Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User: Deathrocker Commiting Serial Vandalism And Personal Attacks

There is a serious problem with a user who is openly vandalisng musical articles including blanking, reverting any edit made to articles, POV pushing, ignoring WP:NPOV, personal attacks in edit summaries, and possible internet trolling.

Below is a revert war i have been involved with with this user, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].

I stopped during this point to make comment twice on the articles talk page to the user, asking for co-operation and discussion of changes in line with Wikipedia policys, and also provided the NPOV tutorial and explained deliberatly blanking pages is vandalism, [35], [36].

I went on to make several minor edits to the article over an hour to make it less biased to any view, the cumulation of those efforts being here [37]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war that is in progress as i type this, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].

The user then went on to try to delete the article by claiming a merger when there was no dispute on this, which i reverted due to it being vandalism [47], [48]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [49].

This user did not stop at the Gothic Music article though, he also went on to incite a revert war on the Nu Metal article, removing sourced information that User:WesleyDodds, a respectable and highly experienced involved with the article reverted. [50], [51], [52], [53]. This user then went on to vandalise the page using blanking and internet trolling methods, ignoring NPOV and i quote in this paticulat edit summary saying You are a prick to myself [54], the edit war is on these diffs, [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66].

This user has ignored all offers to work peacefully and seems instistant on blanking articles that dont agree soley with their POV and then Deleting them through a paper trail of redirects if he cannot force his POV on them. I ask for assistance in this manner before the user causes any further harm. Ley Shade

Both of you are edit warring. I've protected the article, and I am blocking you both until 23:59 Saturday night Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

• User:Hall Monitor has taken it upon himself to undelete Brian Peppers despite the fact that a deletion review found no grounds to do so, and in fact was closed with a decision to delete and salt the earth. This repeated undeletion is simply designed to vote over and over and over and over again until someone gets the result they want, which is patently a manipulation of policy and an abuse of process. FCYTravis 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  On the contrary, there was no consensus to delete this article (which was speedy deleted outside the bounds of process). In light of recent discoveries, namely that there are a group of rogue individuals who are misrepresenting themselves as members of the Peppers family and trying to poison information related to him on the internet, I felt bound to bring this to WP:AFD in an attempt to achieve consensus. We do not delete articles when there is no consensus, not the other way around, please let this sixth nomination take its course. Best regards, Hall Monitor 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  In the interest of transparency, the renomination is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination). Hall Monitor 01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've redeleted the article and closed the afd. Split and repetitive discussions are harmful, and if there is consensus to undelete then we can do so. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  Hi Aaron, can you give a diff or a link to this previously agreed upon status quo? Thanks! Arkon 04:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good call, poor reason. This page should die because it's about an insignificant person and there has been a complaint. Pure and simple. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem, if I understand it correctly, is that the person who sent the complaint to UC was a hoaxer, so it sadlay isn't as simple as that. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree with both of the above, I'd like to make it clear that I acted only to restore the previously agreed upon status quo and not out of an attempt to enforce my personal opinon. - brenneman^{T}{L} 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to be unaware of the evidence that UC's correspondent misrepresented him/herself. Might someone kindly provide a diff, please? Regards ENCEPHALON 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There is at least on confirmed attempt to impersonate a family memeber that conincides with the timeframe of the email to UC[67] (cheack through this list note the cronology and be prepared to wait a bit on the last one). There is a clear parth from that attempt to wikipedia. Other than that there are very few logical ways to find the article.Geni 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Geni. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't clear to me whether the complaint was genuine or not. I've shared my reservations about it since I acted upon it. I have asked the author of the complaint to substantiate their identity and they have not yet done so to my satisfaction. Whether or not the complaint is genuine, the fact remains that the content once again at Brian Peppers is an unlawful invasion of privacy even if factual. I have forwarded the original emails and a summary of the matter to the board for legal review, since a community consensus to delete appears elusive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, UC. I'm aware of assertions that a spate of emails have been sent to several individuals by persons dishonestly claiming to be related to Mr. Peppers, but had no knowledge of any evidence concerning the reliability of your correspondent. I share your view on the matter of the article itself. ENCEPHALON 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck? Another page censored on an editwarrior's say-so? And the discussion closed down by the editwarriors? Why are we even bothering to pretend that we're a community that discusses things? Grace Note 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And what is the goal of this community? According to Jimbo, it's to educate. What educational value does the article have? --Nlu (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the massive, massive deletion review discussion? That discussion terminated and the article was not restored. If you wish to restore the article, then begin another discussion, on WP:DRV or here on ANI. Don't expect that a unilateral undeletion and after-the-fact "discussion" is going to be supported. FCYTravis 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, god forbid that you should support discussion. Grace Note 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone wanted to open up another discussion about whether something should be undeleted, I'd be fine with that. FCYTravis 03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an AfD. It didn't form a consensus to delete, so you guys acted unilaterally, "fucked process" and killed the article. You want the discussion in DRV so that you can ignore that you had no consensus to delete and can't get one, but when we discussed it in DRV, there was a fairly even split. The presumption is to keep, not delete articles. Well, I mean Wikipedia's presumption is. Clearly, YMMV. Grace Note 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is much that I agree with in both your opinions (ie. your's & Travis'). The purpose of Deletion Review is to review decisions about the status of a page with an eye to ensuring that the preceding xFD discussion on that page arrived at a decision consistent with article policy. The threshold for re-examining an issue at the relevant xFD is deliberately set very low, so that any fair objection held by a reasonable number of people has an excellent chance of being acted on: even if just 50% of participants feel that the original decision was in some way inappropriate, the close is stayed and the page sent back to xFD for re-examination. In the Brian Peppers review, 22 users asked for a relist; however, 27 didn't—hence Aaron's close. Nevertheless, I understand your view, and indeed agree with you that claiming a delete consensus in this case is certainly out of the question: it simply doesn't exist. The article ended up at the Review not because it had been been deleted following a consensus, but because someone disagreed with UC's speedy deletion of the page over legal concerns. I happen to share that legal concern, and I think the page should not stay on WP, but I would not say that there is a consensus for the article's deletion. The corollary of course is that I think legal questions should not be decided via xFD style discussions; the day that we send copyright infringements and other legal concerns to an xFD style discussion for a decision is the day WP will be in deep shit. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What "legal concern"? Why wouldn't that "concern" apply to other people who don't want articles about themselves on the wiki? Grace Note 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting how "there's an AfD" is a great reason for keeping it, but that somehow wasn't a great reason for not having it the last four times it was deleted, so it kept getting re-created. Or is it only the re-creation of articles which can go against consensus? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You know with this recent upsurge in sopport for out of policy deletion perhaps it is time to reopen the schools issue.Geni 04:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever to stop you from deleting schools on your own say-so whenever you choose, bar your own conscience. That's what the deletion policy now seems to be. Grace Note 05:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete this out of process. The last existing consensus decision was to keep this article deleted. Despite the facts that this decision may have been wrong and I agreed with it, I would have acted in the same way had I felt the opposite. One person doesn't get to decide for everyone.
brenneman^{T}{L} 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• What process did you follow again? It seems like we're making up the rules as we go along here, can you please cite something so we can all be aware of what the new deletion policies are? From what I read, there was a near consensus to keep the article during the fifth AFD (with 2:1 in favor of keeping), it was deleted due to a hoax, then brought to WP:DRV where it was split down the middle with no consensus either way. IMHO, Hall Monitor did the right thing by reposting it to AFD in an attempt to establish a true consensus. Show me right now where "the last existing consensus decision was to keep this article deleted.", because I'm just not seeing it. Silensor 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I think we have a serious problem if an admin thinks that a 33% vote is a consensus to rid us of an article he personally doesn't like. Grace Note 06:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• As I said on the deletion review and the 6th AFD, no one here is an attorney. (Please correct me if you are, you might be able to provide some insight.) I am strongly opposed to a page deletion based upon legal discussions with a Wikipedia editor. Any lawyer worth his/her J.D. would NEVER contact a random editor directly and demand that changes to be made to Wikipedia, they would contact Jimbo Wales or the board directly. Unless someone here is intimately familiar enough with the law to back up any claims of wrong-doing, and based on the lack of anyone citing exact statutes being broken I would say no one involved does; please don't play lawyer. It is a very dangerous game to play. If UninvitedCompany would have referred the person(s) sending the email to the appropriate channels, then s/he would not have been taken in by what are most likely hoaxsters. The page should be restored until word from the board says otherwise. —A 07:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, the email wasn't sent to me in particular. It was sent to info-en@wikimedia.org, which is the appropriate channel for such requests. I'm part of the group that answers the mail sent there, which is why I acted upon the request. There isn't enough attorney time available for a legal review of every controversey and so we're encouraged to try to deal with such emails ourselves. We average about one email a day that raises a legal issue with an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Might I humbly suggest that this particular incident merits a little of that attorney time? Although I'm not sure what they can say as this was most likely a hoax email. Perhaps they could clarify some of the "libel" concerns raised on DR. Turnstep 13:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Attorney here, as requested. Although I am not licensed in Ohio where this gentleman is located, I can tell you that there is a better than fair chance that any suit would be brought in federal court under its diversity jurisdiction and this could be brought in any number of states. One person wrote in the last AfD that "No one is deriding him. They are simply having fun at his expense." I pointed out to the writer that "having fun at his expense" is typically rephrased in the legal community as "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Let's look at what a sympathetic jury might think: Here's a guy convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to a brief jail term, with literally tens of thousands of others who have been convicted of worse. Unlike most of those tens of thousands of others, he has a Wikipedia article. Why? Because he looks like a freak. One exhibit I would be sure to enter would be the above-referenced AfD discussion where the real reason for why there is a Wikipedia article: "No one is deriding him. They are simply having fun at his expense."

This gentleman is famous because he's a freak. He looks bizarre, something over which he has absolutely no control. And he is on a sex offender registry which, as mentioned in the AfD, has disclaimers up the proverbiall wazoo about not using or trusting the information.

Let me be blunt: if someone burns this guy's house down, I would not hesitate to sue Wikipedia. Jtmichcock 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an (apparently) common misconception that anyone thinks he should have a Wikipedia article based on his appearance. The only reason people believe he should have a Wikipedia article is because he is the subject of a notable internet meme. If it were a perfectly regular looking person as the subject of the meme, we would feel the same way. Also, for the record, he lives in a nursing home, not a house. ;) VegaDark 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that everyone who has participated on both sides have acted in good faith, the issue boils down to the fact that the two sides on this issue have different ideas of what should be included in Wikipedia, as there is no policy on internet memes. I think we need a policy on this before the issue will be settled. VegaDark 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see good faith in this. I see a lot of rules-lawyering and weak excuses for deleting a disturbing, but factual article on a notable person. But I agree with you on the need for a policy on Internet memes. There are articles on Wikipedia about people of much less "fame" than Brian Peppers, and it's revolting how certain individuals including Jim Wales, have attempted to delete articles on the false premise that a subject is not notble when they are (as was the case in the Ashida Kim article AfD). That's explicit bad faith as far as I'm concerned. --Phrost 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What is it with this unhealthy obsession with deleting and undeleting sex offenders? As far as I can see, it was deleted for a bad reason, but DRV decided not to relist it anyway. Surely that's their call to make? Is there a WP:DRVRV? Apparently not, in which case this should surely be the end of the matter, for better or for worse. --Malthusian (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, the point is that there was clearly no consensus to keep or delete the article. In cases like this, the default is normally to keep the article (with a no consensus result on the AfD). I don't see why the unilateral actions of a single admin should, in this case, change the default no consensus result to "keep deleted". --Ashenai 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Because - and please correct me if I'm getting the chronology out of order here - the last forum to consider the case was WP:DRV, and there was sufficient consensus there to keep it deleted. Fine, so it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. But that's not what DRV considered; DRV considered whether it was worth recreating the article and sending it back to AfD. They decided not to, and that decision is of the sort they are there to make. Who do you want to overturn their decision? It certainly can't be sent back to AfD because DRV reviews decisions made by AfD (and others), not vice versa. And hopefully not an admin acting unilaterally. Only person I can think of who has the authority to overturn the DRV consensus is Jimbo, and I can't imagine he'd want to spend time on this. --Malthusian(talk) 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers is not "sex offenders" he's just some poor schmuck with a congenital deformity whose picture gave puerile amusement to those with more time than compassion. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Purely in the interests of accuracy, I have to ppint out that the picture in question is displayed here. If someone would like to explain how someone gets an honorary entry on Ohio's "Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification", and how come snopes got it so wrong (Mikkelson, Barbara & David P. "Who's a Pepper?" at Snopes.com: Urban Legends Reference Pages.) please elucidate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider a hypothetical controversial article. 50 people want it deleted, and 40 people don't. The AfD would close with no consensus (keep) (yes, I know Wikipedia is not a democracy. Imagine that both the pro and con people had good arguments for keeping/deleting the article).

Now, let's say that there's an admin among the 50 people wanting it deleted, who feels frustrated by the no consensus (keep) result. So he deletes the article. It is subsequentlz listed on WP:DRV. Predictably, 50 people that wanted it deleted in the first place want to keep it deleted, and the 40 people who wanted it to remain argue for undeleting it. The debate is closed with endorse deletion.

