Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Instantnood (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 7 May 2006 (→‎Admin abuse - [[William M. Connolley]] part 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    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



    Obnoxious behavior by SPUI

    On the Interstate 75 article consensus has been reached that the infobox should read 'in Hialeah' for the souther terminus. User SPUI has made numerous (well over half a dozen I beleive) reverts to the article changing it back to 'near Miami', and has made abusive comments towards others who have reverted it back. TimL 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also for being such a contributor for roads.. he really has a knack for screwing things up. drumguy8800 - speak 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably as good a time as any to mention that SPUI is once again attempting to move hundreds of pages[1], without attempting to gain consensus for the moves and despite being specifically warned not to. --phh (t/c) 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SPUI can be a big bloody pain in the arse, and his methods have received some critisicm, but everytime I see someone uninvolved enter into the fray it's the same story: "Don't be a dick, but I agree with the move/smaller template/that sixteen year olds are sexy/that ducks in prams must die/etc/etc." Different day, same story here.
    1. Those page moves all look fine, and follow the naming conventions for other parenthetic disambiguators.
    2. Calling that link a "warning" is a big stretch. It was localised by definition, not a blanket "Never ever do this again."
    I'd encourage this to be worked out at the lowest level possible, and also advise that this "consensus" be worked on a bit more, because what's there on the I 75 talk page isn't it.
    brenneman{L} 07:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's hardly the point. I agree with some of what he wants to do too, but his chosen implementation method is to steamroll everyone else in order to get his way, including acting abusively to anyone who thinks that, gosh, maybe other editors should be allowed to participate in these decisions too. Believe it or not, this gets my back up just a bit—to the point where I even end up edit warring in defense of a position that I don't even agree with. I would add that when the assembled corps of administrators emits a collective yawn at SPUI's antics every time the subject comes up—as it does every few days, like clockwork—it sends a message that some people's actions and contributions are just naturally more valid than everyone else's, which is very alienating and is contrary to the principles upon which Wikipedia is supposedly founded.
    Now, if you have any suggestions as to how this can be "worked out at the lowest level" other than attempting to talk about it, which hasn't worked, or mediation, which hasn't worked, or bending over backwards to give him every possible benefit of the doubt, which hasn't worked, or an RFC, which hasn't worked, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. --phh (t/c) 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I second that opinion. I happen to disagree with him, but it's his attitude that really raises my ire.JohnnyBGood t c 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Prometheuspan 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Just have to say that whilst i know almost nothing about the situation, i happened upon spuis user page by mere accident a few days back, and, this prompted me to take a close look. I don't understand how this User manages to stay here on Wikipedia. His own user page references a log of blocks and unblocks almost a full page long. Hello? Wikipedia is becoming a safe haven for what I call 2nd generation Trolls. These are the trolls that are clever enough to not technically violate enough rules to get tossed out. But they walk the thin line, intentionally, and cause grief for most of the people they come into contact with. Abusive people don't belong in a co-creative and co constructive environment. Once again i feel the need to urge; Wikipedia shouldn't be COMBAT.[reply]

    by random i noticed this member for having an offensive, sexual communicating user page. I do not really believe edit/contribution as NPOV possible in this case. It is not suitable for public viewing. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Trollery by User:BIG and IP 84.58.160.210

    An odd fellow. Has been extremely disruptive on a article or two, paticularly Colonel (Mega Man) as of late. Has been blocked on occasion for vandalims and personal attacks, and seems to have a severe inability to comprehend consensus and established fact. When provided with sources, he ignores them completely, instead descending to personal attacks and other bits of silliness. Looking at his IP contributions depicts nothing but vandalism of the beforementioned article. After a bit of edit warring and page protection to cease the affair, he assumed the username of BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue disruptive editting, not only limited to Colonel (Mega Man), but others as well [2]. Also needs a crash course in what vertible sources are acceptable at wikipedia. I've no doubt he is simply hardheaded, but is probably doing what he thinks is correct. Regardless, he's engaging in disruption and vandalism, and we don't permit this at wkipedia. -ZeroTalk 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I had him blocked for 72 hours block log (after an original 24 hour block for 3RR), another admin blocked for 24, then unblocked, but forget to reblock ...so now I have him blocked for 31 hours...I'll block for a month with community approval.--MONGO 20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's recently just blanked his talkpage [3] of notices and the like. I presume it's clear by now he has no wish to follow policy and carry himself in a acceptable manner. -ZeroTalk 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mongo, I'd say go for the month-block. He hasn't contributed anything worthwhile, and I know I at least am tired of him. --maru (talk) contribs 00:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Damned by his own words [4] [5]. -ZeroTalk 11:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Israelbeach Vs. Woggly

    In the past 24 hours there has been an escalation in the war of the words between user:Israelbeach and user:Woggly. Woggly who never apologized for her personal attacks against Israelbeach was never addressed or blocked for these attacks by the administrators. In fact, she has been attacking Israelbeach, whose identity is for all to see, from an anonymous position. Not very fair or ethical!

    Israelbeach, in turn, revealed Woggly's identity, something he was wrong for doing. According to Wiki policy: "This sort of behavior is blockable on its own (for example, moving another user's User Talk page), but should be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 1 day ban might become a 1 week ban if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment. The block should only be enforced after warning the user and these pleas go ignored."

    Israelbeach was warned by user:jpgordon and according to the logs deleted all material within minutes. Israelbeach should not have been blocked according to Wiki policy as he never ignored any warnings by adm but reacted quickly to them.

    Woggly is now rightfully worried about legal action that Israelbeach can take against her for stating, without substance, that he was "dangerous" and other accusations made in front of his local community and the world public. She now appears to be leaving Wikipedia on her own.

    Solution: Both Israelbeach and Woggly are professional editors and should be encouraged to stay with the Wiki project. The block on Israelbeach should be removed immediately, as it only serves to increase conflict. Remember, after a first warning, Israelbeach on his own removed all personal data even though he thought he was correct due to that personal information regarding Woggly was posted by Woggly with a direct link to Wikipedia that anyone can find on a simple Google search.

    Both Israelbeach and Woggly should be warned with no punitive action taken and instructed not to interact with one another on Wikipedia. These are two professionals with tremendous pride - do not expect either to aplogize at this point. We must encourage both users to stay, to avoid court action (with the documentation that Israelbeach has on these clear personal attacks, no judge would deny Woggly's guilt) and keep Wikipedia operating with less negative news coverage.

    I do not blame Woggly or Israelbeach for their now wanting to resign from Wikipedia, I place the blame solely on the desk of the administrators (with the exception of user:jpgordon) who could have taken action on the personal attacks which started this conflict. Woggly and Israelbeach are both assets to Wikipedia, all action should be taken to keep them here. I will be posting this message on my suggestion on how to resolve this matter on other pages. Nancetlv 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just adding here that I unblocked CymruIsrael last night when he assured me he wasn't part of the other group. I've placed a condition on his remaining unblocked that he not edit the articles that caused the problem and not comment on Israelbeach or Woggly. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    MONGO (talk · contribs)

    I think we have a real problem here, LIBERAL POV WARRIORS AND OTHER LEFTIST SCUM KEEP ATTACKING THIS PERSON FOR NO REASON AND NO ADMINS ARE WILLING TO DEAL WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS CONSTANTLY LEVELED AGAINST HIM! I'ts a disgrace that you allow these liberal scumhats to attack a person, who is nothing if not a perfect example of adminhood and an insperation to us all, the next person who threatens him SHOULD BE INDEF BANNED WITH NO HOPE OF PAROLE--Wopwop 18:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, 1) Mongo is more than capable of taking care of himself and bringing things here if he thinks there is a problem. 2) How are we supposed to tell what you are talking about when you don't provide any specific difs? 3) Talking in all caps is a good way for people to take you less seriously. 4) You don't seem to have any edits other than to this announcement, which makes you likely to be somoene's sockpuppet. 5) chill. JoshuaZ 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    6)WP:CIVIL. 7) WP:NPA. KimvdLinde 18:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to recall we disscussed a simlar policy. I think the general consensus was that such behaviour would be tollerated.Geni 04:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I don't know... there are all kinds of interesting ways to create a WP:CABAL... ;) RadioKirk talk to me 04:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, here it is (and it explicitly forbids marriage proposals). This is not WeLikeEachOtherpedia, people. If everybody gets along, there won't be any edit wars, and then, without 3RRs to block, we admins will be out of a job. Please consider the ramifications of your getting along so well. JDoorjam Talk 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But I have to propose to El C on International Working Class Day! What am I, a block of stone? If it helps, I'll propose to MONGO as well. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    I accept...Yaba daba do! Oh, you're probably just kidding...and I was just starting to feel insperetionel too.--MONGO 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't it a day late anyway? --LV (Dark Mark) 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, only UTC-wise, which dosen't count. El_C 06:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban for Licinius

    The original Licinius edited pages related to various codes of football in Australia. He aggressively and inflexibly pushed a strange POV and refused to work towards consensus. He abused and frustrated numerous good faith editors who were trying to work on the related pages (see Talk:Football/Archive 7 (Australian rules debates)). Eventually he spawned sockpuppets User:The man from OZ and User:J is me to help him with a vote at Talk:Football, and was blocked after being caught out by a checkuser request.

    User then spawned numerous abusive socks. To my knowledge, the current list of socks of Licinius created solely to abuse people is: Jisme, HahaJISME, HahahaJISME, John Ignolius Magnum, Whortyfour, Revenge clone1, Who but you is popo, Yeah what and why, OKEYJisme, Popoff567, J IS ME FEELS NEGLECTED, J IS ME CONQUERS ALL, Is J is Me or are you her, Is J is her or are you me?, Collins1921, The Return OF J IS ME, Await the return, The second man in wiki, Rufus4444444 and Fucck J is me.

    Update: Thanks to a checkuser by Essjay, 37 confirmed sockpuppet accounts of Licinius have been tagged as such; see Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Licinius. Snottygobble 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterday Licinius returned to the football pages as Mr nice guy. He pushed the same strange POV in the same aggressive manner, and has stated that he has no intention of working towards consensus [7]. The responses of other editors indicates just how sick of this situation they all are.

    I have blocked Mr nice guy indefinitely, subject of course to review by other administrators. He returned as Mr nice guy2 and was blocked again. Its pretty likely I'll be blocking more socks of Licinius in future. I'd appreciate some community support here. How do you all feel about imposing a "users who exhaust the community's patience" ban on this user? Snottygobble 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The J is me sockpuppet has blanked his talk page in an effort to attract attention here and make people notice what he has to say. He says that he is willing to reform and apologises for his actions and wants back. I would be willing to agree on a trial period as long as he ID's all the sockpuppets. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am prepared to withdraw my request for a ban and I will not oppose the unblocking of the IP. Essjay did a checkuser and populated Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Licinius with 37 accounts, many of which I did not know about. I imagine Essjay has identified all of them, so there would be no point in asking J is me to do the same. Snottygobble 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have brought this proposal to the attention of Essjay (blocker of the IP), Ambi, Grant65 and TangoTango (all victims of Licinius' attacks). Snottygobble 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection on this front. Ambi 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't oppose Snottygobble's CambridgeBayWeather's proposal for a trial un-banning of J is me, to be revoked if he/she misbehaves in any way from now on. Grant65 | Talk 12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must insist that this is not my proposal. This is CambridgeBayWeather's proposal, and I have merely agreed not to stand in his way. Snottygobble 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies :-) Grant65 | Talk 07:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Essjar has no objections. Snottygobble 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet of banned User:Iasson

    This edit by KymeSnake (talk · contribs) displays the characteristic beliefs and syntax of Iasson, who has been continually attempting to impose his (solitary and unsourced) belief that Greek slavery was somehow not really slavery. Should this be noted at WP:RCU? Septentrionalis 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So I tagged Peter Dale Scott as a copyvio a week ago.. it was pretty much an exact copy of Scott's official web page. User:Brainhell is the user who copied the page into Wikipedia. Despite the fact that diffs show his edit [10] was almost identical to Scott's page [11], Brainhell claims that his edit was "SUBSTANTIALLY different from Scott's page, in non-trivial ways", and therefore he now owns the copyright to his edit. In truth, he just switched around a few words. I've reached my limit with this user; he refuses to entertain the possibility that he may not understand how copyright works. Could someone else go over the discussion on Talk:Peter Dale Scott and talk to him please?

    One thing you should know, another Wikipedian e-mailed Scott about his page's copyright. Scott responded by posting a noncommercial-only license on his page, which is still GFDL-incompatible. Brainhell doesn't understand this point either, and he now believes that Scott has relinquished his copyright entirely. Rhobite 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the only way we can use any text verbatim is if it is in the public domain. Non-commercial licenses are not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright policy, and unless we can get evidence that the page is released under the GFDL, a compatible free license, or in the public domain, we cannot copy it. It is a copyvio, whether it is plagiarized outright or just paraphrased it without citing the original source.
    A further note: Wikipedians agree to release their contributions under the GFDL. There's even a nice link just below the edit window as a reminder. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I already know that, I was wondering if someone else could talk to Brainhell. Rhobite 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't, I'm afraid, because I've tried talking to this user before. He has demonstrated ... mmm... unusual inflexibility over the User:Lucky 6.9 business. Lucky left the project because of what he and some other people perceived as implacable persecution over a rather minor matter by Brainhell. Lucky's departure appears to please Brainhell, though he still worries about the fact that Lucky isn't deadminned as well. Many users tried to speak to Brainhell over that. My advice would be to not waste your breath, but go straight to the next step, whatever it may be (I haven't reviewed the actual page involved). Bishonen | talk 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    I expanded Peter Dale Scott/Temp a bit. I met Scott once, and heard him give a poetry reading; he's an extremely interesting guy, and someone one rather feels inclined to take seriously. Chick Bowen 03:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been well over a week since the copyvio was posted. With multiple users, including myself, agreeing on the article's copyvio status, I have moved the temp page content into the article. Here's to being bold! — Scm83x hook 'em 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fluffy999

    Despite repeated warnings to stop, and a link to WP:CIVIL, a new user, Fluffy999 has proceeded to post personal abuse against User:Damac, a long-standing and credible contributor, including posting lies on personal users' pages about Damac's edits, accusing him of bogus edits, making personal attacks, more attacks, posting a comment with an edit summary of Damac the Blunderer strikes again, etc.

    Appeals to Fluffy to stop just produces more agressive abuse. At this stage someone needs to intervene. I can't as I was involved in trying to correct some of Fluffy's dodgy edits. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    fluffy eh? who else thought of this when they read this? Image:Killer_rabbit.JPG--152.163.100.65 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The guy has completely out of control at this stage with his attacks. (None of us can for the life of us see what he is complaining about! He produces as "evidence" links that are empty or show the exact opposite of what he claims, then accuses Damac of lies, dishonesty, yada yada yada.) But his abuse of Damac got so severe that after issuing a number of warnings to stop I ended up blocking him. The guy has a serious problem. Whether he is a troll or merely someone with a mental illness that impaired his judgment is up to guesswork — though my gut feeling was the former — but Damac did nothing to deserve all the personal attacks and diatribes. I would have left the blocking to someone else if I could find them but I couldn't find an admin and something needed to be done immediately. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd fully support an indefinite block considering the repeated attacks and abuse from this "fluffy". It's definitely warranted and WP:AGF only goes so far when this user is blatantly trolling another user and abusing other editors despite repeated attempts to work with him/her and work with him/her. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with indefinite block right now, has only been blocked once before and that only for 24 hours. Give him a longer block, but is not yet up to the point for an indefinite block. JoshuaZ 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Henry Flower

    User:Henry Flower repeatedly deleted the NPA tag from his talkpage following his personal attack with absolutely no explanations.--Bonafide.hustla 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So..? Sorry, I don't understand what you're doing, Bonafide.hustla. The "personal attack" is highly dubious. Since you link, on Henry Flower's page, to a whole conversation, rather than give a diff, I'm not even sure which bit is supposed to be a personal attack. The NPA tag is intended to be used for very clear cases only. Please don't add frivolous tags to people's userpages. Also, your tag has no greater authority than if you'd written something in your own voice; Henry Flower is perfectly entitled to remove either kind from his page. Don't edit war to keep your posts on somebody else's page, unless you want to get blocked. Also, why exactly do you care if he removes it? You put it there for him to read, didn't you? See, his removal of it shows he has read it. You should be pleased. And you shouldn't harass people. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    The personal attack occured on the admin's noticeboard.--Bonafide.hustla 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So give us a link. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [[12]] mocking me by saying ROFL...and other random language that I couldn't understand [[13]] claiming "This user should put his own house in order."

    Please do not edit war over the insertion of a notice concerning a personal attack which seemingly dosen't exist. El_C 05:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On another note: Bonafide.hustla, it's important to use permanent diff links to point people to something somebody said, because the other kind of links are only good when they're fresh. Anybody trying to follow yours here will quickly run up against links that have gone bad. In RFAr evidence, you MUST use diff links. Does anybody know a page where it's explained how to make them and why it's important? How are people supposed to find out? I hate explaining it... but I'd love to be able to refer to clear instructions. Bishonen | talk 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Please explain why it is not personal attack. This user said "I would do better to put my own house in order." while i was negotiating another issue, when i tried to negotiate on his talkpage, i was scoffed at and disrespected. he even said rofl (rolling on floor laughin) if this is not personal attack, I don't know what is. The accusation by user Elc seems to be out of personal vendetta due to his support to "communist" hero Che Guvera (see his userpage) and my accusation of communist propaganda on jiang's talkpage.--Bonafide.hustla 05:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If ROFL is not a personal attack, you don't know what is? I reckon you don't. Go away. You're a vexatious litigant and a pest. You are hereby banned from posting on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. "Banned" means "Don't post here again or you'll get blocked." Bishonen | talk 05:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    P.S. I've told BFH that it's OK for him to post here once more in case he wants to try to make the community rescind my softban by undertaking to post, er, more responsibly, so please nobody block him if there's one more post. Bishonen | talk 07:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

    Where are you guys??! - Glen TC (Stollery) 13:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help! - Glen TC (Stollery) 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    context?--64.12.116.65 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is already empty. There are people watching it and taking care of it regularly.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen quite a few of these sort of post here recently. Maybe it would be better to just null edit AIV with an edit summary of "BACKLOG" or similar to knock it up admins watchlists. I know sometimes if I'm doing non-vandal fighting work on Wikipedia I'll normally try and ignore AIV if it's just the odd report that is being handled quickly by admins on RC patrol, but I'd happily jump in if there was a large backlog that hadn't received any attention. Petros471 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporarily blocked user Ndru01 evading block

    User:Ndru01 was blocked for 24h: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ndru01, after breaking 3RR on one article and recreating deleted articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern gnostic mysticism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gnosticism.

