Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive85

User:Gnome (Bot)

I have blocked Gnome (Bot) (talk · contribs) indefinitely. This bot is removing cleanup tags and replacing them with stub tags or, if there is already a stub tag, just deleting the cleanup tag. How is this useful? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Eagle explains here why he thinks it appropriate to replace cleanup tags with stub tags for articles under 225 words (and to remove cleanup tags where a similarly-sized article is tagged for cleanup and as a stub (I agree with Zoe's reasoning and block--although I'd imagine that, inasmuch as the bot seems to be performing other salutary tasks, once the cleanup/stub function is removed, the bot should be unblocked--but I thought if might be helpful for users to see the reasoning of the bot's owner). Joe 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot operator response

First things first I've never been here before, so I'm not sure what to do to explain this...In a nutshell I have gotten agreement from several members of WP:CU(the page that takes care of the cleanup backlog), and approval to run on WP:BRFA

These activites have been proposed here and here

The reasoning behind this is, how do you "cleanup" a article that is so small. ---what the article needs is to be expanded (when the article is expanded all "cleanup" that has been done will be lost).

Also please remember we have a cleanup backlog of almost 14000 articles... The person who requested that I would create this bot resquested it to reduce the backlog...That way the articles that need only cleanup are on the list.

By the way every stub belongs in the cleanup category...After all they are all small, some are not wikified, some have grammer problems... ect.

I will disable the function for now...but I believe that this issue needs to be debated in a more public forum. (looking at the merits of the idea alone), as I am not the only person who feels that this is a good idea.Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also Zoe, will you be more specific next time you post to my talk page, or the bot...Which articles were you talking about??? I had to look in your contributions to find out that you had posted it on this page as well... Would have been nice to have a heads up...(than agian the block message might have pointed me here...but the bot shuts off as soon as you post a message on its page...So I will never know)

The bot operator is of course meEagle (talk) (desk) 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay

Zoe--you blocked the bot because of the edit it made to this page...the reasoning for the block is "(inappropriate bot)"...You left a message on my talk page that said this "Why would arbitrary deletion of cleanup tags serve any function?"...YOu left a message on the bot's talk page that said "This bot has no purpose other than to remove cleanup tags which apparently were put there for very appropriate reasons. Please stop."

I just want to make sure that you realize that the bot does not "arbitrarily" delete cleanup tags, It only does it if the article is a stub or should be a stub. The reason why I mention this is because you reverted both the removal of the cleanup tag, and the addition of the stub tag. (now the article is only tagged as cleanup, but it is a stub (cleanup or not).

by your definition all stubs should be in the cleanup category????

Sorry if I sound rude... but I had to look in your contributes to find this page and to find out what articles you had problems with... and even then I had to read inbetween the lines, If it were not for joe, I would be in the dark.

Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Eagle, this feels a bit heavy handed. He has been trying to get GnomeBot ready for trial for some time and largely been ignored. Then, when he puts a tentative model up for trial he gets knocked back, hard. CleanUp needs CleanedUp and Eagle is trying to do something positive about it. I had a look at the recommendations that GnomeBot was making and found that I agreed with almost all of them, they appeared to be both sensible and desirable. I would suggest that this Bot is given the trial that was intended and then we can discuss the results.

ping 08:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • "Cleaning up" does not mean random deletion of cleanup tags, it means actually going to the pages being tagged and trying to determine why and how it should be cleaned up. Removing cleanup tags without actually cleaning anything up is vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked

I've reblocked the bot for exactly the same reason that Zoe did originally (the original block seems to have been removed). There is NO justification WHATSOEVER for removing {{cleanup}} from stubs, and I am getting heartily sick of rolling back this bot's activity, which I've now had to do to over a dozen articles. A {{stub}} tag simply indicates that an article is too short and needs expansion - a {{cleanup}} tag indicates deeper problems, such as grammar, layout, wikification, translation, style, context or inapproriate language. The two are NOT interchangable, and freuqntly an article needs both tags. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm...looking again, maybe I've just added a second block over the top of the first - both indefinite though, so it shouldn't affect anything. Grutness...wha? 12:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct this bot has not been editing since it's original block, this there is NO WAY the bot could have changed any more articles.Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot oprerator response

In light of this contriversy, I will remove the replace stub with cleanup feature. (Would it still be alright to add {{stub}} to short articles 225 words or less.) I the bot operator has tried to be as good about this mistake as possible...The reblock above was merealy adding a second block over the first block.Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting cleanup tags. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass move-protections

I'd like to seek some external feedback on Freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s use of the sysop-move protection feature. He has move protected approximately 50 high-profile pages in recent days, though they had no move wars and in few, if any, cases have ever exhibited any. In few cases have they ever even been moved. I recognise that Albert Einstein, for example, is unlikely to need a move for some time to come, but we really don't want to go slapping protection on articles "just in case the apocyalypse comes". It seems to me to run directly counter to the spirit of open editing and trusting editors.

FoN cites the database troubles that might, hypothetically, be caused by a vandalistic move of such an article. This seems a weak justification for amending (by fiat) the way we do things that has worked fine and dandy for a number of years. My feeling is that these protections have no basis in policy, guideline, practise, precedent or practicality and that they should be reversed. If people don't want vandals in their work, they should be writing on paper. Vandals (or, more accurately, admins' nightmares of them) are not the biggest problem round here. Should we be mass-protecting pre-emptively? -Splash^talk 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't so mind-numbingly easy to create an account and use it for pagemove vandalism only a week later, it wouldn't be a concern. If moving pages was actually as simple as changing which title pertains to a stationary stack of edits, it wouldn't be a concern. If it wasn't so easy to unintentionally delete a large stack of edits whilst performing a page move, perhaps if the software generated some kind of warning similar to that of an edit conflict, it wouldn't be a concern. If restoring 7312 deleted edits wasn't a task requiring developer access, it wouldn't be a concern. If this was some kind of Wiki-Utopia completely bereft of vandalism, it wouldn't be a concern. Unfortunately the sum of these conditions indicates that it is, in fact, a major concern. Even RuneScape, for example, an article about a video game that none of us would think to take seriously, now has more edits than United States did on the day that it got moved to FUCK SHlT COCK WHORE SLUT PUSSY DlCK NIGGER CHINK and subsequently disappeared for an hour, before Brion VIBBER was able to bring it back. Perhaps I'm assuming universal bad faith, maybe it's the way I was raised, I don't know, but immediately upon seeing Special:Mostrevisions, I realized the level of damage that would occur if this information was read by the wrong set of eyes. If there is any legitimate reason to move RuneScape or Canada to an alternate title, anybody who is acting in good faith should see no problem in posting their thoughts at requested moves or asking an admin, or starting a discussion on the talk page of the article. These are not run-of-the-mill road-and-school cruft articles being discussed, these are a relatively significant percentage of all total edits. — Mar. 28, '06 [15:39] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Oh and, just for old times' sake, here's that "annoying" screenshot from December back to haunt us all, in case anybody wants it. If it gets deleted, don't worry, I got an extra copy. — Mar. 28, '06 [15:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

If you can't bear a bit of vandalism, then either write your work on paper, or use a different website. Here, we are open and welcoming, and not working on the assumption os imagined apocalypses to come. Less caffeine, less panic, and less protection. If people are going to go around slapping protection on anything that'd be edited a lot, then gradually there will be fewer and fewer things getting edited. I don't see any circumstance under which that is viable in short-, medium- or long term. Using move protection (somewhat under the radar, I add: no discussion, no announcement, no tags, no warnings, no notes anywhere) is just a rather quiet step in a profoundly wrong direction. If the servers have a problem, it is for the sysadmins and developers to fix it. It is not for admins here to lock the site down in quivering fear of a bad edit. -Splash^talk 15:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Move protection has no effect on the amount of editing that goes on, which is a significant amount, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Show me the bugzilla request and I'll campaign in support of it. Show me a legitimate title that one of those pages might be moved to, and I'll say yeah, unprotect it, move it, but re-protect it if and when you get done. — Mar. 28, '06 [16:09] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

We protect high profile templates to avoid the disruption that causes when updated, surely that's also just a technical issue or vandalism paranoia, are we going to unprotect those also? similarly the main page is protected, United States has been almost permenantly protected against moves since the incident [1]. Personally I'm not currently 100% convinced that it's required to protect these against moves, but nor do I see it as being the beginning of the end to do so. --pgk^(talk) 16:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I equally dispute the need to protect the high-visibility templates and can think of several that are not protected without the sky having fallen in. You are quite right that is simply vandalism paranoia, and allowing the vandals to have an effect on us when they should not be allowed one. -Splash^talk 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious. What's next then? Unprotect the MediaWiki namespace? The main page? Where do you draw the line, sir? — Mar. 28, '06 [16:36] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I don't recall saying, ever, that we should unprotect those pages. These are articles, for goodness' sake, not part of the interface of the website. -Splash^talk 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You said "I equally dispute the need to protect the high-visibility templates" though such templates not articles, but rather part of the interface of the website, and should not be edited on a whim. Also (as I stated somewhere in this hopeless thread), protecting an article from pagemove vandalism does not hamper the progress of actual editing in any way, shape, or form. — Mar. 28, '06 [18:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Equally there are plenty which have been protected and wikipedia hasn't stopped functioning as a result. --pgk^(talk) 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of a good reason not to move-protect these high-profile articles. 99.9999% of editors won't be affected by this at all. Other proposals (such as semi-protecting main page FAs) do drastically affect new editors (and vandals as well), but move-protection only harms the vandals. Besides, if something ever happens to warrant moving United States, I'm sure a bunch of admins would be edit-conflicting in trying to move the article. (High-profile articles get most of the attention, remember?) Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one has any call to move these pages, so move-protecting them is at worst harmless. Henry^Flower 17:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It says "oh well, none of us admins trust any of those editors. Must take cover from vandals! Must run! Must hide!" -Splash^talk 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I trust most (not all) editors not to be malicious; I don't trust most editors not to cock up. Reducing the number and seriousness of potential cock-ups is a Good Thing. Henry^Flower 17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It seems to imply that it's good-faith editors you would protect against, rather than the usual excuse of "vandals-mean-end-of-world-nigh-repent". I don't suppose you mean that, but it is more or less what it says. It's good-faith editors, who are the vast bulk of our community that are the reason we do not pre-emptively protect things: we trust them, or we don't participate in this kind of a project. -Splash^talk 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd protect against both. Henry^Flower 18:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to hear from the developers about whether this is actually a problem from the database; often times, as we saw with the transcluded templates thing, people will make fanciful claims about how this or that is hard on the servers without substantiating it. I honestly don't know myself, although I remember that the database went read-only for about 10 minutes when Ed Poor deleted VFD. So it's definitely conceivable that moving an article with a huge edit history could be a problem. And I don't think it will be that much of a bother to ask on WP:RFPP for an unprotect in twenty or so years when someone thinks of a reason to move Albert Einstein, so I generally agree with John here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein (original source DNA) after the Albert Einstein (evil clone 23552) incident in 2022. =D --Syrthiss 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that helpful? -Splash^talk 17:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not intended to be helpful or harmful. Intended to add some humor to lighten a discussion among friends. --Syrthiss 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong thead evidently. :( — Mar. 28, '06 [18:28] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Then consider where we stop. I wrote Electronic Travel Authority the other day. Noone has any call to move it. Why don't we move protect it? Why not move protect everything by default and say everybody has to flutter their eyelashes at an admin before they can move it? -Splash^talk 17:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

An article which all of three editors (and zero vandals) have heard of makes a particularly poor strawman in this discussion, and borders on being a shameless plug. I guess I'll go undercover and anonymously edit it up to featured status, then put it on wheels. No, not really. I have neither the writing skill to do the former, nor the malice to do the latter, but I'm not the average person either. — Mar. 28, '06 [18:28] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm not sure why I should need to advertise an article. It was just one that came to mind that I wrote and could have move protected on these grounds. -Splash^talk 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And this is a slippery slope. Next week, another IRC-crazed vandal fighter will say "per ANI discussion last week, I'm protecting the second set of 50 popular articles from moves". Ok, we say. Then it carries on, because now there's precedent: it's the done thing to protect-in-panic on a just-in-case. Just because it doesn't need a tag on an article doesn't make it a good thing. -Splash^talk 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I take offense to such labeling, or is it being used affectionately? I can't distinguish sarcasm from seriousness in Splash's words anymore. For the record I stopped at the end of page one because I got bored, and, in the capacity of thinking like a vandal I assumed that an actual vandal would get bored at the same point and go back to whatever he was previously doing, be it playing RuneScape or watching football (soccer) on the telly. I assumed good faith from #51 onward? It's hard to say with any certainty. Seriously, though, a better solution would be to increase the threshhold of account age and experience required for an account to perform page moves. As it is, they sit and do nothing, until some kid with an index card logs back into the accounts and wreaks havoc. Perhaps establish a minimum number of edits, at which point we can reasonably assume that if a user hasn't yet been indefinitely blocked as a vandal, he probably won't be. Hopefully good faith and common sense won't always be mutually exclusive goals, and hopefully (in the absence of protection) Abortion won't be moved to Nine-months-after pill at the drop of a hat, no pun intended. — Mar. 28, '06 [18:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

