Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive75

• FCYTravis
  01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  On the contrary, there was no consensus to delete this article (which was speedy deleted outside the bounds of process). In light of recent discoveries, namely that there are a group of rogue individuals who are misrepresenting themselves as members of the Peppers family and trying to poison information related to him on the internet, I felt bound to bring this to

  WP:AFD in an attempt to achieve consensus. We do not delete articles when there is no consensus, not the other way around, please let this sixth nomination take its course. Best regards, Hall Monitor

  01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

  I've redeleted the article and closed the afd. Split and repetitive discussions are harmful, and if there is consensus to undelete then we can do so. -

  brenneman^{T}http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman

  ^{L} 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• Good call, poor reason. This page should die because it's about an insignificant person and there has been a complaint. Pure and simple. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem, if I understand it correctly, is that the person who sent the complaint to UC was a hoaxer, so it sadlay isn't as simple as that. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree with both of the above, I'd like to make it clear that I acted only to restore the previously agreed upon status quo and not out of an attempt to enforce my personal opinon. -
      brenneman^{T}http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman
      ^{L} 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I happen to be unaware of the evidence that UC's correspondent misrepresented him/herself. Might someone kindly provide a diff, please? Regards ENCEPHALON 02:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There is at least on confirmed attempt to impersonate a family memeber that conincides with the timeframe of the email to UCytmnd.com/users/profile/114142 (cheack through this list note the cronology and be prepared to wait a bit on the last one). There is a clear parth from that attempt to wikipedia. Other than that there are very few logical ways to find the article.Geni 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Geni. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't clear to me whether the complaint was genuine or not. I've shared my reservations about it since I acted upon it. I have asked the author of the complaint to substantiate their identity and they have not yet done so to my satisfaction. Whether or not the complaint is genuine, the fact remains that the content once again at Brian Peppers is an unlawful invasion of privacy even if factual. I have forwarded the original emails and a summary of the matter to the board for legal review, since a community consensus to delete appears elusive. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, UC. I'm aware of assertions that a spate of emails have been sent to several individuals by persons dishonestly claiming to be related to Mr. Peppers, but had no knowledge of any evidence concerning the reliability of your correspondent. I share your view on the matter of the article itself. ENCEPHALON 03:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck? 64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:I2skf31MCWsJ:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Peppers+Brian+Peppers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 Another page censored on an editwarrior's say-so? And the discussion closed down by the editwarriors? Why are we even bothering to pretend that we're a community that discusses things? Grace Note 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Did you miss the massive, massive

FCYTravis

02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

If someone wanted to open up another discussion about whether something should be undeleted, I'd be fine with that.

FCYTravis

03:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

There is much that I agree with in both your opinions (ie. your's & Travis'). The purpose of Deletion Review is to review decisions about the status of a page with an eye to ensuring that the preceding xFD discussion on that page arrived at a decision consistent with article policy. The threshold for re-examining an issue at the relevant xFD is deliberately set very low, so that any fair objection held by a reasonable number of people has an excellent chance of being acted on: even if just 50% of participants feel that the original decision was in some way inappropriate, the close is stayed and the page sent back to xFD for re-examination. In the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=39422366#Brian_Peppers Brian Peppers review, 22 users asked for a relist; however, 27 didn't—hence Aaron's close. Nevertheless, I understand your view, and indeed agree with you that claiming a delete consensus in this case is certainly out of the question: it simply doesn't exist. The article ended up at the Review not because it had been been deleted following a consensus, but because someone disagreed with UC's speedy deletion of the page over legal concerns. I happen to share that legal concern, and I think the page should not stay on WP, but I would not say that there is a consensus for the article's deletion. The corollary of course is that I think legal questions should not be decided via xFD style discussions; the day that we send copyright infringements and other legal concerns to an xFD style discussion for a decision is the day WP will be in deep shit. ENCEPHALON 04:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I did not delete this out of process. The last existing consensus decision was to keep this article deleted. Despite the facts that this decision may have been wrong and I agreed with it, I would have acted in the same way had I felt the opposite. One person doesn't get to decide for everyone.