    S/he has now recreated same content at Gnostic Infomysticism apparently using User:Infoandru01. --Cedderstk 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've userfied the article as it clearly falls under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). Also subject to anonymous editing from 209.135.116.202 and 64.187.60.61 (both Bell Canada). --Cedderstk 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged the redirect page Gnostic Infomysticism, userfied by Cedders, for speedy deletion (CSD R2), since User:Infoandru01 keeps adding this link into user space to the article Gnosticism in modern times. LambiamTalk 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing problems

    The puppetry and such continue; see recent changes to Gnosticism in modern times. New user A9809234544 has recreated the article Modern Gnostic mysticism, formerly Gnostic Infomysticism, a protected deleted page. Meanwhile 209.135.115.110 has inserted a wikilink into user space in article Gnosticism in modern times. This user 209.135.115.110 signs "Ndru01" here: [14]. He/she/it also states there that "Human race on this planet has no future if the devil prevents the human mind from ascension." If you ask me, that sounds pretty serious; we don't want that to happen, do we? Then there is also new user User:Moonlight serenade. An army of droids, ready for a revert war, if you ask me (OK, you didn't, but I tell you). In any case, several users are acting inappropriately and in concert. LambiamTalk 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mannaseejah

    greetings. i'm in need of a bit of intervention. this mainly stems from a dispute at the Manna page. A User, at times the anonymous IP User talk:136.245.4.252 or User talk:208.47.97.198, other times User:Mannaseejah. the user continually posts strange religious (an unencyclopedic) rants and posts strange pictures. the user has been asked to stop on numerous occasions and now he/she is posting their weird rants on my talk page, User Talk:Sparsefarce. this person is starting to scare me, not to mention get on my nerves. [15], [16], and (more or less blanking of a talk page with the rant) are some examples. [17] is the rant he put on my talk page. any intervention would help. thanks! Sparsefarce 21:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    please help. he won't stop. he thinks Manna was psychadelic mushrooms and keeps writing all these drug induced things. he's starting to realize that he can't put his stuff all over the article, so now he's claimed the talk page as his own soapbox for druggy weirdness. he even keeps trying to link readers to the talk page inside the article. Sparsefarce 23:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block

    I have indefinitely blocked another user, Jeremy77q (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Do you think this is a reasonable action, or was I being too harsh? - Mike Rosoft 23:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe... only four edits? Perhaps a short 24 block would have been better. You could always turn it into an indefinite later... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed—even three hours might do. With such a short history, it could have been someone at a friend's house with a few too many minutes on his hands. RadioKirk talk to me 23:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I have decreased the block length. I guess this is an approppriate time to report some of my earlier indefinite blocks: Monkeypuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for an inappropriate username (possibly related to Horsepoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked by Redvers), and HORNDONLAINGS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being an abusive sockpuppet (clearly created to disrupt). - Mike Rosoft 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My own thoughts: "Monkeypuke" is bad, but not horrible; consider asking the user to change it (only one edit, BTW, no history to gauge). Same with "Horsepoo" (possible vandal account, but only four edits; I'd say lift block, ask user to change name, and watch. RadioKirk talk to me 00:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With due respect, I am not going to unblock User:Horsepoo; his history of uploading nonsense images for vandalism is evidence of it being a vandal account. As for User:Monkeypuke, I guess he can be unblocked and requested to change the username instead (that is, unless it can be verified that he has edited from the same IP address as Horsepoo), but I don't think he's coming back. - Mike Rosoft 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad on User:Horsepoo, I forgot to look at the logs. As for User:Monkeypuke, I think we can WP:AGF for the moment. :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, do what you will. (I hope at least User:HORNDONLAINGS was an obvious case for an indefinite block.) - Mike Rosoft 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was. Well done. :) RadioKirk talk to me 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    KarateKid7, TheMadTim

    I responded to a 3RR report at WP:AN3 between two seeming revert warriors (KarateKid7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), TheMadTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)) assuming bad faith. I blocked them both for 24 hours. Tawker undid my block on KarateKid7 a few hours later, which is fine by me, as I was planning to anyway per an email conversation I had with him. However, soon, a new factor entered the mix: TheMADTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I noticed this guy blank KarateKid7's UT page, and I gave him an indef block on the spot. Mackensen (talk • contribs) was kind enough to perform a checkuser on the gentleman in question. "Likely that TheMADTim is a sockpuppet of KarateKid7. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)" I'm now not sure what to do with the situation, and I ask for a community decision here. It would seem that KarateKid7 registered TheMADTim to defame TheMadTim, and here I was assuming good faith with him and actually favored his take of the content dispute (which both parties insisted was simple vandalism and not a dispute). Any opinions out there? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, lovely. Now I've uncovered Karatekid7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), permablocked 14:44, March 21, 2006. LowerUppercase's first edit? 22:01, March 22, 2006. I'm leaning to a permablock as a sockpuppet of a permablocked user. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, lowercase's first edit was May 2 2005... did you mean uppercase's first edit? I'd leave them alone unless you got a positive checkuser, and from my casual run through their contributions they aren't nessecarily editing the same articles. LOL just checked the block log for karatekid7, and he's indefblocked by Gator. Yah, wipe him out.--Syrthiss 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, end of story. KimvdLinde 03:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaps, is there any chance that you can block user:KabadiKid7 as well? They're pretty much an obvious sockpuppet. --TheMadTim 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am KarateKid7 and Karatekid7, I was not TheMADTim, this has never been verified and was described as likely, I dispute this. My initial account Karatekid7 was unfairly blocked by user:jtdirl. I was then later permanantly blocked by user:gator1 for removing the details of my previous block from my user page this admin has since disappeared. I then had KarateKid7| blocked for being a sockpuppet of Karatekid7 personally I do not think this was sockpuppeting as I thought it was very obvious and the account was created after my ban. I also considered the blocks to be unjust and did not know how to question them as my user page was blocked for Karatekid7. I think my edits show that whilst some of my edits may be considered controversial by some, I am no vandal, and I have reverted a good amount of vandalism myself. Simple fact is I could wait a week, register a new account with an unsimilar name and not be banned as a sockpuppet, so why ban me for being honest? --TheKarateKid7 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current sock puppet listing : [18] Previous sock puppet usercheck : [19] recent 3RR : [20] another recent 3RR : [21] - multiple 3RR violation, uncivility, and sock puppet useage to evade two permablocks + 3RR. Karatekid7 is already permabanned. John79 is also permabanned. 221.114.194.14 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see newer case at [22]. --TheKarateKid7 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Developing Aucaman fiasco

    I'm on the verge of thinking I should really withdraw from further discussion on the matter. I'm incredibly disgusted with the behavior of several editors who have acted, IMHO, grossly inappropriately, either by their "wrong" actions or by their defense of those actions. The discussion is ongoing at User talk:Aucaman. I'm feeling very close to wanting to pass out UN sanctions, so I think I should probably just sit down and shut up for a while. The actions [rollbacks on a number of users' talk pages] were admittedly performed without the rollerbacker's bothering to spend a moment's consideration figuring out whether or not doing so were warranted, on the sole basis that Aucaman is under an arbcom injunction to watch his use of reverts [which, as it happens, hello, has nothing to do with leaving messages on other users' talk pages]. I'm disgusted, nay appalled, that this activity has been supported by 2 other users, at least one of whom is a fellow admin [for whom I voted! :-\] ... If someone with a level head and the interest and time to actually investigate what's going on instead of pronouncing uninformed snap judgments could take the time, please comment on Aucaman's talkpage. Tomertalk 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really think it's worth spending a lot of energy on this now. The deed is done anyway - whether or not one considers A's talkpage postings as spamming, or whether or not one considers reverting them to have been appropriate, the messages will have reached their addressees by now (and they would have done so even if they had remained deleted). Any of the users involved should now be free to decide whether they want that message to stay on their talkpage or not. Lukas (T.|@) 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, there are few situations where copy/pasting the same instructions about a page to two dozen other users is NOT considered talk page spamming, regardless of intentions. --InShaneee 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, as of this writing, InShaneee has clearly not read any of what's transpired in this incident, as is transparently, nay painfully, obvious by looking at his ongoing equivocation on Aucaman's talkpage. Tomertalk 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, Tomer and myself are having a bit of a disagreement about how to handle this situation, and it is clear, nay, painfully obvious that he'd rather be antagonistic then attempt to reach any sort of consensus. I certainly hope others here will take a look at what has transpired in put in their two cents. --InShaneee 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu and User:Deathrocker

    These two users have been blocked for arguing and general incivility to personal attacks at each other, on my talk page. These two are currently parties in a arbitration request, and should be unblocked once the case has been opened. Will (E@) T 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. I would have done the same myself, but for the fact that I also am loosely involved in the arbitration application. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DYK

    Despite my earlier announcement on Talk:Main Page, Template talk:Did you know is still a nasty backlog. The image Image:Golubkina photo.jpg has been hanging on Main Page for about two days now. Under the best circumstances, the template is updated once a day, not every six hours as it is supposed to be. The noms from April 27 are all stale now. We have a thousand admins and not a single one (excepting Cactus.man) capable of regularly updating a Main Page template. What a disgrace! --Ghirla -трёп- 13:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Get some perspective. Some of us have 'this user enjoys vanilla icecream' userboxes to delete, you know. Anyway, I updated it. I'm not in the least bit surprised that no-one particularly wants to do it, I would sooner gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon than post notices on all the article talk pages and the talk pages of the creators with a non-tabbed browser or a slow laptop. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've suggested on Wikipedia talk:Did you know that the requirement to inform users on their talk pages of updates, which I found the most tedious and pointless part of the process, should be dropped. Comments are welcome. Especially if they agree with me. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Article: Rainer Zitelmann

    Not sure what to do about Rainer Zitelmann. I, too, got e-mail spam citing it, so I slapped some {cleanup} tags on the article. Since then, an anonymous editor has taken a different approach, but the article is even more useless now. Reverting to the second revision (13:30, 25 April 2006) might be the thing to do, as I get the impression that the changes by 84.113.224.45 might be correlated with the activities of the spammer. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He's taken to wikistalking me. He goes through my contributions list, and reverts articles (or edits in other ways) I worked on that he otherwise probably wouldn't edit otherwise. File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 17:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:ChaplineRVine

    This user seems to be engaged in devious vote stacking techniques. The user posted this script into my talk page: {{User talk:ChaplineRVine/hello-alt}} . I thought it may have been an attempt to get me to vote in an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) ) since he seemed to have done something sneaky like that a few days ago for a different AfD, according to complaint on his talk page when he put messages on talk pages to say hello but when you clicked on part of his signature it sent you to an AfD vote. [23] . This tag did something similar. --Strothra 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) appears to be doing the same thing. This AfD is going to get pretty loud, methinks. I'd recommend a lot of attention be paid by neutral admins toward maintaining civility and preventing personal attacks on what looks to be a pretty intense discussion. JDoorjam Talk 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing that's strange about User talk:ChaplineRVine/hello-alt is that it contains what looks like a section of a talk page, not a simple note like the Morton's one. So could be deception(?) or if assuming good faith some strange form of testing messed up? This incident was originally posted on my talk, but I directed it here as I wasn't really sure what to do... Petros471 21:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple accounts

    ALTERNATE ACCOUNTS USED - LEGITIMATELY:
     Marleyknowe (talk · contribs)
    Sunfazer on Wheels (talk · contribs)
    - complying with Allowed in WP:SOCK. --Sunfazer | Talk 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user evading block

    Macedonia (talk · contribs · block log) is blocked for a 3RR violation on Portal:Macedonia/Intro, so now he's retuned as an IP to continue reverting (on Portal:Macedonia/Did you know as well) (and has already reverted four times after being reverted by many users). Can someone please do something about this (semi-protect the pages perhaps). Telex 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealt with. - FrancisTyers 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Controversial Afd and POV vote-stacking
    This is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments.

    I have blocked two users, Nescio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Morton devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for POV vote-stacking and talk page spamming in regards to a certain controversial Afd. See their contribs for evidence. Please review. It was suggested that I bring this here because vote-stacking efforts are very harmful to Wikipedia and we must do our best to stamp out attempts to game our consensus system here on Wikipedia.

    Additionally, I have closed that Afd, as it was completely contaminated. I renamed the page to something much more NPOV, and hopefully editors can work out whatever POV issues may exist in the article. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot more discussion is taking place on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Informing users of a vote isn't votestacking. Advocacy would be. The comments I saw simply informed others of a vote (which is OK), made an accusation that some people were seeking votes to delete (which isn't, but as it didn't indicate whether they or their opponents were advocating deletion, therefore mitigated any transgression) and invited people to vote (which is OK).
    You in the past have accused other users of all sorts of contamination and vote-stacking if they informed anyone else that there is a vote taking place. I think, as before, your behaviour is a gross over-reaction to users informing others that a vote is taking place, given that without being informed by others most people would not be aware that a vote was taking place, must less a vote in which they had an interest.
    Looking at the afd and tfd pages, all too often most votes on many issues involve the same cabal of people, many of whom scream votestacking the moment someone else appears, having been told there was a vote taking place on a topic that they might want to participate in. It seems that users are meant to possess some sort of wikipsychic powers to know without being told what is going on every day on every page. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD closure was out-of-process. People were leaving legitimate comments and reasons for their positions. Notifying people about an AfD is not "vote stacking". Even advocating that they take a certain position in the AfD is not against any policy. Some people may not like it, but it is not against policy. Therefore, the block of User:Morton devonshire and User:Nescio are out-of-process blocks and they should be overturned. Johntex\talk 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Out of process" is one of those nothing-phrases. Were the blocks appropriate? Possibly. Certainly Morton Devonshire cannot legitimately deny that he has spammed talk pages with the admitted intention of influencing the outcome of AfDs. I find it a bit scary when Zoe and I agree on something, but I guess it must be even more scary for the person we both agree about. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't like the phrase "out of process" I will give you another one. The early closure was unfair and illegitimate. It was unfair because people were going there with an expection of having their voices heard and considered with respect to the matter. Illegitimate because there was no good reason to close the AfD early. The blocks are unfair and against policy becuase the blocks themselves, being that they have no basis in policy, are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Johntex\talk 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have unblocked both. I can find no rule that allows their blocking. They did not say "come and vote 'x' way", just "come and vote". That is not in any way a blockable offence. All it does is increase knowledge and partipation. If leaving unsolicited messages on more than one talk page about issues is spamming then everyone, including Jimbo, would have to be blocked because 100% of Wikipedians "spam" under that definition all the time. Indeed Clyde is guilty of spamming by alerting various users to what he did. If they are blocked for spamming, then so must he, and everyone else. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is wikilawyering nonsense. Gaming the system is disruption and disruption is blockable. It is irrelevant what one says in spamming, since spammers invariably notify people they feel are likely to see things their way. Informing one or two knowledgable people, who might add insight to the debate is one thing, but anything more than that is an attempt to play the numbers game. Frankly to compare this to general posts on userpages is just idiotic. And actually, your unblocking is out of process and may well be viewed by arbcom as wheel-waring. --Doc ask? 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When in doubt and you cannot find a rule to defend your argument, throw some snide comment about "wikilawyering"!!! Some things never change. There is no rule against contacting users in a non-advocational manner. The arbcom can confirm that. I simply applied the rules. Try learning them sometime. Nowhere in Wikipedia did we give you wikipope powers of infallibility to give you an ability to make up your own rules as you go along where they suit you. Cyde broke the rules. The rules were inforced and his clearly erronious block rescinded.FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have hard and fact 'rules', we have non-negotiable policy, and we have loose process as a means to an end. The written stuff is a record of what actually tends to happen, it is not a fixed rule book. We use common sense, not nullum crimen sine lege here, some things bad (m:dick). I called it 'wikilawyering nonsense', but since you object to the word 'wikilawyering', I'll withdraw that one word. --Doc ask? 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree that this should not be written policy somewhere; if it happens often enough to be argued about and discussed as an unwritten policy, for heaven's sake someone write it down so that you can point to it and warn people "Hey, don't do that". We have achived instruction creep, but it's not documented, and that's not fair to the users. "Commonly held informal policy" is generally by nature arbitrarily and randomly abusive to users.

    Write 'er down. Georgewilliamherbert 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, for what it's worth, Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was doing the same kind of vote-stacking stuff, but I didn't realize it soon enough and didn't block him with the other two. Now that my other two blocks have been reverted ... things get interesting. --Cyde Weys 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support unblocking the two users immediately. I have also sent the matter to Deletion Review [24] because this closure was against policy. People have a right to discuss this issue without the discussion being unilaterally closed. This is especially true since User:Cyde has expressed his personal distaste for the idea of deleting the article. Johntex\talk 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for starting to vote-stack already on the DRV which was just put up. This is unreal. We need to deal with this nonsense, not sit back, claim we can't do anything about it, and let it happen and overwhelm our processes. --Cyde Weys 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a third user you have now unjustly blocked. What is outrageous is that you continue to throw blocks at people who are disagreeing with you. Again, there is no policy against posting messages asking people to come share their views on a topic. I request you unblock Merecat immediately. Johntex\talk 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realize he was only contacting people that voted delete on the AfD? --waffle iron talk 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not realize that, but it makes no difference. People have things like WP:SCH and WP:Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. People post a notice there and pretend like they've made a neutral notice - but in reality they are posting to an area where they think they will find an enriched set of supporters. There is absolutley nothing wrong with selectively notifying people you think will agree with you. Johntex\talk 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not vote stacking? Isopropyl 01:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is something wrong with it, spamming talk pages for votes is a disruption and subverts the idea of consensus. No one can claim with a straight face that soliciting votes is done in an evenhanded manner. It's clearly done to draw like-minded editors to a vote in a raw test of numbers. Interested in an issue? Watchlist it, engage in the debate and find common ground, don't disrupt by polarizing editors and creating interest groups. Rx StrangeLove 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyde must resign or be sacked as an admin immediately

    This is getting crazy. He closed a vote out of process, having blocked people for telling other people a vote was going on. His blatent abuse of his position, which led to the forced closure, is being discussed on the Deletion Review page. So he goes and blocks people informing people that his behaviour and actions are being discussed at Deletion Review!!! Even if there was some rule somewhere (which there isn't) saying that users could not tell other users about a discussion on the Deletion Review page, for the user whose actions are being discussed on that page to block people who mention the fact is so gross an abuse of power that Clyde clearly has to be desysoped. Users have been blocked (and not just tonight) for less clearcut and gross abuses of power. If he doesn't resign immediately he should be sacked immediately as an administrator. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no idea about Cyde's blocks. But I wish people would stop saying vote-stacking is OK. Arbcom has condemned it in at least one case. I'll find the refs if you want. --Doc ask? 01:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do, I think that that would help. I, for one, would be interested. Snoutwood (tóg) 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "vote stacking". To me, that implies sock-puppet voting, which is clearly not OK. However, recruiting anyone and everyone to share their opinion on an issue should not only be OK but encouraged. If they ArbCom has ever taken a different stand, I'd say they acted without a policy to base upon which to base their condemnation. Johntex\talk 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see vote stacking as including the act of identifying users with the same point of view and asking them to vote, knowing they will side with you. To be totally fair it would be best to advise all recent editors of the page, not just the ones you consider allies. --waffle iron talk 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    seconded, this cyde person has no idea what it means to seek community support, and clearly has no business being a sysop at all if he deals this poorly with people--Capitalister 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Doc's comments. Vote stacking and communication are different things. Clyde doesn't seem to realise that. Nor does he realise that as his actions are being reviewed on Deletion Review under no circumstances should be be involved in blocking people for discussing that matter. If rules were broken (and they weren't) it was up to someone else to enforce them. Clyde broke every rule in the book by personally blocking a user discussing his actions. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have issues with Cyde's methods, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, rather than creating a bigger mess here at WP:ANI, perhaps you should file an WP:RFC or take another step down the mediation path. Isopropyl 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that soapboxing here isn't going to get Cyde desysopped anytime soon. Isopropyl 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (meta-note) - this is why unwritten policies are so dangerous. If it's not written down, not everybody knows it, and a lot of people will disagree with it upon discovering it.

