Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive51

Trolling, personal attacks: User:66.68.73.149

This editor and his various IPs has identified himself as DaveScot from the uncommondescent.com blog and been engaged in trolling, personal attacks at Talk:Intelligent design over the last week or so. He has been warned before but is continuing to do so. Guettarda and I are trying to keep him in check, but he's becoming increasingly disruptive and nasty. The following IPs are associated with this editor:

• 24.27.43.61 (talk · contribs)
• 66.69.216.76 (talk · contribs)
• 66.68.73.149 (talk · contribs)

FeloniousMonk 20:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandal/sock user: "Lets all vandalise Wikipedia together"

I noticed in the user creation log a user named Lets all vandalise Wikipedia together. No contribs yet, but best keep an eye on it. The Hokkaido Crow 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

After checking the user creation log you should check the block log too... :-) -- Curps 01:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly a bad choice for a username. You don't need to be careful with names so blatant like this one. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa!

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive50#Double-checking_DG - there's two edits there from the two usernames that are very unlikely to have been from the same physical location. I still think it's pretty clear they're closely linked and in close communication, but they aren't in fact the same person. I've unblocked TheChief.

You will be pleased to know that there are likely to be five more CheckUser users soonish, so finding someone to independently check highly disputed results like this will be feasible - David Gerard 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin points out in the above link that it's possible to use widely-separated IPs, e.g. via a VPN. (I myself could edit legally using IPs on three continents.) But I still no longer feel safe in this one - David Gerard 12:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

For those concerned about CheckUser policy - please see m:Proposed CheckUser Policy and m:Talk:Proposed CheckUser Policy. m:Help:CheckUser is the user manual, with half of it being how not to break the privacy policy. Voting for CheckUser is as unlikely to happen as voting for root access - David Gerard 12:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on David Gerard's revised view that there is insufficient evidence of TheChief as a sockpuppet I have unprotected TheChief's user page and removed the sockpuppet notice. - Tεxτurε 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that one - David Gerard 16:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask any users with lingering questions to please come to my talk page with them. I think the healthiest thing for the community is to talk about these issues and get them out in the open. TheChief (PowWow) 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:George P. Bush

Yes, George P. Bush, the son of Jeb Bush. Besides that simple fact, the only other thing he is notable for is an incident in 1994 in which he drove over a girlfriend's lawn, broke in through a bedroom window, and got in an argument with her father, after which he drove off across the lawn. The event was notable enough to hit The Smoking Gun and has between 130 and 1300 Google hits, but an individual on the talk page tells me that if I dare to put it in the article, the user, Cuchullain, will "request arbitration". The text has been in the article for quite sometime, and only now is this user repeatedly deleting it. The fact that so new a user would refuse to discuss it any further, and instead go straight to "requesting arbitration" is not suprising, but I'm not sure how to handle this. It's obvious no discussion will alleviate it. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 19:20

I've looked at the problem. I would say "damn the torpedos" and put it in there. If he's silly enough to file an RFAr against you for that, then let him. It'll be promptly ignored. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The user is also deleting from Jeb Bush, Jr. the following things: 1) his mug shot (instead opting for no photo), 2) the fact that his mother was of Mexican decent (no clue why), 3) the external links that link to his arrest reports, 4) the details of his arrests. I'm starting to think he's on the Bush payroll :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 20:23

• Similar activity is also occurring at Columba Bush. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 20:25

Speaking as an arb, I would think it just about certain it would be rejected at this stage. He's not that new - he's been doing lots of work on the wiki since February. Probably time for a bit of applied diplomacy, if you can think of some. e.g. don't start with saying he's pushing an agenda even if you think he is ;-) I've left a note on the article talk page to this effect.

The AC has penalised people in the past for purging referenced information from pages, though that was a pathological case from a mission editor. In this one, the guy edits well elsewhere (I assume from the talk page conversations), so hopefully can be brought round - David Gerard 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the Robert the Bruce case:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce

--Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive time again!

Could someone please archive old stuff from this page? It's getting really fat again ... - David Gerard 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Done. I don't think I archived any active conversations, but if I did, just yell at me so I don't do it again.--Scïmïłar ^parley 23:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets to evade 3RR block

Greetings. A user is using multiple accounts (over a dozen so far) to make the same reversion to Iraqi insurgency. When he is blocked for 3RR violation, he creates another account and goes again. Check out the page history. I've previously filed complaints at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Possible_Sockpuppets and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hesketh_Fortescue_and_related_sockpuppets. (Please read that second link before blocking me or anyone else for violating the 3RR when reverting this user's changes - other admins have determined the sockpuppets' changes to be tantamount to simple vandalism, so the 3RR doesn't apply to those that revert him.)

Anyway, this user is nothing if not enthusiastic and diligent in his cause. I'm an admin, and I've blocked many of his incarnations, but I could use some help. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Can he/she/it be blocked by an IP or a range of IPs? Maybe it is worth to temporary protect the article? abakharev 22:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe protect it for a few days. That would be my next suggestion. I'll watchlist the page too. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you protect it, then the vandal will go to an unwatched page. It is better to fix it by blocking the range than to push the vandal to an unseen page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:38

Maybe, maybe not. Is there any evidence that this person cares at all about other pages? If not, I'd be inclined to try a protection for a while. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he only cares about wasting our time and screwing over Wikipedia, so I think it'd be easy for him to just move onto other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:46

I'm not at all keen for this page to be protected - for any more than a few hours at a time. It is a high profile current event, and I recently removed the protection after three days. It is better to block the POV pushers if possible and if not just revert. This type of insistant warrior will have the page protected for months on end. If we give in to this we might as well have George W. Bush on permenant protection. It's a wiki. --Doc (?) 23:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• more suckpupeets User:Brain1890, User:Brain1980 and User:Brain8190 on the same page abakharev 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And User:Brain1809. I'm famous! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 02:23

This vandal is still going strong. Anyone care to help? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 02:43

Wik's reversion vandalbot again? - David Gerard 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Repossession and The Fight

Repossession (talk · contribs) continues to remove an article he/she has created (The Fight) from the copyvio log before the case has been settled. He/she has also removed the copyvio notice on the page and reverted the article to the copyvio text. Until now, I have been able to reinstate the copyvio notice and the log myself, but I can't remain online forever ;) I hope that one of the administrators will keep an eye on this article and this user (who btw. seems to be on a mission to blatantly plug, promote and advertise for artists and albums signed to a record label he/she claims to own, which seems like a misuse of Wikipedia namespace). Aecis ^praatpaal 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with him? I don't see any edits on his Talk page which discuss this issue. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have contacted him/her now. I would have contacted Repossession Records as well, but I can't find an e-mail address anywhere on their homepage. Aecis ^praatpaal 10:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The contributor has created an excellent non-copyvio temporary page, so I think we can consider this case closed. Aecis ^praatpaal 23:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Oldstylecharm, User:Trever, and User:Nannegananneghan

I noticed an edit from Oldstylecharm (talk · contribs) in which he added a link to a website of poetry. It was not at all relevant to the article, so I reverted it. I looked through his contributions, and saw that he had added that particular website to several articles, but had made no content-edits. It seemed likely that he was the poet in question, or at least that he was trying to increase traffic to a particular website. I began to remove them all – a laborious task. After a while, I noticed that Trever (talk · contribs) was busy replacing them. His name had a red link, so it looked as if the account was very recently created. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he was not only replacing the spamlinks, but was going to pages I had recently edited, and was undoing all my edits – even on a talk page, twice, where I was answering a question from another user [1] [2], and another talk page where I had simply added the {{unsigned}} templage and removed a blank line [3]. It seems fairly obvious that Trever is a sockpuppet for Oldstylecharm, and that they are both in violation of Wikipedia policy.

I sent a message to both usertalk pages alerting them to the policy on spam. I also sent a message to Trever, and he replied that he wasn't Oldstylecharm – Guess what my name spelled backwards is?

I have just received a message[4] from Nannegananneghan (talk · contribs) which is almost certainly related to the above.

Could an admin look into this, please? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've indef. blocked all 3 for spamming and innapropriate use of sockpuppets since there seem to be no actual edits to speak of, I'll also use rollback to revert all edits by them. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wbfl

I have blocked Wbfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours. He has been editwarring with Geni (talk · contribs) and others on Wikipedia talk:Administrative probation, see [5]. I am putting this notice up as I was the target of the original attack. Fred Bauder 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I deny the above acusation. 1 revert is not an edit war.Geni 07:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, I don't think that Fred meant it as an accusation that Geni was edit warring. To clarify, I think Fred meant that Wbfl was edit warring, and that Geni was just one of many editors whose edits Wbfl reverted. (For context, Wbfl was repeatedly reinserting a personal attack into a talk page.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Special:listuser

I was trying to clean the rubish off the front page by creating large numbers of dummy accounts. However I appear to have run into a feature that produces the message "Sorry, you have already created 10 accounts. You can't make any more. Special Page". Since that rather firmly limits me I was woundering if anyone else would be able to carry on?Geni 19:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely it makes more sense for a developer to rename the accounts in question to more innocuous names. I know we're short of developer resources, but this wouldn't take a lot of skill (and isn't particularly urgent, since the names have been there for a while). I wouldn't mind upskilling a bit to do this myself. Where would I go to apply? I assume what would be required would be direct database access, ie ability to run read-write sql statements directly on the database. I realise this would require the highest level of trust from the community. Alternatively, a developer could write a script to rename a user, which first checks that the user has no edits (is that the case for all these abusive usernames?) or only a very small number of edits, and permission to run that script can be given to only a very small number of users.-gadfium 23:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

they could just be recreated. I'm trying to make it imposible to add a name contianin content to the first page.Geni 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You'd need trust from the developers, not the community. See How to become a MediaWiki hacker. There already was something made to rename users but it had to be disabled. See Wikipedia:Changing username. Angela. 05:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really I think my ip shifts around a small range so the ten limit doesn't matter in the long run. Yes technicaly a technical solution might be better but I'm being realistic (the developers have other things to worry about).Geni 06:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've started making more of these. Anything to get "Linuxbeak is a faggot" off that page. ~~ N (t/c) 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

You are likely to be blocked repeatedly if you do this. The account creation pattern will look awfuly suspecious to patroling admins.Geni 07:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even though all of the accounts I created were blocked, I never suffered an IP autoblock - I guess because I logged out immediately after making each one. ~~ N (t/c) 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a rather strange solution. Wouldn't it be easier to request from the DEVs that permablocked users don't show up in Listursers? Radiant_>|< 16:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's done now. The devs have more important things to worry about. Assumeing you are not blocked it is posible to create at least a couple of accounts a minute so it isn't really a problem.Geni 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Daniel Brandt blocked for a week

I have blocked User:Daniel Brandt for a week for making unfounded legal threats. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Dlyons493

