Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Noticeboard archives  v • d • e • h 

Community sanction archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Administrators' archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Incidents archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
3RR archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | ArbCom enforcement | Backlog

Contents

[edit] Archival

With the new bot running on this page, is it still possible to archive manually? I ask because this page is currently 370 kb long, and becoming very slow to load. the wub "?!" 12:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so long as you update both navboxes if you create a new archive page instead of adding to the old one. It might be better to decrease the lagtime on archival instead; in the initial discussion, four or five days was suggested before settling on seven to start with. I agree that the page size is ridiculous, and unless someone objects, I'll decrease the lag to six days tomorrow and five on Saturday. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This page grows way faster than WP:AN (the amount of new things here to read if you miss a day is very high), and is also used for more transitory matters. I support the change. --cesarb 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uzbek articles vandal

There's a guy who changes his IPs often and attacks Uzbek almost on daily basis. I have warned him in the past, but today he returned as 80.80.215.120 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), blanked Uzbek and List of Indo-European roots and vandalized my user page. Please help to deal with him effectively. --Ghirlandajo 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The IP mentioned by Ghirlandajo is continuing to vandalize the article Sogdiana. He is messing up the article with totally wrong information, replacing the words Iranian (meaning peoples of Aryan heritage and not citizens of Iran) and Tajik with Uzbek and Turkic. It is a well-known fact that the Sogdians were an Indo-European people from the Indo-Iranian subfamily. They had nothing to do with Turkic peoples or with Uzbeks who migrated to Central Asia more than 1000 years later! -213.39.141.128 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Nigger Association of America

This was listed on AfD for the 8th time. I have closed the AfD, removed the AfD tag and locked the page. Consensus on this article is clear already: it should be kept. Are people going to keep adding this to AfD until people get sick of the whole situation and give in to those who want it deleted? I find this to be forcing an issue by attrition, and to be frank it wastes all our time. Therefore, I have taken action on the issue. I will also inform Jimbo of what I have done. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did any of the previous AfDs result in a decision that was not "no consensus"? android79 14:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware, no. All previous listings resulted in "no consensus". -- Francs2000 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Then what Ta bu says is untrue. Consensus is not clear. It might be a time-waster and generally futile, but AFAICT it's a nomination made in good faith. android79 14:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, good point. However, as Francs2000 says, we know what the result is going to be in advance. This article will never have clear consensus to delete, which is really what I'm trying to say. Continuouly submitting it to AfD is absurd, and I think that most people will probably just vote keep because they dislike people forcing the issue. I know that the last vote was done by myself, and was done by the book. It is very clear that it will never be deleted via AfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The difficulty being that we already know what the result is going to be before we list it so what's the point? -- Francs2000 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, we probably do. It would be interesting to see what Lord Jimbo has to say about this. android79 14:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (8th nomination) - Just noticing the proportion of "Delete"s in this latest attempt before TBSDY's speedy keep close. - SoM 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to express support for Ta bu's action - it's less disruptive to discuss it here than it is to have yet another contentious AfD vote. Eight nominations for a single article seems like abuse of the process. At least give it 6 months or something. Guettarda 14:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of sanity it should not be AFD'd again, for me this is a case of WP:IAR. Martin 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Many editors (like myself) do want to see this deleted. If we can't nominate it of AfD, what are we supposed to do? It would be a different matter if the old AfDs had a keep consensus. But the fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on the issue. Why shoudln't we keep debating it until there is a consensus? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe wait at least six months like Guettarda suggested? :p Johnleemk | Talk 16:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought it got consensus to keep on the last attempt (number 7) --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • While I think the nomination is unfortunate, considering the histroy, it is within policy, and I do not see good reaso for granting this page exemption from normal proceduees. i think that unilaterally closing this page was a mistake, and it should be reopened. DES (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
There is NO WAY ON EARTH that eight nominations is "normal procedures." - David Gerard 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is when there's a huge sockpuppet presence almost every time, and when some of the nominations are closed early or with no consensus (default keep). —Locke Cole 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This here? Is why we treat no consensus as "keep." Phil Sandifer 18:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

David, Snowspinner, Ta Bu: I'm for keeping this article, (I've voted keep several times) but are you guys saying that this article can never again be nominated for AfD? Paul August ☎ 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not unless someone can present a reason why the consensus reached the first seven times will change this time. Phil Sandifer 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that's good then, because the last time this was debated fully (that'd be nomination #6) there was no consensus, ergo, the default keep was chosen. The 7th nomination was also closed prematurely (and incorrectly, IMHO). —Locke Cole 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And why should it be? The conclusion is foregone; nothing useful can come of it. It wastes everyone's time. — Dan | talk 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That claim is circular. As long as people are permitted to break the rules and stifle discussions, of course the conclusion is foregone in their favor. The issue is, they shouldn't be permitted to do that. --FOo 05:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Closing administrators have a fair degree of leeway in closing AfDs. The person "breaking" the rules could be said to be the person who relisted the GNAA article for the 8th time. Please review WP:POINT. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what WP:POINT has to do with this; how else will the article be deleted? Direct appeal to Jimbo? And besides, the 7th nomination was closed prematurely, and the 6th nomination resulted in no consensus. Maybe you should review WP:AGF. —Locke Cole 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ummm... you're using the concensus that because you have administrative status and abilites you have surperior influence desisions on the article's AFD policy and blocking decisions..? -_- -MegamanZero|Talk 09:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:207.200.24.241

This user has complained on the Help Desk Mailing list that his account has been blocked as a result of the Curps block of User:Johann Wolfgang. Could an admin go in and unblock 207.200.24.241? Thanks. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] SIIEG

If anyone is still in doubt that Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG exists specifically to push an anti-Islamic POV, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:SIIEG#Changing_the_first_point_on_our_mission.

and this edit. --Victim of signature fascism Join SIIEG and teach them NPOV 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:199.20.16.20

A user has complained on the Help Desk mailing list that User:199.20.16.20, which I blocked, is a shared account. Could an admin unblock it, please? Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Unblocked. Antandrus (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User BillRoller has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it's vandalism. Fixing it now. Thanks, bot. - jredmond 21:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The articles all now appear to be self-referencing redirects... -- ChrisO 21:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like two of us were reverting pagemoves at the same time; I'm fixing the double-redirects now. Thanks for spotting that. - jredmond 21:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diatrobica;l

I just issued a 30 minute block for Diatrobica;l (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). He was going to every user talk page he could find asking people to vote on an AFD that apparently matters a lot to him. (And his request ranted and raved about alleged censorship.) I found this behavior disruptive, and since I've seen other admins block for disruption, I felt it was justified to enforce a cooling off period.

Any comments? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I invite review of my comments at this user's talk page. I suspect that this 30 minute block will need to be extended, but it would probably help if a second admin looks into it and takes care of that. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My goodness; he sounds like a BigDaddy sockpuppet. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

UNFAIR BLOCK! UNBLOCK HIM RIGHT NOW!!!! YOUR WIKINAZISM IS NOT APPRECIATED HERE!!!!--Halopinacka 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does User Talk:Diatrobica;l wind up at User:Halopinacka? Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Ah. I see. He copied the Talk page over. Zoe (216.234.130.130 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

BigDaddy? I was thinking more along the lines of CoolDude. — Dan | talk 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Maricon has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it "Pagemove Vandalism Day", or something?--Sean|Black 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is Communism

Check these diffs - [1], [2] and [3]. He seems a little pissed off that WoW is stealing his thunder! the wub "?!" 00:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 195.82.106.x

This anon is performing multiple personal attacks on people involved in the Veganism article, including Skinwalker, User:Viriditas and others. After multiple warnings, I blocked this person for 24 hours. For awhile, they were using 195.82.106.64 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and recently used 195.82.106.78 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). It's either a static IP or one person using several computers. If they try using another IP, I plan on blocking it as well. Clearly, it's the same person. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation

I think this user: User:Kingofhearts is trying to impersonate me, User:King of Hearts. So far, he has made 1 edit on Megan Boice with the following text:

Megan Boice is a loser.

This text has been removed by IP User:207.5.124.166.

They are obviously trying to vandalize pages. --King of Hearts 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the account indefinitely. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High times at Houston ISD

I've blocked 11 users, all created in a five minute interval by someone at the Houston Independent School District. This IP address is clearly a web proxy used by the school district, and is the same IP from which the recent page move vandalism by BillRoller (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) originated. The blocked accounts are:

  1. PolandForever (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  2. RussiaForever (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  3. FranceForever (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  4. EnglandForever (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  5. AustraliaForever (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  6. Anallusian (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  7. PigSqeal2000 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  8. DogHammer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  9. Glowinggay (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Kelly Martin (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Um...(warning: links are not work friendly)

Ahem. Someone needs to deal with this. I would if it wasn't for the fact that I'm busy finishing my Writing paper. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All deleted, and the user has been blocked indef. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
(afeter ec)I've nuked his porn collection, but Kelly Martin beat me to the indef block (and the note here, grrr...). -Splashtalk 02:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone care to explain what was so bad that it merited an indefinite block? All the sophomoric nudge-nudge, wink-wink above doesn't really explain. --FOo 08:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Adding a presumably highly explicit pic to Jessica Jaymes at the least (see surviving contribs), presumably uploading a pile more - David Gerard 12:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted about 10-12 obviously-copyrighted no-way-we-can-claim-fair-use explicitly pornographic images that, as Linuxbeak warns, were extremely very ultra not work-safe. I could probably have included detailed medical descriptions of each image here to help evaluate the situation. There was one additional image that, by the time I got to it, had already been deleted; there may or may not have been more. The 'editor' was using Wikipedia as a repository for stolen porn, and uploading them with gibberish upload-summaries ranging from "mklm" to "gfhj" with the occasional "no copyright" claim interspersed. He had made a total of 2 actual edits, one of which was the addition of the infamous Image:Example.jpg to Jessica Jaymes, and the other as David Gerard describes. (If we need a basis in policy, then Jimbo has indicated that blocking for repeated copyvio is appropriate.) If he wishes to become an editor, I am sure Kelly Martin will unblock in a flash on receipt of an email indicating his comprehension of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. -Splashtalk 12:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WIKI BALL OF WAX vandal

The same user has been posting absolute nonsense to multiple pages from an AOL IP this evening. The usernames/IPs that have been blocked so far today include:

One to watch out for -- Francs2000 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Ball of wax vandal. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pryveen

This user has been posting lengthy POV screeds which are apparently book excerpts. Articles are titled in all caps. The ones we've chased down so far are as follows:

THE CRUMBLING STEELFRAME OF INDIA
POLICING UNDER POLITICAL PATRONAGE IN INDIA
ROLE OF POLICE IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF INDIA
NEED TO LIBERATE LAW ENFORCERS FROM UNHOLY ALLIANCE IN INDIA
POLICE UNPROFESSIONAL IN INDIA

Apparently he has a beef with the police in India. A mild notification of what wikipedia is not was placed on his talk page, but the results have been unpromising. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You forgot the 1st, POLICE AS SOCIAL SURGEONS IN INDIA. According to the edit summary "MY OWN ARTICLE FROM MY BOOK "POLICING THE POLICE" PUBLISHED IN 2000 IN INDIA.". 68.39.174.238 14:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Mustanglover has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've gotten some. Need help with these. Wikibofh(talk) 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How in the world did United States get deleted? There's no log. Need help undeleting it. --cesarb 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • This is embarassing - it needs fixing quick! violet/riga (t) 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm trying to restore the latest version and then we can get the rest, but it's not letting me (Error -Wikimedia Foundation) Wikibofh(talk) 22:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • We can't do a thing with it right now, not even add a message to say it's temporarily unavailable. violet/riga (t) 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We need a developer. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
          • It's up at United States of America but I have no idea where the page history went. Had multiple errors trying to undelete when I had the deleted page with history at United States. - BanyanTree 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
            • That's a version created by a cut-and-paste move some time ago. Mackensen (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
              • We clearly need a coordination policy so that two people don't try to repair the same page move at the same time. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromised webhosting IPs blocked

As a result of a request to investigate Mustanglover (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), I have blocked two different IP addresses both allocated to different webhosting facilities. Vandalism from addresses allocated to hosting facilities almost always indicates the use of compromised hosting servers to nefarious ends. As a result of this investigation, I have indefinitely blocked 72.22.69.51 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (also used by NataIina smpf (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Brithackemack (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), both currently indefinitely blocked) and 72.36.221.10 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Kelly Martin (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added "Vandalism from addresses allocated to hosting facilities almost always indicates the use of compromised hosting servers to nefarious ends." to m:Help:CheckUser - David Gerard 12:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Note, btw, that this doesn't apply to all edits — the user may have a legitimate shell account on the machine. (I have a few of these, though I haven't edited from them.) - David Gerard 12:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the chances of that are pretty slim -- and the talk page message I'm using ({{CompromisedWebHost}}) advises the owner of the IP to contact us (at info-en) to discuss unblocking the account. Note that we shouldn't do this unless they actually fix the compromise! Kelly Martin (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Can't the "compromise" consist of nothing more than an "innocent" nph-proxy.cgi someone tought it was a neat idea to add to his legitimate account? --cesarb 23:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strange email

I'm sorry if I've put this in wrong place, but I really didn't know where else it was supposed to go. I just got an email about this page, which I unblanked. It says:

Chanel

My name is Harry Palmer and I just won a 450,000.00 suit against the person who wrote the libelous, incorrect bio on Wikipedia.

see here http://www.avatarepc.com/sitrep1.html

Now this is the second time I've asked you to take it down. Please comply.

