Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Community ban for Licinius 2 Sockpuppet of banned User:Iasson 3 User:Henry Flower 4 KarateKid7, TheMadTim 5 Developing Aucaman fiasco 6 Admin blocking talk page 7 Merecat posting from IP addresses to evade block 8 User mikka (t) is blocking innocent registered users from editing anything in Wikipedia 9 User:Executor-usa unblocked 10 On the extraordinary "mandate" of Adam Carr 11 Collateral Damage from the Loyola vandal IP range block 12 Need to make a handoff 13 User:Monicasdude 14 User:TheKarateKid7 15 24.64.223.203 16 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination) 17 Internet pest and vandalism 18 Categories related to Pakistan 19 User ☁ has been blocked by a bot (page moves) 20 Userpage vandal 21 User:ChrisO's abuse of his adminship 22 Indefinite blocks of IP addresses? 23 User:Rex071404 has violated his ArbComm permanent ban on article John Kerry. 24 Spammer (bots?) 25 Animal rights 26 User DivineShadow218 arguing. 27 Odd admin behaviour (2) 28 Dr Schlong 29 Obnoxious behavior by SPUI 30 Password reminders 31 needless destructive edit 32 TuzsuzDeliBekir block extended to indefinite 33 Prometheuspan's complaint against Strothra 34 Admin abuse: User:InShaneee 34.1 Admin abuse: User:Friday 35 Another likely VaughanWatch Sock 36 Amorrow again 37 This is sheer vandalism 38 Patrick Kennedy 39 Tahitian Noni 40 Linkspamming and possible malware 41 Sockpuppet block 42 Persistent nonsense vandalism by IP address 43 User:24.144.84.178. 44 User:Incorrect 45 Personal attacks continue from ThNik following block 46 Admin abuse - William M. Connolley 47 Immediate indef block and deletion of edit necessary. 48 Template:Hong Kong (PRC) 49 Blatant Scottfisher sock 50 Dispute at common.css 51 Vandalism User:Fitzy101 52 Rex/merecat/spam/cellphone 53 Vandalism User:goldenblue 54 unblocking Lou franklin 55 user:Duncharris editing protected template inapropriately 56 Forthcoming vandalism? 57 Anti-evolution related vandalism in Horse 58 Bondstars 59 Mass blog link-spamming from User:69.160.112.131 60 Wittydw- persistant copyvio 61 Animal hoarding 62 User:Netpari 63 Abuse from trolls of the Rajput Arbcom case 64 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song) 65 User WzOzW has been blocked by a bot (page moves) 66 User page protected 67 Suggest reinstating WP:NLT block on Executor-usa (talk · contribs) 68 64.235.107.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 69 Vandal Superman12345 70 Hoax organization leaving threats on talk pages 71 Prin 72 Challenge of deletion of Conservative Underground entry

[edit] Community ban for Licinius

The original Licinius edited pages related to various codes of football in Australia. He aggressively and inflexibly pushed a strange POV and refused to work towards consensus. He abused and frustrated numerous good faith editors who were trying to work on the related pages (see Talk:Football/Archive 7 (Australian rules debates)). Eventually he spawned sockpuppets User:The man from OZ and User:J is me to help him with a vote at Talk:Football, and was blocked after being caught out by a checkuser request.

User then spawned numerous abusive socks. To my knowledge, the current list of socks of Licinius created solely to abuse people is: Jisme, HahaJISME, HahahaJISME, John Ignolius Magnum, Whortyfour, Revenge clone1, Who but you is popo, Yeah what and why, OKEYJisme, Popoff567, J IS ME FEELS NEGLECTED, J IS ME CONQUERS ALL, Is J is Me or are you her, Is J is her or are you me?, Collins1921, The Return OF J IS ME, Await the return, The second man in wiki, Rufus4444444 and Fucck J is me.

Update: Thanks to a checkuser by Essjay, 37 confirmed sockpuppet accounts of Licinius have been tagged as such; see Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Licinius. Snottygobble 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday Licinius returned to the football pages as Mr nice guy. He pushed the same strange POV in the same aggressive manner, and has stated that he has no intention of working towards consensus [1]. The responses of other editors indicates just how sick of this situation they all are.

I have blocked Mr nice guy indefinitely, subject of course to review by other administrators. He returned as Mr nice guy2 and was blocked again. Its pretty likely I'll be blocking more socks of Licinius in future. I'd appreciate some community support here. How do you all feel about imposing a "users who exhaust the community's patience" ban on this user? Snottygobble 00:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Looking through it, would not oppose an indef community block. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:58 UTC (2006-05-01)
• No objections. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Is this the same person that left this odd message [2] on my talk page immediately after I reverted vandalism on Ambi's talk page ([3])? I had a feeling this was part of a bigger problem. By all means block: there's no reason we have to put up with this. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, one and the same. Snottygobble 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - I@n ≡ talk 02:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree as well. Petros471 09:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• OK - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Agree...but note that this user is indefinitely blocked, so our remedy is a permanent ban, not a block. Ral315 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support ... what exactly is the difference between a block and a ban, though? --Cyde Weys 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Banning policy ("A ban is not the same as a block, which is used to enforce bans but also for other purposes, such as dealing with vandalism...). Petros471 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that he is exhausting people's patience, but I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea of a ban. It seems to me that he has come back this time trying to make a new start, be reasonable and stick within the rules. The exhausting thing now is that he has a really twisted argument. JPD (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, objection noted. I grant that this incarnation is editing articles rather than abusing people, but I don't consider the edits an attempt to "be reasonable and stick within the rules". This user is repeatedly inserting and reverting to POV material that he knows has been rejected by the editing community numerous times. Snottygobble 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I basically agree with you, but I think the reason he is not going with the consensus is because he feels that the previous discussions were not valid. One of the reasons for this is because they became more discussions about his behaviour than the content. It seems to me that discussion without talk of bans etc might make the situation clearer, but maybe I am being too optimistic. JPD (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The J is me sockpuppet has blanked his talk page in an effort to attract attention here and make people notice what he has to say. He says that he is willing to reform and apologises for his actions and wants back. I would be willing to agree on a trial period as long as he ID's all the sockpuppets. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to withdraw my request for a ban and I will not oppose the unblocking of the IP. Essjay did a checkuser and populated Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Licinius with 37 accounts, many of which I did not know about. I imagine Essjay has identified all of them, so there would be no point in asking J is me to do the same. Snottygobble 00:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have brought this proposal to the attention of Essjay (blocker of the IP), Ambi, Grant65 and TangoTango (all victims of Licinius' attacks). Snottygobble 00:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection on this front. Ambi 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't oppose Snottygobble's CambridgeBayWeather's proposal for a trial un-banning of J is me, to be revoked if he/she misbehaves in any way from now on. Grant65 | Talk 12:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I must insist that this is not my proposal. This is CambridgeBayWeather's proposal, and I have merely agreed not to stand in his way. Snottygobble 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies :-) Grant65 | Talk 07:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjar has no objections. Snottygobble 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet of banned User:Iasson

This edit by KymeSnake (talk · contribs) displays the characteristic beliefs and syntax of Iasson, who has been continually attempting to impose his (solitary and unsourced) belief that Greek slavery was somehow not really slavery. Should this be noted at WP:RCU? Septentrionalis 03:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you think there is concrete evidence to prove as such, go ahead. Sockpuppets of banned users are blocked once discovered, and the ban timer reset. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• This doesn't quite look like an obvious Iasson sock to me, though I guess it's possible. Since he's already blocked, I suppose we should see how he responds to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• One of Iasson's trademarks was having usernames taken from List of Greek mythological figures. KymeSnake isn't exactly on that list, making me think it's just another POV warrior. A CheckUser should clear that up. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Henry Flower

User:Henry Flower repeatedly deleted the NPA tag from his talkpage following his personal attack with absolutely no explanations.--Bonafide.hustla 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So..? Sorry, I don't understand what you're doing, Bonafide.hustla. The "personal attack" is highly dubious. Since you link, on Henry Flower's page, to a whole conversation, rather than give a diff, I'm not even sure which bit is supposed to be a personal attack. The NPA tag is intended to be used for very clear cases only. Please don't add frivolous tags to people's userpages. Also, your tag has no greater authority than if you'd written something in your own voice; Henry Flower is perfectly entitled to remove either kind from his page. Don't edit war to keep your posts on somebody else's page, unless you want to get blocked. Also, why exactly do you care if he removes it? You put it there for him to read, didn't you? See, his removal of it shows he has read it. You should be pleased. And you shouldn't harass people. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

The personal attack occured on the admin's noticeboard.--Bonafide.hustla 02:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So give us a link. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[[4]] mocking me by saying ROFL...and other random language that I couldn't understand [[5]] claiming "This user should put his own house in order."

Please do not edit war over the insertion of a notice concerning a personal attack which seemingly dosen't exist. El_C 05:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

On another note: Bonafide.hustla, it's important to use permanent diff links to point people to something somebody said, because the other kind of links are only good when they're fresh. Anybody trying to follow yours here will quickly run up against links that have gone bad. In RFAr evidence, you MUST use diff links. Does anybody know a page where it's explained how to make them and why it's important? How are people supposed to find out? I hate explaining it... but I'd love to be able to refer to clear instructions. Bishonen | talk 07:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Please explain why it is not personal attack. This user said "I would do better to put my own house in order." while i was negotiating another issue, when i tried to negotiate on his talkpage, i was scoffed at and disrespected. he even said rofl (rolling on floor laughin) if this is not personal attack, I don't know what is. The accusation by user Elc seems to be out of personal vendetta due to his support to "communist" hero Che Guvera (see his userpage) and my accusation of communist propaganda on jiang's talkpage.--Bonafide.hustla 05:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If ROFL is not a personal attack, you don't know what is? I reckon you don't. Go away. You're a vexatious litigant and a pest. You are hereby banned from posting on WP:AN and WP:AN/I. "Banned" means "Don't post here again or you'll get blocked." Bishonen | talk 05:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

P.S. I've told BFH that it's OK for him to post here once more in case he wants to try to make the community rescind my softban by undertaking to post, er, more responsibly, so please nobody block him if there's one more post. Bishonen | talk 07:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] KarateKid7, TheMadTim

I responded to a 3RR report at WP:AN3 between two seeming revert warriors (KarateKid7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), TheMadTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)) assuming bad faith. I blocked them both for 24 hours. Tawker undid my block on KarateKid7 a few hours later, which is fine by me, as I was planning to anyway per an email conversation I had with him. However, soon, a new factor entered the mix: TheMADTim (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I noticed this guy blank KarateKid7's UT page, and I gave him an indef block on the spot. Mackensen (talk • contribs) was kind enough to perform a checkuser on the gentleman in question. "Likely that TheMADTim is a sockpuppet of KarateKid7. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)" I'm now not sure what to do with the situation, and I ask for a community decision here. It would seem that KarateKid7 registered TheMADTim to defame TheMadTim, and here I was assuming good faith with him and actually favored his take of the content dispute (which both parties insisted was simple vandalism and not a dispute). Any opinions out there? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, lovely. Now I've uncovered Karatekid7 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), permablocked 14:44, March 21, 2006. LowerUppercase's first edit? 22:01, March 22, 2006. I'm leaning to a permablock as a sockpuppet of a permablocked user. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, lowercase's first edit was May 2 2005... did you mean uppercase's first edit? I'd leave them alone unless you got a positive checkuser, and from my casual run through their contributions they aren't nessecarily editing the same articles. LOL just checked the block log for karatekid7, and he's indefblocked by Gator. Yah, wipe him out.--Syrthiss 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, end of story. KimvdLinde 03:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Chaps, is there any chance that you can block user:KabadiKid7 as well? They're pretty much an obvious sockpuppet. --TheMadTim 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am KarateKid7 and Karatekid7, I was not TheMADTim, this has never been verified and was described as likely, I dispute this. My initial account Karatekid7 was unfairly blocked by user:jtdirl. I was then later permanantly blocked by user:gator1 for removing the details of my previous block from my user page this admin has since disappeared. I then had KarateKid7| blocked for being a sockpuppet of Karatekid7 personally I do not think this was sockpuppeting as I thought it was very obvious and the account was created after my ban. I also considered the blocks to be unjust and did not know how to question them as my user page was blocked for Karatekid7. I think my edits show that whilst some of my edits may be considered controversial by some, I am no vandal, and I have reverted a good amount of vandalism myself. Simple fact is I could wait a week, register a new account with an unsimilar name and not be banned as a sockpuppet, so why ban me for being honest? --TheKarateKid7 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Current sock puppet listing : [6] Previous sock puppet usercheck : [7] recent 3RR : [8] another recent 3RR : [9] - multiple 3RR violation, uncivility, and sock puppet useage to evade two permablocks + 3RR. Karatekid7 is already permabanned. John79 is also permabanned. 221.114.194.14 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see newer case at [10]. --TheKarateKid7 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developing Aucaman fiasco

