User talk:BrendelSignature/Administrative requests archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A Thank You

I wanted to thank you for taking action on the St. John's College, U.S. page. I honestly and deeply feel bad that it had to come to this. I tried to tell the person that the external links section was not the proper place for the link (and I do not understand why he was not satisfied with having it promoted as much on the talk page). I especially feel bad because the user was a self proclaimed (if the website is true) student at the school who had a bad experience and felt that the school was trying to cover up any inadequacies. His intention (I believe) was to keep the page from having a one sided, promotional, point of view. However, I wish he could understand the dispute and would have found a more verifiable means to achieve such a goal. I'm a sucker for people and I just feel that all people could eventually see reason why there might be an issue. Thanks for taking action. I am disappointed that it had to come to this. The Reverts were not a major problem, but it was going on far too long without any give regardless of constant attempts to try and get the user to search for a Consensus on the issue. I dearly hope that when he returns he will seek to join in with the consensus seeking effort on the talk page. SanchiTachi 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued Reverting

BrendelSignature, If you would have another look, the Smee is still reverting in Lifespring, rather than discuss. I realize you found that 3RR was not a violation, as there were not 4 reverts, but as you can see, he is persisting in reverting.

He has now reverted 4 times in Mind Dynamics and 3 times in Lifespring.

I would request that you re-evaulate. Lsi john 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • No, these are separate issues User:Lsi john, but as I can see that you are concerned, I will self-revert in both articles. Smee 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
  1. Self revert, will explain on talk page.
  2. Self revert, will explain on talk page.

Smee 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Oh, the irony...

Throw (talk · contribs) has just done his fourth revert in less than an hour. They seem to be having a bit of a problem understanding the 3RR warning I provided on their Talk page.

--Mais oui! 05:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I issued a 31h block. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juice Plus

Hello, thank you for protecting the Juice Plus article. I agree that it needed protection! However, there appears to be something unusual going on that I wanted to make you aware of. Wikihermit made a sudden change of the article to the non-consensus version, re-adding the "Adverse Effects" section,[1] and then requested the protection, which you did. However, it appears that his sudden revert/RPP may have been in bad faith. If you'll look at the the Juice Plus talkpage (under "Adverse Effects"), you'll see that there's a clear consensus to not include the Adverse Effects paragraph in the article. Every single editor, with the exception of Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs), is opposed to the inclusion of that section (take a look at Red's contribs, you'll see that there's a WP:OWN problem). My guess is that there's some history between Wikihermit and User:Matthew, which would explain Wikihermit's revert and protection request. Anyway, I would appreciate if you would protect the version of the article from immediately before Wikihermit's edit. Thanks, Elonka 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I reverted the article because the information was cited. I would rather have information that is cited left up on the article page then no information at all. I really don't care about the outcome of the article, except that the information is cited. Their is no reason to remove cited information. If you would like you may revert back to the version before mine; I have no problems with that. Just remember WP:V and WP:CITE. I will leave this article up to the the Mediation council, to the editors working on this article, and to the admins to sort everything out. Thanks! --TTalk to me 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is cited, doesn't mean it should be included. Rhode Island Red has also been trying to insert long lists of ingredients into the article. Those are cited too, but it doesn't mean that they're appropriate for inclusion. This has been discussed on the talkpage, and every single editor is opposed to the inclusion of the Adverse Effects section, except for Rhode Island Red. We're offering to mediate it as a gesture of good faith, but it's a violation of talkpage consensus to keep that information in the article right now. --Elonka 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you both seem to agree that the earlier version is preferable/acceptable I have reverted to that version so it will be up during mediation. I won't/can't get involved any further into the editing of this article so please continue to report problems to the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I know that these kinds of situations can be messy, and that sometimes when you're an administrator it's almost a given that you're going to "protect the wrong version" <grin>. But in this case, you made the right call and everything looks good for now. Thanks for the help, and for your swift and courteous response. :) --Elonka 01:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I am one of the other users involved in this dispute and I have to voice my objection that the wrong version has now been protected. As Wikihermit pointed out, the section that has now been deleted was cited content and had been in place for several months based on prior consensus. I had previously outlined the relevant details on the talk page.[2] There was no consensus established for deletion. Would appreciate if the previous version can be locked instead. Thanks Rhode Island Red 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot get involved in this revert war myself. The page is now protected so the edit warring will stop and the editors can find a compromise in mediation. I reverted once as more editors seem to have agreed w/ the previous version but it is just five days. Please find a solution on the talk page and in mediation. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR-thoughts

Sir,

At the risk of being presumptious, and hoping you will WP:AGF with me, the 3RR policy does not require 4 reverts in order to be considered a violation:

"Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."

