia is not, because wikipedia is not a place for blatent rascism, featured stubs, humor, cell churches, and the like. I feel that SulacrumCaputosis and me are completely justified in our addition, and numerous reverts. Zombiebaron 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I've contested your insertion of the link to Unencyclopedia, you can propose the insertion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. These things are done by consensus over here. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.96.248.99

    User 217.96.248.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) use to make strong national attacks and to vandalize user pages of everybody he suspects in the Pro-Ukrainian POV. Today he seems to went on a rampage producing edits like: [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], etc. He was already blocked for one week for the very similar behavior.

    It appears that the IP is a static IP belonging to an individual. Simple IP tracing shows his real name and the phone number. He sometimes produces good faith edits, but also many personal attacks and vandalizing.

    I gave him 24h block, just to cool down, but I feel that if he will repeat quite longer blocking must be applied. I was already criticized that the block is to lenient. abakharev 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:ColonelS

    Can we have a sockpuppet check on this guy? On his first day he headed straight for the Chip Berlet article and started bringing up all the same old disputes, so I'm wondering if this is Nobs or Cognition or somebody else who has been dealt with by ArbCom. Gamaliel 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Jkelly 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's quite a backlog over there. Gamaliel 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep... Jkelly 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both myself and Fred Bauder looked at it. That user comes from an IP address which seems to regularly spawn 'new' users with similar far-right beliefs and writing styles, each of which seems to stick to a limited subset of articles. They seem to be the same person. However, the use of multiple accounts doesn't seem to be actually disruptive - more, perhaps, to prevent the user being recognised / tracked. There is no multiple voting, use to evade 3rr/blocks, or anything of that sort that I can see.
    The writing style doesn't look like Nobs or Cognition to either of us, however, and it's obviously impossible to tell for sure after this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dean McVeigh

    There are significant issues with unregistered or very recently registered users editing the article on Dean McVeigh in continuing contravention of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Could it have semi-protected status?--A Y Arktos 09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No action has been taken, and hence I renew am renewing my request.--A Y Arktos 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no action - have I put this request in the wrong place? Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy does say an admin would respond if I popsted here. I will try at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection too.--A Y Arktos 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken a look over at the article history and enabled sem-protection for now. -- Longhair 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Association of British Counties continual reverts

    By sockpuppets of banned user IanDavies. Can this page be protected temporarily until he finds something better to do? Owain (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semiprotected.--File Éireann 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The blocklog says IanDavis has been blocked as a sock of User:Irate. Secretlondon 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Erwin Walsh (talk · contribs)

    User insults me at random not once but twice. Also incivil towards other users as well. Many examples are avalible but these should be sufficient.

    He has a total of 532 edits of which only 66 ae in articlespace. Those edits were mostly vfds.

    A partial list of his vfds: Quad Electroacoustics Anal masturbation,Massage therapist, 2003 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

    User has been blocked 4 times so far. Of which 2 of the cases due to vandalism

    I do not see a reason why we have to put up with him. Please end his misery. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant Policy Abuse by Celestianpower

    In regard to the AfD entry concerning Steven Levitt, Celestianpower closed discussion a mere 35 minutes after its opening. Such insanely early closings only serve to further the secularist POV of such an editor. Voting MUST run its course - closing the polls early just because you happen to be ahead is patently unfair, and NOT what Wikipedia is about. This is a heads-up, as I am sure he will continue trying to push his view through the guise of janitorial tasks.

