Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84

At present, Wiktionary is carrying a message saying "AOL users are presently blocked from editing Wiktionary pending contact from AOL. We apologize for the inconvenience. For more information please visit the IRC channel.". And it's not April 1. -Splash^talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad rubbish, we should block them on enwiki as well.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to our article, AOL serves nearly 24 million subscribers. Whatever may be the difficulties encountered in dealing with sundry AOL users, the suggestion that they are categorically (or even generally) "bad rubbish" is wholly preposterous. Joe 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't, it wouldn't be true if AOL would actually deal with their delinquent users but since AOL doesn't give a fuck many many many AOL users run rampant and commit huge amounts of vandalism to the point where it starts to become mind boggling.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that AOL subscribers are inherently worse netizens than individuals who use other ISPs. The problem is the proxy server system that AOL uses, where a single individual in a single session will appear to come from a new AOL IP address with each successive edit. This makes it extraordinarily inconvenient to deal with a vandal from AOL, because we cannot block them effectively without blocking all of AOL. In contrast, editors through most other ISPs will tend to have at least a semi-static IP address which makes it possible to block troublemakers without causing collateral damage to other editors.

Additionally, the rapidly changing (apparent) IP of each editor probably makes it very difficult for AOL (if they wanted to) to associate specific edits with a specific real-world individual. This in turn hampers one of our last-resort options in dealing with vandals—contacting an ISP to get them disconnected. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but it's great for file sharing, AOL couldn't associate a client with any specific ip, even if a court told them to, lawsuits are virtually impossible! oh wait, that has nothing to do with this--64.12.116.65 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• also, someone really should tell them that the 172.x.x.x users behave like normal static ips, so they dont need to be range blocked, same for AOl canada ip ranges, i think--64.12.116.65 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Requireing them to log in would not be blocking the 24 million users, I think we should make them log in. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• At eBay in the early days, there was a similar problem with AOL, not just because of the IPs, but because AOL not only allows but encourages members to have multiple accounts -- and the promiscuous way in which AOL hands out accounts (how many AOL CDs can one person use?) compounded the problem. This was the source of a lot of the rules eBay had to develop on the fly -- for example, a list of domains from which eBay membership required further identification in the form of a credit card. This became onerous enough for AOL users that it was likely part of the reason AOL and eBay started collaborating on various levels, in particular user validation; my guess is that AOL based eBay users were numerous enough that their complaints to both companies caught AOL management's attention (eBay was aware of the problem almost from the very start.) Unfortunately, the only way this maps onto Wikipedia is to require registration with a validated email address from editors from AOL. Which isn't a bad idea; yes, it's making special rules for AOL users, but so what? AOL's overly trusting IP usage policy makes it necessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

so much for the egalitarian promise of wikipedia...

If you want open anonymous editing get a real ISP. Ashibaka tock 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is curious, I RC Patrol en.wikt and vandalism was cut by at least a third when AOL was restricted access. We've brought in a policy that should let us block AOL users instead of their proxy server, eventually it might be a good idea for WP -- Tawker 09:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw out a suggestion, anyone editting from the IP range of the AOL proxies to provide a valid AOL username. Of course, this would require participation from the AOL management. In any case, does Wikipedia have enough clout to get TPTB at AOL to work with us? -- llywrch 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

God Himself doesn't have enough clout to get AOL to cooperate. --Carnildo 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI,

I have received two emails stating:

  Someone (probably you, from IP address 204.111.91.40)
  requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org.

I am not this IP address, I don't know if it is someplace that could possibly snoop on the reply messages and try to pirate my account. But I have not noticed any unauthorized activity in my account. That IP is apparently involved in activity posting messages at this site. at this site: [1]

I report this in case this is just one sympton of more extensive activity?--Silverback 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

204.111.91.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) they havent been editing, but that doesnt mean alot... Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean they haven't been editing while not logged in. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• This has happened to me a few times. Usually it's after dealing with vandalism. In retribution, the vandals try to get my password. However, all clicking that "E-mail new password" button will do is send you a message alerting you to the attempt, and of course it includes the IP address of the person responsible. Thus the messages you received. I guess it's technically an attempt to hack into your account, but it's a very amateurish one. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  I too received such an email, indicating IP address 216.239.124.38. What is confusing is that looking at this user's contributions shows no article that I recall ever looking at, let alone editing / reverting. Might this indicate a DoS attempt or some other nefarious activity? Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Colin McLaughlin for one month for egregious personal attacks. Other admins may wish to review this action. See Special:Contributions/Colin_McLaughlin and User talk:Colin McLaughlin. David | Talk 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation: Colin McLaughlin has contributed for about two weeks and has made some valid edits to athletics articles. The edit summary you warned him for was definitely over the line, and his response to the warning even more so. His continuation to use abusive edit summaries on the Ken Livingstone article definitely warrants a block. I would perhaps have made the block shorter for a first time offense, a week perhaps, but I don't think that a month is unreasonable either. Since this editor has made some valid contributions earlier, I suggest that he be unblocked if he is prepared to apologize. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems harsh given that multiply blocked serial vandals like SPUI have admins wheel warring over reducing a one week block for edit warring over the insertion of nosnense to an article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Say what? Are you quite sure you know the details of the SPUI case? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would not have blocked such a new user for a month, although I agree his conduct was very poor and definitely warranted a block. However, given his reaction to your block, I don't think he's at all willing to change, and the result would've been the same, whether the block was one day, one week, one month or indefinite. I wouldn't have done it, but I can't see that you done wrong, either. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I worked out the block length by starting at one week given the nature of the comments, then considering as aggravating factors his refusal to apologise and general statements of disconnectedness from Wikipedia (which is particularly serious, because it so easily leads into major vandalism). A slight mitigating factor was that his worst remarks were in edit summaries rather than in articles. That all ended up with the one month. Naturally if he apologises or asks to make constructive edits again, it will be commuted to time served, and I may reduce to one week anyway if it would encourage him to be helpful. David | Talk 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[The following comment was unfortunately removed by User:Rschen7754 here, presumably as an accidental consequence of the server fubar we seem to be experiencing. I'm reinserting it. Bishonen talk 00:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC).] No, having the worst remarks in edit summaries isn't a mitigating factor at all. Edit summaries are the worst place for personal attacks, because they stick harder than article text does, and that's why Wikipedia:No personal attacks says that "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." It all sounds rather abstract and bloodless without illustrative examples, so here are a couple of the edit summaries at Ken Livingstone: "I see the jewboys are busy determining the shape of this page. No great surprise there!" And a few minutes later: "Instantly, a 'no personal attacks' warning. You can't pick on the jewboys. No way." Me, I'd have permablocked. Possibly, on a good day, pending an abject apology. Don't reduce your block, a month's fine. Bishonen talk 22:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 08:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

New day, new SPUI page move block... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked, in lieu of someone more familiar with the ongoing situation reviewing the all-too similar circumstances that lead to the bot-block. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting kinda routine, isn't it? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This is truly astonishing. User:SPUI is on probation. "[A]dministrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes." Would someone like to try to explain how mass controversial page moves executed unilaterally without consensus do not qualify as "provocative edits"? Is there anyone who will suggest that this page, along with hundreds of others, has not been "disrupted"? Why is he being routinely unblocked? Why do so many admins seem so determined to act as his enablers? --phh 19:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks by the bot are routinely removed unless the page moves are vandalism. It's part of the tacit agreement that allows the bot to run. While SPUI's moves may not be a good idea, they are not vandalism and as such it is inappropriate to leave the block from the bot in place. If someone else should wish to block him on other grounds, that would be quite another matter. I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation to do so myself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I see

no consensus, only groupthink. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!

) 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, I do not see a consensus to move. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but he also had no consensus to move the other way from where the articles originally were. So here we are at square one again. with half wanting it one way and half the other. Maybe we should have articles at both places. Because I see no solid consensus developing for either position.JohnnyBGood 22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I saw at [2], the article did not have brackets until early March of this year, then that is when the whole move-war began. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. SPUI took it apon himself to move the whole state's worth of articles without discussion and when oppposition arrived and tried to move back so discussion could occur before there was a mass move he began the revert war. However in the interim discussion has now stopped and both sides have dug in and aren't budging. JohnnyBGood 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article naming revert-warring needs to be taken to an RFC now. I request that other administrators join me in enforcing blocks for further move-warring until this thing is dealt with in the appropriate manner. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a current discussion at

Talk:State Route 2 (California), in which it's about half-and-half. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!

) 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Again as I said... getting us nowhere really. There is a majority for California State Route XX but it's not at the 60-70% level. I'm open to suggestions. As I said before perhaps two articles one at CSRXX and one at SRXX(CA) would be the way to go. That way they can have their less informative infobox and their desired page name and we could have the same.JohnnyBGood 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that will work, since anyone can come in and just redirect, causing this whole mess again. I agree with Cyde, send this to RFC now. Not as a person v person, but as the article issue as a whole. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a Mediation Cabal case open but no mediator yet since there is a huge backup. I would have done a RFC but have been reluctant to do so- should this be moved? Also, to make sure everyone understands, if anyone begins to move pages relating to California State Routes, they will be blocked, am I correct? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, move it to RFC and yes, anyone who moves anything related to the pages will be blocked. This applies to everyone. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the same token SPUI has been doing mass conversions of {{routeboxca2}} to {{Infobox CA Route}} without consensus, and a major edit war is developing regarding this. Could we make any conversions from {{routeboxca2}} to {{Infobox CA Route}} or the other way around a blockable offense? (For only the users involved- if there's a user who has no clue and changes the infobox then they're not included). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Disruption is a blockable offense. Edit wars over so many articles is disruptive. I take this to allow such blocks. Ral315 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am rewriting and expanding articles (I just did

State Route 90), and will redo the infoboxes as part of that. I will not however go through and edit articles just to change the infoboxes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!