I'm on the verge of thinking I should really withdraw from further discussion on the matter. I'm incredibly disgusted with the behavior of several editors who have acted, IMHO, grossly inappropriately, either by their "wrong" actions or by their defense of those actions. The discussion is ongoing at User talk:Aucaman. I'm feeling very close to wanting to pass out UN sanctions, so I think I should probably just sit down and shut up for a while. The actions [rollbacks on a number of users' talk pages] were admittedly performed without the rollerbacker's bothering to spend a moment's consideration figuring out whether or not doing so were warranted, on the sole basis that Aucaman is under an arbcom injunction to watch his use of reverts [which, as it happens, hello, has nothing to do with leaving messages on other users' talk pages]. I'm disgusted, nay appalled, that this activity has been supported by 2 other users, at least one of whom is a fellow admin [for whom I voted! :-\] ... If someone with a level head and the interest and time to actually investigate what's going on instead of pronouncing uninformed snap judgments could take the time, please comment on Aucaman's talkpage. Tomer^talk 07:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think it's worth spending a lot of energy on this now. The deed is done anyway - whether or not one considers A's talkpage postings as spamming, or whether or not one considers reverting them to have been appropriate, the messages will have reached their addressees by now (and they would have done so even if they had remained deleted). Any of the users involved should now be free to decide whether they want that message to stay on their talkpage or not. Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there are few situations where copy/pasting the same instructions about a page to two dozen other users is NOT considered talk page spamming, regardless of intentions. --InShaneee 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, as of this writing, InShaneee has clearly not read any of what's transpired in this incident, as is transparently, nay painfully, obvious by looking at his ongoing equivocation on Aucaman's talkpage. Tomer^talk 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Tomer and myself are having a bit of a disagreement about how to handle this situation, and it is clear, nay, painfully obvious that he'd rather be antagonistic then attempt to reach any sort of consensus. I certainly hope others here will take a look at what has transpired in put in their two cents. --InShaneee 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin blocking talk page

Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) just blocked a talk page with the comment: (Protected Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities: Briefly protecting so I can ACTUALLY GET A GODDAMN EDIT THROUGH [11]. Which means that others can not get their edit through. Can someone deal with this. KimvdLinde 06:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) He unprotected a few min. after. However, that was a pretty rude summary, especially for an admin. Not much actual harm done. Still, such impatient, careless and recklfull use of admin abilities should be avoided though.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He's unblocked, so things seem to be O.K. Snoutwood (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected, you mean ;). If traffic was really that high, and he really needed to get that edit through, I'd say it's fair, especially if he's using a weak internet connection, or browser, that doesn't move fast enough to avoid ECs. At least he's unprotected it, so that's fair IMO. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:38 UTC (2006-05-04)

Correct on all counts! Hearty agreement: looking at the history I can see why he did so. Snoutwood (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done this before. The summary I used was "one second, please!". Everyone thanked me, though, because it helped all of em. El_C 06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe not expressedly thanked me, but deep down inside... No, no need to thank me! El_C 06:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say, this means that admins have more rights than non-admins because I would be unable to do so. And as I work from a dial in, it was obnoxious. But things are resolved now. KimvdLinde 07:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Admins can do a lot of things that the normal user can't: deleting pages, for instance. Isopropyl 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as far as I understand, they have those for usage towards the community, not for their own easiness of editing or other personal motivations. Or maybe I read the RfA wrong when some people get rejected. KimvdLinde 07:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I'm sorry for my above post, I feel like an eejit. I wish I'd said something else... sorry again. Snoutwood (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is this? There isn't any question: he misused protection. Why is everyone saying, "Well, he unprotected, so that's alright?" Sheesh. That's not what protection is for. It's what {{inuse}} is for. For years administrators have edited busy pages. For years they haven't resorted to protection to do it. Geogre 09:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I too find this shocking. Note that the edit Phil wanted to get through wasn't some kind of sysop intervention or meta message that everybody needed to get as soon as possible. It wasn't a message that he was about to protect the article, block contributors, issue a general 3RR warning, or anything like that. It was perfectly "normal editor" editing, in the form of several argumentative replies in the ongoing content debate, the same as everybody else. To then use sysop powers to make a special window not available to others when the editing is hot and fast, that's just ... bad. I don't see how it can be defended. Admins aren't supposed to be a privileged caste. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Oh good, we haven't all gone insane. Special powers are for helping the community in special ways. Using them to make posting on talk pages easier for yourself and making it temporarily impossible for everyone else is not justifiable. It doesn't matter that he unprotected shortly after, because users were still inconvenienced temporarily - the very reason he applied protection, the high traffic on the page, is the very reason why he should not have.

The ability of admins using their powers to benefit themselves pretty much ends with being able to delete your own user subpages, in my view. Phil Sandifer misused protection. It's not a big incident, so let's not make a big deal out of it, but please, let's not see any more of it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is with pain in my heart that I have to agree with Bishonen and Geogre. I know Phil to be a decent, reliable and responsible admin. However, I disagree with his action on this talk page. His comment was that of an editor, not of an admin. In such cases, admins should not use their privileges, but act like normal editors are able to do. Wikipedia:Protection policy explicitly states: "Admin powers are not editor privileges." Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not calling for a rope and a posse. I just can't countenance it as all Ok. It's not Ok. In fact, if there were people who were complaining about Phil for other reasons, it would be evidentiary, but it's not an ArbCom case by itself. (Some of us who don't like the clerks office and their ability to expand into all fissures in power might see it as an argument, but that's a separate issue.) Geogre 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, while I also am strongly opposed to getting torches and pitchforks over this, this was an inappropriate use of admin powers, IMO. Let's quietly file this under "Don't Do That Again" and move on. JDoorjam Talk 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Just to clear my conscience about the matter: You're absolutely right, I regret my above post. Sorry, I lost myself. Snoutwood (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merecat posting from IP addresses to evade block

(Changed section header from 70.84.56.166 spamming talkpages like there's no tomorrow to attract a fresh set of eyes) I looked at what 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was doing a few minutes ago and shook my head in disbelief, and disinclination to get into the hot issue of spamming talkpages (see "Controversial Afd and POV vote-stacking" above); but when I found the IP still at it a few minutes later, I blocked for three hours. Er, is there any reason nobody else blocked this character already? Are you all asleep? Should I permablock (take a look at the userpages)? Bishonen | talk 07:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Guys..? The quip about everybody being asleep was a joke, c'mon! If somebody could help me with the mysteries of static/dynamic/open proxy/whatever with reference to this IP, I'll know what kind of block to do. Please? I don't even get any information on it from my usual reverse DNS lookup, which is the pathetic limit of my skills. Bishonen | talk 08:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

He was actually blocked before your first posting. I will undo the spam. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

? I don't see any other block than my own in the log as of now. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Have you tried "whois"? This is the command output:

# whois 70.84.56.166
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[Redirected to rwhois.theplanet.com:4321]
[Querying rwhois.theplanet.com]
[rwhois.theplanet.com]
%rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 whois.theplanet.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
network:Class-Name:network
network:ID:THEPLANET-BLK-13
network:Auth-Area:70.84.0.0/14
network:Network-Name:TPIS-BLK-70-84-56-0
network:IP-Network:70.84.56.160/27
network:IP-Network-Block:70.84.56.160 - 70.84.56.191
network:Organization-Name:Upsideout
network:Organization-City:New Rochelle
network:Organization-State:NY
network:Organization-Zip:10804
network:Organization-Country:US
network:Description-Usage:customer
network:Server-Pri:ns1.theplanet.com
network:Server-Sec:ns2.theplanet.com
network:Tech-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Admin-Contact;I:abuse@theplanet.com
network:Created:20041126
network:Updated:20041126

I hope it helps. Friendly Neighbour 09:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Er. Friendly Neighbour, it helps in the sense that it makes me feel somebody cares... not really in any other way, though. ;-) This stuff just isn't my bag. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

• I think I'll run through a WP:RCU shortly. - Mailer Diablo 09:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I requested the block on AIV and then I saw that Bishonen had blocked it one minute earlier. IPs from The Planet seem to be in the Dallas/Ft Worth area and there is a user down there who likes to post from IPs rather than register; nicknamed the Anon Texan for lack of a better word. He is pro-Republican and it would not surprise me if he was spamming for the AfD against "Rationales to impeach...". I would be very surprised if this was one of our regulars. In any case the anon Texan is annoying but rarely is actually disruptive. I would support reapplying the block in 12-24 hour increments if he begins spamming again as well as blocking any other IP that resolves to The Planet that behaves the same way. Thatcher131 11:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• 67.15.76.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is undoing your un-spamming, wild guess says it's the same person--64.12.116.65 11:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not an admin so I can't block but this is Everyone's Internet from Houston, the other ISP used by the anon Texan. (see User:Stbalbach/anontexan) A 24 hour block seems appropriate. Thatcher131 11:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • and user 67.15.76.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)--64.12.116.65 12:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Per RFCU, 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is likely merecat evading his block. I'm actually surprised that after several month of ocassional activity from the anon Texan, he would do something that would so obviously provoke a checkuser. I have requested additional confirmation of 67.15.76.187. Thatcher131 11:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• 66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs), another IP used by the anon Texan, has also stopped by today to remind Jtdirl that when he reverted two of Cyde's blocks yesterday, he forgot merecat. [12] Thatcher131 12:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Confirmed by CU that spam from Everyone's Internet is Anon Texan/Merecat. Now what? Thatcher131 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well for starters, you might want to see if they can track down all accounts created from the anon texan IPs, I get the feeling that he wouldn't make it this obvious if there wasn't a replacement merecat lined up already--64.12.116.65 15:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
      • speaking of which, users Tbeatty (talk · contribs) and BlueGoose (talk · contribs) have been following him around for a while, making the same unblock requests, etc..it's not out of the realm of possibility that someone who went through so much effort might have created more than one sock at a time--152.163.100.65 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, Merecat doesn't really have sock puppets in the traditional sense. Assuming Rex071404 is merecat, Rex stopped editing in November, about the same time Merecat started up, Rex also had an IP he appeared from when he forgot to log in, which he acknowledged and linked the talk pages. This IP was not in Texas. I'm going out on a limb, but I think he moved to Texas around November and started a new account at that time, for whatever reason. Only this time, when he didn't log in (accidentally or on purpose) he didn't admit who he was. The last contributions by Rex look a lot like the first contributions by merecat, but the early contributions by Tbeatty and BlueGoose don't look similar, except they are all Republican-leaning. Plus, I think when Mackensen looked at the server logs he would have spotted any more socks. (When we asked him to check a couple of suspected socks of VaughanWatch, he found 30 in one go.) At this point my opinion, worth every penny you've paid me, is to pull back and see what Merecat does next. If he's learned a lesson, then live and let live. If IP accounts from The Planet or Everyone's Internet in Texas start helping him avoid 3RR penalties or double-vote, then some further short term blocks might be in order. Thatcher131 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Now that I read up on Rex' dismal history, I think the remedies section of his (Rex') most recent ArbComm require that a review of Merecat's edits be made to establish whether any terms of that hearing have been violated.
          • As an aside, the ability for one editor, the subject of four prior RfA's, to be permitted to distract so many from the effort of writing an encyclopedia is quite jarring. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I wasn't aware of that. If you want to press the matter you may want to start a new discussion at the bottom of the page. I feel I'm being led into this by an anonymous AOL user and two anti-bush editors who have filed an RfC and RFAR that were highly stacked against him. I'm feeling over my head at this point. Thatcher131 07:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Mentioning historical fact, however uncomfortable to Bush, is not equal to "anti-Bush." You disallowing facts (calling it POV), merely because they show that Bush is not the Hero you want him to be is totally against wikipedia policy. Stop calling me "anti-Bush," when you yourself have proven to be more interested in partisan comments than dealing with facts. Nomen Nescio 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User mikka (t) is blocking innocent registered users from editing anything in Wikipedia

It appears that I keep being unfairly blocked from editing anything in the Wikipedia with my registered user name, Art Dominique, due to illfated actions taken by mikka (t) in reference to the Wikipedia's Kven article.

The userSplash unsprotected the Kven article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kven - at "22:32, 22 March 2006 Splash (unsprot: weird reason to protect and it's been long enough anywa)", after it had been sprotected by user Fred-Chess.

I now ask for the assistance of administrators in reference to the clearly unfair protecting of the Kven article, and especially in reference to the "weird" and totally unfair blocking of my editing privileges, please, for the following reasons:

Despite of many pleas for him to do so, the above mentioned user with "weird reasoning" - Fred-Chess - has not provided sources for his claims in the Wikipedia's Kven text or on its discussion page. His claims presented are not - to our knowledge - supported by known historians and/or other scientists. Instead, the views presented are contradicting those of known historians and other specialists on the related fields, as has been proven on the Kven discussion page.

On the other hand, the users opposing the views of Fred-Chess have provided their own distinguished sources on another Kven text page version and the Kven discussion page as well. However, without presenting sources of their own and without discussing their claims, Fred-Chess and mikka (t) keep reverting the Kven text into a text version by Fred-Chess, which includes his unfounded claims, not supported by science. Furthermore, the sources offered on the bottom of that text version do not agree with the views/claims presented. The given sources have been carried on from the contributes of other editors. Thus, this is a clear case of misrepresentation.

Here are just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred chessplayer ...