People do seem to emerge from IRC slightly vandal-crazed. Usually into #wikipedia in capital letters about needing a hundredthousand username blocks yesterday and all rollback buttons in action right now. Sitting in the anti-vandal channel for too long seems to give the impression that every edit is, with good probability, bad. It's not the full RC list, after all, by design it's only the dodgy stuff you get to see. This leads, I think, to a feeling of being taken over and needing to slam the doors (the horse having already both bolted and invaded doesn't seem to matter). I don't think you assumed good faith at any point (nor necessarily bad, though there has to be an element in preemptivity). I think you stopped probably unsure of whether you should carry on. If you do carry on, I will lift the further protections. Those pages further down have a few thousand edits, and the servers, I know for a fact, can handle that. I moved WP:PP a while back and nobody batted an eyelid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs)

• I support Freakofnurture (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s page protections. Assuming good faith is not the same as leaving ourselves vulnerable to quite predictable attack that will significantly eat up people's time to fix. The "oppenness" of the wiki is not seriously hampered by this action. Performing a page-move is not some kind of God-given right that every user must have for every page. I support establishing some kind of guideline as to what the protection-threshold should be. In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with FoN's protections. Johntex\^talk 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, actually, I think it is. The wiki is fundamentally based on trust: that's why you can "edit this page", to coin a phrase. Preemptive protection is an explicit statement of distrust. Sowing such seeds when they need not be sowed can't be a great idea. -Splash^talk 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't. Johntex\^talk 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• I also think this protection is a good idea. It does not make it any harder for non-admins to move a page such as United States: moving this page has to go through WP:RM anyway. The only question is whether an admin is needed to close the move request. Kusma (討論) 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, good point about controversial moves going through RM anyway, so why not protect against the possibility of page move vandalism/error. Petros471 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have to ask before editing. WP:BOLD and all. -Splash^talk 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between editing and moving pages has been quite clarified. — Mar. 28, '06 [19:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Clearly I have to adjust my thinking somewhat. Whilst I do not accept that these move protections are either good or necessary clearly some people do. I won't lift them. But I do not think this discussion mandates any further widespread move protections without a discussion first. -Splash^talk 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of revisions in the database corresponding to a page does not factor into the page move operation, so moving a page with 1000 revisions is no different than moving one with one revision in terms of database server load. Rob Church 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So there being no technical basis for the blocks, nor any editorial basis and a move-revert being a single click (doable by any editor in most cases over a redirect), we can lift these protections unless someone's got a new reason. ("but they don't need moving" isn't really good enough.) -Splash^talk 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the technical explanation doesn't cover the actual issue suffered, which was as a result of the move United States ended up being deleted and restoring the large number of revisions required developer intervention. --pgk^(talk) 06:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo what Pgk said. If undoing a vandal move of United States or Albert Einstein with a single move-revert always worked, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately – unless I'm mistaken, developer comments welcome – articles with extremely long edit histories (which also often happen to be targets for vandals; many edits are reverts) tend to get mucked up when we try to put them back. With United States, I gather that fixing the problem required developer intervention. The result was that we were without an important and high-traffic article for a significant length of time.

I see the move-protection of these frequently-edited pages as a low-cost way to prevent a rather inconvenient and embarrassing sort of harm ("What do you mean Wikipedia doesn't have an article on George W. Bush?") that doesn't inconvenience regular, good-faith editors one bit. If the issue with the database/engine goes away to the point that we can reliably repair these large-history page moves, then we could discuss the philosophical reasons for unprotecting them.

While we wish to present a trusting, assume-good-faith, welcoming, open face to the world, we shouldn't be idiots about it. I'm usually a pretty open and trusting individual, but I don't leave my car unlocked. FoN has just closed off a potentially nasty avenue for attack.

All the arguments against the protections here seem to be based on principles (It's unwiki, it assumes bad faith, yada yada yada). Think practical, will you. When will we really need to move United States, Canada or Albert Einstein. Honestly? This only hurts the vandals. Therefore everybody who opposes it is a vandal. Just kidding. Seriously though, why argue over the principle when the fact is that the only way these articles would be moved in the foreseeable future would be because of a vandal attack. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 07:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Principles and precedent are important. They are a valid base to argue from. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Here are two important things we should strive for: Robustness and Efficiency. Allowing moves of these articles invites something to go wrong, as in the United States example above - that harms the robustness of wikipedia. Undoing vandalism takes time away from other important tasks - that hurts the efficiency of the encyclopedia building process. Protecting these pages against willy-nilly moves is a perfectly legitimate step to enhance our robustness and efficiency. Johntex\^talk 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ee could protect things against moves by default, but make it easy to have them unprotected. Or you could just ask an admin to move it for you, or we could protect all pages against moves. Practical harm: very low. Practical utility: not demonstrated, estimates vary wildly. Harm to paradigm: moderate. Thus, based upon lack of evidence presented that uility outweighs harm, unprotect. - brenneman^{L} 01:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok now say that in english you jargon monkey!  ALKIVAR™ 02:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• I think protecting well-established and high profile pages from moves would be a very good idea. As has already been pointed out, these pages would have to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves anyway. So, as far as I see it, protecting these pages from moves would have zero effect on good faith users, and a significant effect on vandals. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky move-protection

I don't know if anyone cares, but this is clearly an effort to keep people from moving Yellow River back to Huang He... Tomer^talk 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And a good thing too. Henry^Flower 16:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The move was completely undiscussed, and the article location has previously been a source of contention. Tomer^talk 08:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my above statement, in case anyone comes along and says "What are you talking about? I see no evidence of contention!", let me clarify by pointing out that the contention is not specifically with this article, but rather with respect to excessive acrimony, IMHO, in a number article naming disputes which have cited the article's location at Huang He. Personally, I call the river the "Huang Ho", but that's probably just a reflection of my background as a geography and ethnolinguistics buff. To find the disputes citing Huang He, you'll hafta dig through the talk pages in Special:Whatlinkshere/Huang He. I didn't bring this up to point out the move of Huang He → Yellow River, but rather, in light of the previous section of this page at the time I originally mentioned it, what was clearly an editor's effort to prevent anyone undoing hir completely undiscussed page move, bad wikiquette IMHO, and using substandard wikimarkup to do it. Tomer^talk 05:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:The sinister Myst

Vandal account that has a strange obsession with redirecting random articles to the Myst article. I went through all of his contributions just recently and reverted all of his vandal edits. Its a vandal-only account so I'm humbly requesting an indefinite block. -Zero^Talk 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: user is currently in the process of vandalism as I construct this post. I will continue to revert until a block can be issued. -Zero^Talk 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they were blocked by Gator1 at 17:00. --Syrthiss 17:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's lovely. I caught his vandalism quite promptly too, so there's no mess to clean up. -Zero^Talk 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of sockpuppets: The sinister Myst (talk · contribs), Sinister MystMan (talk · contribs), Synister Myst (talk · contribs), Sinister Myst (talk · contribs), Sonoster Myst (talk · contribs). It would be nice to have a redirect log, similar to the current move log. -- Curps 09:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked another user (don't remember the username) for the same behavior yesterday. Fortunately, redirecting involves a mass-blanking, so it's caught by a few of the automated vandalism-watchers out there. I don't know how feasible a redirect-log would be, as creating a redirect is (currently, at least) done within the page's code while a move is done with the toolbar and can trigger other actions more easily. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics...again

There's currently a massive revert war going on for over a week now at Dianetics. Though all sides are very careful to not violate the 3RR, it's incredibly disruptive to the article. Any users that step in with an outside opinion, such as myself (I tried to put an npov template on the page) are instantly reverted and harassed with personal attacks in the edit summaries (even though per WP:NPOVD the template would be justified). It's part of an ongoing revert/edit/personal attacks war between scientologists and non-scientologists that previously disrupted the Neuro-linguistic programming page enough to force ArbCom to appoint mentors. I'd appreciate if an admin stepped in somewhere and helped stop the disruptive editing of the article. (note: I've already filed an RfC which went nowhere.) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

difficult -- was there no arbcom ruling whatsoever? We need the arbcom to declare special measures (blocks, protection, rollbacks) for articles suffering from organized pov-pushing. As long as all editors remain polite, all that mere admins can do is help reverting and block for 3RR I suppose. Any ideas? dab (ᛏ) 10:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This revert war has actually been going on for nearly three months now - not just on Dianetics but on a whole range of related articles. I don't think either side would come out smelling of roses, but some users are clearly behaving far worse than others; I've filed a Request for Arbitration on one, Terryeo. If (and hopefully when) he gets banned I think you'll see a good deal of the tension and hostility lifting. His frankly dreadful editing tactics seem to have set a lot of editors' teeth on edge, which probably explains the hostile reaction that you got (which I don't for a moment condone, obviously). -- ChrisO 23:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin Koot Abuse of admin privileges

Admin Koot reverted chiropractic without discussion. Despite my request at the time, Koot has still not explained why he abused his admin privileges 3RR states "Except in cases of spam and vandalism, an administrator should not block users for 3RR if they themselves have reverted that user's edits on that page. Instead, administrators in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken."

Could someone please remind Koot that he needs to think more carefully before he acts.

His bulk revert reverted good edits, including by Arbitrator Charles Matthews. This is not the first time he has acted inappropriately. By his own admission:

• 21:35, 8 March 2006 R. Koot unprotected Al-Khwarizmi (i'm too closely involved to protect)
• 21:28, 8 March 2006 R. Koot protected Al-Khwarizmi (edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop])

The following Koot blocks need explanation. Their timing appears to confirm a tendency not to review matters carefully before blocking .

• 19:07, 6 March 2006 R. Koot blocked "Arianitr (contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours (3rr violation on Gostivar)
• 19:06, 6 March 2006 R. Koot unblocked Arianitr (contribs) (shortening block)
• 19:03, 6 March 2006 R. Koot blocked "Arianitr (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation at Gostivar)

The recent block by Koot of User:tbeatty repeats the pattern of acting too quickly.

• Mccready 12:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Take it to RfC if you think it's a recurrent problem. -Splash^talk 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to deny that I f**ked up with User:tbeatty's block, however have already apologized to him by e-mail. In case of User:Arianitr this was a simple blocking conflict with User:William M. Connolley and did not feel strongly about overriding his WMC's 8 hour block. —Ruud 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Pro123tester adding personal info

Pro123tester (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is editing Jefferson Poland in an inappropriate manner. I reverted an edit in external links that supposedly contained details about the subject of articles residence, plus details of this editors sleuthing to find this info. Unaware of any history about this user, I put a note on the article talk explaining WP:BLP and headed to User:Pro123tester talk to leave message. I saw the IP notice and message left by User:Pro123tester him(her)self. In the meantime, User:Pro123tester left odd posts on the article talk and my talk page. [2] [3] Does this user have arbcom ruling against them under another name? Or does anyone recognize as a known sockpuppet editor. FloNight ^talk 18:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This needs attention from an administrator. User:Pro123tester is looking for attention by adding comments like this. [4] FloNight ^talk 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Block for one hour. Hopefully, he'll wake up.Gator (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this in the AN/I archives Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive29#Amorrow/Pinktulip. Since User:Pro123tester first edits were to [5], [6], [7] I think there is a connection. FloNight ^talk 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I just blocked indefinitely as a reincarnation of a banned user. Jkelly 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly, thanks for your quick response. --FloNight ^talk 23:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Roguesysop blocked indefinitely

Roguesysop (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

I've blocked the above user indefinitely for blatant vandalism, an inappropriate username, and because this user (through judicious use of the {{unblock}} template in various inappropriate articles) appears to be the sockpuppet of a banned user. Hopefully I'm not a Roguesysop for doing so, as I think this user needed to be blocked immediately to prevent further vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Clear case.Gator (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Endorse, should have been blocked on sight for having a misleading/confusing username containing the word "sysop", regardless of his behavior. — Mar. 29, '06 [21:40] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Sock of who?

Since Roguesysop vandalised Nlu's page, I took a quick look at Nlu's block log and I think it might be a sockpuppet of Croatian historian, as Nlu blocked this user at 16:42, and Roguesysop's first edit, using the unblock template on Nlu's user page, occurred at 17:58. I don't think this case is so serious as to warrant a CheckUser, but it's something to think about if it goes further up the WP:DR ladder. Of course, it might just be 165.138.22.12 or 216.47.187.221. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Block-evading sockpuppet of Mr.Do!