) 10:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if I do any adding to articles and happen to update the article back to routeboxca2 in the process would you object? SPUI please refrain from editing the routeboxes at all during this cool down. It will just start the war over again and you know it. Wait until there is consensus one way or the other to modify the article names or routeboxes any further then they already have been.Gateman1997 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI has started moving pages again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, four pages right now. Maybe more later. The discussion on

Talk:State Route 2 (California) ended with no consensus for the incorrect names, so it's time to fix them. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!

) 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And we've all been ordered not to move any until a consensus is reached. You're now eligible for a block.Gateman1997 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 35 (moved Talk:California State Route 35 to Talk:State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 35 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 35 to Talk:State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 35 (moved California State Route 35 to State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 35 (California) (moved California State Route 35 to State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 15 (moved Talk:California State Route 15 to Talk:State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 15 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 15 to Talk:State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 15 (moved California State Route 15 to State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 15 (California) (moved California State Route 15 to State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 9 (moved Talk:California State Route 9 to Talk:State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 9 (moved California State Route 9 to State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 9 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 9 to Talk:State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 9 (California) (moved California State Route 9 to State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 1 (moved Talk:California State Route 1 to Talk:State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 1 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 1 to Talk:State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 1 (moved California State Route 1 to State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]
13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 1 (California) (moved California State Route 1 to State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

Blocked for an hour until another admin can review the situation here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this got removed from the page, but I've banned SPUI from making any transportation-related page moves for 48 hours (expiring 22:00 UTC on March 28). Ral315 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(moved from

as it's a current problem)

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>	
To: [email protected]
Date: 25-Mar-2006 09:29
Subject: New subscription request to list CheckUser-l from [email protected]

Your authorization is required for a mailing list subscription request
approval:

   For:  [email protected]
   List: [email protected]

At your convenience, visit:

   http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/admindb/checkuser-l

to process the request.

*splutter* - David Gerard 11:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And he just tried a password request from every admin on Uncyclopedia. Well done! He's been long blocked there too, for uploading porn, and I've blocked his IP for a month from Uncyclopedia. I've done so preemptively on Wikipedia too, because he's clearly in the mood for trashing stuff. I wonder what other wikis he's going to hit - David Gerard 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lirpedia? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WNwiki? (not worksafe) The wiki where wall to wall goatseing is an improvement? - David Gerard 17:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

user:JarlaxleArtemis was previously banned permanently for attacks on editors on a variety of Wikis. He was unbanned in November 2005 on the urging of user:Linuxbeak conditional on certian requirements, including mentoring parole, apologies to harmed users, and turning over the passwords of doppelganger accounts that he had created. Because he never fulfilled those requirements he has been blocked, though he seems to be making some effort at meeting them, even while claiming he was never guilty of the allegations and has already completed the requirements. If this new act of mischief can be traced to him I propose that either his permanent banning, or the one-year banning originally pending at the ArbCom be re-instated on the grounds that this is a gross violation of his parole. -Will Beback 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This contributer has been vandalizing my user page with his lawnchair buisiness links for what seems like forever now. Could admin please put a stop to this.Biker Chick 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention his borderline offensive username.Biker Chick 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked and that user name does not exist. I will see if the name is spelt differently on your talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything at all: the first edit this account made was to this posting here. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can do here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys blind? It's right there! Right next to the panda bear link.Biker Chick 06:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean open your friggin eyes!Biker Chick 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This user was spamming WP, so I issued an indef block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this got removed during one of yesterday's server burps:

Looks like the return of User:Robot Builder. In future, if I encounter more such trolling, I will be removing the entire thread from ANI. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tonight I reverted an edit from Eleemosynary (talk · contribs) on Snakes on a Plane as unsourced and unverifiable. It was an edit claiming the entire movie was a hoax, sourced by a blog article. As blogs are generally not considered acceptable sources, I removed the disputed section. I noted that it had already been removed by another user once before. In my edit sumamry I explained my actions. Eleemosynary reverted back, claiming my blanking was vandalism. I removed the material once again, and brought it to the users talk page, asking that they kindly don't refer to my edits as vandalism (assuming good faith), and explained why I did what I did. The user then came onto my talk page with a condescending and rude, uncivil tone. Here are some quality excerpts:

"Your unilateral blanking of the section is very close to vandalism. Apparently, you need reminding of it."
I then asked them not to come back to my talk page with an uncivil tone. I was greeted with this:
"I'll come "here" in any tone I choose. Your blanking without explaining why on the talk page was a moronic move, and you've been called on it. Deal with it. I'll get my source, restore what you blanked, and you'll still be a... hey, you might want to check WP:DICK too."
I asked again for them not to come back to my talk page with an uncivil tone. I received
"I give as good as I get."
I then added the {{subst:Civil1}} tag to their talk. Note this entire time I've maintained a civil tone and explained all of my actions, and been greeted with nothing but hostility. The user then goes and copies the same civility warning to MY talk page. Now I can't delete it, as that would be vandalism in itself, so I struck it and added a comment about it.

Eleemosynary is obviously trying to make a point over their reverted edit. This is disruptive behavior, and I'm requesting some action be taken, whether its a warning from an admin, or anything beyond that (I think a warning would be appropriate).

09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester sent me the oh-so-civil "WP:DICK" item before I sent it back to him. Kind of detracts from the "civil tone" he claims to have exhibited all along. I welcome a review of the entire exchange between us, especially contrasted with the spin Swatjester is currently trying to put on it. Eleemosynary 11:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment on the user's talk page inviting them to discuss calmly and review the

talk

) 09:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It sure did a lot of good Pathoschild. Copied from their talk

"No problem at all. I just read "Swatjester's" little incident report, in which he has selectively edited our correspondence to place him in the best possible light, so that he may pose as a victim. Such disingenuousness from this pest is not surprising. I really have no interest in pursuing it further, as it falls into the realm of "feeding the trolls." Thanks for your advice, though. Eleemosynary 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)"

Apparently I'm a disingenuous pest troll tonight. whodathunkit?

10:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They just blanked their warnings. Freak of nurture reverted them, and I left a message that blanking warnings is considered vandalism as per

10:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when are taunts like "I'm warning you, DON'T come on my Talk page in an uncivil tone" some sort of official Wikipedia warning that can never be removed? And Pathoschild left a helpful comment, hardly a warning. I'd like to hear from a disinterested administrator on this. Eleemosynary 10:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to that, I was referring to the {{Civil1}}, as I mentioned on your talk. And please don't misrepresent my comments as a taunt, when I was clearly asking you to be civil on my talk page, something that you refused to do no less than THREE times. I'd also ask you to stop referring to me as "Cpl. Hairtrigger"....personal attacks don't fix anything, and my military service has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute.

10:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You stated "they just blanked their warnings." More disingenuousness. You sent me one official warning, which I have retained. I have also retained Pathoschild's advice, though it was not an official warning. You seem to want to buttress your case by suggesting that it was. This all got off to a bad start when you unilaterally blanked my entry on the

Snakes On A Plane page without giving a reason why in the edit summary or the Talk Page, then went into high dudgeon when I reminded you that this could be construed as vandalism. Your demeanor was dismissive and standoffishness, and I showed you as much respect as you showed me. And I have not attacked your military service, merely your quick-on-the-trigger behavior toward me tonight. Eleemosynary

11:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I've mentioned before, I explained clearly in my edit summary why I reverted your entry: because blogs are not acceptable sources on wikipedia. Further, it was not unilateral, as I was the second editor to do this. View the page history if you don't believe me, my edit sums are there, as well as the other user's reversion of your edit.

_Fire!

11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no military service, yet I still find Eleemosynary's conduct wholly unacceptable. — Mar. 26, '06 [11:29] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Freak, you admonished me to not to blank my Talk Page. Funny thing is, I didn't blank it. I blanked some comments on it, and some warnings, which you reverted. Then, I blanked the comments (but left the warnings). Yet, you still reverted it. I left you a message on your Talk Page, which I assume you have not seen. Would you mind letting me know why I can't blank anything on my Talk page? Is it a Wiki rule, or your personal fiat? Eleemosynary 11:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some diffs to show that I was not acting unilaterally: [3], [4], [5], And , here is where I clearly explained why I took that action, on edit sum [6], and on your talk page [7]. Your claims that I acted unilateraly, and did not inform you of my actions do not hold water

11:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel it shold also be pointed out that Eleemosynary's harassment, stalking and attacks on users have been found on other pages as well. Specifically the Mark Levin page, plus a number of other pages for conservative broadcasters, where he has been pushing his POV. He is uncivil, demeaning of other users, and not conducive to the community that you are trying to build. He has been warned by administrators for this on several occasions. 88.108.195.104 18:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on Eleemosynary's general behavior, but he has been very helpful at Mark Levin in keeping that article NPOV despite the activity of unregistered editors who are apparently fans of the subject. -Will Beback 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just slapped an indefinite block on Fired Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who cut-and-paste moved Gasoline to Gasoline on wheels!. While a single case of vandalism would not ordinarily merit an immediate permablock, the account has no other edits and seems likely to be a "drive-by" account created solely for the purpose of vandalism. Comments welcome. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a pagemove of

13 ^{T C}

15:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be the order of the week. --InShaneee 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just use common sense. Nobody with a knowledge of the way this site works would ever argue against the block. It's also pretty easy to assume that they knew what was going to happen. --

♥♥♥♥

13:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Rose-mary has edited Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pushing a PoV on Phaistos Disc and some related articles. She prefers to edit while not logged in, and she has a dynamic IP in the 80.90.* range, which has the effect that 3RR violations, while common, are difficult to prove; the article is now semiprotected.

