User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2005 December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Motion to provide voting rationale 2 Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf 3 How to provide evidence for the ArbCom 4 Another Wonderfool alias 5 User:RSPW Poster 6 Kelly 7 Bat Ye'or 8 ArbCom: Neuro-linguistic programming 9 Thanks 10 toolserver 11 Check User 12 Webcomics ArbCom Case 13 CVU talk page template 14 RfAr request 15 A request about the Ben Gatti case 16 Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence 17 Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppet#Dealing_with_suspicion 18 Sockpuppet check request 19 User-check request 20 Stalled arbitration 21 Moo to you too! 22 Request for IP check 23 checkuser and possible followup 23.1 Another detail 24 Mcfly85 25 a question of copyrights 26 Those backslashes 27 Thank you 28 Just an alert 29 Sock attack 30 Statement on steward elections 31 Image tags and licensing 32 Sleeping Willies 33 RfArb query 34 DrBat arbcom request 35 image upload vandalism checkuser 36 Sockpuppet checkuser request 37 User:Meals-on-Wheels of White Plains 38 Merry Christmas 39 Today's pagemoves 40 Pagemove vandal User:76 Circles 41 Possible open proxy 42 Thank you for your kind yet firm handling of the situation 43 Bans lifted 44 The evidence on RachelBrown et al. 45 Checkuser request 46 Merry Christmas!! 47 what's this deal with Karmafist? 48 backslash-proxy vandal 49 Final statement 50 Welcome on Wikisource 51 Personal Attack Violations for User Tommstein 52 Open Proxy issue 53 User:Yarak sock-puppet 54 Yet Another 55 And another 56 Thrax appeals 57 Another assumed Thrax sock 58 does this mean that nothing is done about Karmafist? 59 Apology 60 Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration 61 Silly templates 62 Pigsonthewing RFAr Motion 63 == You have this a personal attack against me == 63.1 PeterZed's templates 64 Jimbo death threat 65 CheckUser request 66 RfAr 67 CheckUser request 68 Happy New Year! 69 Another \' proxy

[edit] Motion to provide voting rationale

Please see [1]. Thank you. Rangerdude 18:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re Arbitration Committee procedure re request by RedWolf

Please note that the Arbitration Committee appears to have failed to follow standard procedure as seen here and notify User:RedWolf that his "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone has been accepted" and that he "Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone/Evidence." Please ensure this is corrected. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to provide evidence for the ArbCom

Hello. I am writing in reaction to this edit of you to WP:RfAr on the request to arbitrate between R.Koot + Ems57fcva and CarlHewitt, in which you vote to accept the case and say that you "find this case confusing and hope that the Evidence pages will be less so". As I intend to give evidence in this case (supposing that it is accepted) and I have no experience in the arbitration procedure, I was wondering if you could please give some advice on how to do this beyond the text on Wikipedia:Arbitration policy and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence. It would probably be easiest for you and useful to me if you could just point to some section of an Evidence page that you like. Thank you. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Wonderfool alias

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Another_Wonderfool_alias. Uncle G 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:RSPW Poster

The latest in a long line of pedantic DinkSocks is now endlessly reverting several pages, including my talk page (to restore his harassing comments, while deleting my note for admins left because of his actions under other accounts), Category:Von Erich wrestling family (where he insists in restoring a version with a superfluous link only because I'm the editor that fixed it), and KTVX (where he is now reverting to a version that uses an incorrect name for The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints, simply because I was the editor who corrected it. His contrib history as "RSPW Poster" speaks volumes regarding his intent. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Chadbryant 23:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We really should stop meeting like this -- people are going to talk!

Once again I must remind you that you have absolutely no evidence of who is a "pedantic DinkSock." You seem to have a drooling fascination with "DinkSock," whoever or whatever that is, so maybe you need to take a break, get some rest, and get that out of your system. I'm pasting in my remarks to you on your talk page because they deal directly with your immature and illegal behavior while here on Wikipedia -- if you have a problem with it, address them in a place other than the comments for "Edit summary" and perhaps you will stop seeing them show up. For now, it seems as if your only motivation for deleting them is to have a complete and total avoidance of the issues that they address -- which, while technically your right to do so due to it being YOUR User Talk page, is still a bit immature, deviant, and otherwise makes you look like some sort of petty jerk. Mind you I say LOOK like, as actually calling you one is a personal attack, and unlike you, I try to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.

Also, as for the Von Erich entry, you have been warned on previous occassions by other Wikipedia administrators not to tamper with the forwarding of wrestling entries in regards to their stage names or their real names -- a fact that you seem to have chosen to disregard and blatantly ignore for your own deviant purposes. I would suggest that you leave this one alone, as it can only end badly for you. Now, for these other issues -- what in all the name that is Wikipedia makes you think that I made the edits because YOU were the one who made them in the first place? This is paranoia and if you are unsure as to why I state that, perhaps you should peruse the entry on Wikipedia for better clarification? MY contrib history speaks for my intent? Holy shit, you are quite the hypocrite, as evidenced when someone takes a look at YOURS. This is all petty, immature, and, most importantly, stupid and pointless, and it would benefit you in many ways to simply walk away now while you can still do so without limping! -- RSPW Poster

FYI- I just blocked RSPW Poster for 48 hours for incivility, eg [2], vandalism, eg [3], and edit warring in ChadBryant's userspace, see [4]. I warned him about incivility and edit warring more than a week ago. Dmcdevit·t 02:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly

Is that really you and your daughter? Mousha Pippick 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bat Ye'or

Dhimmi (talk · contribs) is continuing his reverts with the pseudonym issue. --CltFn 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And where might this reference be?--CltFn 16:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom: Neuro-linguistic programming

Kelly,

This case is being documented. Its messy due to the sheer volume of what's gone on and trying to present it in the least confusing way possible. Also my personal life is getting in the way a bit too.