User:Mr.Do! was indefinitely blocked because of uploading Warez to Wikimedia servers. User:Mr. Do! is very likely a sockpuppet. My observations are at User talk:Mr. Do!. TerokNor 19:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Good catch. Blocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy vandal on Google

There's an open proxy vandal currently attacking Google and possibly other articles. I'm somewhat reluctant to s-protect this article, as the vandal will go elsewhere and harder to find them. The IPs keep jumping around, so it's difficult to pick them out of the recent changes. But, if you are watching recent changes, be alert for this vandal. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Though, I'm guessing they might hit Microsoft if Google is s-protected. They cut & pasted material from Microsoft into the google article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Jamesnice

This user has been placing links to what is presumably their music publishing site on a lot of pages. I presume this is not acceptable? Arniep 22:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly unideal. I'm busy rolling back the changes and will warn him about WP:SPAM. Stifle 23:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Zephram Stark sockpuppet?

Carla Pehlke (talk · contribs). Second Wikipedia edit is a post on another user's talk page regarding a dispute at Thomas Jefferson. Zephram also made many posts and edits at United States Declaration of Independence related to Jefferson and the authorship of the DoI. He even cited the same link to TJ's biography. Carla's 4th edit is to accuse various unnamed people of "rewriting history". Sounds like something ZS would say. --Frank 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User 154.5.19.185

I have unfortunately had a disagreement with user 154.5.19.185. I will admit, that the argument was concerning subject matter not particularly relevant to Wikipedia, and that I myself said inappropriate things to him/her that no doubt provoked him/her... My concern is with the final response that was left on my talk page (I have deleted it, but it's in my history). This is possibly the most demeaing, insulting and hurtful comment anyone has ever left me... by far. I make a habit of NEVER insulting or attacking other users, but admit that on this occassion, I was overly abrasive and came too close (he/she on the other hand, did not hold back). I admit that I said things which clearly sparked anger. I don't know what can/should be done, but I felt it necessary that I report it. --Arch26 02:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Anti-Aaron

This user should be banned just for their name, which judging by this edit and this edit is merely an account meant to attack User: AaronS. A check user on Anti-Aaron would also be helpful to find out who this is (I'm not sure if you need to have a specific target in mind to check the user to, or what, but if not this would be good to use). I will put a request at the check user page. The Ungovernable Force 02:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the check user request page and it says not to use it on throwaway accounts, so I guess I won't make the request. Still, it would be nice to know if an established wikipedian did this. The Ungovernable Force 03:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Valento (talk · contribs) is complaining on his talk page about being blocked, even though no one has blocked him (yet). Now, the IP blocklist does indicate an autoblock on Anti-Aaron's IP, which seems to be what Valento tripped over. I'm not terribly surprised. His principal contributions at this point then are userboxen and vandalism. I wouldn't mind blocking this account too. Mackensen (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Range Block needed

Range 203.166.99.(...) is creating a ton of back and forth vandalism all over the place. Need a range block (I don't know how to do it). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Croatian historian

This user has been engaging in personal attacks and has been removing properly placed warnings from his talk page. Seems to have been warned many times yet still does so and has a watchlist of people he claims to be vandals etc. I've blocked for a short while though his attitude to the block seems to suggest he will continue to be disruptive after that. Anyone care to take a look? --pgk^(talk) 09:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for his behavior for 31 hours on the 26th. Since then, he has only worsen his behavior. I suggest a much longer block. Since his latest block, he has personally attacked me, pgk and OrbitOne. I have once again sprotected his user talk page until/if his block expires --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There's something odd about all this, and I wonder if other admins could look in on it. I've unblocked Croatian historian (talk • contribs • historian page moves • block user • historian block log), and unprotected his Talk page. Some, at least, of the supposed personal attacks have not been (e.g., [8], and I've seen little to justify a block. Those attacking Croatian historian, on the other hand, such as Serbiana (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), have been behaving very badly, with genuine personal attacks, the removal of AfD notices from pages while discussion is continuing, and the removal of comments from article Talk pages. I'm sure that the admins involved haven't in fact been taking sides, but their actions have at least appeared a little one-sided. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, clearly Mel Etitis has looked into the background of this more than I did. I saw the user posting {{bv}} tags to an admins talk page in response to that admin reverting the removal of warnings from his talk page. WP:TALK states "Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Additionally the user was maintaining a "watchlist" on his page listing individuals as vandals, admin abusers etc. I consider this to be uncivil at best if not a personal attack. This *proposed* arbcom decision. anticipates similar behaviour as being unacceptable. Additionally the user had been blocked a couple of days previously for similar. As a potentially controversial block hence the posting here. --pgk^(talk) 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, after another blanking/restoring flurry this morning (in which Croatian historian has again labelled restorers vandals in the edit summaries), I've reprotected the page but did not block Croatian historian. Mel, with all due respect, I think your actions simply encouraged Croatian historian's behavior, and I don't think it should have been encouraged in any way. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I will file a complaint against you for adminship abuse. Vandalizing a talk page is a serious offense, editing a protected page is a serious offense. Not only are vandals reinstating bad faith use of templates by Serbiana (trolling), they are also deleting my own replies at my own talk page. Croatian historian ( ) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing a protected page is not a serious offense, because obviously the only people that can edit it are the ones who are allowed to- that's the whole point. As for deleting your replies, god mode light does not selectively rollback sections; you shouldn't have replied and vandalized your warnings at the same time (and it is vandalism, as it violates WP:VAND). Again, please stop calling us vandals and assuming bad faith. --Rory096 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the behaviour of Serbiana, Nlu and their friends should be encouraged. Their behaviour is appalling. Croatian historian ( ) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've warned you twice for personal attacks. I've quoted or linked you the policy multiple times. And still you keep vandalizing, and then have the balls to accuse upstanding editors like myself, Nlu and rory? I rarely get pissed, but this user deserves an indefinate block. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Incivility? Here you go: [9], [10], [11], tells me to shutup, [12] etc.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm inclined to sympathise with Croatian historian; too many admins have looked at the page, seen a warning template being removed, and knee-jerked into attacks on the User, without bothering to check the validity of the template. It was a mischievous use of the template by another editor who has been harassing Croatian historian. "Vandal" may be the wrong word, but given the pressure he's been put under, and the many admins who have piled in against him without bothering to find out what's been going on, I think that he can be forgiven. I'm unprotecting the page, so that he can clear it of the junk that's been piling up. Ny advice to him is to archive the whole page, and start afresh. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." He was told this. Multiple times, and still reverted. Then he took it onto other user talk pages, and then tells me to shut up when I show him the policy. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it very disconcerting that a user can personally attack other users, including upstanding editors and admins, act incredibly rude and uncivil, threaten them, delete his warnings, ignore other warnings, and then get off unblocked. That's disgusting to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Croatian historian for 48 hours for personal attacks, and then Mel Etitis unblocked, and then I reblocked. Pardon me for wheel warring, but I think in this case it's justified. Mel, you can't say with a straight face that these edits by Croatian historian were not personal attacks, or that they did not come after repeated warnings. --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, my comment

Since I see my name is mentioned several times, I feel I should comment on the issue. I would like to start by writing a Croatian historian quote:

• "Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one." [13]

I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page. He just deleted it. He claims that I'm mad at him because he voted against me when I applied for an administrator on English Wikipedia, but that is not the reason at all. We're all a little biased, some more than others. But this next quote by Croatian historian is too much:

• "Alojzije Cardinal Stepinac was perhaps the most honourable man in history of Croatia of the 20th century, also if compared to great statesmen like Franjo Tuđman." [14]

Doesn't that seem a little too biased. I would even dare to call it nationalist. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. I'd also like to mention some other edits he made to actual articles, which I find are extremely biased, and quite frankly should be considered as vandalism:

• • "Serb irredentism and attempt to create a Greater Serbia under Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic led to the Yugoslav wars..."

• • "Serb war criminal Slobodan Milošević in the Hague..."

• • -just erased a bunch of text-

• • -here as well-

And that's just what I could find in a few minutes... Not to mention, he's very rude: [15]. Also, here's what he wrote about User:Lbmixpro - "vandalize user pages, needs to be banned", and the same for User:Rory096; "vandalize user pages (restoring personal attacks/trolling, deleting content), needs to be banned" for User:OrbitOne and "adminship abuse, removing properly placed warning templates" for User:Pgk.

Enough said. I don't know if he is blocked at the moment, some users keep unblocking him, maybe they think he might change his ways. Not likely. Block him for good - he is a vandal. --Serbiana ₪ 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The praises of the Croats might be biased and POV, but "Serb war criminal Slobodan Milosevic" would be fine if the word "accused" is added. That would then be an accurate description, as Milosevic was indeed an accused war criminal. --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note Serbiana I found multiple uncivil quotes by you on his talk page as well. I think this issue is not just his behavior, but includes the tiff between the two of you.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Attack is the best defense". I'm not the perfect Wikipedian, but please, if you have something against me, don't discuss it here, we're talking about Croatian historian.

Also, Croatian historian did not add the word accused, and he didn't do it on purpose. If he had added that word, I would have nothing against the edit. But both of you didn't really comment on the more troubling issues, and you're obviously taking sides on this discussion, without rationally analyzing all aspects of the topic. --Serbiana ₪ 06:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

When two feuding parties are both accusing me of taking sides, that is usually a good indicator that I'm not. I'll take it as a compliment. --Nlu (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the difference between me and Croatian user is that this is the first time I've accused someone of taking sides. Croatian user accuses everyone who is against him of taking sides with me, so if you don't like him, you're a Serbiana supporter. I don't see how you can take that as a compliment, but if it makes you feel better, sure, why not... --Serbiana ₪ 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on several points. Croatian history is being discussed here, however it shouldn't be all about his actions and only his actions; he isn't mass editing with no interuser interactions. I am not taking sides between the two of you, but I am going to note the shots between the two of you. I will also note not all of your shots have been 100% clean. Thus I come to the second point where I disagree. I am not taking sides here. I want to keep my hands clean. I do suggest finding an arbitrator though; any problems the two of you have with each other is not good for wikipedia. Three: This problem has more than one side and two users. If Croatian historian is a troll, then there are also people who feed the troll. I am not saying anyone, you and Croatian historian included, should be banned or any other admin actions should be taken though; such actions are up to the admins to decide, not me. I am saying though all sides need to walk away from this learning lessons and changing how we act, even if only a little bit.--OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 10:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, noone is commenting on the links I posted, and if that's not taking sides, I don't know what is. Could anyone say why Croatian historian should be a part of this Wikipedia, even though he writes stuff like that (honestly, read the links)? Once again, I'm not the perfect Wikipedian, noone is, and I've made a few mistakes, but I've tried since to correct them: [16].

But what Croatian historian has done, and what he is still constantly doing, is unacceptable. Unlike me, he will never change. So, if you still think that you're going to save this user from being blocked by attacking the edits I've made, think again, because the reasons I've given are good enough to block him, and you can't deny that just because I made a few mistakes in the past. --Serbiana ₪ 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory use of userpage cont.

Karl Meier (talk · contribs) has linked this offensive 'F*** all muslims' site [17] from his userpage with the title 'Dear muslims, we are so sorry'. As above, I asked him nicely to remove the link [18]. He modified it to include an offense warning, but the effect was still clearly inflammatory. I asked him again to remove it [19], but he has declined. I'm a liberal on userpage content, you are entitle to declare any POV you want, but this has stepped over the line into bringing this project into disrepute, incivility, and downright trolling. Freedom of speech is one thing, but this is an abuse of our encyclopedia. I am now forcably removing the link. I expect to be reverted. If I am, I will take no further action. I invite other admins to consider what action should be taken in that case, and strongly suggest protection of the page. --Doc ^ask? 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. That website is a disgrace and its presence on Karl Meier's userpage cannot help him to work with other editors, many of whom may be the very muslims he is telling to go and get fucked. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no free speech on Wikipedia, anyway. We allow for the removal of racially offensive or libellous article talk page comments, I don't see why we should allow that sort of thing to hang out on someone's user pages either. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't says "Fuck all Muslims", and I think you should spend you life and wiki-time on something else than my userpage. Maybe the external link is a bit of a silly response to the flag-burning and the hateful campaign against my country all over the islamic world, but I still don't like the idea of you running around telling me and other users what we can and can't have in our userspace. I've personally been asked to "go fuck myself" in a users personal space, and no action was taken. Why don't you go write an article or do something else that is actually useful. This is just too ridicules, and we shouldn't waste our time on it. -- Karl Meier 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there are rules about what you can and can't have in your userspace -- or anybody's userspace. User space is the property of the Wikimedia Foundation; users have no personal "ownership" over their user space, which exists at the foundation's pleasure. There has been a lot of discussion about what is and is not appropriate to have in one's userspace, including anything at all (i.e. some folks would like to do away with it period). From Wikipedia:User pages: Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage. Your page is about you as a Wikipedian. Examples of unrelated content include: Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And no, noone should have told you to go fuck yourself; that's obviously not all right. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And what do you think abour Cool Cat's request that I should "go fuck myself" Mr. Sidaway? I remember that you had no comments re that... -- Karl Meier 21:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Last tine Cool Cat attacked you, I banned him from an article for a week. If he's attacking you again, please show me the diff. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked you why you did nothing and made no comment when he asked me and Davenbelle to "go fuck ourselves" on his userpage. No action was taken, eventhough he entered a revert-war to keep these comments on his userpage, so apparently the "rules" must have changed.. -- Karl Meier 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the relevant diff for this, Karl, I'm interested inseeing it and I could not find it.Gator (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't worth time. Cool Cat makes thousands of edits to his userpace, and I have no problem with him now. Also, Sidaway know what I am talking about. -- Karl Meier 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He's just trying to change the subject.