She is also, in the manner of trolls, persistently uncivil; see this edit and almost the entirety of

(and large parts of 2 through 5, but she's been getting worse.)

If this incivility warrants a long-term block, the article could be unprotected, and her anon identities would be (in effect) on probation. If they were uncivil revert warriors, they would be immediately blockable as sockpuppets. Septentrionalis 17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is semi-protecting the talk page feasible? --Latinus 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Irismeister ! Yes semiprotect. Do whatever is necessary!. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Before my time. Rose-mary's IP is Luxembourgeois. (The other reason I don't want to solve this by sprotection is that the same PoV-pushing does take place on other articles; I am involved because I was watching Pelasgians.)Septentrionalis 22:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Last night, Raul654 blocked 24.6.0.0/16 -- and although he tried to unblock it twice and I myself once, my IP (a Comcast IP that is part of that range) appears to be still intermittently blocked, suggesting a database problem. Can someone look into it?

Also, Raul, if you see this -- I also see that you blocked a lot of individual IPs indefinitely. You really shouldn't do that unless you're sure they're open proxies. --Nlu (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: User has been blocked. Hbackman 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

) 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Harassing? Specifically, I did not want another California in Washington (who does? lol) Seriously, I didn't want the page move wars to go to Washington as well. These are the same steps that happened when the California page moves began, and I didn't want a war starting. I shouldn't be the one accused of harrassment, actually. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one doing page moves to the correct titles; you and your gang are going around making that hard. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're calling them in again for more. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you're doing it without consensus, maybe? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, if there's a 'gang' going around and reverting your page moves, it might be best to consider very carefully whether or not your moves are supported by consensus, and whether or not your idea of a 'correct title' is actually the only reasonable option. I have no further comment, because I really don't want to get sucked into what is a bloody stupid naming dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the page moves. I'm talking about me going and working on the Washington stuff and having to put up with them. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't see you disrupting the actual Washington articles yet. However based on your actions with California your actions with Washington do smell of a prelude to multiple page moves. Gateman1997 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also what is this? It looks like the template that you used to edit war in California. I have a very bad feeling about this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comment borders on uncivil. Perhaps we could see less aspersions cat as this discussion moves forward.

brenneman^{L}

04:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Licinius

I've just blocked two abusive sockpuppets of User:Licinius per CheckUser who have been playing up (even on the RFCU page). I've also given Licinius himself a one-month holiday from Wikipedia, as on top of the sockpuppeteering, he seems to have been trolling something chronic. Just putting a note here for oversight purposes. Ambi 22:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe both Randonnne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Philosophenweg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are sockpuppets of a user who was indefinitely banned for extremely disruptive behavior on USAA. I can't go into details here because a clandestine operation was undertaken at the request of parties who shall remain unnamed to sanitize all of the offending content from the page history and its talk page archives. Admins should be able to see the deleted edits and will know what I'm talking about. My recommendation is that these two socks be indefinitely banned but I'm first asking here to get opinions from noninvolved parties. --Cyde Weys 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and indefinitely blocked all five of the sockpuppets who've been savaging this article. They were all attacking other users on talk pages and reverting to Koenig's POV version of the page exactly thrice. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a fairly major spammer attack underway at:

• Diazepam
• Alprazolam
• Online poker
• Blackjack
• Hydrocodone
• Tramadol

and probably elsewhere, that I just haven't seen. All edits are coming in by open proxies, and there is typically only one edit per proxy. Antandrus (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

All seem to be posting links to scmantraffic.com. Might be a good idea to place it on the black-list. — TheKMan^talk 05:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed though I think he'll just switch URLS, but it might be something to try -- Tawker 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a rather slow-moving spambot, i.e. edits only every couple minutes. How do we put something on the spam blacklist? I could protect the pages (there's at least six) but shooting it nearer the source seems like a more elegant solution. Antandrus (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I spoke with meta admin m:User:Amgine on IRC and he added it to m:Spam blacklist. I also believe Tawkerbot now tracks it as well. — TheKMan^talk 06:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked user:207.229.174.14 for 24 hrs. He/it has made hundreds of edits in the last couple of days, many simply substituting "anabolic steroid" for any use of the word steroid in all kinds of articles, including medical. Most of the changes are inappropriate, many are flat wrong as different steroids are being referred to. There is no user page. Is he using some kind of bot or is he on a one man mission of stupid vandalism? I have reversed dozens of the edits but suspect there are many more. Is there a way to simply mass undo everything he has done? alteripse 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

he just responded and promised to undo. I am suspicious but will undo the block and see. Please help watch. alteripse 05:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a huge revert war in the Privatization article. Possibly the page needs protection.

• Privatization Page History--Jersey Devil 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; what the page needs is the application of 3RR to the editor defying a clear consensus. Septentrionalis 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I considered that before protecting, but so far as I can tell, there were no 3RR violations. Therefore, a temporary protection seemed to be the best option. --Golbez 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 23:46, 00:36, 04:01, 06:04 are by the same editor and marked rv. They are exact reversions - two to 21:37, two to 01:13; but those two don't differ very much. [8] They do have enough spacing difference to throw off the diff generator. (and if that's not enough, if you unprotect, I bet he will 3RR... Septentrionalis 01:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)} Septentrionalis 01:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The 06:04 occurred two days after the other three reverts. 3RR only applies to one 24 hour period. --Golbez 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, there are 24h 10min quiet after 01:50. Sorry Septentrionalis 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then your bet will be wasted. I am not out to violate anything, that is not honorable and I do not do things knowingly to violate wikipedia rules. Please do not insinuate that I would. I do have a right to expect others will act in good faith and not revert without discussion, which is what Jersey Devil had done among others. I worked with Slimvirgin to ferret out the edit by HK to address people's concerns (namely 172, Rd232) and such said editors continued to complain, coming up with a definition of privatization that has no clear source or reference and looks like 'original research.' There is no consensus there, if so it would be to keep HK edit after it was cleaned up by myself and Slimvirgin (with further citations I submitted to talk prior to the protection)...Samspade would most likely agree to this as well. --Northmeister 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; then there should be no problem getting unprotection. Septentrionalis 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rudi_the_Winner (

>

I've blocked user:Swedenman for an additional week. See User_talk:Swedenman. He keeps adding category:Humanitarians to several articles, and seems to do little else. / Fred-Chess 13:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to view his contribs in this regard as anything but trolling. I do note from his block log that you are the blocking admin for all but one of his blocks. To avoid accusations that you personally have it in for him, should the need arise again perhaps you might post here and not block him yourself, but rather leave another admin to do so. To quote the great philosopher Nelson Muntz "Never hurts to have a second set of prints on a gun". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that a much lnger i not indef block is warranted here. I will do it, but wnated to get Fred's take on overturning his block first.Gator (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII continues to make POV edits even after he was banned for two weeks for it. [9]

Frankly, I do not have the energy to put up with any more of his bullshit. For an explanation of why that edit is POV (if it isn't blatantly obvious) see the talk page of that article. -- infinity0 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators, please do not fall for this this time. He is trying to get me banned from Wikipedia, knowing that I'm on probation and taking advantage of that (just like he did last time). I have not done anything wrong. My edits are well-sourced. RJII 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you ever stay banned? I mean your last 2 or 3 accounts were indef blocked, the most recent on a "voluntary" 6 month arbcom enforced wikibreak, and this current one on probation... don't you have anything better to do with your time?--64.12.116.65 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't make false accusations against me. Obviously you have me confused with someone else. RJII 17:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that very much--64.12.116.65 18:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Think about it. Consider it. I'm not who you think I am. You've been harrassing me about this for awhile. I don't who you think I am. This is the only account I've ever had on Wikipedia. RJII 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourced is not necessarily NPOV. -- infinity0 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is harrassment. You're using my probation in an attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia hoping that administrators will just assume I'm the bad guy because I'm on probation, just like last time. My edits are sourced and NPOV. RJII 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are sourced but not NPOV. You selectively quote things which is against NPOV. In a phrase, you make POV edits. -- infinity0 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No they are not POV edits. They are NPOV edits. You are the one that makes POV edits that I'm trying to fix. Don't twist it around. RJII 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Both of you are edit warring on
  WP:1RR both of you on anarchism related articles. Hash this stuff out on the talk pages, not in the edit comments, please, and not here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
  19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Except for the last edit (which removes the description of a joke as being a joke, a disservice to the reader) the two versions strike me as being about equally good, and equally POV. - 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Do! uploaded warez?

Mr.Do! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of two things: Editing arcade game-related articles, and uploading vandal files. I first came across him when he uploaded a map of the USA with Iraq colored green. Amusing, but not good. Now he's linked to copyrighted MAME files, first uploaded to commons: [10], second uploaded to eo: [11]. First of all, can someone tell eo that they need to delete this file? And second, I was ALMOST about to block him indef, but considering his edit history, I'm thinking maybe he's just an adolescent who's ignorant of how all this works. So I bring it to the community. Thoughts?