Harry Palmer CEO Star's Edge, Inc.

I don't know what he means by "this is the second time I've asked you to take it down." I've never had contact with him prior to today. I'm not sure what to do.--Shanel 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

He probably just used an "email this user" link. Ignore the trolls. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This is Harry Palmer (Avatar) a scientologist who runs his own "self help" organization licensed under the CoS. I've got friends who've had run ins with him based on public posts online. You will note his bio page here on Wiki has no posts to the discussion page, so if he's complained about his bio, its not anywhere anyone would have seen it or anywhere someone would have been able to do something about it. Suggest someone emails him and gets a list of "exactly whats wrong" with his bio, so we can NPOV the article.  ALKIVAR™ 08:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, no, it's not licensed, quite the opposite - it's a breakaway from the CoS - see Free Zone and Category:Free Zone. The CoS hate their schisms with a passion - see Fair Game (Scientology).
It's someone who doesn't like his Wikipedia bio. Note that it's unreferenced - we really need verifiable sources on this sort of article. I'll have to see what I can find. I'll note it on WP:SCN as well. He may be a bit weird, but take it as you would anyone who doesn't like their unreferenced bio - David Gerard 11:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

His web page makes lots of (WP-irrelevant) minatory noises, backed up with links. But most or all of the links are to other pages on his own site. One (the only one?) that isn't is to this PDF file, for what it's worth. -- Hoary 09:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done a pile of work on the article and added the above discussion to its talk page. It's a bit better now and hopefully can be made better still - David Gerard 17:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And now he's blanked it again. I've blocked the IP for 24 hours and suggested he dispute what's disputable about the article on its talk page - David Gerard 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:204.39.64.2

User:Appleseed asked me to look into blocking this anon. I thought I'd pass this request on here. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophile accusations on Talk:Main Page

I have indefinitely blocked the user User:69.76.224.95 for asserting that Wikipedia is a bunch of pedophiles, as evidenced by [4]. I would welcome an immediate review of this block by someone more experienced but I felt that urgent action was required. The Land 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh good Lord. I'll take care of this. Thanks, The Land. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, IPs are not to be indefinitely blocked unless they're open proxies. — Dan | talk 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hence raising it here. The Land 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hence my reply. You asked for review, and I provided it. — Dan | talk 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Good. I've reduced the block to one month. The Land 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious obscenities

We're getting tons of complaints on the Help Desk mailing list about people seeing obscene images and language on articles which I don't see when I come to look at them, and can't see that there have been any recent edits to make the vandalism or to correct it. Sweden, Zoroastrianism, The Legend of Zelda:_Majora's Mask and Indian Navy are among the most recent. Has a template or something been changed and then fixedf? I don't know how to answer these people when I can't see the same thing they're seeing. Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Now International Court of Justice. Zoe (216.234.130.130 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Could this be a new kind of vandalism? Tell us we have vandalism when we don't, then we spend ages looking for it... I'm probably being too cynical, but I can't find any vandalism on these pages myself either. [[Sam Korn]] 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably not -- these came from a lot of different mail addresses, 23 messages in total with very different writing styles. Someone would have gone to a lot of work to pull that off. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the {{Ref}} template. See history, especially this diff Note: Unsafe for work image [5] Carbonite | Talk 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Considering how often that's used, it should be protected! Thanks for the sleuthing, Carbonite! Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC))
It was only protected from moves, so I fully protected it. This is too widely used to allow anyone to edit. Carbonite | Talk 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I protected {{Main}} as well. We should think about protecting others that are widespread (in respect to WP:BEANS, I'm not going to list them here), but there are others that have a lot of uses as well. Ral315 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've suggested permanently protecting a range of templates, see Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Template_protection. --bainer (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I've protected {{Spoiler}} due to vivibility as well.--Sean|Black 23:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 80.217.152.161

I am seeking a block against 80.217.152.161 (talk • contribs), preferably longer than earlier ones (24 hours, then 48 hours, and most recently 3 hours), for refusing to cease (or at least discuss) his behavior. I am not comfortable creating such a block myself as I am involved in a dispute with this user. He has not responded to previous requests, nor to a subsequent (and still open) RfC. As the user is unwilling or unable to communicate with any other editors, I'm not sure what else to try, as nothing seems to be getting through to him. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editor removing copyvio notice

I was looking over Cursing Sahaba is Kufr (Sunni doctrine) as a candidate for AfD, and realized that it was suspiciously well-written. I checked and found that the bulk of the article had been copied from [6], a Shi'a web page. I put up a copyvio tag. The creator, Striver, removed it. I replaced it and asked Striver not to remove the tag until the copyvio had been fixed. He indented the quotes inside the quote and removed the tag. He speaks English as a second language and doesn't seem to understand why cut-n-paste is NOT OK as a means of creating WP content. Perhaps the page needs to be protected? Zora 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chooserr: Date format stuff

I blocked Chooserr (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for violation of WP:3RR at Xenophon. He's contesting the block, so here we are. What do others think?--Sean|Black 01:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It wouldn't be fair for me to comment on an incident I know nothing about. I can say, having looked at Chooserr's recent edit history, that this editor appears to have been acting with contempt for at least the spirit of site policies. Durova 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think he violated 3RR, and the block is appropriate. I also think there is a nonzero chance that he and User:Pitchka are sockpuppets of each other, and slightly longer odds that User:Puca is another sock. I'd say Chooserr used up his three strikes about 8 strikes ago. If he wants to avoid being blocked, he should do what the rest of us do, and start honoring our policies. Nandesuka 02:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    I support the block too. He's being disruptive, reverting a lot, and using sock puppets. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to see evidence that he's using sock puppets. To my mind, he and User:Pitchka come across as rather different. I will admit that I'm wrong if it's determined that they edit from the same IP, but I'll be quite surprised. I think Chooserr has potential to be a good editor, but he doesn't yet understand that it's inappropriate to use Wikipedia for activism. He's not really gaming the rules any more than those pushing the BCE/CE format in this case, he's just not as good at it. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've encountered Pitchka and Chooserr on the issue of alleged pov pushing on their behalf in an afd and a cfd. I believe that they are not sockpuppets of each other. I believe that they are two different users. And if I'm not mistaken, they have contributed to wikipedia simultaneously. Afaik, this is only possible on two different computers, and it would require a large amount of energy to constantly switch from one screen to the other. Aecis praatpaal 09:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massive disruption of album pages

A single editor, User:BGC, formerly User:PetSounds, is systematically removing virtually all recent contributions (6-8 weeks worth) by other editors to popular music articles he has an interest in. [7] At this point, well over 100 articles are involved, over the last 3 hours. He has been engaged in long-running edit disputes with several users, including myself, over noncompliance with a variety of policies and guidelines, particularly the Manual of Style, the Album Wikiproject guidelines, and NPOV. He is particularly incensed today over my proposal to delete a template he favors [8], and is clearly, I think, violating WP:POINT, if not engaging in outright vandalism.

A few examples: Monster_(album), removing contributions from 5 editors, including a clarification that one release of the album including a DVD-audio, not video, "bonus" disc.

Their_Satanic_Majesties_Request, removing contributions from 6 editors, including undisputed correction of factual errors and reintroduction of BGC's aesthetic opinions.

Calling_All_Stations unexplained removal of apparently indisputable dab and MOS revisions by 3 other editors.

Surf's_Up unexplained removal of dab and MOS revisions by other editors, and reinsertion of a lengthy, NPOV-violating, unverifiable text that seems to be little more than his personal essay on the album.

The typical edit removes all changes going back to October or November, whenever User:BGC last edited the article, without any regard for the nature of intervening edits.

User:BGC has attempted to justify his actions by saying that "I feel certain people have no respect for my contributions and have acted in extremely bad faith. I'm just returning the favor" and "An eye for an eye." [9] I'm not sure anything I can say would be more convincing evidence of abusive intent than those comments are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monicasdude (talk • contribs). (who intended to sign it, since he included the link to the TfD he proposed . . . ) Monicasdude 04:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable. As he's stopped now I see no sense in blocking, but I've given him a warning that any repetition will get him a good long block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent... idontknowhattocallit ...does't like QED very much

The same anon that's been going around vandalizing other theoretical phyisics related articles, has apparently settled on this page, and while I wouldn't call its edits outright vadalism, I would say that its past history makes me doubt its seriousness, seems more like it's picked an article where vandalism wouldn't be very likely to be noticed, and stuck with it

  • I'd like to get an outside opinion on this, which is why I'm posting it here--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 03:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can't edit

I moved the article on the Suzuki SV650 and SV650S motorcycle from its old title of Suzuki SV650(S) to a better title of SV650. Then I realized that a more appropriate title would be Suzuki SV650 and so I moved the article again. I did the moving by hand because I was unaware of the wikipedia function for moving articles. In between the moves I was editing/creating a bunch of articles and fixing their redirects, but suddenly I can't save my edits any longer. It lets me edit and press the Save button, but then when the article reloads nothing has changed. Did I get banned or something for doing a burst of editing? CMJ 08:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'll forward this to the admin notice board so they can fix your copy-paste moves and get some insight on your error. Blocked people are clearly warned of their block, not sneakily allowed not to have their edits shown. Did you get any error messages? - 82.172.14.108 11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It's possible that you need to clear your browser cache. That happens to me sometimes on certain pages. Try hitting SHIFT+CTRL+R or CTRL-F5. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evading a ban

User:Absent was banned indefinitely for hate speech, serious personal attacks against users, trolling Islamic articles, and inserting patent lies into many of the same articles. He is now back as User:Nosharia view contribs, answering to questions posed to his old username, and continuing old arguments from his old username. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 13:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Node ue

Node ue (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is vandalizing various pages. Someone must watch him.--62.66.243.96 13:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Node >> anon redshirt. You wouldn't have come here from the Moldovan Wikipedia discussion on wikipedia-l, perchance? Heaven forbid! (The above is this IP's only edit ever, anon or with a username.) - David Gerard 17:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_dialects&diff=31591845&oldid=31570335
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_language&diff=31591971&oldid=31590919
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raionul_Cimi%C5%9Flia&diff=31543916&oldid=30199603

[edit] Moldovan raion

Hi Mark. I have a question about this edit you made. In addition to the name of that raion, "Raionul Cimişlia", you added its name in the Moldovan language, you wrote "(Moldovan: R-ul. Cimişlia)". I belive it does not make any sense, as "R-ul. Cimişlia" is just an abbreviation of "Raionul Cimişlia", and not its name in some other language. If you are trying to make a point that Moldovan language is different than Romanian language, that kind of edits, if anything, work against you.
I don't plan to argue with you or with anybody else the issue of Moldovan language, but I belive your edit was not productive. I will keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while, so you can reply here if you would like to comment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Node_us is creating a lot of mistakes in the article and does not acknowledge them nor corrects them (he translated "traieste" as "works" instead of "lives", "Rochia mea este noua" as "I have a new dress" instead of "My dress is new", that aside whenever he is arround he is irritating everyone, never even tries to reach a consensus,for example an admin Jmabel left the Moldovan language page because Node_ue was starting again to edit (after the page has been blocked for the 4th time because of the edit/revert wars) without consulting other editors. Please indeed watch him. 212.0.211.204 14:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone watch Node ue (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log).--194.83.70.20 09:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rajputs

Talk:Rajput is too much for a single admin to handle; I protected the article for two days, and tried to teach basic WP:5P to the editors, but I cannot be expected to babysit every Rajasthani jingoist with internet access. Being called a racist for pointing out that WP doesn't necessarily subscribe to the Hindu pov somehow did it for me. So I unprotected the article again, and am watching it for renewed edit-warring. I would be much obliged if a couple of you could also watch the article. dab (ᛏ) 14:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've added to my watchlist, and I'll do what I can. – ClockworkSoul 15:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've given Shivraj Singh repeated warnings about edit warring and civility, up to the point that he's had several 3RR blocks and even a week-long block but hasn't changed a bit. (Incidentally, after the last block I got an email calling me and Zora racists and vandals, which almost convinced me to unblock, really.) I'd give him (and some of the others that have been calling him a vandal, too) a short leash, this whole thing's been going on for a while. Dmcdevit·t 19:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Peter Griffin has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

