Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Wiki Chainsaw Massacre: The Horror

Talk about understatement! Doc with his admin powers has been "clearcutting" Wikipedia until all that is left is "the world according to Doc".If you look at his contribs he is close to setting a stalk block delete record. We have a problem. --Dosss 08:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"To whom it may concern: I am leaving (indeed, truthfully, I stopped useful editing some weeks ago) - and I hereby confirm my request that this account be desysopped." --Doc

"I have temporarily blocked your account from editing for disruption. If you are leaving, which is sad, do not disrupt Wikipedia before you go. It's not very nice to those of us who stick around. If you unblock yourself, I guess we can take it as a sign that you aren't quitting Wikipedia after all." - Mark

With 1) CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log) 2) -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log) AND 3) Doc glasgow talk all "Blocked" does this maen the 'horror' is over? Is it safe for us to return to Wikipedia? (I do hate conflict and I am not the only one !) --Firmon 07:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian J. Bruns (Brian Bruns)

Someone just now deleted the Brian J. Bruns article without any discussion at all. He is the owner/webmaster of AHBL and SOSDG. Who deleted it and why? Why was there no discussion of AfD? --Chakabuh 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted by Phroziac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with the explanation "Inane junk to make brian look bad." I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but it looks like Bruns himself was editing the article and fighting with you over the content. I'll invite Phroziac to explain the deletion here. Postdlf 02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

18:53, May 31, 2006 Phroziac deleted "Brian J. Bruns" (Inane junk to make brian look bad) You might want to discuss it with him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't inane junk and I uploaded a copy of page one of the extended TRO on Bruns: Image:Fss vs bruns tro ext1.gif --Chakabuh 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean the TRO that was dismissed when the rest of the case was? Perhaps if you actually read the court documents, you'd not be trying to tell me about a case that you have no involvement with. Brian 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that indicates the TRO was dismissed. Please direct me to the document that shows this. --Chakabuh 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the TRO is disrelated to Bruns' indictments. Bruns had 2 seperate indictments, per a plea agreement, one was dismissed, the other was not. See Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg, Image:Brian Bruns DA Press Release.jpg, and Image:Brian Bruns re Indt 2423-02 and 1577 02.jpg --Chakabuh 08:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A blind man would see they are completely separate from one another. The incidents happened 3 years apart. Either way, between lying through omission, and twisting the truth to your own vision, you've made yourself look like a sockpuppet for some really nutty kooks. Brian 17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, your believe your rhetoric is against wikipedia rules about getting along with other contributors. There is no lying through ommission, only confusion on my part and the other contributors parts in trying to understand these court papers. --Chakabuh 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I said that the cases are seperate because some of the other editors seemed to think there was only one (the case filed by Scoville). We can now see you were indicted for hacking and software piracy both of which are felonies. The hacking crime was dismissed, I don't know why, but others say because you made a plea agreement and we have nothing to see so we can't make a determination here in Wikipedia until we get documentation. But the software piracy was not dismissed. Calling you a felon is not an attack or libel. It is true and cited to a reliable reference: a court doc from the court in New York Image:Brian Bruns Indictment 2423-02.jpg. --Chakabuh 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Phroziac mistook a vandalized revision for an attack page. Ashibaka tock 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only vandalism I saw was the blanking by Bruns. --Chakabuh 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That must be what happened. I know Brian, and he was trying to explain the situation to me, and I was in a rush, saw the page, and thought he meant it was an attack page. I was in a rush to go to bed early (we had a huge run with 600,000 impressions the next day), and he wanted me to do something about it. I really don't think he's notable though, AFD perhaps? --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantly blanking and placing speedy delete tag

Brian Bruns keeps editing his own article, blanking and adding sd tag. --Chakabuh 02:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I protected the article, it's a content dispute (although I don't see what the big deal is with the deletions and all). Please use the talk page. Ashibaka tock 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In this rare case, the editor who's editing an article about himself appears to be in the right. It strongly appears that a previous editor was trying to use the article to forward a factually erroneous claim -- namely, that Bruns is currently under a court's restraining order. Removing an erroneous claim is simply correct.

Moreover, considering the history of the case (with which I have some small passing familiarity) it seems likely that the article was created either as an attack or a prank. The first revision describes Bruns as leet; other early revisions claim Bruns to be a convict, and to be under a restraining order. Neither of these claims are substantiated.

It is far better that Brian Bruns ask for the article to be removed (by proposing it for deletion) than that he, e.g., go to the press and denounce Wikipedia for libelling him, the way that some people have. :) --FOo 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol, FOo, the claims are susbtantiated. There is no libel, I uploaded scans of the court documents, see above. And the article is protected in a state where none of this is mentioned. If Bruns goes to the media denouncing Wikipedia for libelling him, it will only make him look silly since we have court citations to back up what we write. --Chakabuh 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OH :) The TRO is baby stuff. The indictments are more interesting. Foo, inform yourself before attempting to make "factual" statements please. --Chakabuh 08:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That's the TRO that was vacated when the case was thrown out of court, right? My statement stands; you're using Wikipedia to attack someone. That's simply not allowed here. --FOo 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you still dont get it? Forget the TRO, the indictment over hacking are more interesting and I've uploaded scans of the references. No one is attacking anyone, just getting knowledge into Wikipedia. Bruns doesn't seem to like that. You really shouldn't be supporting vandalism and "autobiography". --Chakabuh 08:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An indictment that was dismissed, and far from notable (unless suddenly wikipedia decides to document every indictment/dismissal against every person in the world). An indictment that many kooks try to say is a conviction in an effort to discredit and ruin my reputation. I corrected your statement in the article about me before wiping it out completely in the hope that you'd see your mistake. However, you didn't get the clue, and kept stating as a fact that I was convicted of hacking even when the paperwork involving the case was right in front of your face and said contradicted your assertations. Brian 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the hacking charge was dismissed, but you still were indicted, just not convicted. It is notable, so notable that even the DA's office made a press release about it. Again, your rhetoric about "kooks" is not appropriate in Wikipedia. It is true that they are incorrect in saying you were convicted, as you were not convicted and the charge was apparently dropped. However, you ommitted the fact that you were convicted of software piracy which is a class E felony. I and the others have made mistakes because there is some confusing information about your cases and Scoville and Schwarz haven't presented all relevant documentation. But your person attacks on me are unacceptable. Yes I made some mistakes and I have corrected my data. Now stop posting ad hominem and lets get the correct information into your article. And if you have anything positive about you, please give us references so that we can also write about it. --Chakabuh 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very few people out there that are qualified to write a bio on me besides myself. There's been a few news articles that were done with quotes from me (mortgage lender newsletter, lightreading article on WASTE/P2P, and a few smaller things), but I don't think that or my association with the SOSDG/AHBL makes me notable and worth anything beyond my personal user page. Brian 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, autobiographies are severely frowned upon in Wikipedia. But please give us those references so we can add mention of them to your article. I don't want you looking only like a software pirate because you are a young person obviously with a lot of talent. NPOV. --Chakabuh 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no further interest in discussing things with you. It's painfully obvious that you are doing this to instigate problems. Hell, it looks an awful lot like you're obsessed with me. I'm surprised you're not stalking me in real life, considering how deep your obsession is getting. Brian 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian, stop making uncivil accusations. --Chakabuh 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that an admin rereview my request to delete the article and associated talk page. Brian 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You already tried that. Articles aren't deleted just because the subject of the article wants it deleted. --Chakabuh 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chakabuh has not shown that I am a notable person, other then in his mind and the minds of other people obsessed with me. Being convicted of software piracy is anything but notable - I do not see every other software pirate out there being given wikipedia pages. He has also shown that he is incapible of doing proper research to back his statements, as seen by his constant insistance of me being convicted of something I was not even after being corrected multiple times. Brian 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As the owner of SOSDG/AHBL, you are as notable as SOSDG and AHBL. Anything that can be verifiably referenced can be added to article within Wikipedia. I uploaded scans of your indictments. Again, stop making uncivil accusations. You were indicted on two accounts, only one of them was dismissed because you made a plea bargain. --Chakabuh 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If Chakabuh is really interested in my accomplishments, he should go research that information, then come back and recreate the article when he has valid information which makes me a notable person. Brian 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're notability has already been explained over & over, in my opinion you are more notable than some of the other people who have articles here in Wikipedia. I am trying to find more information about you and it will take time. Please help us by directing us to any reliable source that has written about you. --Chakabuh 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mikkalai's threat

Please review this threat made against me by User:Mikkalai: [1]. Just forewarning that I will consider any actions he takes against me as wikistalking. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, tremble. Very smart of you to know policies that work in your favor. How about following them in applying to other people when executing your admin rights? `'mikka (t) 03:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Rogue admin sounds about right though I hadn't heard this term in reference to Zoe before, SqueakBox 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoe doesn't contribute to Wiki with anything. Their entire talkpage is about people who complain to them about removing material from articles. This user doesn't know how to add footnotes to articles, but wants to make them mandatory. This user blocked me for asking a relevant question on ANI about the Wiki policy; they called it trolling and being disruptive. --Candide, or Optimism 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, that was no threat. There is nothing wrong with admins keeping an eye on other admins, it ensures the accountability of administrative actions. And, remember, also, that Wikipedia has to be transparent, and that any reasons for blocking must be clearly stated and the user has to be warned beforehand. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The user has had several warnings and knows full well why he was blocked, his claims of innocence notwithstanding. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem are still not getting my main point: this is not between you and anittas. Yet another admin put it in a differeyt way: your actions must be transparent. This is all what I wrote about this case in several places: without spending significant time for a research the whole episode shows that several non-frashman wikipedians acting really ugly. I may well believe this was the very goal of Anittas, so what? An admin has to have higher standards of behavior.`'mikka (t) 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What did I do that was not transparent? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sveasoft vandal

A vandal has been using numerous open proxies today to make advertising-POV edits on Sveasoft [2] and WRT54G [3], as well as link spam on Talk:Main Page [4] and good old-fashioned vandalism [5] against the users that try to stop it (that link goes to Last Measure), as well as revealing of what purports to personal information (been deleting those diffs as I come across them, so can't provide them). I've been blocking each open proxy as it comes (they helpfully say "[This IP address] is running an open proxy" on the talk page - as each IP has never had any contributions but the vandal's, I see no reason not to take them at their word), and I've just semi-protected Sveasoft and WRT54G. User:AndrewBourke is clearly the same person. Please be on the look out for more. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence is at User_talk:62.20.102.130#Ladies_and_Gentlemen_of_the_Jury.... Just follow the links to see the blatant harassment and vandalism from James Ewing. I say this is James because he's been rumored to be real big on harassing disgruntled ex-customers. But what are the odds of a random vandal posting from the subnet he personally owns?

inetnum:   62.20.102.128 - 62.20.102.255 
netname:   SE-SVEASOFT 
descr:     Sveasoft Utveckling AB 
descr:     Wireless ISP 
country:   se 
admin-c:   JE730-RIPE 
tech-c:    JE730-RIPE 
status:    ASSIGNED PA 
mnt-by:    TELIANET-LIR 
source:    RIPE # Filtered 

person:    James Ewing 
address:   Sveasoft AB 
address:   Myrvagen 3 
address:   13463 Ingaro 
address:   se 
phone:     +46702704417 
e-mail:    james.ewing@sveasoft.com
nic-hdl:   JE730-RIPE 
mnt-by:    TELIANET-LIR 
source:    RIPE # Filtered

An awful coincidence, no? This is why I'm recommending an edit block on 62.20.102.128/25, even though James probably reads text files on "how 2 h4x0r" by (ab)using open proxies. --Tokachu 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If Sveasoft owns the subnet, block the whole damn thing. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia;

This message is to inform you of multiple DMCA copyright violations located at the pages DD-WRT, Sveasoft and WRT54G. Copies of our copyrighted software are distributed through links at those pages without authroization by Sveasoft Inc. Email requests to the wikipedia.org administrators remain unanswered and requests to remove this material to the web site administrators have not received any response or action. I request that these URL links and the offending material on the Wikipedia pages be removed immediately.

The pages are also used to disseminate information on where to obtain our copyrighted software from other web sites and is a distribution center used to promote unlawful use of our copyrighted material.

I also request that any libelous and slanderous "facts" about Sveasoft be removed from Wikipedia immediately or I will persue legal action against Wikipedia.

I state under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct and that I am the CEO of Sveasoft Inc. and have the right to enforce copyright violations for the company.

Sveasoft Inc. contact information:

US Office

Sveasoft Inc.
801 Bristol Ave.
Stockton, CA 95204
USA

European Office

Myrvagen 3
SE-134-63 Ingaro
Sweden

Tel: 011-468-570-29471

--James Ewing 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat

User:Merecat has remained blocked for 15 days, by an Admin (User:Katefan0) who has retired from Wikipedia. Could a new Admin take a look and please release the block so that Merecat can communicate on Wikipedia? I miss my friend Merecat, and hope that you will conclude the matter and consider his blocked period as "time-served." Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence looks pretty convincing that Merecat is a sockpuppet of Rex071404, who was blocked for sockpuppeting in order to avoid ArbCom sanctions. I would support keeping the block. Ral315 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and don't know whether he is or isn't a sock -- I'll take your word for it. My question is different: assuming that he is a sock, he's been blocked for more than 15 days, isn't that an appropriate period of punishment for his violation? Morton devonshire 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, sockpuppets of blocked users are blocked indefinately. You're not allowed to use sockpuppet accounts in order to evade a block. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Essjay. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear from the above discussion who is the sock and who is the original user. Is there a non-sock user who has been blocked for the length of their dictated time? -lethe ^{talk +} 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex071404 and User:Merecat are both indef blocked as sockpuppets of each other. That's kind of silly, I would think. Rex071404 is a user with a long history, however I cannot find any ArbCom decisions banning him from Wikipedia after October 2005. Anyone familiar with this matter? Conscious 09:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See this and this for more information (not about the banning). -- Kjkolb 10:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Rex was blocked by Cyde as a sockpuppet of Merecat. If I understand the situation correctly, Rex (the master account) should be unblocked and allowed to edit as long as he obeys the restrictions of his Arbcom case. Thatcher131 12:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this, someone obviously made a mistake in stating rex was a sockpuppet of merecat when rex was the earlier created account. It seems as though Rex should be unbanned if he is, since they cannot be sockpuppets of eachother. --zero faults talk 17:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Defending another user is of course very friendly and commendable, however the editors campaigning for an unblock fail to acknowledge that Merecat/Rex was blocked for disruptive editing also. The fact that numerous IP addresses (sockpuppets?) have appeared that 1 ask to unblock Merecat/Rex, 2 use uncivil language, 3 one of which has filed two bogus RFCU against opponents of Merecat/Rex, makes me anxious about allowing this user back without sufficient remedies, i.e. ArbCom. Further, I would like to point out that the recent RfAr against this user was rejected on the grounds of him already being blocked. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has previously been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [6]

Considering you asked for a Checkuser on two users who simply disagreed with your views I think your above comment is at odds with your own actions. "Keep it NPOV" is not really a valid reason to call for a checkuser is it now? the users you are asking for the checkuser on do have one thing in common, they have opposed you and Mr. Tibbs opinion ... --zero faults talk 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ask this uninvolved -yet mysteriously interested, knowledgable, and now using Merecat in his sig(?!)- user to retract the false assertion that I filed a checkuser. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are telling the admins to remove this Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat since someone falsely filed this under your name? You are not listed there adding 2 more ip's to the check user? IP that are in two different states? --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Mr. Tibbs (talk · contribs) filed the request I hardly am capable of retracting it. You however, still need to retract the false allegation against me! As to the IP, if you look at the Rex/Texan categories you will find that these new IP addresses are comparable to the already known socks.Thank you for retracting. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Under what comparison guidelines? ahh yes there support for merecat. Also you get no apologies, you obviously added on 2 IP's therefore initiating a RFCU against them. Thank you Nescio for accusing me of also being merecat and proving how horribly misguided these RFCU's are and this attacking on anyone who supports rex/merecat. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at ALL the IP's involved? Second, you misrepresent the facts. The IP filed RFCU against me, and it was editing in a similar fashion as your hero. Therefore I deduced this is in line with known behaviour and makes it likely the IP's are socks too. Another misrepresentation is that I never accused you of anything. I did however observe that your obsessive defense of a known disruptive sock (whom you do not know!?), your use of Merecat/sockpuppet in your sig, and the continuous attacks against opponents of your hero is at best an unfortunate route to take. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the IP's you have accused, now present your evidence, how do the two you filed RFCU against connect? How does the above link conform to merecat? They are on different ISP's, different states. As for you accusing me:

"You are very good. Misrepresenting the facts, leaving out relevant information. Indeed a worhty sockpuppet. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

"Smoke and mirrors Merecat.:) (In case you missed it, this is a joke)"