Do you not feel that this is a perversion of process? Despite the fact that no one changed their minds, the actions of one admin changed the entire fate of the article. I believe this is unacceptable, and I fail to see how anyone could feel that this is an equitable way of doing things. --Ashenai 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you'd researched the issue you would know that he was convicted of a technical offence following inappropriate contact with his nurse/carer. You would also know that the first four AfDs resulted in delete, so the insistence on process is a tad hollow, what with it having been re-created against consensus several times already. So we come back to the fundamental principle: do no harm. A disabled man living in a nursing home is not a public figure, poses little or no threat to the wider community and frankly we would not even be having this conversation if it wasn't for the fact that the poor bastard was born with a congenital deformity. I'd like to hope that one day we can achieve consensus to extend WP:NOT to include "Wikipedia is not a freak show". Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The first four AFDs are irrelevent, as the article was completely rewritten after the fourth. The rewrite was then renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 5 which, as you know, resulted in no consensus with 42 keeps and 22 deletes. Hall Monitor 20:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should never have been speedied... Speedy deletion for recreation is for identical "cut & paste" restarts, not for rewrites or we'd have to speedy half the 'pedia. The article as deleted established notability and had references (which is more than I can say for 40% of the 'pedia). The fact that it was deleted under false pretenses means it should never have needed to go through DRV it should have simply been undeleted. DRV also came to the wrong conclusion since it TOO was hoaxed. There is no allen peppers, and as such Hall Monitor's actions were completely reasonable, Undelete it and re-afd it... Aaron should never have speedy closed the AFD. I say undelete it, re-afd (that would be #7 I think?) and let it run its due process.  ALKIVAR™ 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Account of the events related to Brian Peppers

The following is my an account of the events related to the Brian Peppers article:

1. (May 23, 2005) Anonymous contributor submits a zero-content article containg nothing but a JPEG image from www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us, qualifying for speedy deletion. The article is appropriately deleted within minutes.
2. (Jun 9, 2005) A combination attack-page and borderline Snopes copyvio is submitted. Article is deleted at VFD.
3. (Dec 17, 2005) After several more attack-pages, consisting of little more than "Crazed sex offender who has his own beat!" are deleted, User:Aleron235 takes the time to write a neutrally toned article complete with sources.
4. (Dec 18, 2005) User:FCYTravis takes the initiative to delete Aleron235's article, protect the page, and put the {{deletedpage}} template in its place.
5. (Dec 18, 2005) User:Tony Sidaway undeletes the article and replaces it with another article stub.
6. (Dec 18, 2005) User:Nlu renominates the rewritten article for the fifth time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 5. With 42 keeps and 22 deletes (66% keep), the AFD is closed by User:Mailer Diablo as no consensus.
7. (Feb 6, 2006) User:UninvitedCompany speedy-deletes the article, citing a belief that the content is in violation of privacy laws, and an email sent to info-en@wikimedia.org by someone purporting to be a family member. The authenticity of the email was unclear. [edited for accuracy by UC]
8. (Feb 7, 2006) User:Crotalus horridus brings the matter before Wikipedia:Deletion review for reconsideration.
9. (Feb 13, 2006) User:Aaron Brenneman closes the review, with 25 endorsing deletion, 22 requesting undeletion, and 2 neutrally-phrased suggestions.
10. (Feb 13, 2006) As no consensus was reached at deletion review (25/22/2), and in light of the discovery that bogus takedown requests related to Brian Peppers have been made elsewhere, it was clear that we were misguided and a recount was in order, so I renominated the article again, for the sixth time, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination) in an effort to finally achieve consensus. [edited by UC for clarity]
11. (Feb 13, 2006) User:UninvitedCompany refers the matter to the Wikimedia board, citing legal concerns with the recreated content. [added by UC]
12. (Feb 13, 2006) In the midst of the renomination at AFD, the AFD was closed and the article was redeleted by User:FCYTravis, the same person who deleted Aleron235's rewrite on Dec 18, 2005. I undeleted it (twice) and politely requested on his talk page that he let the AFD take its course so that we could gain a clear consensus, one that was not tainted by misinformation such as we had in the original deletion review. In turn, he personally attacked me on my talk page.
13. (Feb 14, 2006) User:Aaron Brenneman re-deleted the article once again, closed the 6th AFD discussion, citing the lack of consensus to restore the article on deletion review. Again, this review was tainted.
14. And here we are now... Hall Monitor 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
15. (Feb 14, 2006) User:UninvitedCompany receives additional information confirming the authenticity of the email requesting article takedown.

There's been so much basketball played with this article I haven't been able to find the current place to vote on it. Where the hell is it now? --DanielCD 21:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, there is no place to vote on it. My suggestion is to re-open the sixth AFD and relist it tomorrow so we can put this matter to rest. Hall Monitor 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well let's do that, and do it all by the book so we can get on to other things. --DanielCD 21:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Phrost 21:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The last valid discussion was a Keep Deleted on DRV. Reopening an AfD is rules lawyering. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, that is simply not true. There was no consensus achieved on DRV. Hall Monitor 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's do this and get it over with, one way or another--lawfully. --Ashenai 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on some new information, I am reasonably satisfied that the takedown request is genuine at this time. That is to say, I'm as satisfied as I could be without confirmation via a phone call to a listed number or snail mail sent to a published address, or similar measures. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

From [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed|]]:

3. If there is a simple majority to endorse a decision, then no further action is taken — the decision stands.

So this changes the debate to wether a famliy member requesting an article be removed should be good enough reason to remove it or not. VegaDark 01:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of voting for everything... but on what grounds are people saying that the DRV vote was unclear? +sj + 23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

They are saying that the article originally had a 67% keep on AfD, where the rules say keep if there is no consensus. Someone circumvented that process, forcing it to be brought to DRV, where you only need 51% to have a decision made, apparently. The article would still be on Wikipedia if it had gone through due process, as 51% delete isn't good enough to get an article deleted on AfD (the actual vote was 25-22-2 in DRV, a similar vote in AfD would have resulted in the article being kept via no consensus). VegaDark 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well let's just have a vote to drop it and move on. I vote to dropt it and let sleeping dogs lie. Why wake it up again?

More seriously, if there's still this much debate, it's obviously not a settled issue, so the matter needs to be tended to in one way or another. Either make a vote to drop it, or re-open the AfD. --DanielCD 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should reopen the AfD. I strongly support the deletion of the article but I think the article was deleted before a consensus was reached. --Yamla 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Re-open the AFD and let it run its course.  ALKIVAR™ 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, re-open the AFD and let it run its course. Silensor 17:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, re-open the AfD. --Myles Long 18:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Based on some new information, I am reasonably satisfied that the takedown request is genuine at this time" do you not understand? This is not subject to a "vote." If you disagree with Uninvited Co.'s decision, take it to the mailing list or the ArbCom or the board. FCYTravis 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the main point was that people are still slinging words over this. Perhaps a better question would be, what's it going to take to get everyone to let it go? But then again, people still have concerns that likely need addressing. Perhaps another forum would be better for the continued discussion, which seems likely to continue in spite of any ruling/decision/vote. I don't really care, I'm just trying to help out, and will shut up if you guys think this isn't helpful. Such active discussion obviously says some unfinished business remains whether we like it or not, and if it was speedied into deletion in the face of such discussion, it should be reopened. --DanielCD 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the takedown request is at all relevant. Wikipedia contains lots of information that many people would want to censor. We shouldn't allow people to get articles deleted simply by sending a threatening letter because they don't like the article content. --Cyde Weys 22:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's quite a bit more to it than that. And correspondance in this regard is likely beside the main issue, which is using Wikipeida as a Public Service Message Board. But let's not get into that all here. --DanielCD 22:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76 harassing Gibnews

Ismael76 (talk · contribs) just posted the following on Talk:Gibraltar [68]:

I am convinced that Gibraltarian and Gibnews are the same person. Not only is it statistically probable, but they express the same paranoid behaviour, view points and disregard for facts, majority view and consensus. Any difference in style is clearly a good cop/bad cop strategy. I vote for Gibnews' Overseas British nationality be revoked and he be exiled to the island of Perejil where he will follow a national indoctrination program and learn to be a good Spaniard.

Now, I, like any "unbiased" user, do not buy a single bit of this nonsense (their edit histories will show that they are in fact different people). However, I believe the last sentence constitutes an unacceptable threat that violates WP:NPA. I believe something has to be done about this. --TML1988 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the history so there may be more to this than I've seen but that last sentance reads like a joke to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's MUCH MORE SERIOUS than what you think. Please take another look at it. I also believe that Ismael76 is violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:HAR. --TML1988 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it a serious threat? Please explain. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76 assumes that Gibnews = Gibraltarian simply because they both show a pro-Gibraltar viewpoint. In the statement above, that last sentence was clearly a call to "reeducate" Gibnews. Whether that is serious or not, it is simply UNACCEPTABLE to call for someone's personal status to be downgraded. Like I said, that statement violates AGF, NPA, HAR, and CIVIL. Theresa knott, if you don't want to look into this matter, please step aside and let another admin do it. --TML1988 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Skull 'n' Femurs blocked indefinitely

Skull_'n'_Femurs (talk · contribs) has been systematically removing information from Freemasonry under his own name and that of several sockpuppets. He's just posted a rant to Talk:Freemasonry wherein he considers it his Masonic duty to remove good and referenced information from the article. That's nice for him (and helpful of him to state it blunty), but it makes it my Wikipedian administrator duty to block him from editing indefinitely, unless and until he learns what's appropriate behaviour here.

This is quite separate from Lightbringer (talk · contribs), who keeps coming back with sock after sock (see above) ...

I've locked User talk:Skull 'n' Femurs so he can't remove the notice of his intent to vandalise, as he has routinely been removing warnings - David Gerard 12:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

DG, I do admire your work, I just wanted to point out that it is very likely that several other editors are associated with S&F's IP &/or IP range. Perhaps a block on his Userpage & of him on Freemasonry (I'm pretty sure you can do the latter too) would be good? On the flipside, I do know he's been a little off lately, but historically he's an excellent editor. There's a lot of shenanigans going on there right now, so I dunno what'd be best. Just some thoughts. Grye 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The socks were making the same sort of edits from the same IP (not range) at similar times - it's very consistent. His behaviour in consistently removing the many warnings about his behaviour doesn't speak to his good faith. He can contact me if he cares to come up with an explanation that doesn't sound like sockpuppeteer snake oil. In any case, systematically removing referenced content because he thinks it should be kept secret is unacceptable. (And I'm sure there's a proverb about horses, barn doors and bolts.) - David Gerard 14:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I may be completely wrong. That's why I posted this here :-) It's not possible to block a single user from a single page, unfortunately - David Gerard 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah your probably right, I was just mentioning that he'd said several times that others are on his IPrange & they'd all been blocked. But something's for sure funny. & not "Ha ha"... ;~D Grye 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination)

This has been restored and deleted again and the afd re-opened. I've left a note on Alkivar's talk page telling him that I think this was a poorly considered course of action, and told him that I am bringing it here.

In the (admittedly unlikely event) that it turns out that it was in fact a family member who requested this be taken down and the foundation agrees, the screaming of "ADMIN ABUSE" will now echo even louder. In the event that this was a hoax and the article is kept, do we doubt that next time something gets deleted by a close margin the "restore by brute force and take by to AfD" method won't get used again?

Can we set a precedent by social pressure and trout slapping that use of the accepted venues (namely here and DRV) are to be used, and that venue shopping is disruptive?

brenneman^{T}{L} 23:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what he said, but I certainly agree!

More seriously, the quickest route to laying this to rest is probably best. I agree with brenneman. Why are people so concerned? That procedure was not followed? --DanielCD 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Its funny you have no problems with the AFD consensus to keep getting shopped to DRV where simple majority rules. Yet when it gets moved back ... OH DEAR GOD VENUE SHOPPING! ... seriously dude get a grip. You'll note i never voted on this... Hell I WANT IT DELETED... I cant be any clearer than that. HOWEVER I want an ironclad unarguable decision that deletion is correct so that we can simply say "you've had your due process... you lost" to future recreations.  ALKIVAR™ 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats to Aaron btw.  ALKIVAR™ 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing is, at this point it's not a matter for a "vote" on any XfD/DRV venue. It has been deleted by a trustworthy administrator on the grounds of a potential legal issue. Regardless of any decision on DRV, I believe the venue for appeal for those who do not believe there is a legal issue is now to either the ArbCom or Jimbo/the Foundation Board. That's the only ironclad unarguable decision you're going to get at this point. FCYTravis 00:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Then again, people could just agree to let it go, and try not to let over-speedy deletions happen again in the future. It's not a necessary law of nature that it has to go through AfD again. The world isn't going to explode. --DanielCD 23:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When something was deleted useing a method I once suggested a jokely bit of rule lawyering no. The problem is the venue shopping started before the thing was deleted. "restore by brute force" doesn't appear to be happening.Geni 23:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing the ongoing afd

In the event that this newest AfD is allowed to continue, we'd certainly like to avoid a snap close at five days plus five seconds by someone partisan. The thought of another pass through DRV and the potential of another AfD after that is too awful to bear. Suggestions on how to close this would be welcome, and I'll place a note in html comments at the top of the page referring to this. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If a partisan admin closes something early without agreement, there should be a penalty. --DanielCD 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We could put a comment (warning) at the top of the article. Like, User:some_admin (whoever, as long as they're not a party to the dispute) has promised to close this article between (time when it closes) and (24 hours later). Please leave it until he/she gets to it. I am totally clueless on this dispute... I feel I should offer, but I'm afraid reading the votes might take all day. moink 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a lot of this going on lately. If something's in AfD, and people are still not satisfied, there are no grounds whatsoever to close it early. A consensus is not reached if people are still unwilling to close the AfD. These kind of actions just go overlooked, and that's what the problem is. These rules exist just to keep this kind of thing from happening, and it's the admin who closed the damn thing early who broke the rules. And before anyone gets their panties in a wad, know that I say this not knowing who it was. --DanielCD 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What should likely happen is this admin's actions should be reviewed by impartial parties, meaning admins or higher who don't know him. --DanielCD 01:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: my comments here are only indirectly related to the issue at hand. I thought that was obvious. As they are not directly relevant, I am striking them. However I will repeat that the rules exist to prevent this bickering from happening. Everyone looks the other way though, so it's just going to keep happening. --DanielCD 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a case where an otherwise useful article should be permitted to die quietly. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia that, after an apparently genuine request is acted on, the silliness starts, quibbling about rules and process and all kinds of pointless nonsense. Let it die. No debate needed, it's just a routine deletion done as a courtesy from OTRS. If this silly nonsense continues to happen, I guarantee that the board will be confirmed in its longheld belief that something serious needs to be done about our deletion process. --Tony Sidaway 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many genuine requests are received about many pages, such as Ashida Kim, Daniel Brandt, etc. If we act on some cases, but don't act on others, that means that each case needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Unless Jimbo steps in, that implies a debate. -- Curps 05:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; that's what I've been saying all along. The best thing to do is to let it die and move on. I'm not so sure what the problem is. It was closed early. Oh well. Let's get on to better things. --DanielCD 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the problem is not that it was closed early: it was that it was closed, and then the article was deleted out of process (the AfD in question was somewhere between no consensus and keep).

We have kept articles in defiance of the subject's wishes before (Ashida Kim, Barbara Schwarz), and it is not clear why an out-of-process deletion was needed in this case, and not in those.

In short: if the argument is that Brian Peppers is not notable, then that is grounds for an AfD discussion, not unilateral deletion. If the argument is that we have been asked to delete the article, then I do not understand why the aforementioned two articles (as well as many others) have not yet been deleted. --Ashenai 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The rationale, which is stated above as well as on the article's talk page, is that publishing the content is in violation of privacy laws. This is not a matter of whether or not the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. And it is not merely a matter of deleting material based on the request of the subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I STILL don't understand this at all. Privacy laws? WHAT information in the article can't already be found publicly available online? -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that procedures are getting ever tighter around complaints about articles, partly because of our increased visibility. It would be nice if Danny could step in and make this a WP:OFFICE affair, but it would also be nice if users in general could spare a thought for the people who have to deal with the complaints that a tiny fraction of our articles cause. There is no slippery slope, Wikipedia continues to publish large numbers of controversial articles, but it is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in free speech or democracy. Physchim62 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The solution, then, is to make people aware of what is acceptable and what isn't. If there is not to be a slippery slope, then we need guidelines, or preferably policy, dealing with this. An admin (who, I assume, is not a lawyer) unilaterally deciding to do something is not a good substitute for policy.

Is the article on Barbara Schwarz legal and acceptable? What about the article on Ashida Kim? What about the article on Brian Peppers? I don't know, and I don't expect that the admins taking action in this matter do, either.