I'm sorry it's taking so long. I wanted just to let you (and via you the rest of ArbCom) know, so that there wasn't a question whether it is intended to proceed with the case.

Right now in preparing the case it seems there have been not just the original 6 or 8, but in fact a variable group of around 15 and 20 sockpuppets or meatpuppets in a 4 months period. Many of these are either no longer active or have switched names (we don't know which), but new ones still turn up to complicate matters. Distilling it to a reasonable size and a logical rational and easy to review single page, complete with diffs, isn't difficult, but has taken a lot of time. It's getting there shortly but will probably be about a week or 10 days longer.

Thank you for your understanding and patience, it's much appreciated.

FT2

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for correcting my mistake on S1066 page; don't know how this happened. I must be partly stunned by the near-complete absence of anon vandalism. :) Lectonar 13:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, picking you up on this, have you too got the impression that we have much more new users created now after the anon-accounts are being prevented from creating new pages (IMHO, the vandals now hop from newly created account to newly created account to vandalise the same article (see the history of Angela Merkel, e.g.) which makes vandal fighting and spotting much more tedious...). Sorry to bother you with this, I'm just interested and didn't want to jump on the admin pages or the village pump; after all, it may be to early to discern a pattern... Lectonar 14:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx for that, so for once the personal impression is not biased... Lectonar 15:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] toolserver

hi. please mail me (keturner [at] livejournal.com) an SSH key and username for the toolserver, and make an edit to this page to confirm it's yours. thanks, kate.

On their way. Thanks. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Check User

Hi Kelly, I'd like to request that check user be run on some ip's. Is there a page to do this, or is your talk page the right place? How far back in time should I go collecting the various ip's to check? How many can you check (is the check run on one ip at a time, or several)?

I'd like to see if various Earthlink ip's (related by their editing histories) have a user account. This is for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier. -thanks --Duk 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, Did you see my message? I see you've answered other people since I left it. Anyway, I'd appreciate your help here. thanks --Duk 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for me to do with that request. Can you be more specific? Kelly Martin (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure!

How do I get the ball rolling on a check user request. I went to your page because you were the first listed at [5]

A series of anons from Earthlink is accused of inserting copyright violation into Winter Soldier Investigation. I'd like to do a check-user on the addresses, but need some help forming the request (per above). I understand if you are too busy, just say so and I'll go to the next person on the list. --Duk 06:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics ArbCom Case

I notice you disagreed with a lot of what I've said on the Webcomics ArbCom page, and in particular I seem to have made some suggestions about findings of fact that were actually contrary to how ArbCom usually does business. My experience in this arena is rather limited. I've been trying to defend some users who I felt were under-represented in the same manner in which they seemed to be being "prosecuted," but I now wonder if that was the wrong thing to do. If you have any suggestions for me about the manner in which I make further contributions to the workshop page, I would very much appreciate them. -- SCZenz 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CVU talk page template

The thing is this is in the talk page on articles that are already hammered by vandalism. The problem of being quiet is CNN reporters being unaware of our existance. Being brodcasted on national TV as an "uncredible source" and that "we aren't making an effort to prevent such incidents" is very very bad publicity for wikipedia. There is no reason to hide the fact that George W. Bush is getting hammered on a hourly (or much less) basis and that RC patrolers are watching, reviewing, reverting.

When someone is repetively accused/declared of assasinating JFK and are unaware of our existance they rightfully think we tollerate such nonsense on wikipedia as they are unaware of RC patrolers. Of course the template wont scare away the vandals but it will definately contain the apathy of CNN reporters whom (from what I understand from the CNN transcript) are also subject to random accusations. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr request

(crossposted from Talk:RfAr)

[edit] A request about the Ben Gatti case

Didn't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. I request that the case be retitled to just Ben Gatti and that zen master be excluded. I'm arguing for this because this case is about Ben Gatti, NOT about Price-Anderson. Our side has absolutely no intention of bringing up the issues that are involved in Price-Anderson. None. You guys don't take content disputes and this is not a content dispute. By including Price-Anderson, Ben is trying to muddy the issue and make it less about him and more about P-A. This case is about him NOT price-anderson so I request that it be titled just Benjamin Gatti. the precedent here is to name cases after the user involved, not the articles involved. As for zen master, he's been involved in P-A for less than a week. And as far as I know, his involvement as a party to this case is only to argue on Ben's side for Price-Anderson Act. Well if this case is about Ben and not P-A, then I don't see how zen is involved unless he's going to defend Ben's actions. If he is, I can see why he can stay. Otherwise, I don't think he's a party to this dispute. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well now, Ben has retitled it to include all parties. I still don't think that's correct. I see no charges against Simesa, katefan, I or zen. It's all Ben. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Another request. Could you unrevert the comments of Kaosworks - He's an admin, also a legal scholar and gets it. Others might not, and god save the plebs who would take it seriously. Benjamin Gatti 05:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? Benjamin Gatti 14:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence

Hi, I am sick of this mess so I didn't want to take the time to gather and present formal evidence, but FYI, I left an extended comment on the talk page in which I tried to summarize why I also have concluded that Carl Hewitt is a problem user who should be banned from editing (at least, from editing the math/physics article space, if that level of specificity is even technically possible, which AFAIK is not the case). Good luck. ---CH 02:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in here again, but User:Chalst moved my comment someplace mysterious. The original is here ---CH 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppet#Dealing_with_suspicion

Since you were mentioned there in responce to my querry, I thought I could ask you for a comment on this issue. Section is (so far) fairly short.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet check request

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I'd like to request a sockpuppet check on Mpaks (talk · contribs), whom I believe to be currently banned user Iasson (talk · contribs). I base this on the user's first two edits being to revert Iasson's user and RFC talk pages to a state that Iasson and his sockpuppets have constantly been reverting to, as well as his third edit, to the user page of an Iasson sockpuppet. And yes, I found his fourth edit personally annoying.

I used to have a list of Iasson IPs (the only one I dug up on a quick search was ((User|146.124.141.250}}, but he's likely to be using a Greece-based IP. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User-check request

Kelly, would it be possible to have a user check on User:RachelBrown, User:Poetlister, and User: 81.153.41.72? I believe the anon IP has said somewhere that she is Lisa, RachelBrown's flatmate. The reason I'm requesting it is that they're involved in disputes about some Lists of ... pages e.g. List of Jewish jurists and List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, though I'm uncertain of the details, and they may not be at fault. The accounts are editing as though operated by three people, backing each other up on talk pages, reverting against other editors, and requesting mediation, but the "voice" is suggestive of one user. On one occasion, they engaged in a series of reverts that would have been a 3RR violation had the accounts been operated by one user, and two of the edit summaries suggested that in fact they were. [6] [7] I'm hoping a check might clear up any confusion. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's worth noting that User:RachelBrown, partly due to SlimVirgin, has now ceased to be a Wikipedia editor. - Poetlister 18:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalled arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine appears to have stalled. In the meantime, wholly independently, and coming upon this dispute by another route entirely, I have proposed a solution to the perennial neutrality dispute that appears to underpin this conflict on Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Both sides appear to have at least accepted the idea in principle, but have become stalled. The Arbitration Committee giving them a little encouragement, and perhaps a tiny push to get them over the initial hump and into the process of actually working, might help. Uncle G 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moo to you too!

Just a friendly Moo! from a Got Milk? aficiando on IRC (Mukluk_Kanuck) Barry Wells 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for IP check

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&action=history

Is User:DrBat the anon User:200.162.245.104, given the mess on that page? - SoM 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Negative. All of DrBat's IPs are in Boston; the anon you list is in Brazil. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] checkuser and possible followup

Note recent charming pagemove vandalism twice in quick succession:

• BillRoller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Mustanglover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

In one of his earlier edits, BillRoller mentions he is posting to Wikipedia from work: [8]

Can you do a checkuser to see if these two users are the same person (or same workplace), and possibly undertake followup as you see fit. -- Curps 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly add:

• Maricon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

who may the the same or just a follow-on copycat. -- Curps 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

None of these users are the same person. Mustanglover used two different IP addresses both allocated to different webhosting facilities, which in my experience means that they're using compromised hosting servers. I have blocked both addresses, 72.22.69.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (also used by NataIina smpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Brithackemack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), both currently indefinitely blocked) and 72.36.221.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The other two users are clearly distinct both from Mustanglover and from each other. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another detail

Sorry to bug you again, but I noticed:

• Mustanglover69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created 02:42, 14 December 2005 [9]
• Mustanglover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created 02:38, 14 December 2005 [10]

Mustanglover69 was blocked almost immediately as a vandal, while Mustanglover was a sleeper that waited until it could do pagemove vandalism.

Today we had:

• WillemJokerr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created 01:12, 16 December 2005 [11]
• WillemJoker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created 01:06, 16 December 2005 [12]

WillemJokerr was blocked almost immediately as a George W. Bush anti-Jimbo vandal, WillemJoker hasn't done anything yet, as I write this.

A similar situation? Accounts created minutes apart, the second account is an immediate vandal, while the first account could be a sleeper, or it could be an innocent user whose name the vandal imitated, perhaps with an aim to get us to start preemptively blocking innocent users.

So does checkuser provide any enlightenment here? How about Mustanglover/Mustanglover69, now known to both be vandals, undoubtedly related, but does checkuser tell us this? -- Curps 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

MustangLover69 (who shows no edits, although I suppose they may have been deleted; there is currently no way for me to get IP information on edits which have been deleted), was using an SBC PPPoX pool address (68.122.119.83), which basically means we know nothing about him. I suspect that they're the same person, and that the SBC PPPoX pool address is the address of a compromised machine as well, but it's on dialup or some other sort of connection that will move from time to time so we can't block it the way we can block the members of their botnet that are on static IPs.