^{L} 06:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• As I said on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=39425380#Brian_Peppers deletion review and the 6th AFD, no one here is an attorney. (Please correct me if you are, you might be able to provide some insight.) I am strongly opposed to a page deletion based upon legal discussions with a Wikipedia editor. Any lawyer worth his/her J.D. would NEVER contact a random editor directly and demand that changes to be made to Wikipedia, they would contact Jimbo Wales or the board directly. Unless someone here is intimately familiar enough with the law to back up any claims of wrong-doing, and based on the lack of anyone citing exact statutes being broken I would say no one involved does; please don't play lawyer. It is a very dangerous game to play. If UninvitedCompany would have referred the person(s) sending the email to the appropriate channels, then s/he would not have been taken in by what are most likely hoaxsters. The page should be restored until word from the board says otherwise. —A 07:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is it with this unhealthy obsession with deleting and undeleting sex offenders? As far as I can see, it was deleted for a bad reason, but

10:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Because - and please correct me if I'm getting the chronology out of order here - the last forum to consider the case was

(talk)

13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Purely in the interests of accuracy, I have to ppint out that the picture in question is displayed www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p23.aspx?oid=13753 here. If someone would like to explain how someone gets an honorary entry on Ohio's "Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification", and how come

Snopes.com: Urban Legends Reference Pages.) please elucidate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk

14:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Now, let's say that there's an admin among the 50 people wanting it deleted, who feels frustrated by the no consensus (keep) result. So he deletes the article. It is subsequentlz listed on

WP:DRV

. Predictably, 50 people that wanted it deleted in the first place want to keep it deleted, and the 40 people who wanted it to remain argue for undeleting it. The debate is closed with endorse deletion.

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

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

WP:NOT to include "Wikipedia is not a freak show". Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

20:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Account of the events related to Brian Peppers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FCYTravis

19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Leifern has declared a very personal interest in some aspects of this, and became extremely hangry when I made a (large) move of material from

Thimerosal controversy

The two pages with Thimerosal in their names are quite good - the former was improved by my edit, and nothing more than quiet discussion was needed in order to start the latter.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&diff=39832388&oldid=39820858 is a huge revert, with an untrue description. I'm not sure I analysed the log completely, but it looks as though other people's work has also been discarded. It looks impatient, poorly judged, and does not improve the page, although no doubt edits oculd be made that would have.

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

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

For the record,

Anti-vaccinationists was prematurely and aborted, I have respected its outcome. Most recently, I made an effort at improving the article and pointing out assertions that need references http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-vaccinationists&diff=40053350&oldid=40042182. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, I reverted a number of edits that I found were tendentious, and I still believe they were. Midgley and I have disagreements about the standards for objectivity and fairness in WP. I'd rather not get into characterizing him beyond that, but I find it reprehensible to say the least that he brings my son's sad situation into this discussion, especially since he bills himself as a medical doctor. --Leifern

20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Block request for 69.105.39.132

This user

17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic (

, helpfully finding his way to disputes with other editors that he himself is not involved in in the least.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=39854207&oldid=39851006 08:35, February 16, 2006 — Here he alleges I used sockpuppets (anonymous IPs) to circumvent 3RR on
  harassment
  .
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=39948929&oldid=39946095 00:48, February 17, 2006 — Here he alleges I violated 3RR on
  revert
  .

He's apparently angry/bitter over our conflict at

07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never edited phpBB or vBulletin, but I can assure you that

WP:AN/3RR is definitely on my watchlist. I think you should just stop revert-warring. -- Netoholic @

15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

So? You have no business attempting to police my activities elsewhere: I think the admins that monitor

AN/3RR are fully capable of deciding for themselves without you around to attempt to skew the discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c

01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

After seeing DCNanney (talk · contribs) call somebody a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Janeane_Garofalo&diff=prev&oldid=38997959 dipshit in an edit summary, a left him a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADCNanney&diff=39000814&oldid=38918702 gentle suggestion that his approach may not have ben the best one. Soon after, he had http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADCNanney&diff=40068427&oldid=39001397 this unpleasant exchange on his talk page, and sent me the following email, indicating the felt fully justified to make such personal attacks:

I appreciate the "friendly advice."