I strongly believe that the inconvenience of having a given article should never be a reason pro or contra its existence. I'm certain that the Church of Scientology could brew up plenty of inconvenience for us; and I am convinced that the reason they have not done so so far is because they realize that it would be futile.

Again: policy please! It would save everyone so much time, and so much effort. I have no doubts that this will not be the last such debate. --Ashenai 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Marina Girl" stereotype essay at Marina District, San Francisco, California

There is a group of users who insist on reverting to a version [69] of this article that contains a lengthy, tongue-in-cheek essay on the "Marina Girl" stereotype of this neighborhood. The essay borders on an attack, and my explanations on the talk page of why I feel that the essay violates WP:POV and WP:Verifiability don't seem to have done much good. While there may be a few examples of stereotypes (e.g. Yuppie) that can be sufficiently documented, I have doubts about this one, especially given that the scope is so limited. I ask that others read the disputed content and weigh in on the subject. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the disputed content is a bunch of nasty stereotypes and derogatory social commentary. We wouldn't fill the Arkansas article with a bunch of snippy comments about toothless rednecks who wear wifebeater T-shirts and screw their cousins; or the Oakland, California article with racially offensive remarks about looting. We shouldn't do the analogous to this locale either. --FOo 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh There are so many articles on offensive stereotypes I'd love to delete! Chav and assorted rubbish for starters.. Secretlondon 02:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to have articles about stereotypes; quite another to clutter up articles about places with one person's (likely highly inaccurate) social commentary. --FOo 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Here are the edits in question:

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

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

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

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

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

Wyss' other Talk page deletions

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

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

• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]

And from Talk:Adolf Hitler, once again

• deletion of comment

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

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

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

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

These are two separate issues. Other users I disagree with aren't deleting my comments. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss has requested a stop to the mutual disrespect here and I have replied here. If there is any progress I shall remove this incident. -- Simonides 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• For any reader still interested, here is an independent discussion of the server problem during that same period, by other editors of the same article involved (AH), noting they themselves were having problems with accidently deleting each others' comments. Should I even bother asking why Simonides has yet to concede there were server issues and that I didn't deliberately or even negligently delete user comments? Wyss 20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite accurate. While I assume good faith and accept that server problems were to blame, it's not true to say that "they were accidentally deleting each other's comments". None of my edits deleted any other editors comments, and apparently Simonides never "accidentally" deleted anyone elses comments. Only Wyss and Str1977 seemed to have the problem. Perhaps this was due to them being geographically close? Camillus (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wyss has been repeatedly spreading false accusations against me and other users she is in a Pov disput with. I'm still waiting for her to support her claims, which appear to be complete fabrications intended to distract and distrupt honest editing and good faith discussions. Giovanni33 10:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

More deletions, defamation

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

• [76]
• [77]

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

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

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

• MikaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kecik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not the same user. Fred Bauder 01:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC).
• Neither are the same user as Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who may have had a sockpuppet BelindaGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fred Bauder 02:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Dohfast1

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

It's actually kind of vague as to whether it's an attack, as it doesn't say "I will" but rather "I would", but it's really the same as what got User:Amorrow banned indef, and I strongly support that, so this can stay, too, IMO. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Death threats posted even in jest are subject to indef block per word of Jimbo.  ALKIVAR™ 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to give the wrong impression. I don't think the block is questionable at all and death threats are a blocking offense. I was just making a small comment. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful for a couple of people to keep an eye on Battle of the Wilderness and its talk page, which this person uses to make, uh, announcements: [78]. (He's also declared war on the article George Washington.) FreplySpang (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

== User: Pink Floyd For Free ==

The above-named user is apparently here solely for the purpose of posting linkspam, and linkspam for a blatantly illegal site that requires third-party software to use at that. He has yet to make a single contribution that wasn't either linkspam or a thouroughly unpersuasive (in some cases downright dishonest) defense of same. What can be done about this? (Note that the same linkspam has been posted from several anonymous IPs prior to the recent creation of this account.) PurplePlatypus 04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice nobody's yet tried his talk page... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He's been told repeatedly, albeit intemperately (especially in my case), that his behaviour is unacceptable; does it matter that much where? PurplePlatypus 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. If it's posted on his talk page, he gets a big orange banner. You can miss posts meant for you if they are put in article talk pages or edit summaries, but your own talk page is a lot harder to miss. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that he does not cease to break the rules is not related to missing the message — he keeps participating in the discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd. Summary of rules clearly broken by that user:

• WP:EL, 3: self-promotion link (the user has already openly admitted he is affiliated with the site);
• WP:EL, 7: the link he keeps on adding (on articles Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Syd Barrett and Bootleg recording — though we aren't focusing on the latter) is a self-proclaimed Pink Floyd ROIO website, but one needs to download a 3rd party software (P2P client) to have access to such content.
• 3RR: February 15, 12:58 14:32 16:07 16:22 16:33 (as 71.242.208.204, before registering as Pink_Floyd_For_Free — there's participation in the discussion with both "identities")
• as I was about to write that is was arguable if Wikipedia:No personal attacks was also broken... it was clearly broken!

Rotring 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page last night, and I posted his IP address to the 3RR noticeboard yesterday. He has reverted his linkspam on the David Gilmour page twice ([79] [80]) and Pink Floyd once ([81]) using his user account since a warning on the talk page for his IP address. The link on the Pink Floyd page has been replaced again since by 68.32.128.247. A whois query shows the IP to be from Pennsylvania, which is where the site operator lives. - dharmabum 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also note here that he threatens to disrupt Wikipedia by continually reverting to make his point, and mentions rallying the site's users to come here and also continually revert, coming close to threatening to bring "meatpuppets" to his aid. - dharmabum 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Solar panel

I deleted this to remove an email address used as an attack. Now I can't get it to restore. It will only partially load and then freezes. Help and sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not working for me either. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can get more to load in Firefox but still not enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can bring up the page text, but there's no history list. Argh. Someone want to hop on IRC #wikimedia-tech and ask a dev? - David Gerard 12:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

if you look at the page source, the form button is there. For some reason it's not being displayed.

<form id="undelete" method="post" action="/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit"> <input type="hidden" name="target" value="Solar_panel" /> <input type="submit" name="restore" value="Restore!" /> <input type='hidden' name='wpEditToken' value="6a292bbff76d1e25554e392443ea9cf2" />

I had daftly hoped that by posting it here it would display the button and we could undelete it. But no. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but one of you admins might try clicking this... Rasmus (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No that doesn't work.

I have found out what's wrong. Just above the delete button in the page source is the line

<span class="FA" id="pt" style="display:none;"/>

I don't know what's wrong with it. But if I remove it from the source i can get the restore button to display. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yippee I've done it! And I don't know nuffink about php! Excuse me while I congratulate myself - Theresa you are a regular sherlock holmes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I got it before you did. :-) Nevertheless, I had to use my secondary browser, Konqueror to do it. I first restored the two last versions, moved them to Solar panel/dump before restoring the rest of the article. Can anyone check that I restored the correct versions? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Konqueror show the page correctly? I'm using firefox. I had to copy the page source to a textfile removed the offending span tag updated the form action to include the full path name, display the page then restore. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Konqueror did show the undelete page correctly, with the undelete button where it should be. I usually use Firefox as well, but this time that displayed the article without the restore button. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it never happened before. But I must admit that's one way to remove an email address. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Any idea why the tag was there in the first place and how likly is it to happen again? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

FA is maybe featured article? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it looks like the portugese version is a featured article. I still don't know whats wrong with it though. When I accidentally put it here without nowikiing it it didn't cause any problems. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the source code for a typical undelete page, I see the undelete form is within the div#bodyContent. While HTML Tidy will close an unclosed tag, the closing will happen only just before the parent is closed — which is after the undelete form. I think this is a bug: either the div#bodyContent should close before the form, or the content should be enclosed within another div. --cesarb 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reproduced and reported as bugzilla:5017. --cesarb 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out this hopefully soves such problems. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Leifern Thimerosal and MMR

Leifern has declared a very personal interest in some aspects of this, and became extremely hangry when I made a (large) move of material from Thimerosal to Anti-vaccinationist whence it then moved to a new page at Thimerosal controversy The two pages with Thimerosal in their names are quite good - the former was improved by my edit, and nothing more than quiet discussion was needed in order to start the latter.

Immediately after that Leifern called for deletion of the anti-vaccinationist page, asserting that a google search found no mention of anti-vaccinationist (another editor found several thousand hits). The result, after a vile argument was a strong keep. Leifern continues to be uncivil there - although that doesn't stand out, and he is by some distance not the rudest person to see in the talk page.

[82] is a huge revert, with an untrue description. I'm not sure I analysed the log completely, but it looks as though other people's work has also been discarded. It looks impatient, poorly judged, and does not improve the page, although no doubt edits oculd be made that would have.

An example of an edit described as POV is replacing "people aged over 45" with "people born before" whoch looked to me like a WP policy - oterwhise it'd need editing each year. Still in that first paragraph, I noted that "...are assumed to have had Measles in the past" means the same as "...are assumed to have had Measles." and changed it. That isn't POV, and it is better English.

I would be grateful for other admins views on that edit and on whether Leifern is succesful in distinguishing his personal grief, rage and sense of injury about his child and the assumed cause, from edits toward improving pages around that group. Midgley 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Midgley did not extend the courtesy of notifying me that he had lodged this complaint. Beyond that, it appears that he is simply upset that I disagree with him. Even though an admin brought the AFD on Anti-vaccinationists was prematurely and aborted, I have respected its outcome. Most recently, I made an effort at improving the article and pointing out assertions that need references [83]. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, I reverted a number of edits that I found were tendentious, and I still believe they were. Midgley and I have disagreements about the standards for objectivity and fairness in WP. I'd rather not get into characterizing him beyond that, but I find it reprehensible to say the least that he brings my son's sad situation into this discussion, especially since he bills himself as a medical doctor. --Leifern 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute; file an RFC. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice. Midgley 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Block request for 69.105.39.132

This user 69.105.39.132 is engaging in personal attacks [[84]]. Block hereby requested. IronDuke 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I want my page deleted

I had my talk page deleted. Someone however wrote there. An admin recycled it, removed my comment that I do not want any further messages and now Eliezer even protected the page. That is unfair. You cannot force people to stay here forever, and users clearly have the right to get their pages deleted. The only wrongdoing I had was a 3RR, the block has expired, and I now want out. Eliezer even removed my request to get my page deleted and removed my complaint from his talk page without answering. That is just rude. I wrote to all those who went on editing my talk page, and if someone has problems with a request for speedy deletion there is a page for it. 84.59.79.243 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)

Oh please, stop it. You tried to speedy delete a page that didn't qualify for it. You tried to hide you "just 1 block" which was in reality, "just 1 block, and about 6 warnings". You deleted ANY opposition comments to the speedy deletion, both on your page, on the speedy deletion candidates WIKIPEDIA page which is just obscene, and anywhere else you can find them. If you want to leave, just leave and stop coming back. Why on earth are you coming BACK here to complain that we won't let you leave? Nobody's putting a gun to your head and making you type in the address here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the speedy deletion comment as the page was already deleted. Users have a right to get their pages deleted. And I do not want a page where people without manners like you throw mud at me. 84.59.79.243 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)

I have no manners? Please review WP:NPA, thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted since userpage should not be deleted without good reason. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd help if we could clarify the guideline on deleting user pages and talk pages. Wikipedia:user page indicates it's not a big deal to delete such pages, and gives directions. The community generally may feel that such deletions should only occur with good reason. -Will Beback 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Get-back-world-respect/deletion_and_protection_discussions for a complete discussion with diffs provided as evidence WHY this user should not have their page deleted. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However I repeat that there is a discrepancy in our policies - some of which seem to permit deletion of user pages for any reason, and some of which do not. I'll note that I became interested in this because I disagreed with the deletion of a lengthy user talk page (user talk:24ip) when the user was simply changing names, not even leaving as this other user is doing. If we don't make a practice of such deletions than that should be reflected in the policies. -Will Beback 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! This user is trying to leave. Let him go! I've blanked his talk page (not deleted it). Blanking is a reasonable compromise. it prevents casual readers from seeing stuff that the user would rather them not see yet everything is still in the history if it's needed in the future. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a right to get my pages deleted. At the very least post my statement that I want to leave. I do not want to be remembered here as the vandal whose talk page was blocked. Not only do I not deserve that after having contributed productively for several years with only one block for 3RR, I think no one deserves that. People have the right to leave. 84.59.79.243 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you leave you won't be remembered at all! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Threat

user mini mike has just posted an offer to take me to court if I repost his IP address on my talk page. This all stems for constant denile of basic human rights and complete disregard for the data protection act. While I'm not bothered by his threats I am curious as to what the policy is to using the unsigned template and to posting IP address'. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolute rot. His IP address is public knowledge by virtue of his editing. He's delusional. --Golbez 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no policy. It's just common sense to add the unsigned template, since a message without a signature tends to "blend" with the following message, making it nonobvious where one message stops and the other one starts. If I were to categorize the "policyness" of using the unsigned template, I'd say it's a guideline that just was never proposed (and would be shot down as "instruction creep, just do it" if it were to be proposed, so don't try). --cesarb 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to propose a policy but just wondering if there was one that I couldn't find and if it's OK to (re)post the IP address'. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That last comment was not directed at you, it was directed at all readers (see WP:BEANS for the explanation). --cesarb 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it's OK. After all, the same information can be gleaned (and generally is) just by pressing the "history" tab. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that he's now removed them from here as well. And changed my original comments as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I had removed them as you were simply moving where you are posting my IP. Mini mike 22:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, it's not like anyone really cares enough to want to track you down through your IP, unless you've been messing around with the Seigenthaler article, or you're a congressman. =P Now, messing around with other people's comments is frowned upon. — TheKMan^talk 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the last post I didn't mean to put in the IP address again but hit the save button by mistake. Here's my original comments with his IP's removed:

"IP address 1, IP address 2 and IP address 3 who says they are mini mike has just posted an offer to take me to court if I repost his IP address on my talk page. This all stems for remarks at IP address 3. While I'm not bothered by his threats I am curious as to what the policy is to using the unsigned template and to posting IP address'. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"

thank you. right, all im asking is that you allow for my comments to be signed "Mini mike" as apposed to publicly displaying my IP, Not too mammoth a task i hope. :P Mini mike 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, if you hadn't TOLD everyone that there was a relationship between User:Mini mike and those IP addresses, nobody would have known. You outed yourself; it's not reversible. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you remember to log in when you post comments or do other editing, then it is all posted under your username, and your IP is not visible. Thus, editors actually have a greater degree of privacy if they're signed in than if they do it "anonymously". *Dan T.* 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok it's finished and I'll archive my talk page (without IP's) so the long set of comments are gone. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just what country's "Data Protection Act" is this person claiming to want to sue under, anyway? *Dan T.* 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The UK's - the IP addresses he's moaning about are a UK ISP's. And it's a laughable claim anyway, as the many of us who actually have to apply the DPA in reality will know. --ajn (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, legal threats are a bannable offense Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Block request: User: 68.110.9.62