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

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

66.235.221.51 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 82.165.244.16 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) have been blocked indefinitely as compromised web hosts. In addition, La casa de carton (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely (created from one of these two addresses). The other four accounts created from these addresses, Peter Griffin (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Raul 654 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), TML 1988 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Aidepolcycne (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), were already blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
All the moves fixed, except for Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia talk:Introduction—I get error messages when trying to delete the former to make way for the move, and the edit history has disappeared from the latter. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Got it, all clear.--Sean|Black 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh, nope. Wikipedia:Introduction's history is still in the wrong place. -Splashtalk 01:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
You guys really need to work on a protocol to avoid stepping on one another's toes fixing page move vandalisms. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe it would be better if the server code were to be fixed so the only effect of stepping on one another's toes would be a harmless edit conflict. However, as a coder, I know how hard can fixing that sort of bug be. --cesarb 01:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oops. I really don't know how to fix this, but it looks someone got it.--Sean|Black 01:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
What? The history is still elsewhere, and still hasnt been moved back. Brian0918 appears to be doing something, but nothing appears to actually have happened. Are there too many edits to just mvoe it back or something?-Splashtalk 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the introduction talk page, but I can't find where the history of the actual introduction page went. This is why page move vandalism sucks.--Sean|Black 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I found it. Just follow the history trail from Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Introduction (vandalised) to (censored) to Wikipedia:Introduction/real one to Wikipedia:Introduction (history). I will not be the one to do this page history merge. You can all thank Cool Cat (talk • contribs) for his attempt to help fix the page moves (just look at the page histories). --cesarb 02:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The history can be found at Wikipedia:Introduction (history), similarly for the talk page. Attempts to move it back weren't successful (database glitch?), better to leave it alone until some developer can do it. -- Curps 02:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the talk page, but get database errors with the main Introduction page, so I'll just sit back and let someone else handle it. Incidently, isn't Wikipedia:introduction supposed to be protected from moves?--Sean|Black 02:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It's protected now. --Carnildo 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation of an admin

New user User:Mistress Selina Kyle, as well as some highly contraversial edits and extremely dodgy edit summarieas, is impersonating an admin on their user page, and I'm not quite sure how to deal with this. An actual admin might be useful, as they're also deleting some comments off their user talk page. --Kiand 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Its now been removed by someone else, but I'd still be wary of this user. --Kiand 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
It's possible they copied the userbox code verbatim from an admins page and didn't realize they'd tagged themself as an admin (or if they did, didn't realize how to remove it). I would WP:AGF for the moment. —Locke Cole 12:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Based on the users other edits (including going to page with a contraversial title, changing its contents to the non-concensus title, and removing not one, but two commented notes to editors about it), I think AGF can be completely ignored here. --Kiand 15:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive vandalism by User 82.27.25.214

A spate of AfDs have come up concerning fanfiction Star Wars articles by 82.27.25.214. I have left him a message concerning his contributions and the possibility of his being banned, but upon taking an extensive look at his edits--almost all of which consist of unverified, non-canonical and clearly self-invented data--I felt that "possibility" should be changed to "certainty". I hope this is the place to get that done. ^_^;; Marblespire 07:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any such articles since 3rd December, and in any case would assume good faith. If he keeps knowingly creating nonsense articles then yes, there is the potential to block him for vandalism, but we would warn him several times first. The Land 10:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


The place to report vandalism is WP:VIP. Not here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New user uploading possible copyvio images

We have a user, Shez 15, who's been active for only four days (though I suspect him of being an anonIP making the same sort of edits earlier). He is uploading high-quality pictures of currently hot Indian actresses, claiming that the copyright holders have released them into the public domain. I think he's just pulling them off websites and making that claim. He uploaded one photo, of Bipasha Basu, Bips.jpg, that clearly says mahiram.com on the bottom -- that website says on the bottom, copyright, all rights reserved. I called him on it and he said that he'd made a "mistake" and kept on uploading pictures. I'm spending hours trying to check out his edits.

Could you block him for a while and SLOW HIM DOWN? Zora 09:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped, so I'm not going to block him. I've listed the rest of his images on WP:PUI, though. —Cryptic (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've put a message on their talk page, asking them not to upload any more images until the problems with the previous uploads are sorted out. --ajn (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't look, to me, like a lack of knowledge as to the true copyright status. If you'll look here [10] you'll see that he untruthfully claimed this image as his own personal fan photo - when in fact I was able to find a source for the image that indicates otherwise. --Krich 11:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please take note of vandalism 18/12/05

Travb (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) insult to Filipinos "having thought themselves free" 09:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC). Please see articles's history and discussion Treaty of Paris (1898).61.69.171.168

This is NOT vandilism, I edited the sentence, and then he edited it back, and I gave up on the silly edit war, and let him have the sentence intact, anon needs to read the definition of vandilism better, because my edits are clearly NOT vandalism.
Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress: When NOT to use this page: Edit wars - content disputes must go through the appropriate dispute resolution process"
Anon needs to learn to read pages in full before making foolish, baseless accusations. Travb 10:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Flatheman and possible admin abuse

User:Flatheman has been blocked for adding his name to the list of notable chess-players (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flatheman) by User:Ludraman. 17:13, 15 December 2005 Ludraman blocked "User:Flatheman" with an expiry time of 1 week (Vandalism / addition of misleading info at List of notable chess players). User:Ludraman appears to be mostly inactive, apart from this block. It is not appropriate to block a user when no attempt has been made to explain Wikipedia policy to him/her. There's not so much as a comment left on the talk page. As such, I would like to report User:Ludraman for abuse of admin powers---what should now be done? --83.147.171.12 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • One week is a bit over the top, yes. But I don't see why we should act against an admin for a single misstep. Ungen unblocked the user and gave them a warning. Shouldn't we give Ludraman the same courtesy? - Mgm|(talk) 17:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What, block Ludraman for a week accusing him of vandalism, then unblcok him and give him a warning? Zocky 03:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sock check

At this RfC there has been a claim that 62.162.226.197, 62.162.226.48, Macedon5, and possibly others are sockpuppets of Bitola. Since the question of whether these are multiple people or a single individual bears on some of the items disputed in the RfC, and there has been a request for verification of whether sock-puppets are involved, a sock-check would be helpful. --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[I don't know how to request a sock check, but I feel one is necessary as claims have been made concerning the following, which, as they originate from the same IP, may well be related to the above:
62.162.217.175
62.162.208.57
62.162.208.14
62.162.216.167
62.162.221.190
62.162.217.127
62.162.218.211
62.162.224.43
62.162.224.51
62.162.224.77
62.220.220.123
samvak

--82.195.137.125 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]

  • Correct me If I'm wrong, but isn't a "sockcheck" really just a fancy word for see if two people have the same ip, and if so, how could you do a "sockcheck" of two different IPs? wouldn't that be a paradox?--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 19:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedon5 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Bitola (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and has been used inappropriately, see [11]. The various ips do not match exactly but are mostly from 62.162. Fred Bauder 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[All IPs resolve to mt.net.mk "Makedonski Telekomunikacii" --82.195.137.125 19:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)]
Which sounds like the state telecom, meaning that those IP's could be used by any of 2 million people. Zocky 13:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[Actually that is more like 392,671 people divided by 9 ISPs, considerably less than 2 million, all, apparently, resolving to Skopje, which subdivides it somewhat further, daunting nonetheless even if you factor in that the user must write English fluently! However the syntax, subject matter and use of language strongly suggest sockpuppetry, in the instances cited by myself and by CBDunkerson, as does some of the content. It is to be hoped that somewhere server logs exist that will establish this clearly, particularly if the "puppeteer" has slipped up from time to time and switched from login to IP too quickly.--82.195.137.125 16:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)]
I haven't checked the user's contributions, but I would like to caution people from jumping to conclusion. I would presume that the state telecom is a major ISP in Macedonia and I also wouldn't be surprised if all dial-up IPs in Macedonia resolve to Skopje, bringing the possible number of people using those IPs back into millions.
Another thing that should be noted is that common education and linguistic background tend to give a similar feel to all the English written by people from a particular country. Zocky 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I’m so sorry that I have been constantly accused of using sock puppetry (among other things). First I was accused by User:Freestylefrappe that User:Glenn Willen is one of my sock puppets and in the last time I’m repeatedly receiving accusations from User: CBDunkerson, User:Freestylefrappe and User:Bunchofgrapes about User:Macedon5 being my sockpuppet. As I said once before, that is simply NOT true. Nonetheless, during my block I anonymously did some corrections in the Kumanovo article, but that is not a proof of sock puppetry. How could you make assumptions based only on the fact that some user had been using the same IP address as me? I discussed the Kumanovo dispute to some of my colleagues and friends here and it is very likely that somebody used the same IP address as me in order to join the discussion. Moreover, I don’t intend to continue with future explanations about my alleged sock puppetry.--Bitola 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[ Zocky "Makedonski Telekomunikacii" along with some of the other ISPs have nodes in at least 7 cities, including Skopje, for several years. There were only a total of 392,671 internet users in the whole country a year ago http://www.internetworldstats.com/blog.htm
"Another thing that should be noted is that common education and linguistic background tend to give a similar feel to all the English written by people from a particular country." Which, in a case where user samvak, an Israeli, apparently also educated in Canada and the US, is involved, makes it something of a dead give away. (62.162.226.197 can be clearly seen dropping links to the work of samvak here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decriminalization&diff=prev&oldid=13392426 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_movement_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=8045931 all of my list of suspect IPs post exclusively in connection with and support of samvak, in exactly the same style, with remarkably similar expressions and aspects of content ) --82.195.137.125 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)]

[edit] Administrator abuse of power and privileges

Admin Mikka blocked me for "personal attacks and spreading false and defamating information (about usage of "sperm")".
Now, I will explain you exactly what happened. Me, User:Anittas and User:Dpotop were labelled as "koncenii" (russian vulgar word for "sperm") by the User:Node ue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect)+(in 15:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Node addresses to Dpotop)+(Tu eshti koncenii. Graieshti moldoveneshte, Anittas? --Node 07:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)).
Even the person User:Node ue recognize it that is a curse/insulte/vulgar term:
If you were referring to me saying "koncenii", please know that it was to prove a point and as a joke, not a serious insult. Besides, is it really a personal attack if the target doesn't know what it means? -- Node 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
So, he recognize it as a foreign word to me (russian word) and its meaning is vulgar, obscene.
Now, for determing that it is really or he meant to be a real curse we have to take into account the correct russian writting of the word: (konchenii) so, it won't be found in
Mikkalai said that in russian: "konchit" means "to ejaculate", konchenii" could mean "a man who just finished sexual intercourse"
Konchit, Koncheni, Konceni (variations of the word)
Fuck, Fuckk, Fucck (variations of the word) - Until now they tried to minimalize to say something like: it is not exactly like that, an "i" is missing, or an "t", or other letters ".."

but the main issue remains: that user had used this label "koncenii" as an insult.

Even Admin Mikka admits this in a very bias way, he actually put "fan on flames":
Bonaparte, tu eshti koncenii!!! --user:Node ue
That's a tough one for Bonaparte: if he recognizes this as an insult, then he will admit that Moldovan is not identical to Romanian, if he will not, then he does not know Moldavian. :-) user:mikkalai (t) 00:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed :) that was the intention... to force his hand, by using a Moldovan word that you don't hear in Romanian. --user:Node ue


This word is all over the russian pages on Internet (from where User:Node ue had taken from so is false to say is not a vulgar term.
Look what other person which is exactly from Moldova says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moldovan_language/archive01#moldovan_a_dialect):
It is a slang, basically in russian it means "washed-up", but it is also considered to be quite vulgar (at least here), becase "кончать" would mean in a vulgar sense (you won't find that in a dictionary) to ejaculate, guess what "конченый" (in the same vulgar sense) might be, based on that. Just a tag
The conclusions: It was meant to be an insult and was used as an insult.
Now after all this is my question: why am I blocked, since that word which is clear now that was meant to insult me, and who was used against me and other users, and it is not blocked the person who use it aka User:Node ue?
Isn't this an abuse? Isn't this not fair? How come that the user that was cursed and labelled is blocked? And not the person who permits to label like that?
I hope that some Admins will see this and will take the proper measures. So I am waiting for actions and I hope that you've seen how bias and illegal measure can take an Admin.

--Bonaparte talk 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

If anything, Bonaparte should look in the mirror. He's always been a troll agitating people around and making personal attacks. See some "constructive" contributions of Bonaparte on the very charged Talk:Moldovan language:

Please go through the trouble of reading those diffs, as I am accused below of taking things out of context. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Comment

I did not say that. Only this [12] and this: Are all these real? all-powerful entity made of pure energy , If you know him, you will be blessed and your dreams will come true , THE GREAT MARK HAS NO WEAKNESSES, All-powerfulness , All powerful, handsome!!!??????

