Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive76

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

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

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

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

It would be useful for a couple of people to keep an eye on Battle of the Wilderness and its talk page, which this person uses to make, uh, announcements: [1]. (He's also declared war on the article George Washington.) FreplySpang (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not really like these noticedboards because things are so easily taken out of content, but this is a subject that I am familiar with. I do not know the user, but I would like you to reconsider you actions. The Battle of the Wilderness was special, even for the American Civil War. It is notable for the horrible casualties suffered. As a historian, it is easy to get lost in that special and extraordinarily violent and gory little world. It is certainly more real than so-called "reality-based" TV. I encourage you to read this product of that afternoon picnic: William Chester Minor. AWM -- 68.122.118.161 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have chosen to take the rest of my lecture over to Talk:Battle of the Wilderness. I consider this to be a silly boy/girl misunderstanding thing, but the whole "Dohfast1" account is so light and fluffy as to not merit further consideration. AWM -- 68.164.245.60 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Geni: It is conventional to spell that "User", not "USer". But hey! Talk about the pot callnig the kettle blakc (deliberate typo for humour value). Anyway, I am working on a comprehensive "rap sheet" of myself for you all at http://home.earthlink.net/~amorrow/wiki_rap.html . Come and get me. Toro, toro! Olé. -- 68.122.118.161 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

) .

Can you give specific examples?

Chick Bowen

05:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Freestyle.king seems to be in a content dispute with jiang and made some personal attacks, for which he was appropriately warned. Nlu then blocked him when he continued to make said attacks, and now he has an issue with being blocked. In my view, just any other troll.

T+C) at 05:42 UTC (2006-02-20

)

• Mailer Diablo
  05:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Supported.

T+C) at 06:41 UTC (2006-02-20

) 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To explain the situation further -- in addition to the content dispute over such articles as

) 06:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC) what kind of personal attackz did i make?? can you give specific examplez?? the only personal attack i made is on my own talk page which NPOV doesnt apply. plus the image contains the content taiwanese=shame which is totally unacceptable on a public talk page no matter what the rule is, it is an anti-taiwanese message--Freestyle.king 06:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll let your contribution summary speak for itself. Others can make that judgment. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings fellow WikiPedians,

In an effort to help improve WikiPedia I'd like make an informal complaint regarding admin

Arminius

and the following events.

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

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

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

User:Arminius was editing as User:69.248.237.88

when he made the following edits:

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I think perhaps at this juncture it would be good to give

00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Eat At Joes is the latest in a VERY long line of sockpuppets originated by Alex "DickWitham" Cain (see [3] for details). He is once again removing sockpuppet tags from his previous accounts' user pages, and vandalizing talk pages to remove comments left by other users. - Chadbryant 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

You have acknowledged both your real name and your use of dozens of sockpuppets ([4]). Those in the know are not fooled. - Chadbryant 04:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

This user is now attempting to start an edit war on

WP:MOSDATE, yet refuses to acknowledge it or cease this behaviour. - Chadbryant

02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please leave your paranoia and persecution complex at the door, thanks. No one is "attempting to start an edit war" with you. I merely pointed out your hypocricy in noting how the correct version was due to the article the entry pointed to while the changes pointed to the same article. As for where the edits originate, that is none of yours or anyone else's concern. Regarding the matter of acknowledging or consulting, I have comments at the top of my talk page which state that comments from you will either be deleted or reverted. Perhaps you should read a bit yourself before making snap decisions. You are hearby asked to cease and decist posting/trolling my talk page, and bothering me with this worthless, pointless, idiotic bullcrap.--Eat At Joes 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been asked to consult

Patricia Ann Priest again. - Chadbryant

02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And you have been told my reasons for doing what I did above. You have also been told that you will not be allowed to post anything to my talk page. I did not make this decision lightly -- I took into account your extensive past and current behavior, as well as your behavior from Usenet, and realized that I did not want a person such as yourself leaving remarks on my talk page, be they whatever. You have been asked to stop leaving comments to me. Please do so before you edit again. --Eat At Joes 02:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully my compromise will leave everyone feeling decent enough to move on. C'mon fellas, moving forward, let's play nice. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Check their contributions. This is a new vandal to watch out for! If

21:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The personal info is gone. You can remove specific edits by deleting the page, then at

talk

) 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I resored another 89 revisions that were not related to the incident. Now the only deleted version is the one that contained the offending digits. – ClockworkSoul 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Could someone block him/them please?!

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

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

01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Janizary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently embarked on a vote-stacking campaign to astro-turf the DRV on Template:User fsm, which was speedily deleted as per Jimbo's statement against belief-oriented userboxes. Janizary used the "What links here" functionality from the fsm template to send our vote-stacking messages to the talk pages of people who still had the fsm userbox template transcluded. The use of the What links here functionality was one of the reasons proposed as to why template userboxes should be done away with. That one of the pro-userbox people is offering up such irrefutable evidence that What links here functionality can be and is abused is ironic in the extreme. The exact beginning text of the recruitment message was, "I'm calling out a posse." Clearly this is a plain attempt at disruption. Some sort of disciplinary action is necessary. Note that this campaign has already produced a clear majority of "Undelete" votes in the DRV process, yet I believe the end result should remain "Keep deleted", because we should not allow process to be disrupted in this kind of manor, and if we do allow the template to be kept it will just be used in future attempts at vote-stacking. Here is a full list of diffs of the campaign effort from Janizary: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

The full text of the vote-stacking message was:

I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right,

**date/time**

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

Cyde, I agree that it's tacky, but it happens a lot, and I don't think there's anything more to be done about it than scolding the user. I recently caught a user who is normally believed to be a "generally good user" doing the same thing in regards to an

talk

02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He doesn't appear to have done so. In the talk page from which Cberlet quoted, MONGO said, "I am also not here to mediate."[39]

Chick Bowen

04:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

You didn't, I was also just clarifying.

Chick Bowen

04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

After going through Cfd and reaching, what I thought, anyway, was "no consensus," the category was speedied by

04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedaic category, very obviously since it is overly-specific and would have only one member, and is an attack to boot. Thus the deletion makes sense, although I would've cited

Wikipedia:Deletion Review. -- SCZenz

04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark, if there was no consensus to delete, why did you take it upon yourself to speedy it? ... 

talk

06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Because there was a clear consensus to delete. Even you yourself said that you don't like this category. It's a classic case of

WP:SNOW. It doesn't even have to go through DRV. The outcome is predicatble: either it will be deleted by DRV; or it will be relisted, and there is a very good chance (>70%) that a second CfD will yield an outcome with >66% favoring deletion. And that's saying nothing about the inherent merits of this category, of which there are none. --MarkSweep (call me collect)

08:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The DRV debate was unnecessary to begin with, per

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

08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. Stop citing

WP:PI before you drive off any more editors over your unilaterism. —Locke Cole • t • c

08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, there was more than sufficient consensus for deletion. Enough so that the outcome of DRV and any future CfD would have been predictable. There is no need to go through all these steps. I had indeed considered bringing this to DRV myself, but it occurred to me that the net result would have been the same.

WP:SNOW is a convenient way to refer you to a more detailed explanation of what I've just said. Second, if Xoloz (talk · contribs) thinks he needs a break, that's entirely up to him. The fact that he has continued to edit after blanking his talk page suggests that he has more to say. --MarkSweep (call me collect)

09:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's predictable, then you should have allowed the process to complete rather than simply assuming for the rest of us how it would have turned out. It is not your place to decide things for the community. And my reference to

WP:SNOW before was the fact that you're citing it like it's some kind of policy in your administrative actions; it is not an excuse to ignore process. The community did not spend time voting on policies and discussing guidelines to have you come along and decide you have a better way. Use your sysop bit with care. —Locke Cole • t • c

09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recreated

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

MarkSweep appears to have deleted it again; I noticed just as I was about to delete it and close the DRV debate. It should have been deleted in the first place; there was an obvious consensus to do so. TexasAndroid made a newbie mistake; we've all made those and I think no less of him for it. There's no need to run through a process twice to get the same result. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The category has now been deleted after closure of the deletion review. That's fine, that's how things are supposed to work: people disagreed with the closing admin's judgment at the CfD, it was submitted for review, and the closure was overturned. The only problem was MarkSweep's gratuitious and pointless speedying of the category (and then his wheel-warring to keep it deleted), which very predictably antagonized several users while accomplishing absolutely nothing. Process is not all-important, but egregiously trampling on process in order to accomplish nothing at all is quite simply bad for Wikipedia. I hope that we have not lost Xoloz, a very good editor, because of MarkSweep's poor judgment. Babajobu 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My speedying this category was intended precisely to avoid a gratuituous and pointless DRV debate. Xoloz seems to have made a tactical retreat, if you check his contributions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The DRV debate was actually pretty painless, as DRVs generally are. People debate, and then we get an answer. The only pain was caused by the speedy deletion and the subsequent wheel warring, which pissed people off. Babajobu 18:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, another conflict of this nature? Seems we need to start getting a consensus on the consensus. But then we'd also need a consensus on that consensus. Where will it end? --Shadow Puppet 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't need consensus that there is a consensus. In fact, the admin closed it as "no consensus", and then it was speedied by another admin; then undeleted by another admin who thought we might as well just let the deletion review take it's course; then immediately deleted again by the same admin who had originally speedied it. Accept for the wheel warring, the poorly closed AfD, the pre-empted deletion review, and the users who left the project because of all this, I'd say we admins really handled the whole thing quite wisely and effectively! a A cookie for us! Babajobu 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys guys guys, please. I'm just trying to help, I'm not condemning anyone to the scaffold or anything. If my comment is unhelpful or misled in some way, just say so and move on. Please don't be so defensive and don't smack me if you can avoid it. Also: I'm hoping the heavy sarcasm was obvious in that "consensus" statement I made. --Shadow Puppet 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like there was consensus to delete and the common sense approach was to delete it. Let's not waste more time arguing about process. Johntex\^talk 15:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it looks plain to me too. Just wondering why someone thought otherwise. But I'll shut up. --Shadow Puppet 15:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It was only plain to delete when you went through the Keep votes and tossed out 40% of them as invalid votes. I did not do this. This is the "Newbie mistake" that Mackensen mentions above. I should have vetted the votes. Without invalidating some of the Keep votes, the tally was 45 to 25 or so, short of the 2-1 ratio generally used as the threshhold on CFD. - TexasAndroid 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