... [Removed by Bishonen]

Art Dominique talk, May 4, 2006 - 11:59 (Ps.: In order to be able to sign in safely and to post this message, I have had to register a new user name, Digi Wiki, because computers used to enter Wikipedia by Art Dominique talk have become automatically blocked (including discussion pages), due to the wrongful actions taken by mikka (t).)

• • See page instructions: "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to read long diatribes." "Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content." I'm sorry, but this page is a monster anyway, you simply can not post like that. I've removed your "few examples" (=several screenfuls) of how distinguished authorities agree with your side of the Kven edit war. It's not that I want to silence you, but if you look at the rest of this page and the usual length of posts, it may tell you something. Do please put the material in your userspace and post a link to it here! Bishonen | talk 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

• • • Ok. Point well received. Please, find here just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred-Chess: talk

The account of User:Art Dominique and several others are blocked for extensive sock puppetry engaged in revert wars making discussions of the article Kven impossible. See User:Mikkalai/arkven#Alphabetic list. The user was warned multiple times to discuss his significant changes in detail. Now he/she turns tables against User:Fred chessplayer (and some others), who cleaned up the article. He persisits in adding lots of unsupported and irrelevant information. For example, the section "Kven language" is totally redundant in this article (there is Kven language), not to say about dubious content. `'mikka (t) 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If User:Digi Wiki wants to be taken seriously. they are strongly recommended to use a single account for communications and sign their posts in the way used in wikipedia. Otherwise you are just wasting other people's time who have to figure out what is going on with your multiple personalities. `'mikka (t) 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Kven article as well as its talk page at Talk:Kven clearly show the contrary: You yourself do not appear to have a single source or reference brought to the Kven text. If you disagree, we hereby suggest for you to show evidence of you having provided a single source for the Kven article, please. The users opposing the views sponsored by you are totally different in this respect. Their multiple sources can be found from the Kven article and its talk page.

The talk pages reveal, that prior to you taking the ill-fated blocking action now under review, you discussed the matter with User:Fred chessplayer. With him we have continued having exactly the same above problem. Despite of numerous pleas for him to provide sources for his claims, he has declined to do that. A quick look at Talk:Kven clearly shows that. This is the reason why we have come to dispute your actions. There really is no reason or bases for you to take such action ! The valid and correct information - backed by credited sources - ought to be left standing - naturally, do you not agree ? That is the only important matter here.

talk, May 5, 2006 - 04:25

[edit] User:Executor-usa unblocked

I blocked Executor-usa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) several days ago in response to legal threats relating to OITC fraud. I have unblocked him following the deletion of the article and this exchange (E-usa SB E-usa) which satisfies me that he will not be pursuing or threatening legal action for the moment. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that User:Executor-usa is Ray C. Dam, one of the parties named in the recent OITC scandal in Fiji. If so, the WP:AUTO and WP:NOR policies should apply to his involvement with the article. I note that he's also been responsible for vandalism; personally I wouldn't have unblocked him. This user needs to have a careful eye kept on him... -- ChrisO 20:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the extraordinary "mandate" of Adam Carr

Moved to my userspace. El_C 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please limit use of the above page to the issue at hand; important querries re: iced-cream and so on should be directed to my talk page. Thanks. El_C 00:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is it you're trying to hide, El C? Are you one of those "strawberry flavour only" freaks? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral Damage from the Loyola vandal IP range block

Please visit User_talk:DCrazy#Unblock_request for information. I have contacted the Loyola administrator via email that DCrazy has provided me. I side with the user that the range block is a little extreme, and this user has made good contributions to Wikipedia. Who is for unblocking the range of IPs?--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked. If we have the attention of their network administrator, then hopefully the problem will not recur. -- Curps 06:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Curps, the system administrator was very helpful and will do whatever can be done--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 10:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to make a handoff

Could some other admin please take a look at the latest discussion at Template talk:Policy and the related page protection of {{policy}} and {{guideline}}. Preferably someone who has never edited either template or commented on the discussion. I protected these two pages due to considerable edit warring, 3RR violation (over where to hold the discussion no less), breakdown of civility, et cetera. However, it is now being claimed that I was "involved as an editor on the guideline template" because I made this uncontroversial (so far as I know) change on a completely unrelated issue two weeks ago. I also apparently protected the "wrong version" to further an opinion I didn't know I had on a debate that I had thought largely non-significant. I'm not going to remove the protection based on charges that seem to me specious, but I'd be more than happy if someone else would take this over and unprotect, reprotect, or whatever as need be. --CBDunkerson 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's all they can muster to say that you're "involved", they're drawing a very long bow. Protection doesn't seem at all out of place here, I would even leave these protected permanently based on WP:HRT. --bainer (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), who *is* intimately involved in the dispute, has unprotected them. I would like to request reprotection and for comment as to whether or not someone that involved should be unprotecting things. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole is trying to bring this up in several places and it's completely unnecessary. The pages are currently stable and there appears to be no need for page protection. VoiceofAll and I have talked about the issue and agree that it's not worth going into any further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Our latest discussion is here for anyone interested. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm bringing this up where administrators who are not involved, as you are, can presumably be made aware of the issue and do something about it since you've now resorted to abusing your sysop powers. And to be absolutely clear, Voice_of_All (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) said "I support the page protection, for the record." (2006-05-04 01:57:29) After which, you proceeded to unprotect the pages anyways (2006-05-04 23:03:12, 2006-05-04 23:04:05), despite your obvious close involvement and edit warring over these very pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to stir up trouble. CBDunkerson protected a page in circumstances where I felt he was involved as an editor. He disagreed. I unprotected. Voice of All took a look as an uninvolved admin, is keeping an eye on it, and has said he doesn't feel further comment is constructive. I agree. That's enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're the one stirring trouble up, I'm just pointing it out. Second, are we now subscribing to the two-wrongs-make-a-right way of doing things? (Assuming we buy the idea that CBDunkerson was wrong to protect, which I'll note so far few, if anyone, believes except you). Third, your unprotection was absolutely uncalled for given your obvious involvement; I believe it's appropriate to bring this to other administrators attention so they can verify that your actions are incorrect and biased. Finally, Voice of All already said that he agreed with the protected status of the pages. He's said nothing to date to nullify that statement. Please stop twisting what others say to your own ends. Please also stop abusing your sysop powers in disputes in which you are directly involved. Finally, please stop attributing your bad faith to me; I'm not stirring anything up by pointing out your actions. You've been uncooperative so far, I strongly urge you to stop being incivil and stop assuming bad faith in everyone who does anything you disagree with. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've protected both templates indefinitely based on WP:HRT. The templates are high visibility templates, and are used exclusively in a context where any vandalism is very dangerous. --bainer (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Monicasdude

I've blocked Monicasdude (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. He's on another PROD removal rampage. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Monicasdude deprodded twelve articles with valid and entirely civil edit summaries, except in the case of Bill Dedman where the charge of bad faith seems entirely justified as the prodding editor deleted a large chunk of text including references from the Boston Globe and the New York Times. Has the Arbcom case been finalized without anyone but you knowing about it? Thatcher131 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Monicasdude has deprodded probably 10 of my prods so far. One of them was today. So?ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I've looked through the various recent prod removals. Two of the last 11 prod removals were counter to current policy and/or consensus. In one case, she removed a prod from a musician who clearly did not meet WP:MUSIC and in another case removed a prodded movie actor on the basis of the individual having an IMDB entry (the consensus as a matter of precedent on the AfD page seems to be that IMDB is not by itself enough to justify notability of an actor). However, many of the other prod removals were reasonable. I'm also concered about this block coming from Zoe in particular given that Zoe has had past run-ins with Monicasdude about precisely this issue. Overall, this block seems unjustified. JoshuaZ 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'd have to agree with JoshuaZ here, I'm concerned since Zoe has made statements in the past that she feels Monicasdude is randomly removing prods, which I don't think is the case. Regardless, isn't the whole point of prod that anyone can object and remove the tag? While we may disagree with his reasoning on some of the articles, they were all completely civil and appeared to have some thought behind them. I would appreciate it if you would consider unblocking. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I also fail to see the reason for this. I looked at the deprodded articles, which included the chairman of the largest advertising agency in the U.S. (now on AfD) and a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist (the article on whom Monicasdude actually expanded substantially, but the assertion of notability was clearly there already). Monicasdude left a summary explaining the deprodding in each case. Both prodding and deprodding are legitimate parts of the process. u p p l a n d 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• As backed up by emerging consensus here, I have unblocked because I don't think the blocking rationale was valid. Without arbcom restrictions, which there aren't right now, simply removing several PRODs does not warrant a block. --W.marsh 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I concur with W.marsh here- blocks for disruption are all well and good, but this block wasn't well justified. You do realize that a single reversal of an admin action makes you a wheel warrior now, though, right?  ;-) Friday (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it was seen as wheel waring... I wasn't aware that rule existed. But given the consensus above I think it was clearly the right call... I just should have talked to Zoe first. So uh, my bad. --W.marsh 01:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:TheKarateKid7

I am KarateKid7 and Karatekid7, I was not TheMADTim, this has never been verified and was described as likely, I dispute this. My initial account Karatekid7 was unfairly blocked imo by user:jtdirl. I was then later permanantly blocked by user:gator1 for removing the details of my previous block from my user page this admin has since disappeared. I then had KarateKid7 blocked for being a sockpuppet of Karatekid7 personally I do not think this was sockpuppeting as I thought it was very obvious and the account was created after my ban, I obviously admit that this was me. I also considered the blocks to be unjust and did not know how to question them as my user page was blocked for Karatekid7. I think my edits show that whilst some of my edits may be considered controversial by some, I am not a vandal, and I have reverted a good amount of vandalism myself. Simple fact is I could wait a week, register a new account with an unsimilar name and not be banned as a sockpuppet, so why ban me for being honest? --TheKarateKid7 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As the blocking admin on the sock who was acting under the advice of a couple other admins, I'm going to sit this one out, though I'm free to answer questions regarding this user. However, I don't see the harm in unblocking. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The original block of Karatekid7 (lowercase) by Gator1 seems to be over kid's posting unverified allegations of a criminal nature to an article despite repeated warnings. If he is willing to acknowledge his past mistakes and be good, I would agree with unblocking one account per AGF. Thatcher131 03:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The initial block was the one you are describing and only resulted in a short block, however it is more complex than this, as the sources were provided at the time. It is a difficult situation to explain and is in relation to the Jock Stein page, where the number of reverts or vandals(not me but people trying to put on the same information as I was, often in a crude way) is high due to the information that I was putting on the page deliberately being suppressed despite sources being provided. See the talk page on this article for details. The admin who initially blocked me I felt was possibly too friendly with one of the users in a revert war and without wanting to sound rude, would by appearance be diametrically opposed to my views. The indef block occured because I blanked my user page to hide the fact that I was blocked previously, I did this as I felt the previous block was unjust. I must also point out that this only went noticed when another user who objected to some of my edits went trolling through my posts and referred the matter of me blanking my own user page to an admin. Whilst I admit that some of my edits may be looked at as POV by some, I would disagree that they are vandalism. I would obviously say that I will not blank my user talk, and will not deliberatly vandalise. --TheKarateKid7 04:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Current sock puppet listing : [13] Previous sock puppet usercheck : [14] recent 3RR : [15] another recent 3RR : [16] - multiple 3RR violation, uncivility, and sock puppet useage to evade two permablocks + 3RR. Karatekid7 is already permabanned. John79 is also permabanned. 221.114.194.14 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have a question. Gator1 blocked Karatekid7 on March 21 with an expiry time of indefinite, but I can not find where it was posted to AN/I for ratification as a community ban, and there was certainly no Arbcom ruling. Can one admin permanently ban a user withouot discussion? Thatcher131 13:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• User is also permabanned under account John79216.155.95.163 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Regarding the block, it looks like Karatekid7 was blocked for 48 hours in December and created John79, a rather obvious sock, that was caught and blocked the same day. No big deal, happens all the time around here. But then on March 21 Gator1 blocked him first for a week, then escalated it to indef, for reasons that I can not understand based on the record. He created KarateKid7 which operated trouble-free for a month before being blocked as a sock. I perfectly understand blocking the sockpuppets, I do not understand the March 21 indef block. In fact, the blocking policy for disruption says, in part, "However, indefinite blocks should not be used...against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." Sometimes disruptive accounts are permabanned by Arbcom, and sometimes by "community consensus" but I see no evidence that Gator1 ever sought consensus because the indef block of Karatekid7 was not posted to AN/I. Since Gator1 has left the project there is no way for Karatekid7 to appeal directly to her. None of Karatekid7's conduct, including using socks, justifies a unilateral permanent ban. I would like to hear from some admins (and not just from an anonymous Columbian IP with an obvous agenda to keep Karatekid blocked) on what is the reason for sustaining this block. Thatcher131 15:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

216.155.95.163 thanks for your contributions, I assume you are also 212.138.47.17 and 221.114.194.14 and TheMadTim. Good investigative work, however anyone could read the evidence you have provided by simply reading my userpage. --TheKarateKid7 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24.64.223.203

• 24.64.223.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This is Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on a shared IP - see WP:LTA. He has gamed the 3RR on Freemasonry with a tag addition and 3 partial reversions in 4 minutes, he has broken up one piece of information into two in order to make them seem unrelated on Catholicism and Freemasonry, and has done a wholesale reversion on Anti-Masonry. These are all article)s he is not permitted to edit per ruling of ArbCom. -- MSJapan 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)

Morton devonshire has been advertising the AfD.[17]

I just thought I would bring this up as there is another topic above about an IP address doing the same thing. Ansell 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not me. I notified people of the last Afd, not this one. Stop making stuff up. Morton devonshire 06:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Morton did recruit voters for the second AfD which was closed at 05:20 on 4 May, and was briefly bocked. He hasn't done anything wrong on the current third AfD. Thatcher131 06:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet pest and vandalism

I am watching a page on Wikipedia titled "Siamese Fighting Fish" and am having problems with an internet pest. This user is using a ghost IP and keeps editing the page to edit any sites that are in competition with him. I have tried to protect the page, but to no avail as I have just been informed that only administration can protect the page from vandalism. May the page be protected? The vandal has his site on the page under external links, but will not allow any competition to place their site under external links. This user also has hacked into other internet sites and may be a worry.