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that the article is total crap. This request wasn't about an edit war over a tag or the quality of the article, but about 68.110.9.62's total unwillingess to help get it changed for the better (have a look at our talk pages to see how that attempt went). Instead, s/he just added the tag again and again and refused to give any reason why (if you look on Talk:Criticisms of sexual behavior, there isn't much in the way of current discussion, and the complaints sort of run across the board). If you have comments on how to improve the article, by all means leave them on the page's talk! -Seth Mahoney 00:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of quality and conformity, templates are added to talkpages, not the articles themselves. I've since moved the templates over to the talkpage where they belong. -Zero^Talk 07:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no they aren't they go on the article page to inform casual passers by of the issues. The cleanup tag contains the wording "See rationale on the talk page," which gives a fair indication that it isn't a talk page template. I've moved them back. --pgk^(talk) 07:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just because I myself don't want to be involved in editing what I deem a worthless and unsaveable article, does not mean the tags and the other expressions of concern are unworthy. My actions were all for their benefit anyways. 68.110.9.62 15:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Said user has just left a courteously written but nasty personal attack on my user talk page. [85] David | Talk 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe I get sick of pukes like him pushing their POV about on the Wikipedia. Some people think they are so holy in their mission of infamy, but he was to know that his actions offended me. 68.110.9.62 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

66.254.232.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in a low-level edit war to add the text "considered by many to be the greatest hockey player ever" to Wayne Gretzky. At WP:VIP this was asserted to be "an NPOV statement of fact" - which is irrelevant, as the reason for removal is that it is redundant, the first para makes a much more complete and reasoned statement of his reported status. The text simply spoils it! Skating on the brink of 3RR, but low-level. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neowin lame edit war

I ask for admins take a look at Neowin article, some users just engaged in a lame edit war and personal attacks on talk page. --LaMaroche 01:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The view on that talk page is that LaMaroche is a sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. I think there's some reason to think that's the case. Do others agree? Chick Bowen 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I blocked. I check the first edit the sock performed, and it was the same edits that Brasil has made before, and continuing the edit war Brasil was involved in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

personal attack and much more

I do believe Dross82 should be banned for this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthodoxe&oldid=39682756

ILovePlankton 01:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Warned. NSLE _(T+C) 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Report NPA violations to WP:PAIN in future. Thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stalking by Netoholic

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been stalking me recently on WP:AN/3RR, helpfully finding his way to disputes with other editors that he himself is not involved in in the least.

• 08:35, February 16, 2006 — Here he alleges I used sockpuppets (anonymous IPs) to circumvent 3RR on PhpBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (an article he's never edited). These allegations are plainly FALSE, and are only an attempt at harassment.
• 00:48, February 17, 2006 — Here he alleges I violated 3RR on VBulletin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (another article he's never edited) because of his misunderstanding of what constitutes a revert.

He's apparently angry/bitter over our conflict at WP:AUM, and has now taken to attempting to discredit me wherever he can (whether it has anything to do with WP:AUM and/or templates or not). I suspect he's not done, and is only attempting to disrupt my activities on Wikipedia. Any assistance would be appreciated. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never edited phpBB or vBulletin, but I can assure you that WP:AN/3RR is definitely on my watchlist. I think you should just stop revert-warring. -- Netoholic @ 15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"LOL" — Omegatron 16:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So? You have no business attempting to police my activities elsewhere: I think the admins that monitor AN/3RR are fully capable of deciding for themselves without you around to attempt to skew the discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to spam after repeated warning

I believe Boycottthecaf should be blocked or banned, he continued to repost a link to a site he obviously controls (his username is the site name) under Degrassi: The Next Generation episode guide. The site is crude and controlled by him and is a violation of the Wikipedia:External links policy, and especially after he has been warned multiple times not to post it here and been blocked previously for the same violation User talk:Boycottthecaf SirGrant 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Start of a wheel war over Brian Peppers

Brian Peppers has now been deleted twice and recreated twice, protected once and unprotected once, all in the space of half-an-hour... If the articlke is going to stay up, could admins make sure that the AfD tag stays on it (it has a nasty habit of disappearing). Physchim62 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently, this article should stay deleted for Foundation reasons. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  Um, can someone explain what that means, please? And give an authoritative reason for it? --Ashenai 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Brian_Peppers and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination), but I believe what was said that info-en got a letter/message from someone who wanted the article taken down, someone complied to the request. Some people did not like the deletion war, and some people claim that past AFD's were not relevant. But, I agree, this is one issue that needs to be solved quickly and swiftly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleting a page on the request of someone claiming to be related to the subject, against precedence and even if later shown to be part of a widespread hoax, is a 'foundation issue'? Hello, my real name is George W. Bush, and... --Malthusian (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. To forstall the "George W. Bush is clearly notable" rebuttal, I'm of the opinion that potentially having three categories of notability - 'notable' (you're George W. Bush and you get an article), 'non-notable' (you're Joe Bloggs and you don't get an article) and 'sorta notable' (you're Brian Peppers and you get an article but we'll delete it for bizarre reasons like someone sending us a hoax email) - is unworkable and silly. --Malthusian (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • IIRC, Snopes mentions that every so often, people claim to be related to Mr. Peppers and try to post information/try to get rid of information/whatnot. While many do turn out to be hoaxes, this is a situation where Jimbo might have to get involved with (again) and perhaps see some more people loose the mop (again) over some silly stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I believe that this particular request is authentic. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if it's authentic. It's inconsistent to delete some content on request, but insist to other people that we don't do it. If anything is going to bite us, it's the unprecedent we'll set by honoring such a request. User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If this lame pony isn't shot soon, it's going to turn into a snake that bites some ppl in the ass. --DanielCD 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just when you thought things couldn't get any weirder, Mike Church (talk · contribs) (remember him?) decided to add a link to Brian Peppers to the… Time travel article. -- Curps 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that this whole series of events counts as Deja Vu All Over Again ... Georgewilliamherbert 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a slow burning wheel war there for a while now. No idea how to sort it out though.Geni 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Roxanne Harman

I got a message on my talk page off this user, claiming they were Willy on Wheels. I also noticed their userpage seems dedicated to Willy. Is this Willy on Wheels or a hoaxer?? --Sunfazer (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential troll in the making

After seeing DCNanney (talk · contribs) call somebody a dipshit in an edit summary, a left him a gentle suggestion that his approach may not have ben the best one. Soon after, he had this unpleasant exchange on his talk page, and sent me the following email, indicating the felt fully justified to make such personal attacks:

I appreciate the "friendly advice."

I did use the term "dipshit" out of frustration. I acknowledge, but I do not apologize. I believe that an article about someone who has a stated goal of propounding a certain political viewpoint (left or right) should have at least some small mention of her own political views. After an initial characterization of Janeane Garofalo's views as "socialist," some unnamed person helpfully removed that edit. Then, when I moderated my language in a subsequent edit, this, too, was removed.

If Garofalo were just another ill-informed celebrity who gave the occasional rant regarding the state of American politics, e.g., Julia Roberts or George Clooney, I would not give a thought to some inclusion of her political beliefs; they would be irrelevant. But Garofalo is co-host of a national political talk show. As such, she possesses certain strongly held beliefs. The original article neglected to describe those beliefs. It only mentioned that she was using her status and her talk show to combat the "threat" of conservatism. While her intent may have been implied by the language used, I believed that her position on the political spectrum should have been more overtly stated.

Forgive my presumptuousness, but perhaps Wikipedia's users would be better served by administrators who actually investigate a situation before issuing editing blocks. After this experience, I am now under the impression that an administrator's primary task is to scan only the edit comments and then issue haughty admonitions from on high, without ever showing simple courtesy by, for example, requesting an explanation from the "heretic" user/editor. I had hoped that this was not the case, but, alas, events have proved otherwise.

DCNanney

In response, I replied with this slightly less nuanced post to his talk. This situation isn't at the phase where extreme action needs to be taken, but this editor appears to have all of the hallmarks of a profoundly disruptive personality. We may want to keep an eye on him. – ClockworkSoul 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Stanek

Way back in December, Bob Mellish noticed a flood of material relating to the sf author Robert Stanek, and flagged it up here. I helped clear out some of the cruftier bits.

So, imagine my surprise when I found Soulrunner (talk · contribs) playing up on Talk:Robert Stanek this evening, blanking content that was, whilst not favourable to the subject (basically, discussion of a well-rumoured astroturfing campaign), didn't seem to warrant edit summaries like "these individuals have been reported to wikipedia". So, some back-and-forth on page blanking, he started leaving comments but deleting screeds of text with it, claiming that everyone who'd reverted him was a sockpuppet... the usual stuff. I was about to go to bed and ask someone else to keep an eye on it.

But guess what? Jnb27 (talk · contribs) now pops up, does exactly the same sort of thing, and then decides to post a delightful set of stuff (including one weird attack on me)... a user dormant since December, and named in the original alert by DrBob. How... something. Would a Checkuser request be amiss here? It's nothing beyond a talk page spat as yet (god knows, I never touched it until this evening), but it does smell somewhat off. (Later: There's now screeds claiming this "harassment" (proven by "discussion" of our "obvious personal agenda" is part of some conspiracy to be nasty to the author... dear goodness, this is the last time I try to be helpful in reverting vandalism.) Shimgray | talk | 02:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I just pruned the article way way down. We'll see what happens. I suspect that the editors defending the article may be Stanek socks, and sock checks may soon be warranted. Zora 21:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm drafting a AFD for pretty much all the currently-existing Stanek-universe articles. After reflection, I really can't see what they actually contribute to the encyclopedia; we don't have this level of coverage on most actual fantasy bestsellers. But I'm sure it'll all prove my "personal agenda" in the end... Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruin Mist. Shimgray | talk | 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets attacking Bobby1011

We have multiple sockpuppets of one person here, attacking Bobby1011's userpage with inappropriate pictures. (see [86].)I don't exactly know where to put this, so I guess this goes here. Thank you. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've sprotected; if it doesn't get unprotected within 24 hours, have him leave me a note and I'll go undo it. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Essjay. Appreciate it =). -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Sanoker14

I thought I should report I have blocked this user indefinitely for 24 hours under the disruption portion of the blocking policy; deliberately misleading edits by impersonating an administrator, and using excessive personal attacks by altering a photograph to make said admin resemble Adolf Hitler. As the policy doesn't subscribe a length for blocking and states such blocks may be controversial, please amend what I've done if I've erred in any way. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've looked at this user's edit history (link), and I do not see the attacks and alteration of which you speak - can you show me some diffs? BDAbramson T 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User uploaded photo of admin and claimed to be him here [87] and the photo was altered to resemble Hitler here [88] CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, not to be nitpicky, but the second one is not a diff--I take it the photo was deleted? Even so, an indefinite block is harsh. We usually start with 24 hours, and see how they behave when they get back from that. BDAbramson T 05:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The first diff shows that Alex756 edited the picture to remove the Hitler stuff. I'll reduce the block. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, ok, I understand the sequence now. Juvenile behavior, but a reduced block should suffice. Good work on this. BDAbramson T 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:71.141.107.144

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

He also used 71.140.39.89 (talk · contribs) for the same purpose. I only banned it for a day (didn't read this page first...) but it can be extended as needed. - Nunh-huh 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

looks like we got another USer:68.122.73.143.Geni 18:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And probably 69.124.142.231 (talk · contribs). User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PatentAtty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry Reid

User:Danny has protected the Harry Reid article, apparently at the direction of Jimbo. Neither will discuss the reasons why, nor how long the protection is to last. Is secrecy and "Because I say so" the way to run a Wiki? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny handles the incoming business to the Foundation; I have no clue about the reasons in this given instance, but generally when Danny does something like this, it is because there are very serious consquences (i.e., legal action) that will result if the action is not taken. I've seen him do enough of this to know that when he says "I can't talk about it" he is serious. In general, we like to have open and transparent discussions about these issues, but if there are serious legal issues involved (which would be my guess, probably libel), then open and transparent discussion may not be an option. I say we trust Jimbo and the Foundation (for whom Danny works) to know when Wikipedia needs to be protected, and to do it. If you're really, really concerned, contact Brad Patrick, the Foundation's attorney, and ask him; if there is legal trouble afoot, he'll know about it, and be able to say "We aren't able to comment at this time." Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple statement of "legal issues" or "legal complaint" would be sufficient. --Carnildo 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what Danny could too is email the admin who is questioning the action a brief, brief comment about what is going on, along the same lines that Carnildo just used. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For your information, a note left by Jimbo on Talk:Harry Reid#Protection [89]

Please relax, ok? Temporary protection to work on a problem is not intended to shortcut or remove the normal processes. Danny has been travelling and there has been no time just yet to have a big discussion about this. Geez, the level of paranoia in this discussion is really disappointing to me. Have you no respect at all? --Jimbo Wales 00:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Danny and whoever else is involved in this WP:OFFICE thing fashion an standard explainatory template to post on talk pages. That will likely satistfy most people where a cryptic "Can't talk about it, maybe I'll say something later" clearly won't. Gamaliel 07:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And now the request for unprotection has been arbitrarily removed from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, agian without explanation. I think everyone deserves some explanation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina Vandal

It looks like User:Elitist as well as User:Eddy beerdrinks are sockpuppets of the South Carolina vandal. Eddy has been blocked, I believe, but Elitist hasn't been yet, even though he's moved pages to ridiculous names. Makemi 06:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Elitist. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Question, what is the difference between the NC Vandal and the SC Vandal? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, I'm from the north and I have this problem where in my head North Carolina and South Carolina are the same. I'm working on it. I've recognized my problem and I think I might be at step 2 by now. Makemi 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not blame you, I used to live in both NC and SC, and I sometimes got them confused. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I used NC/SC vandal as my summary, since I wasn't sure of the difference either. ;-) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a South Carolina vandal now? lol...Maybe we should consider updating Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/North Carolina vandal then if it is warranted. --HappyCamper 17:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! and Scottish counties

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

Page movings

As can be seen here: [90] the Morayshire article was unilaterally moved to "Moray (county)" with no discussion, and then the redirect page was deliberately edited to prevent anyone easily moving it back. The same user tried to move the page in the past but it was quickly moved back. This time though requires sysop intervention due to the underhand tactics employed.

Revert wars

[91] and [92]

Category deletions

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

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

With Moray (county), I'm not sure about )Na h-Eileanan Siar redirects to Western Isles and other Scottish counties use their Anglified names). But you were edit warring, and it was a violation of 3RR. Sceptre ^(Talk) 10:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, all the Scottish county articles used the anglified names until Mais oui! decided to unilaterally move Morayshire with no discussion and then edit the redirect page so that it couldn't easily be moved back! Surely the policy on the English-language wikipedia is to use "anglified" names for articles? I have no problem with the other name, but the redirect should be the other way around with Morayshire being the real article name. Owain (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot

This bot is currently going through every article replacing a star-rating image (almost universally used for the review section of album articles) with a text version. The justification for this rests wholly on a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Stars_to_text — a discussion in which no attempt was made to ascertain consensus even among thos concerned, much less among editors more generally, and in which those editors who (most properly) suggested that at the very least the bot should give an explanatory edit summary, and that preferable wider consultation should be made, were simply ignored without comment.