What are you Mark? some kind of God or what?
 Bonaparte  talk & contribs

I just asked the guy that's all. He said so and I asked him if it is true.

And I said you are a looser with this approach, so Oleg I'm sorry but if you take out only some parts of the text is not good. Anyone is welcomed to see the whole text. Only a part is not enough.

That was obviously one statement of Node without any reference and those who don't know about the subject is like for comparison to state that the Earth is flat.

--Bonaparte talk 20:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Each and every one of those is a blatant personal attack. The topic of that talkpage is "Moldovan language", not "Things Node posted to his livejournal a few years ago", nor is it "Calling Node dumb and a loser". You keep trying to say that your attacks are warranted by my behaviour. But that's not true, nor can it ever be -- no matter how serious my offences may have been, you have never had and still do not have licence to harass or attack me or others. If you have a problem with a user, you should use the appropriate administrative channels -- WP:RfC would've been nice if I really did all of those horrible things you claim. But instead of staying reserved and polite and taking any problems through appropriate resolution processës, you have continued to harass and blatantly personally attack me. Oleg gave some good examples of that above. It's totally unacceptable to say people are "losers", "dumb", or "stupid", and spelling them incorrectly doesn't make it any more acceptable. Comments such as "does your ass still hurt" and "some kind of God or what?" are completely inappropriate and the first one could easily be considered sexual hárassment. --Node 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
So much to tell about your behaviour...For you calling others as "sperm" is OK I guess...So what about you Node? You actually did this and you cann't deny this, isn't it so? And what about your trolling edits? and revert war? You've been blocked for this. However here I posted this against the abuse of power of an Admin. So I let other Admins to see how "out of line" reacted Mikka. Instead of blocking me, you Node should have been blocked, because you labelled me and other two users as "sperm". --Bonaparte talk 08:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
My behaviour? Why are you trying to make this about me? I'll answer concisely because I do feel the focus ehre should be you. 1) No, I never called anybody "sperm". Mikkalai and Ghirandajo have both backed up the fact that "koncenii" does not mean sperm, as well as any Russian or Moldovan dictionary you check. 2) "Trolling edits"? Please see internet troll... after some of the cruft you've offloaded onto Talk:Moldovan language, I'm surprised you even have the nerve to accuse me of trolling. Actually, not really surprised. 3) Revert wars take more than one person. You have also violated 3RR on that page, and you have been banned/blocked far more times than I. 4) You have claimed in the past that Mikkalai has blocked you "illegally". But he never has -- each time he blocked you, it was completely in accordance with policy. 5) Nobody in their right mind who knows Russian or Moldovan would've blocked me for calling people "koncenii". Unfortunately for your claims against me, Mikkalai knows Russian. Now, stop trying to reflect all of your bad behaviour back to me. You have not explained your hárassment and personal attacks... --Node 12:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So much to tell about your behaviour...That's why you annoy everybody...Reader please see the way he annoyed almost all...except me, I have enough pacience to deal with him. He doesn't have any strong argument and that's why he adopts that approach. For more info readers should see his trolling approach on Moldovan language. The majority of users there agree with the fact that he is just annoying everybody there with his trolling. He repeatedly engages in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "koncenii," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. User:Node ue does not play well with others. But again, this post here is about the behaviour of the Admin Mikka. He didn't react in a good approach. Actually he made exactly the opposite. Mikkalai as admin has been involved in the article or the dispute supporting bias edits.
Your accusations are completely empty. Oleg Alexandrov provided diffs for your violation of WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Harassment, and a few others. You have provided no diffs or evidence for any of your accusations. Really, what do you hope to accomplish here? Can't you just reform yourself and stop being so mean? All anybody wants, with the exception of you, seems to be a compromise resolution at Moldovan language. You, on the other hand, have stated before that you're not going to stop your nastiness until the page states categorically "Moldovan and Romanian are the same language"... --Node 04:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Proof: To proove that so-called Moldovan language is identical with Romanian I gave an example of the two costitutions. With this example we have the proof that they are identical. After all a constitution is written in the official language isn't it? But he constantly deleted my example. Why? Because in this way we proove that they are wrong! How many times they reverted my examples? at least 20 times! Do you find a good approach like his "so called neutral approach " or "third party"? --Bonaparte talk 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tell me you two, what are you hoping to achieve by having this discussion? Izehar (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just want some Admins to see the behaviour of Admin Mikka. Because I was blocked by him on reasons, as I described very well above, that are politically motivated. Since I was labelled as "sperm" by a user and that user was never blocked by him. Instead Mikka continued to block me. Bonaparte talk 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • And what do you think they are going to do? I really think you're wasting your time here. Time which could be used in more productive ways - like writing articles or reverting vandalism for example. Izehar (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Read here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Anittas#Suggestion) He said he will ban all if we say: you are mistake....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Anittas#Dpotop Dpotop explain very good what happend there. --Bonaparte talk 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

FWIW (and with no opinion on why Bonaparte may have been blocked), Node appears to have written this to (clumsily) illustrate his claim that differences between the speech of Moldova and Romania are larger than most of the Romanians acknowledge. I don't particularly like the way he did it, but considering some of what has been flung around on the talk pages in question, it doesn't stand out, and at least has the justification of relevance to the topic, which a lot of the insults on the page have not.

On the other side: an insult is an insult whether its target understands it or not. When an anonymous editor called me "curve batrane ignorante" on Talk:Romanian_language, it would have been just as inappropriate if I didn't have enough Romanian to understand. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peter McConaughey and the Cabal

Peter McConaughey (talk • contribs) seems to be rather obessessed with idea that Wikipedia is run by a Cabal [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] He's also quite convinced that I'm a member of said Cabal (though I can't find my membership card at the moment). While he's entitled to hold this belief, this obsession has led him to make numerous edits that I feel are disrptive.

Most recently he created a "self-rule" template (I've now moved this to user space) which was essentially created in response to being told that his made-up Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule (I also moved this to user space) was not considered an official Wikipedia guideline. I'd attempt to just ignore him, but he's also been following my edits and making criticism [18], including a 3 hour block that the blocked user agreed was the right move [19]. He's also given advice to another user to create a sockpuppet to circumvent the 3RR. There are also extended debates about his edits on pages including September 11, 2001 attacks, Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Criticism of Wikipedia.

I really don't know what are his motivations for such behavior. He does have a strong POV [20], although he often writes large essays on his interpretation [21] of WP:NPOV. It's quite clear that any advice that I give him will be seen as coming from the Cabal and thus promptly ignored. I do have some hope that other admins may be able to convince him to cease some of his less productive behavior. He has good potential to become a valuable contributor, but not if he continues to obsess about cabals (or me). Carbonite | Talk 14:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your membership card is in the mail. Fnord. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Should the cross-namespace redirect (together with the two redirects which point to it) be deleted? --cesarb 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
They should be deleted in my opinion. There's no need to have them in Wikipedia space. Carbonite | Talk 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To add to the problem, Peter is now trying to convince User:Jpgordon that he should have a problem with a three-hour block I made for personal attacks. Jpgordon's only comment to me on the matter was "good call". [22] See User_talk:Jpgordon#Personal_attack for the conversation. I think Peter's behavior is bordering on harassment, if not outright Wikistalking. Carbonite | Talk 20:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copperchair

I have blocked Copperchair (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for one month for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Copperchair/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban_on_Copperchair_editing. This block is lengthy but will be adjusted when the case is closed. His talk page is being monitored for any input he may have to his arbitration case. Fred Bauder 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another webhost blocked

204.13.170.50 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked as a compromised web host. The following accounts have been (or were already) blocked indefinitely as they were created from this address. RC patrollers should be aware that any editor who inserts backslashes before single or double quotes (see, e.g., this edit) is probably using this botnet client and should be killed dead immediately and reported here or to me directly for CheckUser analysis.

Kelly Martin (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a botnet client. It's an anonymous proxy written in PHP where the creator wasn't cautious with its use of addslashes() and/or stripslashes(). I've already blocked some open proxies which had that characteristic, after finding their URL. --cesarb 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Either way, these IPs are to be banned indefinitely. Please get me the IPs you've banned so I can CheckUser them. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Most of them were months ago (so, checkuser won't work). Just check my block log for all the times I used the blocked proxy template. --cesarb 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accused of bias

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1.800.Vending, I have been accused of being biased and "trying to defend the company for some alleged violations of the law". This is based on the fact that last month, on one occasion, I, along with other RC patrollers, reverted a persistent vandal who was blanking portions of the article.

I posted a short response, but I see this as a serious accusation against me and my standards of neutrality. Since I am a side to this, I would appreciate if another admin could take a look at this. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you expect us to do? Chastise someone for not thinking you're neutral? --Golbez 00:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another group of evil proxies

I'm taking out some more vandalism proxies:

Kelly Martin (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another vandalism source IP

Kelly Martin (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And here's another:

Kelly Martin (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And another:

Kelly Martin (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And another:

Kelly Martin (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An actual violation of WP:POINT, related to {{if}}

[23] had the effect of breaking a whole shitload of templates and articles. For an example, see Interstate 76 (east). --SPUI (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that {{qif}} is a better one to use - should the protected template not point to that rather than to the useless message to see WP:AUM, which has nothing about how to replace {{if}} with {{qif}}? --SPUI (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
{{if}} is a blight on Mediawiki. It's in the class of things one should not do just because one can. I predict all damage will be fixed in three hours, tops. See also the template's talk page - David Gerard 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I might be able to fix it myself if the useless message instead pointed to something explaining how to convert to {{qif}}. Anyway, I'll try to figure it out now. --SPUI (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Template:qif is bad too. Just in more use, so it's being saved for later execution. Phil Sandifer 19:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
How about once a better if-then code is implemented? Anything prior to that is a gross violation of WP:POINT, more so than most things I see being called such. It would actually disrupt many pages. --SPUI (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point so much as removing something the devs asked not to be used that some people used anyway, because they decided they knew more about the database than the devs. Phil Sandifer 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your insightful response. I will print it out and use it to wipe my anus. --SPUI (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The whole thread, or just Snowspinner's posts? I mean, you wouldn't want to wipe yourself with your own posts. Or would you?.--Sean|Black 20:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

While I want to AGF about this, it would be really helpful if someone could point to a dev based discussion of the impact of meta-templates, the need to remove them, and when/if there might be alternatives. The most recent discussion on wikitech-l that I can find [24] complains about complicated syntax but certainly doesn't justify a destroy with extreme prejudice approach. I read AUM and its talk page and come away knowing that if you change a template used on thousands of pages then it can seriously lag the database by invalidating large portions of the cache, but that seems like a great reason to lock the widely used templates but not neccesarily a sufficient reason to destroy them. Where are the devs saying "destroy, destroy"? I would like to see that. Dragons flight 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit comments on Template:If say the place where it was discussed is #wikimedia-tech. --cesarb 20:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Note also "Please instead work at reducing the use of qif to reduce the harm." From Jamesday on the talk page of WP:AUM. Phil Sandifer 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have anything more detailed? One could read that as anywhere from: "We want you to work at removing every last usage of qif" to "Qif can be a nuisance, so don't use it except when it adds value to the encyclopedia". Also, it does little to clarify the point of whether all metatemplates should be conidered bad, or just those used on enough pages to lag the servers on update. If it is just the latter, could we make the problem go away by doing something as silly as creating a thousand different templates with conditional functions rather than one universal one? Conditional and meta-templates are useful, even if they aren't essential. But there are lots of things that the Mediawiki software can do that aren't essential. Surely if they devs wanted all metatemplates eliminated they could simply kill them in software. Since that hasn't happened (and in fact Aver has been expanding template functionality), it leads me to believe this is not a do-or-die situation. P.S. Can I assume you didn't save a copy of the #wikimedia-tech conversation? Dragons flight 21:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ummm... *sputter*... Jamesday says, point blank, reduce the use of qif. How much more specific do you want this? Phil Sandifer 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
How about specific enough to address whether using qif on say 1/2 of the pages it is used on now would be "reduced" enough not to cause a problem. I don't have a problem accepting that we can benefit the servers by using these things less, but I do object to the notion (which some people are propagating) that this necessarily implies we should not use them at all. Dragons flight 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Why on earth do you need to use them? There is no reason that these templates are needed. They make wiki coding far more difficult than it need be, and it's intended to be simple to understand. You can live without them. Wouldn't you prefer servers that work? [[Sam Korn]] 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, dude. Jamesday is Wikimedia's DBA. If he says "please stop using this awful thing kthx" he's probably not speaking out of his hat - David Gerard 12:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason for not deprecating every template in Category:If Templates, and possibly Category:Boolean Templates? If there any particular reason why {{{else}}} is enabled in the first place? As a programmer, I wholeheartedly agree that these templates are non-essential eye candy, and actively a bad thing since they cause excessive server load (and not just each time when they're edited, either). But judging from people's reactions (such as the spurious claim that WP:AUM is not a guideline since it wasn't voted upon), gently asking those people to stop isn't going to have much of an effect. Radiant_>|< 21:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If you mean, lets work to reduce their usage and find ways to make them unneccesary, then that is clearly a good thing in the spirit of AUM. If you mean, let's just disable them and let other people worry about the mess that makes, then no, let's not. At least not without a clear discussion with the devs showing that a radical culling is the necessary and only solution. Dragons flight 22:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Straw man. I was in no way suggesting that. I still would like to hear a good reason for using {{if}} that is not trumped by the server load it causes. SubstBot can easily get rid of a template if we want it to, without leaving a mess for other people. Radiant_>|< 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to protect all high-risk templates. See Wikipedia:High-risk templates. --bainer (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turan