User now uses the name biopsy and once again has deleted the above mentioned sites.

IP address and user known as 124.168.1.209

User now uses the name biopsy and once again has deleted the above mentioned sites. I am reverting back the page.

Goldenblue 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The user who posted the above notice also added a "fake" protection notice to the page. I've temporarily actually protected the page to stop the edit war while the issue in investigated. Feel free to remove the protection (and the template) if you disagree or consider the issue solved. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

If you view the history of both 'Siamese Fighting Fish' & 'Discus Fish' you will see that Goldenblue is the user responsible for removing existing links. For almost, if not over 2 years, a couple of prominent sites have been listed on Wikipedia, yet a few small minded people decide they want to play musical chairs and start deleting sites, and adding links to firstly a site that does not exist (refer: www.betta-australis.com) it isnt even a valid or live site, then to another site at the expense of other sites with publically available data, whereas they keep all relevant information hidden in some secret fashion that is not in the spirit of sharing information freely.

Goldenblue also makes slanderous comments against the person who owns several of the other sites, who has nothing to do with these eidts, stating that they hack into sites etc etc. Making such a public claim is slander without proof, something which they will not have, as no website has been affected at all by the person or persons they claim against.

I would be suggesting Goldenblue be removed from using such a resource as Wikipedia, as they have shown they are interested in nothing more than to cause trouble, the history of both pages as mentioned above will prove this without anything else needed to be said.

Matthew

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siamese_Fighting_Fish"

[edit] Categories related to Pakistan

Fast track (talk · contribs) has made a lot of apparently unilateral edits to categories relating to Pakistan. I would appreciate some help trying to unpick what should be where, some of this might require admin privs and/or a bot hence I'm asking here. Thryduulf 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

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

User:☁ 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 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW vandal. Block correct... leaving this up for other admins to see. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Move reverted. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that is a sweet username. —Khoikhoi 15:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In Firefox it appears as a heart shape, but when I first saw it in Opera... I thought there was some speck of dirt on my monitor. :-) Kimchi.sg 18:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd, to me it appears as a blob in both Firefox and Opera. And why are we whispering? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes make my digressions small. :-) Kimchi.sg 03:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a cloud. Prodego ^talk 22:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw we put the image of a cloud back on his user page. I like it. I'm sure there is nothing that says you can only have the indef block template there. --waffle iron ^talk 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage vandal

I have permanently blocked HansAlfons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - does nothing but vandalism of user pages. - Mike Rosoft 13:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't indef blocking a little extreme? He's only got four edits. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocking vandal only accounts is pretty common, but I agree in this case it could be seen as a little harsh, as the vandalism wasn't extreme (bad, but I've seen far worse). Maybe try a shorter block then indef block if continues vandalising after that? Petros471 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a fairly new admin, so I don't know exactly what is the recommended procedure. (After all, I have just witnessed a block of Cliffpolite72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for vandalism of my user page and creation of an attack article Mike rosoft.) Feel free to reverse my block if you feel it's too harsh (after all this is why I am reporting it here), but I predict he won't come back except perhaps with a new account. - Mike Rosoft 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For a new account that has only produced vandalism, an indefinite block is not an extreme measure. After all, there's no useful edit history to be preserved. If the perpetrator decides to clean up his act, he can always create a new account or request an unblock on the old one. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I was just pointing out that it could be seen as a bit harsh, and suggested another possible course of action in similar situations. The block certainly wasn't out of order, and well within the realm of admin discretion, so don't worry about it :) Petros471 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in that I think indefinite blocking is the preferred method for dealing with new accounts that haven't done anything useful (and have done stuff that was destructive). --Cyde Weys 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Accounts that do nothing but vandalise articles, I warn and then give a 24 hour block just like (non-shared) IPs (the first time, that is). Accounts that do nothing but vandalise user pages get an immediate block from me as blatant sockpuppets. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:ChrisO's abuse of his adminship

Hi there - I would like to complain on a number of fronts about ChrisO - he has been less than helpful. When the trouble started, ihad a banner on my userpage proclaiming a particular viewpoint on a controversial moral issue. ChrisO kept deleting it, never explaining why - and he blocked me after a few re-uploads. Thankfully, User:Pgk told me of a page explaining what Wikipedia is not: many thanks to him for doing so, because now I understand what I did wrong. On a number of occasions, he has objected to me adding 'Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics/Content' stickers to various album covers. Also, after having seen a number of requests for it to be done [them here)], and going by correct English, rather than incorrect/colloquial 'American English' (which bears little resemblance to the real English language), I reversed the roles of the articles 'Train station' and 'Railway station' - they had previously had the content in 'Train station' and a redirect in 'Railway station.' For some time, my arrangement stayed, but then ChrisO, RexNL and Tawkerbot all came along and undid what I had done: why are these people not challenged? When I went to add some valid content to 'Railway station', I found that the <expletive deleted> that is ChrisO had protected it from all editing! Talk about an over-reaction... --RichardHarrold 13:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the station debate, I would suggest reviewing the Manual of Style, specifically the section entitled disputes over style issues. I don't know if your logical constitutes "substantial reason" for change. Isopropyl 14:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read your post and taken a look at the conflicts, and here's my opinion.

1. I can see even without looking through the history of your talk page that ChrisO attempted to explain why the image had been deleted, and he even gave you a link to WP:NOT a week before Pgk did. In fact, it appears to me he was the most helpful of various admins who deleted it, given that some of them never posted to your talk page at all, as far as I can tell.
2. As I understand it, album covers should not have Parental Advisory stickers because they are just that, stickers, not a part of the official album cover. In addition, there are copyright concerns related to altering copyrighted album covers and posting them in an altered state. In a case like this, the burden is on you to explain why album cover pictures on Wikipedia should have the sticker, and also to at least consider the copyright concerns.
3. If you'd like to avoid conflict as much as possible here (as any sane person would, I think), claiming that American English is "incorrect" and "bears little resemblance to the real English language" probably isn't a very good idea. In this case, as far as I can tell, neither Train station nor Railway station is particularly more correct than the other, but again, the burden falls on the person who wants to make the change. When you repeatedly change things back to your way rather than engaging in a discussion, protection is a likely result.

Hope I was able to help.-Polotet 14:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Read a little farther up on Talk:Train station; the discussion over the article's name has been going on for quite some time, and comments on that page alone about the title date to July 2004. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I think that article should be at station and the current contents of station should be at station (disambiguation). As normally understood, station implies a railway station, and a qualifier is added for anything else. The qualifier of railway / railroad / train station for stations is a recent and far from universal thing as far as I can tell. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To be fair (and I guess this isn't really the place for this discussion) station is also used fairly often in a transportation sense for bus, gas, and subway stations, and in other senses to describe television and radio stations. I don't really think the word "station" alone is much more likely to refer to the train variety than any of those.-Polotet 16:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another case where the two naming principles collide. Names of articles should be 1) at their most well known forumulation and 2) in the most accurate form. So, which do people type in more, when looking for the place the choo-choo stops, "station," "train station," or "railway station?" I think the middle one. Which is more accurate? Depends on where you are. Therefore I'd say "most common" wins. Geogre 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting way off topic here. The issue at hand is that (a) he has repeatedly been recreating images and templates that have gone through AfD/TfD and speedy deletion, even after I've explained why he shouldn't do this (the claim that it's not been explained to him is an outright lie); (b) he's been altering Fair Use images, which presents a copyright problem which I've pointed out once (not "on a number of occasions", which is another lie) after another user raised it; and (c) he's been creating POV forks by copying and pasting the contents from one article into another (viz. train station vs railway station, again even after I've explained why this isn't a good thing to do. The message he's posted to the top of his talk page sums up his attitude: "Chris - don't even bother adding a message, because I'm not listening..." Unfortunately this is just another instance of Aggressive Clueless Newbie Syndrome. Maybe it's time to start a Do not bite the administrators page... -- ChrisO 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was just lamenting a larger problem -- people not doing their redirects properly and the collision of our policies. As for the user himself, I tend to think all language bigots need to be sent to work in a soup kitchen so that they can learn that there are actual problems out there in the world. Geogre 10:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite blocks of IP addresses?

I have just noticed that 217.180.28.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked. It was my opinion that we don't normally block IP addresses indefinitely (except for open proxies), so I have reduced the block to 2 months. Is there anything I have missed? Was an indefinite block warranted here? - Mike Rosoft 14:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good example where contacting the ISP might be in order. JoshuaZ 14:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rex071404 has violated his ArbComm permanent ban on article John Kerry.

In direct violation of a prior permanent ban on editing the John Kerry article, Rex071404 (talk · contribs), the subject of 4 prior RfA's, has taken on the sockpuppet Merecat (talk · contribs) and in that guise, has willingly violated the ban.

None of his edits to the John Kerry article's edits are disruptive. However, according to the enforcement term of the hearing, Rex has violated the term that permanently banned him from editing the article.

Accordingly, as Rex has now been the subject of four separate ArbComm hearings and has willingly sockpuppeted to violate a remedy from the last one, I don't know of any more stringent remedy available at this point, leaving only a wide-scale, permanent ban from Wikipedia. I only feel comfortable saying so because the amount of time and effort that this user has drained from the development of dozens of what are almost exclusively political articles is a detriment to the Wikipedia project as a whole. Simply dismissing violations of the remedy of the ArbComm is a disservice to the ArbComm process and the users who participated in the process.

Note: I am compiling evidence of other term violations around disruptive editing, vote stacking, etc. - but this particular violation of remedy is important and should be considered apart from any claims of disruption or POV concerns.

'Merecat's edits to the John Kerry article are here: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]

• So even though Merecat's edits to John Kerry have not been disruptive, and even though Mackensen said "likely," not "confirmed," and even though the penalty specified by Arbcom is blocking for up to a week, you think he should be permanently banned. You wouldn't happen to be involved in any disputes with Merecat on any other articles, would you? Nahh, this is all about upholding policy. Thatcher131 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. In the words of Mackensen:

"Likely that he's also Rex071404. {...} I think you're safe at this point assuming that spam from Everyone's Internet == merecat/Anon Texan/et al (and yes, this is he). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)"' [38]

And despite the use of a sockpuppet (which is far more deceptive, destructive and indicative of bad faith than Rex just violating under his own name) I'd be okay with the minimum of a one week block per edit - meaning a ban of 20 weeks, and an extension of the permanent ban to any articles on which he has been found to be editing disruptively (again as per his standing ArbComm remedy). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If this even smells like Rex via checkuser, I too would support an indef ban. Enough. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 17:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there was no disruption to WP because of sock puppetry. It appears that the worst abuse was trying to get other editors involved in an AfD. Certainly nothing worth a permanent ban. RyanFeisling is currently in a RfC because of a disput with merecat. While it is obvious he wnats him banned, Merecats actions do not justify it. --Tbeatty 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You clearly are attempting to personalize this about me - a poor foil. Rex' own conduct is solely at issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If he had edited the Kerry article using a sockpuppet then a permanent ban is automatic, irrespective of content. He is not allowed to so much as change the location of a full stop in the article. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the enforcement states that if he violates the terms of the arbcom decision, he can be blocked for up to a week at a time, up to a year for multiple violations. Obviously there were multiple violations, but I don't think it's entirely fair to levy them all at once since the sockpuppetry is just now coming out. I'm going to block him for a week, and I suggest editors consider appealing to the arbcom to reopen his last case to consider the charges of circumventing the arbcom decision with sockpuppetry. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll inform the authors of the applicable RfAr's. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets used to circumvent bans, blocks and arbcom rulings automatically face indefinite blocks. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer (bots?)