Located User_talk:Zer0faults#Merecat, the final one was obviously not a joke. Perhaps you feel you can be offensive to someone and just add "this is a joke" to the end of the sentence, after just two lines up calling them a sockpuppet. So what links these users that are not on the same ISP, not in the same state? other then there support for merecat, which I also support and now have been accused by Ryan Freisling of being merecat also. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the real situation here is that Rex was banned and the ban has since been extended for his sockpuppeting as Merecat in an attempt to evade the ban. Merecat's edits have been highly tendentious and POV peddling. He has been insulting to other editors and made personal attacks. Regardless he does not seem to be modifying his behavior in response to the previous bans, they should continue until there is a likelihood that he will. --Gorgonzilla 13:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long is this ban? You say he doesn't seem to be modifying his behavior, but I do not see proof of that. Both merecat and rex cant be sockpuppets of eachother so one of them should have time limit to when they can return. Seeing as it seems rex would be the official user, when is his ban up? As for his POV peddling if you look at the articles he edits, everyone is POV peddling. For instance in the Iraq war article users are insisting only WMD's get mentioned and no other reason for going to war, undue weight? Anyway I think if Rex is banned then there should be a duration taht was issued or extended to, so what was that duration? --zero faults talk 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've instead blocked Rex indefinitely again, this time under a more accurate reasoning- for sockpuppeting to evade an ArbCom ban, and general disruption. If any administrator disagrees, let me know, and I'll unblock, but Rex has been disruptive for a long time, and I don't feel his continued presence will in any way help build the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that Rex071404 and Merecat are banned forever from editing Wikipedia? Morton devonshire 18:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It means just that. Don't forget they're the same person. Conscious 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can appeal a community ban to ArbCom. Thatcher131 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm definetely not a fan of Rex, especially since his recent sockpuppet activities when he could have simply come back as himself. But I do believe Zero is right, you can't simply say well he's sockpuppeting again, therefore indefinite block. Violating a previous arbcom decision does not earn you an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. At the very least, if we're going to extend Rex's ban, there should be an arbcom decision that mandates it and a time limit should be set on the ban, otherwise that's just irresponsible blocking. --kizzle 19:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, for those of you who are not aware of the history, here's some details: Rex joined in July 04 to conteract extreme pro-Kerry bias at John Kerry. Now, while Rex was more or less a sh*t there several times, the ArbCom cases involved found that multiple editors - not just Rex, wee caught up in the heat of the campaign and injected campaign bias into the JK article, both pro and con. Off an on since joining, Rex got in some SNAFUs for heaping insults and 3RR and also for obstructing the prgress of the (pro-Kerry) consesnsus at that article. As it stands, there are several things still in place against Rex. a) Do not edit John Kerry b) Cite all controversial edits to a reliable source and c) If "disruptive" can be banned from an article by any admin. As for violations of these, there are specific remedies in place, noe of which include a permanent ban. So let's assume for a minute that Merecat is Rex, what did this mean? It mean that that Rex, disguised as Merecat was able to successfully edit John Kerry with no problems. Ah, then it would follow that the oppossion to Rex's edits, att least at this point is ad-hominem in that an edit by Rex071404 would be opposed, but the samee edit by another name or IP is fine. Now regarding User:Neutral aribiter and User:Wombdpsw, I see no evidence that they are "disruptive" or have "failed to cite controversial edits" or "have edited John Kerry. This being true, there is no acceptable basis that a check user ought to be run against either of them, for at worst, they would be alternate accounts (which is allowed - see here). Of course, the argument can be made "rex has exhausted community patience", but that does not hold water because Merecat (who is said to be Rex) had consensus on his side at the RfC (see here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat). Also the argument can be made that Rex evaded/sockpuppeted with Merecat, so he should be banned. PErhaps, but there are specified sanctions already in place by ArbCom which, if a penalty is applied to Rex, must be what's applied. Ad Hoc, shoot-from the-hip sanctions against Rex in the form of a permenant block is bust unsupportedable by process and flat out wrong. But let's suppose for a minute that Rex ends up permanently barred. I suggest to you that this is precisely what some editors here seek, but not for the reasons stated. Rather, the benefit of a perma-block on Rex is that for any editor who is later objected to by the known POV pushers like User:Keven Baas (see proof of that here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Baas) and his allies such as User:Nescio himself currently blocked for 3rr violation at Haditha incident (Kevin and Nescio both advanced the failed Rfc against Merecat), these two and their like minded cohorts can simply say "REX" and seek to do a check user against anyone - based on minor editing vagaries. Frankly, what the Rex banners actually seek is a license to witch hunt against anyone, based on the "Rex" name alone. Now for all of you who are saying Rex=bad. I am wondering if you have even studies the edits of each account / IP being accused. The edits being made are not troll-bait and the editors making them are not being tendentious - no more so than editors such as User:Mr. Tibbs or User:Nescio. As it stands now, the wiki president for a long time editor who is being hounded off was set by User:Michael. Based on that, there is simply no reason that User:Rex071404 should be denied the opportunity to transition to User:Merecat. But what's the point anyway - look at the edit history of User:Wombdpsw and see how User:Gongonzilla is now opposing him based on unconfirmed allegations of "sockpuppet". It's as if some editors prefer to turn off their ability to think critically and instead prefer to revert and oppsed based on user name alone. This being the case, I fail to see how a rational person would not changed account names regularly. To sum up, from where I see, it would appear that the complainst against Merecat's edits are basically groundless and Merecat was basicaly a good, albeit somewhat dogmatic editor. No reasonable person here can honestly say that Merecat was naywhere near as bad as Rex was. And there is simply no honest basis for inquiring against any of these newly accused editors. Have they been doing 3RR? Have they been calling names? None of them have done anything wrong. This "Rex" witch-hunting is nothing more that out-of-process ad hoc pig- piling. It's not intellectually honsest and it will not accomplish the goal of making the articles on the wiki better. Take a look at User:Rex071404's talk page history and pull up the contribution list of of a few of those who keep reverting the unblock requests posted there. For example see this. Does this user ever make any article edits? It seems that all he does is boss others around and talk to people. A comment pool (which is what the wiki is) will eventualy coagulate if a proper ratio of article edits to bossing is not maintained. When you have too many chiefs and not enough indians, nothing gets done. Take a look at the article White Cracker. Rex started that article and it has grown to be a valuable entry. Take a look at Yttrium aluminium garnet. Merecat started that article and it has grown to be a fine article too. What the "POPs" (political article police) around here don't understand is that people are naturally drawn to chime in on controversy. The controversial articles on the wiki are the "bait" which attract and retain editors. If you keep chasing ediors aaway from them, you will contribute to diminshing your compounding ratios. Oh well, ban away of you must, but don't fool ypurselves into thinking that you will achieve NPOV by chasing away only those who disagree with you. And if that's not what you are doing, then why are editors such as User:Prometheuspan allowed to run amok? I suggest that it's because he pushes a POV that many liberal editors agree with and for that reason, no matter how terrible he behaves (like recently calling wikipedia "evil" on Jimbo's talk page), it's all overlooked. Same too for User:Nescio and User:Kevin Baas. Regards, 69.46.20.59 20:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Assuming that this IP editor is also Rex/Merecat, or that Rex/Merecat is reading this debate, I would offer the following advice. Admit to switching accounts, apologize for the talk page spamming that got Merecat banned in the first place (and also outed him as the Anon Texan), and agree to use only one account in the future and to abide by the last ArbCom ruling. Under those circumstances, it shouldn't matter which account he chooses to use. If no sympathetic admin will unblock at that point, appeal the community ban to Arbcom following the example of Saladin1970, Thatcher131 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that there is no true "anon texan" user account and that acount was used fraudulently by certain liberal editors as a tracking device? Why do some editors get to make up sockpuppets, but others get blocked for socks and/or alternate accounts? Merecat did not create the User:Anon Texan account and neither did Rex. That account is a fraud and it enabled a FALSE check user to be run against Merecat. All the checkuser evidence against Merecat should be trown out as being unetheically obtained on an non-valid basis. What about all the false allegations about User:CantStandYa/User:Shran? Perhaps if people had just left the anonymous editor from Texas alone, Merecat not have come to life. Merecat's edit history shows him to have been idle form many months and only came to life with the IP editos from Dallas ISP were being hassled by POV warriors who made of the phony "Anon Texan" name. Thatcher, you yousrself have said that anon IP editor was not transgressing, so why should people be allowed to hassle him? There is no rule that says you have to log in to edit and frankly based on what happened to Merecat, why bother? There is a lot of finger pointing that could go around here and not all of it is on Merecat. And everyone nees to stop sayig "Rex!" "Rex!" all the time. If User:Rex071404 had wanted to keep using that account, he would have been doing so since long ago. That fact that he's basically left that account as dead, should make clear that Rex is gone and will never edit under that name again. 69.46.20.59 22:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet somehow he keeps coming back using IPs and sockpuppet accounts. --kizzle 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also User:Wombdpsw has been identified as a notorious vandal User:Merecat and User:Rex071404. He's been blocked indefinitely. (see userpages or clerk's report) -- ActiveSelective 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat was guilty of a long list of personal attacks against nescio, guilty of stacking the RFC by means of invitation, guilty of deleting materials posted to the talk page to game the system towards drama, guilty of obstructionism and straw man arguments for the purpose of obstructionism, used sock puppets to double vote, used sock puppets to stack votes by invitation, and under no circumstances and for no reason should be allowed in any guise or incarnation to do anything other than browse wikipedia. Merecat is a flat out pov warrior, and has no redeeming quality worth the stress that merecat causes. Morton and Zero are both POV warriors, and Zero is suspiciously running around with "Merecat" in his sig for a brief while; Is Zero another Sock puppet? Even if no, this is a plea by the Republican POV warrior camp to get their guy back so that they can go wreak more havoc.

Merecat has done more than enough to warrant permenent banning, and the RFC against merecat only failed because it was unfair, illogical, and allowed to become an ad hominem and straw man festival. That RFC is a disgusting proof that these characters are in on a pov game with merecat, and that Wikipedia needs better rules to protect itself from pov warrior trolls.Prometheuspan 22:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Most recent edits by User:Cyde

Moved to User talk:Cyde. Please always take concerns about user behavior to their talk pages in the first instance unless there is an urgent problem.

Vote-stacking

Wombdpsw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is soliciting votes on the talk page of John 3:16 to influence the outcome of TdF-vote of Template:John316. -- ActiveSelective 02:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No solicitation of any kind has been made. It was only after some editors objected to my user box on the grounds that I was the only one using it (and other grounds), that I made a single post to a single talk page mentioning the existence of the template. Frankly, in my view, ActiveSelective is flat out twisting the truth. He knows darn well that his post here is far more likely to attract "voters" than my single post on an article talk page. This kind of blatant harassment by Active reeks. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to construe one post on one talk page as disruptive spamming. The template in question will be fine, in user space, where they're setting up directories already, per Wikipedia:The German solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolution: see here. And please, Womdbspws, I've been very civil with you. Stop picking on me. -- ActiveSelective 05:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Active, if you think you are being "picked on" I'd like to know why you think that. Please explain on my talk page. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wombdpsw has been identified as a notorious vandal using many usernames before, such as "Merecat" and "Rex071404". He's been blocked indefinitely. (see userpages or clerk's report) -- ActiveSelective 06:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"We will drive you off Wikipedia"

I have indef-blocked User:WVTF for edits like this to users' pages and this little diatribe on his/her own page. Feel free to review... RadioKirk talk to me 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentioned, I don't recall where, something along the lines of Wikipedianism is emerging as a religion (italicized owing to this being a paraphrase). If this user was serious, here's a disturbing symptom of that. I think the indef-block was well earned by this user. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This user definitely merited this block. Alethiophile 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unannounced(?) Curps vandal rollback bot

It is my conclusion, based on his contributions and recent nonsensical spree, that either Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has given up on sleep and good sense, or he is running an anti-vandal bot using rollback. To my knowledge this was never announced, let alone discussed, and it is clear from the spree linked above that it still has some kinks. Unlike tawkerbot2 (talk · contribs), these actions are not identified as bot edits and the scope of its operations do not seem to have ever been explained.

If it were not Curps doing this, I would have already blocked the account, but because of the long history and the other services Curps provides, I wanted to raise this issue here first. Dragons flight 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Curps' page move bot? That's been around for ages. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not page move. He appears to be doing vandal rollbacks with a bot as well. Dragons flight 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

God, I'm stupid. Sorry, I'm exhausted... yeah, that is a bit worrying. Perhaps we should block the account pending a response? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My first instinct was no, but on the other hand if Curps (the human) is around then a block would force a response, and he can be unblocked straight away. If it is an unauthorised bot, then it should be blocked. So go ahead (I'd do it, but I'm off very soon, and it wouldn't be fair for me not to be there to unblock if needed). Petros471 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him pending an explanation. As always, anyone can reverse it. Will (^E_@) T 22:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will reverse it, it doesn't seem to have done much in the hour prior to blocking so wasn't being disruptive as such and we know the general benefits, so short of a major malfunction blocking it would appear to be potentially more harmful than beneficial. --pgk^(talk) 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It also strikes me that Curps has been handing out an awful lot of blocks with the generic reason of "vandalism". If he is in fact using a bot to both rollback edits and autoblock certain editors, that strikes me as a more serious thing. Dragons flight 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that there are a lot of people handing out blocks with that same generic reason. --pgk^(talk) 23:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But to that extent? I mean, my initial response to this was going to be a link to my block logs to illustrate that I do as well, until I saw that. That is very generic. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, however the issue which prompted this, rolling back edits to Wikipedia didn't result in any blocks, which if you believe the rollback is automated (like other bots) suggests the blocking for same is not. --pgk^(talk) 00:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I am sooooo not thinking logically tonight. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 00:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if he is not autoblocking, and is only a single individual, then he seriously needs to sleep more. Between 9:47 May 7th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 307 "vandalism" blocks with the largest gap between blocks was 2.1 hours. Between 10:03 April 19th and 1:00 May 10th, he issued 1452 "vandalism" blocks with no gaps larger than 4.4 hours and only 4 gaps larger than 4 hours. I don't know about you, but I need more sleep than that. Dragons flight 00:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Polyphasic sleep :) Will (^E_@) T 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Insomnia? (I got amnesia and insomnia mixed up before... guess we know who's the insomniac here). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Read Curps' user page to see how many people complain that he wrongly reverted their edits without reason. Curps's rampant blocking and reverting will drive away more editors than 10 Willy On Wheels. 70.48.250.130 03:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Curps' methods are (a) old news, and (b) the worst-kept secret on this entire project. I'd question the administrative credentials of anyone who was unaware of this. I'll bet dollars to donuts that is was due to some improperly encoded characters in the url, e.g. "�", which in many cases are indicative of a web proxy, as it's relatively difficult to type such characters accidentally using a normal keyboard. In fact, the IP address 67.15.151.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) does appear to be an open proxy:

22/tcp  open     ssh
23/tcp  open     telnet
25/tcp  filtered smtp
53/tcp  open     domain
80/tcp  open     http
135/tcp filtered msrpc
136/tcp filtered profile
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
443/tcp open     https
445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds

First of all, let's figure out whether the edit was, in general, worth a damn (I have no opinion), and correct the URL if necessary. — Jun. 4, '06 [05:06] <freak|talk>

Another update: the IP address resolves to UltraReach Internet Corp.^[7], which apparently distributes an anonymizing proxy client^[8] intended to help users scale the Great Firewall of China. Perhaps an indefinite rangeblock is in order. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:06] <freak|talk>

The gibberish seems to have been removed from the paragraph by User:Kotepho^[9]. — Jun. 4, '06 [05:23] <freak|talk>

Hey this is user:freakofnurture editing through ultrasurf, an open proxy. 67.15.183.5 07:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that the above edit was made by me, using the same anonymizing proxy. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:55] <freak|talk>

The gibberish you describe was caused by a MediaWiki parsing error introduced about a week ago that dealt with extentions and nesting of various types that has since been fixed (well, completely redone it seems, and apparently someone else mentioned this in passing). The original ref was <ref>[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf Bourgeois ''et al'' v. Peters ''et al.'']<!-- can some clarify this citation reference style is correct?--></ref>[10] which turned into <ref>[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf Bourgeois ''et al'' v. Peters ''et al.'']�UNIQ3956b3d71a29943f-HTMLCommentStrip25be408213b1d95800000006</ref> (\a or 0x07) when Tawkerbot2 reverted some anon and then <ref>[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf Bourgeois ''et al'' v. Peters ''et al.'']?UNIQ3956b3d71a29943f-HTMLCommentStrip25be408213b1d95800000006</ref> (EF BF BD) in the next edit, and stayed even though that edit was reverted. Note that this all took place many edits before the ones Curps was reverting and the character in question wasn't even in the url. It seems to me that it was a prefectly valid set of edits (by multiple people) trying to reinsert a paragraph that was deleted and replaced with "Nipples."[11], does Curps' bot like nipples?[12] All of this is speculation though, why don't we just ask him? Kotepho 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

a) Giving a bot the ability to issue indefinite blocks based on its interpretation of vandalism is certainly not "old news" to me, and would seem to have a lot of potential to create collateral harm that I think should be discussed. If it has been discussed, fine, show me where. Otherwise, please avoid questioning mine or anyone else's "administrative credentials". b) The strange wikitext you point to is an unrelated bug in the ref code which has been discussed at VPT from a different context. Maybe that bug is triggering Curps's reverts, I don't know. And perhaps the IP actually is an open proxy. If so that is a seperate issue to deal with, but the fact that Curps is apparently continuing to extend the functionality of his admin bot without community input and notice is at least disrespectful and quite possibly dangerous. Dragons flight 06:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the logs, he may have been running the vandalism bot for ~6 months now, but unless it was actually mentioned somewhere, I would never have assummed that blocks issued as "vandalism" were being made by a bot. If so, I would assume it has been doing at least an okay job if it didn't create huge conflicts before now. However I am still unsatisfied by Curps' secretive methods and uninformative edit summaries. For example, the reversions by Tawkerbot2 seem vastly supperior to me than simply automating a rollback process. Dragons flight 06:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Curps' bot only blocked page-move vandals at first. Not too long after, his bot started blocking questionable usernames. Now, it seems that his bot does try to block other types of vandals as well. --Ixfd64 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that function has been around nearly as long as the pagemove part, and isn't a surprise (at least to me). There has also been considerable discussion about whether "user..." is an appropriate message to leave when a bot blocks a new account for having a bad username. Dragons flight 06:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that if bot continues running, its algorithm should be changed. For example, this user was blocked indefinitely after this edit (the only edit he ever made). I seriously doubt it's authorized by WP:BP. Conscious 06:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, look at the other context surrounding that edit. That article was experiencing an attack by vandal sockpuppets all performing the same nonsensical edit, see history. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:01] <freak|talk>

Got it. Will try not to be silly. Will also try to be courteous. Conscious 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually the "silly" part isn't so much about what you did or didn't notice. It's about whom you choose to assume good/bad faith of, in the hypothetical situation of one piece of "evidence" existing in isolation. — Jun. 4, '06 [07:45] <freak|talk>

I agree that you're right and I should've looked into this better. Conscious 08:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I use "vandalism" as reason when blocking all the time. Also, considering how many times Curps blocks and rolls back in one day, I thought it would be obvious that no human was doing that. As for the edit above, look further into the article history - that was the sockpuppet of a vandal.--Shanel ^§ 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering why Curps blocked Joshbuddy (a long-time and apparently good contributor), since the page moves he supposedly made didn't show up in his contributions. However, the move log shows a bunch of WoW type page names and moves. Unlike WoW, legitimate articles were not moved, just pages with names of "WoW test pageX", though. Is everybody starting to freak out and go on vandalism sprees? -- Kjkolb 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Josh was attempting to test an experimental tawkerbot feature, during the time that it appeared Curpsbot was offline. Apparently, he wasn't. — Jun. 4, '06 [08:11] <freak|talk>

So apparently Curps' bot is doing roughly the following things:

1. Page moves throttle: Detects a user moving pages beyond some rate threshold, issues an indefinate block with summary "page moves...", and posts a notice here at ANI.
2. Page move vandalism: Detects page moves to certain targets (e.g. Earth -> Earth on Wheels) as vandalism. Reverts the move and deletes the redirect.
3. User names: Follows the new users log and indefinately blocks users with names containing certain words (e.g. "vandal") or that use certain special characters. Block summary is "user..."
4. Rollback: Detects certain behaviors as vandalism and automatically uses rollback.
5. Vandalism blocks: Decides that some vandalism warrants a block summarized as "vandalism". Registered users triggering this are blocked indefinitely. Ordinary IPs are blocked for 24 hours and AOL IPs for 15 minutes. It appears that vandalism that triggers a block will be reverted, but that not all reverts trigger a block.