85.98.37.166 is messing up the article Turan with non-verified and wrong information, mostly Pan-Turkist propaganda. -213.39.200.218 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User 85.98.37.166 is really pushing for a non-scientific pan-turkic propaganda. Tajik 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparing the present version to those of other languages (like the German one: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan_%28Landschaft%29), this version (the English one) is REALLY messed up! -Tajik 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature

User:Stbalbach has twice now removed my comments from the Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature page, although I have warned him about removing other people's Talk page comments. I will not block him for repeated violation of this dictum, but I would appreciate it if someone else would do so if he repeats his inappropriate behavior. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

He's now done it again, and if I revert, it will violate 3RR. Could someone please help? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You are not being very productive: calling his edits an "attempt at ownership", and going around deleting the template from talk pages. Leave your concerns about the template at Template talk:Maintained and please stop going after individual editors. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:38
I have stopped removing the egregious template from the Talk pages where it has been slapped around. I am only trying to let other, less familiar users, know they have the right to edit the page without having their edits approved by those who claim ownership of the article. I want my comments restored to the Tak page. Now. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Stbalbach violated the 3RR. Instead of blocking him, I rolled back his edit and left a note on his talk page. Zoe: please try to be more polite in your requests (I want my comments restored to the Tak page. Now.) -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris. I have reworded my comments on the Talk page to try to make them less confrontational. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Brian. Probably a general note should be added to Template:Maintained. Please work things out on Template talk:Maintained -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a clarification to the template itself, which even User:Zoe and User:David Gerard seem to support. Is this acceptable now? Please change to Keep if you think it has a chance in some form, not necessarily this form. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:59

Classic Zoe running round thumping fists on table and stomping feet when she doesn't get her own way, rather than following or allowing due process to run its course at TfD. I want my comments restored to the Tak page. Now. Brilliant petulance and rudeness :D --84.68.109.124 13:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
As opposed to anonymous sniping, which demonstrates loads of integrity. --Calton | Talk 13:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I have as much integrity as the next man (or woman). The fact that I choose to edit this project "anonymously" is irrelevant. I choose not to register an account, which is my right, and, as your charming pages correctly state, gives me less anonymity than being a "registered user". Would you prefer the above comment came from some randomly chosen anonymous user name? How about I register as The Anonymous Sniper, would you prefer that "Calton"? --84.68.133.80 12:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another BC/AD edit warrior

Caligulavator (talk • contribs) is a new account that's exclusively warring over BC/AD and professing (a bit suspiciously) total ignorance of the rules. See WP:AN/3RR#User:Caligulavator. -- SCZenz 03:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

AOL user. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to do a sock check on this user? I can't believe that a newly registered user would immediately find his way to BC/AD/BCE/CE related articles and start edit warring like this. This is completely out of character. This user account is particularly fishy because there currently is a debate on several pages (like WP:VPP, Wikipedia talk:Eras and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) on which dating system to use, after some back and forth edit/revert warring. Aecis praatpaal 14:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
No, because the user uses AOL, as Kelly just said. This means that the IP address is constantly changing, and the user is indistinguishable from the myriad others who use AOL. [[Sam Korn]] 14:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The frustrating thing about this is that, technically, the user didn't do anything but violate 3RR. Is there anything that could have been done other than going behind him and cleaning up his mess, then reverting until he went over the 3RR? Dealing with him required two users to revert, and a third to actually block him for 3RR, when his behavior was pretty clearly intended to be disruptive. Does anyone have any suggestions? -- SCZenz 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like BC/BCE warring is a new troll pastime. That's probably not grounds for shoot on sight though - David Gerard 13:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is either. Although, this guy was adding AD to 19xx at List of particle accelerators and creating misspelled articles with assertions of AD/BC "prevalence", which is even sillier than typical edit warring. I'd say it was almost borderline vandalism, for what that's worth. -- SCZenz 13:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Locke Cole

Locke Cole is again censoring my talk page comments; this time on my own talk page, having previously been blocked for multiple reverts of that page. Andy Mabbett 10:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Appologies; my mistake. Andy Mabbett 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You need to look a little closer at that diff. In advance: it's okay, I forgive you. —Locke Cole 10:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like he was trying to fix a sentence that was missing its ending to me. If you think think it should say something else, you can always change it of course, but I don't think reverting it is useful here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the particular edit I was inserting was removed here by Pigsonthewing. I thought it was an accident (cut and paste instead of copy and paste), so I placed it back in. —Locke Cole 12:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Censorship, no. Putting words in your mouth, perhaps. Morwen - Talk 12:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Consistent with the terms of his probation, I have blocked User:Pigsonthewing for 12 hours for failing to assume good faith and for making a personal attack in the edit summary to this edit. In addition to being rude, it is untrue, since to censor means to remove parts of a comment that are unacceptable to the censor, and Locke was restoring text that he thought Andy had accidentally removed (at least, such is my presumption). Since before he did this, Andy's comment was a sentence fragment, and since the words Locke put back were the exact words that were there earlier, and since the edit where Andy removed them involved a change to another part of the page, I think Locke's belief was understandable. Nandesuka 12:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka, OTOH, POTW was reverting himself and apologizing (in the next edit summary) at the very moment you blocked him. This suggests a genuine over-hasty assumption on his part, which there is also something understandable about. No, I'm not saying Locke would do such a thing, not at all, but it seems to me it wouldn't be wrong in this case to extend a good-faith assumption to Andy. Bishonen | talk 12:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Apologies are good. I've lifted the block. Nandesuka 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Another prime example of too much power in the hands of too few, most of whom have twitchy fingers. Thank god they don't have real guns. Another sad day for Wikipedia. --84.68.109.124 13:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I had twitchy fingers once, but I drank a big tall glass of salty water and it cleared right up. Nandesuka 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid you were mis-diagnosed. You obviously had a severe case of itchy fingers. Everybody knows that the only remedy for twitchy fingers is a small short glass of un-salty water. Please go and consume one straight away, before it's too late and you block somebody else too hastily. --84.68.142.97 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Apologies are good.: Indeed; and I'm due quite a few... Andy Mabbett 14:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Nandesuka, I'm not sure that "failing to assume good faith" and personal attacks are actually justifiable reasons to cite for blocking Pigsonthewing per the Probation. Probation actually means that a user can be banned from a specific article if they edit disruptively there, and if they violate that ban, then a block is justified. The decision of the ArbCom was limited to placing Pigsonthewing on Probation and a one revert per week per article limit, there was no personal attack injunction included in the final decision of the ArbCom, nor anything about "Failing to assume good faith". I am not saying that you cannot block Pigsonthewing for being disruptive, but I don't think you can cite the Probation or the ArbCom decision unless he violates an article ban that he is currently under. Further, the edit summary in the diff you cited for the block read: "rv anotehr example of Locke Cole cesnoring my comments, this time on my own talk page". I disagree that this is a personal attack, it is more an allegation of censorship that a personal attack, though ironic, given Pigsonthewings propensity to delete the comments of others on his Talk page. The block however was not warranted, and I am glad you chose to remove it. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
You're right -- I misread the probation page and misunderstood the terms. Andy: I am sorry for blocking you. Nandesuka 22:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we all need to be circumspect in our treatment of Andy Mabbett. It doesn't help when we block him for trivial reasons; it's important to draw the line appropriately. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The purpose of applying the cattleprod should be loving Skinnerian education to teach him that fouling the floor is painful and that he shouldn't do it. Always keep this in mind - David Gerard 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BigDaddy777

On December 10th, I blocked the IP of 68.40.168.173 for a month. It's a sock of BigDaddy777. Well today I got a message from him here. How? Is it because the last block hadn't expired when I put the month on? I know. Stupid question. But I've only been doing blocks for a short time (though I've been an admin since June). Let me know. Meanwhile, I'm going to make his block for 3 months. I'm tired of renewing it and it's definitely a static IP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IP blocks will sometimes expire when the autoblocker enacts a block against a blocked username. Ie, if my username is blocked, and I attempt to edit during that block, the autoblocker will also automatically block my IP for 24 hours. Unfortunately, there's a less than useful feature of the Wikimedia software that if multiple blocks are placed on a user, the block expiring the soonest retires all other blocks. So if I attempt to edit with my username, the autoblocker will kick in on my IP, and if my IP happens to have previously been blocked, that block will end up getting expired when the autoblocker block expires. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I appreciate the help. I blocked the IP for 3 months this time. it's most definitely static. Only BD777 has ever used it. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, in case you haven't seen it, the website he posted threatens anti-Wikipedia legal action - is he really going to sue, or is this just an intimidation website? --TML1988 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Intimidation. You can't sue a foundation (or if you do, you'll lose more money than you'll gain). --Deathphoenix 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Why is that, out of curiosity? Is there somewhere handy(and by handy I mean, on Wikipedia) I can read up on that further?Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
IIRC that website has been mentioned on yahoo and a few other places. I'm pretty certain it's legit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Foundations frequently don't have much in the way of assets. If you were to sue the Wikimedia foundation for every penny it's worth, and somehow managed to win, you'd find yourself the owner of 150 or so slightly-used webservers. Even new, you wouldn't be able to sell those servers for enough to pay your lawyer. --Carnildo 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is off-topic, but why does Wikimedia Foundation own servers at all... why does so much of the fundraising go to buying these rapidly depreciating assets? If I recall, IBM offers virtual Linux servers on their mainframes (easily configurable and expandable), or perhaps Google could even host all of Wikipedia within GoogleBase. It would be nice if most of the fundraising went to software development and day-to-day system administration. There are considerable deficiencies in the Mediawiki software and failing to address them in a timely and ongoing and rapidly adaptable manner is the biggest problem facing Wikipedia. -- Curps 08:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock attack

Ropo (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has launched a sock attack. See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Ropo for details. Now all blocked, as far as I can tell. Radiant_>|< 02:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Unsure if Daveyonwoodland (talk • contribs) is legit or not (has ~40 reasonable edits, but was tagged by Ropo as one of his socks). Radiant_>|< 02:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Scratch that, it's another sock. Ropo seems to be running from a plethora of IPs, judging that the autoblocker got half a dozen hits on my block. Please advise. Radiant_>|< 02:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What bothers me is that he announced he was going to do it on the Village Pump (policy) page and then went unchecked for 15 minutes on it. I finally blocked him when I noticed that someone had hit the Kerry article. We need more anti-vandal tools/help. Just no question about it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Kelly says the guy's an AOLer. Can someone contact the AOL admins to have him kicked? Radiant_>|< 03:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Like they are going to reply... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have this fantasy that one day Wikipedia will be so successful that we can force AOL to ditch their proxy system... Oh, to dream... Dragons flight 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I have this fantasy that this sort of problem is going to get worse and worse until it is obvious to all that the experiment of allowing unregistered editors is unworkable...damn, that's no dream. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed, we probably should prohibit all edits from unregistered and new accounts from AOL (verifying the account by email would release the "new" flag). Sad, but we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in open community. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Tim Starling has said he is happy to block AOL in its entirety for short times if someone runs a serious attack from it, and never mind it's 22% of the net. Mind you, an attack of such a size would attract the ire of even AOL abuse - David Gerard 12:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4.37.64.164 used for vandalism and posting ads

The IP address 4.37.64.164 has been used to vandalize at least one page, Kettering University, and to post advertisements to several others. Many of the ads have already been removed and I tried to remove the ones that were left and revert the vandalism. I think more forceful action would be appropriate. The morgawr 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more linkfarming

User:201.9.96.42's only edits from a quick pull through of a random sample and the names of articles edited appear to be nothing more than dropping links to pages on a website thegoldenyears.org about a movie star in question. Said pages are just lists of links to other site, full of advertising, and wholly unencyclopedic. Anybody with rollback want to go to town? DreamGuy 11:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That town's already been gone to. I left a warning message; looks like a static IP, or at least not a dialup user. Thanks, DreamGuy. android79 12:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:84.65.93.109