TexanAndroid, your mistake was understandable, and could easily and painlessly rectified by deletion review, which comes in handly in precisely those sorts of situations. This mess was not of your making. Had MarkSweep not wheel warred over the deletion, and instead just allowed the deletion review to take its normal course, this thread would not exist, Xoloz would still be at the project, et cetera. Babajobu 16:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, we're to be angry at MarkSweep for doing the right thing which was upheld scant hours later. The right response here, I would think, would be to commend MarkSweep for recognizing that the closing admin had made a mistake. We don't need to deletion review for obvious-and-quickly-rectified mistakes. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Being angry won't accomplish anything, but I'm not interested in "commending" someone for wheelwarring over something trivial that would have resolved itself the next day, anyway. Especially as numerous other experienced editors had asked him to please just let the deletion review take its normal course. Would have accomplished the same thing, would have pissed fewer people off, and wouldn't have required wheel warring. Sounds like that would have been the way to go, commendations aside. Babajobu 18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, TA ... *fD are not "votes", and the tally is only as relevant as you want it to be. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I entirely agree with that Fuddle...of course fDs are not votes, but

pwned at deletion review for not correctly discharging their responsibility (provided, of course, that they don't just choose to wheel war over the deletion rather than waiting for the outcome of review). A well-vetted tally is a good barometer of consensus, and the closing admin shouldn't disregard it. Babajobu

17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've never yet had a close overturned on me, and I don't count votes, on principle. We have to weigh "votes" based on the validity of their arguments (one "keep because of x, y, z" is worth innumerable "nn d"s). I basically read the discussion, and if it looks like a delete, it's delete, if it looks like a keep, it's keep, and if I'm not sure, it's no consensus. I recently closed a discussion where a terrible article about a school was nominated because "it's terrible and unverifiable", and got a buncha people saying delete because "needs cleanup, unverifiable". Someone came along and cleaned it up and verified it ... but delete votes, if one happens to swing that way, still overwhelmingly outnumbered the keeps (nobody commented after the cleanup was done). How do you think I closed? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, well if someone has done a significant clean-up or provided citations for previously unverified info, then consensus that was forming around an older version is no longer as relevant as newer comments. The guidelines for administrators actually say this explicitly. And I do weigh the strength of arguments when a vote is on the border between a no consensus and a keep or delete closure. But when a clear consensus has formed around the present version of an article, and when consensus is not trumped by an issue such as copyvio, then I don't think it's our place to decide consensus is wrong. No one has entrusted us with that authority; no one has stated that they think our judgment is good enough to outweigh the judgment of a large majority of established users. In our role as closers of AfDs, the community has said we're capable of performing the fairly menial administrative function of determining whether consensus exists; they've not expressed any special faith in our judgment as to whether articles should be kept or deleted. That's my understanding, anyway. Babajobu 08:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "our judgement as to whether articles should be kept or deleted". The whole point of AfD is that, sometimes, the judgement of a single admin is not enough (that's why we're not speedying everything in sight, and the userbox brigade can shut up at this point ... yes, I see those smirks). My point isn't that it's up to an admin to decide, on the article's merits, whether to keep or delete ... it's that AfD is not a vote. It's perfectly appropriate to ignore a bunch of incredibly stupid reasons to delete an article and go with one or two good reasons to keep (and vice versa). One of the things admins do is weigh arguments. We're not returning officers, we don't just do a head-count and say, no, that's 65%, we must keep, oooh, 67%, that's a deleter. If we can't be trusted to read an AfD and make the right decision based on the discussion (not the tally) then we shouldn't be closing them. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, I of course agree with you that AfD is not a vote. That's why the name was changed from VfD to AfD. But the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators still state that the criterion for closure is whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved. It doesn't say that the closing admin should act as a judge, and weigh the merits of the two sides to determine who has the stronger argument. In practice, we all do weigh the merits of the arguments and disregard the sillier ones, especially in cases in which we think existence of consensus is borderline. But ultimately, according to the guidelines we have been given, and presuming we think those guidelines should be taken seriously, we're still just functionaries determining consensus. We're not judges. Or, at least, we're more the former than the latter. Or, perhaps, the style of different closing admins varies depending on whether they consider themselves more the former or the latter. But I agree with you that simple vote counting only in order to determine whether the vote hits a particular sacred percentage is a very poor way to close. Babajobu 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shadow Puppet - just to clarify, I was not making my comment to you specifically. I was just making a general comment in favor of the deletion and a desire to move on as quickly as possible. Johntex\^talk 15:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Awsome. If everyone gets so upset over my teeny input, I guess, Newby or not, my words do have some power (NOTE: sarcasm). --Shadow Puppet 17:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This user has been removing evidence and reformatting this page ridiculously for the past 2 hours. Example here:[40] where I did not remove content, but fixed format and linked to specific sections. Example here:[41] of evidence removal.

05:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Essjay for fixing this. All taken care of...go back to your naps.

emp | talk

06:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted images with bogus copyright attributions, even after multiple warnings, to a variety of articles. I've blocked him for 1 week pursuant to

08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked God_of_War (

08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It might also be good if you let someone else block any further "freedom fighters" as you're perceived as being "the enemy". Best not to add fuel to the fire, and there are plenty of admins around. -

brenneman^{T}{L}

14:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that comments like that serve to expand that perception, Aaron. We have no freedom fighters on Wikipedia, and no opressors either—people who see themselves as fighting a war simply aren't going to achieve their aims. I think the most productive thing that users who see MarkSweep as "the enemy" can do is, well, stop seeing him that way. MarkSweep saw what he thought was trolling, responded, asked for administrative consensus, and accepted a reversal when the consensus didn't agree with him—exactly what any admin should do. -- SCZenz 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There may not be any 'freedom fighters', but I apparantly am seen as a crusher of dissent who must be opposed ([43]). I hadn't realized I held so much power, and me not even an admin. :-) --

Talk

) 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• I have indefinitely blocked 82.63.145.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for this edit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, same group. They've apparently moved there since Faggot was sprotected. 82.63.145.182 is an open proxy on port 80. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 12:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense article created by Gumbatron (talk · contribs), speedy notice removed several times by 62.171.194.43 (talk · contribs), 62.171.194.6 (talk · contribs), 62.171.194.40 (talk · contribs), all from a shared network often used for vandalism. More than enough warning given. Gazpacho 10:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Both IPs are registered to Research Machines PLC, a company that provides internet services and software for schools in the UK. Most likely more school vandals. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Those school vandals were also vandalizing random articles and should have been blocked temporarily. Any articles they vandalized need to be cleaned up. Gazpacho 18:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Non stop vandalism of random pages, inserting little phrases, etc. The IP's talk page is a sea of red "This is your last warning" signs - someone want to follow through on those numerous threats ;) The IP's contribution page Smitz 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's bound to be a shared IP address. Secretlondon 13:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your definately correct, I forgot to mention that it's a school in warwickshire, UK. Would it be so wrong to block the entire IP block, but allow logged in users to edit, forcing any real editors from that IP block to register an account? Smitz 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review this series of diffs Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Restored comments dubiously deleted per RPA and warned the user about it. android79 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks#Suggested name change. The "R" in RPA is so often misapplied that I feel it ought to be changed to "Refactor". android79 15:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

15:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. You should remove them from the articles and

Aaron

15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone already removed them from those two articles and tagged it with {{

no license}} Zzyzx11 (Talk)

16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have previously removed the picture from the articles, but the uploader put it back. I have completed the tagging process as instructed by Aasron. Thanks to you both. Johntex\^talk 16:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, it looks like it was speedy deleted for being a blatant copyvio. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

General rule of thumb: if an image is from a news agency, and the article is tagged as a current event, the image is a copyvio: we're competing directly with the agency as a news source, so the image cannot qualify for fair use. --Carnildo 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He's continuing his link spam of

16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Buriednews.com spam campaign

Buriednews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Merrysoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been running a short-lived spam campaign to link to "buriednews.com", some sort of Drudge Report lookalike. I've blocked both indefinitely, but the block on Buriednews did not affect Merrysoul, AFAICT, so be aware that this spammer may be running other usernames. android79 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• It's too bad there isn't a way to block links to certain domains, sort of a wiki-wide blacklist... that would be a great way to discourage truly disruptive linkspammers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought there was a spam blacklist...? I don't know the details, though, and I may be totally wrong. In other words, this comment is useless. :-) android79 01:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a spam blacklist on Meta, that applies to all the wikimedia projects: m:Spam blacklist Mairi 01:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • but be careful with adding sites to that; if urls already in articles are added to the blacklist, further edits to the article will be rejected.
        dab (ᛏ)
        09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user bsuinfosys

I have blocked Bsuinfosys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for persistent whitewashing of Breyer State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), removing everything which alludes to its unaccredited status and questionable past. Previous block was 24h, on return he came straight back and did the same thing again, so this time it's indefinite. Feel free to reduce if you think that's over harsh, but the fact that the username includes BSU and there are no edits whatsoever to any other article does rather indicate that this is somebody associated with BSU. Just zis Guy you know? 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a serial issue. Looking at his edits, he's gone for a while, then comes back to the same article, and just that article. I'd say give him a long span; perhaps he'll lose interest. (BTW, I'm not an admin, so I hope I'm not out of line). --Shadow Puppet 20:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions are welcome from anyone, admins or not. :-) android79 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The

02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

See edits at All your base are belong to us. --Captaindan 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked gahccache.drum.amedd.army.mil =

) 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You portscanned a U.S. Army computer? Uh-oh, you'd better watch out before... Ilmari Karonen (talk) Woops, too late. --Deathphoenix 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now sent an e-mail notice to the webmaster of www.drum.amedd.army.mil and requested that it be forwarded to the person or department responsible for the proxy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Here are the edits in question:

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

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

I think someone can likely correlate the server problems with the times of those diffs. I was pressing save, getting an error message, backing up the browser to return to the edit window, pressing save again, sometimes twice, and this happened maybe three times. I had no idea comments were being deleted. IMHO

03:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

It wasn't the edit conflict message, it was the multilingual server problem message, white background, green letters. It got so bad I stopped editing for around ten minutes, couldn't even see my talk page or watchlist.

04:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss' other Talk page deletions

On her Talk page,

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

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

• [46]
• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50]
• [51]

And from Talk:Adolf Hitler, once again

• deletion of comment

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

Readers will note that every one of those is either a personal attack in violation of

04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Wyss has requested a stop to the mutual disrespect

here. If there is any progress I shall remove this incident. -- Simonides

05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can only add that, for reasons best left to the imagination at this point,

Wyss

19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• For any reader still interested, here is an independent discussion of the server problem during that same period, by other editors of the same article involved (AH), noting they themselves were having problems with accidently deleting each others' comments. Should I even bother asking why
  Wyss
  20:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

More deletions, defamation

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

• [52]
• [53]

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

Although a sock check run by Fred Bauder failed to turn up related IPs for these latter two,

18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

She used this reasoning to remove her block for the

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

:

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

This is a continuation of Wyss' attempts to

game the system and create an unpleasant atmosphere for editors who do not share her POV. -- Simonides

08:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered a user

RfC? From a very cursory look at this it seems Wyss has some issues with, for example, describing Hitler as a dictator, which indicates that her viewpoint may be some way off the balance of informed opinion. Just zis Guy you know?

17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels

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

I also note there have been legal threats made. [54] --Martyman-(talk) 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Appears to have switched to this IP:

(talk)

23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Am reporting this IP to

(talk)

23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been more legal threats made [55]. --Martyman-(talk) 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Is it possible for us to contact the ISP and get legal retaliation on this person? As I am aware, he is conducting a coordinated act of sabotage, which under both US communications law (we can get extradition), and Canadian law as I am aware (we have used the same justification

Be eudaimonic!

) 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to update: the vandal is now spamming random pages, circumventing the semi-protection of

(talk)

02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:JJstroker uploading problem images

Over the past month,

talk · contribs) has uploaded several hundred images in the past month, often with false copyright information. For example, Image:JFKagee2.jpg was tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} on the grounds that images from "a public learning institution generally free from copyright", while Image:USAloseyP1.jpg was tagged as {{PD-ineligible

}} on the grounds that the source website didn't have a copyright statement. In among the dozens of image-tagging notifications on his page are comments indicating that he does not understand and is not aware he doesn't understand copyright, including this gem:

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

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

Apparantly the user has also created copyright-infringing articles as well [56]. Jkelly 23:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

He's uploaded four more problem images:

• Image:Alvahbessie2.jpg, Image:3c14608t.jpg - From the Library of Congress, claimed as "work of the federal government" which is almost never true for LoC images, source link is dead.
• Image:Sdickstein22.jpg - Claimed as PD-USGov-Congress-Bio, but it's from americanjewisharchives.org, which doesn't indicate where they got the image. The image is probably PD-old or PD-USGov, but there's no evidence for this.
• Image:USAcellerE.jpg - Claimed as PD-USGov-Congress-Bio, but it's from www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk.

--Carnildo 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Left some biolerplate and a personal plea to stop. Jkelly 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He's also uploaded two images that have copyright problems for the following:

• Image:22mtyson2.jpg
• Image:Riderstrong2.jpg

These are from WireImage.com. I've tagged them with copyvio. There are several of WireImage photos he's uploaded to Wikipedia, however he claimed they were press release. adnghiem501 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WHEELER

Could somebody have a word with WHEELER (talk · contribs)? He is repeatedly placing external links to his own highly original essays on a number of articles. He seems to think that I am the embodiment of evil, so could a third party please tell him about our external links policies. - SimonP 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought he'd left the project. Heavens. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that you were the embodiment of evil! Silly me. :)--

^(talk)

03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Did someone say evil? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be back, he has just added Revolution within the form and Cretan/Spartan connection. He admits that both are original research. I'm not going to touch these, so could somebody else deal with them. - SimonP 20:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found the spot. As soon as I posted one External link---SimonP who has NO classical training or education kept deleting the External link (see page history of "History of Crete" as an examle) like Wikipedia is his personal space. Does Wikipedia belong to SimonP? I put asked him:

Classical definition of effeminacy

where SimonP also puts a cleanup tag "({cleanup}, this article has a lot of problems)".

This man follows me everywhere I go In Wikipedia---him and his gang---go around harrassing me and doing immature things. There is no problem with an External link to Wikinfo articles!!! Should there be?? Is there that much visceral hatred by you people???

Get this man off my back and stop the persecutions. Please stop this immaturity.WHEELER 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not stay on Wikinfo? You understand by now that original research isn't permitted on Wikipedia, but you are continuing to post your own research in Wikipedia articles. I guess I don't get the attraction. I think you've done some interesting work, but it isn't appropriate here. Rhobite 00:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I caught you guys red-handed with "Article laundering". I don't trust you as much as I can throw you. One wikipedian deletes an external link as " (rv to SimonP; Wikiinfo not sister project). " My external links don't violate your policy!!!!

Second case of article laundering===Cultural imprint on politics/Revision at Wikipedia. Which was conventently deleted recently. Here is a quote from someone on that page:

This is a draft for a fair rewrite of an encyclopedic subject that simply discusses the imprint that culture has on politics. The basis for the present text was unacceptable to many Wikipedians as being an original essay with a strong personal slant (POV rather than a neutral encyclopedia report on the development of this self-evident idea, making references and citing sources. Don't make angry edits, try to forget any agenda of your own, and keep the English-speaking reader firmly in mind. Thanks.

You were attempting to steal an article at Wikinfo!!!! You deleted it. And then try to surreptissiously put it on your site ""Washed"" without tracing back!!!!! This is morally wrong for you people. I see your extermination policy of external links!!!! ala Bill Gates---you guys take lessons from him!!!! Instead of bringing it back on and referencing it back to Wikinfo---You are attempting to "Article laundering" in defiance of copyright laws regarding Wiki's. You people are evil. Do you have that much hatred for Wikinfo??? Is Hate the basis of what goes on around here???WHEELER 00:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! I note that wikinfo uses

GFDL. As Wikipedia also uses this same license, and the terms of GFDL allow (in fact, encourage) distribution as long as the derivatives remain under GFDL, I'm not certain how this could be stealing, even assuming that it was a straight copy/paste job (which it wasn't). Also, most of Wikinfo's content is copied from Wikipedia as an FYI. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎

) 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me the downside of external links to WHEELER's articles? Sam Spade 00:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that they are to essays that are at best highly POV, and at worst deeply inaccurate. - SimonP 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, I am rightfully scared that anytime I try to put an external link---they will delete it--run out---create another article on the subject--put in on Wikipedia themselves--thus preventing any external link!!!! I see this game you guys are trying to pull. And this should be noted.!!!! WHEELER 00:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I really am quite congenial. I understand the NPOV policy here. I understand the policy of NO original research. That is why I first tried to put in External links. I think the info is needed to inform readers. You can NPOV those articles but leave a link back to the original post so people can learn more. I am not interested in Turf Wars. Or delete the article and make it an external link. I'd rather you make it an external link. But what I see, scares me, I am forced to act the way I did. Those two article do in small ways violate your policies and need to be edited or moved to external links. I totally agree. But I will not stand for stealing my hard work or the "washing" of articles. And I don't believe in persecuting people.

Why can't I put an external link such as "Please see SPOV article at [Wikinfo:Subject name]" or "For original research material on subject please see [Wikinfo:Subject name]"? Why is this so hard?WHEELER 16:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

because literature cited has got to be notable ("notability" is relative to the subject matter). Wikinfo isn't a notable or reputable source by any standard. You have no "right" to link to your articles; the only way to get a policy-sanctioned "right" to discuss or link to your views is to publish them in peer-reviewed journals so that they arguably may be described as a notable academic minority position. 62.202.79.186 16:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

SimulacrumCaputosis and Zombiebaron

Two editors with very short histories,

Talk

) 03:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the place to contest this, but in all honesty Uncyclopedia is basicly the antichrist when compared to Wikipedia. Sorta makes sence to add it to what wikipedia is not, because wikipedia is not a place for blatent rascism, featured stubs, humor, cell churches, and the like. I feel that SulacrumCaputosis and me are completely justified in our addition, and numerous reverts. Zombiebaron 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I've contested your insertion of the link to Unencyclopedia, you can propose the insertion at

Talk

) 17:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:217.96.248.99

User 217.96.248.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) use to make strong national attacks and to vandalize user pages of everybody he suspects in the Pro-Ukrainian POV. Today he seems to went on a rampage producing edits like: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], etc. He was already blocked for one week for the very similar behavior.

It appears that the IP is a static IP belonging to an individual. Simple IP tracing shows his real name and the phone number. He sometimes produces good faith edits, but also many personal attacks and vandalizing.

I gave him 24h block, just to cool down, but I feel that if he will repeat quite longer blocking must be applied. I was already criticized that the block is to lenient. abakharev 03:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• The first minutes the block expired, he started with personal attacks. I had to double the block (48 hours). abakharev 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:ColonelS

Can we have a sockpuppet check on this guy? On his first day he headed straight for the Chip Berlet article and started bringing up all the same old disputes, so I'm wondering if this is Nobs or Cognition or somebody else who has been dealt with by ArbCom. Gamaliel 05:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Jkelly 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's quite a backlog over there. Gamaliel 05:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep... Jkelly 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Both myself and Fred Bauder looked at it. That user comes from an IP address which seems to regularly spawn 'new' users with similar far-right beliefs and writing styles, each of which seems to stick to a limited subset of articles. They seem to be the same person. However, the use of multiple accounts doesn't seem to be actually disruptive - more, perhaps, to prevent the user being recognised / tracked. There is no multiple voting, use to evade 3rr/blocks, or anything of that sort that I can see.

The writing style doesn't look like Nobs or Cognition to either of us, however, and it's obviously impossible to tell for sure after this time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dean McVeigh

There are significant issues with unregistered or very recently registered users editing the article on

semi-protected status?--A Y Arktos

09:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No action has been taken, and hence I renew am renewing my request.--A Y Arktos 19:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Still no action - have I put this request in the wrong place? Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy does say an admin would respond if I popsted here. I will try at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection too.--A Y Arktos 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look over at the article history and enabled sem-protection for now. -- Longhair 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Policy Abuse by Celestianpower

In regard to the AfD entry concerning Steven Levitt, Celestianpower closed discussion a mere 35 minutes after its opening. Such insanely early closings only serve to further the secularist POV of such an editor. Voting MUST run its course - closing the polls early just because you happen to be ahead is patently unfair, and NOT what Wikipedia is about. This is a heads-up, as I am sure he will continue trying to push his view through the guise of janitorial tasks.