Input needed. Check out Dlyons493 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) these contribs. All with edit summaries of Reverting vandalism by 168.8.230.251, but there was no edits by that IP. Some of them I have reverted, and some seem like valid edits. I have left a msg on the talk page, but no response. Anyone have any opinions on this? «»Who?¿?^meta 01:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. Replied. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

User:TDC

TDC (talk · contribs) seems to have gone a bit bananas again. See Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lots of reverts. If you look at his recent contributions it's pretty much the same story across a load of articles. Last time he got this bad I blocked him for a bit. I intend this time to warn him again and if he continues block him for a day or two to hamper his being a disruptive so-and-so. I invite others to investigate and review this proposal. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, Tony, but would add that the other party in this revert war (the EarthLink IP) is also belligerent- revert warring and (previously) inserting copyvios for the last fourteen months on this and other articles. --Duk 04:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with what you say, Tony, but must (yet again) correct Duks mischaracterization. I've contributed edits to Wikipedia for less than 5 months. Not only have I never, to my knowledge, inserted copyvios, but I've also gone to great lengths to work with Duk to remove and properly rewrite what he considered questionable -- despite Duk's unwarranted personal attacks. As for "inserting copyvios for the last fourteen months," I believe Duk can verify (through the evidence on his User Talk page) that such a description fits TDC to a tee. I would appreciate it greatly, Duk, if you would refrain from the personal attacks. I can't imagine what beef you might have with certain Earthlink users, but quit trying to make me a part of it. 165.247.202.196 11:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you are right - its not fair of me to assume that all the EarthLinks IP's tormenting this article for the last fourteen months are you. So let me re-state that Tony's comment about TDC can be equally applied to the other party (a group of EarthLink IP's that act in a similar way). Also, you can easily avoid these arguments by editing under a login. --Duk 16:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Although it may not be fair to assume that it is the same individual EarthLink user, its a pretty safe bet considering that the same article has been in dispute with EarthLinks IP's for fourteen months, and that it was only until Duk stepped in and put an end to the most egregious copyvio issues that it partially ended. If I am going to be singled out for an edit war on this article, I wish that you would at least take into consideration that this anon has not allowed one single user to contribute or modify that article in any significant way. I should also point out that the edit war is not for lack of discussion on the talk page. TDC 21:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I take all of that into account, but none of it gives you cart blanche to engage in this pointless and sterile edit war which serves absolutely no useful purpose. See my elaboration of this on your talk page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Requesting intervention

Hi everyone. I was wondering if someone with more time on their hands than me could look at the extensive conflict between Iantresman (talk · contribs) and Joshuaschroeder (talk · contribs). Ian left this message on my talk page yesterday. There's POV disputes ranging over multiple articles (See Talk:Redshift, Talk:Plasma cosmology). I'm not sure if this is arbitration-level yet (which is where he was thinking of taking it), but I think the two desperately need some third-party input. Any help is appreciated! Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to take it, but I'm not sure I'm equipped to help at the moment. Just too many other disputes going on that I am involved in. But...please...someone help dmc out if they can. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Benapgar

I've blocked Benapgar (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for repeatedly disrupting Intelligent design over the last 2 weeks by ignoring consensus about his originial research and highly pov edits, multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:3RR, and ignoring warnings from SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), myself, and others. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but blocking a user over a content dispute, when you are one of the major parties to that dispute, is out of line. I'm going to remove this block, but if another uninvolved admin wants to review the evidence and reinstate it, I won't object. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, but a behavior dispute. FeloniousMonk 20:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A quick glance shows several different people warning Benapgar on the talk page. I don't see that the block is "out of line" at all. However, I'm not going to block a user based on looking at 2 minutes worth of evidence. I also don't feel too keen to block a user without warning them myself to cut it out, but that might make me an involved party too. I do not think the block should have been removed. The block isn't because of a content dispute, it's because of disruptive editing, unless you're suggesting that FeloniousMonk is being misleading in his reasons given above. Friday (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said above and you've correctly identified, Benapgar earned his 24hr block for 2 weeks of disrupting that article, personal attacks, and ignoring multiple warnings. I'm not going to challenge Mirv's unblocking of him. But now that Benapgar is out of the pokey and a free man, I have a feeling we'll know soon enough whether I was right to block him for being chronically disruptive. FeloniousMonk 21:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

(via EC) When the dispute is over behavior in regards to the content of an article, the difference between a content dispute and a behavioral dispute becomes blurry. I'm concerned that an admin who was one of the major parties to the dispute lacks the distance necessary to distinguish the two; if someone who wasn't involved in the dispute thinks the behavior merits a block, they'll hear no objection from me. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that. If other's aren't comfortable that I'm objective or detached enough to make a rational judgment, who am I to tell them they are wrong? There's also the appearance of being vindictive, since I was the target of much of Benapgar's wrath, that is an issue too. My only concern is dealing effectively with chronically abusive and disruptive editors. If it troubles others that I'm involved, then someone else will need to deal with this situation or it will spiral out of control, as his edits since his unblocking indicate. FeloniousMonk 21:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note: In the interests of clarity, the "edits" to which FeloniousMonk is referring is the RfA I filed against him and two other administrators [6]. I did not edit any Intelligent Design related article between 20:46, 5 November 2005 and 21:29, 5 November 2005. Further, I have only made 2 edits to any Intelligent Design related article since then, and that was simply to ask what "MoSed" meant as a user had removed a previous contribution I made with that as the summary [7] [8]. Here is my contribution history for my username and my IP address for reference: [9] [10] --Ben 03:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Ben, that's not why you were blocked and you know it. FeloniousMonk 23:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That does not follow. Since you having difficulty explaining what you meant by "as his edits since his unblocking indicate.", perhaps you were referring to these two edits I made on my talk page: [11] [12]. Many times vandals who are unblocked immediately return to vandalising articles. I believe this is what you were trying to imply when you said "someone else will need to deal with this situation or it will spiral out of control, as his edits since his unblocking indicate." In my opinion it is very disingenuous, nearly lying, to imply those two edits of mine "indicate" the "situation will spiral out of control."--Ben 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, AN/I isn't exactly the proper place for you to accuse me of being disingenuous or a liar. Were any admins actually interested in this, and I'm sure there are exactly zero, they can review and judge for themselves your behavior immediately after your unblocking, at the talk page of your user conduct RFC. FeloniousMonk 02:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That's ok. Now that I have provided sufficient reference, I think it will be clear to them, though obviously not to you, the duplicity of your 21:29, 5 November 2005 remark, suggesting I was on some sort of rampage, as well as the equivocation in your subsequent replies to me. --Ben 05:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Two things: involved admins should never block — even if the block is warranted, it creates the image of an admin blocking out of spite. (And I haven't reviewed this case.) Two: isn't there a current ArbCom case regarding this? Why not let them sort it out? THanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do so many admins in a conflict-of-interest situation like this insist on besmirching their own reputations by blocking people they're in a dispute with? It doesn't take too much effort to post a note here asking for someone else, someone outside the dispute, to examine the situation and impose a block if it's called for.

If a block is appropriate, then someone outside the dispute will agree. --FOo 05:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Questoin

(Misplaced questions removed. Wiki brah, the Reference Desk is ←thataway; ask your questions there, please. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC))

Bagrationi

Would someone please restore the dispute tag to this article and lock it? Levzur doesn't grasp that he doesn't get to decide whether or not there's a dispute, and I'm not going to play revert war over a dispute tag. Isomorphic 02:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I readded the tag with the note. We can't "lock" it. If you want protection on the page, please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection or start the Dispute resolution process. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Me again

My question about BGC (talk · contribs) and his non-fair-use of fair use images was archived before anything could come of it. Kelly Martin posted agreeing that the use wasn't fair under fair-use conditions, but nothing else happened. As things stand, then, BGC is adding these images to a whole range of articles (as are others, I imagine). All that I can do is to remove them, but as BGC simply reverts my removal, I'm engaged in a slow-moving edit war with no obvious way out. The template that includes them (which hasn't been adopted by the Albums Wikiproject) was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus (thanks to a large number of editors who had no interest in the fair use issue, but thought that the template looked pretty).

Someone managed to get him to stop him calling my removal of the images vandalism in his edit summaries, but that's purely incidental; could someone who knows what they're talking about speak to him about fair use, and explain the problem with what he's doing? As for Template:Album infobox 2, as it innvolves the non-fair use, what can be done about it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Fix the infobox to exclude the disputed stuff and put a request on WP:RFPP. When the infobox is protected, then he can be educated. NOT while he's engaged in an edit war with an administrator who frankly should know better. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a little perplexed. Clearly Mel feels strongly about this but the template with the images survived a recent attempt at deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/October_2005#Template:_Album_infobox_2. Even many of the "delete" votes said they were skeptical of the claim that the images violated fair use but were voting to delete the template for other reasons. Many commercial sites use thumbnails to send users to pages describing the product in greater detail. Although I'll admit that I did not get an "A" in Professor Miller's copyright class when I took it many years ago, I have dealt with fair use for my clients a few times over the years and this does not seem to me to even be a very close question. Besides, I would think the record companies would be happy with the use even if it did exceed fair use. Whether Kelly Martin is right that this use violates the Wikipedia fair use guideline is a different question. We are certainly free to have guidelines that are more restrictive than the law requires. However, on WP:FU (which remember is a guideline and not policy) I could see nothing specifically prohibiting the use as a navigational aid. The most directly applicable provision under the section labeled "Policy" states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Although I would argue that the use as a navigational aid is by no means "purely decorative", the use also does not appear to "contribute significantly to the article". In any event, this doesn't seem so clear cut that Mel should be unilaterally deleting images in a "kept" template where there was no consensus on the position he sought. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Caveat: I don't claim to be a copyright expert even with respect to U.S. law and make no claim whatsoever to knowledge of the "fair use" and somewhat analogous (but different) concepts under the laws of other jursidictions. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just posted a message to User talk:BCG insisting that he refrain from this edit war for one week and I have told him he will be blocked if he does not. I take no position on which template should be used, but I feel since the WP:ALBUM guidelines advocate a particular template, the burden is upon BCG to build concensus for a change to exisiting guidelines and address the concerns of those who disagree. He has also exacerbate the war through personal attacks and inappropriate edit summaries and made little substantive effort to engage in dialogue on this issue and related ones. This edit war has gone on long enough and should not be allowed to continue. Gamaliel 00:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

jguk 4

It appears that since jguk is about to get banned by the arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2) from making date style changes, he is embarking on another trolling spree to remove/change reference to BCE / CE / Common Era. He has created a duplicate template (Template:Middle_Kingdoms_of_India), against the GFDL (without crediting the source or original authors), with a different date style from the original (Template:Middle_kingdoms_of_India) and is going from article to article changing date styles [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Someone please block him and rollback his edits. Sortan 19:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it seems excessive to call it a "trolling spree". Everyking 08:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Trolling" is technically inaccurate here, but characterizing the activity as a spate of abusive behavior is correct. Even if we disregard the injunction, this is abusive behavior under WP:POINT. --FOo 13:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Jguk banned from changing era notation

1) Based on continued editing solely for the purpose of removing BCE/CE notation from articles (see [31] [32]), jguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from changing or removing any BCE/CE notation from any article, or making any edit intended to achieve that result, pending resolution of this matter. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2#Temporary_injunction

Revert war on Income Tax

User:216.27.181.235 and what seems to be the same person editing under other IPs continues adding "tax protester" conclusions to the US section of Income tax and its talk page. Other users have been reverting these changes, and unless the changes are regarded as vandalism, are nearing the 3RR line if not over it. As I have made soem substantive edits to the article, adn added a good deal of content to the talk page, on this same issue, I don't think I should be the admin to do any blocking here, but soem more eyes would be a good idea, please. DES ^(talk) 01:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits such as this, this, this, this, this, this adjacent pair, and this are the sort of thing I refer to. DES ^(talk) 01:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Busy beaver

Elgorithms (talk · contribs) - Can someone please take a look at these contributions? - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a large batch of redirects to good articles to me.  ALKIVAR™ 06:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was concerned that it was spammish re Easy Trace and Elgorithms MagicTracer, in light of the username.
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

82.42.151.164

Just got this - I've unblocked - watch that IP! - David Gerard 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The IP address 82.42.151.164 will only have two legitimate users - me and xxxxxxxx.