I've noticed two IPs (67.82.57.203 (talk · contribs) and 71.226.173.214 (talk · contribs)) which are spamming user talk pages with links to hifriendddd.info. I am afraid there may be more. Anyone noticed these? And should the IPs be blocked? --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One more: 68.12.59.100 (talk · contribs). It should be noted that these IPs belong to three different cable modem providers (Comcast, Optimum, and Cox, respectively). --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One more: 67.168.202.174 (talk · contribs), belonging to Comcast. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One more: 65.191.73.60 (talk · contribs), belonging to RoadRunner. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One more: 69.27.67.24 (talk · contribs), belonging to Bristol, Virginia Utilities. --Nlu (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is requested to go on the spam blacklist - meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#hifrienddd.info --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed two more: 72.192.7.3 (talk · contribs) and 70.178.171.172 (talk · contribs). —Veyklevar 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights

I made an edit on 30 April and gave my detailed reasons on the talkpage. Since that time I have been reverted numerous times and subject to abuse. No one, including an administrator, has addressed my reasons. Instead, I have been subject to further abuse. I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this. Thanks. Mccready 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute, though the above user should probably be reminded not to comment so much on other users (and more on article content). --InShaneee 18:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that Mccready's version is not only syntactically superior to that to which sundry editors are reverting but is also appropriately neutral. Notwithstanding my preference for Mccready's version, though, and irrespective of what are surely good faith attempts on his/her part to justify his/her version on the talk page, where an addition is persistently reverted, especially by more than one (otherwise competent and esteemed) editor, it is likely appropriate that, even as one believes he/she has properly discussed the issue on the talk page, he/she nevertheless discuss further. It is, I understand, exceedingly hard for one to engage in such discussion where it appears that others are content to revert without discussion, but there appear to be willing participants on the article's talk page, enough such that a consensus version might be reached and the extant edit-warring might be ended. Joe 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is a content dispute. The issue is also an administrator refusing to discuss content and abusing me. Mccready 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is a relatively new user who has made around 500 edits to articles. He's been involved in conflict with a number of editors since he began here, regularly issuing threats to people who revert his edits. He has demanded apologies from Xtra, David Cannon, Jayjg, Pecher, Moshe, and me; has threatened to report Sethe and Justen for vandalism; has threatened Seth, Nortman, Ombudsman, and me with separate RfCs (for separate issues); has complained about me, I believe, four times on AN/I; has stalked me to four articles; and has been warned by at least three admins. I have diffs if anyone wants them. Examples of his problematic editing: he changed the intro of Trigger point to: "Trigger points have no basis in science. They are claimed by medical quacks to be hyperirritable spots in skeletal muscle ..." [39] His first sentence of Chiropractic was that it's a "religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer." [40] And he added to Animal rights that animal-rights activists "draw the line differently" between gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, red bread mold, and the mustard family. [41] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over the article's history and the editing conflict in general (which it is just that -- a content dispute). There have been no administrator powers used that are in dispute that I can tell and no need for another administrator's intervention; just seems another installment in Mccready's grudge against SlimVirgin. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 20:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the situation has moved beyond that. He has now threatened or demanded apologies from 11 editors that I'm aware of, and he's only been editing regularly since February. I forgot to mention that he'd had a very slight disagreement with FloNight (I mean very slight: all she did was politely disagree with him), and he not only turned up at her adminship nomination to oppose, but e-mailed several other editors he didn't know to do the same, e-mailing one of them six times apparently. [42] He does seem to be out to cause trouble, then presents himself as the victim when he succeeds. I wonder if an admin could perhaps have a word with him and keep an eye on the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, regardless of the longer term implication, in the short term he's clearly violated the 3RR at Animal rights. Someone who is so eager to wikistalk others to unrelated pages and report them for 3RR violations should be especially careful about their own reverts. I've blocked him for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User DivineShadow218 arguing.

Hello. In my opinion User:DivineShadow218 has overheated in Talk:Wii subsection 'Rename'. Users last comment "Just stating that I dont agree with your last sentance.DivineShadow218 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)" seems to be simply attracting 'flames'. User has not been in any way offensive before as far as I know. Debated point seems settled? but argument continues.. Could someone tell them to stop.etc. Thank you.HappyVR 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd admin behaviour (2)

Also see previous.

I was recently blocked for 100 days by PMA, who would later change it to 1 day after significant protest on my part. The only information I have gotten about this was his block summary, "POV pushing, article degredation, suspected sockpuppet." The only article edit I have made in the last week was one in the Cuba artile. Note that single article edit is over the same article as in the previous incident (see above link).

This Cuba dispute is getting out of hand, and I beg a non-political admin to come and help out. There are number of contributeres (including two very high-profile admins) using some unfortunate methods to get an anti-castro pov portrayed as npov in the Cuba article. (the issue over my block is whether or not the introduction should state "cuba is the only country in the hemisphere which is not a democracy" --Over a dozen people have suggested changing it to "not a liberal democracy" or "only single-party sate" or even discussing it later in the article!) Another individual who is currently blocked over the edit dispute is user:Cognition, although I am not fully familiar with his situation. Myciconia 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Schlong

Can someone who knows the process please propose this for deletion? It's just some non-notable band. Dysprosia 04:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been marked for deletion, and the votes have been unanimous DELETE (I feel like Mega Man while saying that) --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 05:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I speedeleted it as a non-notable band. Next time you see a band that is not notable under WP:MUSIC guidelines, put {{db-band}} on the top of it. JDoorjam Talk 07:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Aaarrggh, NO. WP:MUSIC isn't a speedy criteria. Check that there isn't an assertion of notability. You can use CSD A7 if there isn't, otherwise AFD or PROD. Leithp 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obnoxious behavior by SPUI

On the Interstate 75 article consensus has been reached that the infobox should read 'in Hialeah' for the souther terminus. User SPUI has made numerous (well over half a dozen I beleive) reverts to the article changing it back to 'near Miami', and has made abusive comments towards others who have reverted it back. TimL 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also for being such a contributor for roads.. he really has a knack for screwing things up. drumguy8800 - speak 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is probably as good a time as any to mention that SPUI is once again attempting to move hundreds of pages[43], without attempting to gain consensus for the moves and despite being specifically warned not to. --phh (^t/_c) 02:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI can be a big bloody pain in the arse, and his methods have received some critisicm, but everytime I see someone uninvolved enter into the fray it's the same story: "Don't be a dick, but I agree with the move/smaller template/that sixteen year olds are sexy/that ducks in prams must die/etc/etc." Different day, same story here.

1. Those page moves all look fine, and follow the naming conventions for other parenthetic disambiguators.
2. Calling that link a "warning" is a big stretch. It was localised by definition, not a blanket "Never ever do this again."

I'd encourage this to be worked out at the lowest level possible, and also advise that this "consensus" be worked on a bit more, because what's there on the I 75 talk page isn't it.

brenneman^{L} 07:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. I agree with some of what he wants to do too, but his chosen implementation method is to steamroll everyone else in order to get his way, including acting abusively to anyone who thinks that, gosh, maybe other editors should be allowed to participate in these decisions too. Believe it or not, this gets my back up just a bit—to the point where I even end up edit warring in defense of a position that I don't even agree with. I would add that when the assembled corps of administrators emits a collective yawn at SPUI's antics every time the subject comes up—as it does every few days, like clockwork—it sends a message that some people's actions and contributions are just naturally more valid than everyone else's, which is very alienating and is contrary to the principles upon which Wikipedia is supposedly founded.

Now, if you have any suggestions as to how this can be "worked out at the lowest level" other than attempting to talk about it, which hasn't worked, or mediation, which hasn't worked, or bending over backwards to give him every possible benefit of the doubt, which hasn't worked, or an RFC, which hasn't worked, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them. --phh (^t/_c) 16:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that opinion. I happen to disagree with him, but it's his attitude that really raises my ire.JohnnyBGood t c 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Just have to say that whilst i know almost nothing about the situation, i happened upon spuis user page by mere accident a few days back, and, this prompted me to take a close look. I don't understand how this User manages to stay here on Wikipedia. His own user page references a log of blocks and unblocks almost a full page long. Hello? Wikipedia is becoming a safe haven for what I call 2nd generation Trolls. These are the trolls that are clever enough to not technically violate enough rules to get tossed out. But they walk the thin line, intentionally, and cause grief for most of the people they come into contact with. Abusive people don't belong in a co-creative and co constructive environment. Once again i feel the need to urge; Wikipedia shouldn't be COMBAT.

by random i noticed this member for having an offensive, sexual communicating user page. I do not really believe edit/contribution as NPOV possible in this case. It is not suitable for public viewing. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Password reminders

I have just received over 70 requests to mail my new password. They were made by 146.145.148.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (who was just serving his one-week block for vandalism). What is the correct action to do? (I have changed my password back and increased the block to one month.) - Mike Rosoft 06:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to change your password back, since it has never changed. The new password generated is stored separately and doesn't become your password until you actually use it, so you can simply ignore these mails. --pgk^(talk) 06:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He did it once (I mean, 218 times) again - it seems to be some kind of a personal revenge against me. (For now, I have just semi-protected his user page to prevent him from vandalizing it, and reset his block.) - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I kept getting them from one particularly obnoxious user, so I put his email address in my email filter so I won't be seeing the emails any more. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needless destructive edit

Bmt86

• revert edit (twice), deleted data
• short article Matrix_(IT)
• has put it into hoax/afd without obvious inaccuracy.
• user page=non-existent

Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a hoax -- putting back hoax template, although Bmt86 shouldn't have re-PRODded. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bmt86 restored the discussion of that article, which says exactly nothing, and is unsigned. It is not related to the article. It does not show a will to understand policies. The term is used by different IT companies, and in mathematics. It is pointless to hoax it. It does not make sense to call removal of "discussion contribution", which is vandalism, vandalism. so-to-say "vandalizing vandalism". A Clear user page gives me edit rights. Bmt86 looks unable to check my user page forehand, or to contribute to the article in any way.

www.mathtutor.com/matrix.html Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK -- that's the first reference which is at all related to the description in the article. It's still being used as a synomyn for table, rather than the text Akidd dublin put in the article. (By the way, what's a "Clear user page". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK i have put it into the article. Hang on. It was there. A clear user page is one without extremist information, or, containing no information (an empty user page).

A software matrix is same (sense of meaning) as math matrix. see "array" (dictionary).

I do not see Bmt86 edits as making sense. Reports about own inability (see Matrix_(IT) discussion) do not belong here. It is allright to delete unrelated data. It is not really vandalizing vandalism. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

An incorrect anon comment is not vandalism, so deleting such from an article talk page is vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not see it an "incorrect anon comment", because its author basically says he does not understand much about the article. I could add this to (any) article i do not understand. This does not make sense, and it reads vandalism to me. I believed removing unrelated data, which has nothing to do with the article. Basically it gets a discussion about discussion, or a trial to push the effect button vandalism. I believe it is something different...the data was only able to produce comments like "I do not understand it too". I have seen this at other places (BBS). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TuzsuzDeliBekir block extended to indefinite

TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs) was just blocked for 48 hours for his seventh 3RR violation since January. This violation consisted of seven reverts [44]. However, there are other factors that influence my decision, tha major one being this: it came to my attention a couple of days ago that TuzsuzDeliBekir has been participating on a racist Turkish nationalist (anti-Semitic, anti-Armenian, anti-Greek) website coordination his POV warring with the banned user -Inanna- (talk · contribs) (banned for edit warring and racist attacks) and advocating "intimidation" of Khoikhoi (who she refers to as the "troublesome Jew"). The forum thread was removed when I filed a report with the site for violation of their terms of service (namely, hatred, racism, and harassment), but the full text can still be seen at User:Dmcdevit/"Wikipedia Sorunu" translation. And indeed, Inanna has been using dynamic IPs to attempt to intimidate Khoikhoi on his talk page for days now.

In response to his latest 3RR block, he left the following message [45], which included more harassment and accusations against Khoikhoi "When a Turkish editor comes and adds, then Khoi comes and sees it. Afterwards, he alerts all of his watchdogs...You can put a tag on Wikipedia like Sorry, because of Khoi, we are totally close to all turkish editors." and a promise to continue edit warring when he gets back: "Anyway, I will have a holiday then I will be back and revert the page again unless you will hear me." For relentless edit warring, using off-wiki forums for POV-coordination, racism, and harassment of other editors (which is carried out by his comments here), and even promising to keep edit warring when he gets back, I don't think he should be allowed back to Wikipedia, and I've extended the block to indefinite. Comments welcome. Dmcdevit·t 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him (48 hours) last week for 3RR violation. While blocked, he circumvented it from another IP [46]. Looking on his talk page now...I'm amazed to see two 3RR violations since last week. Such behavior, along with the evidence you cite, shows major disrespect for Wikipedia policy as well as violation of WP:NPA. I concur with the block. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that I caught him socking back in March and gave him a warning: [47]. Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I'm one of the users TuzsuzDeliBekir was revert warring with, I don't think I'm unbiased enough to comment (I'm one of what he refers to as "Khoikhoi's watchdogs"). However, I would advise deleting his userpage and deleting the photographs of himself he uploaded, for privacy reasons. This only of course if the permablock gains community consensus here or whatever the procedure is. Telex 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call. When we need an editor to share the "anti-Semite/anti-Armenian/anti-Greek Turk nationalist" point of view here on Wikipedia, we should find one that won't edit-war, use socks, evade blocks and harass users. Jkelly 21:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support - Will make a great indefinitely banned user. --Cyde Weys 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Concur — good precedent. --Moby 12:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheuspan's complaint against Strothra

Vandalism warning Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. --Strothra 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

---

My edits could only be construed as attacks in that they are cuttingly cogent, and that they are directly proportional to what is being thrown at me. Nothing I have said is an attack as such in that everything I have said is born out by a rational and cogent examination of the facts.