Peace in Christ, Steven Taylor 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

snowball's chance in hell of getting the article deleted. Johnleemk | Talk

16:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, that was a rather absurd AfD nomination; we don't delete articles on authors with best-selling titles. Closing the discussion early was exactly the right course of action. The fact that you refer to "voting" and "closing the polls early" shows that you do not quite understand how AfD is supposed to work. android79 16:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser requested for Steven Taylor. The absurd abuse of process to prove a

Jason Gastrich. Hexagonal

16:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your incivility makes me sick. Steven Taylor 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Wow. Just, wow. I'm not the suspicious type, but if someone wanted to demonstrate the harm caused by categories like Category:Christian Wikipedians, the edits made by Steven Taylor (talk • contribs) make the point pretty clear. Friday (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. android79 16:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Account created today, listed Steven Levitt for deletion and then worked (partway) through Category:Christian_Wikipedians trying to round up a posse. Whoever it is ought to thank Celestianpower for saving them some typing. --ajn (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the use of "godless" and the "Peace in Christ" sign-off in the vote recruiting, both trademarks of Gastrich's writing style. I tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet, not that there's much point as the next time we see him he'll have a new account. --

(talk)

16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Steven_Taylor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for disruption, and I imagine it ought to be a lot longer block. Is there any way to fast-track a CheckUser? android79 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Just wait until someone with access to it gets around to tackling the problem. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed this at the

WP:RFCU page. Hopefully someone will be able to confirm or deny whether this is a sock. Hexagonal

I reblocked indefinitely. Looking at the user's contributions, it's beyond doubt that he is somebody's sockpuppet. Those are not the actions of a clueless newbie, or of someone's legitimate sockpuppet. Whoever is pulling the strings knows what they are doing and is acting in bad faith. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought - saying explicitly here what's tipping you off might be a case of spilling the beans.

brenneman^{T}{L}

00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying here. Are you contesting the block? If you are suggesting that it's not obvious, you probably haven't had a chance to look at the contribution history. If you're saying that spelling out what would be successful sockpuppeteering is a case of

WP:BEANS, I agree with you. --MarkSweep (call me collect)

02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any disagreement over the validity of this block anymore. The

checkuser request was granted, and Morven found that this sock was part of a sock farm operated by Gastrich. He also went ahead and blocked the IP responsible, which should save us some future grief. Hexagonal

03:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:64.107.114.4

Aaron

20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

He should have been blocked after his first racist edit to Flag of Mexico. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon. using dynamic IPs is POV pushing and vandalizing Argentinian pages

I just blocked the anon 200.45.6.172 for vandalism and blatant attacks on

Talk:Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica has also been under attack by the anon and was protected by User:Pablo-flores, who has also been attacked by the anon. Take a look at the history of those pages and see what has been going on. The anon is currently spamming my talk from IP 200.43.201.132 [65]. Vsmith

03:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite tell what's going on here, but have you considered the possibility that the anon has a legitimate complaint and doesn't know how to go about articulating it? After all, their contributions keep getting reverted as "vandalism" (e.g. here), but I don't see how that edit in isolation qualifies as vandalism. Looks like more of a regular edit war based on a content dispute. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It looked like that to me at first, but by now a pattern is clear to those involved: this person (using one of many IPs in a block we have more or less identified) alters the content of an article regarding a certain particular topic (Argentina's attempts at nuclear fusion and the Argentine nuclear research institutions, basically), presenting a particularly biased POV based on disparaging those institutions; he doesn't respond to attempts at discussion, reverts any changes, and attacks the other editors. Several of the IPs have been blocked, to no effect, and pages have had to be protected. The editor in question also doesn't respond to suggestions of registering under a username, and continues the disruption using multiple IPs. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey

Could someone take a look at the current edit war du jour on the Jeff Merkey article and try to make some determination. the accusations are flying. the dispute is over whether the article should be tagged with the NPOV and other templates.--Alhutch 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well though I'm "involved", I have removed the wikify and cleanup tags, since it clearly is wikified and it doesn't require clean up. I've left the NPOV tag, though personally I'm not convinced of there being any issue, but other opinions would be most welcome. --pgk^(talk) 13:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell still harassing Lucky 6.9

Lucky has left the building, but Brainhell's vexatious litigation against him continues. The Requests for comment/Lucky 6.9 opened by Brainhell with the help of User:Robert McClenon was properly deleted for being improperly certified (there had been no attempt at mediation or other dispute resolution, and there still has not), but it's talk page remains and is being used by Brainhell as yet another attack page. Lucky has stated on the page that all he wants is to be left alone[66], and I think it's time he was. Unless people object, I propose deleting Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lucky 6.9, and have posted on it to announce that intention.[67] Please comment. Bishonen | ノート 07:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

there's been altogether too much harassment of Lucky by Brainhell already, I approve of deleting the page.--Alhutch 07:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Motion seconded and carried. Shouldn't the talk page have been deleted at the same time the project page was deleted? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

probably.--Alhutch 08:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked Raul654 the same thing at the time, but if I understood him he thought there would be less fuss and uproar this way. In any case, today I thought it was looking so ugly it was time for it to go. I guess not a lot of people would have had time to review my proposal before you deleted the page, Mark, but it can always be temporarily undeleted if anybody requests it. I guess Brainhell won't know what's going on if he finds the page deleted without having read my recent post on it, so I'm going to inform him. Bishonen | ノート 08:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Thank you one and all. Of course, there's always the matter of Brainhell's talk page (and his thinly veiled attacks which totally comprise his user page), but I'm relieved that this is off of the main article space. Raul654 felt that the talk page should remain in hopes that the situation would burn itself out. I guess that wasn't the case. Love you guys. Lucky 6.9 via 71.102.89.240 08:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC). Over and out...

Money money money fat fat fat

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

1. He uploaded a photograph of you? While very wrong and certainly blockable, from afar you have to note the humor in such an act (of course, I say that having not seen the actual photo). – ClockworkSoul 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a high quality troll. He got the photo from my webspace. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A picture of you spinning snow? Ral315 (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Association of British Counties continual reverts

By sockpuppets of banned user IanDavies. Can this page be protected temporarily until he finds something better to do? Owain (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected.--File Éireann 13:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The blocklog says IanDavis has been blocked as a sock of User:Irate. Secretlondon 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty unblocked this article earlier today - and IanDavies reverted it within the hour. Can we at the very least have it semi-protected again, and perhaps fully protected? - there's really not much more to add to the article as it stands. Can the IP range be added to the list of sockpuppets and blocked temporarily?

User:IanDavies (and User:Son of Paddy's Ego [68]) are sockpuppets of User:Irate, who was banned indefinitely by Jimbo Wales. Aquilina 14:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really - that's all of Bulldog Manchester and so presumably covers Liverpool as well (where Irate lives). That's a popular ISP with millions of users, and we can't really rangeblock the whole thing - David Gerard 12:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Erwin Walsh (talk · contribs

)

User insults me at random not once but twice. Also incivil towards other users as well. Many examples are avalible but these should be sufficient.

He has a total of 532 edits of which only 66 ae in articlespace. Those edits were mostly vfds.

A partial list of his vfds: Quad Electroacoustics Anal masturbation,Massage therapist, 2003 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

User has been blocked 4 times so far. Of which 2 of the cases due to vandalism

I do not see a reason why we have to put up with him. Please end his misery. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Will anyone at least comment? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He was blocked a half-fortnight by

talk

) 12:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Kaiser Permanente? One user refuses to allow anyone to include an image of Kaiser Permanente's logo in the article, or to allow people to link to the company's homepage from the infobox. This is disruption. Rhobite 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wacky. Left a {{3rr}} at User talk:Pansophia. Jkelly 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If things continue like they have, I see no good solution short of banning Pansophia from directly editing any article related to Kaiser. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR rule was not, however, applied to MarkSweep. A good process for ensuring balanced editing was worked out yesterday, but today Rhobite ignored it. Rhobite and MarkSweep also seems to be stalking me on other pages. This is a (double-teamed) attack on myself as a user in order to weed out an editor to win an editorial dispute. --Pansophia 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted 3 times. If you believe that I reverted more than 3 times, please post the diffs. Rhobite 23:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's important to point out that that "good process for ensuring balanced editing" had, thus far, largely allowed User:Pansophia to replant her POV into the article proper (removing the organisation's logo from infobox because it's an "ad," repeatedly reinserting her LiveJournal blog as an external link, etc.). It's also notable that this is not the first time other editors or administrators have "(double-team..) attack[ed]" User:Pansophia, at least by her own assertion... Justen Deal 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this is not the first time that this has happened. No one has done anything about your false accusation of sock puppetry, by the way. I assume you're only here to try to "get me" by other means? --Pansophia 01:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Pansophia's rant from 3 days ago, above. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Tag teaming" as it regards 3RR is no crime. In fact it is explicitly excluded from 3RR policy because 3RR is designed to keep one editor from hijacking an article against the wishes of a consensus of other editors. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it weasel wording (re:rant) against other users is also within the letter of the law? --Pansophia 09:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion of this issue at

Chick Bowen

17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Chick Bowen said. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless the images are being used to illustrate an article on TIME magazine itself, fair use does not apply. Did you discuss it with TBSDY before bringing it here? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not really true. If the article discussed someone's selection as Man of the Year or something similar, then there would probably be a valid fair use claim. Just using the image as illustration would not be fair use. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I left a message for TBSDY first, but was disturbed that other people have asked him about it and he referenced only e-mails from Jimbo as his justification. I think something like this should be discussed on

Wikipedia:Fair use

-- many of the images he deleted (I made a brief survey of them) were used in ways which were acceptable under the current fair use policy, IMO, or were at least close enough to it that discussion would be necessary before speedying them.

And I wouldn't have brought it up here at all if I thought he was only deleting clear cases of non-fair use. In any case, I don't think that's the right way to handle fair use claims: they should be put up at

WP:PUI, not speedyable. If taken in good faith they are not blatant copyvio in the way that someone listing a copyrighted image as GFDL or PD would be. --Fastfission

21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And hey -- as anyone who is familiar with my work on the Fair Use policy both here and on the en mailing list would know, I'm extremely sympathetic to the desire to lessen the number of fair use images used on Wikipedia and to keep our use of them thoroughly in a legally safe zone! I just think that many of the images deleted are completely in accordance with our current policy; if the policy is bad, we should change that first before going around and speedying dozens of images. --Fastfission 21:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It would have been much preferable if someone had taken the trouble of explaining what was going on, in the talk pages of all articles affected. And I'm not sure all of those covers should have been done away with. I'm having trouble understanding why William Lawrence (Massachusetts)'s picture on the 1924 cover of Time wouldn't be fair use. I mean, come on! -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Fair use is not a black-and-white thing, and discussion is the best way to resolve these things (and I do quite a lot of this). Out-of-process action with regards to fair use violations in the past has caused some ill will, so I think that some more discussion would have been a better idea. JYolkowski // talk 15:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, how's the best way that I could get into some discussion in regards to the instance that I just mentioned? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that legal matters like this might not be appropriate to discuss in the same light as our normal view of consensus, because there's an external reality (the law) that we're dealing with that we *definitely* want to stay on the right side of. It might be good to have a discussion, but I believe it's probably best not to include in it a vote or poll because such things cannot influence that external reality, and not many Wikipedians are lawyers. --Improv 03:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have trouble understanding why Lawrence's picture on TIME's cover is not fair use, you have not understood fair use at all. See my comments on

WT:RFAr. Johnleemk | Talk

04:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion should go on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• I just want to note, on this, that in looking over the deletion policy again there is currently no basis for speedying copyvio images (
  WP:CSD specifically allows speedying of blatant copyvio articles but not images). So I think whatever one thinks of the interpretations of fair use, speedying along this lines is well outside the bounds. Now I don't know if TBSDY was aware of this (for some reason, I had thought that images were speediable as copyvio), and I haven't seen anybody else mention it, but I've posted it around a little bit (we could also use a little boning up on WP:CSD now and then) so hopefully from this point forward it can be a matter of discussion in this instance (that is, I am not implying that it necessarily should be applied backwards in a punative manner). --Fastfission
  01:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wheel Warring - In progress?

