Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive46

User:Jguk I

I'd welcome some outside comment on User:Jguk. See his user contributions, and the past arbcom decision regarding him. The vast majority of this user's edits are disruptive and seem to be trolling. He is currently engaged is several edit wars over date styles, spelling styles, and other issues. His past arbcom decision specifically warned him against revert warring, which he ignores. Most users have accepted the compromise to not change date styles, except for User:Jguk. For example:

He has changed date styles on several articles, including:

• Fu Hsi: (to which he has made 13 reverts, after initially changing date styles) [1]
• Kingdom of Judah: [2]
• 52 BC: [3]
• 19 BC: [4]
• 140s BC: [5]
• 1690s: [6]
• Cheese: [7]

He also seems intent upon stirring up more revert wars over spelling styles, for example:

• Cheese: [8]
• Stone Age: [9], [10]
• Elam: [11], [12]

He also performs unexplained deletions from articles, and subsequent revert warring to enforce his POV: [13], [14], [15], [16].

These are just a few examples, and represent the tip of the iceberg of this users deliberate and provocative edits, and all have occurred since his arbcom case. He has also been quite uncivil towards me, accusing me of various unsubstantiated charges. I would appreciate it if someone would inform this user of Wikipedia's policies regarding styles, civility, consensus, and revert warring. Regards Sortan 01:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not entirely happy about this myself either. Jguk, could you do both yourself and us a favour and steer clear of date-notation issues? --fvw* 03:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems rather bad. Hopefully Jguk will show up to give his side of the story. Everyking 04:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What seems bad? First, please look at Sortan's contributions. It probably is a role account that has been trolling on this date issue for sometime (as well as a bit of wikistalking of myself and personal attackes). Second, which of Sortan's edits are you defending? Does anyone doubt that when an anon changed some dates in a page titled up 52 BC that they should be changed back to (i) be consistent with the title?; (ii) be consistent with the WP approach of not changing these things? What motive can Sortan have to edit-war over that other than to be disruptive?

So wikistalking in the defense that every vandal can now use? You are allowed to make article "consistent" without violating the truce, but others aren't? Please elaborate... Sortan 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The other examples that Sortan gives bar one are of other editors (mostly himself) aggressively edit-warring to change the date styles from a stable version that used BC to suit his personal preference - again contrary to WP policy. The exception is the article on "cheese", which, after I changed wording so that it was more vivid (and didn't use any date style whatsoever). The aggressive edit-warring by Sortan and others to make sure that it did include their date style at all costs has resulted in an error arising in the article (which, of course, I can't correct because it would be edit-warred back to the error). Have a look at the initial insertion of date references and what they say now.

Please elaborate on what you think the error is? Your change resulted from a desire to remove references to BCE rather that an attempt to improve the article, and the changes you instituted made the article worse and inaccurate, as noted by several others. As for the aggressive edit-warring.... do you want to count up the number of your reverts vs. anyone else and see how much greater your number is? Sortan 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So the links above all show examples of my enforcing wikipedia policy about not changing date styles. Sortan's user contributions, however, show the opposite.

Once you've examined Sortan's history - and questioned why he has made this comment just below my comments on him - you'll see which user is acting in good faith, which one has a strong history of supporting wikipedia, and which one whose vast majority of edits have been knowingly disruptive. I'd welcome support in reminding Sortan of why we are here (ie to write an encyclopaedia) and to tell him to stop the disruption he is causing, jguk 06:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what Sortan's previous account was (and this is such a blatant role account), but his next one was going to be James-R - David Gerard 10:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

and this is supposed to mean what.....? Sortan 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please point out examples where I've changed date styles against policy? Which (imaginary) anon editor changed date styles on 19 BC, 140s BC, or 1690s BC? Why are you now reverting articles that use BCE/CE back to an inconsistant state ([17], [18]), but continuing to change styles for "consistency" to BC/AD ? Sortan 14:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask Jguk to stay away from the issue of dates and reverting over other style issues he disagrees with. After recently reverting BCE five times in 72 hours at Kingdom of Judah, including once against me, [19] he followed me to Wikipedia:Verifiability, a page I'd recently edited, and which he'd never edited before, and changed spokespersons to spokesmen [20], reverting another twice. [21] [22] This kind of thing is practically WP:POINT and all it does is leave people annoyed with each other, so I hope Jguk will consider letting these issues go once and for all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