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

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

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

DCNanney

In response, I replied with this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADCNanney&diff=40072724&oldid=40068427 slightly less nuanced post to his talk. This situation isn't at the phase where extreme action needs to be taken, but this editor appears to have all of the hallmarks of a profoundly disruptive personality. We may want to keep an eye on him. – ClockworkSoul 23:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We have multiple sockpuppets of one person here, attacking Bobby1011's userpage with inappropriate pictures. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bobby1011&action=history.)I don't exactly know where to put this, so I guess this goes here. Thank you. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• I've looked at this user's edit history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sanoker14 link), and I do not see the attacks and alteration of which you speak - can you show me some diffs? bd2412 T 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • User uploaded photo of admin and claimed to be him here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAlex756-01-06.jpg&diff=40090215&oldid=39983622 and the photo was altered to resemble Hitler here upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/6/6e/20060218013356%21Alex756-01-06.jpg CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, not to be nitpicky, but the second one is not a diff--I take it the photo was deleted? Even so, an indefinite block is harsh. We usually start with 24 hours, and see how they behave when they get back from that. bd2412 T 05:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The first diff shows that Alex756 edited the picture to remove the Hitler stuff. I'll reduce the block. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, ok, I understand the sequence now. Juvenile behavior, but a reduced block should suffice. Good work on this. bd2412 T 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Question, what is the difference between the NC Vandal and the SC Vandal?

Fair use policy

07:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I do not blame you, I used to live in both NC and SC, and I sometimes got them confused.

Fair use policy

07:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

After noticing the reverts I have bot is now stopped pending a request for comments. I did not recieve any notification of the stop request via talk pages (either the bots or my own). A friend told me this was on the request and needed doing, thats why I had tawkerbot start replacing seeing no objections on the Bot requests page. I was also told that some 3/4 of the albumbs were already converted (they used templates in lieu of images) This request was also on

WP:BOTS at a 30 second interval between changes. If anyone has a better forum to discuss the changes, please let me know (on my talk page) Tawker

14:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've left a message on his talk page but he's continued unabated. He's broken 3RR, of course, but I'm absolutely stumped as how to write a report on

15:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

talk

| 15:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Look again :-). The message on the talk page was posted by the same person,

(talk)

15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right - I'd thought the anon was only adding it now...

talk

| 15:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Any idea which? I searched the SHJ's web site, including the archives, and found nothing. --

(talk)

16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks. I've added the paragraph back in, with a quick style edit, but not being able to see the articles myself it could be better written and referenced. --

(talk)

17:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

This page appears to be a copyright violation from www.mockingbirdfoundation.org/setlists/1992.html, yet the writers of that page keep on removing the copyright tag, claiming that it shouldn't be there. What should be done? --TML1988 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted and left a message on the talk page. I'll keep my eye on it.

Chick Bowen

17:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Google them; if the results turn up lists of proxies, nail them. Don't forget to tag with {{

blockedproxy}}. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}

19:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But guess what?

| 02:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm drafting a

talk

| 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For anyone interested, see

talk

| 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Maybe what Danny could too is email the admin who is questioning the action a brief, brief comment about what is going on, along the same lines that Carnildo just used.

Fair use policy

07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

For your information, a note left by Jimbo on Talk:Harry Reid#Protection http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Reid&diff=next&oldid=40084029

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

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

I suggest Danny and whoever else is involved in this

07:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A71.106.141.207
• 71.106.141.207 (talk · contribs)
• Madchester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Talk:2006 Winter Olympics#The IOC does not officially recognize any medal tallies or standings
• Talk:2006 Winter Olympics#Please someone HELP I was unfairly BLOCKED!!!

Seems to me that he pretty clearly violates the spirit of

Chick Bowen

05:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RunawayToKelly (

07:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Classic troll,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=40254083 now blocked. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

22:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

For what it's worth, this user has also removed comments from

) 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Said user has just left a courteously written but nasty personal attack on my user talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbiv&diff=40288302&oldid=40054022 David | Talk 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Page movings

As can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morayshire&diff=38951158&oldid=38951108 the Morayshire article was unilaterally moved to "Moray (county)" with no discussion, and then the redirect page was deliberately edited to prevent anyone easily moving it back. The same user tried to move the page in the past but it was quickly moved back. This time though requires sysop intervention due to the underhand tactics employed.