Edit (before saving): [12]. He made an account on eo solely to upload the file. That shows premeditation and a knowledge that it wouldn't fly on en. I'm blocking indef, but I won't challenge if others disagree. --Golbez 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm hopeing this is the right place to bring this up (I'm still learning the Wiki-ropes). Is

22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinatly about two weeks ago. --InShaneee 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently a recurring AOL denial of service vandal, who comes back every 24 hours or so and triggers a dozen AOL autoblocks--64.12.116.65 23:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, User:Zephram Stark is still busy sockpuppeting. He typically creates one or two sockpuppets a day, though he can sometimes be even more prolific. I've just blocked a half-dozen of the more recent, including User:Ipvirg48of1767, User:Osteodentine M. Spooner, User:Jeff Iceni , User:C Haworthia Kalikimaka, User:Bonfire Knight 0511, User:Sigmund Fraud, User:Coolerhead, User:Julie Cruise Director, User:Dirae, etc. See here for the current list:[13] Please be aware that when caught, Zephram's sockpuppets vociferously protest their innocence, so expect the same from these ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted all the edits from these users. That usually makes him mad, so keep an eye out for a new user who crops up and starts reverting them back to his versions. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created a section on ZS at

long term abuse. Feel free to expand/modify it or even create a new subpage if necessary. --TML1988

02:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How can one tell if they are sockpuppets? Using the checkuser, or just "similar ranting style" :) ? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Some instances are easier to detect than others, for example: User:Zephram Stark Does Not Give Up, or anyone who edits Coving. -Will Beback 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, philosophical posts on User talk:ElectricRay :) --JW1805 (Talk) 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

hmmm either willy or an impersonator.Geni 00:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See below. He's going around making new usernames, and adding sockpuppet tags. Clear vandalism.

02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User Rd232 has violated page protection [14] at Privatization after the page was protected due to a complaint from Jersey Devil of edit warring.

I ask that this user be sanctioned for his violation of protection and that the text he removed be restored until debate is over. Thank You.

--Northmeister 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

He probably didn't notice it had been protected, Northmeister. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see on the talk page he says he did it deliberately. I can't revert because I'm involved in the content dispute. Perhaps you should contact the admin who protected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did notice. The section is flagrantly unsuited to that article (and probably any other) for reasons sufficiently stated by me and others on the talk page, and the debate has long since descended into irrelevant wikilawyering, edit warring, and bitching about Arbcom cases. None of this is conducive to producing a swift resolution of the matter; so by

04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DR. In my opinion, you need to re-insert the text, ASAP. FloNight ^talk

04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Section was already reinserted by Golbez. And I did not undo the PP, I amended which version was shown whilst PP is active, for reasons stated in detail here and on the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "ignore" the PP either, as my comment on the Talk page made clear the reasons for changing which version was protected. Rd232 ^talk 05:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

IAR is a sanity check, not a lifestyle. You can stand by it all I want, and I stand by reverting it. If you have a problem with my protection, you bring it to me. You do not insult a fellow administrator by continuing to edit the very paragraph over which there is a conflict. --Golbez 04:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanity check being exactly what is required in this situation. I have no problem with your protection, I just felt that something so obviously inappropriate, and with such unhelpful debate about it, should not be in the public version whilst lengthy and unproductive debate about it continues. I know PP doesn't endorse a page version, but it nonetheless shows one to the public rather than another. Since we are here to build an encyclopedia, we cannot entirely ignore this. As for insulting you, where do you get that idea?? We're here to build an encyclopedia, ego has no place in it. It's not like I reversed an action of yours - unlike you. And I fully explained my reasons in detail, unlike you. Rd232 ^talk 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rd, admins are not allowed to edit protected pages, except in very limited circumstances (to correct a typo, for example). The section may be inappropriate, but not to the point where it must absolutely be removed as an emergency regardless of page protection. All we're waiting for, I believe, is for Northmeister to produce sources showing that outsourcing is regarded as a form of privatization. There's nothing so scandalous in that that an admin has to violate page protection because of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Sourcing on that issue is irrelevant as to whether the section belongs in the article - see my comments (muchly ignored by everyone else while they get bogged down in irrelevant definitional issues) on the Talk page. Rd232 ^talk 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur with SlimVirgin. Rd232, you're sitting too close to the screen, as it were, if you think leaving that para in for a little while poses any threat to the encyclopedia. A greater threat is posed by having admins use their permissions to give themselves advantages in content disputes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree, which is why I've never done it before. I felt very strongly in this case that the section clearly does not belong and that the participants were ignoring the basic issues that I and others had raised. Rd232 ^talk 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rd232, obviously inappropriate is in the eye of the beholder. That said, and to be too be very fair about the situation, Golbez probably shouldn't have re-inserted the text. Could have stood in that version. Or it was post here and someone else would re-insert it eventually. FloNight ^talk 05:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot happening at

00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd unblock Science3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) if they made what seemed to be a sincere request. This and this show weird editing for a newbie, but could conceivably be clueless testing. Jkelly 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It follows a vandalism pattern over the past couple days of both the Large Numbers vandal, and the Wheels vandal, which is why I reported it. Regardless, Science3456 was created as a sock of the prior blocks and should be kept blocked for evasion anyway. The names that they were putting the sockpuppet tags on, while having weird usernames, had made absolutely no posts. If there's no posts, how can they be a sock for sure? Thus Science and his socks such as froogle, were committing vandalism.

_Fire!

02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A revert war on naming conventions is currently going on on several ROC related articles. An anon is disputing the previous consensus where introductory references to the ROC are appended with the common short form "

. The anon has appeared to have used several sockpuppets so far and has refused to acknowledge or discuss the previous consensus when efforts were made at contact. Affected articles include:

• Template:Republic of China politics
• Republic of China Army
• Republic of China Navy
• Republic of China Air Force.

Anon IPs and users which may be possible sockpuppets include:

• 203.115.1.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 128.120.179.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 202.154.0.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Soimbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

External mediation or monitoring efforts would be appreciated. -

00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here looks like some kind of edit conflict glitch.

(UTC).

It was; I entered that edit four times, several minutes apart. Three times it didn't register, and the fourth time that happened. I saw someone complaining about lack of server synchronization about the same time. Septentrionalis 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It has also removed several contributions.

28 March 2006

(UTC).

User declaring himself to be a Crip...

Now that we've got our little nice discussion out of the way, hopefully... User:Thousandsons has, on his user page, a declaration that he's a member of the Crips -- a criminal street gang, by California's definition, and I'm sure by many other jurisdictions'. The question is -- is there a policy against such a declaration on a user page? If so, what might be an appropriate action to take about this? --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO harmless until he starts trolling.

T+C) at 07:14 UTC (2006-03-21

)

If he starts dealing drugs on out-of-the-way talk pages, or does a drive-by shooting of house, then call the cops. Otherwise, treat him like any other user. --Carnildo 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

lol ElectricRay 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... This user has both red and blue on his user page. Maybe he's just a part-time Crip, or was placed in a position in the organization through a temp-agency. He probably just does clerical work, or maybe he logs minutes in Blood beatdowns. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Present: Ice Dogg, CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA, Madd Hamsta, Masta Bater

Apologies: E-Z Vauxhall Driver

Secretary: Thousand Sons

1. Beatdown productivity down by 12% on last month. Madd Hamsta to look into. Suggested this may be a temporary blip resulting from the recent shift of focus from 'critical' to 'lyrical' beatdowns.

2. Ice Dogg complained that CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA had owed the crack kitty $2.67 for two months. AlTeRnAtA replied that Dogg could "stuff it up his ass in pennies". A full and frank exchange of views was held.

3. Full and frank exchange of views aborted due to running out of bullets.

4. Mad Hamsta to order more bullets.

5. Any other business: Masta Bater questioned the long-standing constitutional policy of "Bros before hos". Argued that this was unrealistic, and that particularly fine hos should surely take precedence over some particularly fronting bros. Agreed to form a sub-committee to research how fine a ho needs to be. Members and budget to be decided later.

Next meeting will be 28th March 2006 if anyone is still alive. Agenda will be posted with a spraycan on the side of the Church of St Gareth of Glitter. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

freakofnur_xture|talk

>

• Brilliant! – ClockworkSoul 17:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Attack of anonims on the color scheme of Harry Potter articles

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism:

* 71.140.221.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Wed night) + 71.138.70.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Thurs night) + User:71.138.164.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (tonight)

All these vandals have edited Harry Potter character pages and changed the default Harry Potter colour scheme to something ridiculous . The first one was given a serious warning by

T • C • W) - 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (posted via NathanHP

)

Apparently,

T • C • W

) 03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Formally this not a vandalism, but a content dispute. Maybe you should report them 3RR assuming this is one user with socks. I can sprotect all the articles to prevent sockpupeeting. abakharev 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The one I looked at changed a background colour to black which made the black text unreadable!Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that if it's a dynamic ip like AOL, it might not be sockpuppeting so much as 3RR under multiple IPs. Sockpuppeting refers to using multiple accounts or purposely changing IPs. Ral315 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The ISP of the user(s?) concerned is Comcast (an American cable ISP). —
        T • C • W
        ) 01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
        • In that case, he might be purposefully resetting his connection so that he can vandalize more... Ashibaka tock 12:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, that's what I was thinking. :) —
            T • C • W
            ) 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think sprotecting the articles concerned for a couple of weeks may be the best solution. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• That would (unfortunately) be every Harry Potter character's article on Wikipedia. —
  T • C • W
  ) 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Here's another one: 71.140.106.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). — NathanHP ^{(T • C • W)} 08:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• ...and another: 71.130.199.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• ....and yet another: 71.130.202.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please stop the insanity? — NathanHP ^{(T • C • W)} 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of colors

The colors are here:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Templates#Colours. I don't know what alls been going on, but I found some reversions where Nathan was reverting to the wrong color scheme. Check to make sure any color changes are consistent with this guide, and discuss any changes that you wish to make to that on the Talk page of the HP WikiProject. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn!