SV, you may recall that the WP approach to this style issue is not to change the style, and I abide by this. The flip side of this is that when someone does attempt to change the style, it is reverted. That is all I'm doing - enforcing the current policy, and I urge others to join me in doing so. As far as issues on verifiability are concerned, I have a long record of being interested in similar issues, and when I saw there was a long discussion on there, I was interested to see the page. I made a small copyediting adjustment to bring consistency to the language (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the BCE style issue) and bolstered up the language in some places. You then decided you did not like my copyediting adjustment to give consistency as you preferred to adjust for consistency in the opposite direction - and take umbrage at me for it too. Please don't make this disagreement personal, thanks, jguk 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't play games. I don't see this as at all personal, but you know you followed me to that page, and you made a little anti-PC edit while you were there just to be annoying. Please point me to the policy that says style issues ought not to be changed. You argued precisely the opposite for weeks on end over the British v American English issue on the MoS, namely that they must be changed, no matter how established one style was, in order to make the style consistent with the subject matter, and so far as I recall, you ended up getting your own way because you wore the opposition down with constant reverting and arguing. Now suddenly you've changed your mind because the first-contributor rule suits you over the BC/BCE issue, and now that you see things differently, you claim that policy supports you, which you also claimed when you were arguing exactly the opposite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I made numerous edits on that page, unfortunately you concentrate on the one you disagree with. You now fault me for abiding by current policies and approaches whilst arguing that, where I think they are wrong, they should be changed. Isn't that what we're meant to do when we disagree with a policy? Where my preferred approach and current policy give the same end effect (albeit for different reasons), of course I have to cite current policy, not my preferred reasoning, as the justification - one has the weight of an agreed approach, one doesn't, jguk 20:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what your post meant, but I ask again: which policy do you claim to be adhering to? Please point to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand your positions at all. When it comes to spelling styles, popularity and google counts are not to be taken into account (for example Yogurt, where you gleefully changed AE to BE [23], and [24]), but when it comes to date styles, popularity suddenly becomes all important. When it comes to spelling styles, the style should reflect the subject matter, but when it comes to date styles the first contributor should be followed. Consistency is paramount, except where you disagree with that consistency, in which case, the article should be inconsistent. ???? Sortan 21:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask what policy you believe you're applying here [25]? Is it the "Eradicate all mention of Common Era, BCE, and CE" policy that only you've been able to find? Sortan 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Sortan on this one, BCE/CE are perfectly fine and you have just randomly deleted stuff which seems alsmost like a form of stealth vandalism... just stop it. Sasquatcht|c 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

IMO, this is a matter of tolerance and civility: certain minorities consider BC/AD notation inappropriate and offensive in articles deeply related to their religion & history, and prefer alternative denominationally-neutral and commonly accepted BCE/CE [26]. Jguk deliberately stomps those feelings under various pretenses (strawman, misinterpreted/nonexistent WP policies, ad homs, denial of facts), and uses talk pages as a soapbox. I can provide diffs if needed. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I make no apology for preferring what I see to be a more reader-friendly approach than the "don't change date notation" compromise, I do abide by it. I continue to urge other editors to do likewise. Remember it cuts both ways - WP says both BC/AD notation and BCE/CE notation is acceptable, but don't go changing the style. Where others have edited inconsistently with that compromise, I have reverted them, and will continue to do so. Similarly where certain editors have tried to change articles that are stable in using BCE notation to BC notation, they have been reverted by others enforcing the compromise, jguk 19:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite what WP policy is. The arbcom ruling was don't change from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. Editors on some pages believe there is a substantial reason. You revert their edits nevertheless, in what looks to me like a violation of the arbcom ruling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

jguk continues his offense to change denominationally neutral and commonly accepted BCE/CE date notation to Christian-centric BC/AD. In some articles this is highly inappropriate. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Stray Ed Poor RFAr

I found this thing lying around. What should be done with it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Obviously it should be ignored, because creationists are above the law, especially if it's their goal to remove all credible reference to evolution--Bah' 13:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It was not that I was thinking about. The template used to make that page is for cases where a Request has been accepted by the Arbcom. If you want to file a request, it is done in the "requests" section on the main WP:RFAr page. Now, in my view, I don't think your chances of getting it accepted are particularily high because the Arbcom usually stays out of content disputes unless there is a lot of 3RR violations going on. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That seems fair, in that case I'm going to start my own 1 person wiki project for Evolution, to combat Ed's new wikiproject(badly misslabled) that seems to exist to be anti-evolution.. I was going to start an RFC on ID, but clearly it won't be as legit as ed's RFC on evolution, becasue that was obviously approved by your ArbCom--Bah' 14:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm not on the Arbcom so I can't be sure that my evaluation of your case being a likely reject candidate is sound. In fact, the business around arbitration is usually so sad and frustrating that, as a rule, I prefer to put as much distance between myself and it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The request needs to be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, not at some /page the Arbitrators don't even know about or might find only by chance. Fred Bauder 14:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• So, then either he's above the law, or this page doesn't really exist?--Bah' 14:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Right first time, I'm afraid. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, in all fairness, Ed Poor did lose his bureaucratship. But still, I dislike the presence of the Ed Poor barnstar since it seems to encourage vigilante behaviour from admins. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • since when didwe stop being vigilantes?Geni 14:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, perhaps "vigilante" should be replaced with "reckless". I have now seen some admins who have done some pretty reckless things be awarded a barnstar for actions which were needlessly disruptive without many redeeming points. I am left thinking that if a newbie started doing some of those things (they cannot delete AFD discussions, but they can blank them), we would be sending them angry messages not to do so and then threaten with blocks. Personally, I think administrators and established users should be held to higher standards since they should know the rules, while the introduction of such a barnstar seems to suggest that they are not even held to the same standard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Spaland returns