Revert wars

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Scotland_counties&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counties_of_Scotland&action=history

Category deletions

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

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

With

Western Isles and other Scottish counties use their Anglified names). But you were edit warring, and it was a violation of 3RR. Sceptre ^(Talk

) 10:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Try

Fair use policy

19:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

WP:CIV.Geni

23:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

What templates were they? I looked at some of the templates that are on DRV, and I could see why they got speedied. IMHO, if we cannot keep templates that say I support/dislike GWB, then similar templates refering to a different leader, like Blair, Chavez, Putin, etc, should also not be kept in order to be fair and to be consistant. Though, the wording of T1 of the CSD sounds pretty odd.

Fair use policy

03:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

This user has repeatedly vandalized pages, including Bloods, Tom Cruise, and Stanley Williams. [2]

• Mailer Diablo
  09:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I blocked Volt987 (

Chick Bowen

19:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

This is just a hunch, so I apologize in advance to this user if I am wrong.

19:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

.

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

Thank you!

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

Warned.

Chick Bowen

23:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now blocked this user for 24 hours for making a legal threat at the user's

02:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:BrianGCrawfordMA is engaging in major POV-pushing on this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberty_Dollar&diff=40334944&oldid=39080728), which he has also nominated for deletion. He claims he desires to "hurt this article as much as it has hurt [him]". Kurt Weber 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Boycottthecaf is back and link spamming after being blocked for 30 days after I reported this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuing_to_spam_after_repeated_warning and he got a block User talk:Boycottthecaf but has come back on Degrassi: The Next Generation under the IP User talk:207.200.116.139 and is continuing to spam his link for his website (that is not appropriate) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation&oldid=40255528 SirGrant 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Dtasripin, at least from my view, has continued to use uncivil and needlessly uncivil language (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates&diff=prev&oldid=40375692, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates&diff=prev&oldid=40375849, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates&diff=prev&oldid=40376040, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates&diff=prev&oldid=40376183, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:User_Puerto_Rico_independista&diff=prev&oldid=40336678) despite being advised against this by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADtasripin&diff=39266074&oldid=39140693 myself and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADtasripin&diff=39625177&oldid=39618837 others, and previously being http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ADtasripin blocked for personal attacks by Demi. It might be helpful if someone who wasn't involved in the userbox issue at all have a word with him, as he seems to reject any advice, regardless of the spirit in which it is given, from people who disagree with him. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I also agree; it has nothing to do with the userboxes at all, it is the way he treated other Wikipedians in the above edits. He already has been warned before about such behavior, and he should at least done down the language.

Fair use policy

17:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sir, calm down, relax, and take a nice, deep breath. You can still oppose the deletion of the userboxes but, as below, try not to use words like "racist" and attack other editors. No one is trying to silence you, we all just want you to just be civil.

Fair use policy

19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:User_Puerto_Rico_independista&diff=prev&oldid=40336678 This and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:User_Puerto_Rico_independista&diff=next&oldid=40336678 this are clearly out of line. I would push for a block for CIVIL/NPA violation. Physchim62 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

A little help, please? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.99.190.2&action=history ... 

17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have gotten the message after your warning. If he persists, report it to

WP:AIV, along with any other vandalism reports you would like to make in the future. Thanks! android79

17:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

-Inanna- (

22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Blocked. Now I really do have to go, though. Best of luck!

Chick Bowen

22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We can't block somebody from editing a particular article without approval from the Arbitration Committee. You'll need to file a

Wikipedia:Request for Comment should come first. User:Zoe|^(talk)

03:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:Servers

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

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

marcosantezana (talk · contribs) was brought to my attention for violating the 3RR. Given the circumstance I chose to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarcosantezana&diff=40259710&oldid=40223339 warn him. He responded to my warning with an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKzollman&diff=40292242&oldid=39914030 impolite reply where he asserted entitlement based on his correctness. I also noticed an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_selection&diff=40203717&oldid=40202169 incivil statement on Talk:Natural selection. I explained the 3rr again and asked him to remain civil http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_selection&diff=40203717&oldid=40202169. His response was interesting, he left a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kzollman&diff=next&oldid=40292242 rude remark on my talk page, although he also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natural_selection&diff=prev&oldid=40210021 removed the rude comment from Talk:Natural selection. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed. Advice is most welcome. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Bobby1011 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Another wiki cheese vandal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seconded. The amount of vandalism we get from this IP isn't anything we can't handle. Not to mention the fact that it is localized to this IP will make monitoring easier. -