I found the following sentence on the talk page of Catamorphism, and I think this is an attempt to organise a wheel war. Also this doesn't seem right, because I've tried talk on the talk page of

18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr has continued to revert the same low-quality version of parental notification repeatedly, and I don't want to violate 3RR. Please jump in. Alienus 18:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to post the alienus' accompaning comment from the summary bit - Parental notification call to action. Chooserr 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean User:Catamorphism? That girl has always been rude. Lapinmies 18:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have become involved in a situation on the articles

.

The first has been employing rather insulting and inappropriate language to further his arguments, see here for example. The latter of these, Them Medals, has been editing only for a day or two after the conflict started and has not made contributions other than supporting and replacing Medalstat's edits. I suspect him of being the same person as Medalstats. I have left a note on Medalstats userpage but he has not gotten back to me yet. I am unsure what to do short of becoming involved in a viscious circle of reverting each other's edits and I would appreciate an admin looking into it. Thank you for your time,--Kalsermar 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But he does have a point and makes sense. Lapinmies 18:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Using offending language and inserting POV statements without source only to make a point is having a point and making sense?--Kalsermar 19:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a compromise on the talk page: A column with the number of Olympics each country has particapated in. That way the point is made without adding POV edits like this county dominates that country.

Rx StrangeLove

19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see also here for today's latest personal attacks on me by User:Them medals. How best to deal with this without running afoul of 3RR myself?--Kalsermar 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Earthacademy showed up at the Uri Geller article claiming to be Geller's representative and added a bunch of ranting about "intellectual bigots" and so forth. I left a polite note about NPOV, legal threats, etc. but wanted to give everybody a heads up in case this escalates. Gamaliel 19:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the user is also 217.46.167.13 (talk · contribs). --cesarb 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Swedenman (contribs) has been involved in several edit wars and is at the moment removing other users' comments from his own talk page. User:Swedenman is identical with Filipman (contribs) on Swedish wikipedia. So far he has been blocked 8 times (sv:block log) for rabid edit wars and for abusing other wikipedians. Several users have vainly tried to reason with Swedenman. Probert 22:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Harry Potter and the Gold Fires (talk) has been adding the {{libel}} tag to several articles including Kelly Clarkson and Avril Lavigne. (See contributions) Since the account has only recently begun editing Wikipedia, it is possible that the person behind the nickname could be an indefinitely blocked user in an attempt at reincarnation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Account has already been blocked by Gamaliel for 24 hours. The user placed both {{WoW}} and {{MPS}} on his/her user page; I removed them but was tempted to actually block indefinitely for claiming to be those two vandals, but didn't. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I shall keep an eye on the situation. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the user chose to place the templates on his/her user page, they must be familiar with operating Wikipedia. Although I don't want to, I'm going to be placing their talk page on my watchlist for now, but I'm sincerely no fan of playing babysitter. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the latest in a loooong line of accounts from a vandal that some people call the Hotrocks vandal. His MO is to put provocative tags (NPOV, totally disputed, delete etc.) onto a range of articles. He particularly (dis)favours Girls Aloud (check out its history), and he clearly reads this page and ViP, as he often apes the vandalism of whomever is the vandal-of-the-moment. As with dozens of his other accounts, I've made the block permanent. He'll be back tomorrow (at around 10am). DOn't be surprised, incidentally, if he adds a fake apology to the mix once in a while. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Should this user account be indefinitely blocked then? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This account is blocked indefinitely, but he'll create another one. And another... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, well, we do what we have to do. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Woah, vandal-vandal war going on? I remember blocking
  Mailer Diablo
  01:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've blocked the 'Hotrocks' vandal using the HOSTS file on his user account, so he can't access Wikipedia! Problem solved! --Craig Whitford 13:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note that whoever Craig Whitford is, he is likely being almost completely ficticious, since the IP address he has also edited (and edited from) — User:82.42.237.114 &mdashh does not check out to being used across the whole United Kingdom as a shared IP: [69]. -Splash^talk 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [70], [71], [72], [73]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [74]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [75] and [76]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [77]. Onefortyone 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect

04:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation, I'd like another administrator more knowledgable in the Lightbringer case to let me know if the sockpuppet claim is true, in which case an indefinite ban is in order. Ral315 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to have a discussion with Megaman Zero about his editing of an "award" on his user page -- he had changed a weird "bicycle" award into first an exceptional newcomer award and then, in response to my talk, a series of motorcycles (?). He has also edited the post of the user who originally posted the award.

More seriously, he has turned to simply deleting my posts [78] [79] [80] from his talk page, as he does not seem to want to acknowledge the issue.

User:Prodego has also commented to Zero that what he's been doing amounts to forgery.

Just to be clear, I did edit Zero's user page twice [81] [82] to restore the original award; once along with my original post to his talk page and again after he first deleted my talk. This was what attracted Prodego to the issue.

I have again attempted to restore my comments to his talk page, but at this point expect him to simply delete them again. Please see:

in case he deletes my talk again. I'm done trying to have a talk with an American teenager about ethics, but hope that others will comment on his, and my, actions.

Thank you,

--Moby 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I urge both parties not to be a dick. Alphax ^τεχ 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Better? Thanks for the interesting link. --Moby 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Its okay. I will delete his post, and I will continue to delete it. It offended me, and furthrmore, is an false accusation on my intregrity. I don't tolerate trolling, especially when it deverges from the subject of the well-being of the encyclopedia. I made an in-depth expanatory thesis concerning this on my talkpage.

Moby Dick is most likely an nice chap, but he's taking this furthur than it needs be and the situation amounts to nothing. I've a mind to delete the whole conversation, as it amounts to nothing in concerns to the encyclopedia. I also decline to take advice from an user with an scat 100 edits who proceeds to accuse me of untrue fallacies. -

Talk

09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, altering another user's signed comment is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it was in Megaman's own talk page, not in an article discussion, and IMHO, User:Moby Dick will now see that he shouldn't edit anyone elses userpage without their permission aside from reverting vandalism. Hopefully these two can "shake hands" and this will end it.--MONGO 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how it matters whether the comment is on an article talk page or a user talk page. User's signed comments should not be altered, with the possible exception of obvious typographical errors which you can be fairly certain the user would not object to. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In one of my deleted posts to his talk page I stated that the misattribution was the crux of my complaint. I have already said to Prodego that I will not edit Zero's user page again. --Moby 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we can place this behind us and proceed to be on more friendly terms in the future. I was quite dissapointed to rub you the wrong way over something as nonsensical as this. I really hate to engage in concerns that don't involve the well-being of the encyclopedia, as well as offend others. That's silly. -

Talk

15:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You could help this by restoring my comments to your talk page. --Moby 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not. I cannot restore inflammatory content. -

Talk

11:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

diff --Moby 12:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Certainly I intend to go on deleting trollish and inflammatory discussion where it traduces the rpa policy or the civilty policy. What of it? I'm not in your club and I don't have to subscribe to its rules where they diverge from those of Wikipedia. -

Talk

14:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious what you meant by the American Teenager/ethics comment?

Rx StrangeLove

15:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In the course of reading his user and talk pages (including some of the history) it became obvious the Zero is a teenager and is an American. And it is my view that his actions — messing with an award as well as deleting my comments — are highly unethical, something I don't see much of in that group.

My original complaint to him was about his having obviously changed his user page to imply that a user had given him an "Exceptional Newcomer Award" when this, in fact, is not the case. It is also highly unethical of him to have repeatedly deleted ^{latest diff oldid} about half of my comments on this subject and gone on to post his own extensive spin on this both on his talk page and now here. --Moby 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's refering to my exhaustive thesis which I've copied over from my talkpage:

---

Amounts to forgery..? Oh this is just so much tosh. Take Moby Dick's conversation with me on my talk page:

• Moby Dick falsely accuses me of inappopriate liberties on my own userpage [83]. He tells me its okay to vandalize my web page under an act of honesty[84]. He seemed to have a problem. He wanted the award kept but he had thought up some process-based reason why he should replace it without asking me the true purpose of the substitution. A good, solid bureaucratic reason no doubt, but not a reason for him to decide. It appears to me, the exact opposite of what I thought was merited on an simple transmogrification for my preferences.

• I explained my view to him [85]--that I merely wished an better image of my own preference. I added some emphasis on the purpose of the fact it was my userpage and I withold the right to merely change an image. It was an incorrect fallacy to state I was claiming the newcomer award.

• He replied that he thought that that didn't matter and I was still claiming the award (hoo boy!) [86]. He raised a good point about me playing with captions as an motive for mischief. He said that he thought that this was nonsense (it isn't, and I think that it's significant to note that it wasn't even the intention he summerized). He said I playing around with award images amounts to "forgery" (duh!)

• I explained the true meaning of my transmogrification [87]. I corrected him on some points of fact (I find I have to do this a lot, it wasn't just the oringinal post). I edited my prior comment to fix an spelling mistake which he mocked me on as well. He also trollishly asked me if I recieved all my awards this way. This really is not an nice thing to do, but asssume good faith...

• I then proceed to remove the trollish comment [88]. Moby replied that he hadn't a clue what I was talking about and proceeds to replace it with another mockerous comment about an nice conversation [89]. He again tried to reason by incorrect analogy. He thought that any attempts to change images was wrong and therefore any attempt to sabotage my userpage would be justified, only to find himself reverted. Nice try, no banana [90]. He went on a bit. He said I didn't understand the meaning of an award.