It is my intention to add a similar basic summary of Curps' functionality to WP:BOT. I'd also like to add it User:Curps, since each bot is supposed to give a description of what it does on it's userpage, but I don't know if we can agree on that as long as Curpsbot = Curps user. Personally, I'd strongly prefer that the bot edits and blocks be identified as belonging to a bot in the summaries or through a seperate bot account. In my opinion, having an undocumented bot masquadering as an administrator is antithetical to the open and transparent environment on which Wikipedia is built, even if the bot's actions are presumed to always be correct and effective. Dragons flight 10:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's more to it than that, but outlining all of it would not be in anybody's best interests, as it would detract from its usefulness. If you create something resembling a "WikiProject Curps", I'm pretty sure it will be deleted as WP:BEANS and WP:POINT. — Jun. 4, '06 [10:26] <freak|talk>

To be clear, I would intend to keep the description similar to the level given above. I am not trying to describe how it detects vandalism, etc., or give anyone a manual for avoiding it. However, if there are additional basic types of behavior that you are aware of, I would appreciate if you added them to the list. Dragons flight 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, sysop bots seem to be taboo, at least under current policy. That being said I do think bot and user edits should be flagged as such, half of the time I don't know if it's Curps the human or Curpsbot. That being said I'd like to see some sort of policy developed for this sort of case, sysop using bots, it would make life a lot easier for both myself and Curps -- Tawker 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Curps should open source his Bot! 70.48.250.130 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A virtuous idea, for sure (long live libre software!). But we have WP:BEANS as well. Let's not give out that freely tools that would assist in building malicious software as well. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are being hypocrit, libre software but censor information. 70.48.250.130 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's easy enough to write a vandalbot, what with the Pywikipedia framework, or with javascript. I think that Curps should make the bot available to those who ask for it, and are obviously not vandals so that it can be examined.--Digitalme|T 21:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, make it similar to Tawkerbot2, the code is semi private, it has been released to a fair number of trusted users but I wouldn't be stupid to put it on a public server to download (take pywikipedia and make it do 200 edits a min and you have my code). I would like to see an exact trigger list for Curpsbot thought -- Tawker 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking the unusual step of reblocking this editor. It doesn't seem to be right to run this unapproved bot with an admin bit. I'm not convinced that the putative benefits of the bot outweigh the uncertainty. If Curps agrees to disclose the bot source code and its running parameters and data files to a qualified person such as myself or Tawker, I think this bot should be allowed to run with approval. Meanwhile having discussed this with administrators and arbitrators I shall block for twelve hours to permit us to discuss the matter. I will also announce this on Curps' talk page prior to blocking.

Disclosure: I am on administrative 1RR imposed in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. The above comprises my formal justification for reversing the unblocking operation of User:Pgk, made at 23:48 UTC on 3 June 2006. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

22:50, 4 June 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "Curps (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (Reblocking participation in discussion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curps&diff=56900792&oldid=56873592) --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Side note: Back in early April, User:SPUI was complaining about being blocked by the Curpsbot and proclaiming its evil nature, so I compiled a list of all its year-to-date page move blocks, so if anyone is looking for such info, it'll give a head start. (I already did the work, so why waste it if it's still useful.) Details here and here. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Can't Curps just seperate this bot from the main account and get it approved (although the bot would need a sysop account)? Prodego ^talk 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the block was necessary (and useless, as admins can block while blocked themselves, they just can't revert). Curps's block bot is, as the anon editor who visited us above, the worst-kept secret on Wikipedia, and no one complained until this incident, even after it has done about 25000 blocks. Additionally, this has been known since Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Curps, so it isn't anything particularily new. Requests to open-source his bot will end up in it only being less effective. I don't remember who initially applied the phrase "a necessary evil" to this situation, but I surely think this is the case. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Even the vandals have known about Curps' bot for quite some time. In fact, during the time that Curps' bot appeared to be offline, see what kind of usernames were registered:

• You know, with curps on vaccation it takes you guys forever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (May 25)
• Curpsbot is dead! long live vandalism! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (May 31)
• Pueblas eres desamparado sin curpsbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (May 31, Spanish, roughly means "You people you are abandoned without Curpsbot")
• etc., etc.

I refuse to believe that any user (vandal, administrator or somewhere in between) who has spent a non-trivial amount of time watching recent changes on this website could have been unaware of Curpsbot. As Titoxd has pointed out, blocking Curps is pointless. It won't have any real effect other than pissing him off whenever he returns from Cancún (or wherever), as even while blocked, he can still block other users, and to my understanding, still rollback vandalism, so I've unblocked. — Jun. 5, '06 [05:46] <freak|talk>

Actually, the third vandal's username is gibberish in Spanish, and it's most likely a bad babelfish translation of what you said.

As you indicated, he can still block, but he can't revert, per Bug 3801. I still think it is a bad idea, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm.Voice-of-All^Talk 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Curps (sysop) (over the 50 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 1 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 05, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 4, June, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 50 edits): Major edits: NaN% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 40.82 (for last 50 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 47 edits) : Major article edits: NaN% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 50 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0% (0)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 0% (0)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 33 | Average edits per page: 1.52 | Edits on top: 18%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 0% (0 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 0% (0 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 100% (50 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0% (0 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 94% (47) | Article talk: 0% (0)
User: 2% (1) | User talk: 0% (0)
Wikipedia: 0% (0) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 2% (1)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 2% (1)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0% (0)

Incivility User:ILike2BeAnonymous

You post a link to the National Review—and then have the nerve to go by the moniker of "Neutral arbiter"? What kind of bullshit is that?

Wait—I can answer that; just the garden-variety so-called "NPOV" bullshit, aka Randian objectivist bullshit (Jimbo Wales' bullshit POV, that is).

In any case, you'd be well-advised to read a real news report about the "incident", like this one. Oh, and have a nice day. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 07:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC) [13]

There is no reason for this kind of language on a talk page of an article.--Jersey Devil 07:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. He's been warned on it by others, including admins. And it's not the language, per se. It's the attack nature of the post. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He requested an unblock and after User:Tawker denied his request he removed Tawker's comment from his talk page. [14]--Jersey Devil 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect (talk · contribs) POV pushing, edit warring, racist attacks

I try to avoid the word "POV pushing" but there is no other way to avoid it. The following are some of this users edits (most of which have been reverted for the same reason).

Norman Finkelstein Article-"anti-semetic, anti-western"..."claims to be the son of holocaust survivors" [15] [16]

Noam Chomsky Article-"anti Israeli anti Jewish anti Western" [17]

John Pilger Article-"Noam Chomsky, the far left anti American anti Israeli" [18] [19]

Talk:Palestinian people-uncivility and essentially racist remarks. [20]

R, your monologue above is exactly the reason that original research is not permitted in these articles. For all I know you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent (we certainly have had enough of those recently in many Western countries). I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality of having to live amongst a bunch of intolerant bloodthirsty Muslims (and those Christians probably exist), but it wouldn't be true. The whole point of Wiki is to have third party mainstream objective sources as the sole source of information. That will provide some validity to these articles. The fact that you (or I) don't like a particular point of view is something you or I might find disconcerting, but if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view. I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article, I would just make sure that a view I considered more accurate was also cited. R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind. And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance, people want the right to make up their own mind. Observe the rules, post mainstream sources, suck it up when reading views you don't like, and you will be a good editor on this article.Incorrect 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [21]

I bolded that part because it was made after it was revealed that the poster, User:Ramallite, whom he was addressing was Palestinian. Calling a Palestinan wikipedian a possible "raving terrorist, out to kill Americans" is unnacceptable.

There is much more, just check out the user's contribution history.--Jersey Devil 09:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment on his/her talk page to refrain from adding these types of edits.--MONGO 11:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the last comment in particular warrants a temporary block. Of course, it is up to you guys to decide.--Jersey Devil 11:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if he/she chills out after my comment...if not, let us know.--MONGO 11:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add to this list edits at Presbyterian Church (USA). It's a bit over the top when you announce an article contribution together with a threat to edit war with anyone who reverts it. The contribution in question seems to be sourced only to opinion pieces and/or blogs. [22]

Please also note that it appears that Incorrect also occasionally edits as 63.205.151.68. KWH 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in addition to that he is now making false accusations of "vandalism" for people removing the content he adds on pages:

M has once again vandalized the Presbyterian Church article by censoring the information that there is a dispute raging as to whether the PC is antisemitic: http://www.christiantoday.com/news/america/us.presbyterian.church.warns.companies.to.boycott.israel.or.face.divestment/380.htm This attempt a vandalizing the article will not work - Incorrect 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC) [23]

A, you have joined the side of the censors who are attempting to vandalize the article on the Presbyterian Church's anti -Semitism problem. Despite third party reputable sources that report that the PC has been accused of anti-semitism, you have supported those who consistenly delete that information. If you feel the PB church is not anti semitic, you are certainly free to add information to the article and cite sources that say it is not - it is vandalism, however, to delete information that such a controversy even exists. I would guess that you are a man of science from your talk page, since that requires a clarity of thought I would hope that upon reconsideration YOU will edit the PC article to include the anti-semitism information (adding to it if you wish information that would attempt to refute that charge. [24]--Jersey Devil 21:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Jgwlaw

Okay, this user in my opinion breached WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:3RR. I seeked the opinion of another admin, who blocked the user for 3 days. I am now currently being harassed by email... This includes a series of emails labled "You are labeling as an 'extremist group' a health forum of injured women." I have asked now 3 times for the said user to stop. Ian13/talk 12:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, emails seem to have stopped. Ian13/talk 13:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your mail client is empowered with a mystical and wondrous device, called the blocked senders list. Use it. robchurch | talk 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Zer0faults (talk · contribs)

After making wild accusations on numerous pages, while misrepresenting my words, I amended my comment on his talk page with a strike trough to prevent him from continuing making misleading remarks.[25] However, this user forbids me to do so.[26] Is there any reason why I am not allowed to alter a comment? I see many people using strike through so why can't I? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I instructed the user to add a reply to his own comment if he feels it needs clarification. Since he has accused me of taking his words out of context, I believe they should stay exactly as originally posted. Posting a comment below the original statement to add clarification would be correct measure. People who visit the talk page will not know when the strike through was added, causing confusion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore the user is adding words not simply adding a strike through. Therefore its midleading, if Nescio would like to add a comment below the original stating what he meant to say, I would have no problem with that. However adding words is misleading. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation, I changed support for adding IP and initial for initial filing. Hardly a change in words. Can somebody review this users uncivil actions? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaks for itself [27] he added the words "adding new socks", please stop lying. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is a likely troll or provocateur. He has been caught red handed using sockpuppets and trying to blame his sockpuppet edits on others see this [28]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.20.59 (talk • contribs)

Quelle surprise, a Merecat sock comes to the rescue, you have outed yourself once again by referring to a common correction on WP I made. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nescio your prevarications on this point are obvious: You are 80.220.222.68 and not only did you make sockpuppet edits, but you tried to blame those edits on Merecat. You have done as much and more "bad" things as Merecat. 69.46.20.59 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Who outed who my IP is 74.64.40.102, get over yourself. I demand an apology for this users accusations once again. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting answer, when the initial "you have outed yourself" was aimed at Merecat using the IP address. Odd, you feel the need to answer. Yet another remarkable thing. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock 69.46.20.59 (talk · contribs) starts making personal attacks[29][30][31][32] right after Mr Zero was asked if he is one. Can any admin intervene and stop these PA? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do go check Nescio's diff links. There is rock solid proof that Nescio have previously been a sock [33] who blamed Merecat for what Nescio did. Now Nescio is violating 3RR to hide the proof. 69.46.20.59 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the PA, you have just accused me once again of being a sockpuppet. I demand an apology. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of your intimidation tactics of accusing people of being sockpuppets merely because they do not agree with your point of view or oppose your stance on what users should be banned. I deman an apology for your constant attacks on me calling me a sockpuppet. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for observing that right after another editor asked you about being a sock, mysteriously a sock of Merecat starts accusing me. There it is, an apology for telling what happens. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. Perhaps you shouldn't jump on the band wagon and instead do your own research. I have already provided my own IP, do an ARIN lookup if you still believe me to be a sockpuppet, do an open proxy scan etc. I have had the same IP for some time as my cable lines it always on. But as I stated in the beginning, do not add words to comments on my talk page after they have been replied to. If you feel you needed to clarify something then its obvious something you said can be misinterpreted or taken out of context etc. Changing the context by adding and removing words later is bad form. Feel free as I stated numerous times to add your comment about clarification below the existing one that needs clarification as to not confused readers who stop by, they shouldnt have to dig through an edit history to read the conversation. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Checkuser

Requests for Checkuser no longer has a backlog; all requests have been processed (with the exception of the one I'm currently working on, and one that is being summarized). Anyone who has requested a check within the last several days should check back on their requests to find the results and see that they are carried out. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely.

I've received emails regarding his block, rather that I had violated policy by blocking him. In his first email, he threatened arbitration at me for the single reason I had reverted a disputed tag on Laura Ingraham, which disupted the subject's official website, and protected and blocked him for civility and warring.

He then attacked my nationality of being British, and suggested I added another 24 hours on his block (which I did).

His third email was about the protection policy, and why I had not enforced it properly, ending in the words "you failed. you failed. you failed.". The email took a jab at my age as well.

The fourth email was short, but accused me of being a fascist and abusive.

Per this, he's been blocked indefinitely. Please leave feedback about this. Will (^E_@) T 22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest i am uncomfortable with this. If a user sends abusive emails to you just killfile them. If they complain that you have not followed proper procedures then put yourself up for review here to see what other admins think. An indefinate block for critisizing an admin seems OTT. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is ok. When it goes to calling me fascist, that's not OK. Will (^E_@) T 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He's upset! you blocked him after all. Grow a thicker skin and start using filters on your email. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Block shortened down to 8 days. User talk:Haizum#Wiki Fascism is seriously tempting me to lengthen it again Will (^E_@) T 00:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that User:Haizum may be provoking a fight, but let's not be easily provoked. Also, blocking a user in response to an attack on yourself is often a bad idea. It'd be better to come here and ask someone else to apply a block for NPA. -Will Beback 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I am out of line posting here, please accept my apologies and remove my comments. I would like to say that I did not directly call Sceptre a fascist, rather, I called actions taken against me (both verbal and administrative) fascistic. That is not a personal attack, it is my harmless opinion. I admit to citing Sceptre's nationality and age, and although I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, it was a direct result of the frustation caused by administrative actions that I thought were against policy and POV. The following is a part of an email sent to Sceptre that received and overbearing response (IMO). I first cite Wikipedia policy, then I explain how I believe this policy was ignored:

1."These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful."

2."Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism."

3."If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute."

1. You protected a page because of a Dispute tag. 99% of the disputed section was left unchanged, yet you claim I was warring...for ADDING material.

2. You edited the page the way you wanted to see it before you protected it. I will make sure this is burned into your record. (harsh language, yes, but something that should be reported nevertheless -Haizum 6/6/06)

3. You made no attempt to resolve the dispute. You protected the page in its POV form after DELIBERATELY removing the Dispute tag.

For this, and saying that he failed (IMO) I was blocked indefinitely; it is admitted above. I don't care if the block was lowered, I feel the application of an indefinite block for that almost entirely cogent email is highly irresponsible especially because it made it very difficult to argue my case. It's like all of a sudden going to DEFCON 1, then going back to DEFCON 4 and acting as if "no blood no foul, right?".

Although a warning or 24 hour ban would have been preferable, the situation escalated because, in my opinion, Sandover was for the most part refusing to acknowledge the points I was making on the Talk page. I was also frustrated by the fact that my very small additions/omissions were being completely reverted while I allowed his entire section to remain essentially intact. On top of that, the POV tag that I inserted (for both the anti-gay blurb and Sandover's edits) was being removed again and again without dialog. This was especially annoying because the tag was also intended for content that Sandover had nothing to do with. Even though I initially added the POV tag and explained it, I was in part banned for a 3RR, again, even though no one bothered to explain why it shouldn't be there. At that point, I was pretty comfortable calling the whole incident "fascistic" simply because the editors/Admins were moving along without me while silencing me by force. Haizum 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Threat of Arbitration: Simply not represented fairly. Based on several complaints and my own personal experience with this Administrator (that I felt was contra the role of the Admin), I said "You're on your way to arbitration." Inflamatory? Perhaps, but this comment was made in private via Wiki email. It is not, "I'm going to get you arbitrated," and it is not worthy of an indefinite ban. Haizum 03:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Digi Wiki and Art Dominique likely sockpuppets and bizarre behavior on Kven

The article on Kvens has long been unstable due to some rather bizarre content disputes, but the main problem now appears to be that Digi Wiki and Art Dominique resist any attempts at stabilizing the content by differentiating articles on two separate but related topics. Resistance includes bizarre personal attacks (see Talk:Kven), accusations of "radical theories," and edits that defy any reason. From what I can tell, there has already been disciplinary action against these two/this editor; they either have to engage in an honest disagreement or stay away from this topic. --Leifern 22:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find it right now, but I remember that Digi Wiki explicitly stated on this page a while back that he's a sock of Art Dominique, created when AD was blocked, in order to be able to post a complaint here. If it's useful, I'll see if I can fish it out of the ANI archives (groan, they're horrible). Bishonen | talk 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

No problem, I walked right into it :-) ! . Bishonen | talk 01:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

In that case I've blocked digi eiki indefinately. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Metrocat (talk · contribs)

do we even have to pretend this isn't a sockpuppet?--172.162.143.110 23:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppet of whom?Sasquatch t|c 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how many genuine new users do you know of who start off by making legal threats against Jimmy Wales, inside of their first 3 edits ever on wikipedia?--205.188.116.65 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a sockpuppet, but hasn't done anything dramatically out of whack. Let's just see how she does. KWH 02:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pikachu

User:152.163.100.197 has been repeatedly blanking Pikachu and shows no signs of stopping. I'm requesting a block on his IP. Thanks. Supadawg - [[User_talk:Supadawg|Talk]] 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL IP so only blocked for 15 minutes. In the future please take such notices to WP:AIV. JoshuaZ 00:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. Didn't know about WP:AIV; will definitely do that next time. Supadawg - [[User_talk:Supadawg|Talk]] 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my userpage and elsewhere

68.112.25.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made numerous personal attacks on me as well as User:Abu badali, such as here, here, here, and here (as well as other edits in the users contributions). This seems to stem from the fact that I have removed images from articles (that this user may have uploaded as User:Padgett22, User:Onlyslighted, and/or User:Steph11 ... I am not sure how to report/check sockpuppets, though User:Meegs seems to think Padget22 and Onlyslighted are one in the same) that are either unsourced or images that are not being used in fair use (most particularly when the image is from a DVD cover and is being used illustrate the person, not the creative property). Also, he vandlised my user page four times in a short amount of time. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Previous (and possibly) relevant ANI discussions can be found here and here as they deal with the same actions and possibly the same user.