I personally would oppose the changes, and I suspect that many other editors would too — but we weren't given the option. Is it acceptable to block the bot (which is chugging away at an alarming rate) until proper consensus has been reached, or would that be against either policy or accepted practice? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be far easier, and less painful for all involved, to just put a message on the bot's talk page, which will stop the bot, and then discuss with Tawker, who is online (as the bot is running). Given that he's in IRC at the moment, I'll ask him to pause it and come here to discuss. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, it is within policy to block unsanctioned bots, or indeed any bot that seems to be acting outside accepted practice. I believe making mass edits without consensus would fall into that category. (I'm not suggesting any impropriety in the instant matter, simply clarifying on the policy-question part of the original request.) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

After noticing the reverts I have bot is now stopped pending a request for comments. I did not recieve any notification of the stop request via talk pages (either the bots or my own). A friend told me this was on the request and needed doing, thats why I had tawkerbot start replacing seeing no objections on the Bot requests page. I was also told that some 3/4 of the albumbs were already converted (they used templates in lieu of images) This request was also on Wikipedia:Bot requests for a good 13 days prior to the start of the run, however, I had no feelings either way, I simply started a task that was requested User:Water_Bottle posted the image changes that needed doing. As for the "alarming rate" - the bot was running per WP:BOTS at a 30 second interval between changes. If anyone has a better forum to discuss the changes, please let me know (on my talk page) Tawker 14:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have little experience with bots, so I apologise if I could have acted more directly. I should also say that I wasn't criticising Tawker, but the process that led to the bot being requested. Wikipedia:Bot requests wasn't on my Watchlist (and I suspect that I'm in the vast majority on this). As this is the only use of the images involved (so far as I'm aware), would IfDs on them have been a better way to attract the attention of the many editors involved? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a post under the village pump, there have been a few more responses there, I don't know if the images should go to ifd, that seems a little harsh but we do need an open discussion before anything further happens. Tawker 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre reverts on Inman, South Carolina, preventing removal of apparent slander

An anon (65.1.154.41) has been making a series of odd reverts on Inman, South Carolina, which seem to mainly involve inserting blank lines and moving the External links heading to the wrong place and then moving it back again. Fairly harmless. However, when I noticed that he was doing it I also noticed that the article contained an unsourced allegation that the town's mayor shot someone, so I removed it. But the anon has continued to revert, restoring the allegation in the process.

I've left a message on his talk page but he's continued unabated. He's broken 3RR, of course, but I'm absolutely stumped as how to write a report on WP:AN/3RR when most of the reverts are harmless. So I'd appreciate it if someone would either semi-protect the article or block the IP and remove the allegation - I'm already on 3 reverts. --Malthusian (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR or not, I think his edits are clearly disruptive - they're preventing you from making an entirely legitimate edit, and they don't seem to be contributing anything in return. You've done the right thing in trying to talk to them first before coming here. If the editor continues I think a short (maybe 20 mins) block under the disruption clause is in order, which will hopefully either make them stop or make them enter into a discussion. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removted it as uncited, but have a look on the talk page - someone left a note six months ago asking "Will someone include the part about Inman, SC where you can shoot someone and get elected mayor in the same year?". Nothing shows up on the web, other than anecdotes about the mayor evicting the Chamber of Commerce, but I wonder if there's an actual story involved. Still, until there's a citable source, kill it. Shimgray | talk | 15:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Look again :-). The message on the talk page was posted by the same person, User:Coheed41, who added the information a week later. [93] --Malthusian (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right - I'd thought the anon was only adding it now... Shimgray | talk | 15:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The information that the anon is adding is actually true. According to four articles in the Spartanburg Herald Journal, the current mayor of Inman, Carl Shults, shot a 13 year old in the face in 2000. The teen was throwing rocks at Shults's house and the shooting happened at 3:00 AM. Shults was not charged with any wrongdoing. -- JJay 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any idea which? I searched the SHJ's web site, including the archives, and found nothing. --Malthusian (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles published by SHJ on September 11, 2000 (Pg.A7), 9/12/2000 (A1), 9/13/2000 (C1), and 9/14/2000 (A1), and letter to the editor on September 17, 2000 (A10). These were all found via the Newsbank database service. -- JJay 17:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the paragraph back in, with a quick style edit, but not being able to see the articles myself it could be better written and referenced. --Malthusian (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to put in the exact references later. I can also forward some of the articles to anyone who contacts me by email. -- JJay 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems and stubborness on 1992 Phish Tour

This page appears to be a copyright violation from [94], yet the writers of that page keep on removing the copyright tag, claiming that it shouldn't be there. What should be done? --TML1988 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted and left a message on the talk page. I'll keep my eye on it. Chick Bowen 17:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio material (set lists for every date on the tour). Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism against User talk:Nescio

(What I believe to be) a single anon user, using multiple IPs, has been attacking User talk:Nescio with personal attacks. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nescio&action=history.) I've blocked both of the IPs, but given the geographical distances between them (one (193.95.80.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is in Tunisia and one (202.164.166.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is in the Philippines), I am suspecting that both are open proxies. Can/should I go ahead and block both indefinitely as open proxies? --Nlu (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Google them; if the results turn up lists of proxies, nail them. Don't forget to tag with {{blockedproxy}}. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Meanwhile, one more has shown up (150.38.50.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), in Japan. --Nlu (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two are, and I'm going to block both indefinitely. The last one is unclear, but I think I'll do so anyway. --Nlu (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User Box deletion

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

Try WP:RFC, since what you are describing is more of a possibly mis-use of administrator powers, and only admins can delete stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 19:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just some stupid userboxes. Go write some articles or something. android79 22:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV.Geni 23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The template was twice tagged for speedy deletion (T1 criteria) yesterday; first by Doc glasgow and then by Dbiv. It was actually deleted by Physchim62. I don't see anything unusual here; stuff gets speedy deleted all the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What templates were they? I looked at some of the templates that are on DRV, and I could see why they got speedied. IMHO, if we cannot keep templates that say I support/dislike GWB, then similar templates refering to a different leader, like Blair, Chavez, Putin, etc, should also not be kept in order to be fair and to be consistant. Though, the wording of T1 of the CSD sounds pretty odd. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

At the moment we have a serious problem with T1. It is being used as a battering ram by those who dislike userboxes with a passion to speedy delete too many things. The problem with T1 is not particularly the concept it represents. There are userboxes that are divisive and need to go. However T1 is written in such a way that it is broad in extent, vague in application and open to many different interpretations. Until those are fixed I don't believe that it should be a valid speedy deletion criterion. David Newton 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

Below is a email conversation between me and User:KDRGibby regarding his blocking by User:Jpgordon. I'm on an important deadline and don't have time to look into things. Please help me out. :) Of course, this has been posted with User:KDRGibby's consent. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby: can you please unprotect my user page. There is nothing present on the page that can be deleted that constitutes vandalism. For example, there are no warnings or no sockpuppet tags that can be deleted. Thank you.

Me: You seem to have been blocked for personal attacks. Your userpages have apparently been blocked for continuing with your attacks there.

If you disagree, you should take it up with Jpgordon and show some good faith, for example by offering to remove the "list of wiki bullies".

KDRGibby: No he blocked my user page because he considered the changing of the section title on the issue of personal attacks to "Generalized making fun of other peoples intelligence" which I felt was a more appropriate topic. My edit tagline merely stated that the editor I was in dispute with was either a jerk or an idiot for deleting cited material on the grounds that it was blog material...when in fact none of it was blog material but news sources, articles, columns, and research from a research institute,and historical material from hnn and florida international.

Please unblock my user page. There is no legal reason it should be blocked. I am not removing any warning, or sockpuppet tags, as there are no warnings or sockpuppet tags in place! I'm just asking that wiki rules be followed...actually followed by the admins, not applied when they want how they want.

Due to KDRGibby's arbcom decision (KDRGibby is now on probation and personal attack parole), JPGordon decided to give KDRGibby a "clean slate". JPGordon has already unblocked KDRGibby and unprotected his user talk page, so no further administrative action is required. I'm a party to his arbitration case, and I agree that he should be given another chance. However he should realize that continued personal attacks will result in a long-term ban from Wikipedia, so I urge him to exercise restraint in dealing with other users. Rhobite 21:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby would do well to take the time to absorb Wikipedia:Civility. Rd232 ^talk 21:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

71.106.141.207 / Madchester

An anonymous user has asked for review of his block (31 hours for "repeated vandalism, POV violation w. warnings") on an article talk page. I'm just posting it here for others to check out. -- Jonel | Speak 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Block log: [95]
• 71.106.141.207 (talk · contribs)
• Madchester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Talk:2006 Winter Olympics#The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings
• Talk:2006 Winter Olympics#Please someone HELP I was unfairly BLOCKED!!!

Seems to me that he pretty clearly violates the spirit of WP:3RR if not the letter. He took out the text International Olympic Committee from the same sentence four times in about 14 hours; in some of those edits he also added other text and in some he did not, but they are substantively reversions. His compromise here seems reasonable, but he'd already surpassed 3RR by then and should have been blocked. Let him wait it out and edit more civilly when he comes back. Chick Bowen 05:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

IP: 24.233.53.70

This user has repeatedly vandalized pages, including Bloods, Tom Cruise, and Stanley Williams. [[96]]

• WP:AIV, thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 09:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User:RunawayToKelly

RunawayToKelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), GNAA. Wyss 07:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Classic troll,[97] now blocked. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Jonathon(L)Kelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Seems related, needs cleaning up after. android79 09:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly no newbie, judging by his knowledge of pipe markup for tables (aquired since 08:05 (UTC) this morning). Physchim62 (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as a troll. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

IP: 84.35.72.183

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

I agree, that was link spamming, I have reverted all parrot articles and left a note on their talk page. Tawker 08:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

:) <-Mahomet Lapinmies 18:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye

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

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

Infinity0 ^talk 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Volt987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The others had already been indefinitely blocked. Chick Bowen 19:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

He is known for using open proxies for his block evasions. Perhaps doing a checkuser on these usernames and blocking any open proxies found would be a good idea. --cesarb 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet? (Just a hunch)

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

User:24.92.21.253 adding personal attack sites to bio page

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

Sam Spade's RfA

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

Agree completely with Zoe, that was never a personal attack. I'll not be the one to block anybody to escalate this conflict, but I'd like to record my view that removing that comment, out of all the things said on Sam's RFA, was just weird. And I ask everybody to please not remove even real personal attacks, if remove them you must, in that invisible way. Other people have a right to know something was there, so please replace it by a <personal attack removed> plus a link to the original, so people can click to judge for themselves if they want. Please. Bishonen | 美少年 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Personally, I think nobody should comment on any vote in an RfA. If you have a comment about a vote, make it on the RfA talk subpage or to the voter directly on his/her user talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Help Desk mailing list

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

Look on the bright side no longer will we have to wake up to inboxes with 100 emails in and I wont suddenly find myself trying to comunicate with uk.wikipedia.Geni 00:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And there I was for a fleeting instant hoping that ukwiki meant a Wiki written in Proper English. Oh well. -Splash^talk 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Uir

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

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

Liberty Dollar

User:BrianGCrawfordMA is engaging in major POV-pushing on this article ([98]), which he has also nominated for deletion. He claims he desires to "hurt this article as much as it has hurt [him]". Kurt Weber 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators can delete pages, merge histories, block users, and protect pages. Which of these are you asking us to do, uand under which policy? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now, nothing. Just giving a heads-up to potential trouble brewing. I'm trying to settle the dispute diplomatically, but if that fails (and, unfortunately, I can't help but think it will fail), protection might be in order. It hasn't turned into anything yet, but it's certainly likely to. Kurt Weber 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and not this page, to request page protection. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Spamming and vandalism after block

Boycottthecaf is back and link spamming after being blocked for 30 days after I reported this [99] and he got a block User talk:Boycottthecaf but has come back on Degrassi: The Next Generation under the IP User talk:207.200.116.139 and is continuing to spam his link for his website (that is not appropriate) [100] SirGrant 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll let a Meta admin know so that site can go on the blacklist. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

K thanks, just curious what happens if a site goes on the blacklist, I'm semi-new to wikipedia so I don't know all the terms, thanks SirGrant 02:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Any edit containing that URL will be rejected on any Wikimedia wiki. —bbatsell ¿? 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich Socks

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

He does seem to be a growing problem: here is the latest: JLATLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think a lot of us weren't aware of this person until very recently, but now he's showing up a lot when I RC patrol. Antandrus (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. He's been at this a long time. And now he's at it again. Persistant little bugger. --DanielCD 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned so I will. There is an active arbitration case against Jason and people are welcome to give evidence. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

jiang and nlu not capable of being admins

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

Can you give specific examples? Chick Bowen 05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• WP:RFC is the correct place you should head for. - Mailer Diablo 05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

He's continued. I'm going to block again. --Nlu (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Supported. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:41 UTC (2006-02-20) 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Dtasripin and civility

User:Dtasripin, at least from my view, has continued to use uncivil and needlessly uncivil language ([101], [102], [103], [104], [105]) despite being advised against this by myself and others, and previously being blocked for personal attacks by Demi. It might be helpful if someone who wasn't involved in the userbox issue at all have a word with him, as he seems to reject any advice, regardless of the spirit in which it is given, from people who disagree with him. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Parham, you're a real piece of work. I call admins out on what they have objectively done which is act as rogues against consensus and established precedent, who are acting in an inflammatory and divisive way - and you think that's a personal attack? Sorry, but if people can't take criticism, then they should not take actions they know will incite criticism.