    Peace in Christ, Steven Taylor 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Assume good faith, please. As Christians, it's the least we can do. Anyway, I can't see why on earth anyone would want that article deleted. Celestianpower was totally correct in ignoring all rules and closing a debate that had a snowball's chance in hell of getting the article deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, that was a rather absurd AfD nomination; we don't delete articles on authors with best-selling titles. Closing the discussion early was exactly the right course of action. The fact that you refer to "voting" and "closing the polls early" shows that you do not quite understand how AfD is supposed to work. android79 16:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CheckUser requested for Steven Taylor. The absurd abuse of process to prove a point along with the talk page spamming (look at this user's contributions), leads me to believe this may be a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. Hexagonal 16:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your incivility makes me sick. Steven Taylor 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) Wow. Just, wow. I'm not the suspicious type, but if someone wanted to demonstrate the harm caused by categories like Category:Christian Wikipedians, the edits made by Steven Taylor (talk • contribs) make the point pretty clear. Friday (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just going to say that. android79 16:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say the same thing. Account created today, listed Steven Levitt for deletion and then worked (partway) through Category:Christian_Wikipedians trying to round up a posse. Whoever it is ought to thank Celestianpower for saving them some typing. --ajn (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the use of "godless" and the "Peace in Christ" sign-off in the vote recruiting, both trademarks of Gastrich's writing style. I tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet, not that there's much point as the next time we see him he'll have a new account. --Malthusian (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Steven_Taylor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for disruption, and I imagine it ought to be a lot longer block. Is there any way to fast-track a CheckUser? android79 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Just wait until someone with access to it gets around to tackling the problem. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and listed this at the WP:RFCU page. Hopefully someone will be able to confirm or deny whether this is a sock. Hexagonal
    I reblocked indefinitely. Looking at the user's contributions, it's beyond doubt that he is somebody's sockpuppet. Those are not the actions of a clueless newbie, or of someone's legitimate sockpuppet. Whoever is pulling the strings knows what they are doing and is acting in bad faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought - saying explicitly here what's tipping you off might be a case of spilling the beans.
    brenneman{T}{L} 00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you're saying here. Are you contesting the block? If you are suggesting that it's not obvious, you probably haven't had a chance to look at the contribution history. If you're saying that spelling out what would be successful sockpuppeteering is a case of WP:BEANS, I agree with you. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There shouldn't be any disagreement over the validity of this block anymore. The checkuser request was granted, and Morven found that this sock was part of a sock farm operated by Gastrich. He also went ahead and blocked the IP responsible, which should save us some future grief. Hexagonal 03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated vandalism and posting of personal data by User:207.99.39.86

    See edits at All your base are belong to us. --Captaindan 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaiser Permanente

    Can someone take a look at Kaiser Permanente? One user refuses to allow anyone to include an image of Kaiser Permanente's logo in the article, or to allow people to link to the company's homepage from the infobox. This is disruption. Rhobite 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wacky. Left a {{3rr}} at User talk:Pansophia. Jkelly 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If things continue like they have, I see no good solution short of banning Pansophia from directly editing any article related to Kaiser. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3RR rule was not, however, applied to MarkSweep. A good process for ensuring balanced editing was worked out yesterday, but today Rhobite ignored it. Rhobite and MarkSweep also seems to be stalking me on other pages. This is a (double-teamed) attack on myself as a user in order to weed out an editor to win an editorial dispute. --Pansophia 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted 3 times. If you believe that I reverted more than 3 times, please post the diffs. Rhobite 23:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's important to point out that that "good process for ensuring balanced editing" had, thus far, largely allowed User:Pansophia to replant her POV into the article proper (removing the organisation's logo from infobox because it's an "ad," repeatedly reinserting her LiveJournal blog as an external link, etc.). It's also notable that this is not the first time other editors or administrators have "(double-team..) attack[ed]" User:Pansophia, at least by her own assertion... Justen Deal 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing out this is not the first time that this has happened. No one has done anything about your false accusation of sock puppetry, by the way. I assume you're only here to try to "get me" by other means? --Pansophia 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Pansophia's rant from 3 days ago, above. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tag teaming" as it regards 3RR is no crime. In fact it is explicitly excluded from 3RR policy because 3RR is designed to keep one editor from hijacking an article against the wishes of a consensus of other editors. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:64.107.114.4

    64.107.114.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is going around to various pages related to American conservatism, blanking them, and replacing them with the content from Andrea Mackris. He's also using fraudulent edit summaries in an attempt to stop editors and admins from double-checking the pages. A block will probably be necessary. --Aaron 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He should have been blocked after his first racist edit to Flag of Mexico. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fort Drum proxy blocked indefinitely