The user vandalised my page this morning for the same reasons; I had reverted their attempts to place pictures into articles where they have been told many times they can not because of violating fair use (as well as continually trying to change release dates in select Phish albums). I would really appreciate an admin looking into/commenting on this. Thanks. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I share MOE.RON's concerns over this user's behavior. The personal attacks are unnaceptable and the continuos readd of the "fair use" images are highly annoying. --Abu Badali 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

GreenLanternDC sockpuppets

Yesterday, undid edits on four different pages, ChildrensCrusade (talk · contribs), NocturnalAdmission (talk · contribs), IWashMyselfWithaRagOnaStick (talk · contribs), and CentipediaNES (talk · contribs) all indef blocked as sockpuppets. Two of them are suppected sockpuppets of NerfSpecialForces (talk · contribs), and two are unasigned. Another sockpuppet Spartanpass (talk · contribs) had changed the pages to shift the link to another sockpuppet, to GreenLanternDC (talk · contribs) (example). So, I undid that and protected all four user pages. Today, I got this message on my talk page, by WikipediaRandall (talk · contribs), another sockpuppet. I am not familiar with the case, so I would like another admin, who is familiar with it to have a look. There seems to be a whole series of of socks doing a lot a image vandalism. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is GreenLanternDC, the one who posted that message - I found that some of my socks were being associated with another user, and I really would rather not cause someone else's suspension or banning inadvertently, as might've happened with NerfSpecialForces. - In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night, No Evil Shall Escape My Sight. Let Those Who Worship Evil’s Might Fear My Power…Green Lantern’s Light.

Sorry. You're probably defending your own socks—how convenient you come back to defend a stranger.-- The ikiroid  02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I'm telling you specifically, I'm GreenLanternDC. Post them under both that name and NerfSpecialForces if you want, but those socks belong to me - I deserve credit for them.

Oh, and could someone go ahead and add Zeebotheclown to my tally? kthnx

I have indef blocked this self-proclaimed sockpuppet-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth quote insertion at Jimmy Wales

There are currently two editors (Margana (talk · contribs) and Kasuro (talk · contribs)) active at Jimmy Wales who keep reinserting a quote from Wikitruth: Wikitruth, says: "Jimbo does not issue commands. He likes to pretend he's leading, not coercing. ... So Jimbo likes to 'wonder'. It's wikicode for 'Do it.' ... Jimbo's wonderings can cause enormous conflict. ... He 'wonders' whether you'll consider doing something that he makes clear will be done by fiat if you don't. But in this way, he can convince himself you are not coerced, but are simply following his lead." I think this quote is highly inappropriate, speculation, based on unsubstantiaed facts, and I would say that wikitruth is not exactly a reliable source, even as a primary source. I would like to have some feedback by others about whether it should be reinserted or not. There is an long extended discussion going on the talk page, and there is no consensus yet, and I think there never will be with the current editors. However, desite lack of consensus, the quote gets currently reinserted about twice a day, and it is becoming more and more disruptive. As I am involved myself, I would like the opinion from others on this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why we'd want simple insults from non-notable people there. --InShaneee 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, can't see that either. But the quote should be included given that it's not a "simple insult" nor comes from non-notable people. Margana 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems a rather extensive quotation for the purpose. How about "Critics, including Wikitruth, allege that Wales is actually an autocrat who phrases commands as suggestions, knowing they will be carried out." That's about 1/3 the length and still raises the criticism. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But does is warrant inclusion? And who are those other critics? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Just because someone complains about something doesn't mean its worth noting in an encyclopedia. --InShaneee 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just apply the simple NPOV test: can you name prominent adherents of the viewpoint? The anonymous users at Wikitruth certainly couldn't be considered prominent in any way. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikitruth itself is. The individuals don't have to be. Just as you might quote from an unsigned article in a prominent newspaper etc. Margana 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with bainer, though I don't think we should have an article on Wikitruth at all, as it is non-notable. It's like a few people (several dozen, tops?) who are upset with General Electric starting a website saying that the company sucks and getting an article, and Wikipedia isn't even as notable or as large as General Electric. At most such websites should be mentioned in a Wikipedia criticism article, perhaps not even in the article namespace. -- Kjkolb 10:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me a website about people upset with General Electric that has an Alexa rank of 80,000 or better. If such exists, we might have an article about that as well. You don't reach that rank just by setting up a website saying "X sucks". You have to make some sense. And it doesn't matter then how many people you are; many notable websites are probably run by single individuals. Margana 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that these two editors will reinsert this every time it is removed, claiming it needs consensus before a sourced statement can be removed, which I think is utterly wrong. However, as I said, I am involved, and I can just keep reverting, but there is a limit to that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have take the page of my watchlist, and will leave it at this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Billykelaher (talk · contribs)

Any objections to banning this user indefinately? He has never made any edits (not even replying to querries on his talkpage), what he does is upload pictures. Mostly useless (for Wikipedia) self made 3D renders and Habbo Hotel screenshots tagged as {{PD-self}}, he also frequently write "all rights reserved" in the image summary even though he usualy tag them as {{norightsreserved}}. All his images have been deleted twise before (first as "no source", then by IFD the second time), but he never reply to messages on his talkpage, he just upload the images again a while after they have been deleted. I also know for a fact that he has been using these images on Habbo related message boards (some examples [34] [35] (check the source URL of those posted images)), so he's basicaly just using Wikipedia for file storage with is explicitly something Wikipedia is not. Since he only seem to check in every couple of months a 24 hour or even week long block seems unlikely to have any effect, so I feel we should just ban him indefenetly (and summarily delete all his images), at least untill such a time as he show some sign of actualy wanting to contribute to Wikipedia rather than just leech bandwidth off it. Since it's a bit of a "non standard" case (well there are the repeated copyvios), I just wanted to make sure I won't cause some kind of controversy by giving him the boot without three formal warnings and all that first. --Sherool (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorse the block as long as a message explaining the cause for the block is put on the user's talk page. JoshuaZ 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, I also explained that if he wants to contribute and promises to respect our key policies (like "no file hosting service") in the future he is welcome to request unblocking. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An outside view on Linuxbeak's RfC.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Linuxbeak#Outside_view_by_FuCyfre - FuCyfre is a non-existent user; and the view I find rather divisive. Any comments? Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the outside view as trolling due to its forged signature and inflammatory content. JDoorjam Talk 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. May not be forged. Looks like it was added in this edit by a user who did have that name at that time, but is now SnarkBoojum (talk · contribs). See name change request at: Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive11#SnarkBoojum - Fan1967 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• However, it does look like he blanked Guettarda's comments in the process. Fan1967 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username TheRapist?

--Anchoress 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag-team blocked a long time ago—the only reason I wasn't the fourth to do so was I'd checked the block log and saw the other 3 ;) RadioKirk talk to me 05:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Alkivar allowed to be an admin?

Alkivar uses profanity in his edit summaries and practices incivility. Here are just a few examples. Check his user contributions, and you'll find regular use of "shit" and "fuck". Check out his talk page in which he routinely removes comments that are not vandalism (also notice the number of complaints he receives on his talk page). Only administrators can do this, but notice his inappropriate use of deleting histories. Check out the brassiere page where he tried to add some awful picture to it that everyone hated, and then he insulted everyone (except one user) who complained about the picture. He also seems to be in the habit of provoking vandals by making his feuds with them personal. Why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator? This is a travesty. Duckdid 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't any opinion with respect to most of the points you raise, as I've only a passing familiarity with Alkivar and am disinclined to spend time reading through his talk page. Apropos of his profane edit summaries, though, one finds that his profanity isn't directed in specific at other users (as would perhaps be in contravention of WP:NPA and would, in any event, be disruptive), save for those linkspammers whom we block straightaway. To suggest that his edit summaries are in bad form, then, one would have to argue that profanity is disruptive per se, irrespective of context, and I suspect that many users, like I, aren't willing to make such an argument. As to the history deletion, the last two months of his admin activity seem to have comprised no deletions of specific versions of a page/image (i.e., "history deletions") save for those in which an image was compromised (viz., either by an unencyclopedic image's being uploaded in its place or by a non-fair use picture's being uploaded). Now, I've seen several complaints here and elsewhere about Alkivar, and I think perhaps his style sometimes could be more decorous; I don't think, though, that any Wikipedian can say that he/she has never phrased something in a fashion he/she later regretted. Alkivar doesn't appear to be disrupting the community and appears to use the admin tools properly and constructively (if sometimes with terse explanation), so I can see no reason for which Alkivar ought to be desysopped. Of course, per WP:RfDA, one may always construct an RfC, which will surely bear out any actual malfeasance (even as I suspect none has occurred). Joe 06:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of some comments I found in his edit summaries and other places by searching just for a minute or so: "jesus fuck learn grammar you tards", "why do idiots insist on adding images without reading the HELP documentation first?", "All i've gotten is shit over this picture ... fuck you all its deleted", "Fuck You." Yes, Alkivar breaks incivility and he uses profanity to further that goal. Please, don't try to ignore this obvious fact. Doing a search on Wikipedia, I also found a reference to Alkivar deliberately trying to lure a guy he was feuding with into a 3RR block. Duckdid 06:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling when people add in the worst-written shit you have ever read. Makes me want to say that first think, too. However, the rest is just unexcusable. Either this is a different user than the person elected to admin, or it has gone to his head in a bad way. --mboverload@ 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've talked to him about this, which should be the first step rather than taking it here. Talk to him first, try to work it out, and if that doesn't work bring it here. I'm tired of people complaining on this NB without first trying to actually resolve the issue (wow! what a concept!). Snoutwood (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking to him is a great idea, but it's not a terrible idea for a fellow admin to do the talking. As it stands, he appears to be an ongoing embarassment to less potty-mouthed admins.

When you loose a cannon, you have the responsibility to reign it back in. Every person who voted in support on Alkivar's RFA should be jumping down his throat right now. Al 07:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. He made what may or may not be a mistake, and going "Ohnoes, sysop abuse!" is absurd (as per "why hasn't Alkivar ever been blocked for this kind of behavior or been removed from his position as an administrator?"). Talking to him is exactly what should be done here, as always. Snoutwood (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying we have TWO standards? Because when I once made a single edit comment that could be taken as an insult, I was blocked for a week. This guy is cursing out people repeatedly, but since he's an admin, all you suggest is that someone speak to him politely about it? With all due respect, there is clearly at least the appearance of disparity here. Al 07:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Alienus. Admins should be blocked, or not, for violations according to the very same standards (at least) which would be applied to any other editor.Timothy Usher 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. But I'm not playing a double standard, see below for details. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know your situation, but I reckon that you should've been talked to first as well. If you'd already been talked with or warned or whatever, then I'd understand it. No one's brought up the subject with Alkivar. In fact, no one who brought this topic up appears to even have had the decency to let him know that he's being talked about on this noticeboard. Talk to him, take it to RfC. That's the dispute resolution process. The whole way this wiki works is through communucation. A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that when they don't like something, the best thing to do is shout over here, Abuse! Abuse! and then not bother to tell the "abusing" person anything about it or do any leg work themselves. If you'd mentioned the issue and then he'd said Fuck off, this post would be far more reasonable. But then that hasn't happened. Snoutwood (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a user is uncivil, why are we shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the problem. Fine, if Duckdid is a banned user, ban him again. But don't just assume that because a banned user brings something up, the complaint is ipso facto invalid. Alkivar's edit summaries DO contain problems, regardless of whether someone haas talked to him about it yet (and maybe no one has talked to him about it because of the perception that it will do no good, vis double-standards?). -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not shooting the messenger, nor do I think that the complaint is invalid. I'm saying that the messenger is taking the wrong steps. If I have a problem with a user, I talk to him about it. That I've assumed that he'll respond poorly is no reason to not talk to him about it (I may be wrong, he may say, "Oh, feck, right, sorry about that," and the problem's solved. I've seen it happen). If he responds poorly, then that's a good reason to bring it here. It's just plain rude to post a message here before first even going over the problem with the person you have a problem with. Talking to them first is indeed the first step in our dispute resolution process, a long-standing policy. Try it, and you may get good results. If that's done, then come here with the problem and we'll do our best. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys have to realize the near impossibility of not being an “insider” and trying to get things done. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t have posted this concern here, even though the directions at the top of the page say this is where to do it. I’ve been told to talk to Alkivar, which is impossible since he has removed my comments from his talk page in the past. I’ve been told that I should appeal to a committee instead of creating a sockpuppet if I’m blocked, but how do I do such things if I’m blocked to begin with? And what about Snoutwood, who appears (though this could be wrong) to be interpreting everything in the light most favorable to Alkivar? Snoutwood claimed no one had the decency to tell Alkivar that he’s being talked about, and that’s a non-issue. Alkivar tried to have me blocked about thirty minutes after I posted here. He knew about it. He just didn’t want to say anything here.

No one has looked at this from my perspective. Administrators go around making binding decisions with blocks and deletions and so forth. I just make a few edits and create a few articles here and there. When people talk about needing to do a WP:RfA because the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were violated when there was a WP:3RR or whatever, I don’t know what any of that means. I have to sit here for an hour clicking on the links to figure out what those acronyms mean and what the substance of those policies are. So, I’m stuck hindered by an overly bureaucratic process that I don’t understand (and several in this conversation have interpreted differently) while groupthink and the good ol’ boys network run amok. Dizzied 05:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, where's your proof that Alkivar tried to have you blocked?

As I've said, I don't have a stand in regards to Alkivar, and if it's in the interest of the encyclopedia for him to be desysopped or whatever else than I would wholeheartedly support it. I think that there's very much an isue that needs to be addressed here, and I think that you're going about this the wrong way. However, that doesn't have anything to do with what I've been saying. What I've been saying is that he needed to be talked to first. As that still hasn't happened, I left a message on his talk page asking him to talk about this here. I won't have anything else to do with this: all I was trying to do is bring in some dispute common sense, and since it's being ignored I won't reiterate it any more. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: Duckdid appears to be a reincarnation of User:Beisnj, please see the respective logs or email me for details. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to him before under just my IP address before I had an account, and he just removed my comment. His explanation was that he doesn't respond to anonymous users. Later, someone made a similar complaint under a real account, so I thought that would settle it, but he just deleted that one also. I also realize this next comment will likely result in getting me blocked indefinitely, but the Beisnj account was my account. An admin blocked that account indefinitely, however, please note that none of my edits were vandalism, I never harassed anybody, etc. Under this account, I have continued to make appropriate edits as well. I could have easily hidden that the Beisnj account was mine simply by not adding to my user page the list of articles I've created. I just want to edit on Wikipedia from time to time and be left alone while I do it. The only people I've ever complained about was one guy who tried to overtake an article about French military history, and Alkivar because of his string of abuses. Two mure notes: (1)As an added note, I see that his RfA was approved by a 28-21 vote. Now, I don't know much about the inner-workings of Wikipedia, nor have I ever attempted to be an "insider", but that doesn't seem like a very solid vote. Most of the "oppose" votes voiced the same concerns I have voiced here. (2) This entire conversation is hypocritical. I'm being asked to go talk to Alkivar about it, but he hasn't attempted to talk to me about this. His immediate response was to petition to Jayjg to have me permentantly blocked. Notice in Alkivar's complaint that he doesn't have an argument of substance against me, he just saw a previous block and is hoping for the easy way out. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses my "self-incrimination" above to permanantly block me himself. Duckdid 08:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Duckdid indefinitely as a self-confessed sockpuppet of a banned user. Sockpuppetry to evade bans is not acceptable, no matter how well the sock contributes. Inicidentally, the RfA Duckdid refers to failed. Alkivar's third RfA was the one that got him promoted, by 69/20/8. The allegations of incivility are disturbing, but an RfC sounds like the proper venue for this, with evidence that people have tried and failed to resolve this with Alkivar, and allowing Alkivar a response. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, RfC is the place for these kinds of complaints. ANI has become almost a replacement for RfC. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the header for this page needs to be reworded. Currently it says:

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

-- nae'blis _(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He also called me a troll and blocked my user page for having a creative user name. (User:Can sleep, clown will not eat me) I saw someone named User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me in the Special:Recentchanges, and thought it was good user name, so I created a similar one. It is not impersonation.--4.19.93.2 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar didn't block that username, Jni and FireFox did. Snoutwood (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Although i have no personal insight into, or interest in, either editor's behaviour, i have to say that reading this section hardly instils confidence in our administration system. I reads very much like Admins covering each other's back, selectively quoting policy to justify awfully poor behaviour, and a warning to any non admin who dares to point out that some one may be abusing their tools. Per WP:AGF, i'll accept that is not the motivation of the admins here, but its hard to deny that is what it looks like. Irrespective of where or whether a complaint has been made, in light of the evidence quoted above would it not make sense of one of you to say youl will have a quiet word in Alkivar's ear and point out that such language and behaviour is unbecoming on an admin? Instead we say to the person making the complaint: "talk to him/her about it" then immediately we block them. Result? The problem goes away. Until next time. Rockpocket 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're worried that Alkivar will block you for criticising him, which I think is highly unlikely, I will personally supervise the exchange and make sure that it doesn't happen. O.K.? I'm not "covering" Alkivar, I've no particular attachment to him or admins as some sort of cabal. If an admin came here without discussion with the person they're having trouble with, I'd say the same thing. Discusison with the user is first and foremost, that's all. People seem to be forgetting that these days. Snoutwood (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was more that of nae'blis'. Irrespective of the situation, an editor had pointed out out what appears to be a very valid concern. That user not cannot resolve the situation him or herself (as soon as they self identify they will be blocked again, moreover he tried to talk anonymously and was ignored or the comment removed). So the situation goes unresolved and Alkivar will continue to edit in a frankly, occasionally offensive manner. Although it has nothing to do with me whatsoever, i'll happily ask Alkivar if he would mind toning down his language and improve his behaviour, seeing as User:Duckdid no longer can and no administrator appears willing to. I'm not concerned about being blocked for that. But its unfortunate that one of the admins here doesn't see that as the commonsense way forward, instead of telling him to resolve it by talking then banning him. Rockpocket 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Since no one else will, I guess I have to. Hopefully this shows that I'm not necessarily supporting these actions, a point which no one seems interested in trusting me on.

I just went over the history of Alkivar's talk page, back to January. No anonymous edits talking about this stuff. I didn't see any other edits talking about this stuff either. Course, I could've missed it. Can anyone provide the diff?

Until I see that I just don't believe that Alkivar would block him for raising a valid concern. If he would, that's a Bad Thing and certainly needs to be dealt with. Rocket, since you've got a problem with this issue, why don't you just go and deal with it rather than saying that it's an admin problem, or that we're covering each other's backs? I don't understand why you don't just go and talk to him (still not done by anyone who is involved in the dispute). I don't understand why you don't see talking to him as being the commonsense way forwards.

As for User:Duckdid, he was blocked, NOT by Alkivar or in a way having anything to do with Alkivar that I can see, for being a sock of User:Beisnj, whose story I don't know. However, if he'd like to appeal that block, he can always go to User:Jayjg, the blocking admin, and talk to him. That hasn't happened either, unless it happened via e-mail where I wouldn't know about it. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this, and I don't understand why people think this is "admin abuse" or that I'm "defending Alkivar," when all I've said is to TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT. Snoutwood (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Yes, Alkivar knew about this comment on the ANI, and his response was to attempt to get me blocked. I posted here at 05:56, 5 June 2006. At 06:28, 5 June 2006, Alkivar requested from Jayjg that he run checkuser on me and block me. Alkivar hadn’t even posted on Wikipedia in three days, but he responded to that comment in roughly 30 minutes by trying to get me blocked. (Note also that Jayjg did, in fact, run Checkuser on me. As far as I can tell under these circumstances, that was not an acceptable use of Checkuser privileges.)