I have removed from my network all the users who have used it to abuse :Wikipedia - therefore this problem is now almost eliminated!

This may solve the Willy on Wheels problem!

Anyway, please unblock the IP so that me and xxxxxxxx (both legitimate users - xxxxxxxx will register soon!) can make meaningful edits.

Please feel free to post this on your talk page but censor out the real names!

Cheers,

xxxxxxxx

Solve the Willy on Wheels problem? I'll believe that when I see it! -- Francs2000 19:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Two things. First of all, we can't watch that IP if he uses sockpuppets, only a user with checkuser privilege can do that. Second, there was a very similar request [33] from Fantastic_Door (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who soon showed his "good faith" [34] and was permanently blocked. I'd be extremely suspicious. -- Curps 20:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am using this IP too, but I am here to make legitimate contributions not vandalism. Don't block this IP as I will not be able to edit. I have only made one edit so far. --Adam Paul 21:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you check my contribution history you will see I have made legitimate contributions. I am not here to vandalise, I hope I make this clear. --Adam Paul 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You doth protest a little too much. -- Curps 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Curps, it isn't a protest - just an explanation. --Adam Paul 23:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The email I got was from someone who said they were the admin on the box, so we'll see if the holes stay closed or problem users stay problematic. The impression I get is it's a semi-private system used by a few different people. If it becomes a source of trouble then we can temp block the IP and I'll let the admin know - David Gerard 23:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, David. You make a fair point there. I'm only here to make positive edits, not troll. Post on my talk page if there's any problems. --Adam Paul 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You're the vandal. Don't ask me how I know. But I look forward to your legitimate, positive and non-trolling contributions under this new sock. -- Curps 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith ;-) And if he is, assume his sysadmin has LARTed him sufficiently! - David Gerard 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means assuming that the vandal has agreed to use this particular sock only for making good edits. It doesn't mean pretending that he's someone else. -- Curps 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

72.9.252.242 - Proxy?

I've just blocked 72.9.252.242 (talk · contribs) for being a returning vandal, however the user themselves admits on their page that the IP is a proxy. How can this be verified, and should the IP therefore be blocked indefinitely? -- Francs2000 20:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you go to its port 80, you can see a cPanel page. It'a a webhost, which means that it's almost certain to be a CGI proxy. Unless you find the exact URL for the CGI (which is quite hard to do), you do not have a proof. The main problem is that such hosts serve a number of domains, and it's hard to find them given only the IP address (however, given the domain name, finding the offending CGI tends to be easier). I believe it's unlikely for a webhost IP to have a legitimate reason to edit Wikipedia, other than for unattended bots. --cesarb 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Amongst others, the following domains are hosted by 72.9.252.242: www.Anonproxy.info, www.Ipanonymize.com, www.Ipsecret.com.... obviously this is a proxy service. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Carnildo 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, how did you get that info? I have a number of suspicious IPs I'd like to check, which are also webhosts. --cesarb 13:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

New Controversial Template

On my user page I have been trying out new templates, and I want to know what you think of this edit (I copied/pasted the code then edited it as necessary!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_Paul/Controversial_template

This is a sister version to the 'Controversial' talk page templates. I welcome your input on it! --Adam Paul 21:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Terminator 4

The above page keeps getting blanked or listed for speedy deletion by a user with a proxy IP who sees the T4 page as "their page". A couple of other users have left comments on the talk page questioning the validity of the article, and the user who sees it as "their page" keeps trying to remove them. Something that's worth a couple of other admins watching as I'm not always around.

Incidentally I believe this same user to be the person who has been leaving pictures of scrotums on Doc glasgow's talk page this evening. -- Francs2000 23:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say just put Terminator 4 on AfD. T4 is "in production" which means that there is little to no verifiable information about it. It's likely to be a giant crystal ball, just like Batman Begins 2 or Batman Begins Sequel. android79 14:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuckfrance

This article may be inflammatory but speedy deletion is inappropriate. Funny how much anti-Americanism there is on Wikipedia, but the merest hint of anti-French sentiment causes such massive dismay. Put it on AfD and let the appropriate policy prevail. Let's see all of the inclusionists come out of the woodwork to support this. If somebody wants to list it on AfD, I'll vote delete due to it being an nn website, but speedy deletion because it's a vandal magnet isn't the right way to go. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In that case I would emphatically suggest renaming it to something more civil and then expand it. Ereinion 04:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

By this logic, we should speedy delete Ashida Kim, Sollog, George W. Bush, Jack Thompson, and GNAA. Thus, I agree with Zoe. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

AFD it, that gives us a chance to apply CSD G4. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It was properly AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuckfrance so nobody can claim that this was not by policy this time. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The AfD was closed four days early. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually belive I was one of the first to say that this article was deleted however I want to say that I want it done properly and within policy that way not only is it within the guidelines but nobody can dispute it if it doesn't go they're way in either direction. I have listed it here. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I see another erroneous & harmful claim to "WP:IAR" on that page. It's a shame some folks are so willing to throw away their credibility: you can't be ignoring all rules if you're in the very act of administering a rules-based procedure like AfD.

Nonetheless, deletion here was in accordance with the rules, namely the rules about deletion in accordance with consensus. --FOo 07:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Call of Duty/Lightbringer

I've just recieved a message on my talk page claiming that User:Call of Duty (a new account) may be a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer (recently blocked). I blocked Lightbringer, but that was for edits to his talk page, not to the Freemasonry article. Could someone with more background on User:Lightbringer take a look and see if User:Call of Duty seems like a sock?--Scïmïłar ^parley 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've also reduced Lightbringer's block to one week and unprotected his talk page. If he posts freemasonry related material, I will reprotect.--Scïmïłar ^parley 15:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bot running as an anonymous user

Could someone with some time and knowledge of bots take a look at user:143.248.139.90's contributions. The edit summaries indicate that it is a bot, but my understand of the policy is that anon users are not meant to run bots? I've not taken any action as I'm not certain (and pages are taking 5-10 minutes each to load for me atm). Thryduulf 17:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• It appears to be one of the regular interwiki 'bots being inadvertently logged out from time to time. Uncle G 17:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The correct action in this case would be to block it with a message telling it to let you or someone else know when it has logged back in so it can be unblocked. silsor 22:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, Marmot, Jarlaxle?

Just want to bring [35] this to the attention of admins. Thanks. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak blocked [the sock] indefinite[ly] (sic), and I've slapped a Marmot sock tag on the user page. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to change your wording so it doesn't sound like you've blocked Linuxbeak indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Marmot. --Carnildo 22:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Concur with that — when I first read that, I thought Linuxbeak had been blocked indefinitely! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That should fix things. :) Titoxd^(?!?) 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Encyclopedia Dramatica policy, but could that page maybe be deleted as an attack on a real person using their real name? Or am I hopelessly naive, and that's what ED is all about? ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what it's all about. I contacted the admins and gave them false information on my location... heh. They thought they trolled me. Close, but no cigar. Sorry, trolls. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney

As admitted by himself, Ryan Delaney has willfully broken the protection policy because he dislikes me as a person. At the same time he made a personal attack: "To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the blocking policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered." [36]

He has now in addition twice protected without request and without giving an explanation[37][38] after becoming involved in the RfA about the articles [39].

He also seems to think that he owns articles he has protected. Other administrators must ask him before unprotecting an article he protected 8 days earliier [40][41]. In addition, this seems to violate that the protection should be temporary.

I therefore ask that some other administrator unprotect the Democratic peace theory and Criticisms of communism. Ultramarine 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests for unprotection should probably go at WP:RfP. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin blocking people against his views

User:Kwamikagami who has just recently become an administrator is edit warring on two pages. To facilitate his position he blocks users agaisnt his view. He has permanantely blocked IP address: 70.177.166.200 for no reason on October 30th. The user that is on that IP address is a friend of mine who hasn't registered. Now he cannot edit anything because of User:Kwamikagami's block. Please unblock the IP address.--Frederick24 01:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, which article(s)? android79 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, it looks like this is all related to vandalism or POV warring at Urdu. Kwamikagami indefinitely blocked three anonymous users, two of which I've unblocked; for the third (the one you mention) I've reduced it to 24 hours. I left a note on his talk page regarding the inadvisability of indefinite blocks for IPs and asking for his input here. Since you've participated in a bit of vandalism yourself, Frederick, I'm not very inclined to take this report at face value. android79 01:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I've overstepped there. I was under the impression from the policy pages that we were encouraged to block anonymous IPs indefinitely. I asked about this several times, mostly without response; it seemed from the answer I got at the blocking policy talk page that this was the way to go. It always made me a bit uncomfortable, though.

Android, would you consider multiple daily reverts for weeks on end without discussion or justification to be vandalism? (Also, many of the 'friends' are suspected sockpuppets, though I can't confirm that, and it may be a case of astroturfing.) POV warring with honest debate is one thing; this seemed over the top, but I wasn't sure I'd be justified in calling it vandalism, which is why I never blocked a logged-in user (except for 24 hours for violating 3RR).

Thanks, kwami 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Multiple daily reverts of the same material in the same article against consensus: that I would classify as vandalism, though others might disagree. Since 70.whatever appears to be a static IP (indeed, this seems to have been going on for months) escalating blocks are certainly in order (24 hours the first time, 48 hours the next, etc.)

In any case, since you appear to be involved in not only "policing" the Urdu article, but also contributing to it, it would be best if another admin handled the blocks for 3RR and for vandalism except in extreme cases. I'll add Urdu to my watchlist and help out when I can. (Who knows, maybe I'll learn something about the language.) If this behavior continues and no one is around to contain it, post at WP:AN or WP:AN/3RR.