    I have blocked gahccache.drum.amedd.army.mil = 192.138.65.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indefinitely as an open proxy. The IP was previously blocked for 24 hours by Markalexander100 for linkspamming, and has no legitimate contribs. This address belongs to U.S. Army MEDDAC, Fort Drum, New York, [113] and appears to be a misconfigured dedicated web proxy. I have personally verified that the proxy is indeed open to the public and can be used to access Wikipedia. (Yes, this means I just portscanned a U.S. Army computer. I'm feeling a bit nervous now.) I have not yet notified the administration for the site. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You portscanned a U.S. Army computer? Uh-oh, you'd better watch out before... Ilmari Karonen (talk) Woops, too late. --Deathphoenix 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now sent an e-mail notice to the webmaster of www.drum.amedd.army.mil and requested that it be forwarded to the person or department responsible for the proxy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon. using dynamic IPs is POV pushing and vandalizing Argentinian pages

    I just blocked the anon 200.45.6.172 for vandalism and blatant attacks on Talk:Huemul Project [114]. These attacks were previously posted to a variety of user talk pages (including mine - removed) under a different IP. The anon has been waging a revert war/vandalism attack on Huemul Project and related pages, resulting in several protects on those pages. I have suggested the regular editors of those pages file an rfc, but don't see that it would be effective. Talk:Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica has also been under attack by the anon and was protected by User:Pablo-flores, who has also been attacked by the anon. Take a look at the history of those pages and see what has been going on. The anon is currently spamming my talk from IP 200.43.201.132 [115]. Vsmith 03:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't quite tell what's going on here, but have you considered the possibility that the anon has a legitimate complaint and doesn't know how to go about articulating it? After all, their contributions keep getting reverted as "vandalism" (e.g. here), but I don't see how that edit in isolation qualifies as vandalism. Looks like more of a regular edit war based on a content dispute. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It looked like that to me at first, but by now a pattern is clear to those involved: this person (using one of many IPs in a block we have more or less identified) alters the content of an article regarding a certain particular topic (Argentina's attempts at nuclear fusion and the Argentine nuclear research institutions, basically), presenting a particularly biased POV based on disparaging those institutions; he doesn't respond to attempts at discussion, reverts any changes, and attacks the other editors. Several of the IPs have been blocked, to no effect, and pages have had to be protected. The editor in question also doesn't respond to suggestions of registering under a username, and continues the disruption using multiple IPs. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Merkey

    Could someone take a look at the current edit war du jour on the Jeff Merkey article and try to make some determination. the accusations are flying. the dispute is over whether the article should be tagged with the NPOV and other templates.--Alhutch 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well though I'm "involved", I have removed the wikify and cleanup tags, since it clearly is wikified and it doesn't require clean up. I've left the NPOV tag, though personally I'm not convinced of there being any issue, but other opinions would be most welcome. --pgk(talk) 13:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Brainhell still harassing Lucky 6.9

    Lucky has left the building, but Brainhell's vexatious litigation against him continues. The Requests for comment/Lucky 6.9 opened by Brainhell with the help of User:Robert McClenon was properly deleted for being improperly certified (there had been no attempt at mediation or other dispute resolution, and there still has not), but it's talk page remains and is being used by Brainhell as yet another attack page. Lucky has stated on the page that all he wants is to be left alone[116], and I think it's time he was. Unless people object, I propose deleting Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lucky 6.9, and have posted on it to announce that intention.[117] Please comment. Bishonen | ノート 07:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    there's been altogether too much harassment of Lucky by Brainhell already, I approve of deleting the page.--Alhutch 07:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Motion seconded and carried. Shouldn't the talk page have been deleted at the same time the project page was deleted? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    probably.--Alhutch 08:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked Raul654 the same thing at the time, but if I understood him he thought there would be less fuss and uproar this way. In any case, today I thought it was looking so ugly it was time for it to go. I guess not a lot of people would have had time to review my proposal before you deleted the page, Mark, but it can always be temporarily undeleted if anybody requests it. I guess Brainhell won't know what's going on if he finds the page deleted without having read my recent post on it, so I'm going to inform him. Bishonen | ノート 08:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Thank you one and all. Of course, there's always the matter of Brainhell's talk page (and his thinly veiled attacks which totally comprise his user page), but I'm relieved that this is off of the main article space. Raul654 felt that the talk page should remain in hopes that the situation would burn itself out. I guess that wasn't the case. Love you guys. Lucky 6.9 via 71.102.89.240 08:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC). Over and out...[reply]