After a two month absence, spaland has returned to linkspam various travel-related pages as 81.183.165.119 (talk · contribs). Previous sightings showing various other IPs are listed on User:Slambo/Linkspammer_sightings. slambo 15:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It hasn't been 2 months, s/he's been spamming through other ips. I can dig those up if there's interest. El_C 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin Rights by Chris_73

Abuse of Admin Rights by Chris_73 Admin Chris_73 has violated several rules in regards to to blocking policy on Wiki when he blocked me(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Molobo#Double_Naming.2FAbuse_of_Admin_rights_by_Chris_73)

1.That Admin that is in dispute with somebody can't block the person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict. 2.To push his content in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute 3.Admin Chris_73 didn't give exact reasons for the bloc against me.Since the only topic in the time period I edited that could be given for a reason was in regards to using the catholic term for Archidioecesis Varmiensis(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops_of_Warmia) I suspect this is his reason which earlier he claimed falls into Gdansk Vote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gdansk/Vote:.This is no way violation of the vote since it concerns only Polish and German names, not Catholic terminology regarding hierarchy of the Catholic Church which I put into the article. 4.Chris_73 has expressed opinions that suggest he is not an neutral person in regards to Polish culture, editors and people: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.7.179.169&diff=9421756&oldid=9421733 5.Chris_73 has blocked other people or threatened to do so during his conflict with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Witkacy#Abuse_of_Admin_rights_by_Chris_73_.28again.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Space_Cadet#Double_naming_2

Due to agreement with Admin I will not engage in editing of article pages until the ban has passed. --Molobo 15:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Cornchips vandal

I noticed a vandal using a series of nicknames that begin with Cornchips has been vandalizing articles, making them redirects to Wayne Rooney. I noticed this in the Bogdanov Affair's history pages.

Anyone know how to stop this?? --Astwell1986 18:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

INJUSTICE

I'm not WP:COOL at all, I've confused WP:AN with WP:ANI. Check Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#INJUSTICE. +MATIA ☎ 19:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN is probably the wrong place, and here the right. Sorry but I'm not WP:COOL. +MATIA ☎ 19:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of brief blocks on Arvanites

Administrators who were watching WP:ANI last week may have caught the brief but very clangorous battle of words between some participants in an apparently trivial war over the Arvanites articles, and those who have watched WP:RFAR will have seen a related failed attempt by one participant to bring an arbitration case against another. The edit wars continue on the article, so I have issued a three-hour block on the three worst offenders, REX (talk · contribs), Theathenae (talk · contribs) and matia.gr (talk · contribs) for extreme incivility, personal attacks and edit warring. It's a controversial move so I invite review and possible prompt reversal of the blocks. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. Just from a cursory glance at the talk page, everybody needed to cool off for a bit. Three hours is a drop in the bucket. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree (I'm not an admin. though. Does my opinion count?) REX 20:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It does. It means Tony got his point across, which I'm sure he'd be happy to hear. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish. I see no significant improvement in the behavior of any party to this argument, save a marked reluctance to resume the edit war. They're still not listening to one another. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

INJUSTICE

I demand a formal apology and the removal of my username from the list of the blocked users, with regards to User:Tony Sidaway's misuse of admin priviledges. +MATIA ☎ 19:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