You may have gotten the wrong impression if you ever read the policy on blocking open proxies. Those IPs may be blocked indefinitely. I'll admit the blocking policy is confusing and vague in places. Fortunately, we can fix that. :-) android79 03:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. How do you tell if an IP is a proxy?

Thanks for helping out. I probably have been getting too close, though I had no personal interest in the subject, at least at first. If I remember right, I started out policing the article, but then tried making compromise edits to resolve the dispute. Almost succeeded, too - the only point in dispute currently is the classification, where an editor (JusticeLaw) refuses (or has been refusing) to accept the universal view held by linguists, but can offer no contrary evidence. He had been reverting daily until recently, though he has been engaging in some minimal discussion. kwami 06:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding proxies, I'm not sure how to tell; there doesn't appear to be any description in the various blocking policy pages. Curps would know. android79 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User talk:I Hate My Ex!

I would like to delete this. Where do you report inappropriate user names? User has been ranting in the sandbox.--Jondel 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User has been blocked. We don't normaly delete stuff in the user namespace.Geni 02:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the user name offensive. There's no swearing, it's not an attack on anyone who will ever see it, and in fact, many many people hate their ex. It's not sexual, and it's not violent, so how is it an inappropritate user name? Redwolf24 (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It goes against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in my opinion, even though the person in question is not specified. I support the username block.  ALKIVAR™ 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

NPA applies to wikipedians, kthx ;-) I say this because, well, if someone says they hate George W. Bush on Talk:George W. Bush, it's not banworthy. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

So if a person came along and created User:Fuck GW Bush or User:GWB Must Die or some other clearly antagonistic username it would be acceptable to you?  ALKIVAR™ 03:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Swearing and death threats are not in I Hate My Ex, and I Hate My Ex isn't really a POV statement you'll expect to anger people, so false comparison... Redwolf24 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

A username appears that is an attack on an individual. The username create a load of non contributly edits with abusive edit summeries. If they wish to contribute they can do so under another account.Geni 02:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the test we should use is, "Do I want this name to show up on my watchlist from time to time?" I don't. I agree--bad username. He can pick another one. — Phil Welch 02:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia (and its Sandbox) are not a soapbox or a blog. They should take it to Livejournal or some other venue, and come up with a new account name if they want to contribute. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Leave it blocked. It's likely someone just blowing off steam who won't return to make contributions. If they do intend to return, I'm sure they'd want a new username anyway. At one time, my hatred burned with the power of a thousand suns for my ex, but I wouldn't want that particular phrase attached to my Wiki edits... android79 03:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, it seems acceptable as long as the identities of the user and the ex remain completely unknown to us. It's not a great user name, but I'm inclined to let these borderline cases slide. Everyking 07:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram Stark, again

Zephram Stark is back, and engaged in lengthy rants, disruptive editing, insistiance that his way is the only way and the True Philosophy; but on Declaration of Independence (United States). This is not (yet) a violation of Probation, the necessary provision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark being supported by only four, instead of five, Arbitrators. (JW1805 is, unfortunately, being seriously annoyed by this behaviour; but allowances should be made for stress.) Would some admins please look into the matter? Septentrionalis 04:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User:NPOVenforcer blocked

I blocked NPOVenforcer (talk · contribs) indefinitely for username. I considered unblocking when I saw that the user had been active for a bit over a week, but I'm leaving the block in effect because the user has found the need to criticize users for "violating NPOV", and had a "hit list" of sorts on his user page. I also question the need for a name like "NPOVenforcer", which is inflammatory at best, and makes it sound like the user actually has some sort of authority to enforce NPOV. If any admin disagrees, I have no problem with unblocking, but please make a post here or on my talk page indicating that you have done so. Ral315 (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think in general it's a bad idea for users to play at invoking Wikipedia rules or principles in their usernames. Some time ago, there was a user who called him/herself User:I'm4aNPOV and set off some fireworks on the Scientology articles. That user changed their name after being asked to, so it wasn't an issue of blocking. Wikipedia:Username discourages people from choosing names "such as recent changes, Administrator, or any other part of the interface or commonly used terms on Wikipedia." But perhaps "NPOV" should be specifically mentioned ... I've added it, under the expectation that this won't be controversial. --FOo 10:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Swollib

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

This user went nuts and was reported in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and was blocked. Seems to have been a longtime legitimate contributor. Any clues what happened here? -- Curps 06:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the account got cracked? I'll leave a note on their talk page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Rather than going nuts, this user (or an impostor thereof) seems to have been systematically going through all the articles conspicuously linked from the main page until Curps stopped him. -- Hoary 07:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer socks

Lightbringer is under various AC restrictions relating to his case. He has been operating Call of Duty, making the same sort of edits from a matching IP. I've blocked Call of Duty indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. No others found as yet. Admins aware of the Freemasonry-related topic problems, please keep an eye out and let me know. There's at least one other which appears to be Lightbringer or a close associate editing from work instead of home - David Gerard 10:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Die Lustige Witwe

Continued removal of cleanup tag from Die Lustige Witwe, which has improper capitalisation; lack of linking; poor punctuation, etc. Andy Mabbett 11:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No examples of the above were supplied with the clean up tag, or on the discussion page for the article, in spite of repeated requests to Andy Mabbett to supply the information. Since reading the above, I have re-checked the article. There is no improper capitilisation in the article. Explicit examples on the discussion page for Die Lustige Witwe of other faults would be appreciated. Figaro 12:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There have indeed been no such examples posted (and why should there have been?); nor were they requested; although they certainly do exist. Andy Mabbett

Your examples certainly were requested, time and time again.

For example, I requested that you specify what was wrong with what was visible on the article, and instead of giving particulars, which would have been an appropriate response, you pointed to vague references to "improper capitalization, lack of linking, poor punctuation", which was an inappropriate response to a request for details. You have since started to harp on about hostility on the basis that I have no empathy with your belief that the article needs a clean up tag.

Similarly, Nunh-huh asked you to be "more explicit than "poor punctuation"". Instead of doing as he requested, you demanded that, as he "cannot recognise what is wrong with the article as it stands" (sic), he return the clean up tag immediately and then that he "leave rectification of the problems and removal of the tag to someone who can" (sic). In this, you still gave no justification for your demands, but instead poured scorn on Nunh-huh for apparently not being smart enough to see what you could see. Nunh-huh then asked for a more robust explanation of what you thought was wrong with the article. You declined to give that explanation.

How are people supposed to know what you consider is wrong with the article, if you don't supply any explicit information? You seem to think that everyone should know exactly what you are referring to, without giving any examples. If you have seen faults with the article, why have you not tried to fix up the problems yourself? And why do you refuse to give particular details about what you consider is wrong with the article, rather than vague references which are difficult to interpret in practice since the references are so vague? Figaro 16:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence (comment left unsigned by User:Leonig_Mig  ALKIVAR™ 18:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC))

Nunh-huh also edited the tag to read that it was the opinion of Pigsonthewing that the page needed to be cleaned up, and that "We await further, more specific input from Pigsonthewing as to his opinion on how this cleanup might best be accomplished." This is yet another time which coumts as a request for very specific information from Pigsonthewing as to what he considered to be wrong with the article. The response of Pigsonthewing was to revert to his preferred version of clean up tag (with the bald and unsupported assertion that the page needed to be cleaned up), and he gave none of the requested specific information. Figaro 23:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

indefinite block of user

I do not know if I took the right course of action, but I've indefinitely blocked the user Aryan-Nations (talk · contribs) for using an offensive username. The user's only edit was vandalism of the Aryan Nations article, which I have reverted. The user also uploaded an unused image, which I deleted.

If another administrator could review the block, I would appreciate it. --Ixfd64 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed--offensive username. — Phil Welch 18:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, with these types of usernames, particularly when there is already evidence of vandalism its better to block indef, rather than wait for the soon to follow edit wars on The Holocaust, Jew, Adolf Hitler, Swastika and so on.  ALKIVAR™ 18:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Rootkit

Can an admin please attend to Rootkit which either needs to be a redirect to Root kit or, according to the consensus, Root kit needs moving to rootkit. At the moment there is a speedy deletion on Rootkit, and a note rather than a redirect, which while it would allow a non admin to sort out the problem, isn't of any use to the readers who will come along looking for Rootkit (as Root kit is a mistake) and get this horrendous page, worse than a double redirect, SqueakBox 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Radiojon is now revert moving the live talk page Talk:Rootkit to Talk:Rootkit/archive here and [here which is blanking my comments. He is also removing the redirect I have put opn Rootkit to replace it with a message top accompany his spurious speedy notice. He is making a mess of wikipedia content and disrupting a debate for reasons I don't conmprehend, SqueakBox 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind, I fixed your typo--Hello fromSPACE 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Do something about it, please

Rex071404 (talk · contribs), it's a persistant troll, that seems to be testing the system to see how far it can push without being blocked, it's already required an article to be locked to protect it from him--IKnowWho^{(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected)} 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• At least it's being mature[42] about it--IKnowWho^{(Gee, I'm a sockpuppet, how unexpected)} 00:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking no. If whoever is behind has a genuine complaint, RFC is that-a-way.Geni 00:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

He has had a previous RFAr agains him, though, for the same problem... Titoxd^(?!?) 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Return of the stupid vandalbot

I want to inform you guys that the "SUPER COOL" vandalbot has been messing with the sandbox! (preceding unsigned comment by 63.19.157.34 (talk • contribs) )

• Curps immedately is on the case. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Curps forgot about it, so someone block his IP range for a looooooooong time!!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.157.34 (talk • contribs)

Well, at least he's only interested in the sandbox for now. A vandal-bot attacking the sandbox is much better than a vandal-bot attacking more important pages. --Ixfd64 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

He will tomorrow unless you block his IP range. In the other attack, he started with the sandbox and then went on to more important pages the next day.

• Is it just me or is 63.19.157.34 (talk · contribs) acting suspiciously? Nearly all its edits are to the sandbox, but it seems to know a lot about IP ranges, blocking, ANI etc. Radiant_>|< 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

See below, under "Remington and the Rattlesnakes." 63.19.xxx.xxx is the "North Carolina Vandal." Antandrus (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber2

Clarification/action requested regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber. Yuber (talk · contribs) engages in WP:EW in Anti-Arabism: inserts suspicious and provocative image and inflammatory POV quotes. [43]. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The above is a false accusation. The quotes were here long before I arrived at Wikipedia, and all I have done is add a well-sourced image that shows anti-Arab graffiti written by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian city of Hebron. Yuber^(talk) 22:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Found on a suspicious (not my words) website doesn't mean "well-sourced". See WP:V. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To any admins reading this. These two BOTH push POV. In this context it is rank hypocracy for Yuber to be singled out over his conduct on this article. You need to see the context before making a call on this one. Unbehagen 13:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Another vandalbot on sandbox

Now it's "Deny Aleshia".