But perhaps I should not expect anything like justice from someone who has continuously harassed me for simply stating my opinion where it is has been solicited. --Daniel 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He's done nothing wrong. He is right about userboxes, too. Эйрон Кинни 09:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think userboxes have anything to do with the issue at hand here. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree; it has nothing to do with the userboxes at all, it is the way he treated other Wikipedians in the above edits. He already has been warned before about such behavior, and he should at least done down the language. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you're looking the other way at the fact that somehow these warnings just so happen to always come from people who have a vested interest in having me silenced so they can get away with taking some action without being taken into account. Just because the threat in these people's "Shut up, or else!" vandalism of my Talk Page happens to be an admin's block instead of a back alley kneecapping doesn't make it any less an attempt to shut me up for speaking my mind. --Daniel 19:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is trying to "silence" you. All I'm trying to do is get you to be polite and civil. That's really not a lot to ask. As I told you in the warning that you deleted from your talk page, you are welcome to express your opinion, but there is no need to be rude.--Alhutch 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You should tell your friend Mark Sweep that there is no need to be rude, and maybe he should stop mass deleting userboxes in an attempt to "win" the userbox argument by a fait accompli. --Daniel 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir, calm down, relax, and take a nice, deep breath. You can still oppose the deletion of the userboxes but, as below, try not to use words like "racist" and attack other editors. No one is trying to silence you, we all just want you to just be civil. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do people think I'm not calm? I'm as cool as a cucumber on this issue, given that I have been subject to continuous harassment by people for simply sharing my own honest opinion. And yes, that honest opinion is that a lot of the userbox deletionists are using messed up, racist arguments. --Daniel 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This and this are clearly out of line. I would push for a block for CIVIL/NPA violation. Physchim62 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • No Psych, with your sheer willingness to destroy userboxes in one fell swoop, without any process, you're out of order. Proof of that is the sheer number of people in the WP:DRV userbox debates, who are calling for you to be disciplined. --Daniel 18:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That does not give you the right to call other users "racist" simply for proposing a userbox for deletion, nor to suggest that they "crawled out of the woodwork". Physchim62 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't block for CIV/NPA violations.Geni 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

this is from the Disruption section of the blocking policy: "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked." He's been warned many times.--Alhutch 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

However wikipedia appears to be functioning fine so I don't see an issue.Geni 23:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• And I have done none of the above, 'hutch, and you should know that by now. None of my comments went outside the matter at hand. Criticism is not personal attack, and if you take it that way then you shouldn't be on a place that prides itself on "editing without mercy."

I live in the Bronx - if I wanted to make a personal attack, I would definitely not stop at saying that you acted like a honcho. As for the rest of that garbage - so save your broad paint brush for a fence.

As for the warnings, I'll say for the record that I have never received one from a disinterested, neutral party. It has almost always come from some person who had their own personal axe to grind. They leave threats that if I don't stop criticising them that I will be blocked. Those threats have been deleted as quickly as I have been able to, because I don't need to listen to whining, and I definitely don't stand for being threatened or bullied for simply having an opinion.

Now that that's aside, hutch, why don't you explain why you're really here - which is apparently payback for my participation in the RFC on your buddy Mark Sweep? --Daniel 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

i don't have any problem with you other than you repeatedly calling me and other admins "honcho". I asked you nicely several times not to do that, and then you went and did it again. I am not trying to get revenge on you, I'm not trying to silence you. I welcome you voicing your opinion. I think that it's important that you voice your opinion in a way that is not rude or incivil. I stood up for MarkSweep because I felt that he was being unnecessarily and wrongly accused, and I would do it again. If you were being wrongly accused of something, I would stand up for you too. The present matter has nothing to do with that. I am not holding a grudge against you. I am simply asking you to try not to be rude to other users, including calling people "honcho". That's all.--Alhutch 21:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm not advocating a block, either, I just want him to understand that requests for him to be more civil and assume good faith aren't merely coming from those who disagree with him in a specific debate in which he appears to have a lot invested. While I can accept that he doesn't want my particular guidance, he needs to hear the message and understand that civility is taken seriously. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So if you're not advocating any action be taken, perhaps it's because you can't prove a damned thing, and you're wasting my time (as well as others') for nothing other than an ego trip. This is the height of harassment, plain and simple, and now that you've brought it to the point where you are disrupting the functioning of the admin's noticeboard, I hope someone has the good sense to remind you not to waste all of our time with a WP:POINT. --Daniel 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I don't appreciate being accused of racism so glibly. An apology would be appreciated. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian schools can't control their kids

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

It would appear from the history there that the teachers need to supervise what their students are doing - that is part of their job. As there is obviously a lack of supervision, leave it blocked. I speak as a teacher who has dealt with minor vandalism from my school IP. If the teachers want to contribute then they must control their students, it's quite as simple as that. Vsmith 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you propose a teacher supervise the children in the other 49 schools that share their IP?

The students at all the affected schools should be supervised well enough that vandalism is nearly nonexistant. Yes, I realize that's a very naive position to take, but if students and teachers want unfettered access to Wikipedia editing, they need better controls in place, which should probably include a more sensible network proxy scheme, but I digress. android79 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We usually try to keep blocks on shared IP's like that as short as possible. But I'm getting tired myself of all the school vandalism and won't object at all if the block stays for a week. At least that should help in making all the teachers they claim are editing aware of the problem. Though, if the blocking admin starts geting mails from good users now being blocked I would reconsider and unblock, and put a note about it on the talk page. Shanes 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reduce the block to end at the end of the school day, and keep blocking if vandalism continues, but keep the blocks short. android79 16:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is the most sensible course of action. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. The amount of vandalism we get from this IP isn't anything we can't handle. Not to mention the fact that it is localized to this IP will make monitoring easier. -Loren 22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are supposed to keep shared blocks short but if vandalism from this IP continues endlessly then ban until 15 July, 2006 which will take care of any vandalism from that IP for the rest of the school year. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I don't see a need for people to edit during school time. If kids need to research, they can research. I tend to just block schools first and see if any good users actually complain later (if they do, then unblock). Sasquatch t|c 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sasquatch. If there are legitimate users, they can request unblocks, and we always grant them if they are requested. --Nlu (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Like bugzilla:3706? --cesarb 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This IP is very likely one of many sockpuppets of User:Repartee. There is a request for checkuser for them. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 19:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalism from User:66.99.190.2

A little help, please? [106] ... aa:talk 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Chadbryant

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

User:PyterTaravitch was a troll account created by an unknown user. Evidence I cited in this edit [107] showed why I believed that the account was a sockpuppet of Chadbryant. Chad would go onto blank the page [108] and then add in his own accusations about whose sockpuppet the account was [109]. Peruvianllama then came along and posted a compromised version [110] which stayed in place for a whole 9 days before Chadbryant deleted the part that was against him [111].

Rather than get into a whole new edit war with Chadbryant, on User talk:Peruvianllama#Chadbryant's return I tried to bring the matter to Peruvianllama's attention, and in the middle of that Chadbryant showed up and threw out a personal attack [112]. He also made a personal attack against another user, User:TruthCrusader, on this page [113]. This isn't the first time Chadbryant has acted like this. His contributions showcase dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of personal attacks and trolling tactics.

Also, Chadbryant has been calling User:TruthCrusader by a name which he believes is TruthCrusader's. The name he is calling him is Stephen Signorelli [114] [115] [116]. TruthCrusader has said that Stephen Signorelli is not his name and has asked Chadbryant to stop calling him by that name. Chadbryant has refused and still persists in doing so. This violates WP:HAR, which states, ""Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." Whether the name is correct or not is irrelevant, according to the policy.

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

To add to the above, the discussion on User talk:Peruvianllama was moving along and Chadbryant just resorted to making more personal attacks [117]. He attacked me for what I chose as my username and insulted my credibility as a person worthy enough to debate him. He claims that he's here to contribute in a positive manner, but then he goes and personally attacks people and tries to discredit their views and attempt to make them look inferior. My response to him on Peruvianllama's talk page was civil and non hostile. He proceeded to reply and break the WP:CIVIL policy, among others. He then resorts to a common troll tactic of saying I'm obsessed with him and are harassing him for pointing out why I disagree with his views. tv316 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Chadbryant himself has been the target of a relentless campaign of personal attacks from various sockpuppets over many months. It has been suggested to you many, many times that you take your various issues to dispute resolution including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration instead of carrying on feuding like some over-the-top wrestling storyline played out on the pages of Wikipedia. -- Curps 09:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to take the attitude that a serious case of harrassment is no more important than some wrestling storyline. Noted. I am trying to avoid arbitration for several reasons. I wish to try and settle this maturely (which Chad doesn't seem capable of), I do not wish to open up Wiki to more sockpuppet attacks from Chad detractors/supporters, and to be honest I sincerely doubt that Mr. Bryant would agree to arbitration in any event.

TruthCrusader 16:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it really Arbitration Committee material if it's just a bunch of blatant personal attacks and revert wars for obvious reasons? I have never targeted and stalked Chadbryant relentlessly with sockpuppets or personal attacks, yet he feels the need to continually make personal attacks against me for of all things, my username. Also, whenever I make a point in the argument, he changes the subject and finds a new way to insult me. I was never a part of his newsgroup war and my first encounter with him was on the WWE Undisputed Championship page. There's a small part of me that would understand the attacks against people who may have trolled against him in the past, but I never have. Just because I had an content dispute with him, I guess he had some sort of flashback and viewed me as a new troll just because I didn't agree with him. That type of behaviour should not be allowed. If Sean and John don't like each other and John sprays Sean with a water gun, can Sean then go to the mall and spray random people with a water gun just because he once was a victim of a water gun attack? It's absurd.

Also, I'm not trying to have some sort of wrestling feud with Chadbryant. I'm trying to help with this project and false information about whose sock it is takes away from it. I admit that there's a small chance that the User:PyterTaravitch sock isn't Chad's, but we don't know if it's Chad's, Truth's, Cain's, mine, yours, etc. Evidence points to Chad and his evidence points to Cain. We should leave it with both. So, when he goes and changes it, I have to go in and find a way to stop him from spreading falsehood.

I thought Arbitration Committee was just for the top of the top of disputes. I don't know if this qualifies. This seems like an Admin Noticeboard 'Post it as it happens' incident. tv316 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:-Inanna-

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

Now using 81.213.101.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Khoikhoi 22:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Now I really do have to go, though. Best of luck! Chick Bowen 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Khoikhoi 22:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Calmouk

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

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

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

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

WP:Servers

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

• Somewhat the part & parcel of Wikipedia, I afraid. - Mailer Diablo 05:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Marcosantezana

marcosantezana (talk · contribs) was brought to my attention for violating the 3RR. Given the circumstance I chose to warn him. He responded to my warning with an impolite reply where he asserted entitlement based on his correctness. I also noticed an incivil statement on Talk:Natural selection. I explained the 3rr again and asked him to remain civil [118]. His response was interesting, he left a rude remark on my talk page, although he also removed the rude comment from Talk:Natural selection. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. Advice is most welcome. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Yet another wiki cheese-ology vandal

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

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

Bobby1011 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Indef blocked. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Vowch

Another wiki cheese vandal.

-- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Dead. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Striver

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

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

User:Ology

The wiki cheese guy again. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep

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

• Have several non-userbox closures on DRV, with colorable claims of violation of proceedure;
• Quarrel vehemently on his talk page;
• Start a systematic program to change the wording of the Project Babel userbozes, without any consultation I can find;
• Repeatedly empty ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents, which has been on CfD for six days and will presumably be closed soon. His latest effort is justified by because the inclusion of this category is silly, regardless of the CfD.

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

Part of me applauds him for getting rid of so much BS. On the other hand...his attitude as of late has gone down, such as indirectly attacking God of War because of his essay (which was kind of trollish though). The "last warning" message were not helpful either. He likely needs a short wiki-break.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, back up there, and back up your claims: several closures on DRV? I can see one, not very recent (February 4), I don't even know why it's still listed. I don't see why I can't "quarrel" on my talk page. Have you seen what people have posted there lately? [119] Where did I systematically change Babel boxes??? I like the regular Babel boxes, they're very useful. However, some of them (no more than a dozen) have crossed over into the realm of the polemical, adopting an ill-informed and condescending stance towards various dialects. Those need to be changed. And regarding ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents, if you check the history of those articles, you'll see that I'm not the only one who thinks they shouldn't be so categorized. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Someone, using MarkSweep's account, performed this alteration, cramming in an English translation into the userbox; this was the latest of a couple dozen edits in a row, all of which seem to be making the same change. I see no evidence of discussion of such a proposal anywhere, including the talk page of the templates.
• Emptying a category on CfD is improper; any admin should know better. Some users have been removing from one or the other of the articles in the cat; only MarkSweep has been systematically emptying it AFAICS.
• I believe that checking the logs will turn up some other DRV of closures by Mark.

But I am not seeking retribution for what he has done; will he not do it in the future? Septentrionalis 20:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That "someone" was me, and if you had checked the diffs [120] you would have noticed that nothing was changed on the surface. All I did was subst a few doubly-indirected templates. Where did you get the idea that trivial changes like this need to be discussed first? Second, the category is silly, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Third, "I believe that checking the logs will turn up [something]" is passive-aggressive nonsense. Tell me specifically what you think is amiss, don't make any hand-wavy accusations. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:KDRGibby

This user was the subject of a recently closed arbitration case [121], in which he narrowly escaped a ban for disruptive and abusive behavior but was put on personal attack parole and probation. [122]

Just 3 days after being unblocked (he had been blocked for a week shortly before the close of the arbitration case, then unblocked early in order to be given a second - or 1567th - chance [123]), KDRGibby made this comment on Talk:Classical liberalism:

Like what? From our last conversation it seemed you tended to favor a host of centralization programs, social programs, and trade barriers that original liberals would have found to be anti-freedom and anti-individual. Please explain what a European liberal is like now? Because after talking with you it appears that European liberals don't hold on to the true meaning. Especially since you conflate minimal government interference with having a government that cannot punish cartels or break up monopolies (Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please). (Gibby 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)) [124]

[emphasis mine; "electionwood" refers to User:Electionworld]

I may be accused of pessimism, but I sincerely doubt that KDRGibby is about to reform in any way (he made no promises to reform; in fact he boycotted the arbitration case because it was "a total circus" [125]). As such, whenever I run into misbehavior by him (which has happened saddeningly often in the past, perhaps because our watchlists share many common articles), I will record it here.

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

Improper Admin Behavior

Greetings fellow WikiPedians,

In an effort to help improve WikiPedia I'd like make an informal complaint regarding admin Arminius and the following events.