WillemJokerr is also using a SBC PPPoX pool address (68.124.190.85). I think both of these are in the same general geographic area, so they're likely the same endpoint. This IP is also responsible for Jswannar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (who I have now blocked) and This will help us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (who has already been blocked). We're obviously going to have to keep an eye on these SBC PPPoX pool blocks for a while.

WillemJoker was created from 144.132.247.110, which belongs to Telstra. There is one other edit from this IP, made anonymously, which appears to be legitimate. At this point I don't know if there's a connection. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If I recall, Mustanglover69's single edit was pretty much the same as WillemJokerr's single edit, only the latter hasn't (yet?) been purged from the database. Namely Jimbo-Wales-personal-information-edit-summary vandalism at George W. Bush. -- Curps 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, here's a story that made the rounds of various blogs yesterday: the guy who runs Second Life (some kind of online community) is apparently siccing the FBI on some vandals who disrupted his site. [13] Perhaps the FBI will give him the brushoff, but it would be an interesting development. -- Curps 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mcfly85

Hi there Kelly, Im Moe Epsilon. I am informing all the users with the checkuser ability under "advice" given by Celestianpower to run a CheckUser on Mcfly85. This user "claims" to have NEVER once opened an IP address to vandalize; list of IP addresses that vandalized my user page are suspects. I also suspect he created/opened accounts to vandalize too. (ex. Rock09, 4benson3, Capnoh, Oneandon, Sigma995, Sven66 and Pwner.) A few days ago I was running for adminship and he got on there and edited. Mcfly85, Rock09 and Sigma995 all voted oppose when well noted administrators and others voted support. I suspect Mcfly has vandalized my user page 9 times. You can see conflicts there at my talk page, my RFA. I posted these accusations at the Administrators' noticeboard and nothing was done because of lack of evidence. Well, today Banes noticed something interesting. He posted:

You may want to look at the history of Frank Beard. And, less interestingly, the history of Wayne Newton. I just thought this might interest you.

It was where Mcfly85 and Rock09 edited the same articles simultaneously. Rock09 vandalized the articles and Mcfly85 does clean-up. Suspicious that an article like Frank Beard, an article with 11 edits has edits by Rock09 and Mcfly85 simultaneously. Can you please run a CheckUser on him? — Moe ε 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a question of copyrights

Would it be a no-no to add part of the Nutuk speech or even the whole thing to the article--Kross | Talk 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)?

[edit] Those backslashes

216.255.176.250 (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log) is adding those backslashes before quote marks ([14]). I've indef blocked, putting {{CompromisedWebHost}} on the talk page, and I'll leave it to you to take the appropriate action. Canderson7 ^(talk) 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just an alert

I know the arbcom is very busy right now, but just alerting you that we do have a temp injunction request in the Ben Gatti case. Been there for a week now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And look at this. Action would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock attack

We've got a vandal coming in on at least a dozen IPs - Ropo (talk · contribs) and assorted socks. Please take a look at it. Radiant_>|< 03:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

AOL user. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, that would explain his amazing level of maturity. Okay, since we're currently tag-team revert/delete/blocking it's costing him more work than it does us. Radiant_>|< 03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement on steward elections

I was recently approached to consider running for Steward. I have elected not to do so at this time, for three reasons. One, I am not sufficiently multilingual, which is considered a requirement of the position. Second, I am not sufficiently active on Meta (I simply don't have time to spend a lot of time there). Third, I feel that seeking stewardship so soon after a failed request for bureaucrat on en would be viewed (by some, at least) as a continuation of the "power grab" that I am alleged to be engaged in. While I personally think I would make a decently good steward, I feel that a candidacy at this time would not be in the best interest of the Wikimedia project. Maybe next year. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image tags and licensing

I see you created {{CommunityUseOnly}} several months ago. You might be interested in the proposal at Wikipedia:Restricted image licenses. Your views would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sleeping Willies

Hi, I am noticed that there is a new user User:Sleeping Willies - the name sounds like Willy on Wheels ... u might want to check it out. Regards, --Hurricane111 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb query

Opinion I know that you are under no obligation to discuss your vote in my RfC, but I really don't get it. You say that "no attempt to remedy conduct issues", and yet in the section "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried", I summarised 5 points, of which 4 are taken directly from dispute resolution page, together with links showing exacty where they occured, including TWO RfC's? What am I missing? (cc. Raul654) --Iantresman 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DrBat arbcom request

Hi,

You commented, "undecided. I don't understand how this fails to fall within the scope of our prior order. Perhaps this should be brought as a summary motion to expand scope instead of a full hearing?"

Questions -

1. Is there a different procedure to expand scope and enforcement? I agree, a full hearing doesn't seem needed. It's just scope and enforcement. If there is a difference or a different procedure, could you clarify briefly for me, as I'm unaware and it would be useful to understand better.
2. I am unclear if your comment means that you don't understand (a) how it fails to be adequately covered already, or (b) how it fails to be appropriate to request, given the previous ruling.