00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

OrphanBot (talk · contribs) must be blocked immediately. It meets several criteria for blocking. First of all, it disrupts the editing process. It basically spams Wikipedians who then must go back and (re-)tag images. True, these Wikipedians were responsible in the first place for not following image-tagging rules, but we must decide what we want this project to be. Are we going to let the rules fill talk-pages and make Wikipedian morale suffer? The way I see it, OrphanBot is a horrible thing that invariably acts in *bad faith*. I saw one case where a user left due to OrphanBot’s incessant spamming of him and ultimate deletion of his content, which could have been very important content.

OrphanBot is also inefficient inasmuch as many users will simply appease it by placing the wrong tag, just to save their important images and to get the obnoxious OrphanBot to leave them alone. It would be much better to simply have Wikipedians looking out for image-policy violations, since Wikipedians are able to follow-up. OrphanBot is easily fooled and I have to wonder how many great images it’s caused us to lose for no reason other than to stroke its creator’s ego.

Please take this proposal seriously; this bot is hated among Wikipedians and must go now. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 06:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this comment. The OrphanBot is doing a huge amount of tedious but good work. If administrators would write to you about an image, the message would be basically the same.

Destruction is good work? I thought Wikipedia was about information. We would be slower using human beings, but what rush are we in? It's not like the English Wikipedia is being published next month and all copyrights must be secure. We have plenty of time, and all this bot does is get things deleted. Isn't the goal to keep the images on wikipedia and just tag them? ^juppiter bon giorno #c 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, but Wikipedia is rapidly becoming a highly-popular site, which makes us more of a magnet for litigation. And who said that we have to wait until we publish to secure copyright? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it *is* becoming highly-popular. But the masses will abandon us if they start finding that every time they come here, the deletionists have gotten their hands on something else. I'm all for rules, but this adherence to the rules is much much too strict. We must put it in the hands of Wikipedians to control this privately, and not with this bot. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 07:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We are published now - this isn't a private site by any means. Secretlondon 15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence on who left Wikipedia because of "OrphanBot’s incessant spamming"? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone on OrphanBot's talk page said they were leaving because of it. Who knows if they actually did? The comment was unsigned. But coming on and finding 10 image tag messages definitely does not put one in a good mood. It's very discouraging and makes this a more contentious atmosphere than it should be. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, and properly tagging images is required to verify its license. I'd rather be notified that an image I uploaded is lacking a proper tag so that I could quickly correct it, rather than later finding it deleted per Wikipedia policy. — TheKMan^talk 06:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% that copyright should not be taken a joke, but like I said OrphanBot is not efficient. People get so annoyed with it that they'll just stick any old tag on their image (& I know because I've done it) and then not learn their lesson. In addition, the bot makes mistakes and will continue harassing you sometimes even after you've put everything on the page that logically needs to be there (i.e. the times when you actually put the right tag on instead of just trying to shut the damn thing up.) A peer-to-peer system is much better since the templates would not pile up on talk pages so much (I have about 5 on mine right now) and it would decrease aggravation. Remember, Wikipedia could survive without the bot. Without users, it cannot. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that you've deliberately mistagged images. We are currently far too lenient on people who upload non-free material. There is no way that humans could realistically tag all unknown uploads. Secretlondon 15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If people leave over orphan bot, those are the type of people that should leave the project anyways, since copyright violations bring harm to the project. Oprhanbot, and it;s creator, are doing a good job. The uploaders are notified, and if the license is changed to something false, we catch it and run orphan bot again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not always a violation, maybe just a general ignorance of image policy! The bot certainly doesn’t help with educating people on that (maybe its text says something about it, it’s very unlikely that anyone does more than skim the message.) I don’t think rules were meant to be broken, but there needs to be leeway. It’s raising acrimony. Acrimony is bad. ^juppiter bon giorno #c 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We cannot afford to have ignorance as an excuse for contributing to more avenues of attack that third parties have on us. If someone comes along and uploads something which has been copyrighted, and some litigious content owner sues Wikimedia, we are up the creek without a paddle, and no amount of "I didn't know" is going to help us. The image upload page makes it very very plain as to the responsibilities of anyone uploading any media file to this web site. Rob Church 19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The bot message does point you to

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I'm not exactly sure how a message that you say no one really reads causes acrimony. Personally, I find the wording to be rather friendly, though I can see how things could get redundant if multiple images are involved. — TheKMan^talk

07:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the image taggers. OrphanBot merely carries the image tags out. Some people continue to tag an image as "no source" despite it being self-evident that the user created it. For example, I have uploaded an image with the summary, "by me" and it was still tagged as no source because I used the GFDL template rather than GFDL-self. I later found out it was deleted. This infuriated me quite a bit.

Be eudaimonic!

) 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it is simply that Orphanbot is far better than having nothing (ie, hoping some wikipedians decide to sort through the then-massive backlog of untagged images). Sure, some people may find it annoying, but think of it this way: Once you learn how to properly tag images, you never hear from it again. Sure, incorrect tagging is a big problem, but not one that should be blamed on Orphanbot. I have a feeling that users that mistag images would do the same thing if told by another person that their image was untagged. --InShaneee 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I think OrphanBot's doing a great service with image tagging; the actual humans doing the tagging and deleting are the ones who occasionally screw up, and would do so, bot or no. This is a really humongous problem, to the point where it would be impossible for a human to tackle without automated assistance, and from what I've seen of OrphanBot it does its task quite well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think OrphanBot is acticvely helping us make a better encyclopedia, and if there are failings here, they're all on the part of the human editors. -Colin Kimbrell 20:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the functions that OrphanBot are undertaking are good ones, but I think it should be taken down a notch. It is behaving a bit over-zealously. I am particularly concerned about the occasional user that visits less frequently than once a week, who may not see the tag and find their contributions deleted. I was working with someone trying to track down a source and a picture got deleted. Here are some possible modifications to its behavior:

1. Extend the time period to longer than a week. I'd vote for a month. I've seen several images deleted from users that do not visit frequently, and thus are unaware that their images were deleted. I'm afraid to go on vacation.
2. Many images were uploaded before there were tags or rules. Assume good faith on any old images by putting them in a category to be reviewed by a human who can make sense of an edit history that says "by me".
3. Create an easy way for people to remove the image from the destructive powers of the bot. Perhaps a template for images that are being researched. Also have instructions with the bot's warning about how to add such a tag.
4. Create some standard templates for adding source material that is independent of the language of the Wikipedia version an image is uploaded to. I've copied many images from Japanese Wikipedia and it is very difficult to determine who the creator of the image is without being able to read Japanese. An iconic format would make it possible to get the information no matter what the language. Create new fields in the image upload page that must get completed (date of copyright, photographer, etc..), with options to say "unknown". These would be automatically inserted into the iconic image-information-template.

--

Samuel Wantman

04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1. The seven-day limit is official policy, decreed by Jimbo Wales. If you want it changed, bring it up with him. (And before R.D.H starts shouting
   Nuremberg Defense
   again, it's a policy I agree with)
2. Image tagging has only been a policy for a little over two years now. Any image that hasn't been tagged or sourced despite extensive warnings, two major tagging drives, and plenty of notice probably won't ever be. If the upload history says "by me", then presumably the person who tagged the image and the person who deleted it had good reason to ignore it.
3. You've got seven days from the day the tag is put on. If that's not long enough, save the image to your hard drive and re-upload it once you've found the answer.
4. A good idea, if you can come up with something. In the mean time, there's
   WP:BABEL
   .

--Carnildo 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to respond, because many of the premises of the argument are factually incorrect. Orphanbot doesn't make any decision with regards to any image, it doesn't decide something is not sourced or licensed, human editors do. It also doesn't delete image, human administrators do. Orphanbot's main roles are informing uploaders that the image might be deleted (a service not at all required by policy) and delinking the image from articles, which is a way to notify people who may be interesting in the articles that something is wrong, and help the admins when we are deleting images that are at least 7 days old (almost always longer since we are very backlogged). Assuming your only complaint is that you are notified about images that might be deleted (since all other aspects of your argument are substantively false) I don't know what would be more helpful. I agree that if you are a new user uploading, say, 15 unsourced images the amount of messages and general response might be overwhelming, but you are, in fact, creating a lot of work for people. I think the message the bot leaves is fairly helpful, but you also seem to think no one will read it, so that might be moot. If the bot didn't help at all the messages usually used are {{

Wikipedia:Image legality questions

for people to get help with images they have been notified about, and links to that page are included in the two templates listed above as well as orphanbot's message.