I am admittedly rather long winded at the rfc. I think thats fair considering that half the people there were summoned there by talk page spam. It seems to be up in the air wether this is legal or illegal. My understanding is that it is illegal. If it is legal, then please forgive my anger, I'll just get to work right away on spamming every mailbox on wikipedia i think is likely to be sympathetic to my side.

Strotha should recuse from any admin actions against me as strotha is biased, and attacked me first. In particular, the only things i said that could be construed as personal attacks against him were when he first attacked my educational credentials. The fact of the matter is, Strotha is either lying out of ignorance, or lying out of intention. To assume good faith is to assume that he really did read those articles, and, still failed to understand them well enough to try to bait me with a straw man argument. Prometheuspan 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have changed your section heading. In the future, please note that alarmist headers such as "request other admins attention immediately" are not neccessary. Remember, this is a noticeboard. Isopropyl 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit for which I made that vandalism tag was an edit which deleted a comment I made asking the complaining user to calm down and to stop making extreme bad faith assumptions while seriously attacking the integrity of other editors. I do not add vandalism and NPA tags lightly. --Strothra 23:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) STROTHA Said "You seem to never have even taken a grade school civics class.

You should read a book on how the U.S. federal system works - 

it's a good thing for every citizen to have at least some

familiarity with it. 
 + --Strothra 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 

---

I have not once made a personal attack against you. You, however, have made repeated personal attacks against me.

If you continue in this manner I will seek admin assistance 

against you. I was simply trying to explain to you a point of

constitutional law and procedure which you seem to not be familiar 

with but I am. I read the articles you cited. None of them are well written themselves or go in-depth into the subject matter. --Strothra 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC

---

None of them are well written themselves or go in-depth into the subject matter. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Two ad hominems, and I am the one that gets threats of banning and a bunch of pretty looking graphics. The only thing strotha got was a mirror and a hyperbole. If any admin has a problem with that, then they only have strotha to blame for attacking prometheuspan in the first place. You seem to have mistaken me for somebody who doesn't have a good handle on formal logic, and as somebody who is easy prey for you to manipulate with fear and threats. I'm not that person. Back off before i get really wordy about it. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am attacking the integrity only at this point of merecat, and strotha. These people have demonstrated bad faith through the use of manipulation, ad hominems, and other rules violations which nobody seems responsible enough around here to ketch.

Theres an interesting note on my talk page. Somebody is now using my words to start shooting down Wikipedia. I think thats unfortunate, and i think they are taking what i am saying out of context. However, I expect people <Admins> to start listening to me, and for the manipulations and con games and rule breaking to be attended to, or i might end up saying more things that somebody might use to defame Wikipedia, and that would be unfortunate. I have the gift for fire of the tongue. I also make a good research assistant. Wikipedians gmaing the system, breaking the rules, using ad hominem attacks, and underhanded manipulations are making the system broken. This is a test of Wikipedias integrity, and I reserve the right to be the final judge. I also resent being put in the position of verbal combat in the first place, because yes, I am good at it, and no, its not fun and i don't enjoy it, and i'd rather be cooperating with people to build something; "The best encyclopedia ever." My comments as a whole are neutral; I have even in some peoples minds given the deletionists "ammo" by admiting that the article in question is biased. Let me be even more clear. The article is a factual article written in neutral language about a noteworthy topic. Period. Logically, there is no bias in the logic per sey. In order to conform to WIKIPEDIAS NPOV standards, the article still needs its MPOV defense Echo. Instead of using a pov driven mob to delete the article, fix the article. And quit giving me flack about my factual evaluations of people. If i call somebody a liar thats because they lied. If i call somebody to be acting in bad faith, its because a series of ad hominems and straw men arguments have logically demonstrated that to be fact. Strotha does do what he does lightly; strotha uses his position as a shield and then attacks. I'll assume good faith with anybody who continues to act in good faith. I'll not assume good faith for people who through their actions demonstrate that they are just republican pack psychology mob members. If that is a problem with Wikipedias admins, then Wikipedias problems are bigger than I or anyone can resolve. To some degree, Wikipedia DOES owe its fealty to THE FACTS, not the form of false consensus that is created when people operating in bad faith initiate a bad faith VFD and then vote stack. And certainly not the facts according to Strotha; who is willing to attack me to get a reaction and then play the poor innocent victim. Prometheuspan 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse: User:InShaneee

First she sent me a message in my talk page: [48] saying i committed a PA and accusing me of racism and spreading hatred! I responded emotional in the Persian people talk page: [49] because of User:Aucamans vandalizing of that article and his SPAMing to more than 50 users that Persians are a mixed race and so on. When i responded to that message in her talk page: [50] saying that it is neither acceptable to accuse users of racism and spreading hatred and that even administrators have to follow the ruels. She did not take that well, she kept sending me warning messages for every little thing she found on me. First she refered to this talk page: [51] stating that i have committed another PA! Later she sent this exact message: I'm warning you again, do not attack other users as you have here [52] and do not continually revert the edits of other users either. Thus she clearly toke sides with User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I had previously reported that very same user for vandalism because he kept reverting that very same article the word well-known eminent to distinguished stating that they came to an agreement in the talk page, which they did not and he is clearly lying. She then sent this exact message in my talk page: accusing other users of being 'liars' and calling anything you don't agree with 'vandalism' is uncivil obviously because i said in the talk page that moshe have lied about they coming to an agreement. Shanee constantly sent warnings even after i did not touch one page, and i kept answering her that i will not respond to her threaths and injustice and that she can go ahead and block me, then i will report her for abusing her powers. Here is what she said later in my talk page: You can report me to whomever you like. Again i did not even touch one page at that point, the only thing i did was keep sending her the very warning messages she sent me, that i will report her for abuse of power and taking sides. She sent me a so called final warning, after i replied she blocked me and sent this message: Regarding this [53] and others: You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. I don't care how many times she will harass, threathen and block me, i am not going to give up my rights as a user and a human. It is ironic that she used the word "civility" so often while she herself acted in this highly uncivil manner. --Darkred 06:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Support admin action, you were definitely in the wrong. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:43 UTC (2006-05-05)

• Endorse per NSLE. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I am the third abakharev 09:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I also support InShaneee's actions, which (as far as I can tell) are fully reasonable and justified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support InShanneee--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• I absolutely support InShaneee, (who I'd assumed, because InShaneee's name is "Shane", is a guy. But whatever). I'm amazed at the patience InShaneee has demonstrated trying to maintain some modicum of order on pages related to Persia -- kudos. JDoorjam Talk 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse my masculinity as per JDoorjam. :) --InShaneee 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Shane can be either a male or female name, but both Shane McGowan and Shane the famous western book/movie character are male. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey! Let's not give any confused parents the impression that what they're doing is right! :P --InShaneee 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well all i can say is if you actually support that kind of abuse and uncivil behavior then you are no different than her. --Darkred 17:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Did not take one day, she sent another warning message. And of cource i wished her good luck with her threaths and blocks. :) --Darkred 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse: User:Friday

Apparently he found this message: [54] rude and blocked me. I had sent the in response to user shanees two more warning threaths regarding the Frye article. (The frye article which i explained before is about two users now, moshe and bridesmill constantly changing the word eminent to distinguished even after coming to an ageement to take out well-known but let eminent be, then when i change back i get blocked! lol. There is really nothing more to be said, except if Wikipedia is solely run by people like these then it's a wonder how it's still running. :) --Darkred 19:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You told User:InShaneee, who's doing a valiant job trying to mediate Persia-related issues, that you were going to ignore his warnings to you about your blatant, repeated violations of policies. Then, after being blocked for incivility and what essentially amounts to a promise NOT to listen to the policy guidance of an administrator, you've come to AN/I to attack InShaneee again, as well as another administrator. Try editing with a level head, and Wiki policies held in the fore. If you continue to ignore policies and attack editors, you'll find yourself blocked a lot longer than 24 hours. :) JDoorjam Talk 20:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Darkred, I'm not sure that you've given a fair description of the fracas at Talk:Richard Nelson Frye. Those who want the background could go to that article and look at the last week's worth of discussion. Zora 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Darkred's continued insistence on referring to both InShanee and Moshe as women ([55]), after politely being told that both are male ([56] and above), seems also to be intended as some kind of sexist slur. Lukas ^(T.|@) 20:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking this user for one week, seeing as how as soon as his previous block expired he again swore to ignore all previous and future warnings leveled against him, continued to tell other users that they are vandals and will be ignored, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is referring to editors as females as an insult. If anyone feels this is unfair (or that a longer block is warranted), feel free to adjust it. --InShaneee 20:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, someone else already blocked him for two weeks. I'll defer to his judgement. :) --InShaneee 20:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I have found this whole situation quite confusing. The very first article where I ran into him was the Richard Nelson Frye article where he immediately began hurling insults at me. I tend to try to be civil, and although I sometimes lose my temper I must say that my patience here has been exemplary. I didn't even report his obsessive behavior until well after it began, and when he stated that he was going to report me for "vandalism" I even instructed him how (admitedly I only did so because I assumed it would not be taken seriously).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another likely VaughanWatch Sock

GoinHome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) moved a warning put by User:Thryduulf[57] on the Deletion review page which explained that the GH account was created after the DV started. GoinHome moved the warning to underneath my comment[58], obviously in a bid to discredit me, as the VaughanWatch gang has been known to do on numerous occasions. Not to mention that over half of this users edits have been on this deletion review. I guess that makes it 53 now. pm_shef 01:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment was moved for formatting purposes. The deletion review is messy. GoinHome 03:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This section was deleted by GoinHome earlier in an edit marked "moved per request", but seems merely to have been deleted. David Oberst 05:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This user committed three specific recent acts of vandalism (or two, with the second repeated twice): namely [59] and [60][61], and has now been blocked. He also posted some bizarre personal attack comments: [62]. Most of his edits to non-Vaughn topics seem to be trivial or null edits mostly for the purpose of inflating edit count (eg, [63]), which was also a pattern with some of the other sockpuppets, as well as an unexplained apparent wikistalking revert of one of Pm shef's edits [64]. -- Curps 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• If it matters, he's also Wikistalking me, per this diff.

• Also, he seems to be trying to avoid his block with Goinhome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - pm_shef 19:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amorrow again

Hi, I wonder if we could get a few more pairs of eyes on this situation. Banned user Amorrow - about whom Jimbo said (second post in thread) "block on sight, revert on sight" - has been active again in the last couple of days. The pages he's hitting are Talk:Brian Peppers, Gregor MacGregor, Brian MacKinnon and especially Talk:Tom Leykis. He's been editing from IPs such as:

• 71.139.160.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.141.21.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.141.29.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.141.21.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.139.197.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.139.172.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.139.200.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.141.10.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.139.180.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

...and I probably missed at least one or two. Any help keeping up with reverting and blocking these IPs would be very much appreciated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Akso Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal - Nunh-huh 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Range block or would there be collateral damage? It's time like these when CheckUser would help. --Cyde Weys 07:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, none of these accounts seems to have been used by anyone but Amorrow. I don't know whether than means a range block is safe; it's a pretty big range. How does he hop IPs like that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's only used less than a dozen of the IPs out of the 71.139.x.x and 71.141.x.x ranges. Unless you want to check the other tens of thousands of IPs manually, we'll need someone with CheckUser. The IP hopping is basic DSL or dial-up type stuff ... everytime you reconnect you get a new IP address from a huge pool of available IPs. --Cyde Weys 07:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow's editing this page right now, please rv on sight. I just reverted a couple of edits of a predictable character by 71.139.xx IPs to the "Alkivar phone number vandal" above. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC).

If range blocking, use care not to specify the ranges overbroadly. According to ARIN, the ranges are

• 71.139.160.0/19
• 71.139.192.0/20
• 71.141.0.0/19
• 71.141.32.0/19 (according to ARIN, though not yet used?)

These should be used, rather than overbroad /16 ranges implied by 71.139.*.* and 71.141.*.*

-- Curps 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never been able to figure out or find a satisfactory explanation of what that notation means - what range of IP addresses is specified by "71.139.160.0/20"? If this is an overly stupid question, I'll be happy with a trout-slap and link. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more or less explained in m:Range blocks. But the main thing is, when blocking you can enter IP ranges as well as merely IP addresses, so you can just enter 71.139.160.0/19 into the appropriate input field (and then redo it for 71.139.192.0/19 and 71.141.0.0/19 as applicable). -- Curps 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See CIDR for the explanation. --cesarb 19:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. I generally understood that it specified a range, and that I could block a whole range at a time, but as a mathematician, I just needed to know that the number on the other side of the slash was a power of 2, so 71.139.160.0/20 actually means 71.139.160.0 through 71.139.175.255... huh, should that /20 be a /19 or a /18, to cover all the IP addresses he's editing from? GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, May 7, 2006

The initial 71.139. range I gave was too narrow, it's modified above. -- Curps 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is sheer vandalism

Some person bearing username Mastersofworld has edited or i must say vandalize my user page, has removed my email id and put his/her email id, now can i ask the moderators what action u are going to take against this vandalism, and do let me know if is there any way to protect my user page from being vandalise again.

amit_jain_online ^{(t a l k)} 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you already reverted. The account that made the edit has only made that one, and it was pretty harmless, so I've given the user a {{test}} message. If he keeps making bizarre edits, then he can be blocked.