    I urge everyone to abide by written WP policies (and not use unwritten ones to block) until this gets sorted out, to avoid further frustration and anger. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (after many edit conflicts) While it may have made sense for Cyde to issue a warning prior to blocking, the behavior the editors were engaging in constituted disruption which is blockable by itself. Second, closing a highly acrimonious, disrupted AfD early where the AfD is clearly going to result in a keep or a no-consensus is well-within the discretion of an admin. Any objections to that should be brought to the deletion review page, not here, and are then only relevant for a relisting or not of the article and are not relevant to demands that Cyde relinquish his adminship(which frankly, I find a bit ridiculous). Furthermore, please note that the current messages being sent about the DR only to the poeple who voted for deletion is exactly the same sort of unacceptable votestacking. JoshuaZ 01:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing unacceptable about it. Anyone should be free to notify any number of people about a topic they may feel is of interest. Johntex\talk 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logic is flawed. That is one of the major reasons why such projects are extremely controversial, and in any case doing so in such a blatant manner is unacceptable as in this case is unacceptable. To somehow pretend that its ok because other people get away with it by skirting the line is unreasonable in the extreme. JoshuaZ 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ANI doesn't have the authority to desysop. Only ArbCom does. --Cyde Weys 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope. Spamming user talk for votes, to a skewed subset of the community is not acceptable - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in the ArbCom case you cite that actually backs up your claim. The word "spam" does not even appear in the ArbCom case. They talk about sock-puppets and recruiting meat-puppets from off site. Please provide a quote that supports your claim they have anything at all to say about posting notices on talk pages. Johntex\talk 01:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The sockpuppets cited in the ArbCom cased were used to spam self-identified Christians user talkpages to come and vote on AfD to save articles which Gastrich wrote.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This desysopping request is totally non acceptable and should not under any cases happen. Whilst you may disagree with the actions, calling for a desysopping over a dispute is hardly the way to get things done. Instead of having people work with you, you have turned people against your point of view with an out of the blue extreme request for a desysop. There is no way Cyde will be desysopped over this and there is no way he should. Focus on the issue, not revenge, ok? -- Tawker 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If anybody feels passionate enough to call for an RfC, please do. For all of you clamoring about process, we have a process in regards to de-adminship. It's called the dispute resolution channel. BlueGoose 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree - any call for desysopping over Cyde's actions would be very premature and unwarranted at this stage. However, he has not unblocked the users he blocked, even though he has cited no clear policy for the blocking. That is a grave concern. Johntex\talk 01:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that Jtdirl had already unblocked the users. If this is the case, how Cyde cannot re-unblock them. Isopropyl 01:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, here is one case (I think there are more, but I haven't had time to go look for them) where the Arb Com ruled that spamming talk pages for votes in an almost identical manner to this constituted disruption and the user was blocked for it. JoshuaZ 01:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you misread it. In that case, ArbCom said:

    On March 4, StrangerInParadise used the Special:Whatlinkshere feature to contact 43 users with a certain userbox. He spammed them with a deliberately provocative attempt to stack the ongoing userbox policy poll. The messages, headed "Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin" constitute personal attacks [32]. StrangerInParadise was subsequently blocked.

    It seems to me what was disruptive was making a personal attack by claiming someone was a "rogue admin". Arbcom did not say there is a policy against using the Special:Whatlinkshere feature to find people to notify. Johntex\talk 01:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were the only issue they would not endorsed him for "disruption" only "personal attacks" They say he was disruptive because among other things "He spammed them with a deliberately provocative attempt to stack..." which is exactly what happened here. JoshuaZ 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. I still disagree. If you think it should be policy, then let's put it up for a proposed policy poll. It is unreasonable to expect all users to know about all ArbCom cases. Johntex\talk 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Joshua misread or mispresentated the arbcom judgment. They did not condemn him for spaming. The condemning him for doing so "with a deliberately provocative attempt" . . . It would be a help if you actually reflected the judgment. They ruled not on methodology but on conduct of the methodology. Obviously you don't grasp how the arbcom makes decisions, or indeed how any structured judgments are made. Simplistic misreprentations from Joshua are no help. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While that might be a good thing to discuss at some point, the basic point remains: If even the editors who are unhappy with Cyde agree that its a plausible interpretation of the Arb Com rulings, it's very hard to see how he can be reprimanded for it(especially whent there are other editors like myself who interpreted the Arb Com ruling in precisely the same way). JoshuaZ 01:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you are not referring to me when you speak about editors who agree that is is a plausible interpretation. What I said was, "Possibly. I still disagree." By using the word "possibly", I menat to hold the door open for further consideration of your view - I did not mean to say I currently think your interpretation is plausible. I'm less interested in reprimanding Cyde than I am in clearing the name of the 2 3 blocked users. It is completely unreasonable to assume they know about this ArbCom case and what it may or may be saying. Johntex\talk 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple fact that many of the editors replying here are so non-outraged by Cyde's actions is an indication that there's some level of support for the principle in question. Maybe it'll find its way into a policy or guideline soon. Trying it out first to test the waters seems perfectly valid and appropriate to me. Vote-stacking is unacceptable, why isn't that written down yet? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sacked by whom? Only the Arbcomm can do that. If you object, write an RfAr. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How is spamming or vote stacking if you simply contact a user directly because you think they may be interested in the the vote? That's obviously not spamming. It's not stacking because he's not telling the person what to vote. So what if he seeks like minded individuals? There is nothing that says he must select from a wide variety of individuals to notify and it's rediculous to expect him to do so. --Strothra 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Contacting like-minded individuals to attract additional votes is vote stacking. Just don't do it, and one won't be blocked. That a sysop would be attacked like this for a valid block is repulsive and disrespectful. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Repulsive? Don't be so melodramatic. Wikipedia isn't the world. As I said, It's rediculous to expect anyone to seek out and contact a wide variety of users to contact if he wants to contact any at all. He is free to contact anyone he well pleases. If he feels that these individuals would be interested than he's free to do that. Can you even cite that policy? --Strothra 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Melodramatic? Don't be so dismissive. Just don't vote stack. It's a vicious cycle. It only makes others try to 'balance' the stacking. It shouldn't be permitted, isn't permitted in practice, and that won't change and shouldn't change. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to be clear about this, spamming talk pages for votes subverts consensus. Drawing like-minded editors to a vote in a raw test of numbers disrupts by polarizing editors and creating interest groups. Jimbo consistently drives this point home, consensus is reached by thoughtful editors discussing and debating issues. It is not reached by testing strength of numbers formed by calling editors to a page they haven’t been paying attention to and “voting”. Rx StrangeLove 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not an official policy why is he banned for it? Also, why was the ban not consistent for all users involved in "vote stacking?" If you're going to ban people for being annoying then you might as well be consistent about it. --Strothra 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn’t get blocked for being annoying. They acted in a way that fundamentally undermines how consensus is formed on Wikipedia. This is expressed in several “official” policies all throughout Wikipedia, starting with “Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy”… going on from there. You shouldn’t need this spelled out in an explicit official policy…there are few things as important as how consensus is formed here. It's important that people understand that. Were the blocks fair? I dunno....but it's clear that their actions were directly at odds with the way Wikipedia forms consensus. Rx StrangeLove 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, the outcome of this discussion should be reflected in WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming, which at the moment is basically a manual how to do it, which in turn seems to imply to me that it's generally not a blockable offence. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find. Ever since this diff in November 2004, that page has said of "internal spamming": It's too early to make any definitive rules about this... Perhaps things have changed enough for a rewrite? Apparently the issue of vote-stacking has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Spam before, both here and on this subpage, with an opinion from Jimbo himself, which is only tangentially related. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken the liberty of starting a section at the WP:SPAM talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lordy...if I blocked editors just because they spammed other editors about an Afd or similar, my block numbers would double. People do it through the email all the time...relisting the article now will only continue to polarize political POV's...how about I create an article Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008...is that any less a POV pile of nonsense than what we have here? I think not. Cyde absolutely shouldn't have blocked these editors and definitely should not have closed the Afd 5 days early. Now we have a bigger mess than we did, thanks!--MONGO 02:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amen. --Strothra 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice beans, MONGO. JDoorjam Talk 03:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time, protect it...it was recreated...beans indeed.--MONGO 03:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it unfortunate Cyde has said on his talk page he will "I'm not one to step down from doing what is right just because I may run into some opposition."
    Deletion Policy states "If a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period, for example, a clear consensus for speedy deletion, a clear consensus for a speedy keep, or a consensus for a redirect. The debate should remain transcluded on the appropriate deletion page. If the proposed solution has not achieved a very clear consensus, the listing should remain for the full five-day period. Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea. [25] (emphasis mine) Clearly, discussion was ongoing and the AfD should not have been closed. Cyde was not "doing what is right". He had even voted on the AfD prior to closing it. He was not a neutral party and he should not have closed this AfD even after the normal time period, let alone close it prematurely. Johntex\talk 03:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He is involved in the vote and blocked spammers (3 total) and closed the Afd early....none of this is good.--MONGO 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde's behavior has been completely appropriate. He might run into some conflicts with people that disagree with him, but I have seen no basis for stating that he "wasn't doing what was right". I've seen him use discretion appropriately in the past, and I believe he's used it this time as well. Daniel Davis 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If we're still looking for the arbitration case concerning talk-page spamming, it was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK that included the finding "6) IZAK has used the communication system of Wikipedia aggressively in an attempt to influence the outcome of Wikipedia polls, particularly with respect to Isr/Pal issues." and the accompanying principle against such actions. Also, as a voter in the StrangerInParadise case, and the one that wrote up all the proposals, I can say that the vote-stacking spam was absolutely a major part of the disruptive behavior that got him sanctioned. In any case, arbcom precedents do not generate policy, though they ought to be useful measures of good practice, but I find myself astounded that anyone would defend talk-page spamming. It is ridiculous to assume that any useful measure of consensus can be gotten when such disruptive behavior takes place. Dmcdevit·t 04:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amen. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it is not a defense of talk page spamming...this goes on all the time...since when was there a policy that states that spammers will be blocked. There isn't one AFAIK. The arbcom case above brought action based on many issues, not just the issue of spamming usertalk. All the commentary I see here is related to the actions after the spamming, not during.--MONGO 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    MONGO, Dmcdevit is an Arbitration Committee member. When he is commenting on how the ArbCom has ruled on certain issues, we should be listening, not trying to argue with him. --Cyde Weys 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How dare you lecture me about this. I can read the arbitration. He is not God and you best stop acting like you are. Your unilateral actions are going to get you in some hot water and soon. I'll just sit back with some popcorn and watch it all fall in your lap. ie:Userboxes, cite.php and now this...keep it up.--MONGO 04:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that spamming talk pages to get votes creates disruption, the problem to my mind is that A) if there is no written policy and B) none of the editors was warned first, then how can a block be justified? Also, regarding the AfD I think this quotation from Cyde's RfA is appropriate:
    "I think WP:IAR is more important for normal actions, but WP:PI is more important for admin actions, as one can sow the seeds of malfeasance and distrust much farther with admin actions."

    Thatcher131 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous. Cyde's actions were absolutely correct. Talk page spamming is disruptive. It is the duty of mop-handlers to stop disruptive editors. If he resigns, I resign. As I have the same attitude to disruptive editors, nothing else would make any sense. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it was this clear to everyone, why on earth didn't anyone put it down in written policy?
    Random users having to hang around admin pages watching side conversations or read admins / arbcom members minds' to understand what is ok and what isn't is very, very wrong. I'm fine with this being an official WP policy; having it an unwritten but blockable WP policy is WP community abuse of lower level WP members. Spell it out, or don't enforce it. This won't cover new innovative methods of abuse the first time or two they happen, but this is far from the first time WP has seen AFD related spamming. Georgewilliamherbert 21:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Quoting Wikipedia official policy on sockpuppetry:

    It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article.

    Does this policy really apply? I keep seeing mixed signals on "inviting all one's friends". Some say it is fine to invite people to AfDs, but my reading of the official policy explicitly forbids it. If vote stacking really is allowed could the language of the policy be clearer on that? Weregerbil 09:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the block on principle, I disagree that it should have been applied without a warning first. Thatcher131 11:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Cyde did fundamentally the right thing bringing that cat fight to a speedy close. Whether he went about it the best way possible is open to debate, but we really do not need vote-stacking, or indeed the impression that there is a vote to stack. It was completely out of hand. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with JzG. It might have been a little overstep of the mark to close the AFD early, but we absolutely don't want people votestacking, as it makes a mockery of AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Obnoxious Owl (talk · contribs)

    Can someone else deal with this troll please? They're just goading now and I would rather just step back and let someone else take over. See [26] -- Francs2000 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Or we could all just ignore the user. Jkelly 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just proves how useless {{unblock}} is, it is nothing but troll food. --Doc ask? 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah I do tend to get drawn into these things, especially easy after having had a hard day at work... -- Francs2000 01:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rationales for Impeachment Deletion Review

    It looks as if Cyde is willing to reverse his decision based upon his comments in the deletion review. Can we just relist this now? BlueGoose 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ladmeencetteunevagine

    This user just spammed User:Francs2000 with "WHAT A CUNT", to the point where it was difficult to load and revert. I reverted and warned, but then noticed that the username looks like it might be inapproprate (sound it out), so I thought I should report it here for that, too. --Aquillion 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy is probably associated with the Obnoxious Owl troll above. Isopropyl 01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Block of Merecat

    Somehow Nescio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Morton devonshire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been unblocked but Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked a second time by Tony Sidaway. I request an explanation. I also note that under the new Monicasdude rule for AfDs, the one person who should be blocked is the one who posted these tasteful remarks,

    • "Blue goose, you are just spewing bile ignorantly. You have made no edits, and are factually ignorant as far as i can tell about anything to do with the article." [27]
    • "My notion is that people who vote should make themselves something other than ignorant" [28]

    I am not impressed. Thatcher131 01:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And We are not amused--Queen Victoria131 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree with Jtdirl's decision to unblock the miscreants in the earlier case. I certainly am pleased to see that I'm not the only one who chose to block Merecat for his talk page spamming. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I got his spam on my talk page also, despite the very large "No solicitation" notice at the top. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it wrong because it was annoying personally or because it unduly influences the process? When Nescio tried to stack the RfC he filed against Merecat, no one seemed to mind. Perhaps I should have complained then. Thatcher131 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The reason this thing is getting so hot is because individuals are being incredibly one sided about this and don't seem to care about even hiding it. Certain individuals seem to be unduly against Merecat when he was not the only individual in the wrong, if he was in the wrong (depending on who's standards you use.) I wonder if that has anything to do with their difference in personal opinions. --Strothra 02:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not go there at all. This is messy enough as it is. Thatcher131 02:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I thought it was curious. That's all I'll say on it though. --Strothra 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did block Nescio for vote-stacking as soon as I learnt of it. It's not my fault he was unblocked. --Cyde Weys 02:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Nescio and Merecat have been testing 3RR today over the utterly idiotic issue of whether the Rationales page should include {{citation style}}, in addition to the problems mentioned above. Both of them could use 24 hours away from Wikipedia to calm down. Although, if Nescio's block has been (improperly IMO) lifted, Merecat's probably should be as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent block of User:Sgrayban

    User talk:Sgrayban

    I've asked Master_Jay to review his unblocking, pending an opportunity for other admins to consider the situation. Briefly,
    • Jdforrester, the admin who placed the block, hasn't had a chance to comment (unless there was off-wiki communication...?).
    • The block is more than a week old. A few hours to discuss shouldn't make a difference.
    • Sgrayban made legal threats on-wiki following his block: [30].
    • I'd like to avoid any actions that might be seen to have even a hint of wheel-warring to them.
    I hope that Master Jay will reverse his action pending a discussion here. I don't mean to come down too hard on him—it's a Good Thing that he posted a notice here for review in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a response to this[31] if Wikipedia admin want to enforce there laws over the rights to privacy and allowing private emails to be posted and then used against the users here then I would start looking for new jobs. Not one person here admin or not is above the US Laws regarding emails and electronic privacy communications. If Adam Carr wants to post emails sent to him that his problem and no one elses. Wikipedia admin should have deleted the email since it violates US Law and reminded the user that it is illegal and not to mention it reveals personal imformation which is another thing Wikipedia says it doesn't allow. So either wikipedia Admin are above the law and can interprete there own meanings are they also willing to finish this to end because I am more then willing. Although I really think James Whales(Jimbo) will agree that the actions by the admin that banned me was illegal and he should have removed the private email from wikipedia instead. Think about this first, is anyone really willing to see this through? I suggest to let me be and let me handle this the way it was started in the first place which was in private emails and not on wikipedia. --Scott Grayban 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reblocked Sgrayban indefinitely for the above on-wiki legal threat, since the rationale for unblocking, if I'm reading correctly, were that his legal threats were off-wiki and that if it had been on-wiki he should have been blocked. Legal threats are absolutely intolerable. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has contacted me and hinted at legal action directly against the Wikimedia Foundation. Any further information should be passed on to User:Danny or me.--BradPatrick 14:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally identifiable information

    Someone's spamming personal details of a Wikipedia user on pages linked to from the Main Page. I recommend semi-protecting them all for a while. Got no time to do it myself though. - Mark 02:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article he's talking about seems to be Armavia Flight 967, the users posting info are The.Dope.Poet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Andrew_Thomason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both already blocked. --bainer (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There were other articles too, like Zacarias Moussaoui, but the situation would appear to have passed. Sorry for being so nonspecific, I was trying not to draw too much attention to the situation. - Mark 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Capitalister

    Capitalister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active in the Rationales mess, but I assumed he was Capitalistroadster (talk · contribs) until I took a close look at his sig and contribs. From a quick glance it definitely misled me. Whether this is actionable as a misleading user name I leave in the capable hands of the admins. Thatcher131 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Capitalister is currently blocked for a very questionable string of edits. I would encourage other admins to keep an eye on him once he gets back. This guy seems to suffer from terminal nuttery. --Cyde Weys 03:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I noticed him in the rationales for impeaching George W. Bush and he nominated a reformed article which was speedy kept. I haven't had a look through his contributions yet. I don't think it was a conscious effort at imitation though. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look a little bit deeper, he made some edits which were borderline vandalism, and he also made some posts that were outright intended to cause disruptiveness, like listing me at WP:AIV and revert-warring with admins over the article in question. --Cyde Weys 04:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinated astroturfing for DISH TV

    Patrolling with VandalProof tonight is showing a lot of results for DISH TV external link spam, specifically:

    • http://www.rapidsatellite.com/home/directv/
    • http://www.dishpronto.com/home/mpg/
    • http://www.essonne-enligne.com

    What is the procedure for adding links such as these to the spam blacklist? This is a pretty clear astroturfing campaign by an agency. — Scm83x hook 'em 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin blocking talk page

    Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) just blocked a talk page with the comment: (Protected Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities: Briefly protecting so I can ACTUALLY GET A GODDAMN EDIT THROUGH [32]. Which means that others can not get their edit through. Can someone deal with this. KimvdLinde 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (after edit conflict) He unprotected a few min. after. However, that was a pretty rude summary, especially for an admin. Not much actual harm done. Still, such impatient, careless and recklfull use of admin abilities should be avoided though.Voice-of-AlleT|@|ESP 06:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's unblocked, so things seem to be O.K. Snoutwood (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected, you mean ;). If traffic was really that high, and he really needed to get that edit through, I'd say it's fair, especially if he's using a weak internet connection, or browser, that doesn't move fast enough to avoid ECs. At least he's unprotected it, so that's fair IMO. NSLE (T+C) at 06:38 UTC (2006-05-04)
    Correct on all counts! Hearty agreement: looking at the history I can see why he did so. Snoutwood (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done this before. The summary I used was "one second, please!". Everyone thanked me, though, because it helped all of em. El_C 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe not expressedly thanked me, but deep down inside... No, no need to thank me! El_C 06:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say, this means that admins have more rights than non-admins because I would be unable to do so. And as I work from a dial in, it was obnoxious. But things are resolved now. KimvdLinde 07:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins can do a lot of things that the normal user can't: deleting pages, for instance. Isopropyl 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and as far as I understand, they have those for usage towards the community, not for their own easiness of editing or other personal motivations. Or maybe I read the RfA wrong when some people get rejected. KimvdLinde 07:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right. I'm sorry for my above post, I feel like an eejit. I wish I'd said something else... sorry again. Snoutwood (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck is this? There isn't any question: he misused protection. Why is everyone saying, "Well, he unprotected, so that's alright?" Sheesh. That's not what protection is for. It's what {{inuse}} is for. For years administrators have edited busy pages. For years they haven't resorted to protection to do it. Geogre 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I too find this shocking. Note that the edit Phil wanted to get through wasn't some kind of sysop intervention or meta message that everybody needed to get as soon as possible. It wasn't a message that he was about to protect the article, block contributors, issue a general 3RR warning, or anything like that. It was perfectly "normal editor" editing, in the form of several argumentative replies in the ongoing content debate, the same as everybody else. To then use sysop powers to make a special window not available to others when the editing is hot and fast, that's just ... bad. I don't see how it can be defended. Admins aren't supposed to be a privileged caste. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Oh good, we haven't all gone insane. Special powers are for helping the community in special ways. Using them to make posting on talk pages easier for yourself and making it temporarily impossible for everyone else is not justifiable. It doesn't matter that he unprotected shortly after, because users were still inconvenienced temporarily - the very reason he applied protection, the high traffic on the page, is the very reason why he should not have.
    The ability of admins using their powers to benefit themselves pretty much ends with being able to delete your own user subpages, in my view. Phil Sandifer misused protection. It's not a big incident, so let's not make a big deal out of it, but please, let's not see any more of it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is with pain in my heart that I have to agree with Bishonen and Geogre. I know Phil to be a decent, reliable and responsible admin. However, I disagree with his action on this talk page. His comment was that of an editor, not of an admin. In such cases, admins should not use their privileges, but act like normal editors are able to do. Wikipedia:Protection policy explicitly states: "Admin powers are not editor privileges." Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm not calling for a rope and a posse. I just can't countenance it as all Ok. It's not Ok. In fact, if there were people who were complaining about Phil for other reasons, it would be evidentiary, but it's not an ArbCom case by itself. (Some of us who don't like the clerks office and their ability to expand into all fissures in power might see it as an argument, but that's a separate issue.) Geogre 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, while I also am strongly opposed to getting torches and pitchforks over this, this was an inappropriate use of admin powers, IMO. Let's quietly file this under "Don't Do That Again" and move on. JDoorjam Talk 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Just to clear my conscience about the matter: You're absolutely right, I regret my above post. Sorry, I lost myself. Snoutwood (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Password reminders

    I have just received over 70 requests to mail my new password. They were made by 146.145.148.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (who was just serving his one-week block for vandalism). What is the correct action to do? (I have changed my password back and increased the block to one month.) - Mike Rosoft 06:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't need to change your password back, since it has never changed. The new password generated is stored separately and doesn't become your password until you actually use it, so you can simply ignore these mails. --pgk(talk) 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He did it once (I mean, 218 times) again - it seems to be some kind of a personal revenge against me. (For now, I have just semi-protected his user page to prevent him from vandalizing it, and reset his block.) - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    request for review by admins

    Please see User talk:87.202.74.190. While I don't agree with the actions of that anonymous user (keep in mind that this is a dynamic IP), I believe his/her blocking should happen after a longer discussion and communication per WP:BITE etc. I would also like to know if User:Macedonia is within the limits of the user page policy. Thanks and take care. talk to +MATIA 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merecat posting from IP addresses to evade block

    (Changed section header from 70.84.56.166 spamming talkpages like there's no tomorrow to attract a fresh set of eyes) I looked at what 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was doing a few minutes ago and shook my head in disbelief, and disinclination to get into the hot issue of spamming talkpages (see "Controversial Afd and POV vote-stacking" above); but when I found the IP still at it a few minutes later, I blocked for three hours. Er, is there any reason nobody else blocked this character already? Are you all asleep? Should I permablock (take a look at the userpages)? Bishonen | talk 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Guys..? The quip about everybody being asleep was a joke, c'mon! If somebody could help me with the mysteries of static/dynamic/open proxy/whatever with reference to this IP, I'll know what kind of block to do. Please? I don't even get any information on it from my usual reverse DNS lookup, which is the pathetic limit of my skills. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    He was actually blocked before your first posting. I will undo the spam. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ? I don't see any other block than my own in the log as of now. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Have you tried "whois"? This is the command output:
    # whois 70.84.56.166
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[Redirected to rwhois.theplanet.com:4321]
[Querying rwhois.theplanet.com]
[rwhois.theplanet.com]
%rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 whois.theplanet.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:THEPLANET-BLK-13
network:Auth-Area:70.84.0.0/14
network:Network-Name:TPIS-BLK-70-84-56-0
network:IP-Network:70.84.56.160/27
network:IP-Network-Block:70.84.56.160 - 70.84.56.191
network:Organization-Name:Upsideout
network:Organization-City:New Rochelle
network:Organization-State:NY
network:Organization-Zip:10804
network:Organization-Country:US
network:Description-Usage:customer
network:Server-Pri:ns1.theplanet.com
network:Server-Sec:ns2.theplanet.com
network:Tech-Contact;I:[email protected]
network:Admin-Contact;I:[email protected]
network:Created:20041126
network:Updated:20041126
    I hope it helps. Friendly Neighbour 09:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Er. Friendly Neighbour, it helps in the sense that it makes me feel somebody cares... not really in any other way, though. ;-) This stuff just isn't my bag. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • I requested the block on AIV and then I saw that Bishonen had blocked it one minute earlier. IPs from The Planet seem to be in the Dallas/Ft Worth area and there is a user down there who likes to post from IPs rather than register; nicknamed the Anon Texan for lack of a better word. He is pro-Republican and it would not surprise me if he was spamming for the AfD against "Rationales to impeach...". I would be very surprised if this was one of our regulars. In any case the anon Texan is annoying but rarely is actually disruptive. I would support reapplying the block in 12-24 hour increments if he begins spamming again as well as blocking any other IP that resolves to The Planet that behaves the same way. Thatcher131 11:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Per RFCU, 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is likely merecat evading his block. I'm actually surprised that after several month of ocassional activity from the anon Texan, he would do something that would so obviously provoke a checkuser. I have requested additional confirmation of 67.15.76.187. Thatcher131 11:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Confirmed by CU that spam from Everyone's Internet is Anon Texan/Merecat. Now what? Thatcher131 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well for starters, you might want to see if they can track down all accounts created from the anon texan IPs, I get the feeling that he wouldn't make it this obvious if there wasn't a replacement merecat lined up already--64.12.116.65 15:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • speaking of which, users Tbeatty (talk · contribs) and BlueGoose (talk · contribs) have been following him around for a while, making the same unblock requests, etc..it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone who went through so much effort might have created more than one sock at a time--152.163.100.65 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Merecat doesn't really have sock puppets in the traditional sense. Assuming Rex071404 is merecat, Rex stopped editing in November, about the same time Merecat started up, Rex also had an IP he appeared from when he forgot to log in, which he acknowledged and linked the talk pages. This IP was not in Texas. I'm going out on a limb, but I think he moved to Texas around November and started a new account at that time, for whatever reason. Only this time, when he didn't log in (accidentally or on purpose) he didn't admit who he was. The last contributions by Rex look a lot like the first contributions by merecat, but the early contributions by Tbeatty and BlueGoose don't look similar, except they are all Republican-leaning. Plus, I think when Mackensen looked at the server logs he would have spotted any more socks. (When we asked him to check a couple of suspected socks of VaughanWatch, he found 30 in one go.) At this point my opinion, worth every penny you've paid me, is to pull back and see what Merecat does next. If he's learned a lesson, then live and let live. If IP accounts from The Planet or Everyone's Internet in Texas start helping him avoid 3RR penalties or double-vote, then some further short term blocks might be in order. Thatcher131 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now that I read up on Rex' dismal history, I think the remedies section of his (Rex') most recent ArbComm require that a review of Merecat's edits be made to establish whether any terms of that hearing have been violated.
              • As an aside, the ability for one editor, the subject of four prior RfA's, to be permitted to distract so many from the effort of writing an encyclopedia is quite jarring. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I wasn't aware of that. If you want to press the matter you may want to start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. I feel I'm being led into this by an anonymous AOL user and two anti-bush editors who have filed an RfC and RFAR that were highly stacked against him. I'm feeling over my head at this point. Thatcher131 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Mentioning historical fact, however uncomfortable to Bush, is not equal to "anti-Bush." You disallowing facts (calling it POV), merely because they show that Bush is not the Hero you want him to be is totally against wikipedia policy. Stop calling me "anti-Bush," when you yourself have proven to be more interested in partisan comments than dealing with facts.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User mikka (t) is blocking innocent registered users from editing anything in Wikipedia

    It appears that I keep being unfairly blocked from editing anything in the Wikipedia with my registered user name, Art Dominique, due to illfated actions taken by mikka (t) in reference to the Wikipedia's Kven article.

    The userSplash unsprotected the Kven article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kven - at "22:32, 22 March 2006 Splash (unsprot: weird reason to protect and it's been long enough anywa)", after it had been sprotected by user Fred-Chess.

    I now ask for the assistance of administrators in reference to the clearly unfair protecting of the Kven article, and especially in reference to the "weird" and totally unfair blocking of my editing privileges, please, for the following reasons:

    Despite of many pleas for him to do so, the above mentioned user with "weird reasoning" - Fred-Chess - has not provided sources for his claims in the Wikipedia's Kven text or on its discussion page. His claims presented are not - to our knowledge - supported by known historians and/or other scientists. Instead, the views presented are contradicting those of known historians and other specialists on the related fields, as has been proven on the Kven discussion page.

    On the other hand, the users opposing the views of Fred-Chess have provided their own distinguished sources on another Kven text page version and the Kven discussion page as well. However, without presenting sources of their own and without discussing their claims, Fred-Chess and mikka (t) keep reverting the Kven text into a text version by Fred-Chess, which includes his unfounded claims, not supported by science. Furthermore, the sources offered on the bottom of that text version do not agree with the views/claims presented. The given sources have been carried on from the contributes of other editors. Thus, this is a clear case of misrepresentation.

    Here are just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred chessplayer ...

    ... [Removed by Bishonen]

    Art Dominique talk, May 4, 2006 - 11:59 (Ps.: In order to be able to sign in safely and to post this message, I have had to register a new user name, Digi Wiki, because computers used to enter Wikipedia by Art Dominique talk have become automatically blocked (including discussion pages), due to the wrongful actions taken by mikka (t).)


      • See page instructions: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes." "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content." I'm sorry, but this page is a monster anyway, you simply can not post like that. I've removed your "few examples" (=several screenfuls) of how distinguished authorities agree with your side of the Kven edit war. It's not that I want to silence you, but if you look at the rest of this page and the usual length of posts, it may tell you something. Do please put the material in your userspace and post a link to it here! Bishonen | talk 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]


        • Ok. Point well received. Please, find here just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred-Chess: talk


    The account of User:Art Dominique and several others are blocked for extensive sock puppetry engaged in revert wars making discussions of the article Kven impossible. See User:Mikkalai/arkven#Alphabetic list. The user was warned multiple times to discuss his significant changes in detail. Now he/she turns tables against User:Fred chessplayer (and some others), who cleaned up the article. He persisits in adding lots of unsupported and irrelevant information. For example, the section "Kven language" is totally redundant in this article (there is Kven language), not to say about dubious content. `'mikka (t) 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If User:Digi Wiki wants to be taken seriously. they are strongly recommended to use a single account for communications and sign their posts in the way used in wikipedia. Otherwise you are just wasting other people's time who have to figure out what is going on with your multiple personalities. `'mikka (t) 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    The Kven article as well as its talk page at Talk:Kven clearly show the contrary: You yourself do not appear to have a single source or reference brought to the Kven text. If you disagree, we hereby suggest for you to show evidence of you having provided a single source for the Kven article, please. The users opposing the views sponsored by you are totally different in this respect. Their multiple sources can be found from the Kven article and its talk page.
    The talk pages reveal, that prior to you taking the ill-fated blocking action now under review, you discussed the matter with User:Fred chessplayer. With him we have continued having exactly the same above problem. Despite of numerous pleas for him to provide sources for his claims, he has declined to do that. A quick look at Talk:Kven clearly shows that. This is the reason why we have come to dispute your actions. There really is no reason or bases for you to take such action ! The valid and correct information - backed by credited sources - ought to be left standing - naturally, do you not agree ? That is the only important matter here.
    talk, May 5, 2006 - 04:25


    Complaint about deletions by User:Ghirlandajo

    On this administrators' page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=history we can see that user Ghirlandajo deleted an important comment of valid concerns ("08:02, 4 May 2006 Ghirlandajo") immediately after it had been posted for the administrators to review by Digi Wiki ("07:58, 4 May 2006 Digi Wiki").

    That article reveals serious wrong doings by two Wikipedia users, similar to the wrong doings which user Ghirlandajo himself has been caught of participating in at Wikipedia's Varangian page.

    For instance, at the Varangian article history page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varangians&limit=100&action=history we can see that with the foot note "18:03, 3 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (rm the latest attack by Kvenites)" the user Ghirlandajo deleted referenced contributons made by another user to Wikipedia only moments before. The user Ghirlandajo did not provide reasons for his action.

    The user Ghirlandajo has continued these type of radical actions, without reasoning or any conversation. Today he did it on this administrators' page. Thus, can someone now put an end to his ilfated tactics and behavior which do not belong to Wikipedia. While conducting his own delete/revert strategies, the user Ghirlandajo is not providing sources or reasons for his actions, nor does he engage in any conversation regarding his deletes of the referenced and sourced information provided by others.

    Another example: At the Varangian article's talk page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&limit=250&action=history the user Ghirlandajo deleted a discussion comment on March 15, 2006, with the following history page marking: "15:13, 15 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (Wikipedia is not a dump for copyrighted material)".

    That can only be considered vandalism by Ghirlandajo, because althoug quotes were used in the discussion comment of the other Wikipedia user Drow Ssap, no copyrighted material was used without permission. On the top of Drow Ssap's comment which the user Ghirlandajo deleted, it was clearly stated that a permission had been granted for use of the quoted text. To confirm please check the page in question at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&diff=43900059&oldid=43889395.

    Administrators, based on the information provided above, please proceed to place the proper sanctions against the user Ghirlandajo !

    Digi Wiki, May 4, 14:11, 2006


    This user under multiple accounts (see User:Mikkalai/arkven) adds disputable information to various pages and fails to discuss the issues with other users. His behavior is disruptive and complained by several other users. `'mikka (t) 15:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks at Talk:Quizzing.co.uk

    This page is the subject of a POV dispute, including repeated name-calling based on the fact that an editor that has tried to keep the article NPOV, User:Jw6aa, owns a similar site (which various IPs from different ranges characterise as a rival who is editing in bad faith). The last post mused on whether Jw6 was autistic. I've begun removing new comments which continue these attacks wholesale, rather than just removing the worst bits, as I didn't see any of the comments as constructive. See this edit of mine. Further eyes would be appreciated. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to start blocking IPs to enforce WP:NPA soon, by the way. The name-calling is continuing and I'm about to remove another post despite the inevitable 'stop censoring' objections. --Sam Blanning(talk)

    Shit. The most egregerious name-caller is an AOL IP. I issued a 15-minute block, but if he comes back I don't feel bold enough to semi-protect the page - there are anons which are managing to keep up a pretense at civility. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting another editor's phone number

    Just a query — if an anonymous IP or a newly registered account makes an edit saying in the edit summary "Admin Bishonen's home phone number is (telephone number redacted)" (I made that up, by the way, so if it really is Bishonen's phone number, that will be the most amazing coincidence) and putting that text into the edit as well, what is an admin supposed to do (over and above rolling back the edit and blocking the account)? I wouldn't hesitate to delete the page and restore all versions except the offending one if it's a page with a few hundred edits, and I know that one can contact a developer for removal of personal information on larger pages (or for removal of personal information so that even admins can't see it). But there's always the suspicion that it's a time-wasting hoax, and that the editor's number isn't that one at all. Last year, an anon posted my address and phone number to my talk page in the middle of the night (Irish time), and an admin (I wasn't one myself then) very kindly did a big delete and partial undelete. But in fact, it wasn't my address or phone number at all; it was just a made up one. I saw it happening with a talk page this morning (not Bishonen's number, someone else's) — it was rolled back by another admin — and I did a rough count of versions in the history. There seem to be approximately 6,000. I did a deletion/part-restoration of a page with over 3000 versions at the Easter weekend, and my arm was aching at the end. (By the way why doesn't someone invent a button that you can click that says check all boxes, so that you can quickly carry out the part-restoration?) I don't think I'd have time at the moment to do that job, and I'm not even sure I should with such a big page, as it could cause the server to crash. And, in all likelihood, it's a hoax. Comments please? AnnH ♫ 12:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was a common problem we were having yesterday. The history that contains the phone number should be deleted, and the article should be restored without that history. This happened to all of the pages that are linked from the Main Page. I think the way to do this is restore only the offending history, move it to another page, and then restore the rest. You don't have to click the box.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now why didn't someone tell me that at Easter Weekend (groan)? Many thanks, Kungfu. It's extremely helpful to know that. If done the job. I tried it out as an experiment on one of my own subpages first, so that I wouldn't lose anything that mattered. AnnH ♫ 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked about this myself on the Help Desk the other day. There is a way to check all revisions of an article so you can just uncheck the one you want to delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find the link either, but I know it's out there. What you want is a bookmarklet that ticks all the boxes. Create a new bookmark in your browser and paste in the location/address: javascript:for (i=0; i<document.forms.length; i++) { for (j=0; j<document.forms[i].elements.length; j++) { f= document.forms[i].elements[j]; if (f.type == 'checkbox') f.checked= true; } } void 0. Then all you have to do is select that bookmark when at the restore page.--Commander Keane 16:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about the database crashing thing, I've heard it happens but I'm not sure how much information there has to be. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, but I'm afraid that's too complicated for a poor musical linguist. I did it the way Kungfu suggested. Maybe I'll think about your method another time. It sounds like something worth knowing. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just imagine all that hideous code (in the different font) actually says "Fluffy kittens, I love fluffy kittens, everyone loves fluffy kittens" and all you have to do is find out how to make a new bookmark and copy and paste "fluffy kittens" into the URL field. In Firefox it's 'Bookmarks/Manage Bookmarks' in the menu, then the 'New Bookmark' :button. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried my method on my sandbox and it worked like a charm! I suggest however, protecting the page before you delete it, and restore the protected version and the bad history. Move that to the Article name/bad then restore the rest. Revert to the reversion before the redirect, and you are done!--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, one more thing, don't forget to delete the bad version when you are all done.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I didn't forget that! And just an update — I've tried what Commander Keane suggests, and it works! I didn't try it on a deletion. I went to my watchlist, and then to "display and edit the complete list", and then went to the "Check all boxes", which I had entered into my "Favorites" and instantly, they were all checked. Thanks again to everyone. AnnH ♫ 14:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another way is to shift-click the first and last boxes. Apparently the developers don't want to add a "check all" button; I've requested it, but it's been denied. Ral315 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    hinzufügen User:Cryptic/toggleundelete.js to your monobook.js but I agree it would be good to have a button as standard. the wub "?!" 14:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article

    Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Wikipedia users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who vandalized the article, voted for deletion.