But now Moby Dick seems to believe that we were just talking past another, and no serious discussion took place. He also seems to have mistakenly placed the management of my own user and talkpage as his own business. How odd. I believed that I had indicated that I understood his qualms and agreed with them, and that it had nothing to do with the encyclopedia, as well as any of his concern. -

13:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

-

15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the award, you either leave it on your talk page or you remove it completely. Changing the image is like painting gold over your silver medal and pretending you came first (to put an Olympic spin on it) or giving yourself a Barnstar award and trying to claim some "fame" off that. There's nothing wrong with removing an unwanted barnstar from your page (someone's done that with a barnstar I gave him), but there's everything wrong with changing that barnstar into something it's not. Maybe you should have asked the person who gave you that award to change it to something else, and letting that person do it. --Deathphoenix 16:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix needs to do his homework. I've already made an exhaustive summary of my intent which is almost the direct opposite. Could you please tell me how you came to your conclusion out of thin air..? Its quite baffling. I' m afraid you don't understand the situation at all. I merely changed an image. Its not an barnstar at all. It also not an attempt to change the award to an higher presitige of status. Please understand the entire situation before making utterly incorrect comments and accusations such as that in the future. -

Talk

16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine. No more comments from me about your actions in this regard, except for one. Sorry. --Deathphoenix 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe you had it right before you struck the above out; please see my above post and these: ^{latest diff oldid} --Moby 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Stirring words from an editor that has not constructed one edit to mainspace in the course of this entire ordeal [91]. I have explained my actions in full on the my talkpage and here. Please assume good faith; of course I'm not going to assume you are taking this to the extreme, though possibly somebody else will. Please get back to working on the encyclopedia and reflect on *why* exactly you are here. -

Talk

08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

--Moby 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! When I screw up, I don't sit around and wring my hands. In the meantime, I've more articles to write. -

Talk

14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get anywhere by adopting these antagonistic attitudes towards me or pursuing this nonsense. I'll certainly continue to assume good faith in regards to your actions, but I expect the same from all others involved. I'll not give this misled situation anymore of my time, and I humbly inquire the same of others. We're here to increase the productivity and educational value of the encyclopedia, not discuss kindergarden issues.

Your contributions in article space are quite noteworthy. Unfortunately, you are trolling, as exemplified by the actions you concern yourself so much with, and such actions are becoming far too common on Wikipedia, and they must die. I invite you back onto my user and talkpage with civilty and legitimite concerns in regards to the encyclopedia. Hopefully you will undoubtedly learn these in your experience here, and meanwhile you will, I hope, find time enough to construct more of your productive edits. I wish you the best.-

14:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

11:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Now permablocked, by

JesseW, the juggling janitor

06:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.158.53.200 Midgley 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ambi has been reverting my edits using the rollback function.

• I've had enough of this. As of now, I will rollback each and every single edit of yours unlinking dates. How much of your and my time you choose to waste in continuing to do so is up to you. Ambi 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Did you think I was kidding? Every unlinking you made today is gone. The same will happen every day until you actually start to talk and work towards some sort of compromise, rather than sticking up your middle finger at anyone who disagrees with you. Ambi 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• ...and again. Ambi 05:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also had to accept swearing from Ambi and from other admins. I not a prude and will survive, but it is not nice and it is almost certainly counter-productive to dispute resolution. Fortunately, only one side in the dispute engaged in bad language.

I am not sure when rollback started to be used by Ambi, or by any of the other editors that have disagreed with my edits. Wikipedia:Administrators says Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism, not even to reverse a mistake of your own making. Please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary.

She even started using rollback to remove my comments for user talk pages. Perhaps that was an error.

The issue of the edit content itself is being deal with elsewhere. Please do not regard this as a major complaint, I get the impression that Ambi is an experienced editor that is respected by many. I am merely asking for clarification so that everybody knows whether this powerful tool can be used like this in future. bobblewik 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins can revert just like anyone else, I don't see what possible difference it makes if someone uses three mouse clicks as opposed to one. Gamaliel 20:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

'Use rollback only against vandalism' is a generally useful simplification, but the real criterion is 'use rollback only where there's no need for an edit summary'. Ambi seems to me perfectly within her rights. Mark^{your words} 21:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing date links and there will be no problem. You have no consensus support to be doing what you're doing, and I suggest you stop, or you will be blocked from editing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave bobblewik permission to do whatever he is doing with the links if the articles are under my supervision (such as

Fair use policy

00:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, hasn't there been some stress recently toward not over-linking years, per

EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)

00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that suggestion. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously far from empty, yet user insists on reinserting {{db|empty}} even though it's not empty--64.12.116.65 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's far from empty because a set of users - in, by odd coincidence, your IP range - keep adding junk pages to it, by spamming templates and empty talkpages. I fear some

talk

| 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's uncommonly generous. I call it vandalism. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the current climate, a "Wikipedians X" category, people editing userbox templates, screaming about deletion... I assume they must be trying to prove something. I noted that one template hit was {{User:UBX/female}}, and got the reply "Oh great, just what we need, another rogue admin trying to delete harmless userboxes..." - yay! I never touched userboxes until tonight, and already I'm a rogue admin! 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning out anyone who was obviously added without their consent. Many of these additions are on user talk pages. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

After removing everyone who had been spammed in by that range of AOL IPs, the category was indeed empty, and I have thus speedy deleted it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The article on

21:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted

Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26

21:55Z

Thanks, much appreciated. - Nunh-huh 22:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This user has mentioned in his edit comments that he does not accept the license which all Wikipedia submissions must agree to. Perhaps this requires, for legal reasons, that all of his edits be reverted and the user blocked? Anyway, he's claiming to be

22:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been other editors who were permablocked for refusing to accept the license. He has no grounds for refusal and should be banned. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is hitting a massive attack of blanking right now. Six articles or so a secons, and a load of IPs. Obviously help is needed to contain it. Esteffect 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted a few dozen myself from half a dozen IPs. Someone has too much time on their hands (well, besides me). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 22:47

The attack was contained and cleaned up. Now we just need to go through the logs and extend short blocks, since these are all open proxies. //

talk

) 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I originally blocked for 1 week each but they should probably be extended if they're open proxies. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-26 22:56

I did the following, all indefinitely:

• 202.44.32.11
• 70.32.173.100
• 216.18.71.12
• 170.171.250.51

violet/riga (t) 22:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone needs an open proxy check, list them at

WP:OP and they'll be scanned and if open, blocked. Tawker

23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all the Squidward open proxy IPs are now permablocked. They are not all tagged as open proxies. David | Talk 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted and blocked User:59.26.117.103 for just a week. Please perma block this as well if appropriate. Martin 23:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A permablock is what the vandal, or vandals probably wants. Oh well. Have fun.

afist

23:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean IP's

The following were blocked as open proxies but are clean according to a proxyscan

• 82.210.160.234
• 80.95.106.173

NSlookup shows the first is from a Polish telephone company called Aster Website in Polish. The second is registered to a Czech IT company called logos English website. David | Talk 00:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses involved

The following list includes every IP address used by the vandalbot(s). These 72 addresses averaged about 19.5 edits each, totalling 1406. Many aren't

or closed but unsecure proxies. Note that some of these may not have been blocked yet.

Such attacks are quite useful in flagging compromised addresses, in my opinion.

//

) 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

All but one of the addresses are now blocked; roughly fifteen were either unblocked or blocked for a short period of time. One is a possible imitator attempting a denial of service to a shared address. //

talk

) 01:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Other IP's I blocked: Are these blocks correct?

The following is a list of IP's I blocked indefinitely. These were all involved in "squidward" vandalism, and I've blocked them on the assumption that they are open proxies, and that we want to block all open proxies. However, the "open proxie test" provided by the link seems to fail. I would like confirmation from others that these blocks are correct. By the way this list seems more or less disjoint from the above list, so I'm not sure why Pathoschild claims that his list "includes every IP address used by the vandalbot".

Paul August ☎ 21:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I specifically stated that "Many aren't

talk

) 08:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the above discussion was talking about a Suidward attack that occurred around seven hours earlier than the one I was dealing with. Thanks Pathoschild, for clearing that up. Anyway my primary concern was to make sure all my indefinite blocks were appropriate. I take it that you think they were? Actually I now see that User:Freakofnurture has unblocked/reblocked most of these (although I don't know why). Is there some recommended procedures for implementing these blocks for future attacks?

00:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Note:

emp | talk

04:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Note also

Chick Bowen

04:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Raymond Samuels" vandalism, posting of personal information and legal threats

See [93] and [94] and [95], and probably other examples.

This person (who, it should be noted, may not be the real-life Raymond Samuels) needs to be contacted by his ISP or the appropriate authorities. This needs to be handled by someone at Wikimedia. - Curps 06:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Still at it: [96]. -- Curps 19:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And again [97]. Obviously, any Wikipedian could contact his ISP (which appears to be Bell Sympatico, the largest ISP in Canada), but really there should be some "go to" person at Wikimedia who handles such cases and, crucially, can speak in the name of Wikipedia and not merely as a private individual. -- Curps 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Could a neutral admin please look at the closing for If defined and others? 4 keeps and 3 deletes and Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closes it as delete because he discounts my keep (and subsequent keeps by others) because he attributes bad faith to my keep explanation. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• If these are indeed meta templates, shouldn't the templates using it, be fixed BEFORE this is deleted? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • They were already orphaned; the problem is that they used to be used by other templates which were moved to less accessibility-friendly methods of row-hiding (they use CSS-based hacks which can spew out unintelligible crap to text-readers/screen-readers). The idea in keeping them around was so they could be consulted when I had time to go around and try to fix the templates that were moved to these CSS-based hacks. Regardless, it's wrong for him to impose his point of view over people who gave their point of view honestly in that debate. Further, he indicated he was using the result of this debate to decide whether or not to delete some other meta-templates. It's highly inappropriate for him to decide to ignore the results like he did. (Please note that
    WP:AUM is no longer policy and the issue with meta-templates causing server load has been largely dismissed by Brion). —Locke Cole • t • c
    12:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Deletion review is
      ^ask?
      17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, thanks.. God forbid this is something that could just be fixed since it's obvious. I'd better go use a process that requires seven days and a poll that requires a 3/4 super-majority to overturn the closing admins result. Good idea! —Locke Cole • t • c 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting review of MONGO's block of Striver. While I realize that several of Striver's edits have been odd and biased, I have the following objections to the block:

1. The gaming of the 3RR was of the making three reverts in 24 hours type, not the making four reverts in 25 hours type.
2. The block came five hours after Striver had finished editing the article.
3. One of the Striver's edits on the said article Cynthia McKinney was reverted by the blocking admin MONGO [98].
4. When I queried the validity of the block, it was in part justified by IAR.