I guess my question is, I understand your frustration with having to tag images and say where the source was, and with the general copyright law of the US, but what would be the solution? It sounds like maybe you would prefer us to not worry about it? Also, remember that hundreds of images are uploaded everyday with incomplete information, so any solution needs to take that into account. As people have said above, if there is a mistake it's some human editor's mistake, we all make them, but remember for every mistake that an image tagger makes there are probably 1000 images they have tagged correctly and saved from being deleted. That's the ultimate goal, to save images we can, and lessen the legal liability of Wikipedia by removing the ones we can't. There are tens of thousands of untagged images, and as of now we just don't have enough people to not use any automation - cohesion^t 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would feel better if the seven days began to tick when the uploader was notified or when the image was removed from articles (thus notifying the articles' community). Often the person doing the tagging does neither, and since OrphanBot typically doesn't visit until the fifth day, both the uploader and article's editors sometimes only discover two days in advance that the picture is in danger. Many nonwikipediaholics will miss that window entirely, and the burden of trying to research and save the image falls to the admin on day 8. I propose that either OrphanBot visit tagged images earlier in the week, or that it postdate the NL/NS tags to 7 days after its visit. ×Meegs 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The user notification is almost immediatly after tagging from my experience, the delinking from the article happens later though. From what I understand the bot makes many passes on each image, so it's not a one-time thing right before the image is up for deletion. - cohesion^t 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but I think the image removal is often the more important of the two notifications, since the unloaders of long-standing images have often left Wikipedia. OrphanBot's detractors don't realize that the image removal is, in large part, an attempt to help save the image; I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be done at the earliest possible time. ×Meegs 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, removing the link a week before deleting the picture would help with my frustration. I work on scores of articles in which I did not contribute the picture. I am trying to source some of these images, and the tagging by the bot has inspired me to do this (along with Carnildo's prompting). But almost every day I find out that an image on an article I watch has been deleted and there is nothing I can do at that point to save them, other than try and get the original contributor to upload them again with proper tags. --

Samuel Wantman

22:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock  Bonaparte 

Bonaparte has more than 4000 edits. He was blocked for more than 3 months now. I request an unblock for him.

talk & contribs—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.70.104 (talk • contribs

)

Interesting how this IP refers to Bonaparte in the third person (particularly in this edit's edit summary) but uses his signature, complete with colour coding. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a cut-and-paste Ashibaka tock 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of Wikipedia I have this to say Bonaparte, uhhh no.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 03:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the IP that placed this request is an open proxy. Open proxy fraud was exactly the activity that got Bonaparte permabanned. Should the IP be blocked as well? --Irpen 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies. Rob Church 19:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vote Stacking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan

User:Bertilvidets posting of this VfD on 14 talk pages. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO it complies with the proposed policy

Wikipedia:Vote Stacking. All Bertil is doing is posting a link to the AFD. He's not telling people what to vote Without him informing me, I wouldn't have known about the debate. --Latinus

19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It does say that 'Notifing only people who you believe would agree with "your" position is a violation of this guideline'. I haven't checked yet, but it would seriously surprise me if any of the people he notified didn't vote with him, in which case I think action is still warranted. --InShaneee 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked two sockpuppets participatig in the debate and will be keeping an eye on matters. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You only blocked Hybridlily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the sockpuppets for 24 hours, whereas Shanex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely. --Latinus 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That was negligent of me. Moment. Mackensen (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Will anyone adress my request? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As a part in this case, I am curious to know what exactly is requested. Bertilvidet 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And do what? Strike out all the "keep" votes? I don't think that's possible... also, I think that it would be assuming bad faith (i.e. violating

WP:AGF) to assume that Bertil only notified user who he believed would vote keep - there is no evidence that he believed any such thing (this is not wikilawyering - it is a defect in the proposed guideline and I have brought it to the attention of the guideline's authors so that they can remedy it). --Latinus

20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonono. First, you (Latinus) already have a conflicting bias in this situation: you have been notified (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Latinus&diff=prev&oldid=45344415) via talk page, and have voted keep. It's not your fault, but you can already be considered tainted. Second: the following people who have been contacted have voted on the AFD:

• DuncanBCS - keep
• Hectorian - keep
• Mukadderat - keep
• Latinus - Strong keep
• Nikosilver - Keep
• Scranchuse - Keep
• Choalbaton - Keep
• Bhoeble - Keep
• Moby Dick - Strong Keep
• Tazmaniacs - Keep
• Mais oui! - Keep

Three of the editors that were contacted did not participate in the AFD: Green Giant, Staffelde, and KillerChihuahua. You state that you think it would be assuming bad faith to assume that Bertil notified only users who he believed would vote keep... there's a difference between assuming good faith and being dense. Of course he only notified people that would agree with him; why would he notify people who would disagree with him? I mean, come on. Whatever your take on the issue is, it's blatantly obvious what has happened here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I had edited Turkish Kurdistan twice [30][31] prior to it being placed on AFD and prior to Bertilvidet's message to me, so I would have expressed my view, message or not. I have had only minor communication with Bertilvidet, so it is rather presumptuous to assume that he could know what my view would be.

Where's this ridiculous policy going to go in the end? Disenfranchise all users who receive such a message? Now there's an idea with potential for abuse. --Moby 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have changed my 'vote' on the AFD to Strong Keep and am now updating the list above. --Moby 09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just got aware of this post. Cool Cat, when you posted a complaint about me I believe it would have been decent if you informed me about it.

The debate on the AfD became quite unpleasant, so I dont find it fruitful to advance my case there. Retrospectively, I can see that my spread of the word about the AfD could seem abusive. However, I want to underline that on purpose I sent it to people who I believe are open for arguments, and I didnt expect a common outcome. Furthermore I avoided to send it to people personally involved in the issue (didn't sent it to people I know as Kurdish or Turkish users). I also noticed that the message was passed on to the Turkish and Iranian users, who I would expect to support deletion - in most cases with the argument that voters should be gathered to get majority for deletion. In that situation I believed that a broad range of users with different backgrounds should have the possibility to voice their views on the issue.

In a short time, there have been several proposals for deletion of categories, stubs and articles related to Kurds - which has become rather trite, and probably created an atmosphere of irritation with lots of inappropriate comments (including personal attacks, semi racist and anti-Turkish comments). May I suggest that we from now on concentrate our efforts on improving Wikipedia, and consider our different approaches as an advantagde in order to write NPOV and balanced articles. Bertilvidet 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As the accused part I am eager to get comments, including criticism if I did anything wrong. I do however demand my exculpation. 1) Taking into account that the AfD is controversial I believe that the request for deletion should be widely known. It is not satisfying that only one part is informed - and I believe outsiders with interest in the subject, but not personally involved, should be invited to weigh in. The side in favour of deletion cannot have the monoply on deciding who should be infromed. 2) I consider Wikipedia as a global site, and thus I believe in a broad inclusion of people taking decisions. Is it only up to Turks and Kurds to determine whether there should be an article on Turkish Kurdistan? I sincerely dont think so. 3) The policy that I am charged for, and plead not guilty, violating is only proposed, not passed nor implemented.

(Despite this debate I recently made another AfD, please tell me if I violated anything by posting

this).Bertilvidet

09:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You dont gather "artificial concensus" bu just adveritising people you know will vote as you do. If you have to advertise you generaly ask one or two people who would write a rationale to make up a case either supporting ot opposing the deletion rather than gathering plain keep/delete votes.

The vote is advertised on AfD page to everyone, Turk/Kurd or not. If you didn't mass advertised the result would be similar to Syrian Kurdistan.

Gathering tens of votes agreeing with you is NOT good practice. Do you really think it is aproporate to collect one sided votes?

Sorry I am the most 'indecent' person out there, I do not advertise WP:ANI/I posts I make. I also do not advertise any vote to more than 2 people.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1) By insisting on claiming that I knew how people would vote, despite my refusal of this, is a breach of

Wikipedia_talk:Vote_Stacking#And_nominators_obligation_to_inform... Bertilvidet

19:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if that's the case - next time, do it by e-mail (it happens a lot - you have no idea how many e-mails of this nature I get from various users). The fact that TuzsuzDeliBekir indulged in the same practice [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] doesn't seem to bother Cool Cat... I'll refrain from comment... --Latinus 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I'll rather defend my actions here than acting secretly through mail. 2) TuzsuzDeliBekir followed a very different practice than me by stating votes are collected to delete and redirect the Turkish Kurdistan article. Bertilvidet 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably Sarfatti

An anon (71.139.55.87 (talk · contribs)), probably Jack Sarfatti (some of the edits from this IP refer to JackSarfatti (talk · contribs) in the first person, some in the third person), recently bombarded diff1 diff2 my userpage with some pretty heavy duty legal threats. He's apparently under the impression that I put some information about him changing his name into his article. I banned the anon account for 48 hours, but after reading WP:AN/I/Archive48#Sarfatti, I wonder if I should consider a longer (permanent?) ban, given his past record and our past dealings with him. These anon accounts have been pouring oceans of email textdumps into Talk:Jack Sarfatti lately, and there were legal threats against me there as well, but only when he brought it to my userpage did I think to ban. I haven't been an admin long, and this was my first ban (exciting! now I'm drunk with power!), so I'm not really sure how these things work. At the very least, maybe I'll start keeping track of all the IPs that do textdumps into the talk page.

By the way, not that this matters as far as our policy and response goes, but as for this name business, I never added anything about him changing his name to his article, I think he just hasn't gotten the hang of how Wikipedia works, and who is writing what. Furthermore, by his own admission with these vandalisms, he did in fact get his name legally changed, so the information that he's complaining about is not wrong (though perhaps a little misleading). -

talk +

01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

talk +

02:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

68.125.8.213 (talk · contribs) is doing it too now. *Dan T.* 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that one indef. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Join the club,

User:Mperel is trying to bring the article to a better place and with luck and support he/she may succeed. It is probably worthwhile to track the IPs he's using though it may not be possible to block them cleanly. S-protecting the article/talk page may be a necessity if he is being disruptive. -Will Beback

07:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been reverting most of

talk +

17:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Brilliant:" and "crackpot" are sometimes difficult to distinguish. My impression was that Mperel is trying to write a article that Sarfatti would approve of enough to stop interfering. If that isn't possible then the effort is wasted. -Will Beback 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

MPerel does seem to have good intentions, though I don't agree with her goals (in particular, I think an accurate portrayal of Sarfatti is necessarily negative, and so he wouldn't be satisfied with it), and don't really appreciate the way she insinuates that I have ulterior motives. -

talk +

21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the club now, too, what with Jack bombarding me with a dozen or more childish e-mail rants over the last couple of days -- every one of which he CC's to a long list of people, most of whom I assume are people unlucky enough to have crossed his path (ferchrissakes, Jimbo Wales is on the CC list).