Part of the problem is, that the understanding stated by one ArbCom member regarding the previous ruling is incorrect. The ruling was drawn up in an extremely limited manner that did not prevent abuse, and even so that ruling has been breached. This was a fear of the original proposers of that request who forsaw that he would be unable to resist returning to the subject. The previous ruling covers only "closely related articles", nor is there any significant enforcement or deterrent power given, the only enforcement allowed is a maximum 24 hour ban.

In view of his extreme past and renewed activites, and repeated breach since November, and again even after the ArbCom request was posted, the request is basically that ArbCom reviews and updates the ruling so that DrBat can actually be prevented from such edits on the subjects in future, whatever article they may be in, and editors have an effective enforcement/deterrent power if he should violate the ruling.

With thanks, FT2 21:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] image upload vandalism checkuser

Hello,

Today a bunch of sockpuppets have overwritten images with crudely photoshopped images. These include:

• User:Henri Poincare
• User:Pual Murphy
• User:Roger Penrose
• User:Howard Dean
• User:Jabberio
• User:Katie Holmes
• User:Davidsyatt
• User:Eric Schmidt
• User:Sandra Day O' Connar

These mostly seem to have been created within a few hours of one another on December 19. Perhaps there are more socks that you could catch and block with checkuser.

In most cases you'd have to look at Special:Log/upload for their handiwork, since it doesn't show up in the other logs, or it's briefly visible at Special:Newimages before someone reverts the image back to the original version.

Regarding e-mail notification, I think that's a bit complicated to implement. However, many of your Willy proxies detected by checkuser (mentioned at WP:AN/I) had already been blocked by myself and others, which suggests that the block log itself could be a rich source of usernames to mine systematically with checkuser, in order to find open proxies and compromised hosts. A sample of recent blocks by me is here, naturally many of them were routine vandalism but many others are obvious Willy-type names.

[edit] Sockpuppet checkuser request

I've been trying to get someone with CheckUser powers to do some sockpuppet checks, but apparently my making such requests makes people fall off the face of the earth. Beware! Nevertheless, here is the request I have been making:

To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

Retcon
Missionary
Netministrator
Cairoi
bUcKaRoO
Duffer1
Kool8
DannyMuse
IP law girl
Cobaltbluetony
Elgoodo
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Retcon (talk · contribs), Missionary (talk · contribs), Netministrator (talk · contribs), and Steven Wingerter (talk · contribs) are pretty certainly all the same person, along with Satrap (talk · contribs), IP Law Girl (talk · contribs), and Tomnstein (talk · contribs) (none of which you listed). The others all appear to be distinct individuals. I am somewhat concerned about there being both a IP Law Girl and a IP law girl as that suggests impersonation; the same can be said of Tomnstein (impersonating user:Tommstein). . Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish to thank you profusely. I would do a happy dance in your honor, but you wouldn't be able to see it, and I would feel silly. Do you mind random people putting barnstars on your page?Tommstein 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I also wish to thank you Kelly, I suspected most of those you have revealed, and it's wonderful to see this problem get some kind of resolution, as that new user seemed to be multiplying out of control with so many IDs it was getting stupid. Thanks again for your time in resolving this problem, regards. Central 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Meals-on-Wheels of White Plains

Hi Kelly, I ran across this user name during my RC patrol. I had reported this name in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as a suspected sock puppet. Admin User:Marudubshinki dismissed the claim stating "meals on wheel-s hasn't done anything and user name does not violate policy. nto warned either". I disagreed with his assessment. Anyways, I hope that you can keep an eye on this account to see whether it is used for Willy on Wheels. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, --Hurricane111 16:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Account creation logs suggest that this account is unrelated to Willy on Wheels. I would class this account as legitimate. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. I'll be passing through your part of the world tomorrow, so I'll keep and eye out for you - wave if you see me ;) Guettarda 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Today's pagemoves

There were a number of pagemove vandals today:

• User:Srhgiuargiurhgiruh
• User:Rhrehreh
• User:Shshrhrhreh
• User:Geeeeee e4edtr
• User:Cris c christerson
• User:Fester unclef
• User:Rsrwgwrgrwrg
• User:Egegegh
• User:Hgiehng
• User:William mit seinen Rädern
• User:Guillermo con sus ruedas

See also:

• User:Ryirtud trdurt dtr tr tr
• User:Ryirtud trFollow the leader (term)durt dtr tr tr
• User:CURPS YOU DIRT CURPS BOT YOU TOOK AWAY MY PAGEMOVE ABILITY

Perhaps checkuser will turn up a few more socks and open proxies. -- Curps 19:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it seems there is no more time delay between registering a username and being able to do page moves. A username like "Guillermo con sus ruedas" ("Willy with his Wheels" in Spanish) would normally have been blocked long before it could do any pagemoves, but this time it was able to do so immediately. -- Curps 19:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Virtually all of these were AOL accounts. The devs need to make fixing this a crash priority. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pagemove vandal User:76 Circles

76_Circles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a sleeper created back on November 2. Checkuser perhaps? -- Curps 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I had blocked the IP this user used today on a previous day, but the block was mysteriously removed (perhaps by the autoblocker). That's a bug that really needs to be looked at; the autoblocker should not be able to shorten a block. CheckUser evidence doesn't go back to November 2 so I can't hit the collaterals. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible open proxy

Since you like busting open proxies by using checkuser, you might be interested on this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I\'m User:JackSarfatti under a new name. --cesarb 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your kind yet firm handling of the situation