(2) There is plenty of evidence that these problems have been brought to Alkivar’s attention. At this point, you’re making it hard for me to not think that you’re not blatantly ignoring the evidence. At all three of his RfA the problems of his incivility and poor edit summaries were talked about extensively.

(3) A good example of Alkivar ignoring and deleting posts about his behavior can be found on February 8th. He went on a roll deleting comments critical of him with such edit summaries as “poof” and “wipe away useless post.” On December 6th, 2005, he deleted a comment from his talk page asking him to be civil, and Alkivar’s edit summary was “rv vandalism.”

(4) I was given the same kind of run-around as I’m being given now when I tried to get out of my block. I e-mailed Jayjg, and he basically said he wasn’t going to do it. I listed the unblock template on my talk page, and people basically told me that wasn’t the right way to handle it (which seems to be a common response to attempts to follow the bureaucratic process). Dizzied 16:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith unfinished AfD nomination

Could someone please close an unfinished (WP:POINT) nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Eshoo. This was made just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Boghos Derounian (already closed with speedy keep) by David Falcon (talk · contribs), who is upset by the AfD nominations for Sedat Laciner and even for Tayyibe Gulek [36], although this had already been closed with a keep. --Lambiam^Talk 11:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The AfD was incomplete and no reason for deleting was ever given, so this nomination was technically non-completable. It's now closed. - Liberatore(T) 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rex071404 is "retiring"

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) has left a very entertaining message on his talk page, admitting to being Merecat, among other things, and says that he is leaving the project. He asks that his user page and talk page be deleted. I would tend to agree with this request, with the caveat that if it becomes clear that he has not truly left, they will be undeleted. (At this point there is a long checkuser history on him and a lot of editors who can recognize him.) Thatcher131 11:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to investigate his claim of being an inactive admin, this page may help since it includes the promotion dates of inactive admins. The closest fit I see is Oven Fresh, who interestingly enough has returned in the past 24 hours to delete his user pages (his new edits makes doing a checkuser possible). But I would not want to falsely associate anyone with a known troll, although 2 of his new edits [37] [38] are quite odd.. NoSeptember ^talk 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete. His contribs list and the block tag are useful refs for the willing editors who haven't found out yet that User:Rex071404 / User:Merecat / User:Wombdpsw / etc is an unholy troll, and might want to check back some of his edits. I only recently found out, unpleasently. Also, he seems to be consistant in one thing only: coming back after being blocked and start trolling again. -- ActiveSelective 12:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of people requesting that their talk pages be deleted. Jimbo deleting... Locke Cole's page, I think it was, has set a bad precedent. User pages? Sure thing. But what's wrong with blanking user talk pages instead of deleting them? Nothing. Unless there are privacy concerns in the history of the talk page, in which case, only those privacy-defeating edits need be deleted from the history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Deleting talk page histories should be the rare exception, not the rule. NoSeptember ^talk 13:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about deleting the user page and blanking the talk page? It may need to be protected in case certain users try to re-add the sock tags.Thatcher131 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the generally-accepted forms of action for users who leave and want their user pages and talk pages "removed" from Wikipedia. You should ask Rex to blank his talk page and place a {{db-author}} to his user page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this user and his puppets have spread a multitude of uncivil remarks about other editors throughout Wikipedia, I think it is inappropriate to delete the evidence of his unsavory behaviour from plain sight. Also, Rex had already retired was the common defense by several other editors. Clearly he was still among us, and in light of his addiction to being disruptive it would surprise me if he did not reincarnate again. Therefore leave the proof of who this abusive puppetmaster is on his page. Blank it if necessary but do not delete. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "confession" should be kept and protected. KWH 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If the talk page is blanked but not deleted it will be in the history, should this user become a problem again. Thatcher131 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good contributors generally don't get their talk pages deleted when they leave the project, and I don't see why disruptive editors should get special treatment. I support the suggestion of blanking and protecting the page. Also, a crash caused the loss of deleted edits and it might happen again (now they only go back to the date of the crash). While it may be possible to salvage deleted user talk pages after another crash, it's a lot simpler to just blank them. -- Kjkolb 18:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We do tell users that they have the m:Right to vanish. We should stop saying that if they don't. Jkelly 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We also say "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made occasionally." --pgk^(talk) 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the hurry? The body may be dead but it is not cold yet. Some editors still need to realize they've been duped by this troll and might want to trace his edits/tags/comments back to his visibly blockindeffed userpage. -- ActiveSelective 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete User:Rex071404's userpage, talkpage, or Any evidence of his 2 years of tormenting Wikipedia. Rex has said on numerous occasions in the past that he is quiting Wikipedia. He didn't. I don't even think he can. Rex's sockpuppets lied repeatedly saying they weren't sockpuppets. Rex is a self-admitted Liar who gave up the normal rights of a good-standing Wikipedian long ago. We have no reason to trust his word and a hell of a lot of reason to distrust him. We need Rex's userpages, talkpages, and all evidence pertaining to his 2 year legacy of disruption, deception and bad faith to remain untouched for the rest of time. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be wise to block his admitted socks. Derex 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kozlovesred

Could an admin please take a look at the blocking of user User:Kozlovesred, the admin has cited "admitted political bias, lack of regard for opposing views and editors, stated intention to "guard" articles [39] related to socialism/communism from opposing views and editors, incivility to other editors and administrators. I checked, and have found no evidence of any violations, only the usual debate surrounding a contested subject. --Zleitzen 13:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you asked User:PMA to be more specific about his reasons for the block? If PMA can provide us with some diffs or point us at talk pages, then the reasons stated are valid reasons for a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a glance over the lengthy debate going on at several talk pages and I agree, the disagreement is largely a content issue. The blocked user makes good use of talk pages, discusses major article changes and generally interacts with other editors in an effort to resolve problems regarding content. I don't see any evidence worthy of a block this lengthy and support unblocking this editor. I'll try and provide some diffs but as this user posts and replies to many comments at once, they're not easy to read. -- Longhair 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a diff regarding the "guarding articles" comment above, and will try to add the remainder as I discover them. -- Longhair 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe another administrator has requested more information about the block, which has yet to be publicly provided. I was alerted to the case having seen this entry written by the administrator of the block.

"probably get in trouble for it but I believe my stand is totally justified - something has to be done about the communist infestation at some articles."[40]

It should be noted that this administrator appears to be also personally involved in the dispute. --Zleitzen 15:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through his controbutions a fair bit. Less thanb ideal behaviour but not yet reached the point where admins can block for it. I've pulled the block and left a forceful note on Kozlovesred's talk page.Geni 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this unblock. Even in his unblock requests, the user was incivil, saying that the situation was like "Stalinist Russia" and that PMA's "methods don't belong on Wikipedia, but in a police state." Perhaps 2 weeks was a bit long, but shortening a block, and unblocking, for that matter, should be discussed with the blocking admin first, don't you think? --Rory096 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No. If the blocking failes to provided a ligt blocking rational definetly not.Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So if the block summary isn't good, the user should be unblocked? PMA still said that he was blocking him for disruption, just not in the summary. --Rory096 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You should at least give some hint of which policy you are useing. In any case Kozlovesred was not dissrupting the normal functioning of Wikipedia. I deal with more anoying people around the alt med articles all the time.Geni 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean what policy I'm using? You said you unblocked him because he didn't give a valid block summary. I said that he told the user that he was blocking him for disruption. As for whether or not he should be blocked, don't you think you should give the blocking admin the courtesy of a discussion before unblocking the user? --Rory096 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Particularly in cases that are unlikely to be time critical.Geni 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely if it's not time critical one should wait before reverting another admin's actions? --Rory096 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No because haveing people blocked worngly isbad. As long as unblocking them isn't going to cause serious short term problems it is best to discuss any action while they are unblocked.Geni 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - look at Kozlovesred and his mates talk of protecting articles from the so-called "right-wing army" - and Zleitzen is hardly an innocent party given his coddling of pro-communist/socialist users at Cuba-related articles - ask Adam Carr or 172 or Rebecca. i hadn't been involved with the Lenin talk page for some time anyway - the continued behaviour of them prompted me to act. I am seriously tempted to just walk away from Wiki if something is not done. PMA 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC, WP:RFM and WP:RFAR. That is what has been done. Some of them work quite well. (there is also the medation cabal somewhere. They can do good work).Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Geni's unblock. Geni's action reminds me of the (unhelpful) attempt by another administrator to unblock the vandals Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs) and Mistress Selina Kyle (talk · contribs). when admins acts as the tools of disruptive users, it is a big slap in the face of serious editors. The community should have learned this lesson following the depature of SlimVirgin, which was triggered by the rash unblocks of Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle. Administrators are supposed to protect legitimate content editors and show disruptive users the door. PMA's blocks should be restored immediately, before another valued contributor like SlimVirgin is forced to leave Wikipedia in frustration. 172 | Talk 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you show where Kozlovesred has been carrying out large scale ofsite anti wikipedia activities? Frankly anyone leaveing over this is so close to burn out in any case there isn't much to be done.Geni 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot grasp how frustrating disruptive POV-pushers are to legitimate content editors, then you're too pretty close to burn out. Perhaps you should take a break as an admin. You seem to be losing sight of the goals of the project. The goals of the project are non-negotiable; as for the rules, see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. 172 | Talk 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also see: Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules BruceHallman 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I understand I just not view your way of attempting to deal with the problem as acceptable.Geni 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If Kozlovesred's behaviour was blockable – and I'm not reassured that it has been – PMA was probably not the right admin to do it. He is regularly involved in editing articles related to Communism, and takes a stance opposite to Kozlovesred's in his editing. Stating that he is defending us from the "communist infestation" doesn't really convey the level of impartiality we usually hope to see. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quoting PMA out of context. PMA referred to a "communist infestation" in a message on my talk page meant only for me. It was not his stated reason for the block, which read: I am following Wikipedia blocking policy on disruption per Wikipedia:Disruption. You're not getting blocked because of your political orientation per se, your ideology is only relevant insofar as it seems to be the motive for your disruptive behavior. PMA 04:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 172 | Talk 04:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting PMA's own description of his simultaneous blocks of Kozlovesred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Solidusspriggan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a public wiki, and everyone would do well to remember that our words can and are seen. The point is not that the message was a 'private' one to you, 172, but that PMA has a conflict of interest on this issue.

PMA used the same block summary for both blocks, as well as for another six hours later of GeorgeSears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All three editors have been editing with a similar slant on Communism-related topics; PMA, meanwhile, has also been making Communism-related edits but from the opposing perspective. He has been reverting edits that might be perceived as pro-Communist, often without edit summaries.

For none of the three blocks did PMA notify the editors blocked on their talk pages (or, apparently, elsewhere). (He added the terse explanation you quote to Kozlovesred's talk page nearly a day later and after prompting, and just quoted text that 172 provided.) PMA did not provide diffs or explanation of the blocks here or on the involved editors' talk pages. None of the three editors had been blocked before, for any reason. None of the editors blocked had even edited, let alone engaged in disruptive behaviour, in the three days preceding the blocks; it is difficult to argue that the matter was urgent, and such a long first-time block should have been discussed here. Neither PMA nor any other editor had warned the three about their editing practices, save for what appears to be a well-received and understood explanation of 3RR to Solidusspriggan back in January.

I strongly urge PMA to lift the remaining blocks. While he meant well, his actions are the sort that can lead to the torches and pitchforks and cries of 'rogue admin' that make it more difficult for the rest of us to enforce policy. I would encourage him to do what we're all supposed to do with a conflict of interest—bring the matter here, with appropriate diffs and explanation, and seek neutral third-party comment and action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Similar questions were raised six weeks ago with Cuba/ MichaelW block by PMA BruceHallman 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since PMA has lifted the remaining two blocks, I consider the matter settled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanently blocked editor User:Rgulerdem editing via User:12.206.233.75

12.206.233.75 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs)

Someone want to sProtect Fethullah Gülen and but a temp block on the anon IP that User:Rgulerdem's using true to his pattern to repetitively remove the {{NPOV}} tag from the article? This pattern is identical to the recently permanently blocked sockpuppet utilized by Resid Gulerdem, User:TheLightning for this very same style of editing.

Thanks. Netscott 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cyde for your prompt assistance in this matter. Netscott 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Permanently blocked editor User:Rgulerdem now formulating WP policy

Greetings, having been following the mailing list WikiEn-I, I recently caught notice of Resid Gulerdem formulating a policy entitled: WP:OURS. User:Raphael1 has just begun steps to put User:Rgulerdem's policy proposal in place on Wikipedia by starting its page and shortcut. I think it is rather obvious that permanently blocked users formulating policy is bad and due to this I am inclined to submit Wikipedia:OURS for speedy deletion but without previous experience concerning such a situation I've submitted it as a miscellaneous for deletion. Does it make more sense to speedy delete this banned user's proposed policy outright to clearly demonstrate that banned user's formulating policy is bad or should the MfD be allowed to continue? Thanks, Netscott 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Large parts of this policy has been formulated by myself. Though discussions on the WikiEn-I mailing list admittedly have been my inspiration. Raphael1 17:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be a lot of tag-team editing between Rgulerdem and Raphael1. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well viewed Zoe, well viewed... I think that such editing is described as "proxy editing" no? Proxy editing for a banned user is bad is it not? Netscott 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, why can't we simply judge this on its own merits? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That would seem a reasonable response considering the involvement of a non-blocked editor. As for "proxy editing", I don't think engaging in conversations via paraphrasing and discussion outcomes qualifies as "proxy editing" as such. In such a case as this, wouldn't assuming good faith on the part of Raphael1 be in order? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, "good faith"? It's getting a bit difficult to assume good faith when User:Raphael1 goes around making "hit" lists of Wikipedia admins and disruptively editing on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Raphael1 would not have started the WP:OURS policy proposal (the name given it by Resid Gulerdem) on his own and is in fact acting as a proxy for the highly disruptive banned editor User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

irrespective of who wrote this, i don't really see this as becoming policy anyway. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Irish's point that we oughtn't to be as concerned with the identity of the contributor as with the quality of the proposal is an important one. Notwithstanding that I am in any event inclined to assume good faith here (even as I disagree with each most strongly on most Wiki-related matters, I can't imagine that Resid and Raphael would continue to spend time here and on the mailing list were they not interested in helping to ameliorate what they see as problems), never should we reject a proposal (even where repugnant to policy, except where designed exclusively or serving primarily to disrupt) simply because the user offering it may not be acting in good faith or is blocked or banned. Joe 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Image vandalism

Someone's busy vandalizing a bunch of images by uploading new images over them. He's done this under at least three accounts: WikipediaSandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not blocked), ZapperNES (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked indefinitely), FallOutChoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for 24 hours). He seems to hit roughly the same set of images every time, so checking the history of the images in question should find any other accounts being used. Someone should probably also run a checkuser to see if the underlying IP address can be blocked. --Carnildo 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Also DoubtingElDandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WikipediaSandal is now indefblocked by me, and FallOutChoi should be indefblocked. Syrthiss 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I initially blocked User:Irishpunktom for edit-warring and trying to game the system, based on this edit summary: self revert - gotta wait an hour or so. After looking more closely at the edit history, I decided it would be more useful to lock the page. So I did that, and unblocked Irishpunktom. If anyone else has suggestions for a solution, I'm open to discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that he is blocked for 24 hrs, because as the diffs show in the 3rr report that I filed, he already violated 3rr before his 5th revert that he himself reverted again, with the mentioned edit summary. So in any case he's in clear violation of 3rr. Another thing is that he also violated 3rr on the "islamophobia" article a few days ago, and he wasn't blocked for that eighter. He has already been blocked for 3rr 10 times, so he know the rule, but de just doesn't respect it. I am sure that if it is no longer enforced in his case, he will violate it even more than he usually do. -- Karl Meier 18:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't particularly offering a suggestion for a solution, but just going by those blocks recorded in Irishpunktom's block log, this 3RR violation was at least his 10th violation of the three revert rule. Most people tend to find themselves banned before reaching that number. And that edit summary does not bode well for future behavior. While the protection and unblock look like a good call, it is probably time for someone to bring an arbitration case against him for the long term solution. Dmcdevit·t 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Has someone already done the RfC dance? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Dbiv has one ready, but he haven't filed it yet. -- Karl Meier 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am of course not fluent in the circumstances, it is my opinion that anyone who has reached that level blocks for edit warring is probably going to be accepted with a coherent case presented to arbcom. Something can be a "last resort" a number of ways. In cases where it looks useless to go through other dispute resolution, or where the necessity of an enforceable remedy appears inevitable, we accept cases without an RFC. Dmcdevit·t 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Even without an Arbcom ruling, I think longer blocks are in order for any further violations. I initially was going to block for 24 hours, but when I saw his previous blocks I went for 31. He's been blocked for as long as 48 hours in the past. I'd say that or longer would be appropriate if there is any more edit warring. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that punitive blocks aren't encouraged on Wikipedia but User:Dbiv, User:Karl Meier and myself have all experienced this brand of "bad faith" ("self-revert - got to wait and hour"?) editing on the part of User:Irishpunktom and this latest example appears to be reason for another block. Irishpunktom unfortunately has been violating 3RR as though it was a right across a number of articles and this is but the latest violation in a series of his continuing pattern (see his block log). Netscott 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Between March 14th and today I have been blocked four times, I believe, which would be the same amount of times as Netscott for that period. Its no surprise that Karl reported this either, he was critisized for stalking before and has seom personal issues with me going back a while now. He was a founding member of the anti-muslim "SIIEG" guild, which was banned. While i do revert too much, the same is, obviously, also true of those who are also engaging in the edit war with me, which tends to be a rather short list. even so, i shall try to cease. --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1. If you don't want to be reported for 3rr then stop violating that rule. 2. If I has any issues with you then it is about that you keep POV editing and make very strong personal attacks against me on your userpage and elsewhere. (you have been warned about this) -- Karl Meier 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

False analogy and infactual statements there Irishpunktom, I've in fact only had 3 total blocks for 3RR with 2 of them being unblocked upon explanation of the nature surrounding how I arrived at being blocked. Two of my blocks involved yourself (one of which I reported myself for re:Infidel) and the only one that wasn't unblocked (the very first one) actually was spurred on by you. I'm beginning to think that there's likely others who've born the bad faith nature of your editing and would surely add themselves to the list of editors who you've demonstrated bad faith towards. Netscott 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Have only just come back after an evening meeting. It's sadly true that I have encountered Irishpunktom before, especially on Peter Tatchell but also on other articles. The dispute arises because of his habit of automatically reverting without stating reasons, or stating uninformative reasons. Irishpunktom is a muslim: I often find his edits are highly POV (others may wish to check for themselves), but what sparked this recent problem was the addition of large amounts of detail on Peter Tatchell's views on Islam. This creates a POV problem of its own in that it distorts the significance of this part of Peter Tatchell's opinions, so I tried to prune the section back while not losing anything important. I'm not absolutely set on what came out, and I'm willing to debate what is the right way of the section, but I don't see why I should accept a blanket revert. Irishpunktom has not explained his objections to my edits on the talk page. David | Talk 21:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found it annoying myself; Tatchell has a long history of fighting for gay rights going back 30 years, yet the current article devotes almost a third of its length to Islam, and has gone through numerous edits in a (in my view) twisted attempt by Irishpunktom to portray him as an Islamophobe rather than a simple defender of secular rights versus _all_ homophobic belief systems. --Paul Moloney 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I may add here that Irishpunktom exhibits this sort of behavior on many articles. On Dhimmi, Apostasy in Islam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Islam-related articles, Irishpunktom only reverted without saying a word on the talk page. He moved Islamic extremist terrorism without even attempting to discuss the move, just because he disliked some recent additions to the article. I could continue for several more paragraphs, but administrators' noticeboard is probably not the right place for that. Pecher ^Talk 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey Graham

Repeated POV insertions & reverts by User:72.242.65.58, despite repeated warnings. Was posted on WP:AVI, but an admin took off since content-related and not merely vandalism. (I'm also worried that I've violated 3RR trying to keep POV out of the article). --mtz206 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Another day, and another round of WP:POV edits by this IP without comment or heeding numerous warnings. Someone please help me get through to this editor. No one else at the article is intervening. --mtz206 (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if this will get through to them but I blocked them for 24 hours. If they persist after this block I'm willing to block further, as it doesn't appear to be a shared ip (they only have contributed to this article). Syrthiss 13:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. --mtz206 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a vandal...