I have seen you rule 'no vio' in several cases where there was disruptive behavior in progress. Given that the 3RR rule is preventative, not punitive, I would submit that, in some cases, it may be appropriate to 'preemptively' block a user (even if for a shorter time.. I assume that an admin has discression over the block time), in order to get their attention and prevent further reverting. For users who routinely use revert, instead of discussion, and constantly push the 3RR fence, a preemptive block can encourage discussion over reverting.

I did not bring this up before now, because I did not want to be mis-interpreted as being confrontational or argumentative, during or shortly after a 3RR conflict. Now that I have no pending disputes on the 3RR board, I wanted to take an opportunity to pass on my thoughts.

Thank you for your time. Lsi john 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. True, users can be blocked for disrputive edits, afterall that's why we have the 3RR. I did not see any behavior that required blocking in the cases where I ruled "no vio" (I did so twice). Of course I may have overlooked something. Thus, if you I rule "no vio" on a future case in which you think I may have overlook something, feel free to leave a comment on that case on the 3RR noticeboard or my talk page. BTW: Yes, an admin select from a variety of block times. Signaturebrendel 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
In my case, I try to present all the required information up front. Once the admin makes a decision, I consider it argumentative to question the ruling, unless additional information has come up which bears on the case. I appreciate that you are open to questions after you have ruled. Thank you again for taking time to respond. Lsi john 13:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of Owen Hargreaves

Thanks for fulfiling my request. You you want to keep up with the situation, you might want to check here. Kingjeff 03:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree with me about this being nothing but speculation or even lying? Kingjeff 04:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have no idea ;-) I protected the article due to obvious disputive edits but am not familiar with Owen Hargreaves myself-sorry. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

I have filed an ANI report here. I thought you might want to see it. Thanks. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

Hey, the same user has started to use yet another sockpuppet (75.45.72.145 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)) to vandalize this article. I was wondering if it would be possible to block this IP address as well. Thanks. --musicpvm 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article for two days as he/she keeps evading blocks through creating new anon sockpuppets. Perhaps in two days this vandal will lose interest. Signaturebrendel 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Hi! I'd like a clarification on the page protection requests. Please see the notes I left. Thanks — Zerida 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oky-dok. Signaturebrendel 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, BrendelSignature. I left another response with more clarification and links. I hope this clears things up, but please let me know if you have questions. Cheers, — Zerida 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have looked into the matter, using the links you have provided I was able to block 3 sockpuppet accounts and have protected both article for 2 days to deter the creation of new socks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. What about Coptictillthebone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Grouphave19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? They were created a week or so ago and would be able to continue editing. Also, after the 2-day expiration, if the problem persists, should I request longer protection? — Zerida 23:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if the problem persists, you need request protection again. I'll look into the two accounts above. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: Blocked & blocked. Signaturebrendel 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explain yourself

Please tell me why you never locked the suggested articles in this discussion.[3] Your inability to act on it results in further vandalism, and users have now given up trying to keep them correct. I demand an explanation!24.63.96.152 02:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The users did not provide me with sufficient evidence to take administrative action. There was no obvious case of vandalism on the articles in question and no evidence was provided to link anon IP edits to sockpuppets of any banned user. Without sufficient evidence I cannot/will not take action. I cannot block users and protect articles -which excludes new users from editing- at whim. I need sufficient evidence - which simply wasn't provided in this case. If you want articles to be protected, report them on the appropriate noticeboard. Signaturebrendel 05:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. All you had to do was look at the articles history and you would have seen the vandalism. The statement "no evidence was provided to link anon IP edits to sockpuppets of any banned user." is absolutely laughable, it was coming from the same ip range as a sock puppet ip that was blocked, and all the edits were to the same articles that the head sock puppet vandalised. Are you bliind? How could you not see this?24.63.96.152 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No you are wrong. I did look at the history and could not find any case of obvious vandalism. I saw a user adding some genres I have never even heard of to a list of generes I have never even heard of. There was no obvious vandalism - the edits I saw could have been conducted in good faith. Second, just becuase two addresses are similar doesn't mean they represent the same person. There simply was not enough properly documented eveidence to warrant protection of these article and block some of the IPs. Besdies, the reports were filed in a highly improper manner - coming to an admins talk page and saying "here... block this IP because he's a vandal" is the equivalent of going to the police saying "arrest that guy he's a criminal" - Unless there's properly documented evidence no action is going to be taken. That properly documented evidence was missing. I am also quite frankly tired of your aggressive tone. I am suspecting that you are Hopnop69 and are trying to air your greivances here using anon IP addresses - I have filed a report at the appropriate noticeboard. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am Hoponpop69, I wasn't trying to make that a big mystery, but I quit editing with that acount because I quit wikipedia. You must be blind, or hopelessy naive if you couldn't see the obvious vandalism. How is it a good faith edit when the person has been told numerous times that they need sources to back up their opinions, and that they can't delete citated sources. Do you think it was a coincedence that almost identical ip ranges were making the same edits to the same articles? Glad to see you filed a sock puppet report against me, yet when someone else was consistently putting wrong information up you could care less. personal attack removed.68.114.92.198 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore the reason I didn't file another report was because I already filed one a few weeks ago only to have it locked after only a few of his many users were blocked. I figured that because you were familiar with the case already that I could come to you about it, obviously you weren't helpful.Hoponpop69 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandinista National Liberation Front