Karl Meier has replaced that link to an anti-muslim website with a link to another equally virulent anti-muslim website. I have asked him to remove it. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. This latest thought-crime in my userspace, has already been censored by Doc glasgow. -- Karl Meier 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All credit to Karl, he has accepted the removal of all the offending content, with even a little humour in his part. If only all disputes could end like this. :) --Doc ^ask? 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I actually hoped that you would have made a fast revert of my latest edit... That could have been quite amusing. -- Karl Meier 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So, when you changed the offensive link to a disneyland link, you were what? Trolling? I don't understand? --Doc ^ask? 23:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah.. Forget it. It was just a joke. -- Karl Meier 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway. Forgetting about specific links, I think this whole thing raise some questions, re what is allowed on a userpage. What if I want to link to Xenu.net in my userspace, or what about the drawing of Muhammad on my userpage? What is "inflamatory" and who is to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed in a users personal space? -- Karl Meier 23:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You were trolling, and that's not allowed. Stop trying to dress it up as wiki-philosopy raising profound questions. It doesn't wash. The only question this raises is the question of your motives. --Doc ^ask? 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to ask you to stop harassing me on these public forums, and to stop making nasty personal attacks and comments about me in your userspace. -- Karl Meier 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What public forum? This is not a forum. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK then. I want him to quit harrassing me on the "Administrators noticeboard", and in his userspace. -- Karl Meier 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And now I noticed that he did just that: [20]. No problem then. -- Karl Meier 01:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More generally

a.k.a. back to the subject: I'd consider any link that's only "one deep" to be as if it were on my user page. I wouldn't be allowed to write my nazi midget clown poem about Katefan0 on my user page, so linking directly to it on my livejournal is different how?
brenneman^{L} 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Shhh. That was supposed to be secret. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here Karl; quit trying to make a point. I personally can't answer that question for you. People put items of varying degrees of offensiveness on their userpages, and I have said nothing. If you (or others) choose to portray yourself as someone who is intolerant of other faiths and viewpoints, that is your prerogative. Just make sure that intolerance stays on your user page and doesn't extend to the rest of Wikipedia. I know there are many who are going to be quick to disagree with me, but I've seen people with pages devoted to nudity and others (such as Karl) who make a point to lambaste or insult religions. Until I see a crackdown on content on all userpages or a disturbance due to the page (which to this point, I have seen none), I fail to see the problem. However, I must point out that if your point here is to troll (as I suspect may be the motive behind the Scientology link), that is not condoned by me. joturner 00:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Doc's law: The oldest troll tactic on the wiki is to say, 'hey my offensive noise raises profound questions of the freedom of speech' and then sit back whilst otherwise sane editors defend their right to troll--Doc ^ask? 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. Don't you have anything better to do than to herass me and whine about what I have in my user space? Get a life please. My usespace is none of your business. Anyway I am not going to spend more time discussing with you. You can yell and scream all you want, and I dont care. There is no point in discussion anything with you. -- Karl Meier 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Croatian historian and admins

A couple of admins have been behaving in a disturbingly emotional way in attacking this user. His user page had been twice protected, and he has just been blocked for 48 hours, supposedly for personal attacks; the evidence for these appears to be:[21], [22], [23], tells me to shutup, [24].

Frankly, this is absurd. Even if most of these in fact counted as attacks, there's something unpleasant about blocking an editor for attacking oneself; the case should have been placed before other admins, here. The other "crime" that Croatian historian has committed is to remove bad-faith and mischievous additions of warning templates from his own talk page — templates placed there by editors who are in dispute with him, and who are using the templates to attack him.

Admins such as User:Nlu and User:Swatjester are at best being overly sensitive, and acting without bothering to look any deeper into the situation than what is on the surface. Could other, experienced admins look into this, and help to sort it out? I've unblocked him and unprotected his page. Perhaps the two admins involved could step back and let others take over. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel....I'm not an admin. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning: The first warnings may or may not have been bad-faith. It doesn't really matter, the proper solution is to ask an admin to review and remove them. Hell, I've got a bad-faith 3rr warning on my page, I just struck it threw and kept it on there until the user retracted it. So a couple different users start reverting his blankings of the warnings, and he keeps on referring to us as "vandals" and claiming he has full rights to his talk page (which is not true as evidenced in WP:TALK). Deletion of warnings is vandalism per WP:VANDAL. He was informed of this, he blanked again. He was informed again, he blanked again. It spread to another user's talk, where be was uncivil and referring to us as "kids". He was explained to AGAIN there, at which time he told me to "Shut up", an obvious personal attack. I added the NPA template to his page, just before Nlu protected it. I asked Nlu to add a spacing between my warning and the last one from rory, which had gotten entangled, that was the only "protected page editing" I can think of. From there on, Croatian begins accusing Nlu of admin abuse, threatening that their admin powers will be removed, and all sorts of other uncivil behavior. I don't care what kind of stress he's under: If he is that stressed, he needs to step back from the computer and not edit. Oh, and I didn't even mention that before any of this had begun, last night, I got a message from another editor to watch Croatians edits, along with 3 others, as he's been harassing them. It's still up on my talk page if you want to check. I fail to see how I'm being emotional and overly sensitive., and acting without bothering to look, especially when Mel thinks I'm an admin, and I'm not (doesn't bode well for standing to make claims that I bothered to look into situations). I feel I've maintained a professional and civil attitude. Ironically, I received an award from another user during all of this (up on my talk). I consider myself, Rory, and Nlu upstanding editors (and in nlu's case admin), and vigorously protest this categorization. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

But you are SWAT! :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently that's going right over my head, cause I don't get it. Have I been up too long? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: See also WP:AN/I#User:Croatian_historian. --Rory096 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Swatjester's not an admin; the rest of my comments stand. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For more details on this topic, see User_talk:Lbmixpro#Problem_with_Rory096.

This has continued to flood to my talk page, and as it is right now, I want other admins input about this. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 19:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add one comment on this:

I find it absolutely mindboggling that Mel is claiming that Croatian historian's edits were not personal attacks. (See User talk:Nlu on even harsher language that Mel used on my talk page.) As I've written lately with regard to an unrelated matter, think how you would react if it were anybody else. If we do not allow anonymous IPs and other users to make this type of personal attacks without being blocked, then it is hypocritical to not to block Croatian historian for this type of personal attacks. There is no justification that I see for Mel to further have removed the 48-hour block that I placed on Croatian historian. If there is someone who's abusing admin powers, I feel strongly that it wasn't I. --Nlu (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbiana's comment

I feel I should comment on the issue. I would like to start by writing a Croatian historian quote:

• "Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one." [25]

I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page. He just deleted it. He claims that I'm mad at him because he voted against me when I applied for an administrator on English Wikipedia, but that is not the reason at all. We're all a little biased, some more than others. But this next quote by Croatian historian is too much:

• "Alojzije Cardinal Stepinac was perhaps the most honourable man in history of Croatia of the 20th century, also if compared to great statesmen like Franjo Tuđman." [26]

Doesn't that seem a little too biased. I would even dare to call it nationalist. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. I'd also like to mention some other edits he made to actual articles, which I find are extremely biased, and quite frankly should be considered as vandalism:

• "Serb irredentism and attempt to create a Greater Serbia under Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic led to the Yugoslav wars...", *"Serb war criminal Slobodan Milošević in the Hague...", *<<just erased a bunch of text>>, *<<here as well>>

And that's just what I could find in a few minutes... Not to mention, he's very rude: [27]. Also, here's what he wrote about User:Lbmixpro - "vandalize user pages, needs to be banned", and the same for User:Rory096; "vandalize user pages (restoring personal attacks/trolling, deleting content), needs to be banned" for User:OrbitOne and "adminship abuse, removing properly placed warning templates" for User:Pgk.

Enough said. I don't know if he is blocked at the moment, some users keep unblocking him, maybe they think he might change his ways. Not likely. Block him for good - he is a vandal. --Serbiana ₪ 04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I'm talking about:

"*"Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one." [28]

"I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page."

There was clearly no personal attack. Most of the supposed personal attacks atributed to Croatian historian are of the same kind. That Bormalagurski made this mistake is perhaps excusable, but that admins made it and blocked the user on this basis isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is just too unfair. YOU DIDN'T COMMENT ON ANY OF THE EDITS THAT CROATIAN HISTORIAN MADE TO THE ARTICLES. DO YOU NOT FIND HIS COMMENT ON SERBS SLIGHTLY NATIONALIST???You are clearly not looking at the facts from a neutral point of view. Mel, how would you react if I said that every member of your nationality is a genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist nationalist. Would that offend you? Plus, what Croatian user wrote, offends 10 million people! And you're saying it wasn't offensive? Jesus, Mel, open you're eyes, Croatian user should be blocked!!! --Serbiana ₪ 07:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There clearly is a difference between Serbs and "Serb nationalism". Are you suggesting all Serbs are nationalists? If a Chinese, whose family had been murdered by Japanese occupiers, said "Japanese nationalism is genocidal, aggressive etc.", on a talk page, I would not have a problem with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.214.92A11:08, 30 March 2006 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure who wrote this, but I agree. I'd add only that I detest all nationalism, and that in the context of Wikipedia it probably causes more than half all our porblems with vandalism, pointless edit wars, and emotional blow ups like this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree too if it was written in that context. Unfortunatly, he stated that Serbian nationalism's the worst, which is quitte different. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment, I'm afraid, especially as it's factually incorrect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats it! I don't care what you do with Croatian historian, Mel is obviously always going to unblock him, and there is no point in discussing this with him. Mel, if you had a sense of what is right and what is wrong, you would stop protecting this Croatian nationalist, and block him for good. But, of course, you will never do that. Plus, you're arguments for helping Croatian nationalism are very bad, and I just don't understand who could've made you an administrator. I'm just shocked how the quality of Wikipedia is going down, when a vandal is being protected by an admin, it's over. I give up, Croatian nationalism has won, it's Operation Storm all over again. --Serbiana ₪ 21:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Dakota d

User:DakotaKahn blocked this user with the following rationale: Username to close DakotaKahn. I don't see this at all. DakotaKahn shouldn't be allowed to have the only User name with the word Dakota in it. The user hadn't even made a single edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. First of all, we can't ban everybody in Dakota! Secondly, I'm not sure DakotaKahn has such a high profile that people are into impersonating her (I might be wrong, and either way no offence intended). --kingboyk 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and we need a page for admins to report non-obvious username blocks, so that the community can investigate. I'm unblocking. --Golbez 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Usernames, WP:AN/U and WP:ANU. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unneeded its why we have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names.  ALKIVAR™ 01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. RFC should be used when a username's suitability is in doubt, and improper blocks for usernames are, AFAIK, rare enough that we don't need a separate noticeboard to report them. I've MfDed it here - I hope that's the right place to discuss whether we need this. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I speedy deleted it after Zoe said she wasn't aware of the RFC sub-section and didn't mind it being deleted. Technically this speedy is questionable as a) Splash edited it after Zoe created it, making a speedy on the grounds of Zoe's request potentially invalid and b) I nominated it for MfD in the first place. But I don't see Splash as likely to object, or why someone else should have to do it. I didn't even bother mentioning it on the MfD closing notice, but since this is the AN, no reason not to make it clear here. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• shhh, the vandals have ears, of course so does corn, but then corn has never been blocked for moving pages to pagename ...on wheels]], probably because corn is a vegtable, not a person, but you never know--Minasota von haippymeils 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to leave that account blocked. DakotaKahn has been stalked by AMorrow, and it's possible this is him. It's not the first account that's been set up recently that sounds close to her name or to one of her relatives. It's also suspicious that the account was set up, but apparently not used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I should really read this page more often. Long before reading this discussion, I noticed that these five accounts were all created within a couple of hours:

• Dakota_d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dakota_d_on_Wheels! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_on_Wheels! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_and_Dakota_d_sitting_in_a_tree_C.U.R.P.S.ING! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_and_Dakota_d_sitting_on_Wheels!_C.U.R.P.S.ING! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_is_a_bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DakotaKahn_is_still_a_bitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note that "new users" with zero edits generally do not get "put on wheels" or become the subject of "attack accounts" in this manner. Barring evidence to the contrary, I firmly believe that these five accounts were created by the same person, regardless of whether this person has any connection to the so-called "real Willy on Wheels". — Mar. 30, '06 [08:40] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Thanks for finding those, FoN. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks too; having seen those, I have much less problem with the block, though it should have had a note. Mindspillage's note below also contains wisdom. --Golbez 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