Kelly, I have decided to distance myself from Wikipedia as an active contributor, as both the main account and addt'l ones have been tarnished by irreprehensible behaviour on my part. Your fair and balanced handling of this matter relieved a huge burden from my shoulders which cowardly fear on my part had placed there. And your appeal to fellow editors to accept me once more in good faith...words cannot begin to convey my deep appreciation. It was more than I frankly deserved. Regards. Retcon 06:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bans lifted

I thought that I would advise you that the bans on User:Poetlister, User:Newport, User:Taxwoman and User:Londoneye were all lifted yesterday by User:Dan100 for the reason of "no evidence", and he has since begun an investigation in to the matter, and is gathering evidence. As he is independent to the matter, and you were directly involved (by receiving the initial request from SlimVirgin to CheckUser the IPs #User-check_request), you may wish to contact him regarding the case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Merry Christmas Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The evidence on RachelBrown et al.

There is, in my opinion, solid evidence to support the allegations of sockpuppetry, based on CheckUser evidence. However, that evidence is private and cannot be published without breaching the policy we have on CheckUser data. The fact remains that for you to state that there is no evidence fails to assume good faith on your part. I think you are treading on treacherous ground here. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I can tell, one of the accounts is a sock (Newport) but the rest are genuine editors who happen to know each other in real life. From I've learned of the Checkuser results, several of these accounts once edited from the same computer. For people who live near each other and are friends, I don't think it's unexpected for them share a computer at some stage.

Further, all the accounts (apart from Newport) have very different edit histories and areas of expertise, and have been making good edits. Quite apart from anything else, Wikipedia the encyclopedia will suffer without those editors.

Finally, the blocking policy only allows for the blocking of socks when they are being used to violate policy. As far as I can see, that's not happened. None of the other accounts have been used for anything else that could justify a ban.

Have a happy and peaceful Christmas, Dan100 (Talk) 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not "once edited from the same computer"; there is an ongoing pattern of edits by multiple accounts from the same group of computers (both work and home). I think it is unreasonable to say that there is "no evidence" as there clearly is evidence. Your argument should not be that there is no evidence, but that you think that there is countervailing evidence based on edit content (which I did not review, since I was merely asked to review the CheckUser evidence). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is some evidence of sock puppetry, that IPs have been shared, and that one of the accounts can certainly be viewed as a sock puppet (Newport). Dan100 (Talk) 17:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

note that the account User:Newport was created after User:RachelBrown left. It is a friend of Rachel who offered to carry on creating the articles which Rachel had intended to create but unfortunately could not due to the stress which all this has caused her. The other users may have voted on the same vfds relating to Jewish articles but this was only after they and many other users suspected sock puppeting of one user to try to force the deletion of these lists, which I later confirmed to be the case at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote. I have seen many people leaving messages on other users talk pages all the time requesting votes on vfds and I haven't seen criticism except in the case of indiscriminate spamming (i.e. sending messages to all Wikipedian Catholics asking to vote on anti-abortion or gay articles). Surely, all accounts, if they are not one person and have not just signed up to Wikipedia to help a friend should be allowed to express an opinion on vfds? Arniep 22:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser request

User:Canaen was using extensive PA on Veganism. Well then he sent out a meatpuppet request at several websites. Well now, poor User:Viriditas is getting nailed by attacks, Canaen's RfC is being constantly blanked and the IPs are nailing Veganism hard. Could you do a checkuser to see if Canaen is using the IPs of 195.82.106.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 195.82.106.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 212.18.228.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 195.82.106.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? It's a last resort kind of request. Nothing else is deterring the vandals. We'd rather not semi protect Canaen's RfC if it can be helped. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!!

[edit] what's this deal with Karmafist?

at WP:RFAr, you noted:

"All the evidence I see is that he is simply not fit to be an admin."

to which i wonder: why is this not abundantly evident to the other ArbCom members (save Fred) or to the other admins? i just don't get it. the malignancy is so apparent that i'm just incredulous that there is any question. (my RFAr is dead anyway with 5 opposed, so i thought it would be safe to make this comment to your page without being guilty of ex-parte influence.) have a very merry Christmas holiday. r b-j 04:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] backslash-proxy vandal

• Christmasheadphones_from_KEY103_Manchester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Has the characteristic \', seems like another open proxy to block. -- Curps 06:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Grofenowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) looks like another. I haven't bothered to block since he only made the one edit, but the underlying IP should be hit. —Cryptic (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome on Wikisource

Hi Kelly, there is a welcome awaiting you on your Wikisource talk page. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack Violations for User Tommstein

Kelly, I would like to respectfully advise you that the user known as Tommstein contrib appears to be violating to three areas of No Personal Attacks Policy. He has been repeatedly warned by a few fellow editors that they would be monitoring his interactions carefully. I hesitate to address this as I myself am an individual who had violated a policy here and then was not completely forthcoming in my initial apology, which I regret. However, for the sake of other editors, not myself (I deserve it for my own actions) and in line with your comments addressed to Tommstein, I would like to submit a listing of several comments he has made which I IMHO perceive as directly violating the policy in question. Thank you for your time in reviewing this list.

• Negative personal comments & "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."

“stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers” "half a day has been pissed away because of administrator laziness" “punk” “revert ignorance” “demonstrating him to be full of crap” "you're just flinging crap all over the walls" “Cairoi's dumbass threat” "Just for asking that dumbass ad hominem question" “Stupidity is not a defense” "idiotic, factless, rambling"

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.

“Watchtower Society has told them they are to think is just some stupid dumbass” “refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as 'ignorant numbnuts'” "part of your religious shunning bullcrap" "Go find some old lady to preach to that you can try to abuse into submission like a good Jehovah's Witness, or kick your dog, or beat your wife or kids or something" "Kiss my ass, Watch Tower"

• Profanity directed against another contributor

“bastard” ”numbnut” "you're an illiterate dumbass" "some people here...check whether they made an ass of themselves"

More examples available upon request. Retcon 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so is this what we're doing, absolutely nothing but trying to get other users banned by posting the same complaint on every other page on Wikipedia, and, when the complaints are ignored, continuing to repost them repeatedly? Let me know if we are in fact in full let's-find-everything-they've-ever-done witchhunt mode, because I know I could fill several pages with choice out-of-context (sometimes only one word) and even not-out-of-context quotes myself if that's what we're doing now.Tommstein 06:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, I assure that what the user above has posted is only the tip of the iceberg. On top of Tomm's verbal abuse of every editing, and non-editing, Jehovah's Witness, (and extreme prejudice against the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) his "contributions" are scewed to the point of nonsense and/or outright lies and misrepresentations of Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, teachings, and doctrines. I'm tired of his abuse (and user:Central's), which you only experienced in a very small amount. The situation on the JW (and related pages) page is already out of control. I've submitted only the latest wars to the Mediation Cabal, but due to the extent of the situation, official input will likely be necessary. I've started the conflict resolution process (as I finally got the time, and internet connection to do so, plus I'm the ONLY active editing Jehovah's Witness lately or this likely would have been done alot sooner). I'm only posting this here as Retcon already has, plus you've had personal experience with Tomm. Your suspicion of his behavior is well founded and I encourage you to investigate further, if you have the time. I suspect you are very busy, and like I have already said, we have started the mediation process. I just don't want the situation on the Jehovah's Witness page to get even more out of hand. Duffer 12:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you believe that your edit history has been deleted or something.Tommstein 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there no other recourse short of directly applying for investigation of a user directly to an administrator's discussion page? It looks like the above edit war mentioned may be settled soon, however it did/does not address the distress and disruption that user:Tommstein (and to a lesser degree, though that's not saying much, user:Central) persists in. His non-stop verbal abuse is almost always not in response to provocation, it's just how he chooses to speak to people he does not agree with, and he's been told this many, many times by biased, and unbiased Wiki users (even yourself User talk:Tommstein#Comment). I don't know how else to make this issue known, mediation doesn't cover it, and arbitration requires previous mediation (according to conflict resolution page). Duffer 05:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As promised, I refer all interested parties to see the other side of the story: User:Tommstein/List of Personal Attacks, Civility Breaches, Good Faith Violations, etc. by Jehovah's Witnesses.Tommstein 16:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open Proxy issue

I know you've been doing alot of 'open proxy' hunting lately so I thought you might want to look into this issue about the United Arab Emirates apparently being blocked. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 13:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yarak sock-puppet

Yarak appears to be Thrax's newest sockpuppet contribs. Can you check and notify Bishonen? Thanks. --Macrakis 16:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Another

I've blocked User:WikipediaHasLostItsCredibility, contribs, as a probable Thrax sock. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And another

I've blocked User:WikipediaIsAJoke. Bishonen | talk 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thrax appeals

Thrax wishes to appeal against his block because it was made in violation of Wikipedia rules in order to gain advantage for one side in a content dispute as can be seen from the repeated unjustified reversion and deletions of his contributions to both the subject page and the discussion page (for which he has provided credible sources and scientific citations) in order to prevent anyone who shares his opinion from reading them and agreeing with him and in order to prevent discussion of alternative theories that do not agree with the so-called reconstructed pronunciation of ancient Greek. The fact that he is unfairly blocked prevents him from saying this himself and that's why he was blocked. --HereWeGoAgain 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As the block message tells you, and as I've told you, you're free to use the Wikipedia e-mail feature to contact any users, so you are by no means "forced" to use sockpuppets. You may remember I specifically recommended you to e-mail Kelly Martin. Note that you can also edit your own talkpage. You can also write to the Mailing list to contest a block. All this as "Thrax". Bishonen | talk 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another assumed Thrax sock

I've blocked User:AskMelegi. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] does this mean that nothing is done about Karmafist?

i noticed that motion to desysop Karmafist was removed and not placed in the rejected bin and i cannot find anywhere else it lives. does this mean that this abusive, hypocritical, and unrepentant admin is off the hook again? does Wikipedia officially approve of this? what will it take to desysop him - a personal attack on Jimbo? (i know you were one who was able to see the obvious, that he is simply not fit for the authority vested upon him.)

dismayed and astonished. r b-j 21:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Dismayed and astonished that you haven't been banned yet for wiki-stalking and personal attacks yet, "BJ". --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Miss Martin, I was certainly not attempting to be impolite to you, but I must address others properly. Nonetheless, I apologise if I offended you--Anglius 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