Loren

22:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes we are supposed to keep shared blocks short but if vandalism from this IP continues endlessly then ban until 15 July, 2006 which will take care of any vandalism from that IP for the rest of the school year.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This IP is very likely one of many sockpuppets of

request for checkuser for them. --Aude (talk | contribs

) 19:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

User:PyterTaravitch was a troll account created by an unknown user. Evidence I cited in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APyterTaravitch&diff=38007416&oldid=38006461 showed why I believed that the account was a sockpuppet of Chadbryant. Chad would go onto blank the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APyterTaravitch&diff=38008405&oldid=38007416 and then add in his own accusations about whose sockpuppet the account was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APyterTaravitch&diff=38889659&oldid=38888354. Peruvianllama then came along and posted a compromised version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APyterTaravitch&diff=39070886&oldid=39004825 which stayed in place for a whole 9 days before Chadbryant deleted the part that was against him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APyterTaravitch&diff=40347848&oldid=39070886.

Rather than get into a whole new edit war with Chadbryant, on User talk:Peruvianllama#Chadbryant's return I tried to bring the matter to Peruvianllama's attention, and in the middle of that Chadbryant showed up and threw out a personal attack http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peruvianllama&diff=prev&oldid=40461859. He also made a personal attack against another user, User:TruthCrusader, on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_Valley_Driver_Video_Review&diff=prev&oldid=40461196. This isn't the first time Chadbryant has acted like this. His contributions showcase dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of personal attacks and trolling tactics.

Also, Chadbryant has been calling

, which states, ""Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." Whether the name is correct or not is irrelevant, according to the policy.

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

To add to the above, the discussion on

23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Chadbryant himself has been the target of a relentless campaign of personal attacks from various sockpuppets over many months. It has been suggested to you many, many times that you take your various issues to dispute resolution including

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration instead of carrying on feuding like some over-the-top wrestling storyline played out on the pages of Wikipedia. -- Curps

09:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

TruthCrusader 16:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it really Arbitration Committee material if it's just a bunch of blatant personal attacks and revert wars for obvious reasons? I have never targeted and stalked Chadbryant relentlessly with sockpuppets or personal attacks, yet he feels the need to continually make personal attacks against me for of all things, my username. Also, whenever I make a point in the argument, he changes the subject and finds a new way to insult me. I was never a part of his newsgroup war and my first encounter with him was on the

WWE Undisputed Championship

page. There's a small part of me that would understand the attacks against people who may have trolled against him in the past, but I never have. Just because I had an content dispute with him, I guess he had some sort of flashback and viewed me as a new troll just because I didn't agree with him. That type of behaviour should not be allowed. If Sean and John don't like each other and John sprays Sean with a water gun, can Sean then go to the mall and spray random people with a water gun just because he once was a victim of a water gun attack? It's absurd.

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

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

05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Have several non-userbox closures on DRV, with colorable claims of violation of proceedure;
• Quarrel vehemently on his talk page;
• Start a systematic program to change the wording of the Project Babel userbozes, without any consultation I can find;
• Repeatedly empty Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents, which has been on CfD for six days and will presumably be closed soon. His latest effort is justified by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&diff=40517680&oldid=40507682 because the inclusion of this category is silly, regardless of the CfD.

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

Part of me applauds him for getting rid of so much BS. On the other hand...his attitude as of late has gone down, such as indirectly attacking God of War because of his essay (which was kind of trollish though). The "last warning" message were not helpful either. He likely needs a short wiki-break.

T|@|ESP

05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, back up there, and back up your claims: several closures on DRV? I can see one, not very recent (February 4), I don't even know why it's still listed. I don't see why I can't "quarrel" on my talk page. Have you seen what people have posted there lately? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarkSweep&diff=39213347&oldid=39178090 Where did I systematically change Babel boxes??? I like the regular Babel boxes, they're very useful. However, some of them (no more than a dozen) have crossed over into the realm of the polemical, adopting an ill-informed and condescending stance towards various dialects. Those need to be changed. And regarding Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents, if you check the history of those articles, you'll see that I'm not the only one who thinks they shouldn't be so categorized. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Someone, using MarkSweep's account, performed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:User_de-0&diff=prev&oldid=40523620 this alteration, cramming in an English translation into the userbox; this was the latest of a couple dozen edits in a row, all of which seem to be making the same change. I see no evidence of discussion of such a proposal anywhere, including the talk page of the templates.
• Emptying a category on CfD is improper; any admin should know better. Some users have been removing from one or the other of the articles in the cat; only MarkSweep has been systematically emptying it AFAICS.
• I believe that checking the logs will turn up some other DRV of closures by Mark.