While the usernames created afterward look suspicious, this isn't the sort of username I would block without at least leaving a note on the talk page, and more likely not at all. Dakota is a pretty popular name, though more so for people who are just barely old enough to edit Wikipedia, and I wouldn't expect someone newly registering to check that their name doesn't clash with an admin's first, and "Dakota d" is somewhat far off to look like a deliberate attempt to confuse or impersonate. As for the names afterward, well, it could have been malicious all long, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is our dear friend who likes to create names riffing off of the current block log and current discussions. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:infinity0

I've been trying everything I can to keep from getting in an edit war with User:infinity0 on An Anarchist FAQ. To keep from getting into an edit war with him I put POV tag on the top of the article and have been engaging in voluminous discussion on the [Discussion page] there. He keeps taking the tag off knowing full well that the dispute is very much alive (he knows because he's engaging in the dispute on the Discussion page). Whenever I put it back on, he takes it off: [29] [30] Then, when I note on the Discussion page that he's taking off the POV tag he keep reverting my mention of the fact that he's taking the tag off: [31] [32] --which amounts to vandalizing the Discussion page. It's just crazy. What he's doing is all very disruptive to the process at trying to arrive at a consensus. The article has a real POV problem and I am not the only one who thinks this. I don't know what to do in this situation other than to ask if someone can please put a block on him for awhile. Maybe that will force him to refrain from these antics. RJII 02:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one is willing to take any action over this, then what am I supposed to do? Is there a policy against repeatedly deleting someone else's messages on Discussion pages? (by the way, he deleted a message of mine from another article's Talk page today as well: [33] )Is there a policy against repeatedly removing an NPOV tag from an article when the NPOV dispute is still going on and a consensus as not been reached? Please advise. RJII 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe find another pond to fish in for the moment? Isn't there any way you two can stay out of each other's faces? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The only way I can do that is to sit back and let him make the article POV and keep important information out of it. It doesn't matter if I go to other articles --he often follows me to them --puts things I create up for deletion votes just because I'm the one that created them, goes into an article that I edited that he's never visited before right after I make an edit and immediately deletes them, etc. Believe me, I'd like to stay away from him. But, I don't think I should be the one to allow him to get his way when he's the one that's obviously being disruptive. I'm just supposed to allow him to delete my messages on Discussion pages? That's crazy. RJII 03:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't obvious that admin intervention is needed. Have you considered WP:3O? Jkelly 03:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll stop by the article and try and give some suggestions on WP:DR. --FloNight ^talk 03:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Noting that he's deleting people's comments on other pages as well. Here is someone complaining on his Talk page about deleting comments on the Socialism talk page. [34] I don't understand why you guys are letting him get away with this clearly disruptive behavior. RJII 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I did not mean to delete the comment on the socialism talk page [35].
• RJII kept harassing me on my talk page (see history) and WP:POINT on the talk page of that article, so I removed the attacks.
• RJII is the one circumventing consensus; none of the other editors have agreed with what he is trying to add, yet he has the cheek to report me for this.
• Furthermore, RJII is currently on probation FOR POV pushing.

-- infinity0 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Is User:209.123.28.250 vandalizing using a bot?

I just blocked 209.123.28.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for 31 hours only, since it's an IP. But I'd really like to block for longer. Could somebody please look to see what kind of IP this is, and, especially, click on the contribs and tell me: is the person using a bot, or is it possible to edit that fast without it? Man, I wish Wikipedia was ever that fast for me. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

P. S. I see Celestianpower did the exact same block at the very same moment. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

Likely not a bot. I would guess he used a WoW style multiple tab editing to pull that off. I do similar when I'm doing multiple repetetive edits on a number of pages. Open all the pages, work through making the changes. If I'm cut&pasting the same change, I can go fairly quickly through the pages, clicking submit on each as I go. - TexasAndroid 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's listed in the Spamhaus XBL, which means it's almost certainly a compromised computer. However, it doesn't appear to be a normal open proxy from my tests. It's probably being controlled remotely via a bot network. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with above. I've had experience vandalising like this on other wikis so know how it works. 15 per minute isn't that high using that method. --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd really like to block if not permanently then at least substantially. Would that risk catching virtuous users, or not, do you think? Bishonen | talk 17:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

Peronally, I only block open proxies that I can get to proxy for me. I have let quite a few slip perma blocks and instituted a short block when my testing methods fail to get them to proxy, even if I'm reaonably sure they are open and the failure is in my checking script. I would start off with a 24 hour block and monitor it when the block expires. If it continues, keep escalating the length of the blocks. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahha! whois says "West Milford Public Schools" with a contact of wb at nac.net. I suspect not a bot, but lots of little 'bots'. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII disruptive and POV editing

Note: RJII is currently on probation as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII_v._Firebug#Remedies and has already been banned four times as a result of it.

The majority consensus on Talk:An Anarchist FAQ is that the anti-individualist-anarchism position of the authors is not a major point for the article since they do not mispresent individualist anarchism nor make untruthful statements in the FAQ. However, RJII keeps wanting to give undue weight to this in the article to try to discredit it.

[36]

Previous version has one sentence on the issue: "The authors also explain why they disagree with some anarchist tendencies, such as individualist anarchism."

RJII's version has one paragraph (half the section) on the issue: "They say that they "social anarchists reject the individualists conception of anarchy, simply because it can, unfortunately, allow hierarchy (i.e. government) back into a free society in the name of "liberty" and "free contracts....However, while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism -- one with many flaws one with many flaws and one perhaps more suited to an earlier age when capitalism was less developed and its impact upon society far less than it is now." Why Social Anarchists Reject Individualist Anarchism" - note that this page is about 1/100 of the whole FAQ.

-- infinity0 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't fall for it. There is no "majority consensus." At least 3 others disagree with what infinity wants for the article. infinity is being very disruptive. He keeps removing NPOV tags knowning full well that their is a dispute going on and even deleting my comments from the Talk page of that article. (And I am not the only one putting a POV dispute tag on it). I'm trying to provide direct quotes in order to make it as NPOV as possible --that way no one can twist what they are saying. RJII 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC) There are indeed others who agree with me. For example, "You folks are arguing different points. RJII is quite correct that the authors of the FAQ have a non-neutral POV. In order to preserve the NPOV of the entry, it might be appropriate to note that fact. As RJII considers it important, and as it is entirely accurate to note their rejection, maybe you should just relent on this one. Libertatia 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" RJII 21:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII is lying. I don't want anything for the article; 3 others disagree with him and his POV version. There has been extensive rebuttal of what he has been trying to add. I only remove his point-making disruptions. -- infinity0 21:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he's making a personal attack. When is someone going to do something about this guy? See my complaints about him a couple sections above. RJII 21:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII is falsifying quotes from other editors. Libertatia does not support his POV version.

• But the meat of the FAQ is elsewhere. Libertatia 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• The real disagreement is that you present the FAQ to be a 'sectarian' social anarchist FAQ, while the FAQ declaratively attempts a more 'ecumenical' approach, while preserving a socialist identity. There is a huge difference between the two, and I have only your unsupported opinion to contradict such declarations of the FAQ. --Aryah 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

-- infinity0 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

here's an idea

block them both... indefintly, at least we won't have to listen to either of them anymore--172.168.140.68 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's the easy way out, instead of taking the time to analyze who is truly disruptive here. It's also irresponsible. RJII 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not really the easy way out, and stating the most obvious conclusion that you're simply a troll, won't actually resolve the situation, so blocking both is the way to go, that way you won't feel compelled to violate your block(s) and come back a sockpuppets.

besides if I really had the power to block either of you, do you think I'd be communicating so mysteriously from an ip with only 2 contributions on it?

Were I a sysop, do you think I'd be giving you a final warning to take this dispute somewhere else or be blocked? no of course not, you absolutely shouldn't read too much into this because you're in absolutely no danger of being blocked by an annoyed sysop who is giving you one last warning. absolutely none --172.168.140.68 22:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Let's see. How many things can I quote from the top of this page?
  1. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks.
  2. Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content
  3. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here.
  4. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page
  • This is a content dispute. infinity0, stop pretending it's anything otherwise, and stop using RJII's probation as a weapon against him; it cheapens whatever argument you're making. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • Fine, I shall remain on the talk page, though please take note that I have been through this with him for a long time, and that in my eyes he is being clearly disruptive. Could you at least have a look through it as a neutral party and leave some comments? That would be appreciated. -- infinity0 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This does not require administrator intervention. Take it to the talk page of whatever article you are discussing. - FrancisTyers 23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello, would you please remove my name from this list: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp

I asked Check User to perform a test and they determined "Inconclusive".

I am not a sockpuppet Thank you SirIsaacBrock 22:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

According to Wikipedia policy, fair use images cannot be placed in the user namespace, per Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy and Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) has been asked to remove such images from his page by four separate users thus far, in four completely separate incidents:

1. Bunchofgrapes on 00:15, 4 February 2006 here. The request was not acted upon, and was deleted in this edit as "harassment, trolling and botspam."
2. Scm83x on 10:20, 9 March 2006 here. The request was responded to with complete incivility and a misunderstanding of policy here and deleted in this same edit as "harassment, trolling and botspam."
3. MattKingston on 23:38, 14 March 2006 here. The entire talk page was subsequently archived in this edit, though MattKingston's section was cut out.
4. Rebelguys2 on 01:51, 21 March 2006 here. The message was blanked in this edit.

There is no doubt that he understands how fair use works on Wikipedia; it has been explained to him many times over. Regardless, in this edit, he explicitly calls for the "challenge and defiance" of copyright law. Though copyright law may be unpopular and too restrictive at times, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to start his revolution.

After the user was given time to remove fair use images from his user page, but failed to do so, a number of editors have manually removed the offending images from his page. User page and fair use policy states that users are free to remove fair use images from others' user pages – especially after the user has been warned:

1. MattKingston on 00:26, 25 March 2006 here. The edit was reverted as vandalism here.
2. Scm83x on 03:33, 26 March 2006 here. The edit was reverted as "[v]andalism by a novice, petty official" here.
3. Rebelguys2 on 08:31, 26 March 2006 here. The edit was reverted as vandalism here. Notice that, by now, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) is bordering on a violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, for what is now three reversions at 02:48, 04:07, and 08:39 on the same day.