I have blocked User:84.65.93.109 for a week for repeated vandalism to Top Gear (directly reversing the sense of a sentence despite a specific inline warning in the article not to), despite previous warnings both on the talk page and in the articles' edit summaries not to do so. -- Arwel (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kmweber

I warned this user awhile back after he was blocked for being disruptive on afd and simultaneously violating WP:NPA,WP:POINT and a few other policies and guidelines by calling people "deletionist vandals". He's been at it again.[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31] and then vandalize my page in order to make me appear as though I have a bias against him.[32] You all can reblock if you want, but his ploy didn't work for him.karmafist 03:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's Kurt from #wikipedia, isn't it? He got banned from #wikipedia a while ago for being a PITA, and is now allowed on precisely as long as he doesn't make a PITA of himself, and particularly not by evangelising for Objectivism. I understood he was better-behaved on the wiki itself, and am sadly unsurprised to find otherwise - David Gerard 17:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It is, Dave. He lied low for awhile to avert any attention from him, and then he resumed his "Crusade against Subjectivism, per the teachings of Ayn Rand". If someone wants to indef block him, I won't mind. Mentorship would be nice, but I don't think he'd accept it. karmafist 21:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a month. This isn't the first time he's pulled this crap, but if he comes back and does it again, I'll block him for longer. Note that I did not revert his edits on AfR, but I did remove the vandalism comments, which are entirely inappropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A month isn't likely going to do anything, but it's not worth blocking back and forth over since at this point, he appears to be on the road to a permablock unless he accepts mentorship, which is unlikely in his state. I can almost guarantee you that he'll be a model Wikipedian if he starts editing again when he comes back, and then restart his "crusade against the deletionist vandals" once he thinks everyone's stopped noticing. I think the minimum for the next block is 6 months to a year unless you want to get wierd and give a strange "other" block. Indeffing is fine too. Kmweber in his current state is a hinderance to Wikipedia and should not be allowed to continue being a liability. karmafist 07:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering under what portion of the blocking policy you believe that a four month or indefinite block is an appropriate response to what this user has done? The only thing that I see this user has done that is even remotely close to a blockable offense is under the Disruption clause, from which I quote, "...repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month." It is my opinion that this action was wholly out of line; if there was consensus, then I could understand somewhat, but a fellow administrator removed your blocks and you re-applied them. I believe that a block of this kind should only be handed down by the ArbCom. This debate has been ongoing on WikiEN-l and has not been resolved. Regards, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:IAR is our friend. I believe Zoe and Karmafist are doing what they think is best, and Kurt doesn't seem to get better no matter what you do, so I suppose maybe he'll realize we're not messing around. Sometimes it's just not necessary to arbitrate everything, we can use our common sense too. I trust the whole community, not just 7 high heads. Though I admit I do not read the WikiEN-l mailing list, it's way too messy :-/. Redwolf24 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. If one were to go to the ArbCom with this case, they would probably ban him from commenting in deletion debates for a year or something, and I would not be surprised if, after that ban expired, he started doing the same thing again, like he has after his previous blocks for this behaviour. I don't read the mailing list either, though.--Sean|Black 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Bbatsell, sorry I didn't come back here sooner, I usually don't hang around AN/I unless I have to report something, unlike some other people that I have to report on below in a second.

Anyway, ultimately Kurt(Kmweber) figured he could game the system, and he lost. Calling people "Deletionist Vandals" breaks WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT,WP:POINT,WP:BEANS and endangers our precariously fragile consensus system(although it's not policy/guideline yet, consensus votes should be on the subject in general, never those who are voting on them.) Kurt had been blocked for this twice before, tried to weasel his way out of it on IRC by thinking he could "debate the foolishness" of the people who disagreed with him, which seems like pretty much everybody, since he figured that anybody who didn't believe in objectivism, Ayn Rand or the Indianapolis Colts was obviously wrong, and shouldn't be listened to, which in itself breaks #4 of WP:Rules.

This time, he waited until the attention was off him, and then he mass voted on afd with his "Deletionist Vandal" epitet, and then gamed the system by vandalizing my user page to make me appear biased towards him in the hopes that I would take no action. It didn't work.

As you can see above, I blocked for 4 months, then Zoe blocked for one. However, Snowspinner (talk • contribs) reduced the block to a week[33]. 1 month is the bare minimum for what Kurt did, 1 week is unacceptable by any means. I indef blocked him afterward for that, especially since he was on IRC after the block was down to a week in a very arrogant tone, claiming the actions of me or the actions of anyone who disagreed with him were illegimate and since I didn't try to "reason with him", I must've been wrong, despite the fact I told him what I have just said here about a million times to him.

And Redwolf24 is right here, the arbcom just would have made things worse here with the way arbcom proceedings work now. It would have taken 3 months and alot of headaches, all the while with Kurt continuing his attacks on those who don't agree with him, just to figure out what we just figured out here. Kurt's had his chance to respect others. He didn't learn. Now he's gone. karmafist 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've since had a discussion with Redwolf24 about Kmweber's history. I don't know the user in question, and didn't know too much about his history. I simply felt that the length of the block was not something that WP rules allow administrators to administer unilaterally (and I still don't, though I respect your decision). Redwolf alerted me to his past belligerence on IRC, which definitely shortens his leash. However, his communications on WikiEN-l have been nothing but courteous and seemingly intelligent, which is what led me to question the length of the block in the first place. Again, thanks for responding. Regards, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DSM-IV-TR Copyright question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder There is a question being raised concerning whether the reproduction of DSM-IV-TR criteria on several articles without permission from the APA constitutes breach of copyright and whether the administration of Wikipedia could or should seek the relevant permissions or the removal of such text? Personally I should like to request the permissions be sought --82.195.137.125 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to this at the relevant talk page, and suggested that relevant quotations are within the bounds of fair use. Other eyes may be welcome on that issue. Dragons flight 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[Response re: DSM-IV-TR criteria (all identifiers removed, original forwarded to permissions@wikipedia.org):
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content.
I find this a LITTLE bit scary in it's wider implications --82.195.137.125 05:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]
Also completely wrong. Of course it fucking applies. Perhaps they could work with the National Gallery on this one - David Gerard 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[Better idea David could you see your way to making your case to them (I have already made mine)? Here is contact page http://appi.org/permissions.cfx and post any results here? (repeating on your talk page). "Inclined" is, to my mind, a word that is still open to negotiation --82.195.137.125 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]
I have forwarded the above discussion to wikien-l and foundation-l with "wtf?" attached - David Gerard 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[That sounds like a plan. Later, when I have time, I think I'll dig up exactly what constitutes "fair use" myself, and maybe take another crack at APA? It just doesn't seem right, not even sane, which for the APA is maybe NOT a good look --82.195.137.125 16:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]
Hate to be contrary here, but I think they have a strong case. Fair Use is built upon a number of factors, and I think we run afoul of all of them:
  • Nature of use: Well, normally comment and criticism/educational would get us far here, but standard Wikipedia licensing is that we have to have things usable for commericial re-use elsewhere. Commercial reuse is a major strike against us.
  • Extent of the use: Normally fair use is based upon only using a small or nonsubstantial part of the whole. If we are listing the DSM traits for any of the items listed, the individual parts are small, sure, but we have to add all our pages quoting from the DSM together and that becomes quite substantial reuse.
  • How it effects the copyright owner's ability to profit, directly or indirectly: Same deal. Individual quotes in articles are no big deal, but add them all up and they could make a strong case that professionals may not pay for these big expensive books at all if they can just get the info online in an easy format from one place... even moreso if someone using the standard license repackages that information for that purpose... and don't think someone wouldn't try if they saw the opportunity.
In other words, I can't think of single fair use criteria that goes in our favor when the big picture is looked at, whereas in order to successfully argue free use we're supposed to at least one and probably two (preferably three) quite strongly. That's bad news. We ought to think about finding a way to paraphrase the symptoms or something and make it policy, especially since we asked for permission and got shot down. We no longer have good faith basis to use them. DreamGuy 16:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[Now, though I would not disagree entirely with the basis of your arguement (except in terms of "owners ability to profit" as these criteria are already freely available, WITH permission, on other static websites that are easily found, which at least allows of the possibility of linking, so that the effect on profit would be negligable to non-existant), I'd take a slightly different tack because "Fair Use" is effectively an 'exemption' from the need to have permission, which does not necessarily affect the copyright of the original in terms of reproduction. ie. What is deemed to be "fair use" here does not have to cover any reuse from here on, in the sense that if the site could also show "Fair Use" they would be covered, and, if not, then they wouldn't be. Which might mean that while the APA could go whistle on account of "fair use" reproduction might well be against the Wikipedia TOS. In which case, what needs to be determined is whether some exceptions to that TOS should be made and if so, in what form?
For example, one of the concerns of the APA that I can understand is that the material would be available here to be altered. It might be quite easy to append a small piece of script that allowed of "Fair Use" material, subject to Wikipedia approval, in such a way that made it exempt from alteration (though perhaps not from deletion or reversion?), so that it would be come like a painting, which can be hung, or taken down, but not altered. It would even be possible with the use of "include", "iframe" or similar to let the copyrightholder retain control of the content. In any such case the exemptions from Wikipedia TOS could be decided and further clarified specific to "fair use" text.
Here are a couple of links to "fair use" for anybody who might like to try and shed a little light of their own:
In terms of paraphrasing, I am seeking further clarification of the position of the APA. I feel that in terms of integrity paraphrasing would be a very bad idea as it allows too great a scope for distortion, even, in a perverse sense, the greater the distortion, the less chance of copyright infringement. The is not only against the best interests of the APA but also against the common weel. So that, if it comes to the wire, personally I would prefer to see DSM-IV-TR materials linked or fed. --82.195.137.125 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]
I would find it difficult to believe that the other places online that have the DSM criteria listed are using it "WITH permission" of the copyright holders. since they explicitly say in their email that they don't want it online at all. Certainly there's a contradiction there. You do have a point on the paraphrasing being a much larger chance of distortion, but then I don't know if there's a legal way aroud it... other than getting permission, which they already turned down. DreamGuy 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[I picked up on this too "I would find it difficult to believe that the other places online that have the DSM criteria listed are using it "WITH permission" of the copyright holders. since they explicitly say in their email that they don't want it online at all.", it seems a contradiction to me too. The DSM-IV criteria for narcissistic personality disorder alone seems to appear on 298 seperate webpages accompanied by the word "permission" of which 98 are accompanied by the whole phrase "with permission" (offering plenty to link)...out of a total of 2,540 webpages on which the criteria would seem to appear. I think, so far, if it was my @ss on the line I would inclined towards "publish and be d@mned" because I have a feeling the APA would lose a test case, and, indeed, be loathe to bring one, but it isn't my @ss on the line.
Paraphrasing is something that could only be done with great care, after much discussion in each separate case, to avoid distortion, which would then, in itself, unless they are prepared to release guidlines, possibly be subject to APA approval anyway.
It will be interesting to see what answer, if any, they give on paraphrasing --82.195.137.125 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)]

[edit] User:Peter McConaughey - Take 3

I've already posted two notices (here and here) about the behavior of Peter McConaughey (talk • contribs), who now appears to be Wikistalking me. The latest incident is a series of personal attacks [34] on RfD in response to two redirect nominated by User:Extreme Unction. I removed the personal attacks once, but Peter re-added it.