Please comment on editorial implications of the Avoid Neologisms Guideline on the Sandinista National Liberation Front Talk page. [4] Abe Froman 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Assistance

Hi. You've previously blocked the person I'm about to speak of for 3RR and disruptive edits. I wanted to talk to you about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.10.169.33

Look at these contributions from this IP address. You'll also see on his talk page that he has a name, BKaldenberg, though he's rarely used it. Both have been blocked for 3RR and violating WP:EL in the past. Here's the deal:

His name is Brian Kaldenberg, and as you can see from those contributions his sole purpose on Wikipedia (outside of a single Virginia Tech Massacre vandalizing) is to add the link www.gamerosters.com to the pages NCAA Football Series and NCAA Football 08. As you can see going to that link, Brian Kaldenberg is the owner of that website.

This is clearly in violation of WP:EL, it definitely constitutes as spam and as a conflict of interest given he's the site's owner. I also know he is the site's owner, not just from the Wikipedia user name, but from series of emails I've had with him. He is fully aware of the policy and just chooses to disregard it. As he claimed today in one email, he makes $20-40 a day per day from that link (although I doubt it) and simply doesn't care about the policy.

I'm writing you because this 3RR stuff isn't enough. A permanent solution needs to be found. He's knowingly violated policy dozens and dozens of times as you can see, with no end in site. He clearly has no other reason for his presence at Wikipedia other than to spam these two articles. Day-to-day block are not enough, he simply needs to be banned. It bothers me that a person would behave like this, and I don't want him to "win" as a matter of principle.

So I'm asking you, what can be done?►Chris Nelson 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind.►Chris Nelson 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?!

  • Hi! You blocked IP. Why you discriminate not registered participant of the project "Viki", if other person the vandal? Then block both participants of the conflict.
I do not discriminate against anon IPs. Could you provide a link to the case you are refering to. I am quite sure that any IP I may have blocked violated Wikipedia policy. It is not customary to block both parties in a conflict unless both parties have engaged in a blantant violation of WP policy. If only one party violates policy, then only one party - not both - gets blocked. Also, please sign your posts. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxury vehicles, etc.

Greetings, Brendel! Congrats on becoming an administrator.

I just reverted again a recurring controversial edit to the Lexus article (but past 24h); for the past 2 weeks or so User: 71.249.234.243 keeps adding the phrase "just nudges out BMW" to the Lexus article lead: [5], complete with repeated sp/grammar/format errors! Any advice on that?

It's editorializing, as I mention in Talk:Lexus#Sales_figures_in_lead. Also, I notice that you reverted User:89.53.199.14 as well at luxury vehicle; he has added general commentary to talk pages as well which espouse a POV but don't really seem to add any productive suggestions. I suppose we just leave it alone or archive it?

Thanks for any guidance and take care. Enigma3542002 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I will take a close look later tonight (Pacific time) - I just checked the contribs of both IPs- seems as thought they pre-occupy themselves with adding their POV to WP and trolling talk pages - something that isn't appropriate. You can go ahead and delete the trollery (we can always access it from the history if we have to). As I've said, I'll take a close look later tonight. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Update: As the edits of both IPs aren't contructive, I have issued two strong warnings. If the IPs continue to edit WP in a disruptive manner, I will block them. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance, it is much appreciated. Enigma3542002 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Good morning, Brendel...sorry to report but the first IP is at it again: [6]. Maybe this time he needs to be blocked. Thanks for your help. Enigma3542002 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have issued a 24h block (24h since this is his first block). Thanks for keeping me posted. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 71.235.81.32