In summary, this user steadfastly refuses to comply with fair use policy, is completely uncivil in his responses, and is about to violate WP:3RR. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I protected his userpage. He is being civil elsewhere. Ashibaka tock 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can I just but in here and point out that "about to violate WP:3RR" is not something you can anticipate, fairly comment on or act upon until he actually breaks the rule. Even discussing anticipated crimes smacks to me of a little over eagerness on your part. My imagination I'm sure. I find the man deeply trying, but he is entitled to the same considerations as everyone else no matter how vexing he may be to one's patience. Giano | talk 15:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Revert warring, even if it doesn't break WP:3RR, and especially when it is breaking other policies, is frowned upon; that is what I was commenting on. Excuses if I didn't make it clear enough that he wasn't breaking WP:3RR, or he would have been reported elsewhere. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is misleading to say that "he explicitly calls for the 'challenge and defiance' of copyright law" since he was referring to the DMCA and software patents, which (IIRC) have nothing to do with fair use. Johnleemk | Talk 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• The reason the line in question raised my eyebrows is that it followed a discussion with Natalinasmpf regarding a fair use rationale. I don't know enough to comment on the contents of DMCA. However, he has certainly challenged and been defiant of fair use policy on Wikipedia, and the whole issue here does, in the end, boil down to intellectual protectionism. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest do you not think in disallowing the man to display his favourite album cover on his own user page is just being a teeny weeny bit over zealous. Is it actually harming anyone, is the copyright holder likely to say "Oi! Stop that now" or "Thank you good Wikipedians for stopping one of our fans displaying our album cover". No in short they don't give a stuff about that sort of thing. It's not as though he is claiming he designed it himself, is a member of whatever group it is, he's just one of millions of fans - nothing more - nothing sinister - and more importantly he is not deriving financial gain from the cover. There must be so many more important things you could devote your worthy time too, now why don't you just give him back his album cover and find something more useful to do with your time. Giano | talk 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Protecting the integrity of the project is a pretty high priority around here. Ghost is lucky not to find himself blocked. -Splash^talk 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• What constitutes the integrity of this project seems to be open to personal interpretation[37] as I'm sure you realise. So at least you agree we have some leeway here. That's always a good start, shall we move on from there? Giano | talk 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, this isn't a negotiable policy. And it isn't about how we interprete the law. Ultimately, this is foundation policy and it is absolute. Now, we need to allow latitude for those who don't get it, and make mistakes, but not for a deliberate breachs. He is in violation of the conditions under which we may use this site, and if he will not comply, he cannot continue to use the site. We cannot all turn into lawyers and reach 'consensus' as to where this policy matters and where it does not. That way lies madness. And will those who say 'it doesn't matter' underwrite wikipedia legally if a liberal attitude to copyright gets the foundation into trouble? No. Anyway, there is also a moral argument. Copyright owners cannot go around this massive website checking where their rights may have been infringed. Their rights will often be infringed. The onus is on us to make sure we eliminate every violation we can. --Doc ^ask? 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Doc. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) must understand the policy by now, as it appears he's been warned about many times over. this needs to stop.--Alhutch 16:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Are you quite sure though though that he is in in fact breach of copyright law? If he is - then under the licence template Albumcover were he to accompany the image with a few words describing the album then he would be 100% legal even in your eyes. Would it not be better to try and help him find a solution rather than keep issuing him with repeated "tickets" rather like over zealous traffic wardens, because at the moment it seems to me a rather unimportant action is being escalated and inflamed into what is an unnecessarily angry and hostile exchange. Something which wikipedia has quite enough of already. Administrators should remember they are here to assist and advise editors. At the moment he is being ordered around in an inflammatory way, when he should be being shown a way out of the problem. You are the admins not him. Giano | talk 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that he is in violation of what is apparently Wikimedia Foundation policy. If you would like to restructure Wikimedia policy, it needs to be taken up over there, not here on Wikipedia. R.D.H. has been guided through these policies by several editors, including administrators, over the course of nearly 2 months. However, he has not acted on their advice. Therefore, a page lock was justified. I am also unsure why you accused me of removing your comments here; that was an accident by Tom harrison here. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have also mentioned the policy violation once in an unrelated note to him [38] (I just happened to notice all the images) but I didn't actually remove them, I thought maybe he would have himself. - cohesion^t 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rebelguys and M.Kingston are not admins. And if I have anything to say about it they never will be. The only admin actions taken here, apart from Ashibaka's protection of my userpage, was undertaken by Reb's friend/roomie/frat brother Scm83x. Among whose first acts as a newly appointed admin was to remove most all the images from my userpage and not just the copyrighted ones. All because he thought I was being a bit "rude" to him earlier. I argued that at least my images were being used in a way that was related to the 'Pedia itself, for "community building" purposes and to illustrate subjects brought up on said page. Unlike PERSONAL images, which have nothing to do with either building the 'Pedia or the community and are perhaps better suited for a blog and/or personal photo album. I would not grudge them their pics at all, except they grudge me mine. First certain userboxes are verboden, now certain images. It is only a matter of time before personal pics are taken away too. This is clearly a case of petty vindictiveness, justified under the aegis of policy. Hardly the reward I would expect for all my contributions here... Wikipedia:Harassment [39] and Wikistalking Mr. Kingston. All in an attempt to make my continued participation here unpleasant enough so I might leave the project. Also disturbing is the fact that the only ones who have come to my defense are Ashibaka, who I mainly know of from the infamous unpleasantness of last month, and my arch WikiNemesis Giano. I now find myself in the especially akward position of having to THANK Giano for his astute and welcomed help on this matter. But I must also warn him that if he keeps this up, I will be forced to start respecting him also:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• It was not an "admin action" to remove images from your user page; our user page and fair use guidelines allow any user to do so freely if there is a fair use violation. In addition, only copyrighted images were removed from your user pages, of which there were four. No other images have been touched; I'm not sure why you believed others were. Please don't falsely accuse other users of ulterior motives and of actions they certainly did not undertake. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the interest of further resolving this mess, I have proposed a Compromise to Ashibaka. Another evening I intended to use working on articles, I've now been forced to devote to defending myself instead. As Giano pointed out, we do actually have better things to do with our time than browbeating a stubborn old man into compliance with a policy he regards as unfair, unduly oppressive and in this case unnecessary (Those images have been sitting peacefully on my page since last year...and we havent gotten a cease and desist order from Sting's or Mr. Gilliam's lawyers so far). This is exactly the sort of petty bullshit which is destroying this community and project. It's getting UGLY here, kiddos...and I fear it is only going to get uglier.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that everyone should take a breath, relax, and realize what the central issue is here. We should simply recall that our fair use guidelines prohibit the use of fair use images outside the main namespace, save for case-by-case exceptions (i.e., templates for the main page). Any other arguments, such as R.D.H.'s false and bad faith assumptions of "petty vindictiveness," "petty bullshit," "Wikistalking," "harrassment," and collaborations with a "friend/roomie/frat brother," are moot; in addition, our allowance for personal images is in no way related to fair use. Issues such as these stem from Wikimedia Foundation policies, and discussion should be taken to channels there. It is unlikely that you will get anywhere hurling false accusations. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 10:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Rightly or wrongly you have pushed him into a corner back against the wall. So you now have the problem how are you going to help him out. For how much longer is he to be prevented from editing his own user page? I cannot understand why this has been allowed to escalate into such a huge issue which seems to be going nowhere. I am wondering where the more senior and respected admins are while this has been going on. (Another reason for training inexperienced admins!) Were this particular copyright issue to be taken to a legal court the chances are RDS would be allowed to continue his limited use of the image. However, in the absence of a court case, you have to decide how zealously you wish to interpret and administer policy, bearing in mind, who has he hurt?- What harm is it realistically likely to cause? and finally, has anyone actually complained or made official protest over Ghost's actions and use of the image? Bearing those questions and their answers in mind one can then assess the gravity of this case and where you wish to take it.........Without doubt, as I know to my own experience, and you must know surely too, he can be a very belligerent, pig headed and irritating person, but would Wikipedia be a better place without him? I don't think so - He is not one of those non-page-writing editors who flit about the site distributing wise opinions and advice to those that seldom want it, he actually writes pages on encyclopedic subjects, and for that deserves our respect and some consideration given to his views. You appear to have him now back against the wall into a corner, and for some reason seem surprised he is barking and shouting. Calm down and help the poor man out of the mess you have all got yourselves into, exercise a little tact and diplomacy when dealing with difficult customers - and it will be a better place for all. Giano | talk 12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• A number of us had been courteously explaining policy to R.D.H. for the course of two months to which he made no response. We're not "interpreting policy" – it is one of the few fair use Wikimedia Foundation policies that are explicitly stated and unlikely to be misconstrued. It has come up many, many times, and never have I seen such a response. Never have I said that he isn't a worthwhile contributor; never have I said that he should be banned. I don't understand why you brought the issue of his departure up. We have only repeated to him: whether right or wrong, the issue is that this is one of the most clear-cut fair use policies we have on Wikipedia – here's why – here's what you need to do. I have also told him that, in all honestly, he should just drop the issue, as people were coming in every week or two to ask him to remove the images. We have never retracted our offers for assistance, our guidance through the bureaucratic web of Foundation copyright guidelines, or anything else he needs. If that isn't tact and diplomacy, I don't know what else you could want. We can and still offer help, but it is up to R.D.H. to accept it. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I bring up the subject of his hypothetical departure because if you bothered to visit his talk page you would see the way he is thinking [40]. There is a whole world outside of "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" and perhaps some people would do well to explore it. It does seem very sad that one can't have the image of one's favourite album on one's own page (with a few words about it), and yet can write on a main page about it and use the image, I wonder what, or whose logic, that is? Life is complicated poor old RDS no wonder he's upset, I'm totally perplexed by it all. You see if one was writing about oneself as one should on that page, and that particular album had had a huge bearing on one's life, then, by your logic, were one notable the image would be legit wouldn't it, because that user page could then be a legitimate main page, so it all boils down to interpretation of notability. I wonder if RDS is in anyway notable? He's becoming more infamous here by the moment. Giano | talk 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I certainly do "bother to visit his talk page;" various editors have been dropped in and out for two months regarding this issue. Do you really think I don't understand his position, or that I have such a severe case of tunnel vision that I don't bother looking elsewhere? I'm not as ignorant of what's going on as you think. I've read through his talk page, my talk page, the messages you left on ALoan's talk page, and the rest. Be civil, please. I certainly understand his position. However, it's not my logic; I'm going by the logic of the Wikimedia Foundation. If I was wrong here, I'd have backed out a long time ago, but the policy is currently not up for negotiation. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you knew then why ask me "I don't understand why you brought the issue of his departure"? Giano | talk 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Because his departure wasn't and isn't the issue. This issue is Wikimedia Foundation policy. I think User:Doc glasgow put it best at the beginning of this discussion: "[T]his isn't a negotiable policy. And it isn't about how we interprete [sic] the law. Ultimately, this is foundation policy and it is absolute." — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Of course by the strictest letter of Wikipedia law your are probably correct in your understanding, but then I read, from just this page, the comments made by those discussing RDS's behaviour:

1. "it's not my logic"
2. Can I just but in here and point out that "about to violate WP:3RR is not something you can anticipate"
3. "It is misleading to say that "he explicitly calls for the 'challenge and defiance' of copyright law"
4. "we need to allow latitude for those who don't get it'"
5. "Ghost is lucky not to find himself blocked"
6. "never have I said that he should be banned"
7. "if he will not comply, he cannot continue to use the site"
8. "Please don't falsely accuse other users of ulterior motives and of actions they certainly did not undertake"
9. "Rightly or wrongly you have pushed him into a corner back against the wall"
10. "..his departure wasn't and isn't the issue"

There does seem too a confused hymn sheet here. The English have this marvellous word for people who take their responsibilities too seriously and officiously, it called a Jobsworth have you heard it? Giano | talk 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Frankly, the whole thing seems pretty stupid all around, but given that the Foundation has chosen to have a very strict policy about fair use images, and that policy includes a ban on fair use images on user pages, the matter, while stupid, seems pretty clear-cut. If you keep restoring them to your (or anyone else's) user page, expect zealous enforcecement of the (possibly misguided, but entirely clear) policy. - Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have to say I am coming to agree with Jmabel (above). The upside is that it gives those who never had the opportunity to be a prefect at school a few moments of glory enforcing those rules which to most seem pointless and frankly rather silly. Giano | talk 21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jmabel. The only thing I have been trying to get across is that we can't have fair use images on user pages. I simply have not been able to comprehend why others continue to stray away from clear-cut foundation policy, and continue to ask for exceptions and discussing issues marginally related to unnegotiable guidelines. — Rebelguys2 ^talk

• Jmabel has the right of it. The policy seems clear-cut, and if Ghost is concerned about people enforcing "arbitrary" rules against him, he shouldn't violate policy and give them the ammunition. -Colin Kimbrell 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)/Sandbox

Following the end of page protection at User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs) has made this page a redirect to User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)/Sandbox which is a copy of his old user page where he has removed only 2 of the 4 fair use images that he has been told repeatedly to remove in the past. I would say something, but I will almost certainly be ignored as I have been previously, although I hope that wouldn't be the case. If another admin could take a look at this new incident, all of us involved would really appreciate it, I'm sure. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your report Lt. Scmmy83x....and for protecting us from this arch-villian of the peace! It is good to know that energetic, enthusiastic young admins such as yourself are diligently on patrol for such disobedient and disorderly discontents. Please rest assured you have the full power of the enforcemnt apparatus behind you. All rulebreakers must be beaten into conformity. All who dare dissent must be beaten into silence. Strict enforcement of sacred policy and procedures must be our top priority here at WikiGulag. All other priorties (such as building an encyclopedia, fighting vandals etc) are secondary. We must never lose sight of this, young Leutmann! Once again, well done! (I best hush now before I start sounding like Giano;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you remembered to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith! Ashibaka tock 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Petty, abusive, inflexable admins leave me with NO faith..good, bad or ugly. But I'll settle for some slack instead. If you cut me some, I'll return the favor. Otherwise, don't lecture me about my faith assumption, when you clearly extend none to me.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

User: Fraberj

This user has blatantly, patently, and obviously personally attacked users in response to delete votes and the vote for deletion of his created page, Independent operability. He has, in four seperate rants, made no less than ten seperate personal attacks towards users involved in the discussion, questioning their intelligence, lifestyle, and most prominently of all their religion, picking on a user for being a scientologist. We have given him fair warning multiple times and been extremely patient, but he has crossed the line, his vulgar insults continuing even after he was given his final warning. I'm sure you'll no doubt agree he has earned a block.