    Speedying of TIME magazine images

    User:Ta bu shi da yu has decided that most uses of thumbnailed TIME magazine covers is, by his definition, not fair use, and has taken to removing them from articles and speedying them. I'm happy with someone disputing their fair use status, arguing for a rewrite of the template, or removing them from the article and letting the orphanbot get them if they stay un-used for a week or so. But I think that the approach being taken here is somewhat out of procedure -- copyvio speedies are for blatant violations, and none of these low-res TIME magazine covers are, under our current Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines, as such. Speedying them as orphans is not intended to be used in this way -- if you remove the image from an article, it does not automatically become a speedable orphan, in my opinion. In any event, I'd appreciate it if someone else could look at his/her behavior on this, because I have not seen any open explanations of why he has decided to start doing this, and we all know that image deletion is much harder to reverse than any other admin actions. I'm of course very concerned with Wikipedia's proper fair use compliance, but I don't think this admin's approach is correct in this instance, at least without some discussion first either at WP:FU or WP:WPFU. --Fastfission 17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There was discussion of this issue at WP:AN#TIME Magazine covers. You're right that the main issue raised was removal, not deletion. However, there is a general consensus that we have too many TIME covers over all, and that something had to be done about this. Ta bu shi da yu is not really acting unilaterally; he has the support of a number of admins, including me, and, I gather, some people at the Foundation as well (you should ask him about that). Yes, if it were me, I would have listed them at IFD instead of deleting them straight off. But something had to be done and I'm glad he's taken the flak and done it. Chick Bowen 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) What Chick Bowen said. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the images are being used to illustrate an article on TIME magazine itself, fair use does not apply. Did you discuss it with TBSDY before bringing it here? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not really true. If the article discussed someone's selection as Man of the Year or something similar, then there would probably be a valid fair use claim. Just using the image as illustration would not be fair use. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course I left a message for TBSDY first, but was disturbed that other people have asked him about it and he referenced only e-mails from Jimbo as his justification. I think something like this should be discussed on Wikipedia:Fair use -- many of the images he deleted (I made a brief survey of them) were used in ways which were acceptable under the current fair use policy, IMO, or were at least close enough to it that discussion would be necessary before speedying them.
    And I wouldn't have brought it up here at all if I thought he was only deleting clear cases of non-fair use. In any case, I don't think that's the right way to handle fair use claims: they should be put up at WP:PUI, not speedyable. If taken in good faith they are not blatant copyvio in the way that someone listing a copyrighted image as GFDL or PD would be. --Fastfission 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And hey -- as anyone who is familiar with my work on the Fair Use policy both here and on the en mailing list would know, I'm extremely sympathetic to the desire to lessen the number of fair use images used on Wikipedia and to keep our use of them thoroughly in a legally safe zone! I just think that many of the images deleted are completely in accordance with our current policy; if the policy is bad, we should change that first before going around and speedying dozens of images. --Fastfission 21:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wheel Warring - In progress?

    I found the following sentence on the talk page of Catamorphism, and I think this is an attempt to organise a wheel war. Also this doesn't seem right, because I've tried talk on the talk page of parental notification and even revised my version for neutrality. It is just that the version currently up (if Catamorphism has heeded Alienus' call) lacks some information. Chooserr 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chooserr has continued to revert the same low-quality version of parental notification repeatedly, and I don't want to violate 3RR. Please jump in. Alienus 18:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    I also wanted to post the alienus' accompaning comment from the summary bit - Parental notification call to action. Chooserr 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean User:Catamorphism? That girl has always been rude. Lapinmies 18:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    help requested

    I have become involved in a situation on the articles Total Olympics medal count and Summer Olympics medal count where 2 users have been pushing the inclusion of a POV statement in a purely numerical list of medals won. Please see examples of the edits here and here. The two users involved are User:Medalstats and User:Them medals.