I know right about now you're probably reaching for your ban buttons, but wait, not so fast.. as I was saying, Hi, I'm a vandal, in fact I'm a very powerful, virtually unstoppable vandal. I could go on being a vandal from who knows how long, but I've decided not to. The way I see it, If i were to put my vandalism beind me, I could be a valuble insight into the twisted mind of the wikipedia vandal. I could be your informant, your inside man, heck, just think of me as your very own hannibal lector, only without all the canabalism, just think how the CVU could advance with the insight of an ex-vandal?! Just think about it. block me if you want to, I'll just make another account. Think about it, consider my proposal--Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you proposing? You realize that nothing like this can happen while you're vandalizing Wikipedia, right? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you don't see any vandalism coming from my current account, now do you? surely an act of good faith--Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't proposed that you do anything. What are you proposing doing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey all of us were once 13 years old, we already know how a vandal thinks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Moshe, I fail to see that you offer anything of value. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Sloeque Von Cheeseburgen You appear to be trolling. If you want to actually fight vandalism just go ahead and do it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked. AN:I troll, anyone? --InShaneee 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no need of a wannabe "Hannibal Lector's" insight. Now the REAL "Hannibal" would be a different story, what with his experience in culinary adventurism. But a vandal with a big ego, nah, Wiki's got ban buttons to take care of the "powerful, virtually unstoppable" vandals. -- Daniel Davis 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially repeat offenders like this guy. --InShaneee 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Request block: User:Dennv

This user has edited the Norman Lowell page for the past few days and it's all evident vandalism. These are some of his comments:

• "You sick neo-Nazi pervert: pan-Europeanism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with that sick fuck Lowell. His views are NOT "pan-Europeanism". Sick neo-nazi fucks.) "

• "It's great he's all for homosexuality. He'll have a lot of practice over the next few years."

• "This sick pervert's ideology is an ideology of tyranny."

Please block him, at least from editing this particular page. Thanks. Drew88 10:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV, please Will (^E_@) T 19:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:AppleJuicefromConcentrate

I have now permanently blocked AppleJuicefromConcentrate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent re-creation of the hoax article, sockpuppet abuse, and threats to continue with his actions. I have also blocked all his sockpuppets I have discovered. Several of them (namely, Motorox2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Motorox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Motorox4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Metrolox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) may need to be checked; they may have been operating through an open proxy which needs to be blocked. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Add TurkeyJuicefromConcentrate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I guess no edits but created in roughly the same time frame. --pgk^(talk) 21:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:86.139.119.115

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

I am not sure if this the right place for this, but I pinged 86.139.119.115 and I am positive that it is an open proxy or zombie computer being used to remove links and references from several articles. --Azerbaijani 21:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reported to WP:OP. Joe 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did my own investigation of this IP and was unable to find anything suggesting an open proxy. Portscan follows. --Cyde↔Weys 22:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting Nmap 4.01 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-06-05 18:02 EDT
DNS resolution of 1 IPs took 0.00s. Mode: Async [#: 3, OK: 1, NX: 0, DR: 0, SF: 0, TR: 1, CN: 0]
Initiating SYN Stealth Scan against host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115) [1672 ports] at 18:02
The SYN Stealth Scan took 36.61s to scan 1672 total ports.
Host host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115) appears to be up ... good.
Interesting ports on host86-139-119-115.range86-139.btcentralplus.com (86.139.119.115):
(The 1646 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT     STATE    SERVICE        VERSION
21/tcp   filtered ftp
23/tcp   filtered telnet
43/tcp   filtered whois
79/tcp   filtered finger
80/tcp   filtered http
135/tcp  filtered msrpc
136/tcp  filtered profile
137/tcp  filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp  filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp  filtered netbios-ssn
161/tcp  filtered snmp
205/tcp  filtered at-5
445/tcp  filtered microsoft-ds
512/tcp  filtered exec
683/tcp  filtered unknown
989/tcp  filtered ftps-data
1029/tcp filtered ms-lsa
1214/tcp filtered fasttrack
1434/tcp filtered ms-sql-m
1521/tcp filtered oracle
2009/tcp filtered news
2307/tcp filtered pehelp
4000/tcp filtered remoteanything
4500/tcp filtered sae-urn
5432/tcp filtered postgres
6346/tcp filtered gnutella

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 37.282 seconds
               Raw packets sent: 1807 (79.5KB) | Rcvd: 3543 (181KB)

I noted Cyde's result on the OP page; I'd simply copied Azer's reply there without comment. I'll leave it for someone who knows more than I (read: basically anyone) to resolve. Joe 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Five week block for spelling change?

I've just come across what looks like a case of severe injustice. User:Pnatt has been blocked for five weeks for changing the spelling of television program from programme in Australian articles. "Program" is the correct modern Australian spelling, and "programme" is regarded as archaic. The blocking admin is not Australian and has promised to keep adding one week to Pnatt's block every time he returns and corrects the spelling. Understandably Pnatt is upset over this. Could someone please calm down what should be a simple discussion about consensus? --Jumbo 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's some context missing from that post, mainly this. 5 weeks seems a fairly minor escalation from the last block, which was one month and ran its full course, at which point the user again began doing exactly what got him blocked last time - uncivil edit warring over local dialect spellings. This seems to be practically all the user does, and I have no objection to this block. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be upset as well? Looking at Pnatt's contributions, any incivility seems to be on a minor level. I've asked him to try to keep calm. The response of the blocking admin seems disproportionate and likely to further inflame the user. Pnatt's preferred spelling has been endorsed by other Australian users, and this really should not be this big an issue. --Jumbo 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It actually was not five weeks for a spelling change. User:Pnatt has only been on Wikipedia since April. In that time he had received continuous last warnings and 5 previous blocks, climbing from 24 hours right up to 1 month for continuous edit wars, misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, etc etc etc. Every time a block was imposed he was warned when he came back to stop behaving as in the past or he would be blocked again. Every time he would only be back on WP when he would take up where he left off and start the same behaviour all over again. On his second (yes, second) edit after the expiry of his last one month block he began the exact same edit warring on the exact same issues, abusing the exact same users, and carried on as if nothing happened. He had already been warned many times that such was his behaviour that the length of blocks would climb every time he was blocked until he stopped the edit warring and attacks. Given that it was a repeat performance of his previous behaviour, and the last block was for one month, this time, as warned, the block was upped again, this time to 5 weeks. BTW this user, when blocked, has also a habit of posting constant {{help me}} messages on his talk page, to the annoyance of many users who keep telling him to stop doing it. For his last block, his posting of false templates and attacks necessitated that his talk page also be protected for the duration of the block. Already since this block another user have had to threaten to protect the page again to stop him posting the disruptive templates. At this stage this user has been blocked for more often than he has been allowed to edit Wikipedia. He had contributed little but edit wars and attacks. It is getting to the stage where quite possibly he should be blocked indefinitely. In less than two months he has contributed nothing but aggro and edit wars. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Thanks for chiming in. --Cyde↔Weys 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On investigation of Pnatt's edits, I must respectfully differ. His second edit on returning was this one, where he changed the archaic "programmes" to "programs". He was absolutely correct in this, and he has cited several widely used sources, such as current Australian dictionaries and the Australian Government Style Manual. He has not been abusive, nor has he made misleading edit summaries. He referred to correction of vandalism, which from his perspective (and mine) it certainly is. Articles on Australian subjects should use current Australian spelling, and when such a conservative network as the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses "program", we may safely say that this spelling is current. He does not deserve a five week block for making beneficial edits. New editors should be guided rather than chastised, and whatever his past sins may have been, he does not seem to have resumed them. --Jumbo 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Referring to others' good faith edits as vandalism is provocative and incorrect. I'm not surprised it upsets people. "Vandalism" is when someone is trying to make the encyclopedia worse, not better. There's no compelling reason to think that someone using the spelling "programme" is trying to compromise the quality or integrity of Wikipedia - they probably think that's an acceptable spelling. I suggest that this user (and everyone) refrain from characterizing the other side of a style dispute as "vandals". -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few comments:

• Six different admins have blocked this user. This isn't just one admin getting over-zealous.
• Some of his edits have been very blatant vandalism (e.g. [41], [42])
• The user is occasionally very incivil in his edit summaries (e.g. [43])
• This user spends a lot of time in revert wars, often with really strong POV statements such as this one
• This user has almost no productive edits
• The user does not seem to listen to warnings. See the user's talk page

Although I personally saw this latest edit war and was not planning on blocking him myself, I do support the block. -- JamesTeterenko 23:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Some of those early edits are disturbing. However, I note that since returning he has made no similar edits. Maybe he HAS listened to advice this time? He has hardly been given a chance and if we can make a productive editor out of him than turning him into an embittered critic of Wikipedia, then so much the better. --Jumbo 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the very brief period before he was reblocked, his edit summaries included the misleading "revert vandalism" twice and he tells an editor " "Program" is the preferable spelling, like it or not" [44]. That does not suggest to me that this editor is close to being 'reformed'. Note that "being right" is never an excuse for continuous edit warring (since everyone's right in at least one person's opinion). We have a dispute resolution process for people who think they're right when the other editors don't, and "edit warring" does not feature in any stage. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is not alone in stating that he is right. Other Australian editors prefer "program" over "programme". The naming of articles and categories such as List of programs broadcast by Seven Network indicate that this has been the preferred spelling for some time. Government and university style guides state "program not programme". The Macquarie Dictionary - the acknowledged standard for Australian English - has a headword for "program" and not for "programme". (See here for a page scan.) I had not given this matter much thought until this morning, but all my research indicates that he is entirely correct, and quite entitled to think of reversion to an archaic form as "vandalism". I note that it is common practice amongst established editors to label such small details as vandalism: here is one from the blocking editor, who could be described as Wikipedia's revert warrior par excellence, judging by his extraordinary edit history.

However, some of Pnatt's early edits and attitude (as pointed out earlier, for which many thanks, JamesTeterenko) trouble me deeply, and if he had returned to this style of editing, then I would not feel inclined to defend him at all. But there seems to be a gradual improvement in his attitude, and I feel that imposing a five week block and threatening longer for such a small impoliteness in a new editor is going too far. Such long blocks are more properly the preserve of the ArbCom, imposed for more serious and protracted matters. I feel that this matter should have been handled so as reduce confrontation and encourage co-operation. --Jumbo 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have protected User talk:Pnatt after he added the {{unblock}} template after I had already removed it. This is the fifth time the page has been protected to stop him abusing the template. I will not be lifting the protection until his block expires, as every time protection is lifted he goes right back to getting in the way of users who have a legitimate reason to be unblocked (see the log). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought this comment from him was extremely encouraging: "After the recent 4-week block I made a choice that if I wanted to stay on Wikipedia, that I would have to make reliable and factually correct edits." Now one more avenue of communication has been blocked off, and heaven knows what his opinion of Wikipedia management is now. Perhaps he's altering the template text because he feels that he's been, oh I dunno, harshly and unfairly treated? --Jumbo 19:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't altering template text, he was adding a template that he knew damn well he wasn't allowed to add again. That's not in the least bit encouraging, he seems absolutely incapable of learning from mistakes. If he feels he's been harshly and unfairly treated then he can wait for consensus to build up here that the block is unwarranted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Appealing the speedy delete of our content

I am writing this to you requesting that you forward this message to the correct forum, re appealing “speedly deletion” for (1), and suspected linkspamming’, from what I can make of it. The intent of our organization is to get our information out and not be stifled. I have looked at the mediation pages and a fair number of other methods, none of which are seemoingly clear and straightforward, that is not to say they are incoherent. If this message finds its way to someone that can help us resolve wiki problems, Great, if not then the information will be stifled until we on this end can figure the process. In any event; Thank you! Please advise. Mark, ceo, (ph 805-886-4773) The Organic Channel, Inc. The natural Channel, Inc.

OUR COMMENT: Our intent is to include our entry consistent with Wikipedia rule. Our organization has maintained links to wikipedia for a number of years already. There is nothing in our wiki content that seems to me to violate the four cardiinal rules. I am unaware is any url listing is contrary to wiki rules, if it is it is a rule not easily appearant, but we desire to comply with wiki rules and yet be included. We are a progressive organization that deserves simple inclusion in much the same manner as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Learning_Channel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_Channel}}

THE ORGANIC CHANNEL(TM)(SM) (The Organic Channel, Inc. A California Corporation) A channel devoted to education and entertainment, broadcasting and advertising especially regarding organic, organic lifestyle and organic products. A trademark application is pending in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the mark. Presently the mark is in use in interstate commerce in at least international trademark classes, 035, 038, and 041. Currently avaliable programs include: The Farmer's Market Show(tm) The Organic Farm Show(tm) The Organic Show(tm) SEE: [URL redacted]

</nowiki>

Do

You can appeal deletions at Wikipedia:Deletion review, or discuss it with the admin who deleted your article (I don't know who that is, as you didn't provide a link to the deleted article, but you can see who it was by going to where the article was and clicking 'deletion log' in the text). However, it would be better for everyone if you waited for someone independent of your organisation to create an article about it. If it's truly notable, that will happen sooner or later. Wikipedia discourages people and organisations from creating articles about themselves, as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Samuel; I read what you wrote. I think there should be a distinction here at least regarding being deleted for self promotion, (is that a basis for deleteion in and of itself?) and the issue of whether a basis of being deleted for self promotion is even valid if nonetheless there is viable and valid content. There is an objective factual basis to our corporate existence, our filed trademark application(s) and the existence of video programs that can be viewed on our website, and thru limited public access televisions stationsall the result od hard and altruistic work. To be reduced to a speedly wiki deletion, is to me indicative of form over substance, maybe? We are prone to error as much as anyone else. Thank you!

I think we would be happy to include the article once you actually got on air... Sasquatch t|c 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL MollyBloom

Five edits in a minute or two with WP:LEGAL diff being this one. It is a bit of a pattern, not just with me, and the range of interest is impressively narrow. POV, SOAPBOX, WP:BIO --> living persons, etc. Midgley 22:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this "incident". Jkelly 22:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he's implying that she's implying that he may be sued for his actions. --InShaneee 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From a very brief examination of the interaction of these two editors, it looks like they both need to dial it down a notch. There are serious lapses of WP:CIVILity from both editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. Molly has lapsed into civility on a couple of occasions. I find her difficult to deal with, it might be possible to do it better, and some colleagues have offered advice, as have I, but her single focus is a problem and potentially one for WP. The AfD [45] would best be closed - concensus to delete is not there, and some very prominent arguing from recklessly false assertions is in there. Midgley 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, there is clear hostility on all sides of this conflict. There isn't necessarily one user who instigated it all. It appears to be a simple AfD that kind of flew out of control. Cowman109^Talk 01:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe is back and hes angry

For a long term I was an administrator here, routinely infuriating other administrators by not allowing them to abuse their power, until they finally got together & gave me the boot. Since then I've had about 3,000 edits as User:KI, for the most part minding my own business and ignoring the same BS from the same people again and again.

Now I've been blocked for 3 months for one instance of vulgarity - which was in response to repeated vandalism of my talkpage by several administrators. Every account I've created to get around this ridiculous abuse of power has been indefinitely blocked as a "sockpuppet."

I caught someone using sockpuppets which is the real reason I was blocked. I was reblocked for longer - and note there was no justification for doing so - when I revealed that I was freestylefrappe.

I appealed to an administrator who has seemed reasonable in the past, but he was unwilling to unblock me because I used the phrase "bullshit."

I would like to be unblocked (both User:KI and User:Tchadienne) so that I can run for adminship and infuriate all of you other admins asap. Thanks, freestylefrappe 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I hate you all.