Frankly, I think MPerel is pursuing a lost cause: I've known of this guy from ten years back, and Jack's ego allows no contradiction of anything he says. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that a properly NPOV article should not directly call him either brilliant or a crackpot; it should merely present the facts about him so readers can make up their own minds. *Dan T.* 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about that. -

talk +

02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver-Eric L. Haney

The user Striver has create the Eric L. Haney page already with an afd tag because by his own words:

Im tired of geting my stuff deleted, so i dont even bother anymore, just create them with the AFD sign on it and get it over with. --Striver 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC) [39]

• This is the first version of the page he created with the afd tag already placed.
• This is the Afd page itself.

I believe that this breaks with

WP:POINT and interferes with the regular afd process.--Jersey Devil

05:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Don't overreact. But maybe it should be pointed out to him before he repeats that stunt that such articles are immediate speedy candidates under CSD G7 :-) Lupo 08:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalking by

user:AKMask

• Featured list vote
• Vfd vote
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

User has participating on any vote I am a part of in the opposing corner. User does not regularly vote on featured lists or vfds. Since I have a history of getting stalked by user:Davenbelle (23:01, 11 January 2006 Viajero deleted "User:Davenbelle" (per request of user via email)) and since he claims to have left wikipedia I suspect he may be a new alias as he has very few edits ^[40] prior to davenbelles departure. I also find this rfc vote being his 8^th edit rather strange. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It could also very well be user:MARMOT but then again I always suspect user:MARMOT but still something to look into perhaps. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does AKMask know this discussion is taking place? I've informed him - there may be an explanation or all this may be a coincidence. While I do find this conspiracy intriguing ;-) It may be better to assume good faith, at least until a serious problem appears. Appearing on three polls/RFCs could be a perfectly reasonable coincidence... AFAIK even if he is stalking you, I don't think the administrators here can do anything about it. --Latinus 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not assume good faith when stalked. Appearing on two polls is ok and can be a coincidence if the person regularly votes on afds and rfcs or if the votes are related. We dont observe this. There are wikipedia policies just AKMask isn't exempt of one being Harassment which covers stalking. If he is stalking me he will perhaps get away with a warning, if he continues he will eventualy end up getting banned.

People have been banned from wikipedia indefinately for stalking in the past. Infact Jimbo personaly banned the person in question and it is rare for Jimbo to get involved on anything on wikipedia that direct.

The point of Administrators noticeboard is to notify the administrators. Thank you for notifying AKMask you saved me the trobble. Know that notifying him was always optional.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather simple explanation: I am a member of the Star Trek wikiproject, and was poking around those topics for a day or so before joining. As for the Turkish Kurdistan vote, I saw the link on his talk page while we were discussing the star trek page (look it up on his talk page) and a former girlfriend/summer fling of mine went to Turkey on Exchange. Minor interest. And I regularly participate in VfD's... over a hundred votes, actually. With a user at around 750 edits, thats a bunch. The RfC was last fricken year. Theres no way thats relevent. If I were truly wikistalking I'd have continued to vote on more current RfC's that you're involved in. Or I would've voted against one of your RfA's. This is purly coincidence from a shared wikiproject and reading your talkpage. -

M^ask

19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I never made an edit to the RfC you have linked.... I reviewed the date, then the history. Never touched it. -

M^ask

19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As a disinterested party who has interacted regularly neither with AKMask nor with Latinus, and after readily conceding that we oughtn't perhaps to clutter the noticeboard with this discussion, I think it is eminently clear that what Mask is doing is not wikistalking, and, more importantly, in no way proves deletrious vis-à-vis the project. One observes many AfD, FAC, and RfA votes by Mask; notwithstanding questions about whether Mask is Davenbelle, toward the proving of which proposition Cool Cat adduces Mask's having failed to make many edits prior to the departure of Davenbelle, surely Mask's voting on a few Wikipedia questions with which Cool Cat was involved does not wikistalking make. Finally, assuming arguendo that Mask has voted on sundry Wikipedia questions in order to express disagreement with Cool Cat, wikistalking would be demonstrated, in my mind, only to the extent that it was plain that his sole purpose for voting was to express disagreement; I can imagine, for example, that if Mask thought Cool Cat to have exercised bad judgment in voting in the past (and I surely don't impute malign motive or bad judgment to Cool Cat, about whom I know nothing), he might frequent pages at which he/she voted in order to express contrary viewpoints in such cases as Mask found Cool Cat's votes to be poorly supported. Joe 19:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting on vfds and afds as a personal cause against a user is wikistalking. From where I am standing this is the case. AKMask how many votes have you shared a vote with me prior to the encouter at List of Starfleet ship classes ? Just what I thouht, none. I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you are quite wrong. see this diff to my usertalk from december where you THANK me for trying to fix some copyright issues on a featured list vote you were having. I wanted it to pass, I did some image removal, you thanked me. We've shared votes. -

M^ask

20:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, If I recal correctly you originaly voted oppose to that too. I still however do not feel your vote on the Afd was in good faith. I am way beyond frustrated. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I did, because of copyright issues. It would be silly to support something that would get us sued. I then listed my problems, fixed them, and changed to support. As for you feeling whether my vote on the Turkish AfD was in good faith, that is of absolutly no concern to me. It was, it will be counted, and thats it. Your feelings on my vote are fluff. Take a wikibreak if you're that frustrated. -

M^ask

20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I find this most insightful. You act like a dick and annoy people then suggest they take a wikibreak. Seems like you got this all worked out. Except it wont work. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not acted like a dick anywhere, and have not done anything out of the ordinary to annoy you or anyone else. If you get annoyed by my general presence, well, I'm afraid I can't help that. As to it not working... what wont work? I hardly think I'm going to end up blocked because you don't agree with me. It happens. Sometimes you'll win, sometimes my side will. But thats just how it goes. The wikibreak is something I'd suggest to anyone who says they're way beyond frustrated. Do you support someone who is under a lot of stress continuing to place themselves in a situation where more can be added? I hate seeing posts where users blow up and declare they quit or leave in a huff. I don't like seeing that happen to anyone. My remarks were intended for nothing beyond the statement that it appears obvious that Turkish Kurdistan is going to be no consensus, hence keep, and you can't really change that. Take a break, cool down before you get so frustrated you up and quit. -

M^ask

23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There's really no evidence here that

WP:CIVIL. Calm down, step away from the computer if you need to, and find something to do that's more rewarding and productive than this argument. FreplySpang (talk)

03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of letting this nonsense continue, I do not like seeing the same person on votes I participate in the opposing corner. This is exactly like RickK's case however I havent yet been stalked to excess... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense? I'm not stalking. And I fail to see how you will invalidate any votes I have placed. They are all legit, so you have no right to strike them, and you are not an admin, so you're not going to block me. And I have shown that I've not done anything wrong, or even attempted to do anything wrong, so your not going to get someone else to block me. Frankly, I'm considering opening a RfC because of some of your basless allegations here and harassing messages elsewhere. -

M^ask

17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Start an rfc and watch hordes of people support you. I have a feeling I am not liked on wikipedia at all. Getting me blocked is easy. Go right ahead. I have been levied restrictions for getting stalked in the past so I doubt you'd have any problems. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thread closed

This is rather non-standard, I know, but I'm fairly sure it is warranted under the circumstances.

I think we've fleshed this one out enough. Cool Cat, please

(talk)

20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I reopened the thread, do not close threads like that. Stalking requires administrative action, at the very least a warning.

I am sick and tired of people annoying me and being told to go to RfC. I do so and it is just ignored. No one even cares to review it. If I commit or suggest to commit remotely similar behaviour people are quick to block me or threaten to block me. Why cant we have one solid standard? I know almost no one gives a damn about enforcing wikipedia policies when I request it but at least dont slience me.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that stalking should be dealt with. But your case blew up in your face Cool_Cat. I'm not stalking you now, nor was I ever. You're just being paranoid. An Admin closed the thread because the accusations are baseless. You're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself. -

M^ask

17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. We're all out to get you. It's a massive conspiracy, and we're all in it. Face it, the Cabal wants you out of here.

Grow up. Rob Church 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider that as a personal attack. Then again compared to stuff you had done to me on IRC its nothing --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A strange case

I am blocking Harpercanada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely (after a question and a warning went ignored) because they are apparently creating articles solely to promote books published by HarperCollins Canada. As far as I know, this is the first time a major book publisher has decided to advertise on Wikipedia. If there's no complaint I will delete all their articles within a few days. Ashibaka tock 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't wait too long. The articles are horrible. For example: "The Continuity Girl"

• This book, published in 2006 by HarperCollins Canada is one that readers will laugh out loud.

I hope this editor is not an editor at HarperCollins. -Will Beback 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with speedying the lot; they're probably all copyvios. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken my own advice. Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your decision. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Call it a stretch, but this could also be a Username violation (Harper is the current PM for Canada). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Harper's not an uncommon surname, though, and it was all book spam (admittedly, that was my first thought too). Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of

Template:User feminist

The user

WP:NPOV. I'd like to see this template recreated since it was speedily deleted in an out-of-process way. Catamorphism 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Never mind, taking it to the appropriate forum. Catamorphism

07:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to take it through

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates.Geni

07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I didn't know that page existed. Catamorphism 07:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Privacy Harassment from 67.160.251.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I received this on my talk page last night. I warned the user not to harass and threatened a block if he did it again. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I posted at

WP:AN, you're not under any obligation to disclose any personal information to anyone and I certainly wouldn't give anyone your license to practice law license number.--MONGO

14:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman

I received the following [41]:

Attorney?