For two of his rants, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_operability. For another, the first rant, see Talk: Independent operability. And the other rant is on his talk page. -Jetman123 11:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these rise to the level needing a block. He's not apparently disrupting the AfD process, although I haven't read the longer of his rants in detail. The two rants on the AfD don't seem to contain much of concern. Certainly, Talk:Independent operability is pretty unpleasant, but I don't see a great deal of need to block him for it. I'm not sure why his talk page has been plastered with all kinds of hands and crosses and HUGE BOLD MESSAGES because it's unlikely to help. The AfD will be over in a day or so. (I would observe that what at a glance appears to be a legal threat on that talk page isn't, since it's about infringing a patent, which is legally prosecutable.) -Splash^talk 12:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a block is needed. He is probably never going to come back after how he was treated. I found it troubling that people were quick to {{npa}} him while allowing everyone else to call him a crank or make comparisons to Time cube. That isn't an excuse for his actions of course. kotepho 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

tinWiki.orG

Could someone do us a favor and tell them that their logo is a trademark violation?Geni 01:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually its not... it falls quite clearly under a Parody use.  ALKIVAR™ 22:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? What is you case that tinWiki is parodying wikipedia or it's logo?Geni 08:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI blanking page

SPUI has repeatedly blanked the following page Template:Portal US Roads after his attempt at a TFD was rejected. Gateman1997 09:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

...and after the template was restored, he removed the template tag from about 80 pages.[41] --phh 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It might help if you looked at the portal and realized it hasn't been updated in over a month. AFTER I listed it at TFD. Stop harassing me and go harass your neighbors or something. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing here requiring, or even recommending, that portal pages be updated at any particular rate or interval. You are free to take the matter back to TfD with an updated argument in favor of deletion. --phh 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This aside, Portals are mostly built to guide the reader about the subject and directs them to the WikiProjects, which are the ones that deal with the editing of the articles and all of that stuff. However, if the template was declared kept at TFD, you cannot remove it from all pages and try to TFD it again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with the linking of the portal from the main namespace. The portal is built like a topic-specific version of the main page, but has been static for over a month. The TFD result has nothing to do with whether it's used on specific pages. And apparently this discussion is moot - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you dislike the portal then why don't you WP:MFD it? Or update it too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the existence of the portal - I've left all links to it from wikiprojects. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But you say that you removed the links because the portal was too old? How does that work? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if I cared about the maintenance of a specific article of mine I'd wipe the portal boxes from it too. While there was a consensus to create Portal space (because they're at worst harmless if nobody maintains them) there's definitely no consensus to link to unused, crappy portals from article space in fancy little pastel boxes. Ashibaka tock 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Zephram Stark sockpuppet

Society of Friends (talk · contribs). "New" user suddenly accusing me of being a sockpuppet and reverting my changes [42]. Also, has a crazy picture on his user page. Got to be Zephram. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK, it is definitely him. this edit at United States Declaration of Independence is identical to that made by several other of his sockpuppets. (For example, this one by History Repeats). Someone please block. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• this edit really gives him away. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Gone. Document, please. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Another likely Zephram Stark sockpuppets

• Epiboly (talk · contribs). Quite obvious. Very strange edits for a new user. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Harold M. Gauss (talk · contribs). Similar name to other sock Harold Mead Gauss (talk · contribs). --JW1805 (Talk) 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Poof and poof. Lunch time for me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speak for yourself, JPG. JW1805, you really have a thing about Zephram, don't you? ElectricRay 11:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy vandal is back on Google Maps

The open proxy vandal from yesterday has returned. I have temporarily sprotected both Google Maps and Google. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:PeyoteMan blocked

I've just blocked User:PeyoteMan indefinitely for making threats of legal action against other editors (see his contribs; I would prefer not to link directly). Also, for being a reincarnation of Jeff Merkey. FreplySpang (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

... and protected his talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

The following user has been adding a bunch of spam links to medical related pages [43] --Limegreen 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This must be some sort of open-proxy bot. We've been getting mass linkspam for some time now from various ip's, all with an edit summary of ' " '. --InShaneee 01:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let us know if you find any more of those; I thought they'd all been rolled back. It's a spambot using open proxies; they can all be safely blocked indefinitely. Antandrus (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I got them all now; it wouldn't hurt if someone else wants to give it a try (look at the last 5000 anonymous edits, search for (") and look at the contribs; some had only one or two) Antandrus (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, looks like they're still coming. --InShaneee 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like time to add these sites to that spam domain blacklist on meta. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I put them on the spam blacklist. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Zephram Stark sockpuppets

• Burke's voracious guile (talk · contribs), second edit is revert to version by previous sockpuppet Society of Friends (talk · contribs).
  • It's him. this edit is same as previous sockpuppets. Please ban. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • He's also now posting at SR Bryant's talk page [44] See below:
• Also, check out the user that is reverting his Flag of Texas edits: SR Bryant (talk · contribs), who is editing several Terrorism related articles....maybe this ZS as well, thinking he can establish some credibility by reverting the edits of another sockpuppet? Do I sound paranoid.... --JW1805 (Talk) 02:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • In a word, yes, you do. You sound to me like you've completely lost all sense of perspective. ElectricRay 11:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Burke's voracious guile confirmed. SR Bryant is unrelated. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, just wondering. Maybe I am getting paranoid. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII

On March 11, I banned RJII (talk · contribs) from posting to AN and AN/I for three months, per his ArbCom probation. I count more than 20 posts in violation of this ban (at which point I stopped counting). Given that I was the one to institute the ban, and was involved in a two-week general-probation ban, I don't feel comfortable placing the enforcement block. Would another admin please place an appropriate block for violation of the ban? The following may be of help:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug
• Announcement of the three month ban

I appreciate others looking into it; also, don't forget to log the block on the arbitration page. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the ban was for two weeks. But, isn't banning me from here a bit unjust? Others can make claims here against me but I can't defend myself? And, I can't complain here when someone is being disruptive? I don't get it. RJII 05:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Ah, I just checkd on my Talk page. You're right --it was 3 months. Honest to God, I didn't realize it was that long. Sorry. Can someone overturn that block please? It makes no sense at all. You can see above that I had to defend myself from someone (the same person I always have to defend myself from over and over). Banning me from here is unjust. (This is my last post to here, per my 3 month ban. Please reconsider this unjust ban. Thanks) RJII 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering that blocks are meant to stop disruption and are not meant to be punitive I think that he should be unblocked so that he can get on with contributing. The only purpose keeping him blocked would serve would be a punitive measure since he's already stated that he made a mistake and apologized for it. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I suggest that there not be a block for this instance. However, please be more careful in the future. As to the propriety, the issue of whether a ban from AN & AN/I was appropriate was raised with the Arbitration Committee before the ban was placed, and the word from the AC was that it was indeed appropraite. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Given what's been going on, I suggest that the ban be modified to allow him to respond to accusations against himself -- or that those who have made repeated attacks on him here in an attempt to get him banned be subject to the same limitation. (Or, it might be simple to just have a rule. Use AN or AN/I for content-related thrashes after being warned not to and become persona non grata.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

New user making legal threats?

There is a relatively new user User:Tommysun who has just made a rather strange legal threat on Talk:Plasma cosmology. Other users and myself have spent a lot of time trying to address the problematic behaviors of this user to no avail. Could an admin pop over and help, look over his contributions and address specifically this legal threat? Thanks, --ScienceApologist 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block issued. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Roads... again

Blocked User:Locke Cole. This user was mass moving Washington State Route pages. If I recall correctly, that is blockable (section got archived). If another admin disagrees with the block, let me know and I'll reconsider. But I did warn the user as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked, since they agreed to not mass move pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blatant flouting of community consensus by administrator Kelly Martin, Template:User_review

There was a huge consensus to keep this page after being listed on TfD and succeeding a Vote for Undeletion after being arbitrarily deleted by MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Now, the page has been deleted again by Kelly Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who has completely flouted community consensus to impose her own Point of View on others.

According to policy, and for those administrators that have any respect for the community who are not admins whatsoever, this should be speedily undeleted. If Kelly Martin wants the template deleted she should seek consensus, not force her own view on others with her administrative powers. Bob, just Bob 08:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it. For the relevant discussions to prove that this is an "obvious out of process deletion" validating a speedy undelete, refer to

• DRV majority to undelete and send to TFD
• TFD discussion with unanimous keep

Hence, community consensus that this is not a T1 candidate. Try to be a bit kind to Kelly however, she only did what she thought was best for the encyclopedia, found the box offensive, and didn't know about the previous discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also restored two more userboxes which were previously restored following DRV consensus and determined to not be T1 candidates at this DRV debate. They are:

• Template:User antitheist
• Template:User antiatheism Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion on the "User review" template, but don't you think you should have taken the issue up with the deleting admin before undeleting? This seems to be the approach that the Committee is recommending these days.

On Template:User antiatheism, TfD doesn't make determinations on whether a template is a T1 candidate. Moreover the reference you gave appears to be for a block deletion of religious userboxes in mid-February, some six weeks ago now. TfD decisions are not "always and for all time." I think you were probably wrong to perform this undeletion on the basis you have cited here, and certainly wrong to do so without any prior discussion at all. --Tony Sidaway 09:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Template:User antiatheism userbox was in the series of userboxes undeleted by the religion DRV userbox debate. If the community consensus, which came forward at DRV, does not decide which userboxes fall, and which don't fall, within T1, who does? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a link to the deletion debate in the article history not long before the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_review?action=history - hard to assume good faith here.

The user who put the T1 notice on it (you're right it does not fall under T1 as per community consensus - and this should be obvious anyway, it does little more than state the user has an account on a website akin to the Blogger template), Grace Note, has been banned from the forum for repeated trolling - from this likely stems why he wants the site removed. From talking to people at the site he was making a lot of personal attacks, publishing peoples' personal details and generally being very unpleasant. Bob, just Bob 09:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I made the right decision in deleting the {{User review}} template; this userbox is inherently divisive and serves no encyclopedic purpose. I won't redelete it, but just because of gang of ill-informed individuals on DRV and TFD have decided to keep it doesn't mean that it should be kept. I weep for the state of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates, so we can comment there. These debates are often a little, well ... unrepresentative, so new contributers would be welcome. --Doc ^ask? 12:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

ttttttttttttttttt El_C 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin said "but just because of gang of ill-informed individuals on DRV and TFD have decided to keep it doesn't mean that it should be kept." This is a blatant personal attack and shows a complete disrespect towards the judgment of the community. Judging from this and numerous othe previous evidences, Kelly Martin seems to think that it is only her opinion that counts and all who disagree with her are stupid, ill-informed or incompetent (this also includes other administarators). She believes templates should be deleted just because she personally dislikes them even when the community consensus is overwhelmingly against her. This is delibarately disruptive behavious. An administrator is there to carry out the wishes of the community, not the other way around. Loom91 08:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Using profanity in an edit summary: disruption?

MONGO is threatening to block me for what he calls "disruption" - using the word fuck in edit summaries. Have we really gone this far downhill? It seems like just the other day (four moths ago in fact) that Avar congratulated me for being "#1 on the list of users ordered by the number of edit summaries they've used fuck in". Looking through the history of my talk page to find that, I also found this use of fuck by David Gerard, an arbitrator. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment I left on "MONGO"'s "talk" page] Oh, so now we're (well, not me, you) enforcing being nicey-nice? What's next: Singaporean-style laws? Sucks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I resent that comment, ILike2BeAnonymous... NSLE _(T+C) at 09:13 UTC (2006-03-31)

I suppose that in article space it is a bit different than it may be in a dispute page...what outsiders query dispute pages anyway? I asked SPUI to not use that edit summaries such as he did, [45]...it serves no purpose, especially when just correcting a simple mistake...it may be a bit more understandable if the edit summary was due to reverting some kind of vandalism.--MONGO 09:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue of "disruption", is there any reason to continue using that word in edit summaries when you know it causes offence to some? It's not as if you have to choose between offending some people by using it and offending others by not using it. There's no difficult choice to make here. And while it may be difficult to hold back a word that slips out in speech before you've had time to think, that's not the case when you're typing edit summaries. If it's possible to avoid something that offends others and that is not in any way necessary, why even have a discussion about it? AnnH ♫ 09:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be too hard on SPUI here. It seems that type of language is often used in edit summaries, however it isn't good. Words placed on a page can be retracted if they later are found to offend, edit summaries can't. I'd happy see a tightening of what is acceptable in an edit summary - such should be CIVIL, informative descriptions of what you are doing, and not attacks, comments, dialogues or rants. Keep discussion to talk pages. And before anyone trawls through my edit summaries, I'm not taking the moral highground here, I'm just saying...--Doc ^ask? 09:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question in the header, using "what the fuck" in an edit summary, by and in itself, is not disruption. It may express legitimate exasperation at the preceding edit. People have varying standards of what they consider profanity. But yes, do try to be nice, also in your edit summaries. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fcuk! - David Gerard 10:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Charlotte Brontë would find that an improvement ;-) AnnH ♫ 10:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's wondering, [46] is the specific edit he was referring to - someone, possibly long ago, had linked [[Interstate]] 15. More amusing is something like [[Interstate highway system|Interstate highway]] system that I found somewhere, and probably more annoying is [[Interstate|I-82]] ([47]). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the issue here, but I've changed the section header to omit the phrase being discussed; by having it in the section header, it is included in the edit summary by default everytime someone commments here. Seems to me if there is going to be a discussion of the propriety of such summaries, we should at least avoid doing what is being questioned. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I guess SPUI is right...he should maybe start writing some lyrics for Neil Young if he is so full of prose:)[48]. I can cuss, therefore I shall...oh well....everybody's got ta have a hobby.--MONGO 11:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is on Wikipedia:probation and may be banned from any page he disrupts and banned from Wikipedia for up to a week for any provocative edit. As a party uninvolved in this dispute, and noting SPUI's egregious and evidently calculated use of profanity in edit summaries [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] (and in one case, as a clear personal attack) and his continued attempts at self-justification in the face of warnings from an administrator and his prior censure from the Arbitration Committee, I hereby ban SPUI from Route_128_(Massachusetts) and its talk page, Woodstock, CT, Poweshiek_County, Iowa, Denny's, Helena National Forest, Virginia State Highway 288, Mountain_Dell_Dam and List of State Routes in Delaware for one week and from Wikipedia itself for two days, to run concurrently and to be enforced, where necessary, by block.