:P I'm a vandalbot, am I? Heh, well, whatever. But why is your "Tosha Trash" content more worthy than "Deny Aleshia."? Explain. :) 24.224.153.40 02:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is because you are extremely persistent, and that will not be allowed on the sandbox!63.19.216.158 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? The sandbox is for experimenting and I'm.. get this -- experimenting. I wish Sandbot would come back, he was fun to experiment with. :'( <-- sad 24.224.153.40 02:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, my content is more friendly than your "Ashley Asshole" content. Deny Aleshia demands placement. >:( 24.224.153.40 02:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Resolved

Block question

Would it be beyond bounds to block a user indef for repeated uploading of images marked fair use with no source? Said user has been on wikipedia since November 2004, told repeatedly to list with a source, and yet continues to upload no sourced fair use images, on the order of more than 100 images since coming here. User in question is Kevinsnow  ALKIVAR™ 05:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Indefinitely? Yeah, that would be beyond bounds. I'd give another three warnings and then just delete any further images he posts without a license on sight; but then, that's proabably just me. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats basically what I've been doing. Just frustrated at going through a long backlog of his images.  ALKIVAR™ 05:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think following the wikipedia disspute resolution process would be logical in this case.Geni 05:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll do that although I dont think that will get a result, as comments posted to his talk page remain unanswered.  ALKIVAR™ 05:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Indefinite blocking surely is out of bounds, but I don't see why short blocks for something which is clearly a violation of policy (of which he was repeatedly informed) should be any problem. I'd support a 24 hour block, when he repeats when unblocked increase the length to 48, etc. And keep telling what he should be doing to fix things. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• There are precidents for indef blocks (not perma-blocks) by admins in such instances. If a user is continuously engaged in a problematic action -e.g. mass creating non-vandalism but speediable articles, or, in the instance I recall, uploading massive amounts of orphan images with no obvious use. And if the editor is unresponsive to questions or requests to desist. I've seen admins block indef, not as a punishment but 'to get their attention', with a clear message on the user page that the block will be immediately lifted if the user either promises to desist, OR enters into a dialogue about the appropriateness of his actions. Such blocks do not seem to be policy, but they seem useful and rational - when we are met with continued problematic behaviour and a refusal to discuss (DR is pointless with a silent party). Doc ^ask? 11:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thus spake Jimbo. Also, examine the (seemingly similar) case of User:Scottfisher. android79 12:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion closure question

A couple of users have come to me saying that my decisions on three Articles For Deletion debates were a little off-base. The debates in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fisker, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naming Substituted Benzene Isomers. I would like opinions from other administrators regarding this matter. Thank you.  Denelson83  07:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you are the closer of the debate, and if you choose to stand by your decision anyone protesting should bring it to WP:DRV. After looking a bit superficially at the three I would have deleted The Diary, simply because all the keep votes appear to be anonymously made. The two others look like good and reasonable calls though, on Fisker new info arose on the AFD debate which you acknowledged, on Naming Substituted Benzene Isomers there is 2d-1r so calling it a redirect is certainly within reasonable bounds. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There's not pressure form me for these decisions to be reversed, just discussed. For my benefit as much as anything. Although I also notice notice now that the talk pages are empty, too.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 07:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say it's a good call on all three of them. The Fisker deletion debate seems to have consensus for delete, but the rewritten version doesn't resemble (and is far better than) the stub that was nominated, so this was a good catch for the cleaner-upper. Radiant_>|< 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll second that. Diary- consensus delete (don't count the socks), Fisker- good catch on a cleanup, and NSBI- 66% (consensus, though it's borderline) delete. Good work.--Scïmïłar ^parley 14:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • On Fisker, would extending the discussion or pinging the participants not have been a bit safer? (I've changed the title of this section as this was never a dispute per say. We should be able to talk about this stuff without it being a dispute.)
        brenneman^(t)(c) 01:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• I think you should have closed the Fisker AfD with a no consensus rather than a keep outcome, but given that the action in each case is the same, it's a technicality. --- Charles Stewart 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the outcome is keep where there is no consensus, it's probably misleading to distinguish keep from no consensus--it falsely implies that there's a material difference between decision to keep and absence of decision to delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it's misleading not to make that distinction. A "no consensus" should not be disguised as a consensus of any kind. Maybe there's little practical value in making the distinction, altho to me, a "keep" means the article probably shouldn't be Afd'd again, while "no consensus" does not mean that. Friday (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion dispute: "So called Moldovan language" and romanian

As recommended by Jtkiefer in [[44]]

I would like in the most polite manner to have a look on the Moldovan_language where I have added some edits on the talk page [[45]]

The truth is that "Moldovan" doesn't exist. It's about romanian with a different name. The fact is that is identical with romanian. Romanian is a latin language like french, italian, spanish, portuguese. The Soviet propaganda and the russians experts since 1812 tried to make a difference on political reasons. Even internationally at the most official level is recognized that "so called moldovan" is nothing else but romanian. [[46]] Please feel free to express your opinion!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

PS. Somebody is still deleting an important section of the page; the deleted section demonstrates the identity between "so called Moldovan" and romanian. I've seen that once or twice you have reverted these edits, maybe you could do that again and if the problem persists what can be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonaparte (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of third party

It appears that Ansbachdragoner may have been blocked accidentally. I wonder if anyone with better knowledge of IP addresses, could look into it. Best,--Wiglaf 11:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Die Lustige Witwe again

Further removal of cleanup tag from Die Lustige Witwe. Also removal of "confusing" tag from a secton tehreon, which includes, among other problem text, "a 1958 Glocken Verlag LTD, London". Andy Mabbett 12:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Is there any reason you can't perform the cleanup such that the cleanup tag would no longer be necessary? android79 12:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Andy Mabbett 12:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And the reason is...? android79 12:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sufficiently familiar with either the technology required to do so, nor the subject. Is this really the place to discuss such matters, though? Andy Mabbett 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No, the appropriate place to talk about this is Talk:Die Lustige Witwe, but you brought the matter here in the first place. Unfortunately, your behavior there is just as baffling as it is here. android79 13:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

User: Blasphemous

User: Blasphemous was blocked a long time ago for a) using an offensive username and b) for being allegedly a sock puppet of a User Noah Peters who in turn had several Arb Comm cases for things I do not remember. I was the last one admin involved in blocking that particular sock puppet.

I initially protected the talk page documenting this, then blanked it at a "noahp"'s request and protected it again. I keep though getting increasingly annoying emails by said "noahp" who wants me to unprotect the (now blanked) talk page. I do not want to enter a dialogue as I prefer to keep my email address private, but I am also rather clueless now just what would be the rigt thing to do - and I am nowadays so infrequent on WIkipedia that I have no time (or even starting point) to figure what polices might apply. My bottomline is that the user Blasphemous was banned for good and his talk+user page should either be deleted (dt offensive username) quite irrespective of any going-ons of Noah Peters and sockpuppetry or not, but this might be a wrong understanding. Any advise by fellow admin's is welcome. Refdoc 15:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Considering both Noah Peters (talk · contribs) and Blasphemous (talk · contribs) are permablocked, I'd say add him to your spamfilter and keep the userpage as is (or delete and protect, which would have roughly the same effect). Radiant_>|< 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I just wanted to note that I added template:indefblockeduser to both users' pages while they were protected since that's standard policy for users who have been indef. blocked. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

TreyHollandIsBack

TreyHollandIsBack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously as TreyHolland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has being vandalising Spanish Language and other articles. I made a short block on it, but my question is: Is it ok to indefinitely block a sockpuppet user that has been created only for the porpoise of vandalism? I think it is, but wanted to hear some opinions before acting. Mariano(t/c) 16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yup. Go for it. android79 16:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Using a sock to evade a block is 3vil. Radiant_>|< 16:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Mariano(t/c) 16:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• By the way what's with the porpoise? :) Radiant_>|< 16:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Those porpoises, they're always vandalizing! :-) android79 17:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Dammed this cetaceans; it's not the first time, they are always getting on my way! They look all nice and funny, but they are actually blood-thirsty creatures. Be aware, you are warned. Mariano(t/c) 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Changing my username

I am editing using the name Samivel. I would like to block my previous names but also credit my previous edits to Samivel (there are too many to lose). I understand I need to ask the administrators to block the earlier names so I will not be accused of sockpuppetry. But I also see that the procedure for changing one's username seems to be disabled. Is it possible to do what I'm asking?

First I was anonymous: 66.114.86.135 Then I was Arnold_Perey Then I was Aperey Aperey Finally I am now Samivel so my username isn't too close to my real name.

Thank you for any assistance you can give. --Samivel 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Turned User:Aperey (and talk) and User:Arnold Perey (and talk) into protected redirects to your current user/talk page. This should be good enough for your purposes.  ALKIVAR™ 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

shouldn't these requests be signed with the old account as a minimal security measure? dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Overlong block of 169.139.224.10

This shared school IP was blocked for one month by Infrogmation: It is in the IP range of the Broward County public schools district and blocks legitimate editor Luigi30. Can an admin please revise this block to expire soon so the user can edit? In any case, it's my understanding that shared IPs like this should not be blocked for longer than 24 hours at most. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 19:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've reduced the block to expire in 15 minutes. --Scïmïłar ^parley 19:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Broward County? I'm in Manatee County. I think it's the main BESS proxy for Florida or something. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Request block on Ryan Delaney for violating page protection policy