As an English barrister I find it impossible to believe that you are a lawyer, given the grossly defamatory and entirely POV post you made on Lord Nicholas Hervey's page. Sussexman 07:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this legal threat was intended for me; my only edit related to

Nicholas Hervey was to oppose the move request (on the talk page) on the grounds that the Style War should not be stirred up; but please act on it anyway. Septentrionalis

17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Hervey is actually rather mild considering the Hervey family's "interesting" lives, and I suspect he'll not be pleased with the more detailed additions someone else has made this evening. --ajn (talk

) 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The post isn't a legal threat: it doesn't say that anyone is going to sue anyone. It just says, "I don't believe your credentials, because you did something that a person with your credentials should know better than to do." --FOo 17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a threat behind all this, especially the use of "grossly defamatory", which would be actionable. But it appears to have been meant for User:Suze1, and Sussexman's talk page suggests they are getting along all right for now. Septentrionalis 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is also the minor point that in most legal systems, certainly including the English one, you can't defame someone who is dead (and the "defamatory" stuff is taken from the

Daily Telegraph, a Tory newspaper not noted for its disrespectful attitude to the aristocracy). So far, it's bluster from someone with a strong POV who hasn't yet learned that he can't insist that articles must reflect his views or exclude facts he finds distasteful. If it goes beyond bluster, there seem to be a few of us keeping an eye on him now. --ajn (talk

) 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Miskin

Interesting morning I've been having. I also received this[42]

I was very tempted to just grab the opportunity and make public denouncements against you, but my moral values held me back this one time. As I'm determined to go through anything in order to keep your POV out of the article, I don't know long I can hold back before I rationalize my actions and take extreme measures against you. Thought you should know that. Miskin 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the user against further personal attacks. --InShaneee 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't respond well ("Oh, I'm so scared"), someone might want to keep an eye on him. --InShaneee 04:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Rovno

Rovno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been submitting a number of copyrighted lyrics and blanking other pages. RJFJR 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. The insertion persisted after several warnings; I'd recommend a 48 hour block. Rob Church 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.Gator (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

24.155.128.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) School ip vandal Antonrojo 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 216.26.133.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Blatant school ip vandal Antonrojo 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Rob Church 19:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, both have been blocked.Gator (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reporting User:Hatchet

I'd like to report

WP:POINT. The user hasn't been warned until recently, but I wasn't aware of his deeds and User:Leyasu would just revert his statements. I have properly warned him but if you could take some sort of standard measures for those types of offenses it would make things easier for fellow editors. Thank you! (talk) Death2

19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why Blocked

Why am I blocked when I have just created an account? hollandave

Hi there. The reason for the block will be listed on the "you're blocked" page, along with the name of the blocking administrator, and your IP address. We need these pieces of information before we can assess your situation. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for creating an account; hopefully, this was just a simple misunderstanding. Rob Church 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to your block log, you're not blocked....and you edited here....so...I'm confused.Gator (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly an AOL address blocked, so one edit works another doesn't... --pgk^(talk) 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. Without his IP address, we'll never know.Gator (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User: 168.105.175.xx

This user (I'm assuming it's a single user with dynamic IP) persistently inserts unsupported allegations of sexual molestation on the page James Levine (history).

Grover cleveland 21:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock  Bonaparte 

Bonaparte has more than 4000 edits. He was blocked for more than 3 months now. I request an unblock for him.

talk & contribs

IP has been blocked as sock of Bonaparte.Gator (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

when was this user banned? I can see "11 January 2006 Jtkiefer blocked "Bonaparte (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (malicious sockpuppetry and running a botnet)", but no notice appears to have been posted to his talkpage; where is the evidence or arbcom finding that he did run a botnet? Sorry, I am not familiar with the case (but that's precisely why I would appreciate the relevant link to figure prominently on the banned user's page. From the "banned" template, it is not even evident if he was banned by Jimbo, the arbcom, or community consensus).

dab (ᛏ)

12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

See this and this. He sent me an e-mail the other day, apparently, he was offended by this edit - he told me that he wants to be unblocked and if he is will not use sockpuppets. I didn't know what to tell him, I advised him to take it to IRC or the mailing list. I don't know what he's done, but these posts keep reappearing. --Latinus 12:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the ban is a "community one" since we went off the checkuser information. I still support the block.User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:DMorpheus and User:Phillipsbourg

Requesting the assistance of a more experienced admin.

These two users have been waging a back and forth revert war on DMorpheus' talk page. Both are well over 3RR. I've blocked Phillipsbourg for the 3RR, but am uncertain as to whether DMorpheus deserves a similar block. It is DMorpheus' own talk page, after all, and these are not administrative warnings that are being fought over, so part of me says DMorpheus has the right to remove them from his page. But I'm not totally certain. - TexasAndroid 21:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal information posted by 68.229.66.61 (talk · contribs)

I have been in previous discussions with a handful of members about blogs specific to Julie Andrews. 68.229.66.61 (talk · contribs) has just posted personal information about one of those editors on my talk page. I'd like an administrator to look into whatever preventative action needs to be taken; more importantly, if the history of that edit can be erased to protect the person's identity, with haste, please. RadioKirk talk to me 05:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? RadioKirk talk to me 05:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Working on it.--MONGO 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 05:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Potential spam

See Special:Contributions/70.32.115.124; an example diff is [43]. It seems obvious that if we keep these links they don't need their own section, but should they be reverted as spam? Christopher Parham (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Never mind, bit late now. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocked 24h. --Golbez 05:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:McGill Redmen

Talk:McGill Redmen and I could use some help, please. Ardenn

05:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as he's usually incredibly blunt, I really don't see anything here that remotely constitutes an attack. Please take the content dispute to

dispute resolution if you'd like, but there does appear to be a consensus already about not including the hazing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish

05:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Racist link

Hello there.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask...

I wonder if it is tolerated to have a direct link to a racist message from a user page? I refer to User:Karl_Meier who links to a page with the message "And so....from all Danes to the entire Muslim world,we just wanna say; FUCK YOU!!" Luckily, only a very small minority of Danes takes so radical rancourous positions - I am personally very disgusted by such statements, and hope some administrators will have a look at the case. Bertilvidet 09:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

this is hardly a "racist" link, and while I'm concerned with taunts on userpages, "Project SIIEG" and other borderline on-site behaviour, I don't think a link to a site by outraged Danes is racist or illegitimate, or even "rancourous". Just let him have his link and avoid fanning this any further.

dab (ᛏ)

09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually ask him to add a warning to his link.

T+C) at 09:33 UTC (2006-03-29

)

Actually, while I quite liberal on userpages, this is too much. It is obviously inflammetory trolling and likely to bring wikipedia into disrepute. Declaring POV on a userpage is perhaps beneficial to the project, but saying 'Fuck You' to the muslim world is not. I'd support an enforced removal of this link. But I'll wait for a consensus here. --

^ask?

09:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe. we lack a clear userpage external link policy. It's not a link I'd host on my userpage, but it's not one of the worse hatemongeing islamophobic sites I've seen; it seems to be a good-faith site by Danes outraged about the cartoon hubbub, not a site by Nazis or confused fundamentalists. The question is, does it matter? What sort of links do we allow on userpages? Whatever you do, be sure to be evenhanded. We might need "userpage guidelines" where such precedents can be recorded.

dab (ᛏ)

10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

'Be evenhanded' is normally an excuse to do nothing without creating some complicated process, and taking on an impossible task of clearing up all the idiocy on the site at once. A commonsense revolution can proceed case by case. --

^ask?

11:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

hey, I'm not saying that you should deal with all cases at once. I am all for unbureaucratic clamping down in blatant cases. I am not too sure about the blatancy of this one, but go ahead and deal with it, with common sense. I am just saying that we need to keep a record of such cases and how they were dealt with for the orientation of admins in future cases, so they have a possibility to estimate what was considered "fair" in the past. I would do nothing here, but if you think the user should be forced to remove the link, I will not object since I agree the link is in poor taste. I am also all against instruction creep, but userpage policies are clearly a desideratum, just look at the resources wasted over the userbox wars and what not. We all have a vague idea of what is acceptable on userpages and what isn't. All we need to do is make the limits a little clearer so newbies will have an easier time finding out about these unwritten things. I can understand that editors seeing all these fancy userpages with lots of personal and political stuff will try to make one that is even 'better'; the obvious result of this process will be that wikipedia becomes a host for personal homepages. We need clear guidelines to discourage that and draw lines.

dab (ᛏ)

11:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO there is a huge difference between displaying political convictions and insulting a certain group. Bertilvidet 15:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've asked him nicely to remove the link [44], or at least indicate it in a less trolling manner. This is really the equivalent of putting a link to a Nazi site on a userpage with the instruction 'Jews click here'. It is really not acceptable. Let's hope he is willing to remove it. --

^ask?

15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Userpages are Userpages and should somehow serve to provide information usefull to wikipedia such as the users interests. By reading the userpage one can thell about a persons interests and maybe seek assitance. I however prefer my userpage not to be infuriating and instead welcoming. I don't like Karl Meier so I doubt this is an objective argument. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As a disinterested 3rd who regularly reads here, I'd support forcible removal in this case, for two reasons: it's aimed at "the entire Muslim world", which constitutes many millions of people in virtually every country on Earth, and it purports to come "from all Danes", which the author cannot begin to back up. RadioKirk talk to me 18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

82.198.250.5

I just reverted a large deletion at

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles made by 82.198.250.5. Looking at the talk page, this IP has been warned repeatedly about vandalism. It has been blocked once, but has continued to vandalize articles (at least three more times if this one is counted). Assuming it is not a dynamic IP, perhaps another block is in order. Thanks, Kjkolb

11:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Please use

^ask?

11:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. While I am experienced in fighting vandalism, I am unfamiliar with the blocking process. -- Kjkolb 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)