    The first has been employing rather insulting and inappropriate language to further his arguments, see here for example. The latter of these, Them Medals, has been editing only for a day or two after the conflict started and has not made contributions other than supporting and replacing Medalstat's edits. I suspect him of being the same person as Medalstats. I have left a note on Medalstats userpage but he has not gotten back to me yet. I am unsure what to do short of becoming involved in a viscious circle of reverting each other's edits and I would appreciate an admin looking into it. Thank you for your time,--Kalsermar 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But he does have a point and makes sense. Lapinmies 18:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Using offending language and inserting POV statements without source only to make a point is having a point and making sense?--Kalsermar 19:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested a compromise on the talk page: A column with the number of Olympics each country has particapated in. That way the point is made without adding POV edits like this county dominates that country. Rx StrangeLove 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see also here for today's latest personal attacks on me by User:Them medals. How best to deal with this without running afoul of 3RR myself?--Kalsermar 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Uri Geller

    User:Earthacademy showed up at the Uri Geller article claiming to be Geller's representative and added a bunch of ranting about "intellectual bigots" and so forth. I left a polite note about NPOV, legal threats, etc. but wanted to give everybody a heads up in case this escalates. Gamaliel 19:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the user is also 217.46.167.13 (talk · contribs). --cesarb 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eliezer

    I am complaining about User:Eliezer regarding the Messianic Judaism article, especially the Talk:Messianic_Judaism page. There are a lot of complaints that he routinely deletes NPOV content he personally disagrees with and he routinely adds extremely POV material.

    However, my biggest complaint is this: he recently added a "Caveat" to something (apparently in the article) that he disagreed with, which made the result quite POV. When someone complained, he lied and said that I was the one who added the caveat.

    For the record, I have copied below the discussion from the Talk page where he lied and attributed the caveat to me.

    Start of quote

    Explanation of Total Dispute Tag The problems outlined in sections 23 & 25 of this talk page express this article's NPOV violations. Additionally, Eliezer is further abusing his authority by editing the article to make it worse. All the other administrators just sit back and watch him make a mockery of the Wikipedia process.

    Evidently Eliezer neither read my explanation nor explained himself before vandalizing my tag. Firstly, SECTION 25 gives a very clear and detailed reason for this tag BEFORE Eliezer added his Caveat section. Instead of respecting Wikipedia's mission statement or the mediator's instructions in resolving this debate, he makes unsupported sweeping generalizations that are largely false. Isn't this supposed to be an accurate and neutral article? The entire article needs to be a short scientific definition of Messianic Judaism. There is no reason why the article should be more than three paragraphs in length. This is not supposed to be Outreach Judaism's propoganda machine. Eliezer's Caveat is: 1. Completely irrelevant in an encyclopedia's article; 2. Absolutely unsupported with any facts; 3. Outright false and misleading. Isn't somebody going to do something meaningful to stop him from abusing his power? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.219.226 (talk • contribs) .

    The Idea of Neutral Point of View, is that the writer not interject there own judgments and interpretations on to the subject matter, and that by reading an article you cannot deduce anything about the POV of the author. However some subject matter such as a religion or a philosophy has an inherent point of view. Regardless of the topic, the POV of the subject should be reflected. So an article on Hasidism should reflect the views of the Hasidim, an artlcle of Nazism should reflect the POV of the Nazis, and an article on Messianic Judaism should reflect the Messianic Jews. However even in those cases those views should be objectively reported and neither advocated nor impeached. If you disagree with an article or its subject matter offends you, learn to live with it. Wikipedia articles are not a place to express your judgments; you can do that on the discussion page. Eleazer, being neither a scholar of Messianic Jewish history, nor an adherent to its beliefs should only be making corrections to blatant factual errors and grammar. I'm sure he would have problems with a Reform Jew putting Caveats in an article about Hasidism stating that Hadisms is a deviants sect of Judaism that holds to extremist mystical beliefs that don’t reflect the majority of Jews, or if a member of Chabad added a Caveat to the article on Conservative Judaism that since it doesn't follow Halacha that it can't really be considered Judaism; Eleazer's caveat is equally inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.144.90 (talk • contribs) .