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

That "someone" was me, and if you had checked the diffs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AUser_de-0&diff=40523620&oldid=36941828 you would have noticed that nothing was changed on the surface. All I did was subst a few doubly-indirected templates. Where did you get the idea that trivial changes like this need to be discussed first? Second, the category is silly, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Third, "I believe that checking the logs will turn up [something]" is passive-aggressive nonsense. Tell me specifically what you think is amiss, don't make any hand-wavy accusations. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jobe6

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

From looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jobe6, perhaps it was, or one of them sleepers people have warned us about in the past.

Fair use policy

07:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Something is very, very wrong here; this is a contributor who has been here for well over a year! (November 2004, to be specific.) He posted a note that he was going on break towards the end of last month; I'm inclined to believe this is either a compromised account, or an attempt to get away. It is not uncommon for contributors who have a difficult time leaving to do something like this in order to be forced out. My inclination is to

AGF and hope the account has just been compromised, and that he will be able to get it back when he returns. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}

07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The closest thing I know of is

Chick Bowen

14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to bring it up, but he did start his Wikipedia career with some minor vandalism, and admitted as much in his failed RfAdm six months ago. Still, entirely out of character with pre-wikibreak editing patterns. Note also a couple of days ago there was ordinary (non-pagemove) vandalism on one page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Crane&diff=prev&oldid=40328092 -- Curps 10:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Based on the latest posting to his talk page, the account is still controlled by a vandal (himself or someone else). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jobe6&diff=prev&oldid=40614052 -- Curps 22:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

User talk:Batman2005-Personal attack

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

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

Uh, how is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABatman2005&diff=40467030&oldid=40448657 this a personal attack, exactly? "Stop screwing with it" isn't a model example of

WP:COOL but it's not really personal either. --Ryan Delaney ^talk

14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kaiser Permanente

Need admin help to address cut-and-protect action of

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

10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

The only "calling in" I see on

User:FCYTravis. This reinforces my impression that you're trying to do an end-run around collaboration to get your way in a content dispute. And the lack of response I see here reinforces my impression that no one else agrees with your interpretation. I also note no posts by you on the article talk page in the last 24 hours. Why not try discussing things there? --Calton | Talk

07:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Ps.

User:FCYTravis made the request on the Protection page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protected_page :::--Pansophia

08:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a

personal attacks

policies will be removed.

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

This is a complaint over INAPPROPRIATE ADMIN BEHAVIOR. Doesn't the fact there is no public evidence of conversation between

User:FCYTravis's request for Protection to make his reverts stick that has gone against the spirit of collaboration. --Pansophia

08:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed the header shout-out because

User:FCYTravis has unprotected page and is now particpating on the Talk page. --Pansophia

09:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Bazelos

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

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

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

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

User:Normalmouth

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

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

Not in my judgment. Normalmouth is a newbie, there is no evidence of abusive sockpuppetry.

WP:BITE. David | Talk

10:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry actually has to say about sockpuppetry before you accuse people of it. Also, you're raising this a month after the event - why now? --ajn (talk

) 13:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Several accounts indef blocked

Several accounts are blocked:

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

The reasoning is that they all edited the

Criticisms of Wikipedia article in quick succession: none of them (at the time of writing) have edited user pages and yet they have been on the site for ages and thus bypass the sprotect. User:Pinkdoofus even wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=40454173&oldid=40429157 the following in his edit summary: "An sprotect! Times like these make me glad I have hundreds of old accounts". There is a greater than average likelihood that they were created by the same person for the purpose of disruption. I have requested a CheckUser on the accounts to see if any other accounts can be picked up, but in meantime I have indefinitely blocked the accounts in question for being sockpuppets for the purpose of being disruptive. - Ta bu shi da yu

12:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

WP:POINT by User:Striver

I don't know who is right or wrong here.