Ryan Delaney admits he purposely reverted this article when applying page protection, even though it wasn't a vandalism case. He has made all kinds of excuses which still add up to a violation of the rules more serious than a 3RR for instance, because he is an admin. See his talk page, my talk page, and the unprotection requests for detail.--Silverback 18:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version. Ral315 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is already the subject of a request for arbitration. Protecting the page may spare us the need to enter a temporary injunction in that case. It's quite clear (to me) that the major warring parties are not making any real progress toward a consensus version of the article. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I would very much prefer a temp. injunction to protection. It's like the choice between 3RR blocks and protection in an edit war. In my mind, blocks are always better, as they target the offender, and leave the article open to editing instead. We are a wiki, and protection is harmful to everyone, even the ones being good. It is much more harmful than an injunction which only targets the ones acting up. Dmcdevit·t 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's my impression that this case is nearly fully cooked and should be ready to go to voting soon; trying to put in an injunction may just delay resolution of the case. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin beat me to it. This article is subject to arbitration, so Silverback coming here was um, not really the brightest idea ever. Is the AMA still active at all? Having advocates around for this kind of procedural thing would save people a LOT of embarresment. Kim Bruning 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, were still around. Sam Spade 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries. What interest did reverting the article prior to protection serve? Sam Spade 03:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ensuring protection on m:The Wrong Version, most likely. --Carnildo 04:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney violated policy by deciding which was the right version and reverting to it. This is the type of policy violation which gives the impression of abuse of powers, probably because it is an actual abuse of powers. Carnildo thinks he is clever by citing the dismissive and mocking "The Wrong Version", but this is just the type of abusive behavior that "The Wrong Version" implies doesn't really exist or is just a matter of point of view. Ryan's behavior is an outright violation of policy, that I doubt "The Wrong Version" intended to take lightly. His behavior is an embarrassment. I tried to find the archive of his adminship vote, to see if he pledged not to abuse his powers. Hubris and adminship do not mix well.--Silverback 09:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not going to entertain a demand to desysop an admin for one purported violation of the protection policy where the violation in question appears to have been in good faith. Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I never requested desysop'ing, and don't mistake persistance in pointing out hypocrisy and abuse for screaming. I wouldn't think more than a block for a couple days would be in order even if he refuses to correct his abuse. Protecting the article was a judgement call, I think it was unnecessary, but I can accept differences in such judgement calls. However, his revert was completely in violation of protection policy and was a POV prejudgement of the ARBCOM result. I'd be satisfied if he would put the article back in the version that he should have left it in. If he refuses to do so, then another admin should either perform the revert to the version that was in place at the time of the protection, or remove the protection completely and block Delaney, perhaps for 48 hours (this is more serious than a 3RR). Although if the admin just took the proper action in regard to the article, and did not block Delaney unless he put up a fuss. That would at least correct the violation that has been done. The only reason I can see for demanding more severe action is if Ryan resists attempts to correct his mistake in judgement, or if he himself stated when he was soliciting votes for his adminship that he would hold himself to a higher standard, such as never abuse his powers. While Ryan's actions represent an abuse of the powers entrusted to him, this does not approach the extent and severity of abuses that resulted in 172's last arbcom case for instance. What is really disappointing is the deference and failure to correct his actions not only by him, but by the admin community as a whole.--Silverback 13:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The article was reverted back and forth between the two versions 6 times in the 24 hours prior to protection. As such, I do not believe it was in the least bit relevant which particular version happened to be on top at the precise moment of protection. Delaney could have simply waited a few more hours until the next inevitable revert. Or he could have tossed a coin to decide which version to protect. For all we know, maybe he did. I am no fan of protection myself, but your request that Delaney must "put the article back in the version that he should have left it in" seems little more than a thinly veiled demand to see the article protected with The Right Version on top. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it shouldn't have mattered which version was on top, but it did to Delaney, so he should not have been the one to impose protection, and he should not have reverted to the version he wanted. He abused his powers. I take it from what you say, that you would have no problem if the page was reverted to the version that he should have left in place at the time he imposed protection.--Silverback 22:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. Requesting a block for an isolated instance of behavior of this type is a non-starter, especially since so much time has passed. android79 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this warrants a response, but just so it's perfectly clear to anyone who may be confused, here's why Silverback's objection about my violation of the blocking policy is entirely baseless. Silverback charges that I violated the blocking policy by reverting away from User:Ultramarine's preferred version in a content dispute over Criticisms of communism. This is the relevant point of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

• Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page). Admin powers are not editor privileges—admins should only act as servants to the user community at large.

Silverback is perfectly correct in his assertion that admins should not use protection to preserve their preferred versions of articles in content disputes. However, I did not revert away from Ultramarine's version because I preferred the content in the other version: because I have not read either version. I have no idea which version has the better content, nor do I particularly care to. I have never edited that article for content and I haven't the slightest interest in doing so. It is quite literally impossible for this page protection to be anything but an effort to end a stale revert war of epic proportions. This brings us to the second point.

Silverback makes a more substantive claim, which is that I ignored this part of the blocking policy:

• In addition, admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism.

To this, I plead guilty as charged; I did willfully ignore that part of the protection policy, and I ignored it because I felt the situation called for me to do so. Rather than revert while protecting, I could have waited for someone else to revert, and then protect the article, and in so doing avoid all appearance of impropriety: but I feel that would not have been necessary. Ultramarine is one of the most stubborn, persistent, and arrogant Wikipedia editors I have encountered. I found no justification for protecting his preferred version simply because it was the version that happened to be up at the time. If another administrator feels that I was in the wrong about this, I welcome them to revert to Ultramarine's version, but I strongly urge you to leave the article protected. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, my RFA was here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• You admit your abuse of the community trust, yet still refuse to make amends. You are one of the most persistant, stubborn and arrogant wikipedia admins, I have encountered. I have see worse abuses, but based on the culture of tolerance here, you will be given a chance to abuse again and again. Hubris.--Silverback 08:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Silverback, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. When you bait adminitrators and editors as "persistant, stubborn and arrogant," you are only undermining your cause by providing more negative evidence for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback. 172 | Talk 09:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanx 172, you make my point. Note, that the words you pick out as a personal attack, were mirroring the same words Ryan had used in the passage above. If Delaney keeps this up he may rival an abusive ex-admin in those qualities. And you're right, the situation is very similar to that precipitated the RfC and arbitration case. I try not to let abusive behavior pass without notice. Just as in my response to your abuse, I have made several attempts to resolve this dispute with Delaney. And just as in your case, instead of a mature acknowledgement and retraction, he has tried to spin his behavior, justifying his abusive means, in order to achieve his ends. --Silverback 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Shhhh! Please be quiet, you are begining to look quite ridiculous.Doc (?) 10:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you make a cogent case for your characterization? Are you familiar with the facts at all? If not, why should I consider your comment to have any validity. If I were motivated by trying to please the crowd, I too would chime it at the end with a dismissive comment. Why don't you consider the merits, and then figure out what you really stand for when you take the position you just did.--Silverback 10:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Ryan Delaney has brazenly and unapologetically repeated his violation of page protection policy on Criticisms of communism. A block is definitely in order this time, since it is clear that he will engage in a revert and protect war if the article is unprotected again. This block would be preventative.--Silverback 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What might be needed as a preventative is an injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Silverback preventing you from starting a new disruptive discussion thread like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alleged admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse just about every day calling for one administrator or another to be banned. Don't bother replying to this comment. It will be my last one under a heading that clearly disregards Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. 172 | Talk 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that you should address that on the arbitration page, instead of making a distracting WP:Point here.--Silverback 23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In accordance with page policy and practice, I have merged Silverback's second "Ryan Delaney" thread with the first one, which is on the exact same subject, renamed the result so as to have the heading be matter-of-fact rather than a slur, and moved the result down to the bottom of the page, where it should have been posted in the first place. --Bishonen | talk 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not the exact same subject. You should look at the page. Tony Sidaway unprotected the page and then was attacked by Ryan Delaney and 172 for his lack of deference. Ryan Delaney then reverted and protected the page again, in violation of the policy again. In the previous discussion, it was noted that blocking is preventative, not punative. Now with Delaney's apparent commitment to continual reverting and protecting, it is obvious that the a block will be preventative.--Silverback 00:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Should someone perhaps block Silverback for repeat violations of WP:DICK? --Carnildo 00:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should block you for violating Wikipedia:Civility --Silverback 00:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

(I'm trying to respond to Silverback's penultimate comment—Silverback, your moving Carnildo's post out of chronology isn't making it easier to keep this tidy.) Oh, c'mon, why do you want two threads? What's the attraction? The heading of the second one was ridiculous. Please note that even the shortened heading I've retained remains the longest heading on this page. And please note that you posted both your threads immediately underneath the edit mode exhortation: "New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here." I thought you'd be pleased I cleaned up a bit. Bishonen | talk 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Silverback's in arbitration I believe, so just sit back and watch. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't move Carnildo's post, I had an edit conflict with him when responding to your post, and so I moved my post and maintained the cronology via indents as is my practice. The attraction is to make sure admins know that this is a second violation. I looked at the intro and didn't see any instructions on where to add it, and since some pages instruct to add at the top, that is what I did. I admit I was confused about that. --Silverback 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion

I have deleted the page Brandy January. It appeared to be a lengthy diatribe directed against a Georgia high school teacher, levelling various accusations of deceit and inappropriate behaviour. I deleted the page because the content was defamatory and posted by anonymous editors, and because the individual in question appears not to be particularly noteworthy. Although I could probably stretch CSD A7 to cover this article, I've left a notice of my action here for review. (As far as I know no one has complained about it.) I'd prefer not to drag the woman's name through the mud on every mirror and Google search for the next week. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Attack pieces are speedies, whether by policy or by plain common sense. You did right. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of an address check?

When user:Winnermario was blocked from editing, user:Hollow Wilerding popped up, making the same edits, with the same style of edit summaries and interactions with other editors (compare, for example, Hollow Wilerding's "As there was a vote to keep cover songs separate" and "Since no consensus has been met at the WikiMusic discussion, charts will not be reformatted" with Winnermario's "Reverted edits -- the discussion has not been passed, and therefore the charts cannot be reformatted" and "this article will not be merged with its remake"). He claims that they're friends, and that he's a female English teacher (though as his English has the same ungrammatical qualities and peculiar vocabulary as Winnermario, that seems unlikely). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IP check is inconclusive. Kelly Martin (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jens Stoltenberg

Please keep a watch on this article. The Norwegian tabloid press Dagbladet [47], VG [48] and TV2 Nettavisen [49] made a big deal out of the article on Norway's new PM containing a vandalism on him being a convicted paedophile, and I fear that those newspaper articles may explain some of the recent "copycat" vandalism we have been seeing on that article the last hours. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:TerrorMaker

If there's an admin around at the moment, could he/she please take a look at TerrorMaker (talk · contribs) This may relate to a recent incident which I reported here As a result of that, User:Oldstylecharm was blocked indefinitely, and the two probably sockpupets were also blocked indefinitely. Oldstylecharm was, I understand, unblocked at the request of Jimbo. I don't know if he has anything to do with it, but this new account certainly seems to have been created for the purpose of harrassing me, and the message is identical to one that sockpuppet Trever (talk · contribs) sent me [50]. It could be someone new, copying an old message sent be a previous abuser, or it could be the same person. As far as I know, the reason Oldstylecharm was unblocked was because he apologized nicely. I've no problem with that.

I can live with a silly but non-threatening message on my talk page, and I don't really want to waste my own energy and Wikipedia server space by edit warring. But could an admin take a look at that account please? Thanks.

And on an unrelated matter, how about taking a look at No no (talk · contribs) (hint, Jarlaxle?) as well? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I've blocked TerrorMaker indefinitely. I'll take a look at No no too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. No no has returned as Abigail Williams (talk · contribs). Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Abigail's blocked too, as is Anney, a reincarnation of TerrorMaker. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Now he's rocking Tgb, ≤w00t≥ and ≤woot≥jfg284 12:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I had actually blocked these earlier before the creation of the Terrormaker account (on the basis of vandalism nearly identical to that listed above, and impostor usernames), but just for the record, User:Psychoanalyst, User:Psychobeak, and User:Linuxnaut appear to have been more of the same. This diff from 71.107.172.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also seems connected. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:64.83.156.26

This anon vandalized a bunch of articles and blanked Ivan III of Russia [51]. Needs to be blocked. --Ghirlandajo 13:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

AOL questions

I blocked User:172.198.168.71 for 24 hours due to vandalism to a number of userpages, then I checked http://www.arin.net/whois/ and saw it was an AOL IP. I have now unblocked it. I have also e-mailed AOLs abuse office to report this, since this does not look like the random activity of a newbie. Now for my questions:

1. Geobytes says that this IP is not a proxy. If it is AOL, can that be so?
2. I see that this particular IP has no prior editting history before the vandalism rampage, while many AOL accounts have long histories of contributions, both good and bad. Why is this?

Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've found that AOL, especially when using IP 172.......etc. that whenever they log in and out, they get a new IP...and it is not unlikely that that User:172.198.168.71 has had a series of vandalisms with an almost unlimited supply of random IP's available to them. That IP originates from Sterling, VA I believe so there could also be many thousands of users that log in anon with AOL and also get the IP starting 172.--MONGO 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

As one who sometimes edits via AOL, I can tell you that you get a new IP not just every time you log in or out, but with every separate URL you visit. Viewing two differetn pages uses two different IPs, and editing one of them will use yet another IP -- always the same IP for the same URL during a session, AFAICT, although this assocation seems to change after one loggs off AoL and logs back on. DES ^(talk) 01:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalbot

If the SUPER COOL vandalbot continues to vandalize, than lets immediately contact @ his ISP so we can stop him forever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.198.0 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with anon. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And if that doesn't work, we should tell the cops.

Michael Jackson / Street walker

As I have now reached the three-revert threshold, I don't wish to dig myself any holes, so I'm going to avoid reverting. However, Street walker (talk · contribs) appears not to be familiar with NPOV policy and has begun attempting to whitewash the Michael Jackson article of any mention of controversy, under the guise of making the article shorter and "[the article being] about his musical career". User has also created the POV fork article Michael Jackson's personal life and controversies (which I have nominated for deletion). There is some discussion ongoing at Talk:Michael Jackson, but so far two admins and myself seem to be united in our opposition to these wholesale changes.--chris.lawson 07:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

ISP contact info

What is the "SUPER COOL" vandalbot's ISP contacting information?

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

• Ah, thank you SPUI. Can we impeach him for that? Radiant_>|< 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

Mirror Vax (talk · contribs) is in violation of WP:POINT and, with one more revert, will be in violation of WP:3RR. I have attempted to dialogue with the user on the article's Talk page without success; user continues to remove a category from the page despite giving no reason for doing so. Could use some admin help over there.--chris.lawson 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Clawson is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, and with one more revert, will be in violation of WP:3RR. User says that a category is a "policy" and that removing an article that was placed incorrectly is subverting the imagined "policy". User can't or won't stay on topic and demands that I discuss unrelated articles. Mirror Vax 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This dispute should stay on the article talk page, or go to mediation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Bluebot

Bluebot is on 1 week block, due to operating out of specified parameters as proposed at: Wikipedia talk:Bots. Objection has been made by also one particular user, Noisy. Administrators should be aware that Bluebot is not to continue to operate until all unresolved questions and objections have been cleared. --AllyUnion (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Bluebot is unblocked, Noisy is unambiguously wrong, he wanted me to demonstrate concensus on a formatting issue, a guidline was shown to him but he chose to ignore it. there are no grounds to block the bot, I am however going to wait for Noisy to respond before continuing out of politness. Martin 14:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated the block. Without reference to whether the block is right or wrong, Bluemoose, I think it is inappropriate for you to remove your own block in this case. Please contact another administrator and have them review this issue. If they remove the block, I will have no objection. Nandesuka 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You are blocking me as well via autoblock, so please don't do it again. Martin 16:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Bluebot. Martin agreed to stop doing 1911 changes and Noisy said on Wikipedia talk:Bots that is the only thing to which he is objecting. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is generally asked that any operation outside of a bot's original specifications must have at least have a passing mention at Wikipedia talk:Bots. This is to assert that the operation that is going to be implemented has some community approval, or at least no community disapproval. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Lit316 and User:Lit312

Lit316 (talk · contribs) Lit312 (talk · contribs)

These accounts seem to be intended for creating forked versions of articles on authors and poets. A bunch of forked articles were copied in mid-August (see Special:Contributions/Lit316) and most of the copies remain untouched, however User:Lit316/Amy Clampitt was extensively modified but the changes were never copied into the original article Amy Clampitt and we now have two forked articles. As of yesterday and today, the account has now copied a couple more articles. Perhaps it's a role account for a class? -- Curps 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your right, it appears to me to be forked pages for a class to edit.  ALKIVAR™ 21:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this really all that harmful? Kelly Martin (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible Admin Phishing

I just received the following email:

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

From: Zouhair <zouhairy@XXXXX.XXX>

Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:25:46 GMT

To: Allen3

Hi

I send this message to you because I can't send it to Curps who blocked my IP address : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=50&ip=82.232.3.83

I used to use tor as a server but it seems that someone used it for vandalism  :(

And now I'm stuck, I stopped my tor service and I hope that you will unblock my IP address : 82.232.3.83

best regards

zouhair

When I try to double check some background on this information I find that Zouhair has only made five edits in the two-and-a-half years since the account was created, and that the block log shows the IP address has been blocked for a couple of months because it is an open proxy. Is this just a case of social engineering at work, or is there something else going on? --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's something else going on. A quick google search gave me [52], which shows 82.232.3.83 was in fact a tor outproxy. The most interesting part is the name of the server:

router zouhair 82.232.3.83 443 0 80

It's called "zouhair", the same name as the Wikipedia account requesting the unblock. Given that, I'd say it's a legitimate request. Since the official directory of tor nodes doesn't have any entry for it anymore, I'm unblocking right now. --cesarb 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Advanet

User:Advanet recently made an edit to Intelligent design which was reverted. It was bad, but not so bad that it was clear whether it was vandalism. So I went to his contribs to see if he were engaging in actual vandalism. He'd made some edits after the one to ID, so I checked them and found a non-wikified copyvio. I cleaned it up and posted about it on his talk page, and added his talk page to my watch in case he replied to me there. When I saw edits by him on his talk page, I found something disturbing. There were no posts by Advonet, and when I checked the history I found he had made 3 edits to a post by User:Lucky_6.9, changing content, heading (title) and date stamp. I notified Lucky_6.9 via email, but have not received a response. I am posting about this here so an admin can determine how best to handle this, and keep an eye on this user. KillerChihuahua 12:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the change and warned the user against editing other people's comments to make them appears to say something other than what was originally intended. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks much, this had me concerned. KillerChihuahua 13:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This bears watching. Advanet Australia is a Search Engine Optimization company. Watch for spam and advertising contributions: case in point, Lyprinol. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this looks like spam for snake oil. lyprinol only gets a handful of unique Google hits. android79 14:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

note: New user:Neogp recreated Advanet, which I just {{db}}'d. The edits of both users, and probably anyone else who shares articles in common with those editors, should probably be checked. BlankVerse 14:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Neogp (talk · contribs) and also Drwnjp (talk · contribs) are both almost certainly the same editor as Advanet (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! etc. I've blocked the lot indefinitely as SEO linkspammers. See block log. Trouble is that Advanet appears to be a role account - I see edits from several Sydney universities. Expect this blight to run and run - David Gerard 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just got an email from advanet@gmail.com asking what links they can keep. (This is called Missing The Point.) I've pointed them here - David Gerard 13:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rokeaj

User:Rokeaj keeps blanking his talk page, where I had written a warning after he vandalised Microsoft by moving it into Microsuck. He has since stopped his vandalism to the Microsoft article, but keeps removing the warning from his talk page, and when I revert his blanking, he accuses me of abusing my AdministrativePower®. Although the vandalism warning is no longer acute, I feel it should remain on his talk page, so that everyone on Wikipedia would be able to see what experience others have had with Rokeaj in the past. Removing comments from one's talk page (without archiving them) is, in my point of view, an attempt of altering history, and is thus tantamount to forgery or cheating. At the moment we're locked in a revert war. This can't continue forever, so I ask other admins' opinion here. Perhaps one of us should file an RfC on the other? — JIP | Talk 15:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say just leave it be and keep his user page on your watchlist. If anyone else has a problem with him, then you can step in. android79 16:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's best to assume that this user just wants a fresh start without a vandalism warning on his talk page. It's in the history. |Thats good enough. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I also agree, it's his user talk page, he can do whatever he wants. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That I disagree with. He certainly can't do anything he wants. What if he were to edit and falsify my comments, such as make them read "Your move from Microsoft to Microsuck was awesome! That will show those M$ bastards! Keep up the good work!"? There's been precedent of such actions being reverted and counted as vandalism. — JIP | Talk 07:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rokeaj has since moved my comments to User talk:Rokeaj/Trolls, where he calls me and User:Sean Black trolls. The reason why he calls me a troll is because I reverted his blanking of his talk page after he received my warning and stopped vandalising. The reason why he calls Sean Black a troll is simply because he also reverted Rokeaj's blanking. (I reverted the page four times - Sean Black reverted it once, and yet he also gets called a troll.) I am not very happy with this but am accepting it for the time being. — JIP | Talk 18:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Meh, he's just out to get your goat. Don't feed the troll. He hasn't made any article-space edits since the last vandalism; I'm guessing he'll move on since he knows he's being watched. android79 19:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Spellchecker & User:Spellcheck8

User:SlimVirgin has already blocked User:Spellchecker for blindly converting American English to British English. Now User:Spellcheck8 has started to do the same thing. I'm signing off, so someone else will have to clean up the mess. BlankVerse 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This user has actually created about a dozen sockpuppets to continue his war on American English spellings: Atlanty (talk · contribs), Xipos (talk · contribs), Za-resident (talk · contribs), Koala45 (talk · contribs), Effoff (talk · contribs), Rusy (talk · contribs), Fryend (talk · contribs), Imperiul (talk · contribs), Fruggy (talk · contribs), and Por.pl (talk · contribs) were all created in a one hour period from the same IP address as Spellchecker (talk · contribs) and the Spellcheck8 (talk · contribs) sock already mentioned. Several of these sockpuppets have been sighted "correcting" American English spellings. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Add four more socks to that list: RT34 (talk · contribs), Refreac (talk · contribs), Juka (talk · contribs), Sujafu (talk · contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser abuse! [[Sam Korn]] 20:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly's spoiling my fun! (Do please continue.) - David Gerard 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, check user abuse. Radiant_>|< 22:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Tmayes1999 blocked

Per an email to Helpdesk-l, Tmayes1999 is currently blocked from editing. Looking at his talk page, it appears he's been caught in a block before because his IP was the same as a vandals. His username doens't appear in the block log. Could someone take a look for him please? Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

202.50.90.10

This user appears to be vandalising again, after a previous block, though it could be construed as a test.