    If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of the debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. >(talk) [[34]]

    Please take this to deletion review. --Doc ask? 13:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have appreciated a personal dialog on this subject in the first instance. Doc is right that this case should go to deletion review. While I attempt to make the right decision in the best interests of the encyclopedia, I'm not perfect and this was a very hard decision to make. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, I shall take the request to the page, as you suggest.
    Tony, As you may have gathered from the discussion in connection with the deleted article, it has been a long and arduous issue, particularly because of the vandalism of people related to the OITC. In addition, the article you deleted is the result of many weeks of research. Apologies if you felt hurt by our bringing the matter directly here. We prefer to deal with it as directly as possible.--24.215.205.169

    I've taken this to deletion review [35]. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lesbian and bi girls are awesome

    I have denied the unblock request of this user twice now. The block was instated due to the choice of username. The user in question demands a review from more admins so here we are. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is almost certainly the same troll I username blocked as User:Jack Hates Jesus. Keep blocked - indeed I would let his IP stay blocked for a while too. --Doc ask? 14:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, good that we actually can agree on something. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. This is probably not the best indicator of a NPOV. --Syrthiss 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I have now protected that user-talk page. I see no reason to waste more time on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even "almost" certainly - see [36] FreplySpang (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not so sure this one is so cut and dried. The block of the original username I find correct; this one's borderline. The user clearly needs to be pointed to WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA but, with several productive edits prior to the block, I see no reason why this user shouldn't be given a chance to demonstrate productivity. If the user fails, a new block would be easy enough. RadioKirk talk to me 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Which of the edits do you consider as productive? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As User:Jack Hates Jesus, here, here and here are a few examples; User:Lesbian and bi girls are awesome, while obviously confrontational on the user talk page, only had the opportunity to participate on Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm just not sure this is enough of a history to impose a permablock, especially of that user's IP. A new user name and a pointer to policy pages, and the possibility still exists that this one could be productive. RadioKirk talk to me 14:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I support the block on username alone. Is it offensive? No. Would it be appropriate on MySpace? Yes, if their policies allow it. Is it the username of an encyclopedia editor? No. --kingboyk 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I also support the block on username alone. The name is not condusive to building an encyclopedia. And they are awesome, by the way. Johntex\talk 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not support the block based on username alone. It would be another thing entirely if the username was "Lesbian and bi girls kill babies", but this is most certainly not the case. What is offensive about saying a group is 'awesome'? And why can't the username of an encyclopedia contain such? If the policing of usernames requires the determination of them being 'encyclopedial' or some vague notion of what's appropriate for an encyclopedia, then what's next? Why, in that case, have usernames at all, and force everyone who edits non-anonymously to use their real name. Also note that what you are leaning to right now is the creation of policy, and if that's going to happen this issue needs a lot more attention than this. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't support it either. The name seems to be borderline, and I'm inclined to assume good faith here. JoshuaZ 15:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have assumed good faith (tho perhaps have advised the editor that the name would evoke strong opinion) had there been no connection to the previous username. As it is, I suspect they were blocked originally and went to the username policy page to try and craft something that when blocked could be use to troll us with. --Syrthiss 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it can't be a simple "okay, I can't have that user name, let's try this one"? Again, I don't see enough history to be sure... RadioKirk talk to me 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any way in which someone would register that name except for the purpose of being confrontational. Userboxes have been deleted for that very reason. It reminds me of -Ril- signing with that annoying ~~~~ signature, and putting on his user page that he was going to keep that signature unless the arbitration committee forced him to change it ("live with it" or "learn to cope" or something like that). If you want to edit an encyclopaedia constructively and professionally, you don't choose that name. I fully support the block. AnnH ♫ 16:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I support the block. I find this username inappropriate. A lot of people would consider it offensive. In addition, the user's first edit was this. What does that say? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 16:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would weakly support the block on it's username alone though I would definitely unblock if a good reason for the username was given, but I definitely DO NOT SUPPORT AN UNBLOCK due to the attacks that this user has made on other editors, including the admins he's communicated with on his talk page. "don't be an asshole" is entirely innapropriate and along with his hostility and several other similar comments, along with his edits he should definitely not be unblocked. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 16:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the block per kingboyk's reasoning. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too support the block. Snoutwood (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user name is a goof. It would be a goof coming from Gloria Allred, from Andrea Dworkin, and from Larry Flynt. It's designed to tweak somebody's nose, and that is exactly what we don't want. I don't care if the user name is "DeepFriedTwinkiesAreGoodFood," the point is that it's not a witty play on words: it's a didactic statement. Block on name alone. Anything more would be predictable. Geogre 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Executor-usa unblocked

    I blocked Executor-usa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) several days ago in response to legal threats relating to OITC fraud. I have unblocked him following the deletion of the article and this exchange (E-usa SB E-usa) which satisfies me that he will not be pursuing or threatening legal action for the moment. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly suspect that User:Executor-usa is Ray C. Dam, one of the parties named in the recent OITC scandal in Fiji. If so, the WP:AUTO and WP:NOR policies should apply to his involvement with the article. I note that he's also been responsible for vandalism; personally I wouldn't have unblocked him. This user needs to have a careful eye kept on him... -- ChrisO 20:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    needless destructive edit

    Bmt86

    • revert edit (twice), deleted data
    • short article Matrix_(IT)
    • has put it into hoax/afd without obvious inaccuracy.
    • user page=non-existent

    Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's a hoax -- putting back hoax template, although Bmt86 shouldn't have re-PRODded. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bmt86 restored the discussion of that article, which says exactly nothing, and is unsigned. It is not related to the article. It does not show a will to understand policies. The term is used by different IT companies, and in mathematics. It is pointless to hoax it. It does not make sense to call removal of "discussion contribution", which is vandalism, vandalism. so-to-say "vandalizing vandalism". A Clear user page gives me edit rights. Bmt86 looks unable to check my user page forehand, or to contribute to the article in any way.

    www.mathtutor.com/matrix.html Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK -- that's the first reference which is at all related to the description in the article. It's still being used as a synomyn for table, rather than the text Akidd dublin put in the article. (By the way, what's a "Clear user page". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK i have put it into the article. Hang on. It was there. A clear user page is one without extremist information, or, containing no information (an empty user page).
    A software matrix is same (sense of meaning) as math matrix. see "array" (dictionary).
    I do not see Bmt86 edits as making sense. Reports about own inability (see Matrix_(IT) discussion) do not belong here. It is allright to delete unrelated data. It is not really vandalizing vandalism. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    An incorrect anon comment is not vandalism, so deleting such from an article talk page is vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see it an "incorrect anon comment", because its author basically says he does not understand much about the article. I could add this to (any) article i do not understand. This does not make sense, and it reads vandalism to me. I believed removing unrelated data, which has nothing to do with the article. Basically it gets a discussion about discussion, or a trial to push the effect button vandalism. I believe it is something different...the data was only able to produce comments like "I do not understand it too". I have seen this at other places (BBS). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated unjustified blocking

    I am new to Wikipedia. I created an account using Solo999 about 2 weeks ago. I am an aol user.

    Since that time I have had difficulty with edit blockers, who have quoted various offences which are nothing to do with me.

    Yesterday I was blocked after I'd eited a the talk page on biological psychiatry. The blocker on this occasion was 'canadian caeser'

    Significantly I have not been blocked when entering other edit talk pages, during the same online visit.

    It therefor appears to me that a the blocking manouevres are being used to fence me off from the biological psychiatry edit page, biological psychiatry being listed as a controversial issue.

    I would be grateful for any assistance which would assist me. Solo999 17:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Am replying on user's talk page... --Syrthiss 18:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    dogtoyco dog toy spamer

    Doesn't quite fit AIV policy, so filing here.

    This user:

    Dogtoyco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for linkspamming. 27 minutes after the block expired more link spam for this web site came from:

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

    I think that it is obvious that this was done by the same person or organization and that this IP should be blocked as well.

    - Trysha (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Drug Free/not drug free user box

    On april 30, the user box 'not drug free' has been nominated for deletion. I would just like to know, since most of the people concerned with this have voted a 'keep' motion, when I will be able to stop arguing with people about its status and when the 'keep' motion will be upheld? The motion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_not-Drug-free.

    Cheers --DragonFly31 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote spam account blocked

    Considering that previous blocks of accounts conducting vote spamming have been a little controversial, I figured I would toss this one up here. I have indefinitely blocked the new user account User:Rictonilpog, as, aside from setting up a bunch of user boxes on their user page, the account's only actions have been to spam user pages to call for votes on a certain AFD. I don't normally like to get into these types of controversial blocks, but this is almost certainly a sockpuppet account of someone, given how much knowledge they displayed of the project. (Userboxes, AFD, etc.) And they were going 90 MPH with their spamming. - TexasAndroid 18:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The block has been lifted. Someone is playing a joke here, and I fell for it, though I don't think they intended for an admin to fall for it and drop a block on them. Check out the user's talk page to see what developed. - TexasAndroid 18:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter what they were spamming for, spamming is spamming and the account should be blocked for that alone, but it should also be blocked as a role account. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, such spamming is disruptive and likely to be a sockpuppet account no matter what they were spamming for. Ian13/talk 18:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like WP:POINT and that he was trolling for a block. 128.151.71.19 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I look at it, the more I wonder what is actually up here. While it technically spoils whatever the joke is, I feel the joke/prank is over at this point. User:Rictonilpog created a subpage of his User page, User talk:Rictonilpog/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political fallout from seperation issues. Notice the AFD part of the name. That is what I saw and acted upon. The page is actually about whether a certain cat is cute. He then started the Spam run, asking people to come vote on the cute cat page. But nothing on the spammed notice showed what the vote was actually about. And if you hovered over the link, as I did, and did not read close enough, as I did not, you may only see that it appears to be a vote on an AFD page for a potentially inflamitory topic.
    I get the feeling that someone was trying to stir up a reaction of some sort, fooling potentially politically sensetive people into coming racing to a political vote page only to find a cute cat vote instead. I still do not think they planned on an admin being the one fooled like I was.
    Given the recent kerfuffles over vote spamming, I wonder if someone wasn't trying to make some sort of point with all this. That would be a flagrant WP:POINT violation, but it's hard to know at this point.
    At this point all I know for certain is that the reasons under which I blocked him, spamming for an AFD vote, were not true, so I could not justify leaving him blocked. If someone wants to reblock him for the spamming itself, or for WP:POINT violations, that's up to them. - TexasAndroid 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a suspicion which it would be pointless to voice. If he starts it up again or does other blockable things, block and RFCU; if this is a one-time WP:POINT game and he's finished, then leave it as blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punative (I think). Thatcher131 19:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, spamming is spamming whether it is to an actual AfD page or to some joke page. JoshuaZ 21:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    On the extraordinary "mandate" of Adam Carr

    Moved to my userspace. El_C 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please limit use of the above page to the issue at hand; important querries re: iced-cream and so on should be directed to my talk page. Thanks. El_C 00:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is it you're trying to hide, El C? Are you one of those "strawberry flavour only" freaks? --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request investigation and/or intervention into user's mass modification of (European) football-related articles to include an external link to [37]. -- Robocoder 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    they've stopped for now, and CambridgebayWeather has warned them as well. --Syrthiss 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

    User has continuously vandalized my talk page with personal attacks even after being confronted with an NPA warning. --Strothra 20:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I {{npa3}}'d him. --InShaneee 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If that person isn't a strawman then I'm J. Edgar Hoover, by a complete coincidence, i actually am J. Edgar Hoover, but that doesn't really have any baring on this--64.12.116.65 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    TuzsuzDeliBekir block extended to indefinite

    TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs) was just blocked for 48 hours for his seventh 3RR violation since January. This violation consisted of seven reverts [38]. However, there are other factors that influence my decision, tha major one being this: it came to my attention a couple of days ago that TuzsuzDeliBekir has been participating on a racist Turkish nationalist (anti-Semitic, anti-Armenian, anti-Greek) website coordination his POV warring with the banned user -Inanna- (talk · contribs) (banned for edit warring and racist attacks) and advocating "intimidation" of Khoikhoi (who she refers to as the "troublesome Jew"). The forum thread was removed when I filed a report with the site for violation of their terms of service (namely, hatred, racism, and harassment), but the full text can still be seen at User:Dmcdevit/"Wikipedia Sorunu" translation. And indeed, Inanna has been using dynamic IPs to attempt to intimidate Khoikhoi on his talk page for days now.

    In response to his latest 3RR block, he left the following message [39], which included more harassment and accusations against Khoikhoi "When a Turkish editor comes and adds, then Khoi comes and sees it. Afterwards, he alerts all of his watchdogs...You can put a tag on Wikipedia like Sorry, because of Khoi, we are totally close to all turkish editors." and a promise to continue edit warring when he gets back: "Anyway, I will have a holiday then I will be back and revert the page again unless you will hear me." For relentless edit warring, using off-wiki forums for POV-coordination, racism, and harassment of other editors (which is carried out by his comments here), and even promising to keep edit warring when he gets back, I don't think he should be allowed back to Wikipedia, and I've extended the block to indefinite. Comments welcome. Dmcdevit·t 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just blocked him (48 hours) last week for 3RR violation. While blocked, he circumvented it from another IP [40]. Looking on his talk page now...I'm amazed to see two 3RR violations since last week. Such behavior, along with the evidence you cite, shows major disrespect for Wikipedia policy as well as violation of WP:NPA. I concur with the block. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I caught him socking back in March and gave him a warning: [41]. Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm one of the users TuzsuzDeliBekir was revert warring with, I don't think I'm unbiased enough to comment (I'm one of what he refers to as "Khoikhoi's watchdogs"). However, I would advise deleting his userpage and deleting the photographs of himself he uploaded, for privacy reasons. This only of course if the permablock gains community consensus here or whatever the procedure is. Telex 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. When we need an editor to share the "anti-Semite/anti-Armenian/anti-Greek Turk nationalist" point of view here on Wikipedia, we should find one that won't edit-war, use socks, evade blocks and harass users. Jkelly 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceraurus

    User Ceraurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Mark Bourrie and Isotelus) was blocked indefinitely on April 12 for using sock puppets to circumvent the 3RR rule at Rachel Marsden. One of the IPs he used is 70.25.91.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as shown by checkuser: see here. Today this IP joined several others in a reversion war on the Rachel Marsden page. I've asked for semi-protection of the page, but I think the IP should be blocked too until this users block is lifted. Bucketsofg✐ 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:thewolfstar, in addition to recent blockable behavior, has now made vague legal threats against the wikipedia community. It's probably blather, but it's definitely a legal threat:

    "Merecat I'm so sorry about everything these low lives are doing to you. I didn't even know you were blocked last night, never mind all the horrible stuff they are doing to you now. I have some friends in here, you have a lot of friends, plus there's a lot of help I can get you in other ways. They're not going to get away with any of this. I have enough dirt on them now to hang them in a court of law. It's that bad. We'll get you out of here. Hang in there, friend. Maggiethewolfstar 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC) "[42][reply]

    I post this here hoping an admin will review and if appropriate, provide wolfstar some guidance as to how to avoid banning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't sound vauge in the least. I'd recommend banning outright for legal threats (though I'll wait to see what anyone else thinks about that). --InShaneee 23:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed they're clear threats - I was referring to the intentional vagueness of the target. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for 24 hours...I'm trying to assume that this editor was being argumentative so I am allowing this editor to post a response on their talk page and if the response isn't satisfactory in regards to the meaning of the comment mentioned, I will extend the block to indefinite.--MONGO 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, given the previous explosiveness of Wolfstar and the near-LT's made before, this is quite too far. I know it's a p.i.t.a., but mediation is the next step, I'd say, unless anyone really thinks that an RFC will be controversial. I note also that the "have dirt" phrasing is familiar. (I try to take a shower once a day and not let dirt get "on me.") Geogre 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expressed the opinion to her that making legal threats is against the spirit of Esperanza, which she recently joined. Her response to me wasn't much of an acknowledgement. This whole thing just bugs me from an Esperanza point of view, I guess. I know WP:EA doesn't exercise enforcement power, and neither can I, but... I don't know. It still bothers me. --Elkman - (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have unblocked TheWolfstar and offered advice. Her comments can be viewed on her usertalk. Ift he events reoccur just once more, then do what needs to be done.--MONGO 12:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Collateral Damage from the Loyola vandal IP range block

    Please visit User_talk:DCrazy#Unblock_request for information. I have contacted the Loyola administrator via email that DCrazy has provided me. I side with the user that the range block is a little extreme, and this user has made good contributions to Wikipedia. Who is for unblocking the range of IPs?--Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unblocked. If we have the attention of their network administrator, then hopefully the problem will not recur. -- Curps 06:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Curps, the system administrator was very helpful and will do whatever can be done--Kungfu Adam (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Prometheuspan's complaint against Strothra

    Vandalism warning Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Strothra 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

    My edits could only be construed as attacks in that they are cuttingly cogent, and that they are directly proportional to what is being thrown at me. Nothing I have said is an attack as such in that everything I have said is born out by a rational and cogent examination of the facts.

    I am admittedly rather long winded at the rfc. I think thats fair considering that half the people there were summoned there by talk page spam. It seems to be up in the air wether this is legal or illegal. My understanding is that it is illegal. If it is legal, then please forgive my anger, I'll just get to work right away on spamming every mailbox on wikipedia i think is likely to be sympathetic to my side.