Edit summaries like this one make me rather uncomfortable at the idea of you editing at all. --InShaneee 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought my edit summaries here and here were much worse than that! freestylefrappe 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I seriously considered doing so until I saw this edit. Ral315 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, I know you're frustrated, but please remain civil at all times - you're not going to improve things by being tactless. (And as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe demonstrated, civility is a must on Wikipedia.) I haven't reviewed the situation, nor do I wish to, but I would recommend you continue to talk with Sasquatch, the blocking admin; I see that he's already aware on his user talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked 1 hour for making incivil comments and personal attacks. Could another admin check to see if it is worth extending a block? Also, is an indef-ban for this disruptive user out of the question? NSLE _(T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-06-06)

If you wish to seek a ban (note: I make no assertion of whether I agree or disagree with that), I would recommend going through ArbCom because there's already been a case, and the Arbitrators could decide the appropriate remedy, if any. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe, you are engaging in the some of the same behavior which got you deadminned, that being rude comments and removing other people's comments from your talk page. I think nobody will take you seriously unless you keep your cool and civil manners. Grand insinuations like you were given the boot because you were preventing admins from abusing their power don't help either. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I was heavily involved in Freestylefrappe's RfArb, I won't take admin action against him, but I urge that he be blocked for at least a week immediately -- that's the current block on the account he said he wanted to use, User:Tchadienne. Sasquatch blocked User:KI indefinitely and lowered Tchadienne's block from indefinite to a week as as part of an agreement to let him make Tchadienne their main account [46]; he shouldn't be editing as Freestylefrappe in the meantime, especially not in the abusive manner he has so far today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For the time being I'll block user:Freestylefrappe indefinitely, and leave the one week block on User:Tchadienne. For whatever reason, this editor appears to be provoking trouble. Perhaps a break will settle things out. -Will Beback 04:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be too much at this point and it would just provoke Freestylefrappe more. I think we better wait and see how things develop. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion I have unblocked the account. However the "main" account of User:Tchadienne is still set for a one-week block, which seems to have been earned. Let's see what happens. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, just noticed this thread. Anyways, I'll be monitoring the situations as well. Best thing anyone can do. Sasquatch t|c 05:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING Frater Fiat Lux

Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs) has uploaded legal documents currently listed on WP:IFD [47] which are being used solely to attempt to slander a living person on Golden Dawn tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Golden Dawn tradition. These are affidavits in a lawsuit which has not yet been tried. It has been privately communicated to me that this is being used as a tactic to "try the person in the media" possibly instigated by one of the opposing legal teams. This sort of abuse does not belong on Wikipedia. -999 00:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to do much speculation about the motives behind the upload, but they are PDFs, which we really don't make a habit of hosting. Anyone have strong objections to me speedying them? Jkelly 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to know who had the bright idea of even ALLOWING PDFs on Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I support several MediaWiki-based sites, and by default, PDFs are disabled. --999 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Maker has arrived

Apitchlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the first arrival of the promised Maker. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 00:37

That's Jimbo's sock? --Rory096 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually this matter should be taken seriously. It's a returning vandal (see the immediate featured article history who uses multiple sockpuppets. It seems some progress has been made by the deletion of the disturbing image the vandal uses, but still, it will be a long night of spontaneous featured article protections if the vandal continues on as he's done in the past, unfortunately. Cowman109^Talk 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the same vandal who used to attack George W. Bush back in November/December, then moved on to main page featured articles, replacing the contents with various pictures of penii. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-06 02:00

It's a vandal, big deal. There are a million of them. --Rory096 02:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep we've managed to survive them all so far. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Iamfscked

Iamfscked (talk · contribs · count) Does this violate WP:U? Yanksox 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Rory096 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, really old account though. --Rory096 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 'fsck' is a Unix command which checks the integrity of file systems. :-) -999 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Even so, it seems to be trying to imply the word "fuck." --Rory096 03:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially in the manner that it is being used, "I am fscked." Probably a play on words, but it worries me due to WP:U. Yanksox 03:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but FCUK did that for quite a while. I think it is harmless.Geni 03:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a change of username, since he has a non-trivial set of contributions. — Jun. 6, '06 [04:10] <freak|talk>

I think it's harmless. I don't think a change of username is needed at all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Snoutwood (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If their fsck concluded successfully, they must be clean! Kim Bruning 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just wondering what the consesus was. Yanksox 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy on inappropriate user names says: Names that refer to or imply sexual acts or genitalia, including slang, innuendo, and double entendre. This is obviously the case here, whether intentional or accidental (doubtful) or this conversation wouldn't have started in the first place. Tyrenius 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This use of fsck is an old old joke in unix circles. Coming down too hard on this username might be a bit over the top, even if it's technically not in compliance with the stated guideline. But letting it slide is a bit of a camel's nose problem I guess. Just thought I'd throw that out there. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Any admins here have GameFAQs account

If you are an admin and have a GameFAQs account, please give me an email. I need an investigation to be performed.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Sceptre. User:TheCoffee has a GF account too. Will (^E_@) T 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Request that Admin Ask Fellow User to Cease Personal Attacks

Moved discussion to User_talk:MikeWazowski - KWH 05:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Need watchers for Al Seckel

Done. Yanksox 05:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Due to an edit conflict, I hadn't explained the problem yet!

The article Al Seckel was largely written by Al himself (an anon IP signing himself "Al" on the talk page. Two days ago new user Tmciver (talk · contribs) nominated the article for deletion; evidently he has a lot of animosity toward Seckel (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Seckel and Talk:Al Seckel). At first, Tmciver's comments were helpful to me in removing various unsourced glowing claims about Seckel and providing references. However, Tmciver now persists in adding negative information based on his own original research. [48] [49] He claims Seckel never graduated from Cornell. The article does not mention Seckel's credentials at all; Tmciver adds them in in order to make his allegations, which are based on a 1991 newsletter called Saucer Smear and Tmciver's own alleged phone call to the Cornell registrar. I have gone over this on the talk page, apparently to no further avail. I have to work and sleep; Tmciver seems not to be bound by these constraints. Can a couple of people put this on their watch list? Thanks. Thatcher131 05:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User proclaiming sockpuppetry

I have been given evidence that a user has proclaimed on an off-site webforum to his sparring partner that he has hundreds of IPs ready to sock-swamp his way to victory in an edit war. A screenshot is available on my talk page. This screenshot was verified to be true by PS2pcGAMER, who is a member and has access to the forum. The user has been involved in edit wars on a variety of pages without any discussion. I think a substantial block is in order. Thoughts?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support simply asking the user in question first, and trying to convince them that they shouldn't do that. If that doesn't work, a block, yes. The user hasn't done anything yet, I think we should give them a chance. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:PatCheng has been engaging in extreme edit wars with no attempt at consultation on a variety of pages, in a manner which seems not to be NPOV. He has been battling the other user everywhere for a long time now. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

So this is the user this post is about? I'll have to think about this... something's telling me we should just block this user based on the fact that they're threatning to do something, despite the fact that they've already been involved in lots of edit wars. I'll get back to you... there's no rush, right? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the user in question has also launched personal attacks on other users, and was blocked by me yesterday for swearing.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the screenshot, it looks to me like "your mama"-style trash-talking. I'm not too worried. Just keep an eye on any relevant pages. What makes you think it's PatCheng? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoutwood (talk • contribs)

Well, "Fenriswolf" is later asked whether he contributes as PatCheng and is stalking, and he shows more bravado.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Still, I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. Like I said, keep a eye on any relevant pages, maybe talk to the user about the issue, but apart from that I don't think there's too much reason for concern from this particular incident. Snoutwood (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's an admission of stalking then that is serious, as they are always in the same place. PatCheng started editing long after the other guy - he started in March 2005.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the forum post image is here -- Longhair 08:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am PatCheng and I proclaim my innocence. In that Gamefaqs topic, YINever claimed that "RevolverOcelotX" and "Fenriswolf" are my alternate accounts. Looking at Fenriswolf's profile at Gamefaqs, he created his account on 11/3/2002 5:39:52 PM. I, however, did not create a Gamefaqs account until early 2005. As for RevolverOcelotX being my alt, it has been proven false by CheckUser, but nevertheless YINever keeps insisting these are my alts in that topic. PatCheng is my sole Wikipedia account, which was created to organise the contributions my previous IP-based ones, and not for the purpose of "stalking" TJive. My first edit occured in late 2004 and did not even come across TJive until late early 2006. I revert some of TJive's edits because I find many of them questionable under NPOV policies, such his reference to Cuban government as "Castro regime" [50], and the Tiananmen Square protests as "bloody supression" [51], and that he uses three different accounts to evade 3RR TJive (talk · contribs), YINever (talk · contribs), 72.65.77.79 (talk · contribs) --PatCheng 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems like alot of hearsay. Is there any evidence that "Fenriswolf" contributes as PatCheng? Is there a screenshot where "Fenriswolf" says he is PatCheng and agrees with battling on WP? --RevolverOcelotX 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see this entry from new user User:151.205.8.146 [52] which again refers to PatCheng "wiki-stalking". I'm not interested in the dispute between these two users, but it's spilling out all over the place, bothering a lot of articles and innocent bystanders whose work is getting messed around in the warzone. --Zleitzen 00:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Abusive editor in Bulgarian Wikipedia

We have a very interesting example of abusive editor in Bulgarian Wikipedia that is using very dirty language, threatening other editors, and using vulgar language. Recently he abused 2 of the administrators in Bulgarian Wikipedia. Unfortunately there is no Arbitration Cometee and Bulgarian Comunity in Wikipedia is not very well organizes to restrict the actions of that editor. In addition that editor has some contributions for the developement of the bulgarian project of Wikipedia and other editors are protecting him from ban.

The situation started 2 years ago, it escalated and a lot of new editors left the project because of the constant abuses from that editor. I tried to contact English Wikipedia 3 months ago, but I was not able to find the right procedure to report that case. The last resolution when I made the complain against that editor is in my discussion 1 There are multiple examples of abuses from that editor, many discussions for that case in bulgarian Wikipedia, but all of them are in bulgarian language. Please advise what we can do to stop that abusive editor. He is proud of his actions and nobody can restrict his violations.

Bogdev 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

There's nothing the English Wikipedia can do, as it isn't part of this Wiki per se. Admins here do not have the same privileges there, so you need to make your case there, or in Meta. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bogdev 07:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have some sort of administrative process in the Bulgarian Wikipedia for these sorts of things, then take it to Meta (somewhere like m:Requests for permissions, where a Bulgarian editor with community support could gain administrative powers and block the user). Surely there's an admin who can block him already, though? Snoutwood (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are administrators, that editor was blocked temporary many times and there is ongoing discussion to ban that editor permanently. But in the meantime that editor continue to abuse people, he is very proud of his actions and he is a very bad example for that comunity. I hope that bulgarian comunity will find the solution for that situation, at the same time I see that this is a problem for more that 2 years, dealing with that kind of abusive people is waste of time and energy for a lot of people. And allowinig abusive activities is also not acceptable.Bogdev 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is true. Sounds to me like a permanent ban is a good idea. If that's a problem while disussion is ongoing, I would block him temporarily, and then if the discussion decides that he should be permanently banned, do so. I would try that and see how it works. Snoutwood (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

I have just permanently blocked I have verve! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a self-admitted vandal (created Wikipedia vandilism unit). I think you ought to know about it, because he may be preparing a sustained attack on Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

People need to stop worrying about vandals returning (not just you, a lot of people). If they do, we block them. Simple as that. Ral315 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempted password theft?

I blocked 193.39.172.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism, after s/he had been reported at WP:AIV, and left a message about the block on the vandal's talk page. A few minutes later, NINETEEN e-mails came in from wikimedia, telling me:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 193.39.172.1) requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org. The password for user "Musical Linguist" is now [I've removed that for obvious reasons!].

You should log in and change your password now.

If someone else made this request or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

The new password was different in each e-mail. I just ingnored the messages, and everything is working fine. After reflection, I increased the length of the block from 24 hours to a week, but thought I should report it here. AnnH ♫ 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

long standing trick. TRhey just repeately hit the email new password button.Geni 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you ignore it, your password remains the same. If you come under fire and it's jamming up your inbox, a simple mail filter will take care of that problem. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:EnthusiastFRANCE

This user has been creating mutiple socks posting abusive and obscene messages to evade a block. Many on the sock are concentrated on attacking User:Aknorals. I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of EnthusiastFRANCE and tagged as many socks as I could find so far, some of them were created by sock usernames and this showed up on the username creation bot which is why they may have no edits. Anyway, this situation needs to have a eye kept on it, The IP's are probably open proxies and sock creation is still continuing. For evasion of the block, I have lengthened the orginal block to 1 month. pschemp | talk 11:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks by Dabljuh

Normally I would just leave a warning, but User:Dabljuh has truly gone off the deep end here. This is an extended rant on the talk page of a mediation I was involved in (which is why I am not taking action myself) and which has closed. You really have to read it yourself to fully appreciate it, but let's hit the highlights:

• "Because there is this other policy, "No Original Research" - that can be summed up as "Wikipedia is fucked proper since its obviously run by total morons"."
• "That person hates wikipedia and wants it to contain shitty articles"
• "That person somehow has his head several miles up his ass"
• "Any person that has or had opposed the inclusion of this information is a huge asshole that should not be allowed to edit anything on wikipedia, or consume my oxygen for that matter."
• "GET THE HELL OFF MY INTERNET, YOU LAME-ASS FUCKTARDS"

This user has been warned about personal attacks before (see here). Obviously I'm an involved party — as the person being told I "should not be allowed to consume his oxygen" — so it's hard for me to be objective. But I think this is way beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. Like, several hundred miles beyond. Nandesuka 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That is one helluva rant. I'd say we give him a cookie along with a nice long block. --Cyde↔Weys 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You should take a look at this and this. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Snoutwood (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion

...by Sami44 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • logs) See User talk:WAvegetarian#Are you that thick? and history of James Purdey and Sons for evidence —WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As the user admits that it is a proxy, it has been blocked indefinitely. [53]. If it happens again via another proxy, report here again. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations

Most of the active people on the project need a block for a day or two. Endless, endless fighting, reverting of each others' work, labelling it as 'vandalism'. Violations of 3RR, WP:Civil, legal threats, wikistalking, stupid requests for comment, harassment, much more. They've even taken the fighting to MY talk page, when they have no fight with me. Users include (but are not limited to): User:CFIF contribs, note the mass reverts), User:CoolKatt_number_99999 contribs, note the mass reverts), User:Boothy443 contributions, note the many reverts, User:Kirjtc2 contribs, note the mass revertions, User:Rollosmokes contributions, note the mass revertions. All five need a wikibreak. I don't want to go to MY talk page and find a bunch of fighting on it, from people I'm not even arguing with. I've tried to talk with them, I've tried mediating. Nothing works. The most immature "group" on Wikipedia.--Firsfron of Ronchester 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion report

User:Stephan KŒNIG was blocked on May 15 for one month for vandalism as well as continually adding blog-like, irrelevant material to talk pages as well as chronic uploading of non-fair use images (with no apparent intent to use them in articles), and finally he began vandalising the Bill Haley article itself. His targets tend to be articles relating to Bill Haley such as Bill Haley, Bill Haley & His Comets, Jodimars and others. KŒNIG is apparently working from a rotating IP server as he has continued to post to the above articles (again almost exclusively their talk pages) despite the ban being in place and signs his talk page messages with his name or initials. Evidence: Talk:Bill Haley (see additions by 81.246.223.29 (reverted), 87.64.184.168, 81.245.68.169); Talk:Bill Haley & His Comets (see 81.244.63.70, 81.246.205.39, 81.243.173.11, 81.244.38.179) ... you get the picture. To be fair not all these edits are nonsense, but he is still evading a block that isn't supposed to expire until June 15 and that's the issue. 23skidoo 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The user should be blocked indefinitely per WP:USERNAME, similar to the American author, Stephen King. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, this is beyond the scope of that policy. While it might be convenient, I disagree with the common over-extension of that policy to ban people whose true offences are other. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike

I believe we have a problem with WCityMike - he's started a mass AfD against many Star Trek fanfilm related articles, and has apparently gone after several people, myself now included, who have questioned his actions. He's placed a warning about canvassing for votes on my talk page, when I have done no such thing, just reverted an edit he made that was critical of his actions and asked for an administrator's input. I would like an adminstrator to look into this situation, please. TheRealFennShysa 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second that request -- I've noted the same issue this morning, and would like to have a third party (preferably an admin) look into this as well. --Mhking 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed remark began, "I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films" and was on fan film talkpage. Removal of remark followed same methodology employed last night uncontroverrsially from BigDT. Note that complainant is a Trek fan film director, BTW, according to his talk page. User who posted original removed remark (Kirok) has made all sorts of sinister implications on his talk page based on my use of the afd_helper code. He's done wikistalking (investigating my monobook.js), personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and incivility -- which I did not bring here per the way MikeW...'s similar incident was handled here last night, but instead merely asked him politely to cut it out (see talk page). Merely asked user to stop being incivil/stop the personal attacks/etc. Complainant above restored vote-stuffing query from original user, thus restoring the canvassing for votes -- if the canvassing warning isn't policy (despite ArbCom rulings?), then why is it even on the warning page? — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Small point here - although I have an interest in the genre, I am not a Trek fanfilm director, and have never made a Star Trek fan film. Perhaps you're confusing that with Star Wars - it's such an easy mistake to make. TheRealFennShysa 15:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the clerical error. However, I've seen a great many Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net, and in my desire to get a response on the record to your charge above, did not read further in your profile. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no Star Trek fanfilms on TheForce.net. TheRealFennShysa 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, those who oppose the deletion of the cited articles are assuming, without any proof, that I brought these nominations in bad faith. (That in and of itself seems to be not only textbook assuming bad faith but also personal attacks.) In actuality, I did not. Were you to see my bookshelves at home, you'd see I'm not precisely a detractor of Star Trek. However, it is simply that the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles, including each and every one I cited, has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote. Nomination does not equal deletion. Nomination states, "This user feels that the community should come to a consensus about whether this article deserves to be on Wikipedia." I don't think that that opinion is out of line, but evidently by expressing that opinion, I've given license to many hordes of Trek Wikipedians to engage in personal attacks and indignant outrage. It's a shame people (in general, not just in this incident) sem to have lost the ability to respectfully disagree. Those who can still pull it off usually come across as class acts. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I could suggest moving this conversation off to a talk page again, but you're clearly looking for an administrator to act as a mediator or referee in this dispute. There's no blatant vandalism, attacks, or activity by blocked or banned users here. Again, you're looking for someone with administrative powers to simply witness and/or referee your content dispute. Administrators have the capability to delete articles, block/ban users, and maybe 1 or 2 other things, but they are not Solomonic judges. Work it out amongst yourselves and you'll be better for it. KWH 15:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, with regards to the "you're clearly looking" (as I'm not sure to whom you addressed this remark — it's an indent underneath my statement), I would note that although I brought the matter to WP:ANI last night, I didn't bring this complaint. Or, to use a legal analogy, yesterday I was the plaintiff, today I'm the defendant. I wouldn't have brought things here this morning, as last night I was told this wasn't the place for such differences of opinion. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• This editor has now moved onto Lost-related articles. As he has stated above, he is on a mass AfD campaign ("the extreme proliferation of fan-film-related articles has led to a large collection of non-notable articles that I felt merited exposure to a AfD vote.), which appears to be contrary to WP:POINT. Rather than constructively aiming to develop consensus (or WP-policy improvements), he has chosen to list numerous fiction articles under the pretense of calling them "fancruft". I'm as against cruftiness as the next editor-- in fact, I have a back-burner proposal about the topic-- but disrupting WP/antagonising other editors is not the appropriate way to demonstrate the rightness of that belief. I would suggest that WCityMike should refrain from mass AfD nominations, and if he continues, to face appropriate sanctions. --Leflyman^Talk 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't appear he's nominated anything in the last few hours, but I do think a block may be neccisary should he begin again. --InShaneee 03:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

user:Hoof38 clone?

64.192.106.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) may be an incarnation of banned user Hoof38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=End_of_planet_Earth&diff=57184900&oldid=56363005 , reinstating edits made by User:Hoof38 and reverted by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Science3456 socks have reappeared to continue the tradition of adding unneeded redirects to Jonathan Bowers, which Hoof38 also liked to do (see Bongulus). To wit: Freee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Lockser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Boar34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -Big Smooth 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Go for it!