    The caveat was written by RickReinckens see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Religious_Practices&oldid=26170335 and as you can read from his user page what his views are. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    ELIEZER, THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!!!

    I had nothing to do with any Caveat tag.

    I basically stopped contributing to this article long ago and rarely contribute to the discussion because it is so biased.

    RickReinckens 11:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    I did a little research into the history. YOU were the one who posted the caveat - not him. Furthermore, I am willing to hop on an airplane and go anywhere he is in the world and we can confirm each other's identities face-to-face (provided I don't need a visa to get there). If he is for real, I flip the bill. If not, you flip the bill. Are you up for that challenge?85.65.219.226 08:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    However I removed the caveat tag to try to come to a compromise. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    This is not much of a compromise when none of the blatant factual inaccuracies raised in section 23, 25, 29 and 30 of this discussion have been addressed. Anybody who does even the slightest research into most "facts" in this article will find them to be embarrassingly wrong and unfair to Messianic Judaism. Whenever somebody tries even the smallest adjustments to make this article unbiased and accurate, Eliezer rejects their changes and threatens to block them. I am more than willing to retain the services of a Conservative Jewish scholar who teaches at an accredited university. His expertise includes Messianic Judaism. Allow him to write an objective article that gives a neutral point of veiw. Then we should lock his version of the article against vandalism. Can we agree to that as a true compromise? 85.65.219.226 06:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

    End of quote

    Please consider this a formal complaint. It is my understanding that Eliezer has administrative privileges. If he lies about authorship of his edits his admin privileges should be canceled and he probably should even be blocked because he knows better. He is constantly being warned about NPOV violations and improper edits by many people in the Talk:Messianic Judaism page.
    RickReinckens 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Take content disputes through one of the places mentioned in WP:DR. android79 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a content dispute. It is about an administrator lying about who authored his edit and also about his numerous NPOV violations.
    'RickReinckens 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the history of Messianic Religious Practices the first edit to that article was by RickReinckens that edit has the caveat tag see this diff. If you want to deny that you wrote that it's fine, and I apologize for saying that you wrote it, it was however in the wikipedia history as something that you inserted. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Swedenman

    User:Swedenman (contribs) has been involved in several edit wars and is at the moment removing other users' comments from his own talk page. User:Swedenman is identical with Filipman (contribs) on Swedish wikipedia. So far he has been blocked 8 times (sv:block log) for rabid edit wars and for abusing other wikipedians. Several users have vainly tried to reason with Swedenman. Probert 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires

    User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires (talk) has been adding the {{libel}} tag to several articles including Kelly Clarkson and Avril Lavigne. (See contributions) Since the account has only recently begun editing Wikipedia, it is possible that the person behind the nickname could be an indefinitely blocked user in an attempt at reincarnation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Account has already been blocked by Gamaliel for 24 hours. The user placed both {{WoW}} and {{MPS}} on his/her user page; I removed them but was tempted to actually block indefinitely for claiming to be those two vandals, but didn't. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... I shall keep an eye on the situation. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because the user chose to place the templates on his/her user page, they must be familiar with operating Wikipedia. Although I don't want to, I'm going to be placing their talk page on my watchlist for now, but I'm sincerely no fan of playing babysitter. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the latest in a loooong line of accounts from a vandal that some people call the Hotrocks vandal. His MO is to put provocative tags (NPOV, totally disputed, delete etc.) onto a range of articles. He particularly (dis)favours Girls Aloud (check out its history), and he clearly reads this page and ViP, as he often apes the vandalism of whomever is the vandal-of-the-moment. As with dozens of his other accounts, I've made the block permanent. He'll be back tomorrow (at around 10am). DOn't be surprised, incidentally, if he adds a fake apology to the mix once in a while. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this user account be indefinitely blocked then? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This account is blocked indefinitely, but he'll create another one. And another... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, well, we do what we have to do. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted Wilkes violated his probation

    User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [118], [119], [120], [121]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [122]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [123] and [124]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [125]. Onefortyone 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=41262672"