    Strotha should recuse from any admin actions against me as strotha is biased, and attacked me first. In particular, the only things i said that could be construed as personal attacks against him were when he first attacked my educational credentials. The fact of the matter is, Strotha is either lying out of ignorance, or lying out of intention. To assume good faith is to assume that he really did read those articles, and, still failed to understand them well enough to try to bait me with a straw man argument. Prometheuspan 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Prometheuspan 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have changed your section heading. In the future, please note that alarmist headers such as "request other admins attention immediately" are not neccessary. Remember, this is a noticeboard. Isopropyl 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit for which I made that vandalism tag was an edit which deleted a comment I made asking the complaining user to calm down and to stop making extreme bad faith assumptions while seriously attacking the integrity of other editors. I do not add vandalism and NPA tags lightly. --Strothra 23:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) You seem to never have even taken a grade school civics class.[reply] 

    You should read a book on how the U.S. federal system works -

    it's a good thing for every citizen to have at least some 

    familiarity with it. 
 + --Strothra 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not once made a personal attack against you. You, however, have made repeated personal attacks against me. 

    If you continue in this manner I will seek admin assistance

    against you. I was simply trying to explain to you a point of 

    constitutional law and procedure which you seem to not be familiar

    with but I am. I read the articles you cited. None of them are well written themselves or go in-depth into the subject matter. --Strothra 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC

    None of them are well written themselves or go in-depth into the subject matter. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Two ad hominems, and I am the one that gets threats of banning and a bunch of pretty looking graphics. The only thing strotha got was a mirror and a hyperbole. If any admin has a problem with that, then they only have strotha to blame for attacking prometheuspan in the first place. You seem to have mistaken me for somebody who doesn't have a good handle on formal logic, and as somebody who is easy prey for you to manipulate with fear and threats. I'm not that person. Back off before i get really wordy about it. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am attacking the integrity only at this point of merecat, bluegoose, and strotha. All of these people have demonstrated bad faith through the use of manipulation, ad hominems, and other rules violations which nobody seems responsible enough around here to ketch.

    Theres an interesting note on my talk page. Somebody is now using my words to start shooting down Wikipedia. I think thats unfortunate, and i think they are taking what i am saying out of context. However, I expect people <Admins> to start listening to me, and for the manipulations and con games and rule breaking to be attended to, or i might end up saying more things that somebody might use to defame Wikipedia, and that would be unfortunate. I have the gift for fire of the tongue. I also make a good research assistant. Wikipedians gmaing the system, breaking the rules, using ad hominem attacks, and underhanded manipulations are making the system broken. This is a test of Wikipedias integrity, and I reserve the right to be the final judge. I also resent being put in the position of verbal combat in the first place, because yes, I am good at it, and no, its not fun and i don't enjoy it, and i'd rather be cooperating with people to build something; "The best encyclopedia ever." My comments as a whole are neutral; I have even in some peoples minds given the deletionists "ammo" by admiting that the article in question is biased. Let me be even more clear. The article is a factual article written in neutral language about a noteworthy topic. Period. Logically, there is no bias in the logic per sey. In order to conform to WIKIPEDIAS NPOV standards, the article still needs its MPOV defense Echo. Instead of using a pov driven mob to delete the article, fix the article. And quit giving me flack about my factual evaluations of people. If i call somebody a liar thats because they lied. If i call somebody to be acting in bad faith, its because a series of ad hominems and straw men arguments have logically demonstrated that to be fact. Strotha does do what he does lightly; strotha uses his position as a shield and then attacks. I'll assume good faith with anybody who continues to act in good faith. I'll not assume good faith for people who through their actions demonstrate that they are just republican pack psychology mob members. If that is a problem with Wikipedias admins, then Wikipedias problems are bigger than I or anyone can resolve. To some degree, Wikipedia DOES owe its fealty to THE FACTS, not the form of false consensus that is created when people operating in bad faith initiate a bad faith VFD and then vote stack. And certainly not the facts according to Strotha; who is willing to attack me to get a reaction and then play the poor innocent victim. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to make a handoff

    Could some other admin please take a look at the latest discussion at Template talk:Policy and the related page protection of {{policy}} and {{guideline}}. Preferably someone who has never edited either template or commented on the discussion. I protected these two pages due to considerable edit warring, 3RR violation (over where to hold the discussion no less), breakdown of civility, et cetera. However, it is now being claimed that I was "involved as an editor on the guideline template" because I made this uncontroversial (so far as I know) change on a completely unrelated issue two weeks ago. I also apparently protected the "wrong version" to further an opinion I didn't know I had on a debate that I had thought largely non-significant. I'm not going to remove the protection based on charges that seem to me specious, but I'd be more than happy if someone else would take this over and unprotect, reprotect, or whatever as need be. --CBDunkerson 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's all they can muster to say that you're "involved", they're drawing a very long bow. Protection doesn't seem at all out of place here, I would even leave these protected permanently based on WP:HRT. --bainer (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who *is* intimately involved in the dispute, has unprotected them. I would like to request reprotection and for comment as to whether or not someone that involved should be unprotecting things. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Locke Cole is trying to bring this up in several places and it's completely unnecessary. The pages are currently stable and there appears to be no need for page protection. VoiceofAll and I have talked about the issue and agree that it's not worth going into any further. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Our latest discussion is here for anyone interested. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm bringing this up where administrators who are not involved, as you are, can presumably be made aware of the issue and do something about it since you've now resorted to abusing your sysop powers. And to be absolutely clear, Voice of All (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said "I support the page protection, for the record." (2006-05-04 01:57:29) After which, you proceeded to unprotect the pages anyways (2006-05-04 23:03:12, 2006-05-04 23:04:05), despite your obvious close involvement and edit warring over these very pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop trying to stir up trouble. CBDunkerson protected a page in circumstances where I felt he was involved as an editor. He disagreed. I unprotected. Voice of All took a look as an uninvolved admin, is keeping an eye on it, and has said he doesn't feel further comment is constructive. I agree. That's enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one stirring trouble up, I'm just pointing it out. Second, are we now subscribing to the two-wrongs-make-a-right way of doing things? (Assuming we buy the idea that CBDunkerson was wrong to protect, which I'll note so far few, if anyone, believes except you). Third, your unprotection was absolutely uncalled for given your obvious involvement; I believe it's appropriate to bring this to other administrators attention so they can verify that your actions are incorrect and biased. Finally, Voice of All already said that he agreed with the protected status of the pages. He's said nothing to date to nullify that statement. Please stop twisting what others say to your own ends. Please also stop abusing your sysop powers in disputes in which you are directly involved. Finally, please stop attributing your bad faith to me; I'm not stirring anything up by pointing out your actions. You've been uncooperative so far, I strongly urge you to stop being incivil and stop assuming bad faith in everyone who does anything you disagree with. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, I've protected both templates indefinitely based on WP:HRT. The templates are high visibility templates, and are used exclusively in a context where any vandalism is very dangerous. --bainer (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Monicasdude

    I've blocked Monicasdude (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. He's on another PROD removal rampage. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Monicasdude deprodded twelve articles with valid and entirely civil edit summaries, except in the case of Bill Dedman where the charge of bad faith seems entirely justified as the prodding editor deleted a large chunk of text including references from the Boston Globe and the New York Times. Has the Arbcom case been finalized without anyone but you knowing about it? Thatcher131 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Monicasdude has deprodded probably 10 of my prods so far. One of them was today. So?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through the various recent prod removals. Two of the last 11 prod removals were counter to current policy and/or consensus. In one case, she removed a prod from a musician who clearly did not meet WP:MUSIC and in another case removed a prodded movie actor on the basis of the individual having an IMDB entry (the consensus as a matter of precedent on the AfD page seems to be that IMDB is not by itself enough to justify notability of an actor). However, many of the other prod removals were reasonable. I'm also concered about this block coming from Zoe in particular given that Zoe has had past run-ins with Monicasdude about precisely this issue. Overall, this block seems unjustified. JoshuaZ 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have to agree with JoshuaZ here, I'm concerned since Zoe has made statements in the past that she feels Monicasdude is randomly removing prods, which I don't think is the case. Regardless, isn't the whole point of prod that anyone can object and remove the tag? While we may disagree with his reasoning on some of the articles, they were all completely civil and appeared to have some thought behind them. I would appreciate it if you would consider unblocking. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also fail to see the reason for this. I looked at the deprodded articles, which included the chairman of the largest advertising agency in the U.S. (now on AfD) and a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist (the article on whom Monicasdude actually expanded substantially, but the assertion of notability was clearly there already). Monicasdude left a summary explaining the deprodding in each case. Both prodding and deprodding are legitimate parts of the process. Tupsharru 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As backed up by emerging consensus here, I have unblocked because I don't think the blocking rationale was valid. Without arbcom restrictions, which there aren't right now, simply removing several PRODs does not warrant a block. --W.marsh 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with W.marsh here- blocks for disruption are all well and good, but this block wasn't well justified. You do realize that a single reversal of an admin action makes you a wheel warrior now, though, right?  ;-) Friday (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if it was seen as wheel waring... I wasn't aware that rule existed. But given the consensus above I think it was clearly the right call... I just should have talked to Zoe first. So uh, my bad. --W.marsh 01:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheKarateKid7

    I am KarateKid7 and Karatekid7, I was not TheMADTim, this has never been verified and was described as likely, I dispute this. My initial account Karatekid7 was unfairly blocked imo by user:jtdirl. I was then later permanantly blocked by user:gator1 for removing the details of my previous block from my user page this admin has since disappeared. I then had KarateKid7 blocked for being a sockpuppet of Karatekid7 personally I do not think this was sockpuppeting as I thought it was very obvious and the account was created after my ban, I obviously admit that this was me. I also considered the blocks to be unjust and did not know how to question them as my user page was blocked for Karatekid7. I think my edits show that whilst some of my edits may be considered controversial by some, I am not a vandal, and I have reverted a good amount of vandalism myself. Simple fact is I could wait a week, register a new account with an unsimilar name and not be banned as a sockpuppet, so why ban me for being honest? --TheKarateKid7 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As the blocking admin on the sock who was acting under the advice of a couple other admins, I'm going to sit this one out, though I'm free to answer questions regarding this user. However, I don't see the harm in unblocking. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The original block of Karatekid7 (lowercase) by Gator1 seems to be over kid's posting unverified allegations of a criminal nature to an article despite repeated warnings. If he is willing to acknowledge his past mistakes and be good, I would agree with unblocking one account per AGF. Thatcher131 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial block was the one you are describing and only resulted in a short block, however it is more complex than this, as the sources were provided at the time. It is a difficult situation to explain and is in relation to the Jock Stein page, where the number of reverts or vandals(not me but people trying to put on the same information as I was, often in a crude way) is high due to the information that I was putting on the page deliberately being suppressed despite sources being provided. See the talk page on this article for details. The admin who initially blocked me I felt was possibly too friendly with one of the users in a revert war and without wanting to sound rude, would by appearance be diametrically opposed to my views. The indef block occured because I blanked my user page to hide the fact that I was blocked previously, I did this as I felt the previous block was unjust. I must also point out that this only went noticed when another user who objected to some of my edits went trolling through my posts and referred the matter of me blanking my own user page to an admin. Whilst I admit that some of my edits may be looked at as POV by some, I would disagree that they are vandalism. I would obviously say that I will not blank my user talk, and will not deliberatly vandalise. --TheKarateKid7 04:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current sock puppet listing : [43] Previous sock puppet usercheck : [44] recent 3RR : [45] another recent 3RR : [46] - multiple 3RR violation, uncivility, and sock puppet useage to evade two permablocks + 3RR. Karatekid7 is already permabanned. John79 is also permabanned. 221.114.194.14 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Regarding the block, it looks like Karatekid7 was blocked for 48 hours in December and created John79, a rather obvious sock, that was caught and blocked the same day. No big deal, happens all the time around here. But then on March 21 Gator1 blocked him first for a week, then escalated it to indef, for reasons that I can not understand based on the record. He created KarateKid7 which operated trouble-free for a month before being blocked as a sock. I perfectly understand blocking the sockpuppets, I do not understand the March 21 indef block. In fact, the blocking policy for disruption says, in part, "However, indefinite blocks should not be used...against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." Sometimes disruptive accounts are permabanned by Arbcom, and sometimes by "community consensus" but I see no evidence that Gator1 ever sought consensus because the indef block of Karatekid7 was not posted to AN/I. Since Gator1 has left the project there is no way for Karatekid7 to appeal directly to her. None of Karatekid7's conduct, including using socks, justifies a unilateral permanent ban. I would like to hear from some admins (and not just from an anonymous Columbian IP with an obvous agenda to keep Karatekid blocked) on what is the reason for sustaining this block. Thatcher131 15:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    216.155.95.163 thanks for your contributions, I assume you are also 212.138.47.17 and 221.114.194.14 and TheMadTim. Good investigative work, however anyone could read the evidence you have provided by simply reading my userpage. --TheKarateKid7 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24.64.223.203


    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)

    Morton devonshire has been advertising the AfD.[47]

    I just thought I would bring this up as there is another topic above about an IP address doing the same thing. Ansell 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not me. I notified people of the last Afd, not this one. Stop making stuff up. Morton devonshire 06:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Morton did recruit voters for the second AfD which was closed at 05:20 on 4 May, and was briefly bocked. He hasn't done anything wrong on the current third AfD. Thatcher131 06:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin abuse: User:InShaneee

    First she sent me a message in my talk page: [48] saying i committed a PA and accusing me of racism and spreading hatred! I responded emotional in the Persian people talk page: [49] because of User:Aucamans vandalizing of that article and his SPAMing to more than 50 users that Persians are a mixed race and so on. When i responded to that message in her talk page: [50] saying that it is neither acceptable to accuse users of racism and spreading hatred and that even administrators have to follow the ruels. She did not take that well, she kept sending me warning messages for every little thing she found on me. First she refered to this talk page: [51] stating that i have committed another PA! Later she sent this exact message: I'm warning you again, do not attack other users as you have here [52] and do not continually revert the edits of other users either. Thus she clearly toke sides with User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I had previously reported that very same user for vandalism because he kept reverting that very same article the word well-known eminent to distinguished stating that they came to an agreement in the talk page, which they did not and he is clearly lying. She then sent this exact message in my talk page: accusing other users of being 'liars' and calling anything you don't agree with 'vandalism' is uncivil obviously because i said in the talk page that moshe have lied about they coming to an agreement. Shanee constantly sent warnings even after i did not touch one page, and i kept answering her that i will not respond to her threaths and injustice and that she can go ahead and block me, then i will report her for abusing her powers. Here is what she said later in my talk page: You can report me to whomever you like. Again i did not even touch one page at that point, the only thing i did was keep sending her the very warning messages she sent me, that i will report her for abuse of power and taking sides. She sent me a so called final warning, after i replied she blocked me and sent this message: Regarding this [53] and others: You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. I don't care how many times she will harass, threathen and block me, i am not going to give up my rights as a user and a human. It is ironic that she used the word "civility" so often while she herself acted in this highly uncivil manner. --Darkred 06:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support admin action, you were definitely in the wrong. NSLE (T+C) at 08:43 UTC (2006-05-05)

    Well all i can say is if you actually support that kind of abuse and uncivil behavior then you are no different than her. --Darkred 17:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Did not take one day, she sent another warning message. And of cource i wished her good luck with her threaths and blocks. :) --Darkred 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin abuse: User:Friday

    Apparently he found this message: [54] rude and blocked me. I had sent the in response to user shanees two more warning threaths regarding the Frye article. (The frye article which i explained before is about two users now, moshe and bridesmill constantly changing the word eminent to distinguished even after coming to an ageement to take out well-known but let eminent be, then when i change back i get blocked! lol. There is really nothing more to be said, except if Wikipedia is solely run by people like these then it's a wonder how it's still running. :) --Darkred 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You told User:InShaneee, who's doing a valiant job trying to mediate Persia-related issues, that you were going to ignore his warnings to you about your blatant, repeated violations of policies. Then, after being blocked for incivility and what essentially amounts to a promise NOT to listen to the policy guidance of an administrator, you've come to AN/I to attack InShaneee again, as well as another administrator. Try editing with a level head, and Wiki policies held in the fore. If you continue to ignore policies and attack editors, you'll find yourself blocked a lot longer than 24 hours. :) JDoorjam Talk 20:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkred, I'm not sure that you've given a fair description of the fracas at Talk:Richard Nelson Frye. Those who want the background could go to that article and look at the last week's worth of discussion. Zora 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, Darkred's continued insistence on referring to both InShanee and Moshe as women ([55]), after politely being told that both are male ([56] and above), seems also to be intended as some kind of sexist slur. Lukas (T.|@) 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm blocking this user for one week, seeing as how as soon as his previous block expired he again swore to ignore all previous and future warnings leveled against him, continued to tell other users that they are vandals and will be ignored, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is referring to editors as females as an insult. If anyone feels this is unfair (or that a longer block is warranted), feel free to adjust it. --InShaneee 20:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Scratch that, someone else already blocked him for two weeks. I'll defer to his judgement. :) --InShaneee 20:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I must admit that I have found this whole situation quite confusing. The very first article where I ran into him was the Richard Nelson Frye article where he immediately began hurling insults at me. I tend to try to be civil, and although I sometimes lose my temper I must say that my patience here has been exemplary. I didn't even report his obsessive behavior until well after it began, and when he stated that he was going to report me for "vandalism" I even instructed him how (admitedly I only did so because I assumed it would not be taken seriously).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Internet pest and vandalism

    I am watching a page on Wikipedia titled "Siamese Fighting Fish" and am having problems with an internet pest. This user is using a ghost IP and keeps editing the page to edit any sites that are in competition with him. I have tried to protect the page, but to no avail as I have just been informed that only administration can protect the page from vandalism. May the page be protected? The vandal has his site on the page under external links, but will not allow any competition to place their site under external links. This user also has hacked into other internet sites and may be a worry.

    User now uses the name biopsy and once again has deleted the above mentioned sites.

    IP address and user known as 124.168.1.209

    User now uses the name biopsy and once again has deleted the above mentioned sites. I am reverting back the page.

    Goldenblue 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user who posted the above notice also added a "fake" protection notice to the page. I've temporarily actually protected the page to stop the edit war while the issue in investigated. Feel free to remove the protection (and the template) if you disagree or consider the issue solved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    RESPONSE:

    If you view the history of both 'Siamese Fighting Fish' & 'Discus Fish' you will see that Goldenblue is the user responsible for removing existing links. For almost, if not over 2 years, a couple of prominent sites have been listed on Wikipedia, yet a few small minded people decide they want to play musical chairs and start deleting sites, and adding links to firstly a site that does not exist (refer: www.betta-australis.com) it isnt even a valid or live site, then to another site at the expense of other sites with publically available data, whereas they keep all relevant information hidden in some secret fashion that is not in the spirit of sharing information freely.

    Goldenblue also makes slanderous comments against the person who owns several of the other sites, who has nothing to do with these eidts, stating that they hack into sites etc etc. Making such a public claim is slander without proof, something which they will not have, as no website has been affected at all by the person or persons they claim against.

    I would be suggesting Goldenblue be removed from using such a resource as Wikipedia, as they have shown they are interested in nothing more than to cause trouble, the history of both pages as mentioned above will prove this without anything else needed to be said.