I've dealt with this user before at Talk:New England, and would recommend semi-protecting his talk page so he cannot use it as a platform for attacking users here. The same person has used 71.235.81.39 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) before to express similar views, so you might consider blocking that account, or autoblocking all IPs that start with 71.235.81.xx New England 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you look at this. New England (C) (H) 23:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since he/she has admitted that 71... is an abusive sockpuppet, I have blocked both 71... accounts. As he/she can't resist insulting others on the talk page, I have protected it. I will look into blocking all 71.235.81.xx account considering his/her promise to keep vandalising WP. Signaturebrendel 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Don Mattingly article, and a problem user

Hello, first off thank you for protecting the Don Mattingly article from a problem user. If you'll look at the history, here, you'll see that someone with an anonymous IP address insists on replacing my personally taken photo of Don Mattingly and given to WP, with an obviously copyrighted one. Furthermore as you'll see in the history, this person insulted me and reverted my changes on several occasions. I would very much appreciate it if you had a word with this problem user. It's getting more and more disheartening to me to see how Wikipedia is getting taken over by people like this. They seem to have equal standing in the community at times to good, long time users, such as myself. I don't have the authority to give this person a warning, and have dealt with him for long enough, and my patience is out. Please help show some loyalty to a positive Wikipedia editor for the last 3 years, and a volunteer for the WMF since the beginning. Thanks, Googie man 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

PS - this just in from the illustrious Mr. 67.84.67.77, which you can read at my talk page here under "don't talk", at the end of the page. Thanks, Googie man 02:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have issued him/her his/her third block due to edit warring and personal attacks. This should resolve the issue, if it doesn't let me know. Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you BrendelSignature! Googie man 14:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 67.84.67.77 Strikes yet again

Hello again Brendel. You helped me with a problem user by banning him/her for 10 days. It appears that they are back with their disruptive ways, but in a more subtle form. Click here to see the history for the page of the former baseball player Jose Canseco. As you will see, if you check the edits, 67.84.67.77 put into the infobox two teams which Canseco supposedly played for, when he played for neither. He was in fact retired in 2004, despite Mr. 67.84.67.77's claim to the contrary. This appears to be a revert by this person of a correction that Nick22aku made. At the very best, this is an extremely poor edit, as it hurts the credibility of Wikipedia. This is misinformation that a novice to baseball would not know, and a baseball fan and new user could get the wrong impression about WP's credibility. Judging from this history of this person, however, I'm inclined to believe it's a particularly malicious form of vandalism, because it's presented as a legitimate edit. Thank you, and keep up the good work in defending Wikipedia from abusive users. Googie man 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow morning (it's after 11pm here in CA) Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Can Defend My Self

I see Googie Man had reported me again, but let me assure you, it not vandalism, Jose Canseco had signed contracts with both teams that I had added and played a few spring training games. Yes, I realize that he didnt play any regular season games but being that he did sign contracts with the teams and did play with them in spring training, technically Canseco was a member of the teams that I added, so I don't think its vandalism. Oh and I'm sick of Googie man treating me as if I'm some type of Ruthless Vandal and calling me "Rogue" and "abuser". I think he has a grudge due to the fact that I replaced his free use picture of Don Mattigly with a fair use picture of Don Mattingly. I can't tell the difference between Fair and free use. I just don't know the rules of Wikipedia.

Brendel, my apologies for taking this matter up on your talk page, but I simply refuse to acknowledge a talk page of an IP address. The problems with the edits of the above user are a) the infobox is not the forum for placing teams that a player *wanted* to play on, but only teams with whom he actually played. Please see this link and note that no where will you see the teams listed by 67.84/67.77. Furthermore, the fact that Canseco *tried out* for the Angels and Dodgers is already documented in the article. However, what essentially amounts to misinformation still exists in the infobox because 67.84.67.77 reverted someone's removal of this already. The second problem is this person's insistence on having information in the infobox that other community members have already deemed inappropriate. Lastly, this user now for some reason refers to me as a "racist". I don't see how that is possible as the only distinguishing feature of their identity I have is an IP address. I bear no grudges, I'm simply trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. The information on the infobox is still there, and still wrong, however I know now that reverting the bad edit will lead to yet another pointless edit war. Thank you, Googie man 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering the users persistent efforts to add unreferenced information to articles, unwillingness to discuss edits to an article in a civil manner and the comments (s)he left on your talk page, I have issued a block. Signaturebrendel 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again for protecting WP. Best, Googie man 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Party (United States)

Could you please remove that controversial first sentence in this article and lock the article until consensus can be reached. The tug of war is continuing and it is really embarrassing for the article and Wikipedia. Thanks. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the page has occured to me but I only want to lock such a high-profile article as a last resort. I have given the editors one more chance to stop the reverting and find consensus on the talk page. If the edit warring continues, I will protect the article. Signaturebrendel 06:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!! I think you are right. Hopefully the editors can reach consensus. I appreciate your help. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 11:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)