According to a message posted by admin Arminius entitled "UGH" (04:39, 21 February 2006) (diff)

on admin User:InShaneee's talk page in response to two posts I made questioning about sockpuppetry

and User:InShaneee's warnings under the heading Flemming Rose 04:32, 21 February 2006 of User:69.248.237.88's talk page,

User:Arminius was editing as User:69.248.237.88 when he made the following edits:

• diff 1 03:13, 21 February 2006 followed by revert #1, revert #2, revert #3, revert #4, and revert #5
• diff 2 04:20, 21 February 2006
• diff 3 04:25, 21 February 2006

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

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

Thank you,

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

I'll block the IP address but I cannot see why you automatically think they are the same person? Anyways, Ip address is blocked for 3RR and uncivility. Sasquatch t|c 08:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Sasquatch but the block's already in place... I'm sure it would be simple enough to correlate Arminius' login IP address with 69.248.237.88 but if you follow what I've posted., it's already clear. Netscott 08:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if he unblocks then he shall be in deep trouble for block warring and unblocking himself when the IP clearly violated policy. Admins should not unblock themselves period. Sasquatch t|c 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry? Are you saying that the IP 69.248.237.88 was unblocked by Arminius? Netscott 08:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look here and you will find it has once. But we'll say. I've clearly stated that no one is to unblock in caps. If anyone does, report it on ANI again. Sasquatch t|c 08:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• BUSTED! You just MADE MY DAY!!! Thank you again Sasquatch! Netscott 08:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump to conclusions here. Again, InShaneee and I have both stated that we're not sure that they are the same person. Do not make assumptions as assumptions are dangerous. Sasquatch t|c 09:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I understand the hesitation of fellow admins ... but Arminius' unblocking of IP 69.248.237.88 counter to InShaneee's block is all the proof I need. Cheers again! Netscott 09:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• This previous noticeboard post about Arminius might be pertinent. Netscott 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Further RfA/Arminius of note. Netscott 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think perhaps at this juncture it would be good to give Netscott (and myself) some time to calm down as it is obvious from above that passions are quite inflamed. I also think this would be appropriate to add in order to give his version some balance[126]. Otherwise I would be happy to have some sort of dialogue at a later date but do not have time now for anything extensive at the moment. Thanks Arm 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Jobe6

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

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

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

Maybe someone should e-mail him and ask what's going on. moink 07:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Already have. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a prior known good e-mail address, or did you send e-mail through Wikipedia? If the account was hijacked it's a simple matter to hijack the e-mail set in the preferences too. -- Curps 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sent through Wikipedia; I really didn't expect a vandal to be bothered to change it. However, I'll go see if I don't have a good one, I'm sure I do somewhere. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I hate to bring it up, but he did start his Wikipedia career with some minor vandalism, and admitted as much in his failed RfAdm six months ago. Still, entirely out of character with pre-wikibreak editing patterns. Note also a couple of days ago there was ordinary (non-pagemove) vandalism on one page: [127] -- Curps 10:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That recent vandalism was after he "left." All sorts of things are possible with this user... it could be a legitimate account that has been hijacked, or a very sophisticated and patient attacker of Wikipedia, who was hoping to get admin rights and when that failed just started using it to vandalize. moink 11:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on the latest posting to his talk page, the account is still controlled by a vandal (himself or someone else). [128] -- Curps 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So, are we leaving him unblocked in the interest of Wikipedia safety? That seems to be the safest route to take at this path, though it is still possible that Jobe just decided not to contribute constructively anymore. I sure hope that's not the case. Bratsche^talk 04:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another interesting thing. A day before doing the page-move vandalism, he vandalized the Ed Crane article by replacing it with what seemed like gibberish. However, what he pasted into the article seemed to be someone's hi-scores on the MMORPG RuneScape. --Ixfd64 08:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Batman2005-Personal attack

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

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

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

I think saying that he had a "hard on for my talk page" is pushing the line. At least to me? Feel free to unblock if you think I'm overly harsh/sensitive. Sasquatch t|c 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I unblocked and left a warning. Sasquatch t|c 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Ryan Delaney understands that I had NO personal attacks on my talk page. Furthermore, the administrator who blocked me then started to lecture me on civility and how to be polite and play well with others. Batman2005 02:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser Permanente

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

This has not been addressed yet. Physchim62 has ignored my request on his talk page while replying to others. This reinforces my impression that admins collaborated to cheat the 3R rule. --Pansophia 06:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is page history showing FCY Travis reverting page twice before calling in Physchim62 to protect the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&action=history

--Pansophia 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The only "calling in" I see on User:Physchim62's talk page is by YOU, not by User:FCYTravis. This reinforces my impression that you're trying to do an end-run around collaboration to get your way in a content dispute. And the lack of response I see here reinforces my impression that no one else agrees with your interpretation. I also note no posts by you on the article talk page in the last 24 hours. Why not try discussing things there? --Calton | Talk 07:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How is *initiating* the talk doing an end-run around collaboration? If you look more closely at the bottom of the article Talk page, that's ME talking, and no one else talking to me. *I* initiated the discussion with an offer of collaboration before the page was protected, and *I* left the last two messages on the article talk page. As you point out, there's been no response since the page was protected. Thus I've "tried discussing". FCYTravis did the end run around collaboration by doing 2 reverts and then requesting the protection. --Pansophia 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ps. User:Physchim62 acknowledges that User:FCYTravis made the request on the Protection page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page :::--Pansophia 08:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How is *initiating* the talk doing an end-run around collaboration? Look at the top of this page: this is NOT the Kaiser Permanente talk page. This is the page to report incidents requiring administrator action, and your (mis)characterization of other editors's actions as "cheating" -- especially after the discussion you barely attempted on the talk page -- tells me that you're attempting an end-run around the messy step of actually having to discuss your edits. You're not "inititating" any talk, you're throwing around accusations -- and again, it appears no one in any official capacity is buying it. This is a content dispute: go to the Kaiser Permanente talk page and make an actual case if you want your edits included. As it says at the top:

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.

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

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

Removed the header shout-out because User:FCYTravis has unprotected page and is now particpating on the Talk page. --Pansophia 09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Bazelos

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

I'm kinda curious as to what made you think he was a sock of Irate, without any contributions to go on. moink 10:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Shared IPs - David Gerard 11:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. moink 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Normalmouth

Moved here due to Admin request, from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Mais oui! 12:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Normalmouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted on their own Talk page to creating a sockpuppet account: Goatmix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are also waging a POV campaign against a political party: Plaid Cymru.--Mais oui! 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not in my judgment. Normalmouth is a newbie, there is no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. WP:BITE. David | Talk 10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I requested on User:Dbiv's Talk page that he restore this notice, due to the possibility of a conflict of interests in this case. Unfortunately he has clearly logged-off Wikipedia at the moment, so I have restored it, and request that another Admin review this case.--Mais oui! 12:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Goatmix has made a total of six edits, none more recent than the 20th of January. Two were to Plaid Cymru, and four to user talk pages to remove your sockpuppet notices (three of which are on IP pages - editing while not logged in does not necessarily constitute sockpuppetry, and is not blockable). User:Normalmouth says he's not going to use the other account again and is only going to edit while logged on [129], and David's comments to you are quite correct. Please read what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry actually has to say about sockpuppetry before you accuse people of it. Also, you're raising this a month after the event - why now? --ajn (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Several accounts indef blocked

Several accounts are blocked:

• User:GiantGonzella
• User:PinkDoofus
• User:Panjom

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

GiantGonzella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PinkDoofus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same individual. Other socks are Raul654, Shanel and Jack Remington on Tricycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Necro.polis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), G-mans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), K-BDG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Robust Physique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arthur Carrington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Bizkit moorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All from 70.48.248.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is a Sympatico address and very likely the DickyRobert vandal. Given their topical interests (Daniel Brandt, Criticism of Wikipedia, Wikipedia) I would tend to suspect that we're dealing with someone here responding to the "call for revolution" recently posted on Wikipedia Review.

Panjom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a one-off via a Korean IP that has no other edits (and in fact the entire /24 it's in has no other edits), which suggests a botnet or other proxy being used. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT by User:Striver

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

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

• See above section on the same issue. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of 71.35.54.72

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

User:Ultramarine

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

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

Pmanderson has so little substance that he does not even dare to try to report it as a proper 3RR violation but instead reports it here. His move of the contents to an article called Why Rummel is always right arguable violates Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. An administrator removed his speedy delete template and without voting himself replaced it with an ordinary delete template.Ultramarine 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Aecis acted after Ultramarine's attempt to simply suppress the CSD nomination. Nor was this a 3RR violation, quite. Septentrionalis 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) revised 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And would someone please explain to Ultramarine that WP:POINT does not cover every edit or move he happens to dislike? Septentrionalis 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the only time Septentrionalis have done this. He also moved the contents of "Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)" to Why other peace theories are wrong.Ultramarine 20:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Subaru Impreza WRX on Wheels

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

Nevermind, all cleaned up. Damned sleeper accounts. android79 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Remington and the Rattlesnakes is back. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He left? android79 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say I told you so, but... [130]. It was quite obvious (from other factors other than just the name) that this was a vandal sleeper account. -- Curps 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool cat violation of RfA terms

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

On re-examination I also note he has (on the same page in question) violated the part of the same remedy instructing him not to add new comments within existing sections, instead adding new end edits or creating new sections. A number of examples are in abundance if you visually scan Talk:Kawaii/Archive_1. It has been frustrating and confusing because he often does not distinguish which speaker he's responding to, and has problems on occasion making his point clearly. The Crow

Thanks for reporting this. I spoke online to Cool Cat and due to personal circumstances he will probably be online very little or not at all for a few days. He has read the warning on his talk page. Do not hesitate to contact me or report here again if he continues to make a nuisance of himself. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mentorship report

In my capacity as one of Cool Cat's three mentors, I advised The Crow to report here. I've placed a formal warning on Cool Cat's talk page, warning that I will ban him from editing the article and talk page if he persists in his antagonistic behavior and inappropriate edits on the talk page.

Overall, Cool Cat has responded well to the mentorship system set up late last year, and I am very satisfied with his progress and his many excellent contributions to Wikipedia. I have only banned him from editing a page once, for a week in early December, and since then things have been quiet and productive.

However, the community should provide input on this situation. I suggest that those able to spare the time, and willing to do so, monitor (as provided under the decision) and take action if necessary. Any such action would be subject to review by the three mentors, but we would not reverse actions without good reason and a formal justification here. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User recreating LGBT serial killers category

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

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

The user also posted on Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion

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

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

Homophobic post

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

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

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

Possibly libelous attacks on companies

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

I'll take a look at his contributions now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• I will block if he resubmits. Physchim62 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I've left a message on his talk page; all his edits appear to be reverted now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(He just re-added the information.) Don't block yet, if you see this. Let me try and talk to him first. (Just left him another message.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I'll leave it with you. :) Physchim62 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, he seems to have stopped after my last message. Check out the site he links to though: Quad/Watch has done the public service of adding paragraphs of hard truth to both the Quad/Graphics and Time Magazine sections of the fast-growing wikipedia online encylopedia. The public has a right to know. You can find the wikipedia global encyclopedia at www.wikipedia.com. Links to the quad/watch site have also been added. Maybe the corporate chiefs of Time Inc. have a few questions to ask the Quad/Graphics leadership? Ugh. The site definitely doesn't qualify as a reputable source. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like that site is actually boasting about spamming its link and POV onto Wikipedia. And they're too clueless to get our URL right; we're wikipedia.org, a noncommercial organization. *Dan T.* 01:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good justification for adding it to the spam blocklist if any Meta admins are watching! Physchim62 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Additions to the spam blacklist should be requested at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. --cesarb 01:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys for picking this up. I've got the pages on my watchlist, and will revert if necessary, but I could see myself hitting 3RR (I'm not clear that this is vandalism). -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 02:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Spotthatby210 and Charles Thun

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

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

SPUI blocked for probation violation

I have blocked User:SPUI for 24 hours for violation of his probation in disrupting WP:DRV. After Jimbo deleted Brian Peppers I closed the DRV debate. SPUI twice reverted me with a trolling edit summary [131], [132]. His Arbcom probation terms were:

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

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

Let's just take this block through to its end and see how he reacts. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this block whatsoever (certainly, when I voted for the measure, this is what I had in mind). If anything, Doc's block might be lenient. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's sub-optimal to block someone you're revert-warring with. I also wouldn't call SPUI's edit summaries trolling. But ban him from DRV for a while if you must. Would anyone mind if I lift the block and tell him to stick to roadcruft for what would have been the duration of it? I think he's got the idea now that you can block him for smaller issues than normally. Give me a shout in the next hour if you don't want him unblocked on those terms. Haukur 09:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead with this. Just reblock him if you feel that is more helpful, I won't redo anything. Haukur 11:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Doc, the edit warring constituted Doc's housekeeping on Wikipedia:Deletion review to remove a discussion that had been rendered moot by Jimbo's office action in declaring a controversial article deleted for one year. To be fair to SPUI, he is outraged by the idea that the boss of the website sometimes exercises control over content. He isn't alone in this, he's just more likely to go out on a limb. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Eat At Joes

User:Eat At Joes is the latest in a VERY long line of sockpuppets originated by Alex "DickWitham" Cain (see [133] for details). He is once again removing sockpuppet tags from his previous accounts' user pages, and vandalizing talk pages to remove comments left by other users. - Chadbryant 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* I DO so wish Mr. Bryant would stop engaging in such immature and childish behavior. I would ask that you see his contribution page for his recent antics; there is also an entry on him above this one, listed in the index of this page. I would also like to note that using someone's name on here (of which he has no basis, btw) is a violation of Wikipeida policy that Mr. Bryant continues to violate. He is doing exactly what he accuses me of, readding personal insults like "obese" and "a sicko" in describing other users after I have removed those comments. This is stupid; please ignore the idiot behind the curtain and move on with more important business, thank you. --Eat At Joes 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have acknowledged both your real name and your use of dozens of sockpuppets ([134]). Those in the know are not fooled. - Chadbryant 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No one has acknowledged anything. "Those in the know" refers only to yourself, <removed personal attack - User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)>. --Eat At Joes 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jackthompson (talk · contribs) is making legal threats

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

Thompson is, beyond doubt, a buffoon and an all-around weasel, notable mostly for behaving like a jackass in public places and spaces. But something ought to be done about the pages and subpages devoted to him, which seem to be larger than all the other Wikipedia pages on lawyers combined -- OK, that's a bit overstated, but more space than all of the current Supreme Court justices, combined, and we can throw in the Attorneys General of recent memory. Thompson may be the Paris Hilton of the legal world, but that's no excuse for the obsessive, almost day-by-day chronicling of his weird activities. At the rate the articles are growing, there'll be more coverage of this guy than of the Holocaust by midsummer. Monicasdude 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:Username as my guide, I issued the above user a {{usernameblock}}. My reasoning is that he chose a username and trying to make disruptive edits with that name, in a manner that I saw as discrediting Mr. Thompson. This person is welcome to come back to WP, but he/she should pick a new username that does not relate to Mr. Thompson and the user should also read out policies about legal threats, civility and anything else they could find useful. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 05:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Errr... the threat was from four days ago, and do you have any evidence that this user isn't Jack Thompson? Blocking seems premature. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking isn't premature. Issuing legal threats is grounds for an immediate block, no warning necessary. --Cyde Weys 06:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The block was not for a violation of NLT, it was a username violation that caused me to issue the username block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The page I cited above states that users should not pick names to people who are alive or who just died and trying to make disrupting edits in their name. Though the "threat" was made four days ago, then why was it brought up just brought up nearly an hour ago. I stand behind the username block I issued, but if the user picks a new name and does not vandalize again or cause problems again, I will not presure further action. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep on bringing up this four days ago thing as if there is some kind of a conspiracy. There's not. One hour ago was simply the first time anyone picked up on it and brought it to admins' attention. Just as someone who has committed burglary last year can still be tried and convicted, someone who has issued legal threats four days ago can still be punished. Surely the statute of limitations on issuing legal threats on Wikipedia is longer than four days? --Cyde Weys 06:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacoplane (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an admin; and he spoke on Jackthompson (talk · contribs)'s talk page. He was warned about making legal threats and has not responded as of yet. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So people who are famous have no business on Wikipedia? What total nonsense. I repeat my request again: do you have any evidence that this user is an imposter attempting to defame the real Jack Thompson? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The first edit done by this person at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Thompson&diff=prev&oldid=40142795 and he was saying that this is "my favorite Internet site" and that the information about Jack Thompson "him" was inaccurate, such as pointing out the dates of his birth are wrong. He also began to list a bunch of things "he done" relating to academic degrees and what he done to someone after a 60 Minutes interview relating to the video game situations that he is currently involved in. He, again, repeats the statement that information about him was wrong at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=40187027. He also tries to say at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=40194876 that "video game cretins spew" whatever on his article, and he could not do anything. He always signed as Jack Thompson, and I feel that what he done was disruptive. And, in accordance to the username policy, if a user has created a username that is similar to a public figure that is alive and makes disruptive edits in their name (such as this case), I and other any other admin can issue a username block and ask the blocked user to pick a new name and continue editing under that name. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But what if it really is Mr. Thompson? This guy has said and done numerous similarly-provocative things, on- and offline, for real, so it's plausible that this user is the real thing. Then again, it could be a hoax, too; he's got lots of enemies and anti-Thompson pranksters online. How does one prove this one way or the other? The issue of users here claiming to be notable people is a frequently-occurring one; we've had several alleged Hilary Duffs, for instance. *Dan T.* 15:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am checking my inbox to see if there is any communication that is trying to be made by the blocked user, but I got nothing yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 16:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

User disrupting & subtle vandalism

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

Evidence:

• the purpose of RFC is summarised [[135]] for this user
• after each further disruption, this user is requested three further times to stay on point [[136]], [[137]], [[138]]
• here in a fifth attempt at disruption and causing argument [[139]] he makes a false accusation and pretends he is the one asking for others to stick to the point, whereas that is not the case.