    Matthew

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siamese_Fighting_Fish"

    Fast track (talk · contribs) has made a lot of apparently unilateral edits to categories relating to Pakistan. I would appreciate some help trying to unpick what should be where, some of this might require admin privs and/or a bot hence I'm asking here. Thryduulf 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User ☁ has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

    User:☁ has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

    Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

    Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

    This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    WOW vandal. Block correct... leaving this up for other admins to see. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Move reverted. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, that is a sweet username. —Khoikhoi 15:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In Firefox it appears as a heart shape, but when I first saw it in Opera... I thought there was some speck of dirt on my monitor. :-) Kimchi.sg 18:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd, to me it appears as a blob in both Firefox and Opera. And why are we whispering? --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes make my digressions small. :-) Kimchi.sg 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a cloud. Prodego talk 22:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw we put the image of a cloud back on his user page. I like it. I'm sure there is nothing that says you can only have the indef block template there. --waffle iron talk 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Userpage vandal

    I have permanently blocked HansAlfons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - does nothing but vandalism of user pages. - Mike Rosoft 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't indef blocking a little extreme? He's only got four edits. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocking vandal only accounts is pretty common, but I agree in this case it could be seen as a little harsh, as the vandalism wasn't extreme (bad, but I've seen far worse). Maybe try a shorter block then indef block if continues vandalising after that? Petros471 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a fairly new admin, so I don't know exactly what is the recommended procedure. (After all, I have just witnessed a block of Cliffpolite72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism of my user page and creation of an attack article Mike rosoft.) Feel free to reverse my block if you feel it's too harsh (after all this is why I am reporting it here), but I predict he won't come back except perhaps with a new account. - Mike Rosoft 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For a new account that has only produced vandalism, an indefinite block is not an extreme measure. After all, there's no useful edit history to be preserved. If the perpetrator decides to clean up his act, he can always create a new account or request an unblock on the old one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, I was just pointing out that it could be seen as a bit harsh, and suggested another possible course of action in similar situations. The block certainly wasn't out of order, and well within the realm of admin discretion, so don't worry about it :) Petros471 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to chime in that I think indefinite blocking is the preferred method for dealing with new accounts that haven't done anything useful (and have done stuff that was destructive). --Cyde Weys 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts that do nothing but vandalise articles, I warn and then give a 24 hour block just like (non-shared) IPs (the first time, that is). Accounts that do nothing but vandalise user pages get an immediate block from me as blatant sockpuppets. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChrisO's abuse of his adminship

    Hi there - I would like to complain on a number of fronts about ChrisO - he has been less than helpful. When the trouble started, ihad a banner on my userpage proclaiming a particular viewpoint on a controversial moral issue. ChrisO kept deleting it, never explaining why - and he blocked me after a few re-uploads. Thankfully, User:Pgk told me of a page explaining what Wikipedia is not: many thanks to him for doing so, because now I understand what I did wrong. On a number of occasions, he has objected to me adding 'Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics/Content' stickers to various album covers. Also, after having seen a number of requests for it to be done [them here)], and going by correct English, rather than incorrect/colloquial 'American English' (which bears little resemblance to the real English language), I reversed the roles of the articles 'Train station' and 'Railway station' - they had previously had the content in 'Train station' and a redirect in 'Railway station.' For some time, my arrangement stayed, but then ChrisO, RexNL and Tawkerbot all came along and undid what I had done: why are these people not challenged? When I went to add some valid content to 'Railway station', I found that the <expletive deleted> that is ChrisO had protected it from all editing! Talk about an over-reaction... --RichardHarrold 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the station debate, I would suggest reviewing the Manual of Style, specifically the section entitled disputes over style issues. I don't know if your logical constitutes "substantial reason" for change. Isopropyl 14:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read your post and taken a look at the conflicts, and here's my opinion.
    1. I can see even without looking through the history of your talk page that ChrisO attempted to explain why the image had been deleted, and he even gave you a link to WP:NOT a week before Pgk did. In fact, it appears to me he was the most helpful of various admins who deleted it, given that some of them never posted to your talk page at all, as far as I can tell.
    2. As I understand it, album covers should not have Parental Advisory stickers because they are just that, stickers, not a part of the official album cover. In addition, there are copyright concerns related to altering copyrighted album covers and posting them in an altered state. In a case like this, the burden is on you to explain why album cover pictures on Wikipedia should have the sticker, and also to at least consider the copyright concerns.
    3. If you'd like to avoid conflict as much as possible here (as any sane person would, I think), claiming that American English is "incorrect" and "bears little resemblance to the real English language" probably isn't a very good idea. In this case, as far as I can tell, neither Train station nor Railway station is particularly more correct than the other, but again, the burden falls on the person who wants to make the change. When you repeatedly change things back to your way rather than engaging in a discussion, protection is a likely result.
    Hope I was able to help.-Polotet 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read a little farther up on Talk:Train station; the discussion over the article's name has been going on for quite some time, and comments on that page alone about the title date to July 2004. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I think that article should be at station and the current contents of station should be at station (disambiguation). As normally understood, station implies a railway station, and a qualifier is added for anything else. The qualifier of railway / railroad / train station for stations is a recent and far from universal thing as far as I can tell. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair (and I guess this isn't really the place for this discussion) station is also used fairly often in a transportation sense for bus, gas, and subway stations, and in other senses to describe television and radio stations. I don't really think the word "station" alone is much more likely to refer to the train variety than any of those.-Polotet 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another case where the two naming principles collide. Names of articles should be 1) at their most well known forumulation and 2) in the most accurate form. So, which do people type in more, when looking for the place the choo-choo stops, "station," "train station," or "railway station?" I think the middle one. Which is more accurate? Depends on where you are. Therefore I'd say "most common" wins. Geogre 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're getting way off topic here. The issue at hand is that (a) he has repeatedly been recreating images and templates that have gone through AfD/TfD and speedy deletion, even after I've explained why he shouldn't do this (the claim that it's not been explained to him is an outright lie); (b) he's been altering Fair Use images, which presents a copyright problem which I've pointed out once (not "on a number of occasions", which is another lie) after another user raised it; and (c) he's been creating POV forks by copying and pasting the contents from one article into another (viz. train station vs railway station, again even after I've explained why this isn't a good thing to do. The message he's posted to the top of his talk page sums up his attitude: "Chris - don't even bother adding a message, because I'm not listening..." Unfortunately this is just another instance of Aggressive Clueless Newbie Syndrome. Maybe it's time to start a Do not bite the administrators page... -- ChrisO 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I was just lamenting a larger problem -- people not doing their redirects properly and the collision of our policies. As for the user himself, I tend to think all language bigots need to be sent to work in a soup kitchen so that they can learn that there are actual problems out there in the world. Geogre 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite blocks of IP addresses?

    I have just noticed that 217.180.28.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked. It was my opinion that we don't normally block IP addresses indefinitely (except for open proxies), so I have reduced the block to 2 months. Is there anything I have missed? Was an indefinite block warranted here? - Mike Rosoft 14:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a good example where contacting the ISP might be in order. JoshuaZ 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rex071404 has violated his ArbComm permanent ban on article John Kerry.

    In direct violation of a prior permanent ban on editing the John Kerry article, Rex071404 (talk · contribs), the subject of 4 prior RfA's, has taken on the sockpuppet Merecat (talk · contribs) and in that guise, has willingly violated the ban.

    None of his edits to the John Kerry article's edits are disruptive. However, according to the enforcement term of the hearing, Rex has violated the term that permanently banned him from editing the article.

    Accordingly, as Rex has now been the subject of four separate ArbComm hearings and has willingly sockpuppeted to violate a remedy from the last one, I don't know of any more stringent remedy available at this point, leaving only a wide-scale, permanent ban from Wikipedia. I only feel comfortable saying so because the amount of time and effort that this user has drained from the development of dozens of what are almost exclusively political articles is a detriment to the Wikipedia project as a whole. Simply dismissing violations of the remedy of the ArbComm is a disservice to the ArbComm process and the users who participated in the process.

    Note: I am compiling evidence of other term violations around disruptive editing, vote stacking, etc. - but this particular violation of remedy is important and should be considered apart from any claims of disruption or POV concerns.

    'Merecat's edits to the John Kerry article are here: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]

    • So even though Merecat's edits to John Kerry have not been disruptive, and even though Mackensen said "likely," not "confirmed," and even though the penalty specified by Arbcom is blocking for up to a week, you think he should be permanently banned. You wouldn't happen to be involved in any disputes with Merecat on any other articles, would you? Nahh, this is all about upholding policy. Thatcher131 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF. In the words of Mackensen:
    "Likely that he's also Rex071404. {...} I think you're safe at this point assuming that spam from Everyone's Internet == merecat/Anon Texan/et al (and yes, this is he). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)"' [77]
    And despite the use of a sockpuppet (which is far more deceptive, destructive and indicative of bad faith than Rex just violating under his own name) I'd be okay with the minimum of a one week block per edit - meaning a ban of 20 weeks, and an extension of the permanent ban to any articles on which he has been found to be editing disruptively (again as per his standing ArbComm remedy). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If this even smells like Rex via checkuser, I too would support an indef ban. Enough. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell there was no disruption to WP because of sock puppetry. It appears that the worst abuse was trying to get other editors involved in an AfD. Certainly nothing worth a permanent ban. RyanFeisling is currently in a RfC because of a disput with merecat. While it is obvious he wnats him banned, Merecats actions do not justify it. --Tbeatty 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You clearly are attempting to personalize this about me - a poor foil. Rex' own conduct is solely at issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If he had edited the Kerry article using a sockpuppet then a permanent ban is automatic, irrespective of content. He is not allowed to so much as change the location of a full stop in the article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the enforcement states that if he violates the terms of the arbcom decision, he can be blocked for up to a week at a time, up to a year for multiple violations. Obviously there were multiple violations, but I don't think it's entirely fair to levy them all at once since the sockpuppetry is just now coming out. I'm going to block him for a week, and I suggest editors consider appealing to the arbcom to reopen his last case to consider the charges of circumventing the arbcom decision with sockpuppetry. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll inform the authors of the applicable RfAr's. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets used to circumvent bans, blocks and arbcom rulings automatically face indefinite blocks. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammer (bots?)

    I've noticed two IPs (67.82.57.203 (talk · contribs) and 71.226.173.214 (talk · contribs)) which are spamming user talk pages with links to hifriendddd.info. I am afraid there may be more. Anyone noticed these? And should the IPs be blocked? --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    One more: 68.12.59.100 (talk · contribs). It should be noted that these IPs belong to three different cable modem providers (Comcast, Optimum, and Cox, respectively). --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One more: 67.168.202.174 (talk · contribs), belonging to Comcast. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One more: 65.191.73.60 (talk · contribs), belonging to RoadRunner. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One more: 69.27.67.24 (talk · contribs), belonging to Bristol, Virginia Utilities. --Nlu (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is requested to go on the spam blacklist - meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#hifrienddd.info -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed two more: 72.192.7.3 (talk · contribs) and 70.178.171.172 (talk · contribs). —Veyklevar 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Animal rights

    I made an edit on 30 April and gave my detailed reasons on the talkpage. Since that time I have been reverted numerous times and subject to abuse. No one, including an administrator, has addressed my reasons. Instead, I have been subject to further abuse. I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this. Thanks. Mccready 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be a content dispute, though the above user should probably be reminded not to comment so much on other users (and more on article content). --InShaneee 18:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am inclined to think that Mccready's version is not only syntactically superior to that to which sundry editors are reverting but is also appropriately neutral. Notwithstanding my preference for Mccready's version, though, and irrespective of what are surely good faith attempts on his/her part to justify his/her version on the talk page, where an addition is persistently reverted, especially by more than one (otherwise competent and esteemed) editor, it is likely appropriate that, even as one believes he/she has properly discussed the issue on the talk page, he/she nevertheless discuss further. It is, I understand, exceedingly hard for one to engage in such discussion where it appears that others are content to revert without discussion, but there appear to be willing participants on the article's talk page, enough such that a consensus version might be reached and the extant edit-warring might be ended. Joe 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed it is a content dispute. The issue is also an administrator refusing to discuss content and abusing me. Mccready 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mccready is a relatively new user who has made around 500 edits to articles. He's been involved in conflict with a number of editors since he began here, regularly issuing threats to people who revert his edits. He has demanded apologies from Xtra, David Cannon, Jayjg, Pecher, Moshe, and me; has threatened to report Sethe and Justen for vandalism; has threatened Seth, Nortman, Ombudsman, and me with separate RfCs (for separate issues); has complained about me, I believe, four times on AN/I; has stalked me to four articles; and has been warned by at least three admins. I have diffs if anyone wants them. Examples of his problematic editing: he changed the intro of Trigger point to: "Trigger points have no basis in science. They are claimed by medical quacks to be hyperirritable spots in skeletal muscle ..." [78] His first sentence of Chiropractic was that it's a "religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer." [79] And he added to Animal rights that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family. [80] SlimVirgin (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked over the article's history and the editing conflict in general (which it is just that -- a content dispute). There have been no administrator powers used that are in dispute that I can tell and no need for another administrator's intervention; just seems another installment in Mccready's grudge against SlimVirgin. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 20:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if the situation has moved beyond that. He has now threatened or demanded apologies from 11 editors that I'm aware of, and he's only been editing regularly since February. I forgot to mention that he'd had a very slight disagreement with FloNight (I mean very slight: all she did was politely disagree with him), and he not only turned up at her adminship nomination to oppose, but e-mailed several other editors he didn't know to do the same, e-mailing one of them six times apparently. [81] He does seem to be out to cause trouble, then presents himself as the victim when he succeeds. I wonder if an admin could perhaps have a word with him and keep an eye on the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, regardless of the longer term implication, in the short term he's clearly violated the 3RR at Animal rights. Someone who is so eager to wikistalk others to unrelated pages and report them for 3RR violations should be especially careful about their own reverts. I've blocked him for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User DivineShadow218 arguing.

    Hello. In my opinion User:DivineShadow218 has overheated in Talk:Wii subsection 'Rename'. Users last comment "Just stating that I dont agree with your last sentance.DivineShadow218 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)" seems to be simply attracting 'flames'. User has not been in any way offensive before as far as I know. Debated point seems settled? but argument continues.. Could someone tell them to stop.etc. Thank you.HappyVR 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd admin behaviour (2)

    Also see previous.

    I was recently blocked for 100 days by PMA, who would later change it to 1 day after significant protest on my part. The only information I have gotten about this was his block summary, "POV pushing, article degredation, suspected sockpuppet." The only article edit I have made in the last week was one in the Cuba artile. Note that single article edit is over the same article as in the previous incident (see above link).

    This Cuba dispute is getting out of hand, and I beg a non-political admin to come and help out. There are number of contributeres (including two very high-profile admins) using some unfortunate methods to get an anti-castro pov portrayed as npov in the Cuba article. (the issue over my block is whether or not the introduction should state "cuba is the only country in the hemisphere which is not a democracy" --Over a dozen people have suggested changing it to "not a liberal democracy" or "only single-party sate" or even discussing it later in the article!) Another individual who is currently blocked over the edit dispute is user:Cognition, although I am not fully familiar with his situation. Myciconia 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    Alkivar phone number vandal

    He usually uses throwaway login sockpuppet accounts, but for one of his edits he used an IP address. The contribution has since been purged from the database (still accessible to admins though, at a different location), but the IP and timestamp were:

    • 70.49.111.121 (Sympatico, Canada's largest ISP: [82])
    • 2006-May-05 16:25:00 UTC (= 12:25 Eastern Daylight Time)

    This is the same "Dicky Robert" vandal who was active some months ago.

    Anyone who wishes to express their concern can click on the above link, note the contact info for the Sympatico abuse department, and make a phone call or send an e-mail message: 1-877-877-2426, [[email protected]]

    Since this vandal's actions are particularly reprehensible (posting personal information as an implicit incitation to real-life harassment of User:Alkivar), there really should be some WP:OFFICE type thing set up to handle persistent vandals and contact ISPs. There is Wikipedia:Abuse reports, but it would be much better if abuse reports were made in the name of and on behalf of Wikipedia, rather than private individuals making a phone call and hoping to get the time of day. -- Curps 00:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you run CheckUser on his puppet accounts? Unless the vandal slipped up, the IP is likely public. Myciconia 00:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. He did slip up, one time, and used an IP, which is therefore public. For the others, he used throwaway sockpuppets and checkuser would be needed as you say. -- Curps 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's still at it, as of less than an hour ago (latest sockpuppets = User:Dangermou and User:Danooker), contributions may have been purged from the histories by the time you read this. -- Curps 01:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Take all of the sockpuppets to WP:RFCU and they will be able to find the IPs used behind them. I saw one of the attacks at the Cuba article, the people who are doing this are complete cowards. They take offense to a user who is brave enough to post his real identity, and respond by hiding behind thier keyboards launching these petty attacks and chatting about the guy on discussion boards. I hope you can somehow turn the tables on them! Good luck Myciconia 01:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    The problem is, the WP:RFCU process doesn't publicly release IP addresses of persitent vandals (even though, arguably, persistent vandals' IP addresses are fair game for publication per clause 5 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy which reads: Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. So for the purpose of this notification on WP:AN/I, only the one case where the vandal publicly released his own IP address is fair game for publication, so that those who wish to can express their concern. -- Curps 01:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that in this particular case, clause 6 of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy would also apply: Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. And since he himself is publishing another person's direct personal information (a phone number), he could hardly have grounds to object to the public release of indirect personal information (a temporary IP address) for his logged-in sockpuppets. -- Curps 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experiance, the CheckUser doesn't have to be public. The cowards don't deserve the attention. This is a clearcut case of IPcheck-and-ban. Myciconia 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    Post by banned user Andrew Morrow, in this case 71.139.196.143, removed by me. Sorry to leave your response hanging, Deskana, but this creep is to be reverted on sight. Please see the thread "Amorrow again", below. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Don't even try to rationalise what that vandal did! It is never acceptable for someone to post someone else's personal details! If Alkivar wants to post his phone number, that's fine. It is not acceptable for anyone else to do so, regardless of whether they think it is or not! In my opinion, such vandals should be blocked without warning- they know what they're doing is not acceptable, otherwise they wouldn't put the phone number in the edit summary and post it in the main page featured article. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 07:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet you didn't ask (oops I mean ASK) him if he minds either. I suspect he does mind, since he could publish his phone number on his user page if he wanted to, and has not. Even if he didn't mind, the rest of us do. Wikipedia edit summaries are not the place to publish phone numbers of individuals, with or without their approval. Quite apart from the privacy and harassment issues, it also involves vandalism of articles prominently linked from the main page.
    Pretty much every single ISP in existence has a terms of service agreement that forbids harassment or infringing privacy: Sympatico's is here. Pretty open and shut if you get the attention of the right person at the ISP. -- Curps 08:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Such charming and diplomatic people we're dealing with here: [83]. -- Curps 08:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a good reason to get a dev to start working on the individual revision deletion (forgot the bug number), considering the amount of time it takes to get the phone number removed from articles (and highly viewed ones at that) currently. --Rory096 08:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, all they'd have to do is add a "select all" checkbox to Special:Undelete. We could then select all revisions, and then unselect those ones we want to keep deleted. It's hackish, but it's easy to do on the devs' part and it addresses most of the problem. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In case other admins don't know, if you shift click the first and last edits on the restore page it will serve the same function as a check all button. I just now figured that out, so hopefully it will help some other admins also. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Schlong

    Can someone who knows the process please propose this for deletion? It's just some non-notable band. Dysprosia 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been marked for deletion, and the votes have been unanimous DELETE (I feel like Megaman while saying that) --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I speedeleted it as a non-notable band. Next time you see a band that is not notable under WP:MUSIC guidelines, put {{db-band}} on the top of it. JDoorjam Talk 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaarrggh, NO. WP:MUSIC isn't a speedy criteria. Check that there isn't an assertion of notability. You can use CSD A7 if there isn't, otherwise AFD oder PROD. Leithp 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Another likely VaughanWatch Sock

    GoinHome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved a warning put by User:Thryduulf[84] on the Deletion review page which explained that the GH account was created after the DV started. GoinHome moved the warning to underneath my comment[85], obviously in a bid to discredit me, as the VaughanWatch gang has been known to do on numerous occasions. Not to mention that over half of this users edits have been on this deletion review. I guess that makes it 53 now. pm_shef 01:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment was moved for formatting purposes. The deletion review is messy. GoinHome 03:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This section was deleted by GoinHome earlier in an edit marked "moved per request", but seems merely to have been deleted. David Oberst 05:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This user committed three specific recent acts of vandalism (or two, with the second repeated twice): namely [86] and [87][88], and has now been blocked. He also posted some bizarre personal attack comments: [89]. Most of his edits to non-Vaughn topics seem to be trivial or null edits mostly for the purpose of inflating edit count (eg, [90]), which was also a pattern with some of the other sockpuppets, as well as an unexplained apparent wikistalking revert of one of Pm shef's edits [91]. -- Curps 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it matters, he's also Wikistalking me, per this diff.