By the way, are you sure you want to put your email on your userpage? Anything you post on your userpage has very high visibility on the Internet, due to the number of Wikipedia mirrors, and it can easily be picked up by spambots. If the 'Email this user' button on the left is too obscure for you, I would recommend either putting a special link to it on your userpage (e.g. "Click here to email me") or at least bowdlerising your address, e.g. "amit_jain_online at yahoo dot com". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assessment of "pretty harmless". If it had somehow gone unnoticed, people could be sending email to the vandal thinking they were sending to User:amit_jain_online. I can think of all sorts of bad things which could result. That's beyond what we normally call vandalism: it's attempted identity theft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Sorry. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the advice, will follow it amit_jain_online ^{(t a l k)} 19:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Kennedy

I've moved this from WP:AIV. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Patrick J. Kennedy has made the news recently. New information is being added to this article at a fast and furious rate, however, there is also a lot of vandalism from numerous editors. I do not feel the page needs to be protected, but I do feel that it needs a close eye on it. Thanks! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tahitian Noni

Tikiwikiriki turned the Tahitian Noni article, as well as the Noni, Mangosteen, and XanGo articles, into ads for what seems to be a MLM scam. When I stumbled on his scheme, I removed the advertising in all those articles. He is aggressively restoring it at the Tahitian Noni page, marking his reverts as minor edits. I left a message at his talk page, which is being ignored. Help please. I dont' think anyone here wants WP to become a resource for multi-level marketing. Zora 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the User:Tikiwikiriki for constant revert wars on this series of articles as being disruptive and blatantly promotional spamdumping. JDoorjam Talk 18:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

for how long time ? Redecke 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspamming and possible malware

This anonIP 201.51.176.238 is adding links to a great many geographical articles. The link goes to a page saying that you must download and install a program to see a 3-D globe. This is probably legit, but it could be malware. It also seems like spamvertising, and unnecessary, given that Google Earth exists. Could we have all this user's edits rolled back? He/she/it has contributed nothing aside from this linkspam. Zora 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the anon's on a dynamic IP, it seems that they're attempting to spam all the country articles. I've reverted their edits, but doesn't really have a major effect on this person. I've listed them on WP:AIV anyhow. —Khoikhoi 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Previously blocked as user:201.51.188.28. can we add the site to the spam blacklist? -Will Beback 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. —Khoikhoi 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet block

I've given Centaursports (talk · contribs) an indefinite block per this edit to the user page of an account indef-blocked by Curps for "WoW-style vandalism". Please feel free to review. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User requested unblock; claimed the two accounts were being used for "harmless fun" with each other. Denied. Again, feel free to review. RadioKirk talk to me 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it really make sense for you, the admin who blocked, to also be the admin to review his unblock request? Why don't you let someone else do that. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail was sent to me; but, you're right. :) RadioKirk talk to me 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent nonsense vandalism by IP address

User:209.105.197.49 contributions is persistently vandalizing the Sudbury Wolves article (Playoff Section), and recently the Rivière Veuve, Ontario stub, and the Greater Sudbury, Ontario article. Could someone please explain how to prevent this? Thanks. Flibirigit 21:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's a clear-cut case of obvious vandalism, you should report the user on WP:AIV. Isopropyl 21:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Since a repeat vandal, I've given three warnings (to t4) at once. If user does it again, take to WP:AIV, please. :) RadioKirk talk to me 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

They did it again. I've blocked for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] User:24.144.84.178.

This seems to be a registered user account, not an anon IP. Does this on its own justify a username block? Failing that, do the contributions justify an indefinite block?

For reference: 24.144.84.178. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

We should also be careful of the same person or others using this trick to try and appear as an IP (i.e. trying to avoid indef blocks). Petros471 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked an an imposter. 24.144.84.178 (talk · contribs) is probably Jimbo's IP (see its contribs). Prodego ^talk 22:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Incorrect

This user's name pretty much sums up their attitude- that Wikipedia is incorrect and must be corrected to fit this persons non neutral POV. Just about every one of their contributions is uncivil, consists of personal attacks or violations of WP:NPOV Special:Contributions/Incorrect. One example of their contributions on List of British Jews: (referring to an Australian) "So the offspring of felons and his chief groupy have ganged up on valid editors to destroy their work; this felon and his co-conspirator have decided that they know more than the Jewish Year Book; in the real world the two of them would be in jail for offenses against humanity.". Arniep 23:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be showing slight signs of learning civility: [65], maybe give the user another day or two? JoshuaZ 23:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that was because they realised that I was "on their side" in relation to a certain article, I highly doubt that their behaviour towards people who they perceive are on the opposing side to them will change, another of their recent efforts:

""To call Castro a dictator and Che Guevera a serial killer is not vandalism, but a mere statement of fact. By reversing those edits you are showing your self to be a supporter of murderers and communists who is unconfortable with the truth. I will begin to review your other edits to see what else you have incorrectly edited to bring back objectivity and truthfullness to those pages."[66]

Arniep 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, more Thought Police out to "get dirt" on people. It all sounds so... so... familiar! (I'm not in favor of wikilove going to wikigullible in cases like that.) Geogre 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked by SlimVirgin for 48 hours for disruption and abuse. Very reasonable. Bishonen | talk 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Personal attacks continue from ThNik following block

It seems that the personal attacks and edit warring behavior of ThNik have continued following the expiration of his/her block, instituted May 4. The latest occurrence of this behavior was on my talk page (see talk:SchuminWeb&diff=prev&oldid=51925771 this revision, which I have since reverted), where ThNik not only made a string of personal attacks, but also left what could be construed as a threat, with his message of "TOUCH MY SHIT AGAIN AND YOULL LEARN WAHT IT MEANS TO TOSS A SALAD FAT NERD FUCKING TROLL PIECE OF SHIT ASSWIPE".

In response to this most recent incident, I have placed {{Npa3}} on User talk:ThNik. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely for talk:SchuminWeb&diff=prev&oldid=51925771 this. It has made few if any useful contributions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin abuse - William M. Connolley

Is it standard proceedure to permanently block a user for a single copyvio, when the user is not well versed in the copyvio polciy? The user did not add the copyvio to the article in the first place either, he only unknowingly brought it back when he posted an old version of the article, and he did this only once. Since when do you admins accept any permanent ban handed out to inexperienced, non-disruptive users? This is admin abuse. Please correct it.

To add a little context/perspective to this User:William M. Connolley deleted the copyvio and add the following message in it's own subsection on the article talk page : "I've deleted this thing, again, as a copyvio. Don't paste in copyright text unless you want to get banned". User:Fungible then restores the copyvio and adds the following message to the talk page "If not why are so many of Chartock's supporters trying to delete his history? Also, how can you delete on a copyright vio when it was Chartock himself who first created the entry and put that link in? Nice try, fellas, but everything's been restored. Deal with it!". --pgk^(talk) 10:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your quote of Fungible just shows that he is new and did not know the copyvio policy. He was in the middle of an edit war and may have thought Connolley was warring against him on the other side. A permanent block would not be given for a 3rr or non-civility on this article. The length of the block is unreasonable. On his talk page, Fungible has asked for a deletion review of the article. Please help. He needs a mentor and advice, not a permanent block. The media is watching this article in New York state, please don't abuse blocking policy.

As you say the quote shows he was quite happy to edit war and ignore warnings. Rather than jumping up and down shouting admin abuse he should email the blocking admin as described in the block message and resolve the issue. --pgk^(talk) 13:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Original poster: please sign your comments by typing four tildes, ~~~~, or typing some indication of who you are. I was going to add the {{unsigned}} template to your posts, but I can't face sifting through the history of this super-busy page to figure out who's talking. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

FWIW, I've unblocked Fungible just now, on the off chance of good behaviour William M. Connolley 13:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I apollogise for not assuming good faith, Mr. Connolley.. I am concerned that your statement "on the off chance of good behaviour" may also show a lack of AGF too. Once this article is re-created, the edit warriers on both sides will come out fighting, and the New York media will be watching how we handle it. We should be carefully to make sure the article is balanced with both pro and con information included. Please put it on your watchlist and treat both sides fairly. Thank you. (PS, I am not one of the editors involved on either side of the edit war) 205.188.116.65 15:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If they come out fighting, they will get blocked for it William M. Connolley 16:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the involved partys are going to see your warning here. I ask any admin to help mediate Alan Chartock once re-created, and also WAMC - see the talk page. Why can't we mediate up front if we know the war will start again? Thanks.

[edit] Immediate indef block and deletion of edit necessary.

See [67]. Is user's only edit. JoshuaZ 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Three of us banninated at around the same time. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, and Curps reverted. I would still suggest a quick deletion/restoration of the article to remove the edit from the history (especially since its presence is very blatant, the personal info is included in the edit summary itself). JoshuaZ 06:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the editor did the same thing here [68] under a different screen name. There may be more copies. JoshuaZ 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, same thing at Global Warming as User:NOD (edit now deleted). Guettarda 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that seems to be all of them, but someone still needs to delete the Clinton edit. JoshuaZ 06:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Will tackle the Clinton one. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hong Kong (PRC)

(procedural note) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, probationary page bans are issued at Template:Hong Kong (PRC) for edit warring over a trivial matter: Instantnood is banned for two weeks, SchmuckyTheCat is banned for one week.--Jiang 06:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

See also the arguments presented at the discussion at user talk:Jiang and WP:AN/3RR. — Instantnood 09:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant Scottfisher sock

User:ScottFisher has popped up. Patently same as User:Scottfisher. But I am prepared to believe his claim that he took all the images he has (so far) uploaded. -- RHaworth 07:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute at common.css

Hi everybody. I'd like to point you towards the common.css talk page in which a dispute is going on at the "Please revert "resizing of footnotes by CSS"" paragraph (the debate is also going on, less actively, at the Village Pump (Technical)).

To summarize what happened: a request was made to make an addition to the common.css file that brings the font size of all references down to 90%. When the change was made, only two people were in favor of it, and they were the only ones who had commented. The admin made the change very early before waiting for dissenters to show up in order to find out if there were any at all (to quote the admin who made the change, R._Koot: "The best way to see wath the opinion of the community is would be to change it and see what the reactions are." - quoted from the common.css talk page).

Right after the change was made, a lot of people indeed did show up to dispute the change. There are now two large discussions going on about it. A lot of people disagree with the change and feel that the consensus-seeking community has been avoided in the making of this decision. While it's true that it's not uncommon for admins to be bold in making changes, I feel that since now it's been established that there is no consensus on this change, it should be reverted. A previous discussion on the matter also ended in no consensus.

I feel as though this dispute has gone on for long enough now, and that it's been established that this is not what the community wants (regardless of the actual reasons provided by either party). I hope that an admin will have time to look into this matter soon. —Michiel Sikma, 10:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the dispute originally started at the talk page of Footnotes. —Michiel Sikma, 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be reverted. I wondered why some page's references were suddenly very small. Now I know why. The css change is combining with the habit of some editors to use div tags to reduce the font sizes on a per-article basis and the lovely "synergy" results in unreadable references. --Cyde Weys 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the issue was taken care of. Thanks for your attention! —Michiel Sikma, 05:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism User:Fitzy101

Pure vandalism in the Osama Bin Laden thread. Needs immediate block. User edits.--Jersey Devil 10:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Uploaded a series of copyvio images too, now deleted.--MONGO 10:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rex/merecat/spam/cellphone

216.239.38.136 (talk · contribs) [69]--64.12.116.65 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism User:goldenblue

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus_fish

goldenblue is on a crusade to remove several sites that have been listed on Wikipedia for several years for no other reason than to promote his own website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.48.49 (talk • contribs)

Holy 9RR violation Batman! Might I suggest discussing the link on the article's talk page before engaging in a massive revert war over one single link. As it is, about 8 reverts have occured from both sides in the last HOUR. Metros232 14:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked both for 3h for WP:3RR. For future ref, WP:AN/3 is the place to report this stuff William M. Connolley 14:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unblocking Lou franklin

Lou seems to be permanently autoblocked. i've lifted the autoblock on his ip- 66.30.208.149- three times, inshanee has done it once, and i also tried blocking the ip for one minute to see if that would clear it. but none of it seems to have taken; whenever he tries to edit, the autoblock pops back up. Anyone have any idea how to clear this up? --heah 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just cleared another autoblock. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And i cleared another one . . . I blocked lou franklin (username, not ip) for one minute, and that seems to have cleared up the autoblock; he is able to edit now. (for better or for worse . . . ) --heah 16:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Duncharris editing protected template inapropriately

Duncharris (talk · contribs) has editing the protected {{British TOCs}} template while it is protected. It was protected because of his actions and unwillingness to discuss things civily on the talk page (in contrast to everyone else with an opinion).