Any thoughts? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In my blocking summary, I stated that gaming of 3RR was the reason...it is for many more reasons than that. Over the past two weeks I have received numerous complaints (19) in both my usertalk and in email about

September 11 2001 attacks article, where he floods the talkpage with the same nonsense over and over, threatnening to never go away and continuously reposts the same tired comments even though the clear concensus there is to not have any of it in article space. Most of the editors have simply gotten tired of his commentary and revert his "contributions". His behavior is disruptive to the point that it interferes with the ability of numerous editors to work on and enhance articles. He has created what accounts to an attack Wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild) (see also the discussion page of the Project [99]) that acts as a posting board to to protect his created articles from deletion. He has solicited other users in their talk pages to vote keep on his articles and he even posts links in at least one afd to another one of his articles under afd.--MONGO

11:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I just read

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. You're even more involved with the arguments with him that I'd seen from the other articles. Mongo, I really really think you need to recuse yourself. You are in the consensus majority on the talk page there, but you're obviously ridiculously not neutral on judging what Strider's doing right now. Georgewilliamherbert

11:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the 24 hour block is a nice way to handle the situation...there are at least 15 editors that are ready for arbitration and I think that to save everyone the process and a possible permanent banning of this editor, I have actually done him a favor and maybe appeased the appetites of many other editors that really want to see him banned for good. See also this edit from just a week and a half ago, where he tells all the other editors (in an article I have nothing to do with) "fuck you".--MONGO 11:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a great edit - David Gerard 12:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with David (again). I think that edit was highly incivil. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you agree with me. I meant that it was a superlatively bad example. (I should be clearer.) See also the several other mentions of Striver on this page; an RFAr may well be in order, but I personally suspect based on similar cases that the arbcom will simply say "reject, just block the abusive fool" - David Gerard 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the block. This editor is disruptive, and Wikipedia is

not a platfor for tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theories, as information must be verifiable. David, since you have CheckUser access, why not run a CU on him and see if we can't catch him using a sock? Blocking him for using a disruptive sockpuppet is much more straightforward than blocking him for controversial edits. Hexagonal

14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think CheckUser works that way. You must have a specific and good reason to suspect a sockpuppet before you can use it. Otherwise, using it is intrusion upon the contributor's anonymity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly and possibly not, and not at all. Revealing information from one might be - David Gerard 14:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: seeing multiple names from an IP is not by itself evidence of sockpuppetry in violation of policy, particularly if someone uses IPs on

DHCP. Almost all sock checks are because of a suspicion of sockpuppetry based on edit patterns; an IP check is just additional evidence. (e.g. in some cases, if an IP check appeared to show no match, I would suspect a change of ISP or the use of an open proxy rather than that two different editors having the same distinctive pattern.) "CheckUser is not magical wiki pixie dust" - me. - David Gerard

15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you see other accounts coming in from the same IP, and they show similar editing patterns, then can't they be blocked as disruptive sockpuppets? Hexagonal 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They can. The problem is in spotting the similar editing patterns; in general, Checkuser is only going to be useful as the final nail in a case that's already nearly strong enough to get someone blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry. Out of curiosity, does Checkuser as it's set up now allow us to cast a 'wide net' and check who has ever edited from a given IP or IP range? I was under the impression that it just allowed people to see IPs of one user at a time, and that they had to do all the other footwork themselves. --Aquillion 00:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While it will be a welcome break today from discussions on

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, I think that someone other than MONGO should have blocked and that arbitration is the way to go. With 11,000+ edits over the past year, I don't think this is a case of sockpuppets (though, you never know). --Aude (talk | contribs

) 14:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I never expected my action to be popular but I stand by it. I am NOT one to act unilaterally in situations and had Sjakkalle overturned my block I would not have reverted him. I have to agree with the comment of David Gerard that arbcom will just say to block him...the time span of the block will be the question, for as --Aude has brought up, the editor has 11,000 plus edits and I can't possibly imagine they have been all as disruptive as many of the ones I have seen over the last few weeks. I am especially worried that two other complaints that I wasn't aware of have been posted here in the last week, unrelated to my interactions with this editor. [100], [101].--MONGO 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This has just come up on wikien-l as well: [102][103]. I am personally inclined to suggest "bad MONGO, did not touch third base, no biscuit" and prescribe a calm edit elsewhere far away from Striver and possibly a nice cup of tea - you can be sure his every move will be watched like a hawk for a little while - David Gerard 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the best edit I've ever seen on Wikipedia. --Golbez 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I haven't blown a gasket...I don't get mad...in all sincerity, I'm hoping this editor returns to the "fold" and quickly reconstitutes to where he was in terms of quality editing a few weeks ago. I had word that arbitration was imminent and hoped that a break for all would maybe lessen the chances of this happening...oh well.--MONGO 15:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you get a calm thermos of tea to take out onto the field while you dust off third base and polish it nicely ;-p - David Gerard 16:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you get a suitable wifi-enabled device. Anything with Palm Web Browser 3.0 or greater should be eminently usable - David Gerard 16:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not as experienced with such debates and Arbcom, I think maybe Striver would/could be banned, for some time period, just from editing articles including/related to

citing sources. I think it's worth it for Arbcom to take up the case, consider all these factors, and hopefully come up with a solution other than an outright indefinate ban from all editing. --Aude (talk | contribs

) 16:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be for the best, yes - David Gerard 16:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe MONGO's block was somewhat out of process because he was "involved" in the dispute, but the block was clearly justified so I think there's not much reason to get upset here. I would like to echo a reminder to MONGO that in the future, he should ask a neutral admin to look at the situation; because heck, in a case like this, it shouldn't be hard to find an admin who is willing to block anyway. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm the editor Striver was cussing out and I've continually butted head with him over his edits to Islam-related articles. That said, I think Mongo was unfair to Striver in imposing the ban. Striver hadn't broken the 3RR rule yet and there is no explicit rule against creating a flood of articles supporting one's position -- though I wish there were. Mongo should have recused himself, as he seems to have been protecting HIS edits against Striver's conspiracy theories.

However, I must add that Striver has been a disruptive editor wherever he goes, and that his many edits do not reflect a substantive contribution to WP. His English (a second language) is atrocious and his reading limited to what he can google. He creates useless stubs with abandon and all too many of his articles clog the AfD process. He doesn't seem to know how to work WITH other editors, or how to compromise, and is prone to grandiose schemes and unilateral reorganizations without prior consultation. While I intially welcomed his input (he was one of the first of the Shi'a editors to challenge a Sunni consensus in the Islam-related articles) I have since despaired at his attempts to turn Wikipedia into Shi'apedia. He seems to thrive on conflict (much of which he creates) and feelings of persecution. He never questions his contribution to the controversies in which he is constantly embroiled, but attributes all criticism to bigotry and hatred of the Shi'a, or resistance to his conspiracy theories.

I get the feeling that he is young and might, perhaps, develop into a useful editor. I don't know how to curb him without banning him. One step might be to revoke his privilege to create articles. Any other ideas? Zora 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I want to register a general complaint about the way 9/11 conspiracy articles are being treated right now. Hexagon's comment above, about WP:NOT tinfoil hat club, is the problem. The 9/11 conspiracy articles aren't notable and worthwhile because they're correct. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories, and have worked actively to disprove Prof Cole's analysis for example. However, these theories are notable because they are contrarian and widely held. Widely held beliefs do not have to be correct, or truthfully verifyable, in order to be notable. Religions are not factually verifyable, nor conspiracy theories such as

. All of those are notable. Clearly, enough people believe that something is hidden about 9/11 that it's a notable field.

A whole lot of 9/11 conspiracy related articles which have been around for a while are suddenly being AfD'ed, which is what started this argument off. This seems to have started with

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

, a second AfD within nine days of the close of the first, which was a keep.

Hexagon's attitude is all too common in what's happening here. It's tinfoil hat conspiracy, ergo it is junk and should be deleted. The number of editors voting to flat out delete stuff rather than cleanup or merge, and are outright stating beliefs similar to Hexagon's, is a majority of the Delete votes.

I do not believe there are conspiracies as in the conspiracy theories. I don't believe there's a conspiracy to delete conspiracy articles. I do believe that there's a lynch mob forming which is unreasonably nuking 9/11 conspiracy articles rather than seeking a NPOV consensus on what's notable and what isn't. I do believe Striver's initial reaction to add material to support claims was good. I believe he's gone past reasonable into

WP:POINT

of late. The anti-conspiracy-article lynch mob doesn't make his actions right.

But his actions don't make the lynch mob right, either. Without comment on the articles he's created since the AfD wars started, the older articles seem to me to be close to NPOV presentation of legitimate notable collections of opinion and people's work on their beliefs that there were 9/11 conspiracies. If there are too many articles or they aren't neutral enough, those are OK points to make on talk pages and work through normal processes on edits, merges, redirects and the like. This collection of events has strained and abused the AfD system, and it's now being used to attempt to enforce by mob rule an exclusionary centrist point of view.

Wikipedia process should not be used to whitewash an issue which a lot of people feel legitimately and deeply is real. One does not need to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories to understand that there are a lot of adherents, and that they are notable and significant as a result. One can even vehemently disagree with the conspiracy theories and still feel that they're clearly notable.

Striver's getting the short end of the stick here, because I believe that he's the representative of the small minority who do believe those theories, and he's both a capable and energetic enough editor to singlehandedly work the process to try and get them represented fairly. And in diong so is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. He's reacting unreasonably to the lynch mob events now (shame on him), but those acts are in my opinion equally abusive of WP policy and goals (shame on all of you).

If instead of one Striver, we had ten legitimate other 9/11 conspiracy believers collectively making the same set of arguments and edits Striver has, we would not be having this conversation here and the AfDs would have stopped. This would be going for consensus on talk pages.

Lots of people believe some aspect of the conspiracy theories; see the various news reports (including archived at Zogby) on the Zogby poll of New Yorkers from last summer, in which nearly half of New Yorkers believed there was some type of coverup regarding 9/11. 49% of New Yorkers may be wrong, but 49% of New Yorkers is notable.