Go for it! (talk · contribs) is trying to make all editors communicate with him through email. He had directed his Talk page to his User page. When I edited his Talk page and indicated that he should leave it available for editing, he moved my communication to another page, then moved his User page to his Talk page. I have reverted the moves and once again left a message on his Talk page, and have indicated that he needs to leave a Talk page available, or he will be blocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit suspicious, maybe he/she is trying to harvest emails?--Andeh 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

His talk page must remain available. E-mail is secondary to on-wiki discussion. Snoutwood (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Go for it!, from April. User page moves were a problem then, making communications with the user difficult. He stopped editing in April, and returned a few days ago. I wanted to leave a message, welcoming him back, but noticed the instructions about e-mailing. At that point, his talk page redirected to his user page, so I was unable to leave the message. I hope a solution is worked out, and he stays (contributing constructively). But the recent user page moves indicate continued problems. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Frater FiatLux

Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading two speedily deleted PDF files, File:Document4-1.pdf and File:FyttonDeposition.pdf. These files were deleted because they contain libel against a living person in violation of WP:LIVING. Also, Frater FiatLux claims they are in the public domain as government produced files when they are not. They are not court-produced documents, but affidavits submitted by private parties. Thus they are publicly accessible on the court website, but the authors of the documents would still be the copyright holders and control other uses.... -999 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are, your completly wrong, I will be reporting you. The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. The file is indeed a court produced document you can gain access to the COURT records by following the information at the very bottom of this page.

User 999 is not correct, please see my infra comments on the last file that user 999 is in an unprincipled manner harrasing. Frater FiatLux 16:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, if they are actual court documents, they can't be "solely to slander" (or rather, libel). They are, at least, factual as evidence that a court case exists and that certain allegations were made. They don't, of course, prove the claims in the case. --FOo 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This file comprises of fully verifiable information from the original public domain source. Information on how to download these documents for yourself are provided on the files pages themselves. They should not be deleted as the user that is attempting this “999” is of a rival order and is attempting to sabotage and interfere with present discussions and litigation to their own biased POV by deleting these public domain affidavits from the original source. -Frater FiatLux 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Frater FiatLux:There is minimal fee for downloading the documents through the official courts web-site. Instructions are given on the page of the file on how to do this. To make the files immediately assessable to mediators, editors and people that want to view this verifiable original and factual information. They can simply do so by clicking the link in the talk page and going right to file, where they can open and browse at their leisure, without paying for it, or applying to the court for the records. The file is linked to in many of the current talk threads and should not be deleted, as they are integral to some of the entries. Any opposition to remove these files is a clear, biased attempt at trying to interfere with the present talk, discussion dispute that is currently being considered by the mediator. Furthermore the mediator handling the disputation hasn’t made any remarks to me -whatsoever-to remove the file. -Frater FiatLux 23:55, 5 June 2006

I will reiterate what I told you, to in reply to your threat to me on the talk page I will be reporting you to the relevant admin pages for this threat and for also tampering with the files I uploaded. Suddenly one or two have conveniently gone missing.

I have already addressed the legal threat directed at myself with the relevant comment, however, I appreciate Kephera’s support. Any other comments on this matter though I feel are rather unnecessary and will only further perpetuate the schism makers, and further add to the burden of the mediator. The relevant comments have been made; I now feel it best that the outright threats by these schism makers should be treated with the appropriate disdain. I consider it very appropriate to treat such misleading, defamatory attacks on the HOGD/A+O's integrity seriously, to which I'm a member, and feel this rightly constitutes a formal and proper form of correspondence. This is not to be misinterpreted as some have in a very ill judged manner, to claim that I am legally threatening users, or that a formal comprehensive style is slanderous. User 999, your message supra however, is a direct threat and a perfect example thereof. I have only stated the facts and have not therein my posting attempted to deliberately slander Cicero, although, to biased eyes it could be appear that way. The fact that Cicero doesn’t appear to have a whiter than white background when the facts are compiled, or that these facts do not live up to expectations of Cicero supporters or licensees; frankly is not my fault. The sources in my posting cover a range of books, some of which are even written by Cicero, and original from the source court affidavits; and these aren’t all based around Cicero, or with the sole intent to slander Cicero, whatsoever. I am not interested in -anyone's- opinion of my writing style, and furthermore my writing style has nothing -whatsoever- to do with any of the matters at hand in this disputation. The fact that I treat correspondence seriously with schism makers attempting to misrepresent and defame the order I am a part. I consider is highly appropriate and should not be misrepresented as slanderous or threatening. Although, user 999 has given us a perfect example of what a direct threat constitutes. "/wiki/User:Frater_FiatLux" 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: By Frater FL Your threat of informing Cicero’s lawyers doesn’t bother me -Whatsoever-; he cannot do a single thing about anything that I’ve written. I’ve back up the articles entries with comprehensive sources that are in the main, books in print that are verifiable, and even written by Cicero. The affidavits are publicly available documents and are open to anyone. I am in violation of nothing, therefore he can do nothing, so your threat is unfounded. All important points of the disputation are verifiable from books in print with relevant quotes, to which I have duly, and comprehensively given in my posting. The affidavits are only therein included to back up verifiable information that is obvious, and are the only integral documents to back certain claims in the HOGD/A+O entry. Such as the agreement between Griffin and Behman. This type of biographical information can only be soured from actual publicly available original sourced documents, that are signed by the hand of Griffin and Behman. To which I might add, is comprehensive factual, and accurate information. "/wiki/User:Frater_FiatLux" 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is direct information on how to download the affidavit direct from the COURT:

Please find infra: the ECF link at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. You can find the original court affidavits I used supra in my posting with: The case number which is- C05-432 JSW, and the ruling court for this case is the San Francisco Courthouse. ""https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html"" Furthermore, please find again infra a message served to the Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn public forum, at Yahoo groups: ""http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hermetic-Order-of-the-Golden-Dawn/message/5095"" The message served to HOGD public forum contains clear and comprehensive instructions on how to download the original court affidavits, from the original public domain source.

Frater FiatLux 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just left a note at your Talk -- the WP:LIVING concern and the copyright concern are sort-of red herrings. We're really not in the habit of hosting reference material of any kind locally, and we also avoid hosting PDFs. Jkelly 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

scifi articles & WP:POINT

I hate to even bring something so petty here, the AFD on star trek sort of peeked my interest in the matter, it seems like people are going on a WP:POINT spree, and nominating scifi related atricles left and right, some sort of 666 related practical joke? I'm not sure, but it's going to become messy I think--152.163.100.65 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New class of warning templates re: WP:POINT

Please see this regular noticeboard post. Thanks. Netscott 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin threatens block for oppose vote

Check this out. He is threatening to block me now for opposing his friend's RfA. Incidentally, a month ago, the same abusive admin threatened legal action like this. That harangue was duly reported in WPANI and WPVP. Anwar 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think he is threatening to block you for opposing an rfa. He is warning you that making personal attacks could lead you to getting blocked. You are free to debate if the comments you made on that rfa are personal attacks or not; I don't deem them to be, but at least a couple of users believe that they tantamount to personal attacks. However, you cannot twist the language of Bhadani's message on your talk page in this way. Also, please understand that the last time you posted here, the consensus was that your "refactoring" was wrong. (Associated thread here). However, you chose to ignore the messages on this forum and retained the messages as they were. Please do not expect people to give a patient hearing when you are not ready to offer the same courtesy. As the saying goes, people who live by the sword, die by the sword. Translated, people who defy consensus cannot expect to formulate consensus. Good day, --Gurubrahma 17:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The comments were clearly not personal attacks, but commentary on a person's edit history when that person is a candidate for adminship. The reason that comments about people's personalities are discouraged in article talk pages and other general discussion is that they are not relevant. However, in reviewing a person's application for administrative access, that person's personality is central. The comments, by raising concern about a potential administrator's editing habits (and that is a lot of reverts!) are in fact praiseworthy as a contribution to the review of the application for adminship. Threatening to block was harmful and chilling to the consensus-making process. --FOo 03:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; however this reasoning would apply if and only if the reverts fall into edit war category. Almost all of them fall under reversting vandalism category. Anyone who has even a cursory look at his edits would understand it. Anyways, it was great that you could take time to comment here. It would be much appreciated if you can also look at the reverts by him and how many of them correspond to edit warring. While I absolutely agree that commentary is essential, for an oppose vote, diffs are even more essential. In the absence of diffs and given the pattern of Anwar's voting, other editors would feel justified in forming an opinion that he is only rabble-rousing. The diff that Anwar provided doesn't refer to POV warriorship. --Gurubrahma 03:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think copyright and other wikipedia rules are being broken

I think copyright and other wikipedia rules are being broken. Please see the discussion page for the JP Holding article which is hereken 17:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Appears to have been protected, and is in discussion. --InShaneee 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of blocked vandal appear

Blocked vandal WoodDaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as Gene Chris Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and probably GeniusCreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For details and evidence see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WoodDaver. This sockpuppet discussion page doesn't get much attention, doesn't it? — Sandstein 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) problems

ARYAN818 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been adding POV unsubstantiated information to a load of articles (see their contribs). They also made this comment, which was removed by Angr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as trolling. I removed 3 edits they did to Proto-Indo European[54]. Can someone watch this user for anything they might do? Perhaps they should be blocked for trolling next time they make a comment, like the last one they made.-- The ikiroid  18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The 818 stands for HAH, among neonazis common crypto for Heil Adolph Hitler (just like the 18 in Combat 18). Don't expect anything constructive of this user. The Username is in violantion already! -- ActiveSelective 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked per WP:USERNAME. Ral315 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Hryun is unhappy about this AfD result and about WP:NOR. What's slightly novel, is the idea, that he can get his will by force and we should better compromise:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Physics&diff=57222178&oldid=57210649

Pjacobi 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Chuck Marean

User:Chuck Marean is displaying inability to follow policy and consensus regarding placement of external links in List of web directories and Web directory, despite continued discussion & warnings by multiple editors. User made two disruptive edits(reverting to original article) in order to prove a WP:POINT: [55] & [56]. --mtz206 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User continues to keep trying to make a point with unnecessary page creations [57]. Ignoring numerous editors' warnings and advice. --mtz206 (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU keeps on attacking despite his block

Recently, User:AlexPU was blocked for a week and then for a month for numerous personal attacks, 3RR violations and so on (enclosed below is original Ghirla's report).

However, he recently made another attack on his talk page saying "Like Khruschtchev said: Ми їх поховаємо!"

In Ukrainian, that stands for "We will bury you", and refers to Khruschtchev's speech during which he threatened to "bury" the USA. I don't think this is a stunningly constructive or neutral reply, showing that he is still quite agressive.

I don't know what's the exact policy for that, but I'm reporting it so you know. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has been blocked yesterday for a week by Dmcdevit (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). In the block, the following reason was cited: "3RR and more egregious incivility despite many previous "final" warnings".

The last block was prompted by this activity (pay attention to edit summaries and actual words used at the talk page entries). This isn't a new behavior from this user lately.Perhaps these two entries from recent archive of this very board would help remind some of what's going on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive99#Uncivility report and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive97#user:AlexPU|maintaining an attack page and perpetually unleashing uncivil diatribes there as well as all around Wiki]].

The user beats the record by an amount of "FINAL warnings" he received (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9) all to no effect whatsoever. Neither his previous block (for "Personal attacks, incivil behavior") did him any good. His talk, which is an attack page on his opponents, a Black Book-type list compiled by him, isn't moderated, he persisted with addressing his opponents by their ethnicities (misapplying those too), calling them vandals, propagandists and whatever.

However, what he posted at his talk following the very last block is just unspeakable. He trippled the level of his attacks and spiced them with homophobic ("You, smelly faggot"), ethnic ("gypsy") and sexual ("whore") slurs. While there is no indication that any of his opponents actually belong to any of these groups, I am calling this behavior to the admin attention.

The first thing that comes to mind is to lock his talk page as well so that he would have no chance to assault anyone anywhere at wiki-space but this may be counterproductive as it may prevent others from talking to him and would prevent him to censor his previos attacks and the black book should he come to senses. Warning him seems useless but something needs done. Perhaps doubling the block for the post-block activity so that he sees that his actions would have further consequences? I leave it up to the community.

I don't see why we need to waste the ArbCom's time for such an obvious case. ArbCom is busy enough. I don't see any sense of an RfC since, again, this is plain enough, got sufficient exposure for many people to comment already and they commented. There seems to be a need for an action rather than talk. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used a translator as I'm not fluent in Russian, and your summary fits. I've extended it to a month, any admin is free to change the length. Will (^E_@) T 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just get it over with and ban him? --mboverload@ 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to support an acclamation ban at this point. If he continues, I'll support acclamation banning Will (^E_@) T 21:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

undelete

Hello,

I am the creator of the page "Jed Simon." For some reason, the page was deleted, and I don't understand why, or how to get it restored. The explanations on the website are very convoluted and confusing. Could you please let me know how it can be restored?

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon squared (talk • contribs)

It was incorrectly speedily deleted, perhaps because there had earlier been an article about an unverifiable individual with that name who claimed to be an American wrestler turned British producer. If it can be properly demonstrated that this Jed Simon you want to write an article about really was a guitar player for Frontline Assembly, there will be no problem undeleting it, I'm sure. Note that we do need all of our information to be verifiable, however. Jkelly 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So, how do I go about having the page restored, so that I can add the citations? Thanks again, Simon_Squared. 17:10, 6 June 2006

WP:DRVU. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just pasted the text to User:Simon squared/sandbox. Jkelly 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A Google search of "Jed Simon" in conjunction with "Frontline Assembly" gives 374 pages. The article should be definitely undeleted. Friendly Neighbour 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy-delete mistakes happen from time to time. Jkelly 21:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved then! Yahoo! --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Sorry for being such a Wiki novice! I'm trying to learn as I go, which in retrospect, isn't the best way to create a page! Simon squared 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)simon_squared

User:MONGO removing text from userpage

Can an Admin remove a diff from my userpage?

Put another way, can a simple diff constitute a personal attack?

I had a diff to a comment by an admin (MONGO (talk · contribs)) on my userpage with contentious link text that MONGO believes constitutes a personal attack. He removed it. I replaced it without the contentious text. He removed it again, and threatens to protect my userpage.

Is there a policy that supports him? If not, can someone reason with him? — goethean ॐ 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a history of using your userspace to launch personal attacks on others as shown at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Goethean/Examples. I have also been informed about you by another admin...[58]. Do not misuse this resource. See: What your userpage is not--MONGO 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't be trying to reveal other people's personal information, even if they had revealed it once. It is not your call. And I too would probably take offence if I was listed under "Alerts". --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. What MONGO is doing is perfectly reasonable and consistent with the policy. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong in linking a perfectly valid diff, and changing someone else's userpage unless there are clear personal attacks is very inconsiderate. Lapinmies 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know about Gator1 and Katefan? MONGO is perfectly within his rights to remove personal information about himself. In theory he should have been omniscient and known to never reveal it in the first place, but in practice, shit happens. --Cyde↔Weys 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As one who whose Goethean has compiled links on in his attempts to undermine his "opponents," I totally support MONGO's removing links; they only serve to perpetuate strife. FeloniousMonk 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this kind of thing, trying to use someone's workplace or personal life against them, has a bad effect on the whole project. Mongo was right to take it down. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if people know where I work...it would be a really bad idea for them to go and use that information for any maliciousness they may have planned, so my place of work is not the issue. It is the repeated misuse of userspace that bothers me, and that this editor has done now at least twice.--MONGO 01:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Bombs Away

It appears to me that this user (or, from what I can make out, group of people sharing a user account) are using the user page as their own website (Wikipedia is not a free host). The "user" has only made three contributions to the main space, all of which were vandalism. I suggest deleting (not just blocking) the user account. Waggers 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, accounts are not deletable. The best we can do is to block the account, delete and/or protect the user & user talk pages, and if necessary, scan and block the IP for a while to prevent sock-farming. 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Glancing over the talk page, it appears the user has not even been made aware that using their userpage as a personal website and a free host is not acceptable. Before jumping to block the user, perhaps attempts should be made at making this clear? Cowman109^Talk 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

12.40.111.107 (talk · contribs)

The above anon has made 22 edits in the past hour and a half, adding large blocks of trivia, quotes, and POV information to the introduction paragraphs of various articles. The user has been warned four times to please stop. This isn't vandalism, as it's well-intentioned, but I'm unsure of what to do and so I decided to report it here. TomTheHand 21:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give him a short timeout. Sasquatch t|c 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, he's gone.. perhaps tomorrow. Tell me if he comes back. Sasquatch t|c 22:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1960 International Harvester T4 in Miscellaneous Questions

Hi,

I was blocked from replying, even though I promise I have never knowingly done vandalism to any website or computer.

I just wanted to reply:

"LOL!! That photo was submitted by my ex. The driver is my son, Ken. EVERYONE around here knows who he is. Everyone who knows the value of that crawler doesn't really want to make an enemy out of my ex, so it has been extremely difficult to get an unbiased appraisal. Thank you very much for confirming that THAT is the ONLY crawler like it around.  :)"

Thank you very much for this forum, Debra Schreiber

You have not been blocked. Lapinmies 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Block indicated for own good

Please look at the trail of, or perhaps contact MollyBloom. I don't do medicine in America, and this isn't a diagnosis, but I submit that a block for a few hours would be for her own good as much as anything else. Alternatively or as well, if someone could locate a mediator cabal member, or attempt a quiet word, it would be a good act. Pointing out that WP does this Jgwlaw (talk · contribs · logs) and for a reason might help or might not... Midgley 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivility appears to be a problem for both of you. --InShaneee 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That won't do as a response. JFW is an admin who is still up and about, I suggest you poll him, or InvictaHog who has edited recently, before you come to a conclusion. Midgley 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That IS my response. A look at the talk pages you've been on shows BOTH of you openly attacking each other repeatedly. --InShaneee 03:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with InShanee here, Midgley. You've tangled with – and gotten tangled up with – some rather...tendentious editors on Wikipedia, and I can understand that you might be frustrated at times. However, you've a history of skating awfully close to (and sometimes over) the limits of civility yourself.

Unless and until your own behaviour is above reproach, please don't keep coming back for another bite at the apple on this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dannycarlton

Dannycarlton (talk · contribs) has been inserting links to his own webpages in a number of articles, and has been hostile and abusive on talkpages to defend their insertion. Could someone have a look and warn/block as necessary? JFW | T@lk 02:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him about his incivil behavior. --InShaneee 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User removing warnings from their own talk page

(I originally posted this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but was advised to post it here instead. Since usually removing warnings from one's own talk page results in a block, I thought it was a pretty simple case, though.)

AlexR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Was warned with the Wr2 template for removing warnings about personal attacks and civility from their own talk page. The user removed this warning and continues to edit using abusive edit summaries (for example: [59]). The same user also made a legal threat against another user here: "And you are bloody lucky you are not in Germany, otherwise, I'd see you in court for those lies and false accusations and slander.". Catamorphism 02:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about posting something here as well, but hesitated because AlexR seemed to finally be catching the attention of some admins, and because there's sort of a mediation case involved (which Alex R openly has no respect for). But since Catamorphism broke the seal... I can't believe this user hasn't been banned. Just look at his most recent edit. He has been warned over and over again, with problems going all the way back to April 2004. I'd say removing the warnings is the least of it. --Allen 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that removing the warnings is the least of it. It's just that this is the first time when AlexR has clearly violated a rule that I know of (personal attacks don't necessarily result in blocking unless it's repeated, though by now, it seems to be repeated enough that it would justify a block). Catamorphism 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)