Although disucssion on the talk page has somewhat fizzled out, the last position was that neither side felt there was consensus (as Duncharris has claimed), but that the compromise version should remain until there was. Everyone else is also agreed that a general discussion 2 years previously is not relevant to the dispute about this template - although Duncharris either doesn't understand or refuses to accept this. He has also edit warred over which articles should have the template to try and impose his POV.

I request that an uninvolved administrator revert Duncharris' edits to the template back to the last version for which there was consensus. More input into the disucssion would also be welcome. Thryduulf 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forthcoming vandalism?

Could I ask people to keep an eye on Office of International Treasury Control for a bit? I've just created an NPOV version of the article following a review of the deletion of the extremely biased OITC fraud article (see #Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article above). Given the extremely peculiar goings-on concerning that article and related articles, I fully expect the new article to be vandalised, so it would be useful if people could drop it in their watchlists for a while. -- ChrisO 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created OITC as a redirect to the new article - eyes on this would also be beneficial. Thryduulf 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-evolution related vandalism in Horse

Some anon, or anons, have been vandalizing Horse, by removing phrases like "54 million years ago" from sections on how horses evolved, leaving incomplete sentences. All such edits have no comments and are from anons. Suggest watching for similar activity in other popular animal articles. --John Nagle 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bondstars

New user Special:Contributions/Bondstars has created a lot of movie people stubs. They are all copyvios from http://www.bondstars.com/ but presumably their creator has granted themselves permission to copy and since they are inoffensive bio stubs, it seems a waste of time deleting them. -- RHaworth 18:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot assume that permission has been granted. It must be explicitly stated somewhere - ideally on all the talk pages of the articles concerned. If there is a lot of them it might be worth creating a template saying something like "This article incorporates material from bondstars.com. Content on that site is copyright [whoever owns the copyright], however the inlcuded material has been released under the GFDL by its creator [link]. Any other material copied from that site without further explicit permission of release under the GFDL is a copyright violation and will be removed from Wikipedia without warning". Thryduulf 18:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's some advertising concerns to look at here, too. The user's userpage is a straight-up advertisement for his website, and I'd question the notability of a lot of the actors in those stubs. --InShaneee 18:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. The website actually states its purpose: to take advantage of Bond films' popularity and act as a repository for those involved who wish to market "genuine handsigned [sic] merchandise". This violates WP:EL#Links to normally avoid #s 2 and 3. To use your own copy from your website in a Wikipedia article I would think would be to circumvent the appearance of a spam link by using prose instead; this would violate #9. As for notability, Alan Hume might not qualify even as a "Bond star", let alone for a Wiki article. RadioKirk talk to me 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass blog link-spamming from User:69.160.112.131

Hi. It looks like User:69.160.112.131 has spammed personal blog links to a large number of articles. He has been warned three times for spam now. Does this warrant a block? --Takeel 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of a ton of linkspam, but he hasn't done any past his last warning, so I wouldn't do anything just yet. --InShaneee 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind keeping an eye on the contributions of User:69.160.112.131? --Takeel 19:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wittydw- persistant copyvio

This editor insists on adding material to Celebrity Fit Club that has been taken directly from itv.com. The page has been reverted many times, and the editor has been asked to stop. 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Stopped for now, and I've removed an incivility. If it continues, user needs to be duly warned with {{test}} templates. RadioKirk talk to me 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal hoarding

I am, admittedly, having a content dispute with User:Brianbeck on this article. As it stands, it makes a gross generalization which tries to claim that all people who hoard animals have the same motivations, the same methods, and the same results. I've added the pov tag to it, and asked on the Talk page that it be rewritten to make it less an attack and more of a descriptive. But Brianbeck keeps removing the pov tag and refuses to make any changes. I don't really know how to change the article without completely deleting a lot of what's there, but repeated removal of the pov tag without any consideraton is, in my opinion, vandalism, but since I'm involved in the dispute, I won't be blocking Brianbeck. How should I proceed? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Netpari

Despite its name, this is not a User page. No edits have been made from this page. It's redirected to by User:Salmaakbar, who is the actual User. Should this page be removed, if Salmaakbar doesn't want to change his/her User name? The use of this page as if it were a real User page is misleading, at best. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It definatly doesn't belong in the main space. I'd recommend deleting it. --InShaneee 00:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't 'user pages for users that don't exist' a speedy criterion? Is there any reason why such a userpage would need to exist? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone just took her username and started editing with it ( Netpari (talk · contribs) ). Here's a situation I've never seen before. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's Salmaakbar's fault for not actually registering the Netpari account. Whoever has registered it now is undoubtedly the real owner of that username. Looks like Salmaakbar is forced back to using his own userpage and talk page. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse from trolls of the Rajput Arbcom case

I am facing harassment from trolls connected to the Rajput page, which was recently in Arbcom. User:Partha rathore is another throwaway account which reverted me on Rathore and called me stupid on this edit summary on 04/May, in response to which I gave him a "test2" message. Now he has left abuse on my user-page, abusing my father in Hindi and calling me some other crude names. He then reverted my past several edits, and did the usual revertion of Rajput. He is almost certainly User:Shivraj Singh, some (but not all) of whose socks are included here. I request that he be permabanned. Regards, ImpuMozhi 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song)

This was the most difficult close I've had to handle so far. I won't repeat my reasoning for closing as 'delete' rather than 'no consensus' - WP:DRV will decide if I made the right decision. However, the article has already been recreated once at El Condor pada (see AfD which I closed early under CSD G4), and I have received what may be a veiled threat to recreate it again:

• Myself: "If you want the article undeleted WP:DRV is the only forum where that will happen."
• BabaRuga: "Dont be so sure."

Please watch out for further recreations. Dzoni (talk · contribs) has also posted copy-and-paste messages on many user talk pages about the last recreation and the new AfD that was initiated - see [70] [71] [72] and others. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice about this - The admin has clearly blatantly violated the policies, as there was no concensus at all (in fact majority of vote was keep). Since he mentions the comment "dont be so sure" as refering to possible recreation of the article, that is clearly not what that comment meant. It meant that the complaint will go about his ABUSE of adminship, rather than about the article itself - I am much more concerned about the blatant and shameless violation of AfD process than about the article itself. So, Samuel Blanning's abuse will be reported on the apropriate place, and the relevant community, that have interest in this, will have opportunity to comment. Why there is AfD process at all if people, who possibly have grudge against editors of certain nationality and/or POV, can abuse it in such blatant ways. User Dzoni might care about the article (as do many other users, to a lesser extent), but the people who care about abuse are much more numerous. It will not pass just like that. Article is not the main issue, but the abusive, arogant behavior agains all wikipedia policies of the (self-proclaimed) rogue admin S. Blanning is not to be tolerated. His hasty decision will certainly have to be justified against the weight of those who he has been abusing. BabaRera 01:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

BabaRear has created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not simply a vote count. It is a discussion of the pros and cons of the article. If an article doesn't assert the notability of in this case a song, and no proof of notability is provided during the AfD, it is within the admin's discretion to delete the article, even if the votes don't add up to a delete. In this particular AfD, I note two things: 1. No proof of notability of the song is provided during the AfD. The article contains one dead link and two geocities-level (i.e. not very reliable) websites. The only proof given during the AfD is proof by blatant assertion, and wikipedia needs more proof than just that. 2. Several users engaged in voter canvassing to skew the consensus, by targetting selected users hoping that they would vote a certain way. In view of this, closing the AfD as delete is well within the discretion of Samuel Blanning. Threatening to recreate to the article without going through Deletion Review also does not speak in favour of the users making the threat. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 08:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And now it's recreated at El kondor pada. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

User:WzOzW 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 07:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels messing about in the wikipedia namespace. Appropriate block. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page protected

Someone has protected my user talk page, leaving a warning message that is patently false visible. Unfortunately, I can't seem to leave a message on the blocking admin's talk page. Can someone either unprotect it or edit out the statement about vandalism, since I have not committed any. Thanks. 81.104.165.184 09:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be protected. As for the vandalism, it may have been done by someone with the same IP address as you. I suggest getting an account. You don't have to give any personal information, not even an email address (you can give one if you want to receive mail from other editors, though). -- Kjkolb 10:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the history, it appears that User:81.104.165.184 was in a content dispute with User:Captain scarlet, with Captain scarlet eventually growing frustrated and accusing 81.104.165.184 of vandalism. The discussion that seems to have lead to this accusition is here; the specific edit that Captain scarlet seems to be claiming was vandalism is this one... unless I'm missing something here, it simply isn't, although given that that is the case both users appear to have violated the 3RR on that page in the ensuing dispute (several days ago, of course, past the statue of limitations.) Another user also seems to have objected when 81.104.165.184 removed the warning from their talk page--that can't be right, can it? I can understand keeping warnings when there's a legitimate dispute, but if every flatly spurious warning like this one had to be retained forever then the template would become useless. It strikes me as not only correct but necessary to swiftly revert bad-faith or misguided warnings, since they threaten the entire warning system. --Aquillion 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest reinstating WP:NLT block on Executor-usa (talk · contribs)

In another AfD involving a bank scam, Executor-usa posted this, including the words "Labelling an institution a fake bank and a scam is very defamatory and is unsupported by fact or truth." I suggest he be reblocked for the word "defamatory" and the key thrown away. Normally it would be too vague for a block, but considering his previous block I think it would be justified. He is quite plainly not a positive contributor. I'd rather a different (not necessarily uninvolved) admin did the blocking for the sake of a second opinion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a admin, but who here is? Saying that labelling a bank as a scam isn't supported by fact isn't a legal threat, and to the bank it -is- vert defamatory. I'm not familiar with the case, but it doesn't sound worth the trouble. --Avillia 14:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The threat is baseless and the statements are not defamatory because these were comments in an AfD debate rather than main article content. I have no opinion on whether he should be blocked/banned for making these comments in Afd. Certainly if Executor makes similar comments about well-cited material in main article space he should be banned per NLT policy. Thatcher131 15:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 64.235.107.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

He's vandalizing pages such as James Blunt. Ardenn 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Superman12345

This user, Superman12345 ("contributions"), have vandalized a number of articles here on Wikipedia since he/she registered here. Since his/her only goal here on Wikipedia seem to be vandalism, I suggest blocking this user. /Magore 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. 48 hours. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax organization leaving threats on talk pages

Please delete version [73] of this talk page. It contains trolling allegations that are not useful to the page. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments keep getting restored. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not what admins do. We'll delete old versions if they contain damaging personal information, but that edit does not. Personal attacks should be removed from the current version (current version, not history. But you don't have to be an admin to do that), but it's not even clear to me that the edit is a personal attack. Perhaps you should either rebut the user, or simply ignore. -lethe ^{talk +} 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I did, the organization was shown to be a hoax. The targeted person has offered proof the vandal formed a hoax organization. No worries. Was trying not to have a newbie bite another newbie. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prin

• Naan_Kadavul (talk · contribs)
• Benzee (talk · contribs)
• 81.157.165.7
• 81.129.220.151

The repeat offender Prin (talk · contribs) has returned with a new set of sock puppets. He was already banned for using the following sock puppets: Cumbi (talk · contribs), R.Madhavan (talk · contribs), The Man's Plans (talk · contribs) and Yellow (talk · contribs). He has begun reverting Ajith article again in the same style as before using his templates. He is uploading images violating copyrights. He edits the user page of his puppets signing interchangeably. He has sent me hate mail from the above IP addresses - a copy of which I can forward to any email address if need be. He has blanked the 40-odd copyright notices from his talk page and added his name to admin request.

He has tried atleast once to tamper with this request itself for user check like this on the Req for User Chk page. Please take action. Anwar saadat 11:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge of deletion of Conservative Underground entry

I would like to challenge the decision to delete Conservative Underground from wikipedia.

The members of CU were unaware that this discussion was taking place.

Our listing was nominated by BenBurch, who ironically used criteria that his own site (White Rose Society) does not even meet, yet his site was not deleted when nominated for deletion. His nomination was bolstered by an organized band of his malcontent buddies from Democratic Underground, because they are upset that we monitor and comment on their activities.

A number of notable events have occurred at Conservative underground, such as an exclusive interview with Jeff Gannon, former member of the White House press corps.

My own recent work on CU was picked up and linked on a tremendous number of conservative sites, which was my outing of supposed "Ashamed Republican" Jeb Eddy, who gets his picture on the AP wire at every northern California anti-war protest by holding up a sign stating "I'm Republican and Ashamed". I discovered that he has been a Democratic donor for many years, and heads a progressive foundation. The disemination of this information throughout the conservative blogosphere resulted in the SF Chronicle pulling a photo of Eddy from their online edition.

CU has recently also been falsely accused of issuing threats by DUer Ava on the Alan Colmes radio show.

I think these things are quite notable, and considering that we at CU were unaware of the attempts to get us deleted, Conservative Underground deserves to be undeleted.

Wikipedia was manipulated in this case.

crockspot

Please take deletion requests to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Ral315 (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)