Striver may be the wrong person to carry this forward to a reasonable NPOV consensus given how things have gone with how he's reacting and how people see it, but I believe that the current lynch mob behavior very strongly should not stand as the final word. Georgewilliamherbert 21:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

George...at the top of this page, it clearly states "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes. Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content."--MONGO 22:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need an RfC on the whole set of issues. However, I haven't got time to start one this week. This seemed better than not saying anything, as long as the comment ended up being. Georgewilliamherbert 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"A whole lot of 9/11 conspiracy related articles which have been around for a while are suddenly being AfD'ed" That's not the case. It isn't the older articles that are up for deletion; it's just Striver's flood of recent creations. Striver has usefully contributed in the past. If he'd stop disruptively pushing his viewpoint, he could again. I think a cooling off period will do him (and the rest of us) good, if he will take advantage of it. I support Mongo's block. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I recalled the

Scholars article dating back to last year, but on review of its history it was initally created by SkeenaR on 6 Feb 2006. I sit corrected. That said, that article is not a Striver created article; it dates back to before this all started, was created by someone else, and his first edit of it seems to have been 3 days ago. This article's multiple deletion nominations, the first by MONGO and the second by Aaron, seem to be what provoked the small tidal wave of other articles from Striver as he attempted to put a better framework into place linking the various 9/11 conspiracy theory players. Cause, effect... Georgewilliamherbert

23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's part of it, and the AfD for 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth' was probably inappropriate. But I think the cause of all this was Striver's desire to

rename September 11, 2001 attacks to 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk

23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As one of the early AFD'ers, I will say my motivation was from reading the talk page for

September 11, 2001 attacks, seeing his flailing at windmills, and then attempt to back up the notability of believers of his theory....by creating articles for them. That was my motivation. I've restricted my editing of conspiracy theories to keeping snide comments and other vandalism off the main page, and have been content to let the conspiracy theorists run their own articles, but the rampant creation of articles for not very notable individuals was the trigger for me. I have no doubt that from his perspective, Robert M. Bowman appears to have an impressive resume, but as an American I recognize him for being a hack and an also-ran misrepresenting his awards and accomplishments. My attempts to correct him on the matter were not taken very well, as you can see on that article's talk page. --Mmx1

04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, conspiracy theories are prevalent, but that doesn't mean they can be included in the encyclopedia as fact. Stating that some researchers have issues with the current explaination of events is NPOV and verifiable. Stating that x% of people have reservations about an official explaination is NPOV and verifiable. Stating conspiracy theories within the article as possible fact is not, and in my opinion, should be governed by

WP:HOAX

. Please refer to the following two statements:

"Wikipedia requires articles to be verifiable. The burden is on the article author to prove the claims in the article"

"Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes. That is completely different than an article presenting the subject as truth. Hoaxes must be notable to be described by Wikipedia . for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years."

Unless you can substantiate these theories with concrete, verifiable facts, then they need to be relegated to a page concerning 9/11 conspiracy theories, in the context that certain theories by certain people have received widespread media attention. There are tons of gaps in facts concerning the JFK assassination, but we certianly don't list every conceivable explaination within the article. Rather, we present readers with the fact that some scholars and experts believe that the official explaination is incomplete, and offer the reader a link to investigate further. Including text of conspiracy theories and/or hoaxes within the context of the article lends them more credence than they deserve under the verifiability policy. Hexagonal 23:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

 :

"The group believes..."

"Their conclusion is based on the results of their own scientific and political research."

"These experts contend that..."

"They believe that..."

I believe from the edit history that Striver put that content in, with the neutral POV phrasing. As a severe critic of conspiracy theory factual conclusions, I agree with Striver's phrasing as being neutral and a fair representation that these are the group's own opinions and beliefs, not established consensus fact. Georgewilliamherbert 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I will follow
  Aaron
  00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification: I don't think I said it was your second nomination, I said it was the second nomination. I can't find anywhere that I stated it was you doing it twice (if I did, I apologize, it wasn't). You're correct that it was NC. It was kept, as is normal after a NC, but it was a NC (roughly 14/12/3 delete/keep/merge or other by quick count). I sit corrected. Georgewilliamherbert 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, no, I don't mean that I thought you said I made both nominations; I just wanted to make clear that it wasn't nomination #2 (which happened to have been made by me) that was the beginning of this whole mess. There were already several other 9/11 articles in AfD at that time, and at least two more that were heading in that direction (via talk page discussions and {{
  Aaron
  05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Been following some of Striver's article creations and his interactions on the 9/11 Conspiracy theories and similar pages. What I've noticed is that Stiver is an energetic advocate for his positions, engaged on multiple fronts. Yes, he strays into POV-land often, but not because he's trying to deliberately mislead anyone -- it's born from his perspective. Stiver and I are on opposite ends of most political debates, and I have voted for deletion of several of his articles, but his voice is valuable here. Sometimes when someone gets the notice of one administrator, a kind of piling-on occurs, often with the subsequent commentators jumping in with little or no information. The guy is not perfect, but he's valuable nonetheless because he represents an obviously non-Western editing perspective. I implore you to grant him some grace and ease up, despite his infractions. We are all learning here. Thanks.

01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"strays into POV-land often"`? Can i have a single example of me straying into POV land? Thanks. --Striver 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The situtation on this article is out of control. There is a great exchange of personal attacks such as here, and little discussed has anything to do with changes on the article. Also some people (such as user:THOTH) only contributes to the talk page and overal only taunt others.

A massive flushing is necesary. Please assist. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, that page is out of control. Someone who is familiar with the history of the dispute needs to take this situation to WP:RFCU immediately, and get those socks out of the system. Hexagonal 18:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This user has been making personal attacks [104] , removing speedy tags from nonsense articles he's created [105], blanking an AFD page for another of his articles, [106], and generally making a nuisance of him/herself. -- Vary | Talk 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. I may extend to indefinite after I go through the rest of their contributions.

Chick Bowen

18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now blocked this account indefinitely, since all edits were vandalism, attacks, or other disruption. Please review. Thanks.

21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis has a strong aversion to the results of professor R. J. Rummel's research, that democracy decreases the risk of war and mass murder. See for example this old edit summary: "Revert from incomplete inaccurate and dishonest piece of Rummel-worship" [107]

He now insists that the talk page of the article about R. J. Rummel should continue to have accusations of him being a Fascist. He also insists on keeping a long section making many very serious accusations against Rummel's scholarly research. All of these accusations are original research. The relevant sections are "Rummel->Freedomist->Libertarian F*****t?"[108] and "John Grohol" on the talk page [109].

I have suggested that these things should be archieved and commented them out. He has opposed and reverted this.[110][111]

Septentrionalis has on the page itself inserted a template stating that "Criticisms of and controversial statements by Rummel are systematically suppressed". and linked to my attempts to comment out the Fascist accusations and the original research accusations.[112]

As such, I request that Septentrionalis should be briefly blocked or warned to not continue these accusations in Wikipedia against a living person.Ultramarine 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To be accurate:

• Until today, there was one section on Talk:R. J. Rummel which twice used the word "facist" [sic], once in Libertarian facist? and once in Ultramarine's outraged response.
  • I produced neither of these; I can spell Fascist.
  • The matter has now been discussed, so it now also appears in the discussion.
• Ultramarine has used this to three times comment out extensive sections of the Talk page
  • first blanking
  • second blanking
    • The other blanked paragraphs have nothing to do with "Facism". They are critical of the article, and of Rummel's theories. Ed Poor's post is specifically and solely critical of the article, and those flaws have never been mended.
  • Third blanking
    • This time Ultramarine only commented out the offending paragraph, and today's discussion. But blanking of whole sections is still unacceptable, especially since the paragraph contains other matter.
• I did revert these blankings.
• The only claims of original research are Ultramarine's, justifying removal of criticism of Rummel from the article R. J. Rummel.
• I replaced one use of "Facist" with F*****t, although this seems to be touching the edge of
  WP:NOT
  . This is a talk-page, after all.

I am genuinely puzzled by the charge that anyone has accused Rummel of OR. As far as I know, he is not a Wikipedian; and professors are supposed to be original.

Am I right in thinking that this blanking of whole paragraphs from a talk page is at least close to vandalism? Which vandalism page would be the relevant authority? Septentrionalis 19:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC) revised 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. I believe Ultramarine was acting under something like our

Chick Bowen

22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief for the sake of the administrators. User:Jacrosse has engaged in highly uncooperative behavior since coming to Wikipedia last year. The last straw for me was the first of the bullet points below:

• Has been removing {{NPOV-section}}, {{dubious}}, and other dispute tags from articles. Examples: [113] [114]. He does this despite being warned on his user talk page [115] and on the articles' talk pages [116].

He claims that dispute tags are POV [117] and therefore he has a right to remove them.

• User has done similar reversions when people attempt to remove disputed material until disputes can be resolved (examples: [118] [119]). He is bordering on 3RR/edit wars on some pages.
• User brazenly inserts POV and irrelevant/questionable facts onto pages, usually concerning Trotskyism and Neoconservatism (on one article, he goes so far as to use the obviously un-MoS term "uber-neocon" [120]). When asked to cite sources or discuss, he gives curt answers or gives sources that don't state anything relevant to his claims. He also deletes relevant information, attacking other editors' writing style etc. in the edit summaries. Warnings from other users abound on user's talk page.
• User has also engaged in uncivil attacks on talk pages, examples of which are rampant on the Talk:Neoconservatism page. Has been warned on his talk page by an administrator.

The user has been blocked before for his unwillingness to listen. Mediation is pending on at least one of the pages that he's removing dispute tags from, so I'm really losing patience fast. I think a warning shot to Jacrosse (perhaps a 24-hour block) would suffice for the time being. I'd appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks --

18:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

203.122.217.41 (talk · contribs) has been making various edits on the wiki since yesterday, of which some appear to be harassing other users. The IP seems to be identifying itself as User:Zordrac (see, for example, [121]), which is a banned sockpuppet of a banned user. I'm not 100% sure what the appropriate response is—the IP looks static, though, so I suspect a good long block is the right answer—so I'll leaving dealing with this to someone else. -- SCZenz 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

He is also blanking warnings [122] and encouraging editors to visit

Rx StrangeLove

21:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave the IP a short block.

Rx StrangeLove

22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have recently been informed of the policy to not include any personal information. I have subsequently removed all references to any real people in various talk pages. These are at User talk:Caster Troy and at Talk:Download Festival. I have been told that I should inform on this page so that the appropriate action can be taken to permanently remove this information from the archives. Masud 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

) 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. Most of their useful article contributions seem to be minor corrections. Consistent with troll behavior. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Naja Haje (talk · contribs) appears to be a compromised account. I have blocked that account indefinitely until this issue can be resolved. --Ixfd64 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Create Userbox User is Barelvi KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)