List of Jews, List of Buddhists etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Striver his contributions Tintin (talk

) 13:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Initially, I reverted Striver's addition of the AfD tags, but then I reverted myself. I think this one can safely work itself out on the AfD page (surprisingly); the argument was heated and full of

POINTs to begin with but it seems to have cooled off; someone should just keep a close eye on it. android79

13:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Block of 71.35.54.72

I've blocked 71.35.54.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for one week for abusive sockpuppetry. This IP, used primarily by editor Jpawloski (talk · contribs), has recently been used to create a handful of sockpuppets (specifically, Fleetwood Billy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Famous Trollassor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Troll Troll Dilly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), some of which have made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fleetwood_Mac&curid=11787&diff=40407169&oldid=40290426 inappropriate edits. A person claiming to be Fleetwood Billy appeared on the IRC channel this morning and promised to vandalize Wikipedia forever. As a result, I've blocked for a week his regular IP address and blocked indefinitely the entire range (which belongs to a hosting service) that he was using to connect to IRC. A longer block may be warranted, but I leave that to the discretion of my peers. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine

Recreated the deleted article Why Rummel is always right under its original title Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples), word-for-word. He removed the speedy delete tag three times, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_peace_theory_%28Specific_historic_examples%29&diff=40525081&oldid=40524249 05:15, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_peace_theory_%28Specific_historic_examples%29&diff=40532347&oldid=40532010 06:19 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_peace_theory_%28Specific_historic_examples%29&diff=40534576&oldid=40534244 06:44, 21 February 2006. Before doing a fourth revert, he read the CSD tag and added {{hangon}}. Nevertheless, this is a severe violation of policy, and I would appreciate it if it did not happen again.

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

Pmanderson has so little substance that he does not even dare to try to report it as a proper 3RR violation but instead reports it here. His move of the contents to an article called Why Rummel is always right arguable violates

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. An administrator removed his speedy delete template and without voting himself replaced it with an ordinary delete template.Ultramarine

19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

And would someone please explain to Ultramarine that

WP:POINT does not cover every edit or move he happens to dislike? Septentrionalis

19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

It may be worth noting that "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is only about doing something you don't want to happen - not any action that any other person considers disruption. See the examples in

WP:POINT - they're all real examples. I speak as someone heavily involved when the guideline in question was being written, so I think I know what it means ;-) - David Gerard

20:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Subaru Impreza WRX on Wheels

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

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

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

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

I hate to say I told you so, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Subaru_Impreza_WRX_on_Wheels. It was quite obvious (from other factors other than just the name) that this was a vandal sleeper account. -- Curps 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool cat violation of RfA terms

Per a discussion with administrator Tony Sidaway, I was advised to report here that User:Cool cat has violated a term of his recent RfA, specifically remedy 4, "Coolcat prohibited from restructuring". To wit, during a vigorous discussion on Talk:Kawaii, he blanked a unanimous consensus poll (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kawaii&diff=40580917&oldid=40580726 refer to this diff) whose outcome he disagreed with. This violates the letter and spirit of the prohibition and threatens to disrupt the fragile consensus that we have forged. I feel a warning should be sufficient unless the situation degrades further. The Crow 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Mentorship report

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

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

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

User recreating LGBT serial killers category

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

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

The user also posted on

Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion

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

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

Homophobic post

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

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

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

Possibly libelous attacks on companies

Please see the ongoing edits at

Talk

) 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks guys for picking this up. I've got the pages on my watchlist, and will revert if necessary, but I could see myself hitting 3RR (I'm not clear that this is vandalism). --

Talk

) 02:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Deleted and protected against recreation. I will warn the user.

Chick Bowen

04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked

. His Arbcom probation terms were:

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

I think two provocative edits is violation enough to justify a 24 hour block. Perhaps he should be banned from DRV in addition, but I will leave that decision to others.--

^ask?

02:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Someone claiming to be Jack Thompson is making http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=40194876 legal threats, which likely deserves a block of some duration. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Using

Fair use policy

05:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The block was not for a violation of NLT, it was a username violation that caused me to issue the username block.

Fair use policy

06:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The page I cited above states that users should not pick names to people who are alive or who just died and trying to make disrupting edits in their name. Though the "threat" was made four days ago, then why was it brought up just brought up nearly an hour ago. I stand behind the username block I issued, but if the user picks a new name and does not vandalize again or cause problems again, I will not presure further action.

Fair use policy

06:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Fair use policy

06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I am checking my inbox to see if there is any communication that is trying to be made by the blocked user, but I got nothing yet.

Fair use policy

16:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The

) 15:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)