1. The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
2. In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
3. It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
4. It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
5. It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
6. The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
7. The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
8. Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a serial killer has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silly templates

If you're tired of silly user templates, please take a look at Category:Wikipedians_by_stuff. Radiant_>|< 14:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigsonthewing RFAr Motion

In the interest of fairness; your statement that you can find no non-edit war article edits by him in December is inaccurate. Prior to December 10th there were many ([15], [16], [17], Tim Tolkien, et cetera). Since then only this one. I'd also suggest that 'wikistalking' ought to require active disruption of the person's efforts to contribute rather than just complaining/noting every time they make negative comments about you. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that there is active disruption -- voting on Locke Cole's RfA before it was linked strongly suggests that he's monitoring Karmafist's contributions closely, which he has no legitimate reason to be doing. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Monitoring is not disruptive. Contrib logs are public for good reason. Radiant_>|< 19:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It becomes disruptive when he bases edits on what he finds while monitoring and those edits are disruptive. Anyway, I remain unconvinced that this editor brings enough value to Wikipedia to continue to entertain his presence here. One of the main failings of voluntary organizations, and the fault most likely to cause their eventual failure, is failing to recognize when it is appropriate to exclude a disruptive member. Wikipedia needs to be willing to exclude disruptive members. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] == You have this a personal attack against me ==

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PeterZed's templates

Don't delete these templates out of process. Similar userboxes already exist and if you want these deleted, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is the place for that.  Grue  23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Screw process. Those templates are crap and should be deleted. No point in wasting TfD's time with them. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why these templates are "crap" and in what way they're worse than Template:User browser:Opera. You have 24 hours in which to explain why -- otherwise I'll file an RfC against you for abuse of administrative authority, violation of WP:AGF and harassment of users.  Grue  08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

See also Template:User democrat for political-related userbox template. I don't see at all how advertising Opera browser and Democratic Party is acceptable, but advertising Intel and supporting US troops is not.  Grue  09:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote here? Stop abusing the process. You have no right to delete these templates. And no, WP:IAR doesn't apply here.  Grue  20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your only answer has been "process has not been followed" and does not go to the merits of the deletion at all. I'm sorry, but putting process over result is just wrong. As to the Democrats template, it should be deleted too, per recent comments by Jimbo. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You have deleted a number of templates, and have upset a large number of Wikipedia editors in the process. Taking the templates through the TfD process would be a more civil and appropriate way to resolve your concerns. You have broken the bond of trust that we all hope to share on Wikipedia - I would suggest that you take action to restore the deleted templates and then nominate them in the proper manner. --Dschor 11:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo death threat

I posted about this to WP:AN/I already.

Here

-- Curps 22:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser request

Could you make a sock check on User:Hollow Wilerding, User:Winnermario (see Mel Etitis' suspicions) and User:DrippingInk (see Bunchofgrapes' comments)? I don't have a strong opinion about the puppetry, but please note that if DrippingInk and Winnermario are her socks, they're abusive all right. They always vote to support Hollow Wilerding's FACs, and jump in to scold those who oppose. The affair is highlighted at Hollow Wilerding's prematurely delisted but very interesting RFA. Bishonen | talk 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Positive match: these three users are, without any question, the same editor (or, possibly, two or more people sharing the same connection, but I doubt that). Feel free to block based on attempt to use sockpuppets to stack opinion on FAC. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have posted a report at WP:ANI, asking what people think is reasonable in the way of a block and/or FAC ban. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] RfAr

Where is the prohibition notice? When Ryan Delaney did it. i had nothing to go on to tell me it was anything more than his personal preference, but now that two people have weiged in I have to give it more credencs. Also I don't see what purpose the prohibition serves. Hackwrench 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." It says so right on top of the Requests for Arbitration page; has for a very long time. The RfAr page and all subpages thereof are subject to the exclusive authority of the Arbitration Committee. And since I am an Arbitrator, you had better well give my comment credence, as I have the unquestioned authority to remove discussion from the page at any time. The purpose of this rule is to make Requests for Arbitration easier to comprehend by the Arbitration Committee, and to reduce the tendency of fights to break out on or within Arbitration pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What's with the heavy handedness? Also, how can you tell it is serving it's purpose to make Requests for Arbitration easier to comprehend by the Arbitration Committee, what's wrong with fights breaking out, and is it serving that purpose as well. Furthermore, how do you tell if the benefits outweigh the costs? Hackwrench 18:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, my purpose was to illustrate to the Arbitration Committee members the fallacies that were occuring. Also you appear to be confusing your will with the will of the entire committee Hackwrench 18:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser request

I just blocked User:Gibo1 as an abusive sockpuppet of Gibraltarian. After searching, I also found:

• Gibo (talk · contribs)
• Gibo1 (talk · contribs)
• Gibo2 (talk · contribs)
• Gibo3 (talk · contribs)
• Gibo4 (talk · contribs)

Could you check and see if there's any more where that came from? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 20:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another \' proxy

• Infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); see his edit here, for example. (I also listed another from a couple days ago in #backslash-proxy vandal above; I'd overlooked your request to post things in new sections. Sorry about that.) —Cryptic (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)