I also attempted to end whatever vendetta he has against me on his talk page, but Peter accused me of threatening him. If this harassment were happening to another user, I would have instituted a short block at this point for disruption. As the harassment is aimed at me, I'm not going to initiate any admininstrative actions. I've considered an RfC, but I'd like to avoid the circus that it's become. I'm asking for assistance from any admin to get him off my back. I'd be quite happy not to interact wth him, but Peter is making that extremely difficult. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: My attempt to end this ordeal have been met with Peter diagnosing me with Antisocial personality disorder [35] and condescendingly informing me that help is available. Carbonite | Talk 17:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Can this troll simply be ignored? android79 17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's unlikely. He's editing several articles I've edited for quite some time, but I'd be willing to take a break from those for a while. The main problem is that he's following my contributions and commenting on my actions. For example, I blocked User:Jpgordon for three hours for some personal attack. It wasn't a major issue and thus the block was rather short. Jpgordon actually told me that the block was a "good call" because he was pretty angry at the time he made the commments. Peter then started commenting on Jpgordon's talk page, apparently trying to convince him that my actions were unjust. In short, I can attempt to avoid him, but I believe his behavior still needs to be addressed. Carbonite | Talk 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
In that case, RfC may be a circus, but it may be the best/only course of action here. android79 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe you're correct. I'm going to work to avoid any contact with Peter and hope that he'll lose interest in me. Hopefully that works, because I'd like to avoid the hassle of an RfC. I also have some small hope that Peter will go on to become to a good contributor here. Not exactly a shining start for him, but I've seen bigger turnarounds. I appreciate your comments, though. Carbonite | Talk 17:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Carbonite, take a look at the contribs and you'll see it's not you, it's more ... uh, general. I think you'd get plenty of interesting comments on an RFC, though I do realize it's a hassle. Alternative: ignore and wait a bit, because it looks to me like materials for goiing directly to an RFAR for trolling/disruption are collecting briskly as we speak. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm...if the issues are more widespread than just me, perhaps I will consider drafting up an RfC. I'm going to ignore as much as possible, but I would like to nip this in the bud if other users are also being affected. Carbonite | Talk 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I realise he might be a troll, just out to wreak havoc, but I assume good faith and have tried to reason with him. I am not too sure how effective I will be, but it is worth a shot. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort; you handled that very diplomatically. Carbonite | Talk 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that anyone's effort have been successful as Peter is now accusing me [36] of administrative abuse at RfD for userfying his "zero-revert rule" page (see here) and an "anti-cabal" template (User:Peter_McConaughey/Self-rule). Other than an RfC, I don't see many options, but I'd be open to suggestions. Carbonite | Talk 20:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I propose we move the contents of "Zero-revert rule" back to Wikipedia:Zero-revert rule and from there we work on a compromise header somewhere between {guideline}, {selfrule}, and {proposal} that is acceptable to all parties? zen master T 20:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree. If it is a proposed guideline (we'll figure out what that means later), I'd say move it back to the Wikipedia namespace and discuss there. We'll establish what consensus is. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. Given the insistence by Peter and zen-master that the move was inappropriate, I'm actually quiet surprised they didn't just move it back. However, I would like to request that it have the {{proposed}} tag. I attempted to add this to the proposal numerous time, but was reverted each time. Carbonite | Talk 20:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
They couldn't move it back on top of the redirect without deleting it. android79 20:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Duh. Good point. Anyway, like I said, as long as it's marked as "proposed", I don't have any issue with it moving back to Wikipedia space. Carbonite | Talk 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what Android79 said, an admin is going to have to be the one to move it back if we want to properly preserve history, can one of you do that? Regular users really should be able to move things back. We can discuss {proposed} vs {guideline} or {selfrule} after it is moved back... zen master T 20:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll move it back myself if it's agreed that it will use {{proposed}} for the near future. It's already been established that it's not a guideline yet and the {selfrule} template isn't really appropriate outside of user space. Carbonite | Talk 20:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you can hold a guideline/proposed guideline as some sort of move back hostage Carbonite, let's discuss the header disagreement after the content is back where it belongs. Also, can an admin also move back Peter's {selfrule} template too (if people have a problem with that template please discuss on its talk page or go the normal nominate for deletion process if you really don't like it)? zen master T 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have left Mr McConaughey a short note from the Cabal to cool it or risk being blocked as disruptive - David Gerard 12:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure else to describe Peter's latest comment [37] towards me "I've got an alternate merge proposal. How about User:Carbonite & Wikipedia:Troll?" other than as a personal attack. I'm afraid than an RfC may be inevitable at this point. Carbonite | Talk 19:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Has he ever made a good edit, anywhere? I'm this >< close to blocking him indefinitely as a complete and utter troll - David Gerard 13:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thesaunterer

Could someone take Thesaunterer (talk • contribs) in hand and explain to him/her why calling Fabian Basabe a liar in his article is not an acceptable edit? 216.234.130.130 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And now User:Dan100 has reverted my deletions of the slander twice now without comment, and is not responding to my requests that he stop. You know, editing as I do like this, it becomes a very interesting lesson in editing as an anon. You see how little anons are considered as valid editors, when regular users just arbitrarily revert valid edits submitted by anons without so much as a discussion or an explanation. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

Zoe, try dropping a quick note to the editor reverting -- User:Dan100 was happy to stop reverting, he just didn't realize what your short edit summary meant and thought it was vandalism since so much of the article was being removed. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I did drop him a note, but it wasn't sufficient. He has, however, reverted his change. I appreciate his having done so. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

The article obviously needs cleanup but User:Thesaunterer has backed up his edits with links to the articles in Newsday and the Chicago Tribune. Blanking published incidents rather than addressing them on the talk page should not be the norm. -- DS1953 talk 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Those citations weren't in the article when the content was removed, he has since added them as requested. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice little lesson for you there Zoe (and all fellow "admins") - WP:AGF when it comes to anon edits, and read the full context before acting hastily :D --84.68.133.80 12:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
More anonymous sniping. No, this is not a lesson for me, as unsourced accusations are what got us into trouble with the Seigenthaler mess. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] User:Jguk at Wikipedia:Eras

Has deleted a reference to the article "Common Era" twice (so far today). This probably violates the spirit of the Arbitration decision that prevents him from deleting CE. The reference is essential to the ongoing discussion. William Allen Simpson 23:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Diff? Regardless, I'd like to hear Jguk's side on this. El_C 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, should have added them at the time it was hot and easy to see at the top of the history:
  1. the Common Era article is a particularly poor one - it seems, at present, to have descended into an "add your argument below" mentality at present - and an Arbitrator just removed all the refs!!!
  2. rv - let's keep NPOV/POV out of this. it cuts both ways and last time the BC v BCE issue was discuss it just descended into a silly barrage on NPOV arguments, let's not let this happen here
--William Allen Simpson 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll drop Jguk a note since he may not be aware of this notice. Regards, El_C 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom said to not change CE to AD or BCE to BC. Nothing else. What William Allen Simpson outlines above doesn't fall within that restriction so I am as free (or unfree) to make other adjustments as any other editor. I'll explain my reasoning for the edits below:

There have been longstanding problems over at the Common Era article with people adding text to the article without citing references that has later been proven to be outright wrong, and with people removing the references that are there because they support statements that they disagree with. In the last fortnight we have had people adding "arguments" both for and against using Common Era designation in the article without showing that anyone quotable has ever made that argument, and one editor coming in, promoting arguments for (without making references), and deleting all the references that were currently there. In short, the article at present is entirely unreliable and needs a thorough referencing up from top to bottom (without even re-reading it now I can think of at least half a dozen significant claims in the article that are probably just plain wrong). In short, the article is at a stage where it should come with a very strong health warning, rather than being recommmended as a good read!

I'm quite happy to work with anyone who is dedicated to referencing up the whole article to make sure it is accurate - but at present it seems to have fallen into the hands of those unwilling even to cite references to what they are adding (with one exception, but even then he has not yet been able to cite references to back up any key claims, just side issues, which is useful, just not as useful as backing up the key claims).

I certainly believe the NPOV/POV claims, which in the past we have had on both sides of the argument, are left well alone. We're not going to get anywhere with them. Any debate can give rise to NPOV/POV issues (if X disagrees with Y, X thinks Y is POV, Y thinks X is POV, both have points of view, but that doesn't mean WP:NPOV is in issue). It was also inappropriate to make reference to NPOV/POV on one of the many proposal on the Wikipedia:Eras page. None of the many other proposals had any reasoning in their short statement form, why should one proposal stand out as having this (very decisive) reasoning?

I'll add that I'm not really sure if this is the forum for this discussion. The same questions could quite easily have been asked on my talkpage (where they may have gotten an earlier reply - certainly I'd have been aware of them much earlier), jguk 07:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Paeris, Doggy style and Image:Dggst.jpg

Paeris (talk • contribs) started editing Wikipedia earlier today, by uploading an image (Image:Dggst.jpg). It was deleted at first, and then uploaded again by Paeris. Paeris has added the image to the article Doggy style. Needless to say, it has caused controversy. Another image was added later, or similiar content, but deleted twice. Paeris has also in the short time at Wikipedia caused some problems with other articles, including Seattle, Washington and Boris Lyatoshynsky. He has also made personal attacks, calling User:Irpen a "racist" [38]. Paeris, despite being new, knows quite a bit about the Autofellatio image issues, and seemingly believes that as a result it is ok to add a photo of "doggy style" without any problems. The image has been added five times since first being reverted - Three by Paeris (he stopped after a warning of WP:3RR), and two by User:Mistress Selina Kyle. The image is listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, as Paeris claimed that it is a government image (unlikely, as it is of pornographic nature).

I recommend that doggy style be watched as there is likely to be some sort of full-scale edit war starting there in the near future. Hedley 02:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Doggy style has been temporarily protected for edit warring (involving multiple parties). Paeris has been warned for a 3RR violation. Radiant_>|< 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Govt. image — we wish! El_C 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He claims to be "a US federal worker", whatever that means. Probably hogwash. Delete it post haste. --Ryan Delaney talk 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful photo! Let's keep it! --Anittas 09:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You may check also this one (Image:Node.png) Bonaparte talk 09:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Why would we want to do that, Bonaparte? It doesn't seem to be remotely relevant. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've blocked Bonaparte for 24 hours for his repeated personal attacks - David Gerard 12:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't a personal attack. --Anittas 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Doggy style is leaning toward the removal of the image. I'm rather unwillingly involved in the debate now, but besides Paeris and Mistress Selina Kyle, no-one is actually saying it should stay. Wikipedia showing a photo of actual intercourse, as one user said, maybe oversteps the line a little bit. If another administrator wants to review the debate and make some sort of decision, it'd be great. Hedley 14:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I nominated the photo for being a Wikipedia Featured Photo! --Anittas 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of its content, it's pretty clearly a copyvio, and needs to go anyway. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Picture

I put Image:Lifebracelet.jpg under GNU these bracelets are made by multiple companies and no one holds a copyright to them, but Aolanonwannabe keeps putting it under unsourced. Can someone accurately explain the situation to him and remove the tag. Chooserr 06:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He is in the right. The question is not whether the bracelet is copyrighted but whether the image that you posted is copyrighted. I could take a picture of an orange. The orange isn't copyrighted, but the picture would be. If you don't provide source information for the image, we have to assume that it is copyrighted. FreplySpang (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
At best, this picture would be tagged as "fair use". I think a possible solution would be to buy one of these bracelets and take a photo of it yourself. Since you took that photo, you are free to release it under {{GFDL}}, {{PD}}, or whatever you want. --Deathphoenix 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korean speaking admins?

Do any admins speak (or more precisely write) Korean? It might be helpful in dealing with an apparently well meaning, but disruptive, user who has been modifying pages related to Korea and famous Korean people, but has shown no interest and quite possibly no ability to respond to complaints written in English. Dragons flight 06:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this will help, but maybe you (or someone else familiar with this user) should try posting to the Korean Village Pump. Perhaps ask if anyone on the Korean Wikipedia is a user or admin on English Wikipedia, and maybe they can help guide this user. --Deathphoenix 13:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you have the same user in mind that I do, but I wonder if the solution might be to write in Korean using Babelfish (keeping the sentences *very* simple and clear so that they are robust enough to survive auto-translation). Actually, my attitude towards "my" user is that if someone is confident enough in English to contribute to the English Wikipedia, they should at least be willing to respond in basic English. The willingness to try is (IMHO) more important than perfect English. Fourohfour 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I have no idea who you're talking about. Babelfish might help, it would certainly be quicker than asking for a ko-Wikipedian to come here and familiarise him(her?)self with the situation before posting to the user. --Deathphoenix 14:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd probably start at Category:User_ko. Guettarda 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

*smacks head* Why didn't I think of that? --Deathphoenix 15:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment

I note that Admin Karmafist is again using blocks as a punishment. Andy Mabbett 12:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean the absolutely bog-standard practice of escalating block lengths to deal with repeat offenders? Especially an offender already under ArbCom probation for disruptive editing? You mean a standard admin action that was done just over a week ago and to which I've heard no serious objection? That one?
No, I mean using blocks as a punishment. Or is that now policy? Andy Mabbett 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What part of absolutely bog-standard practice of escalating block lengths to deal with repeat offenders was the most difficult for you? Too many syllables? --Calton | Talk 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks like you owe Karmafist an apology for an unfounded personal attack. --Calton | Talk 13:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If I'd made a persional attack, or said something unfounded, I might. I've done neither. Andy Mabbett 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
You did both, so you should. --Calton | Talk 21:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure Andy will recognise his error and respond accordingly - David Gerard 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure; I realise that I was wrong in ever believing that admins had no special priviledges. Andy Mabbett 14:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Whatever the precise jargon, think of it as lovingly trying to teach the repeat offender that the behaviour in question is unacceptable - David Gerard 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict with all responses above)Andy, please stop going through Karmafist's logs. If users have a complaint against him, let them make it. Don't assume they do. Going through his logs and bringing up every criticism here is stalking and unacceptable. If Karmafist's actions affect you, by all means report it. This doesn't, so your reporting it here is not good enough. [[Sam Korn]] 13:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, shoot the messenger, and god forbid that an admin should be exposed as doing wrong. Your fallacious allegation of stalking is what is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 14:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • While Karmafist could have worded his comment a bit more tactfully, he wasn't doing anything wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the ArbCom case on Zen-master for background information. Radiant_>|< 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with the ArbCom case on Zen-master: Irrelevant. Andy Mabbett 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, what you should realise is that you are not the person to be "reporting" Karmafist's "abuse of power". Zen-master is capable of making the complaint himself if he wants to. You don't need to, and this just seems like you trying to find some way to attack Karmafist. Don't do it. [[Sam Korn]] 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
you are not the person to be "reporting" Karmafist's "abuse of power": I most certainly am. Andy Mabbett 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No. You are a user who has had long disputes with Karmafist in the past. You are not anything to do with this dispute. You are stalking Karmafist's logs in order to get him in trouble. This is wiki-stalking and is not allowed. I agree with Bishonen's message below. Take heed. [[Sam Korn]] 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
You are stalking Karmafist's logs in order to get him in trouble.: that is a lie. Retract it. Andy Mabbett 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: blocks are preventative, not punitive. Obviously, the block was used in this case to prevent an edit war from continuing, an edit war that was being participated in by a frequent 3RR violator and the subject of an ArbCom case. This was not punishment. android79 14:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: blocks are preventative, not punitive: so you have. You need to tell Karmafist that, not me. And you should read the edit sumamry concerned; it's not the first time he's referred to "punishment" like that. Andy Mabbett 14:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What he chose to call it is irrelevant. It was a block intended to prevent further edit warring, and thus completely justified. android79 14:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, Karmafist should probably not have used the word "punishment", but his block was certainly in order, as indicated by the ArbCom case that apparently you haven't bothered to read. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your allegation that Karmafist regularly uses blocks as punishment? Radiant_>|< 14:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact that Karmafist calls his blocks punishment constitutes pretty good evidence that he uses them as such. Yes, this 'punishment' happens to be in keeping with policy, but there have also been plenty which weren't. It would be better for Karmafist if other admins would tell him, 'you are not allowed to block people for disagreeing with you in a content dispute', 'you are not allowed to block people for four months / indefinitely for calling you a "deletionist vandal"', 'you should not keep reblocking people after other admins have unblocked them', and 'blocks are never punishment - they are to be used only to stop an active problem/disruption'. No, Andy shouldn't be obsessing about this (despite having been on the receiving end of some of those outside-policy blocks), but the casual dismissal of these policy violations just encourages the ongoing practice of them. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Andy, please try to think of something better to do than cast a net for any and all lapses in perfect formulation in Karmafist's contributions, carry the miserable minnow you caught in triumph to this page, and erect a monument to it. How does that build the encyclopedia? Please don't disrupt the noticeboard with such pettiness. If you keep it up, I will act on your recent ArbCom probation: "Pigsonthewing is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." Bishonen | talk 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You have yet to offer any evidence for your allegation of harrasment against me. What good did that do WP? You offer me a choice of being censored; or censoring myself. There is no danger of the latter. Andy Mabbett 10:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfCs against my humble self

proud Rajputs require your help in properly formatting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (2). There also seems to be a "secret" Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann hanging in WP namespace that was never listed (and of which I was never informed). Is this proper, or should it be deleted? dab (ᛏ) 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The latter has been deleted (uncertified after a long time). The former will likely end up the same since several of the allegations therein aren't backed up by any evidence. Radiant_>|< 15:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, they still need to figure out how to use the template (I pointed them to it on Talk:Rajput though). I did block them, of course, for 15 and 30 minutes, respectively, which makes me guilty of "gross lenience and wanton enabling of trolls and fools" (for making the blocks so short) rather than of "gross abuse of privileges"  :) dab (ᛏ) 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Gives dab a cookie. Now, no more feeding the trolls you :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • guys, a little help on my "RfC"? I don't want to feed them, but they're happily chewing away at me. If they are trolls, block them, ok? If they are poor misguided users, teach them manners please :( these Hindutva people are a serious problem, you see, there's any number of them in India, and many of them have internet access. Am I expected to singlehandedly combat bigotry in India? dab (ᛏ) 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section 47

I have not used this function before so tell me if I'm in the wrong place to bring this up. I nominated Section 47 for deletion on Sunday December 18. the article is about an imho non-notable Star Trek role playing game site that I can find no ranking of on Alexa and they have few members. The article seems for the most part to be a copyvio right from the site in question and they admit so themselves. There's been only two votes so far but that's not the problem. People from the site are tainting the commentary on the nomination and the nomination page looks confusing. Also, there's a call for people from the site to comment on this here:[39]. (I decided to check their site since the people commenting had next to no edit history on WP). I would appreciate an admin or moderator to look into this and again, forgive me if I'm in the wrong place for this request.--Kalsermar 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. Whichever admin chooses the job of closing will apply their personal meatpuppet-filter. -Splashtalk 16:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Splash, I'm sure it'll be sorted out.--Kalsermar 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Citadel (Military College)

A letter to the Wikipedia Help Desk indicates that much of the material and the photos at The Citadel (Military College) are copied from the citadel.edu website without permission. Patricia McArver, Vice President for Communications of the Citadel said, "The Citadel is usually generous with public information sources that wish to use information and images we own but we do expect someone to ask permission first". Can someone investigate this, please? thank you. Zoe (216.234.130.130 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

Most of the photos do appear to be taken from their website, but Googling several lines from each section of the article turned up only Wikipedia or its mirrors. Johnleemk | Talk 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you link to the letter in question? I'm from South Carolina, so I'd be willing to help coordinate with the Citadel. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The following images have been tagged with {{nosource}}, uploaders notified, and removed from the article:

  1. Image:Cadetprayer.jpg
  2. Image:Spiritrun.jpg
  3. Image:Rainknobs.jpg
  4. Image:Knobcheckin.jpg
  5. Image:Colorguard.jpg
  6. Image:El cid cadets.jpg
  7. Image:Femalecadets.jpg
  8. Image:Rugby.jpg
  9. Image:PTsunset.jpg

Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fgleb (talk • contribs) Page moves

I blocked Fgleb (talk • contribs) for a rash of page-moved (for example, moving Global warming to Global warming (hoax). I only blocked him/her for an hour, because I had not looked veyr far into his/her contributions (the latest 50 appear to be all page moves). I am asking that other people look into this and suggest an appropriate block-length. Guettarda 17:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, User:Dragons flight had already blocked indefinitely, so I restored his block - Guettarda 18:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
As had User:Adam Bishop two minutes before me. Dragons flight 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This user's only prior edit was to vote Keep at WP:MFD. S/he was part of a cluster of four Keep votes by new users, one right after the next. As a result, I would like to ask that people keep an eye on the other three:

Guettarda 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Kp7 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Kp7 has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 18:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not an error. Izehar (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
A sleeper account, created in November then abandoned until today, gave it time to build up enough edits and time in existence to be able to move articles. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC))
Nope - only needs time. And not much of that - accounts are created really fast lately, particularly as anons can't create articles and are asked to make an account - David Gerard 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, leaving only the malevolent vandals (those who've spent time thinking about how to be evil) who we can ban summarily. Casual ones, who we have to try to nurture, cannot cause page move problems. It's a good weapon to have in our arsenal. Pcb21 Pete 12:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Another example of someone probably using compromised computers. This time, we have an educational establishment in Argentina, and another one in Indiana.

All have been blocked indefinitely. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jason Gastrich

Jason Gastrich (talk • contribs) making personal attacks, claiming editors are biased because they are atheists, at User_talk:Jason_Gastrich#Warning and Talk:Faith_and_rationality. He has ignored two warnings from me to limit his comments to article content and has restored removed personal attacks, and made new ones. He's also taken to deleting the comments of others at Talk:Faith_and_rationality. FeloniousMonk 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Its beginning to look like merely posting this here has caused a more civilized approach by Mr. Gastrich. At any rate, although he hasn't bothered to acknowledge that he's made personal attacks, at least he's stopped them and stopped the edit warring he was indulging in. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what to say to this one, after viewing his talk page and it's history as well as the talk page for Faith and rationality and it's history I don't know what a proper response to this is and as such I don't feel comfortable blocking since blocking won't make it go away and might very easily cause an escalation, though I have no issue with it if another administrator feels that this warrants a block. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Willy on Proxies

Caught another one. Thanks to Hurricane111 for the spot.

All blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A clear breach of policies

Here's another page containing personal attacks and breaches of "AGF". Will any admin take action, or not? Andy Mabbett 11:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Point me to the personal attacks, please. Also, it should be noted that Pigsonthewing has attempted to "stir up trouble" again here and here. —Locke Cole 11:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Here and here. HTH. Andy Mabbett 11:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any personal attacks, just a collection of information. Please provide a specific example and how it violates a policy. —Locke Cole 11:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
How is the diff you provide a personal attack? —Locke Cole 11:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Without wanting to enter into the rights and wrongs of this long-running dispute, the reality is that this kind of personal hit list that labels other users as vandals, harassers, etc frequently causes offence, even though that may not be the intent. Personally, I never like to see them, and where they do exist, it is better not to add the labels. After all, you will probably remember why you put them there, and nobody else really needs to know. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll remove the labels and just hope I don't forget. :P —Locke Cole 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Personal attacks are a matter for WP:RFC.Geni 12:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
As a side note, if you look at what links to the page in question, you'll see nothing did prior to Pigsonthewing reporting this and attempting to stir up trouble. It would seem he is stalking my contribs to try and find things to report me for here. Can something be done regarding that? Thanks! —Locke Cole 12:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
So what's your purpose in having him on your list of users "for easy tracking"? It seems to me that the pair of you need to leave each other alone, and get on with something constructive. --ajn (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have left him alone, and I have gotten on with other things more constructive. Look at my contribs and look at his before jumping to conclusions next time, okay? —Locke Cole 13:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
So, again, why is he on your list of users "for easy tracking"? What was your purpose in putting him there? --ajn (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
"For easy tracking" - instead of trying to remember these things, some of us like to write them down from time to time. —Locke Cole 13:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't be disingenuous. Why do you consider it important to "track" him, specifically? --ajn (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Locke_Cole. —Locke Cole 13:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of all that. Why do you feel it necessary to "track" him, if you're going to leave him alone? The only reason I can think of is that if you spotted something you could report him for, you'd do it. If there's another reason, what is it? People don't keep lists of "users to watch" unless they are proposing to do something about those users' actions. Both you and he would be far better off if you just ignored each other (and this sort of thing doesn't help). --ajn (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a difference between leaving people alone and ensuring they don't continue prior bad behavior. And I'll repeat what I've told you before: I have ignored him, he's free to go do whatever he likes. Instead he's chosen to come here repeatedly and attempt to stir up trouble. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you. As for my pointing out the probation page to Linuxbeak, I was trying to keep his probation info all in one place (which was the whole point in Tony Sidaway creating the page). What, exactly, is the problem in doing THAT? —Locke Cole 14:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Precisely ajn. There also has to be more to 'stalking' than simply keeping track of what someone does and occasionally commenting on actions that are perceived as inapropriate. If that's 'stalking' then we've got thousands of stalkers on Wikipedia. Most of them being admins and vandal fighters. As defined by policy, stalking is limited to activities where edits are revoked or complaints lodged solely in an effort to harass the contributor with no consideration for the validity of their actions. Following someone around and reverting all their edits, even when those edits do not violate any Wikipolicy... that's stalking. It is also something which has gone on here and ought to stop. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Perceived? He's done it twice this week, once to me, and once to Karmafist above. It's stalking, and he's not even contributing to Wikipedia; just checking users to find "perceived" faults, then reporting them. And shock! I did nothing wrong, congratulations Pigsonthewing, you've wasted peoples time again! —Locke Cole 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yet more false allegations and abuse. Will you never stop? Andy Mabbett 13:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I never started. —Locke Cole 13:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It is also something which has gone on here: For the sake of clarity, who has done that? Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Enough already. Please see below. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lapinmies

To quote KHM03's last statement at my talk page:

I became aware of this user after he left a somewhat aggressive message on Doc glasgow's talk page; I immediately noticed that the user may be engaged in other overly aggressive behavior, anti-Semitism, and vandalism. I'm not asking for any action, but I might suggest this user be watched a bit. Thanks...KHM03 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He has made many unproductive edits recently enough, but he seems to have a long and productive history at Wikipedia. Can I get some outside opinions without having to bother with the RfC process? He's been here long enough and has enough edits that some of ye should recognize him. Redwolf24 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help with User:Gibraltarian requested

Gibraltarian was blocked indefinitely a few days ago. Since then, he's used a whole mess of IPs in the 212.120.129, 212.120.130 and 212.120.131 range. The articles he's been hitting are History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar. Could I have as many admins as possible add those pages to their watchlist? I'm trying to approach of blocking him per edit as opposed to range blocks. It's a dynamic IP. Hopefully he'll give up. I just blocked him from History of Gibraltar but he got a few edits in before I did. Any help would be appreciated. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_IncidentArchive57_848c.html"