• Concurrent two-day ban from Wikipedia ends April 2, 1130 UTC.
• Concurrent one-week ban from Route_128_(Massachusetts) and its talk page, Woodstock, CT, Poweshiek_County, Iowa, Denny's, Helena National Forest, Virginia State Highway 288, Mountain_Dell_Dam and List of State Routes in Delaware ends April 7, 1130 UTC.
• The article bans do not apply to talk pages except where noted, but I warn SPUI to take care in edit summaries and comments, lest I reset the ban and extend it to talk pages. If he is out to provoke, he will certainly succeed in the case of this administrator to the extent that his probation allows.

I shall note these bans on the log of the Pedophile Userbox case. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say the block is justified, noting diff [57] which Tony links to above is a clear personal attack. Hiding talk 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Based on that edit, yes I definitely concur, but I hope my request to him to not use that type of edit summary didn't provoke him to try and test the water. I was just not understanding why an edit summary such as that was needed in the context of the edit he was making.--MONGO 11:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That personal attack was wrong, and I apologized for it. I stand by the other diffs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism: it's fun for the whole family!

This Usenet thread sure tickled my funnybone, wherein "Boron" proudly tells how she and her kids vandalise Wikipedia for entertainment. I'd like to show the proper appreciation for their comedic talents. As far as I can tell it's a DHCP address on optonline.net in north New Jersey. If anyone sees anything suspicious in that sort of IP range, please do feel free to block anything up to a /16 with a link to the Usenet thread in question and suggesting those affected by collateral damage contact Optonline abuse over the matter - David Gerard 10:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the IP range? I only ask because I (and much of the population of Long Island) come to WIkipedia via Optonline, and the collateral damage could be significant. – ClockworkSoul 13:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry she feels that way. Being acessescible to the public makes wikipedia a better source of knowledge, not a playground. Simply because vandalism can occur doesn't mean it should happen or be tolerated. -Zero^Talk 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This would be quite interesting, of course, if there were so much as one shred of evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, let alone any Wiki editing except for this piece I am typing. It is kind that Gary (Huey) Callison has passed this on to you through David Gerard.

If you can find evidence of any editing to Wiki from this address other than this post, please feel free to contact me about it. Until then, I do not appreciate threats.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by Boron elgar (talk • contribs) (Boron)

Given that account was created, oooh, fifty-four minutes ago, it's not surprising it has a nice clean history... Shimgray | talk | 13:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup...I hadn't thought it worthwhile until today.

It wasn't Gary Callison or any other person who posted repeatedly advocating vandalism and bragging about how she and her kids thought it was a great fun activity for the whole family. It was you and no-one else - David Gerard 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot back up what you say with the slightest shred of evidence of what you call "vandalism," then just suck it up. Your efforts are heartwarming. Study your technique at Gitmo?

The range is Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) OL-CPE-OKLDNJ-69-125-192-0-19 (NET-69-125-192-0-1) 69.125.192.0 - 69.125.223.255. Yeah, there'll be a lot of collateral damage from blocking the range. However, look for the IPs - David Gerard 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep looking. I get the feeling that you're not capable of much more intellectual pursuit. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.125.204.176 (talk • contribs) . 69.125.204.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --kingboyk 00:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, here...let me sign my last post for you....Boron Elgar. Consider it the signature for this one, too.

Is there some reason why the Usenet threats that David Gerard AN ADMIN HERE made against me and my ISP have been removed? I will repeat them below for you and even edit them so that I remove HIS profanity.

Start Quote: including headers

Path: be18.lga!hwmnpeer02.lga!hw-filter.lga!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmedia!news.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "David Gerard" <dgerard@gmail.com> Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams Subject: Re: ever more on Wikipedia Date: 31 Mar 2006 06:37:49 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: <1143815869.268259.51200@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> References: <1143578570.496680.55580@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

  <ukaj22182ko6ikq4o6t0m9sl1sfj64hp7a@4ax.com>
  <1143586506.036982.154610@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
  <bofj22le2cbjvorsbdmj0qmldah0siqtus@4ax.com>
  <slrne2jplt.25s4.dzeiger@vampire.the-institute.net>
  <87sk22dbrb5ekfph0or5gioubaep11gffl@4ax.com>
  <Xns9795586A627CC944818cac31cddd2466d@207.115.17.102>
  <5rgl22luqrror7fiav9u29lm0g2befntgl@4ax.com>
  <reidned3irIxE7HZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@speakeasy.net>
  <l94q22ln18705fu65j151u5008hma7r6u8@4ax.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.1.109 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1143815874 26003 127.0.0.1 (31 Mar 2006 14:37:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:37:54 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051010 Firefox/1.0.7 (Ubuntu package 1.0.7),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.1.109;

  posting-account=-LxdLA0AAACHS-_G9ZkfPUC1QmoanCx9

Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.fan.cecil-adams:341064 X-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:37:54 MST (be18.lga)

Preemptive blocking for a repeated threat is just fine IMO, as one of those who gets to decide. Those after some wacky amusement may want to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism:_it.27s_fun_for_the_whole_family.21

As I said there: if you repeatedly advocate f**king up Wikipedia and your f**kheadedness gets every optonline user in NJ wanting to F**king Kill(tm) you, this thread is ample evidence you did it to yourself. F**kwit.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard

End quote.

Once again, I request information as to whom this should be directly reported, or what the WIki policy is on its admins threatening those who had never even logged onto Wiki before the ADMIN threatened any action. If these are the sort of intimidation tactics that are used by Wiki admins, I think more schools and news services need to know about it.

Boron

Jeans revolution

Hey guys an gals,

User:Spyros Pantenas is removing sourced numbers and replacing them with unsourced numbers. There is also a wonderful reference to the fascist US government at the bottom. I reverted them, and he has immediately reverted them back. I smell a revert war looming, and since I reverted him, I automatically lose if I dont want to break WP:3RR. I would appreciate it if somebody with blocking tools would take a look.

Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have warned the user. --Doc ^ask? 11:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

*tips hat* The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See also: Alexander Lukashenko, Group psychological research, Communist Party of Austria (all now repaired). --ajn (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am keeping Lukashenko under watch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Johnc1 at Chad "Corntassel" Smith

Johnc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed inapproprite edits to Chad "Corntassel" Smith after block expired. I've reverted twice, leaving a reminder comment after the first revert. User:Johnc1 was warned several times about adding inappropriate content to this article prior to 3RR block. FloNight ^talk 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Indef block issued. 26 hours didn't wake him up and its clear that the account is just being used for vandalism and defamation.Gator (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gator, thank you for your quick response. FloNight ^talk 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gator1, I think an indef block is way too harsh. He's been blocked once for 24 hours for 3RR, and it's true that he started inserting the same type of thing again into the article, but the next step should've been to block him for longer, not to unilaterally decide that he's of no good to the project. Please reconsider. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you said the same thing on my talk page too and I responded. Feel free to reduce the block if you'd like. reasonable people can come to different but still reasonable opinions and conclusions. I won't take offense. But I stand by it.Gator (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I posted at your talk page first, then checked my watchlist and noticed that there was a related thread here. I'll repost my response on your talk page: The block log shows blocks for one incident; they appear to be several because both I and R. Koot blocked him for the same 3RR, then R. Koot rescinded and reapplied his blocks when he changed his mind about the time period for which the block should occur. This is all over the same incident. An indef block is way too harsh, and while I appreciate your willingness to have your decision reversed, that you don't see how this was a hasty action worries me a little. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's OK to have different opinions, but to become "worried" because someone has a different opnion you worries me. I can see where you're coming from, why can't you see where I and FloNight are coming from? Like I said, feel free to reduce the block as you see fit, I really won't mind.Gator (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, no hard feelings. Against my better judgment, I unblocked. Feel free to reinstate the time you see fit.Gator (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, none taken on my end. Nothing personal at all. But indef blocking is not something to be done lightly, when an administrator does it in place of the arbcom it's justified under the "blocked by the community" portion of blocking policy, which means the action needs to be presented to the community for their comment, which I've given. Look, there are times when folks need to be indef blocked without going through arbcom because they're just that obvious, I fully support that as a practice and have done it myself. Maybe this one will end up being that way, too. I just thought an indef block at this stage was too fast; he's obviously knowledgeable about the subject and I feel should have at least one more chance to contribute positively. Thank you for being openminded. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

the vandalstrator / adminivandal User:Postdlf

User:Postdlf, an admin, keeps harrasssing me by vandalizing my user page. when the cops break the law, where do you turn? someone please help me escape this abuser of admin priveleges. --Ghetteaux 14:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he's not vandalising. You are inappropriatly putting your usepage into an article category. Stop it. --Doc ^ask? 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave Ghetteaux a warning that I was prepared to block him for 3RR and continuing personal attacks. But hopefully this post means it won't be necessary. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

yo, Ghetteaux don't need no warning! I'm just out there keepin it reel. sometimes you folx b getting all block happy on the littel man whose just trying to make a contribution. cliques b everywhere, from the hood 2 tha internets. --Ghetteaux 15:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that brother. Please see here for further information. And respect to you for fighting the system by placing your user page into an article/mainspace category - it must be hard being a lone warrior against the beligerent powers that be, be they hood in or here on the 'pedia. Kudos bro. --kingboyk 16:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

mad propz for tha shout out. thanx 4 lettin a brutha noe he ain't alone. --Ghetteaux 17:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical question

Hi there,I tried to block "Izula wow" but in the box it showed as Izula+wow and red error messages came 3 times to tell me there was no such user. I removed the + and blocked it as Izula wow but I am not sure I blocked Izula+wow [58]. You are more techno adept can you tell me why it would'nt block as Izula+wow and if it really blocked. Hit the block button on it and you will see. Maybe nothing but maybe it is. --Dakota ~ ° 17:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to come back to this to copy the link and got a big red Flashing WIKIPEDIA IS COMMUNISM. I think that needs to be reported here.--Dakota ~ ° 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Could you explain why "Izula wow" is a blockable username? Or "Gfffff"? Or "Dungbeatle"? (I know you're fighting hard and well against raging assholism, but I'm curious about these ones.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • WOW = Willy on Wheels Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Did this user perform any page moves that don't show up in the contribs? As I've seen before, WOW might actually stand for "World of Warcraft" or maybe an expression of amazement. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a bug, and there's bugger all I can do about it while CVS is buggered. For now, replace the + in the "username to block" field with a space. Rob Church (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Roitr

Please block the following sockpuppets of Roitr (see [59] for more information):

• Markdanil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikhai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Valentinnaksh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kirilof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Nixer 18:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

done. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

User:UkPaolo has deleted Static grass, which is on AFD ([Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Static grass]). Please can someone do something about this? For great justice. 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It has since been restored. But in future note that deletion disputes go to WP:DRV --Doc ^ask? 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a Database

Is anyone seeing what's going on at Wikipedia? The intro has been changed 7 times in the last two hours to the claim that it is a "knowledge database" rather than an encyclopedia, this by an apparent sockpuppet or two (though also 5 times by User:Niagakiw ("Wik again" backwards and most recently by User:Rehtona ("Another" backwards). Maybe protection is in order? Blocking? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently in their latest attack on Nature magazine, Brittanica refered to Wikipedia as a "database" instead of as an encyclopedia. Looks like a Brittanica fan. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mainpage joke

Might be best if peope kept an eys on the mainpage! [60] --Doc ^ask? 01:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Using my psychic powers, I have predicted an exponential increase in the size of our current BJAODN page, by the start of April 2nd--205.188.116.65 01:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Main Page protection

One admin, Drini, unprotected the main page (and, distressingly, he doesn't seem to appreciate why this was a bad idea). I think that we can all agree that unprotecting the MAIN PAGE is completely out of bounds. Seriously. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already agreed that I'm scum. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, apparently that's me, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do get off it, Jeffrey. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

68.190.51.99

I've blocked 68.190.51.99 for 24 hours; the IP was being used to create a large number of attack/imposter usernames, and has been doing so over the last several weeks. There appears to be a legitimate user using this IP; if he/she (obviously, I can't reveal the name) requests unblocking via his/her talk page, please unblock. Unblock requests via the IP talk page (by the IP, obviously) should be ignored, as the only activity coming off the IP in the last several hours has been the creation of attack/imposter usernames. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)