    Amorrow again

    Hi, I wonder if we could get a few more pairs of eyes on this situation. Banned user Amorrow - about whom Jimbo said (second post in thread) "block on sight, revert on sight" - has been active again in the last couple of days. The pages he's hitting are Talk:Brian Peppers, Gregor MacGregor, Brian MacKinnon and especially Talk:Tom Leykis. He's been editing from IPs such as:

    ...and I probably missed at least one or two. Any help keeping up with reverting and blocking these IPs would be very much appreciated. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Akso Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal - Nunh-huh 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block or would there be collateral damage? It's time like these when CheckUser would help. --Cyde Weys 07:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I've seen, none of these accounts seems to have been used by anyone but Amorrow. I don't know whether than means a range block is safe; it's a pretty big range. How does he hop IPs like that? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but he's only used less than a dozen of the IPs out of the 71.139.x.x and 71.141.x.x ranges. Unless you want to check the other tens of thousands of IPs manually, we'll need someone with CheckUser. The IP hopping is basic DSL or dial-up type stuff ... everytime you reconnect you get a new IP address from a huge pool of available IPs. --Cyde Weys 07:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amorrow's editing this page right now, please rv on sight. I just reverted a couple of edits of a predictable character by 71.139.xx IPs to the "Alkivar phone number vandal" above. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]


    If range blocking, use care not to specify the ranges overbroadly. According to ARIN, the ranges are

    • 71.139.160.0/20
    • 71.141.0.0/19

    These should be used, rather than overbroad /16 ranges implied by 71.139.*.* and 71.141.*.*

    -- Curps 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is sheer vandalism

    Some person bearing username Mastersofworld has edited or i must say vandalize my user page, has removed my email id and put his/her email id, now can i ask the moderators what action u are going to take against this vandalism, and do let me know if is there any way to protect my user page from being vandalise again.

    amit_jain_online (t a l k) 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    Well, you already reverted. The account that made the edit has only made that one, and it was pretty harmless, so I've given the user a {{test}} message. If he keeps making bizarre edits, then he can be blocked.
    By the way, are you sure you want to put your email on your userpage? Anything you post on your userpage has very high visibility on the Internet, due to the number of Wikipedia mirrors, and it can easily be picked up by spambots. If the 'Email this user' button on the left is too obscure for you, I would recommend either putting a special link to it on your userpage (e.g. "Click here to email me") or at least bowdlerising your address, e.g. "amit_jain_online at yahoo dot com". --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with the assessment of "pretty harmless". If it had somehow gone unnoticed, people could be sending email to the vandal thinking they were sending to User:amit_jain_online. I can think of all sorts of bad things which could result. That's beyond what we normally call vandalism: it's attempted identity theft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, of course. Sorry. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanx for the advice, will follow it amit_jain_online (t a l k) 19:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    Patrick Kennedy

    I've moved this from WP:AIV. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick J. Kennedy has made the news recently. New information is being added to this article at a fast and furious rate, however, there is also a lot of vandalism from numerous editors. I do not feel the page needs to be protected, but I do feel that it needs a close eye on it. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tahitian Noni

    Tikiwikiriki turned the Tahitian Noni article, as well as the Noni, Mangosteen, and XanGo articles, into ads for what seems to be a MLM scam. When I stumbled on his scheme, I removed the advertising in all those articles. He is aggressively restoring it at the Tahitian Noni page, marking his reverts as minor edits. I left a message at his talk page, which is being ignored. Help please. I dont' think anyone here wants WP to become a resource for multi-level marketing. Zora 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the User:Tikiwikiriki for constant revert wars on this series of articles as being disruptive and blatantly promotional spamdumping. JDoorjam Talk 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    for how long time ? Redecke 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Linkspamming and possible malware

    This anonIP 201.51.176.238 is adding links to a great many geographical articles. The link goes to a page saying that you must download and install a program to see a 3-D globe. This is probably legit, but it could be malware. It also seems like spamvertising, and unnecessary, given that Google Earth exists. Could we have all this user's edits rolled back? He/she/it has contributed nothing aside from this linkspam. Zora 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is, the anon's on a dynamic IP, it seems that they're attempting to spam all the country articles. I've reverted their edits, but doesn't really have a major effect on this person. I've listed them on WP:AIV anyhow. —Khoikhoi 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously blocked as user:201.51.188.28. can we add the site to the spam blacklist? -Will Beback 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good idea. —Khoikhoi 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet block

    I've given Centaursports (talk · contribs) an indefinite block per this edit to the user page of an account indef-blocked by Curps for "WoW-style vandalism". Please feel free to review. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent nonsense vandalism by IP address

    User:209.105.197.49 contributions is persistently vandalizing the Sudbury Wolves article (Playoff Section), and recently the Rivière Veuve, Ontario stub, and the Greater Sudbury, Ontario article. Could someone please explain how to prevent this? Thanks. Flibirigit 21:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's a clear-cut case of obvious vandalism, you should report the user on WP:AIV. Isopropyl 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since a repeat vandal, I've given three warnings (to t4) at once. If user does it again, take to WP:AIV, please. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.144.84.178.

    This seems to be a registered user account, not an anon IP. Does this on its own justify a username block? Failing that, do the contributions justify an indefinite block?

    For reference: 24.144.84.178. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    We should also be careful of the same person or others using this trick to try and appear as an IP (i.e. trying to avoid indef blocks). Petros471 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked an an imposter. 24.144.84.178 (talk · contribs) is probably Jimbo's IP (see its contribs). Prodego talk 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Incorrect

    This user's name pretty much sums up their attitude- that Wikipedia is incorrect and must be corrected to fit this persons non neutral POV. Just about every one of their contributions is uncivil, consists of personal attacks or violations of WP:NPOV Special:Contributions/Incorrect. One example of their contributions on List of British Jews: (referring to an Australian) "So the offspring of felons and his chief groupy have ganged up on valid editors to destroy their work; this felon and his co-conspirator have decided that they know more than the Jewish Year Book; in the real world the two of them would be in jail for offenses against humanity.". Arniep 23:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to be showing slight signs of learning civility: [92], maybe give the user another day or two? JoshuaZ 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was because they realised that I was "on their side" in relation to a certain article, I highly doubt that their behaviour towards people who they perceive are on the opposing side to them will change, another of their recent efforts:
    ""To call Castro a dictator and Che Guevera a serial killer is not vandalism, but a mere statement of fact. By reversing those edits you are showing your self to be a supporter of murderers and communists who is unconfortable with the truth. I will begin to review your other edits to see what else you have incorrectly edited to bring back objectivity and truthfullness to those pages."[93]
    Arniep 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, more Thought Police out to "get dirt" on people. It all sounds so... so... familiar! (I'm not in favor of wikilove going to wikigullible in cases like that.) Geogre 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been blocked by SlimVirgin for 48 hours for disruption and abuse. Very reasonable. Bishonen | talk 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Personal attacks continue from ThNik following block

    It seems that the personal attacks and edit warring behavior of ThNik have continued following the expiration of his/her block, instituted May 4. The latest occurrence of this behavior was on my talk page (see this revision, which I have since reverted), where ThNik not only made a string of personal attacks, but also left what could be construed as a threat, with his message of "TOUCH MY SHIT AGAIN AND YOULL LEARN WAHT IT MEANS TO TOSS A SALAD FAT NERD FUCKING TROLL PIECE OF SHIT ASSWIPE".

    In response to this most recent incident, I have placed {{Npa3}} on User talk:ThNik. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the account indefinitely for this. It has made few if any useful contributions. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin abuse - William M. Connolley

    Is it standard proceedure to permanently block a user for a single copyvio, when the user is not well versed in the copyvio polciy? The user did not add the copyvio to the article in the first place either, he only unknowingly brought it back when he posted an old version of the article, and he did this only once. Since when do you admins accept any permanent ban handed out to inexperienced, non-disruptive users? This is admin abuse. Please correct it.

    To add a little context/perspective to this User:William M. Connolley deleted the copyvio and add the following message in it's own subsection on the article talk page : "I've deleted this thing, again, as a copyvio. Don't paste in copyright text unless you want to get banned". User:Fungible then restores the copyvio and adds the following message to the talk page "If not why are so many of Chartock's supporters trying to delete his history? Also, how can you delete on a copyright vio when it was Chartock himself who first created the entry and put that link in? Nice try, fellas, but everything's been restored. Deal with it!". --pgk(talk) 10:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your quote of Fungible just shows that he is new and did not know the copyvio policy. He was in the middle of an edit war and may have thought Connolley was warring against him on the other side. A permanent block would not be given for a 3rr or non-civility on this article. The length of the block is unreasonable. On his talk page, Fungible has asked for a deletion review of the article. Please help. He needs a mentor and advice, not a permanent block. The media is watching this article in New York state, please don't abuse blocking policy.
    As you say the quote shows he was quite happy to edit war and ignore warnings. Rather than jumping up and down shouting admin abuse he should email the blocking admin as described in the block message and resolve the issue. --pgk(talk) 13:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Original poster: please sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~, or typing some indication of who you are. I was going to add the {{unsigned}} template to your posts, but I can't face sifting through the history of this super-busy page to figure out who's talking. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    FWIW, I've unblocked Fungible just now, on the off chance of good behaviour William M. Connolley 13:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I apollogise for not assuming good faith, Mr. Connolley.. I am concerned that your statement "on the off chance of good behaviour" may also show a lack of AGF too. Once this article is re-created, the edit warriers on both sides will come out fighting, and the New York media will be watching how we handle it. We should be carefully to make sure the article is balanced with both pro and con information included. Please put it on your watchlist and treat both sides fairly. Thank you. (PS, I am not one of the editors involved on either side of the edit war) 205.188.116.65 15:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If they come out fighting, they will get blocked for it William M. Connolley 16:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any of the involved partys are going to see your warning here. I ask any admin to help mediate Alan Chartock once re-created, and also WAMC - see the talk page. Why can't we mediate up front if we know the war will start again? Thanks.

    Admin abuse - William M. Connolley part 2

    User:William M. Connolley has used the administrators' priviledge of rolling back to remove my remarks on his user talk page [94] [95] [96]. — Instantnood 09:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So? --Calton | Talk 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Others' comment on user talk page should not be removed, and even if he wants to remove them, he shouldn't have used the priviledge of adminsitrators (see also Wikipedia:Rollback). — Instantnood 10:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Others' comment on user talk page should not be removed...' Really? Which guideline states that?
    ...and even if he wants to remove them, he shouldn't have used the priviledge of adminsitrators (see also Wikipedia:Rollback. Hmm, and he shouldn't have used rollback why exactly? Hint: "Because I said so"? Not adequate. --Calton | Talk 12:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure they can be removed. I remove rude or insistent comments on my talkpage now and then, and so do most people. It's not like removing vandalism warnings, you know. Not using rollback would have been better, since you weren't posting over and over (where people do that against my express wish, I do use rollback, and have no apologies for it) but taken together, this has to be one of the pettiest "abuse" complaints I've seen on this page. Bishonen | talk 12:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Still, different people have different opinions on what constitutes "rudeness". It's happened to me many times that people removed my comments from their talk page where I was mainly pointing out that they had made an error somewhere. It annoys me when people call other people "vandals" even though there is no vandalism going on, just an edit conflict. I usually leave a message on the user's talk page asking them not to do this, and then my comment is usually removed, probably because people don't want to have anything critical on their talk page. Personally, I remove profanities, but anything else anyone posts on my talk page stays there until I archive. jaco♫plane 13:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:William M. Connolley is doing it again [97]. It's fine if he doesn't like my message, but he shouldn't have abuse his power as an administrator to roll back. The rollback button can't be used for purposes unrelated to the responsibilities of an administrator. — Instantnood 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh, me again. In has been trolling on my talk page (even editing my archives, gasp!) and is trolling here. I've just blocked him for 3h for it William M. Connolley 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. He does the same on my talk page, re-factoring my own comments. SchmuckyTheCat 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But user:SchmuckyTheCat is not abusing the rollback button. User:William M. Connolley is. — Instantnood 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked the comment Instant left on William's page. I don't think William should have reverted. I think it wrong that William, a disputant by then, blocked Instant. Mccready 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Immediate indef block and deletion of edit necessary.

    See [98]. Is user's only edit. JoshuaZ 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Three of us banninated at around the same time. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, and Curps reverted. I would still suggest a quick deletion/restoration of the article to remove the edit from the history (especially since its presence is very blatant, the personal info is included in the edit summary itself). JoshuaZ 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the editor did the same thing here [99] under a different screen name. There may be more copies. JoshuaZ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, same thing at Global Warming as User:NOD (edit now deleted). Guettarda 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that seems to be all of them, but someone still needs to delete the Clinton edit. JoshuaZ 06:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will tackle the Clinton one. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Hong Kong (PRC)

    (procedural note) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, probationary page bans are issued at Template:Hong Kong (PRC) for edit warring over a trivial matter: Instantnood is banned for two weeks, SchmuckyTheCat is banned for one week.--Jiang 06:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also the arguments presented at the discussion at user talk:Jiang and WP:AN/3RR. — Instantnood 09:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant Scottfisher sock

    User:ScottFisher has popped up. Patently same as User:Scottfisher. But I am prepared to believe his claim that he took all the images he has (so far) uploaded. -- RHaworth 07:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute at common.css

    Hi everybody. I'd like to point you towards the common.css talk page in which a dispute is going on at the "Please revert "resizing of footnotes by CSS"" paragraph (the debate is also going on, less actively, at the Village Pump (Technical)).

    To summarize what happened: a request was made to make an addition to the common.css file that brings the font size of all references down to 90%. When the change was made, only two people were in favor of it, and they were the only ones who had commented. The admin made the change very early before waiting for dissenters to show up in order to find out if there were any at all (to quote the admin who made the change, R._Koot: "The best way to see wath the opinion of the community is would be to change it and see what the reactions are." - quoted from the common.css talk page).

    Right after the change was made, a lot of people indeed did show up to dispute the change. There are now two large discussions going on about it. A lot of people disagree with the change and feel that the consensus-seeking community has been avoided in the making of this decision. While it's true that it's not uncommon for admins to be bold in making changes, I feel that since now it's been established that there is no consensus on this change, it should be reverted. A previous discussion on the matter also ended in no consensus.

    I feel as though this dispute has gone on for long enough now, and that it's been established that this is not what the community wants (regardless of the actual reasons provided by either party). I hope that an admin will have time to look into this matter soon. —Michiel Sikma, 10:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT: I forgot to mention that the dispute originally started at the talk page of Footnotes. —Michiel Sikma, 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism User:Fitzy101

    Pure vandalism in the Osama Bin Laden thread. Needs immediate block. User edits.--Jersey Devil 10:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Uploaded a series of copyvio images too, now deleted.--MONGO 10:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rex/merecat/spam/cellphone

    216.239.38.136 (talk · contribs) [100]--64.12.116.65 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism User:goldenblue

    Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_fish

    goldenblue is on a crusade to remove several sites that have been listed on Wikipedia for several years for no other reason than to promote his own website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.48.49 (talk • contribs)

    Holy 9RR violation Batman! Might I suggest discussing the link on the article's talk page before engaging in a massive revert war over one single link. As it is, about 8 reverts have occured from both sides in the last HOUR. Metros232 14:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked both for 3h for WP:3RR. For future ref, WP:AN/3 is the place to report this stuff William M. Connolley 14:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    unblocking Lou franklin

    Lou seems to be permanently autoblocked. i've lifted the autoblock on his ip- 66.30.208.149- three times, inshanee has done it once, and i also tried blocking the ip for one minute to see if that would clear it. but none of it seems to have taken; whenever he tries to edit, the autoblock pops back up. Anyone have any idea how to clear this up? --heah 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I just cleared another autoblock. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And i cleared another one . . . I blocked lou franklin (username, not ip) for one minute, and that seems to have cleared up the autoblock; he is able to edit now. (for better or for worse . . . ) --heah 16:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Duncharris editing protected template inapropriately

    Duncharris (talk · contribs) has editing the protected {{British TOCs}} template while it is protected. It was protected because of his actions and unwillingness to discuss things civily on the talk page (in contrast to everyone else with an opinion).

    Although disucssion on the talk page has somewhat fizzled out, the last position was that neither side felt there was consensus (as Duncharris has claimed), but that the compromise version should remain until there was. Everyone else is also agreed that a general discussion 2 years previously is not relevant to the dispute about this template - although Duncharris either doesn't understand or refuses to accept this. He has also edit warred over which articles should have the template to try and impose his POV.

    I request that an uninvolved administrator revert Duncharris' edits to the template back to the last version for which there was consensus. More input into the disucssion would also be welcome. Thryduulf 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Forthcoming vandalism?

    Could I ask people to keep an eye on Office of International Treasury Control for a bit? I've just created an NPOV version of the article following a review of the deletion of the extremely biased OITC fraud article (see #Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article above). Given the extremely peculiar goings-on concerning that article and related articles, I fully expect the new article to be vandalised, so it would be useful if people could drop it in their watchlists for a while. -- ChrisO 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created OITC as a redirect to the new article - eyes on this would also be beneficial. Thryduulf 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I Love Steve Brennan

    User:To Steve Brennan, I'm Sorry I Said Those Terrible Things About You

    User:I Love You, I Love You, I Love You, Steve Brennan! I Want To Reinstall My Uterus So I Can Have Your Baby!

    Hello again. A while back I posted some complaints about some usernames that were created solely for the purpose of harassing me. Whatever you guys did it worked, because he is no longer bothering me. As a matter of fact he seems to have apologized (in his own way). Although I detect a wee bit of sarcasm in his new usernames, at least he isn't saying terrible, slanderous things about me any more.

    Can't thank you enough!Steve Brennan 17:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=52008799"