Page in question [53] Barefootguru 04:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've added 3 suspicious page creations by this user. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • To AFD I mean. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Archived, and subpage proposal

Archived a bunch once more. Would people agree that it's a good idea to use subpages for each issue on ANI, because this page is constantly over 100 kb in size. Radiant_>|< 17:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't ANI already a subpage itself? --cesarb 17:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• What I mean is WP:AN/Possible Scottfisher sock, WP:AN/Tmayes1999 blocked, WP:AN/202.50.90.10, etc. Then transclude those into the main page(s) AN and ANI. That way, it's easier to edit and to archive (which this page is always in need of) and you can watchlist particular issues. Radiant_>|< 18:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  Correction: and you would have to watchlist every single particular issue. It would lose the great effectiveness of watchlisting the single main page and seeing everything that's going on. --cesarb 18:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The downside with transclusion is that you'd have to watchlist the subpages to see any changes. Right now, all I have to watchlist is AN, AN/I and AN/3RR in order to see any changes. If I'm offline for a while, I can check the history of any of those pages with one click and see what section was edited. I'm also concerned about newbies have difficulty posting a new issue. Carbonite | Talk 18:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Just archive more frequently. Move excessively long discussions to subpages if there is no strong objection from those involved to doing so. Transclusion for every issue would make watching ANI difficult. android79 19:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, that is a good point. How would it be to have one subpage per day (listing all issues that started that day) transcluded all on the main page? We could even employ a bot to automatically unlist any day page that hasn't been edited in, say, a week. As a aside point I have never watchlisted ANI, I just assume it sees a heck of a lot of changes and visit it frequently. Radiant_>|< 23:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  Still bad, but less bad. How about one per week? --cesarb 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that would defy the point (and you can't move the whole page to an archive once per week, because at any point there's discussions still ongoing - only you can hardly see which ones). Radiant_>|< 00:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to have to be rewatchlisting this page all the time. Please tread carefully. Frankly I think this page is fine as is. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As do I. — Dan | Talk 01:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Nixer

I have blocked Nixer (talk · contribs) for twenty-four hours for violating the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:3RR (four reverts in 27 hours, which I call gaming the system) at Proto-Indo-European language, where I am also an editor. He has previously been blocked several times for 3RR on this and other pages. dab suggested I bring this block to the attention of other admins, because 3RR was not technically violated, and because I'm one of the participants. If anyone feels I blocked Nixer unjustly, please feel free to unblock him. --User:Angr/talk 18:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Four reverts in 24 hours would be a violation. I assume you mean 25? android79 18:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You should not block people for 3RR violations on articles which you are also editing. Next time, ask another admin to place the block for you. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That said, I endorse this block. Four reverts in 25 hours is gaming the system, and abusive edit summaries don't help. android79 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You will note that I haven't gone running to unblock him either.  :) Kelly Martin (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

it was four in just over 24 hours. Not a 3RRvio. Since Angr brought the matter here, any admin reading this is free to unblock Nixer, no questions asked. If none does so, we can reasonably say the block has community support. Note that Nixer has a long history of trolling IE pages. Anyway, if you go ahead and unblock, neither Angr or I will reblock him. I didn't do the block myself because I have a strong inhibition of blocking where I'm involved, and I couldn't be bothered to run to an uninvolved admin. But I do think the block is justified as a slap on the wrist for consistent unwikilike stubbornness (aka disruption). dab (ᛏ) 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that when one has not violated any rules, and administrators are not explicitly authorised to "invent" rules of their own after the "transgression" has been committed, a retrospective penalty cannot and should not be imposed. This resembles a case of abuse of power, a tactic of someone who is in dispute with someone and in order to get them out of the way, invented a rule, imposed a retrospective penalty and lo and behold, once the opponent is "out of the way", the page was reverted back to the blocking administrator's version. I would like to express my confidence in the system and the integrity of our administrators :-) Rex^(talk) 23:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

look at the talkpage. he was just reverting even though he knew he would just be reverted back. It's not like we needed to block him in order to win an edit war. We could just have kept rolling him back, avoiding public scrutiny here. My hope is that the block will teach him better behaviour. Yes, it is not perfectly clean, Angr being involved, that's why we brought it here! If any uninvolved admin would like to unblock then reblock him, feel free. And again, if any admin at all feels that Angr was acting wrongfully, feel free to unblock him too. This is what this noticeboard is for, after all, to have your judgement calls reviewed. dab (ᛏ) 23:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I see; I just wasn't aware that administrators are not bound by Wikipedia's policies and possess a right of discretionary blocking to be used against users who have not violated any rules. I was just pointing out how neatly everything fell into place: Nixer was blocked at 15:22 and would ya look at that! The same administrator reverted the article at 15:24 (two minutes later) back to the version that the said administrator approved. Who woulda thunk it! Rex^(talk) 23:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR – This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period. The only rule "violated" here was that of an involved admin doing the block, alleviated by its discussion here. android79 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, do forgive me. Could you please define "just outside"? I mean I have reverted 3 times on one article and then five weeks later I reverted it again. Does the rule apply? Of course it may if I were in disagreement with an administrator over that article. The administrator, acting out of the purest of motives would have reluctantly blocked me, not because he had anything to gain for himself, just because he was implementing policy. I'm just curious to the real reason behind the block; who benefited from it? Why the blocking administrator of course. How convenient :-) Rex^(talk) 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• I would call anything up to 1 (perhaps 2 hours) after the original 24 hour period "just outside". Anything over 24 hours after the original period can not be called "just outside", so reverting 5 weeks after the fact is perfectly legitimate, unless you repeatedly revert without any explanation. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucratic mess of rules to be blindly followed. I don't care about the rules as much as the intent of the rules when they were made. It's not admin abuse, even though he shouldn't of blocked while involved. I was just talking about stuff like this at my talk page, and here's what I said:

[...]Wikipedia has rules like IAR to ignore bureaucracy, and to let us know that it's not the rules, its the reason behind the rules' creation. [...]

Redwolf24 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify that a bit? Why wasn't it admin abuse? I realise that you are condemning Wikilawyering, however you haven't explained why it wasn't admin abuse. It looks and sounds like admin abuse: an admin blocking someone and the result was a benefit to the selfsame admin and a detriment to his opponent who stricto sensu had not violated the rule. Perhaps it's impossible! Anyway, it's not for a humble mortal such as myself to comment on what motives individual admins had while acting, heavens forbid *smirk*! It's just so intriguing the way that the admin in question managed to arrive at such an... um... "impartial" conclusion. He would have deserved a round of applauds had he chosen merely to caution the potential offender as to the rule. That didn't happen though, did it? Using his administrative discretion, he arrived at the fairest of conclusions and then I have the sauce of accusing him of feathering his own nest. Naughty naughty me... I'm merely describing things as they appear to the objective outsider. I know neither the administrator/perpetrator, nor the offender/victim. I must admit that Nixer appears (from his edit history) to be a relatively infuriating individual, however it seems very fishy that his opponent in the edit war was able to utilise the "safety hatch" of the 3RR to such an effect. Rex^(talk) 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Forget the 3RRvio, I'd have blocked him for violating WP:CIVIL. Profanity in edit summaries is uncalled-for. That being said, he didn't. Everyone here has endorsed his actions, so Rex, I suggest you accept defeat and move on. We've already come to the conclusion it would have been better if Angr had asked somebody else to block Nixer, but the effect would have been the same. Hermione1980 00:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We can't block for personal attacks.Geni 08:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

we can block for consistently being a pita. It's not like the guy was blocked for a week, or a month. The block is well within policy, except for the fact that Angr was involved with the article. I tend to strongly discourage "involved blocking" myself, but I think this is more wikiquette than strict policy. After Angr posted the case here, he is in the clear, as far as I'm concerned. This is not a content dispute. It is a simple case of a persistent user refusing to pay the most rudimentary regard to NOR and CITE. dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

only if they raise it to the level of disspurting wikipedia.Geni 13:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Figaro / The Merry Widow

User: Figaro is reverting edits to Die Lustige Witwe, either without edit sumamries; or with spurious accusations of vandalism. See also falacious accusations on Talk:Die Lustige Witwe. Andy Mabbett 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Now doing the same on The Merry Widow (ballet). Andy Mabbett 12:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And again [54], with an abusive edit summary. Andy Mabbett 10:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ongoing [55] (hence moved to bottom of list). Article is now The Merry Widow. Andy Mabbett 16:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

BelAmp/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BelAmp

BelAmp was nominated for AfD on November 13th. On November 15th, the AfD banner was removed from the BelAmp page by 82.209.241.55. The same user then went to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BelAmp and blanked the page. A few minutes later, Andrew O. Shadoura, the original author of the BelAmp page (and, not coincidentally, the author of the program touted by the BelAmp page) moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BelAmp to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/`. This seems like bad mojo, and I figured someone would probably want to know. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Heatbag

What is the appropriate response to User:Heatbag contribs. This looks more experienced and premeditated that the average vandal/tester, yet its not particularly malicious and seems somewhat random and pointless. I've reverted the Heat page of course, but there must be a high probablility that the image is a copyvio and the user probably needs a stronger than average warning. -- Solipsist 23:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuous unsupported reversion of Elitism by User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes

Remington_and_the_Rattlesnakes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been twice blocked for 3RR at Elitism, the first time by me before I began editing the article myself, the second time by User:Hall Monitor. (I only blocked him initially and began reverting his edits at the behest of another user; I have very little invested in the Elitism article.) He adds the same claim over and over again and refuses to provide any justification for the reverts. He has returned after the second block to continue to make the same reverts. I have reverted once more and intend to block him for a week for disruption if he reverts again; he has been warned. There are some odd edits in his history and very little (if anything) in the way of useful edits. I'm relatively certain he's a reincarnation of a blocked vandal or otherwise disruptive user, which I think justifies this (potential) block. I'd appreciate review of my actions. android79 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. android79 04:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. "Remington and the Rattlesnakes" is the "North Carolina Vandal". Curps remembers him, Joy Stovall, and probably a number of others too; I've made several posts about him on AN/I as well as ViP since at least June, though he's been active longer than that, and I've blocked innumerable sockpuppets of him. His editing style and target articles give him away. Look at any contribution from a 63.19.xxx.xxx IP on any North Carolina related article (for example, Stokes County, North Carolina: [56] --there's a list of some of his socks on a long vandalism spree), as well as Luxembourg, Mississippi, elitism (this gives it away, but there are hundreds of examples like this [57]), as well as his obsession with "croboys" and so forth, all of which appears in his vandalism history, as well as on his current user page. He is really one of the most prolific vandals in the history of our project, if you count up all the 63.19 vandalism on dozens of articles, many of them places in north central North Carolina and adjacent areas. For a while he just played in the sandbox (look at all the 63.19 edits there in the last several weeks) but now he's come out, and he's trying being a POV warrior rather than a blatant vandal. I can accumulate a small mountain of evidence on him; it's easy, because he says the same things in all his vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I've heard of the "North Carolina Vandal" in passing as well. I'll change the block to indefinite. android79 05:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly also known as the King of the Hill vandal, as documented here and here - the sandbox editting and 63.19 IPs definitely shows that they are the same person. Remington and The Rattlesnakes also vandalized Luann repeatedly, a connection to Luanne Platter, a king of the hill character. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. This person should probably be added/readded to Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts. Indium 07:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)