86.10.231.219 10:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to inquire how, precisely, adding to a talk page is vandalism of any sort? Disruption, perhaps, but certainly not intentional.

As for "false accusations of anti-semitic allegations", I'm curious what, precisely, "Here he accuses all jewish people who hold to religious customs of child abuse" is supposed to be other than an allegation of anti-semitism. (The location of said text is in that "summarization of the purpose of RfC", so I won't bother relinking it).

As for the claim that it's "not about Midgley's behaviour", I'm curious what [[140]] is supposed to have to do with the topic, then. Michael Ralston 07:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Firm action would be appreciated against this disruptive user Michael Ralston. He will not take the hint.

Despite repeated polite requests (evidence links above) to Michael Ralston to use user talk pages instead of an RfC Michael Ralston now insists on using the Admins noticeboard as well. Note the false allegation of anti-semitic remarks. The only person mentioning anti-semitism is Michael Ralston and it is clearly done to bait and start irrelevant arguments in the middle of an RfC instead of dealing with the main issues.

Further request for Admin action posted by User:86.10.231.219 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels

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

I also note there have been legal threats made. [141] --Martyman-(talk) 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Am reporting this IP to WP:AIV, has continued to blank and make legal threats. --Malthusian (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been more legal threats made [142]. --Martyman-(talk) 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

More Gastrich Socks, Please Block

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

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

Bradley Barlow attack page

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

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

Bedbug Spammer

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

Money money money fat fat fat

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

Briefs vandal

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

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

Chad Michael Murray

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

The personal info is gone. You can remove specific edits by deleting the page, then at Special:Undelete, checking the boxes only for the revisions you want to restore. (Notes: I accidentally had to do this twice, the first time I restored some older copyvio revisions by mistake. Check for older deleted revisions before you delete!) --bainer (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:JJstroker uploading problem images

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

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

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

Apparantly the user has also created copyright-infringing articles as well [143]. Jkelly 23:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now warned them on their talk page. If they continue to upload material that is incorrectly tagged or copyrighted text, they should be blocked from editing. --Martyman-(talk) 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like good-faith ignorance to me. Perhaps just kindly request that he stop uploading pictures until he finishes his law degree? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for block

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

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

Could someone block him/them please?!

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

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

User:Shane bellinger

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

Looking at his userpage and website, I'd guess he's not very old, and his intentions are good. I'll make some suggestions when I've woken up a bit more. --ajn (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted half a dozen of what looked to be his own drawings, and left what I hope will be interpreted as a friendly message on his talk page. There are a bunch of other images which are things like wavy flags and rainbow <hr/> subsitutes, and those are all flagged as having dubious copyright and will no doubt be deleted eventually. --ajn (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Janizary vote recruitment from userbox template

Janizary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently embarked on a vote-stacking campaign to astro-turf the DRV on Template:User fsm, which was speedily deleted as per Jimbo's statement against belief-oriented userboxes. Janizary used the "What links here" functionality from the fsm template to send our vote-stacking messages to the talk pages of people who still had the fsm userbox template transcluded. The use of the What links here functionality was one of the reasons proposed as to why template userboxes should be done away with. That one of the pro-userbox people is offering up such irrefutable evidence that What links here functionality can be and is abused is ironic in the extreme. The exact beginning text of the recruitment message was, "I'm calling out a posse." Clearly this is a plain attempt at disruption. Some sort of disciplinary action is necessary. Note that this campaign has already produced a clear majority of "Undelete" votes in the DRV process, yet I believe the end result should remain "Keep deleted", because we should not allow process to be disrupted in this kind of manor, and if we do allow the template to be kept it will just be used in future attempts at vote-stacking. Here is a full list of diffs of the campaign effort from Janizary: [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177]

The full text of the vote-stacking message was:

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

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

Cyde, I agree that it's tacky, but it happens a lot, and I don't think there's anything more to be done about it than scolding the user. I recently caught a user who is normally believed to be a "generally good user" doing the same thing in regards to an rfc. The user responded with "well, since I only contacted people who were involved with the disagreement it's different than vote stacking." Or words to that effect. While this is something of a social more here, it is only sporadically discouraged, and then only when somebody wants to prove that they are in the right because the other person couldn't possibly be (or why would they need to stack votes, right?). My 2c. ... aa:talk 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to be done but scold the user? This is the most damaging and disruptive thing to Wikipedia that I can possibly think of. Wikipedia is not a bunch of factions who identify themselves by userboxes and recruit each other in the dozens to astroturf any sort of decision they disagree with. In that way lies absolute madness. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you really need to slow your roll. I mean, Christ boy, the functionality of these user categories and userboxes can be done by other means, just by linking to an article you make yourself available on a list, which, if grepped through, can be used to collect all the users who are interested in the subject. Removing the boxes won't remove your paranoid fear of people rounding up people to modify articles, the userboxes and categories do make it much easier and entirely more pleasent for everyone involved. What I did was a specific targetted collecting of the people who were directly effected by this unjustified speedy delete of a userbox. Only the people who used it were informed of the attempt to undelete the template, since they were never given a chance to defend it, as they should have been. Janizary 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The key difference, Janizary, is that merely knowing someone is interested in an article doesn't allow you to try to POV push - because if there's a POV to push on that article, there's almost certainly an opposing one of some sort... and some of those watching the article are going to be of an opinion disagreeing with you. This does not apply to these userboxes that expressly take a stance. Michael Ralston 06:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User:AvengerRSPW

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

{{indefblockeduser}}. No evidence he was doing anything positive at all in the month he's been here. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Already returned as User:StephenSignorelli - can I request that someone look into what IP's this guy is coming from? $10 US says it's somewhere near the Czech Republic, which pretty much narrows it down as to who is behind it. - Chadbryant 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And his latest work is as User:PyterTaravitch. - Chadbryant 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Curps nailed 'em. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That he did - as well as another sock, User:Lord Of Darkness. Clearly the work of one particular individual who is *not* the infamous "DickWitham" troll. - Chadbryant 04:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased Mediator

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

• I'm well aware of your constant use of this resource to push your far left anti conservative viewpoints....so don't challenge me.--MONGO 03:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

You will need to ask this from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.--Cberlet 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is neither a mediator, nor assigned to the case as a deputy mediator. He should not be representing himself as the mediator assigned to the case; as of this moment, no mediator has been assigned to that case because it was just accepted yesterday.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to have done so. In the talk page from which Cberlet quoted, MONGO said, "I am also not here to mediate."[178] Chick Bowen 04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm just making it clear that he is not a mediator; I didn't intend my note to imply that he had or had not represented himself as one, and I apologize if it appeared to do so. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't, I was also just clarifying. Chick Bowen 04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I never did say I was a mediator. I have no interest in being a mediator. Show me where i stated I was a mediator...I simply contested that CBerlet wanted to use references from biased sources such as "antiwar.com" and that he appears to be stating that he wants to argue with talk page edits such as this--MONGO 04:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I didn't mean to imply that you had said that you were, I just wanted to clarify that you aren't, given that at least one participant thought you were. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My comment was to all concerned, not explicitly you. CBerlet made an erroneous assumption, but I assume good faith that he did so innocently.--MONGO 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents

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

This is not an encyclopedaic category, very obviously since it is overly-specific and would have only one member, and is an attack to boot. Thus the deletion makes sense, although I would've cited WP:IAR if I were him—the guideline that says if something is obvious, you don't have to slavishly adhere to process. But if you want to have the decision reviewed, the place for it is Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it goes to deletion review, here's what I'll say: the debate appears to have been improperly closed. The Keep arguments were not well-reasoned, and seem to in many cases be from meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets. The closing admin should have used discretion on these matters, and while it's understandable that he didn't, the consensus was clearly the one implemented by User:MarkSweep. -- SCZenz 04:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But the category went through Cfd with no consensus with several keep votes by regular users (User:Adrian and myslef spring to mind just off the cuff . . .). Actually, it had two members: Whittington AND Alexander Hamilton, which is EXACTLY why I think the category is useful!! Nevermind, I suppose this isn't really worth the fuss. I agree that perhaps a delete consensus was appropriate, even if no sock/meatpuppets were involved. - Jersyko·talk 05:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we just BJAODN it and go to bed? I admit getting a laugh out of it, but it's really not a serious category, nor is it likely to be useful. (Neat trivia, and perhaps something to be mentioned in the appropriate biographical articles—but not worthy of a category.) And I'll speedy myself any creation of or variation on Category:Standing Vice Presidents who have shot people or Category:Firearms used by standing Vice Presidents to shoot people. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The CfD was obviously closed incorrectly (I counted 70% support for deletion from registered users who had made at least 10 edits prior to voting). Instead of going through DRV with a predictable outcome and another CfD, etc., I decided to put it out of its misery quickly. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And he deleted it again; whatever happened to the principle "if it really needs to be done, someone else will do it"? Septentrionalis 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark, if there was no consensus to delete, why did you take it upon yourself to speedy it? ... aa:talk 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Because there was a clear consensus to delete. Even you yourself said that you don't like this category. It's a classic case of WP:SNOW. It doesn't even have to go through DRV. The outcome is predicatble: either it will be deleted by DRV; or it will be relisted, and there is a very good chance (>70%) that a second CfD will yield an outcome with >66% favoring deletion. And that's saying nothing about the inherent merits of this category, of which there are none. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Er.. I'm sorry? Where was the harm in the category existing for the duration of the DRV debate? Why not allow the (obviously more cool-headed) people who monitor that handle it? You don't get to decide issues before the community. You are not Jimbo Wales. You are not more important then me, Xoloz or any other editor here.

I think you're in desperate need of a wiki-break before you drive off anymore editors with your unilateral actions lately. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The DRV debate was unnecessary to begin with, per WP:SNOW. Just acknowledge, per discussion above, that the closing was done in error, and move on. The presence of the category is harmful because it will convey the idea that this and similar categories are welcome on Wikipedia. The community already had decided that this category should go. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Stop citing WP:SNOW, it is neither policy nor guideline. It is an essay, and not one endorsed by the community at large. And if you want to bring up meaningless essays, go read WP:PI before you drive off any more editors over your unilaterism. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, there was more than sufficient consensus for deletion. Enough so that the outcome of DRV and any future CfD would have been predictable. There is no need to go through all these steps. I had indeed considered bringing this to DRV myself, but it occurred to me that the net result would have been the same. WP:SNOW is a convenient way to refer you to a more detailed explanation of what I've just said. Second, if Xoloz (talk · contribs) thinks he needs a break, that's entirely up to him. The fact that he has continued to edit after blanking his talk page suggests that he has more to say. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's predictable, then you should have allowed the process to complete rather than simply assuming for the rest of us how it would have turned out. It is not your place to decide things for the community. And my reference to WP:SNOW before was the fact that you're citing it like it's some kind of policy in your administrative actions; it is not an excuse to ignore process. The community did not spend time voting on policies and discussing guidelines to have you come along and decide you have a better way. Use your sysop bit with care. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The community has already decided. Have you read the CfD discussion? It's really quite simple; ask yourself 3 questions: What is the community consensus? What is good for Wikipedia? What is the common sense thing to do? In this case, it's the same answer to all 3 questions: delete the category and move on. In such a situation, let's not waste everyone's time. Every subsequent debate will see fewer participants and it will be corrspondingly harder to gauge consensus. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of taking it upon one's self. There are some core policies that cannot be voted away, however many people stack up and scream "CONSENSUS!" We cannot vote away our neutral point-of-view, we cannot vote away our anti-copyvio policy, and we cannot vote away our status as an encyclopaedia. Now, I'm not saying that this is what actually occurred here, but — in theory, in theory! — if "consensus" is that we no longer need to pay attention to what is and is not encyclopaedic, then admins have a responsibility to ignore that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If the category survives deletion, how many articles would it hold? Any less than say 6, at mimimum, is a waste and speaks for itself that the category creation isn't warranted. Are there six (to use my own example) such article candidates ready for inclusion? If so, does anyone care actually care and want these articles categorised in this way? Will this lead on to further bizarreness, such as Category:People who've never watched Sesame Street. Ignore obvious trolls. Voting and unvoting about obvious trash contributions isn't helping to progress anyone's encyclopedia. -- Longhair 09:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Recreated

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

User:Happyjoe

This user has been removing evidence and reformatting this page ridiculously for the past 2 hours. Example here:[179] where I did not remove content, but fixed format and linked to specific sections. Example here:[180] of evidence removal. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Happyjoe pschemp | talk 05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Nestore

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

Please review God of War block

I've blocked God_of_War (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for trolling. This is intended to be a temporary block, with the exact duration to be determined here. Related accusations of trolling have been made elsewhere. God of War has now announced that he will not be bound by the outcome of an MfD.[181] That makes it rather obvious that he's not acting in good faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see him as trolling. I see him as trying to express his view, and thinking that he has the right to have this material on his main userpage instead of a subpage, even if the subpage is deleted. I'm not convinced a block is warranted. -- SCZenz 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the block, God of War spends too much time in namespaces not directly related to the encyclopedia, but has some good contributions as well. Recommend unblocking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose we unblock him, but make it clear that if this material is deleted it will not be acceptable to move a long non-Wikipedia-related essay to his main user page either. -- SCZenz 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with SCZenz. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

God of War has promised to follow the MFD result. I have therefore lifted the block now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Nlu

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

Similar activity at Faggot. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)