*offensive remark removed* MATIA

You engaged in an edit war. You know that edit wars are harmful and yet you did. You got what you deserved; anyway, it was only [27] three hours. Just accept the punishment for what you did. I did. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time! REX 19:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I was offline for 23 hours and when I got back I saw your friend's message on my talk page User_talk:Matia.gr#DEUX_EX_MACHINA_or_agent_provocateur.3F. You got it REX. You've made me mad and furious for the 3rd and the last time. I'm gonna clear my name and then I'll leave wikipedia. +MATIA ☎ 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone is highly encouraged to read my previous discussions with these user (or this user and his sockpuppet) on my talk page and the evidence regarding his behaviour on my user page. As I've stated, while asking various admins what to do, before I don't want User:REX to be blocked. But I do want him to stop provoking. And I do want a formal apology from the admin who blocked me without even asking my opinion or telling me anything! +MATIA ☎ 20:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

CALUMNY ALERT! MATIA accuses me of calumnies against him, but in his own logic, it is OK for him to make calumnies against me. MATIA, do the phrases innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution mean anything to you? You are behaving in a very childish way and this does not say much about your ability to work with others. You're making such a big deal over this. So you got blocked, so what? It just proves that you are like everybody else here. Not perfect as you seem to think. Are you telling me that you don't think that Tony was justified in blocking you. So Theathenae and myself can be blocked, but you are too holy to be blocked? And for the record: those two books were in Greek. They don't qualify as sources under Wikipedia:Verifiability. And as far as our dispute over the status of Arvanitika, you couldn't provide a single source, you just wanted me to accept your word for a claim that contradicts UNESCO, Ethnologue, Encarta, the Helsinki HR Commission and Britannica. So don't use that "holier than thou" attitude here. REX 21:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who disrespect WP:NPA, not me or anyone else. If you didn't repeatedly attack me I would ignore the rest of your attitude. Innocent what? check the last two lines. Or maybe just this +MATIA ☎ 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And of course I am like everyone else. I just volunteer as a contributor. I don't offend people or try to push my pov every 20 days or so. +MATIA ☎ 21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And you disregard Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:NPOV. Gee, I guess you aren't that innocent either. Who woulda thought it! REX 21:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

what has happened in Arvanites during the last 5 months

At first it was a user who said he was Albanian and wanted to force that Arvanites are an Albanian minority in Greece. I've told him that he should respect the culture and the history of Arvanites. He had discussions with various users and at some point he gave up. During the '90s the Albanian president Berisha did the same claim and there were many written protests from Arvanites in Greek mass media. Arvanites and Albanians same a partly common origin, yet Arvanites don't want to be labeled as Albanians. REX got involved at some point, and after a while, he prefered to label the people he talked with as greek-extremists instead of. And later he copy pasted again and again parts from a Unesco report and a helsinki watch report and today the talk page is very difficult to read for people, like the admin who blocked me. He asked for an RFC and I've supported him. Unfortunately the RFC's on balkan history are left unanswered. Check the history of the wiki and see who labels other users in his edit summaries as Nazis. +MATIA ☎ 20:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Straw man arguments. The above is a pack of lies. What a pity you can't prove it. I insisted on what UNESCO, Britannica etc say. That Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian. The Eperiote Arvanites DO call themselves Albanians, a fact which you choose to ignore. And if you stop lying and check you'll see that I have never used the word Nazi to refer to anyone. You are caught lying yet again. REX 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

At some point around september, after seeing that RFC didn't work, I've started looking for sources on Arvanites. Two of the books I've found are listed with their ISBNs, the first about history is called: Arvanites, the Dorians of Modern Hellenism, it was published in 1960, and it is the book that most scholars refference and cite about Arvanites. The other book is about their culture: it has Arvanitic songs and few pages about their language. Anyway, i'm not wp:cool (as can be seen from my writing) so I'll probably logout for today.+MATIA ☎ 20:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, those books don't qualify as sources under Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have a book in Zulu. Should we use that as a source as well? You don't have sources and you are contradicting mine: UNESCO, Ethnologue, Britannica, Encarta etc. Remember: when you are wrong, quit! REX 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously MATIA sees fit to reject my proposals and sources on the grounds that you know its untrue and that that report is biased. Well MATIA, OK well reject Britannica, Encarta, UNESCO, Ethnologue etc as liars because you know that what they say is untrue and we'll reject the Helsinki Report because you know it is biased. Well, given that you know everything we must believe you instead. Oops, we can't; because WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability don't seem to allow that. What a pity! :-)) REX 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

MACEDONIA related articles

User:REX talked User:Bomac into helping him forcing REX's pov regarding an imaginary census of Macedonian Slavs in Greece. This matter was discussed before, and the consensus was that this census didn't happen. See Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#macedonian_slavs_in_Greece. Why the admin who blocked me didn't check who was edit warring and where? +MATIA ☎ 20:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue gave those figures. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability those results can be used whether you like it or not. The world is not made to please you so stop wasting everyone's time. REX 21:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue are linguists. For greek census check http://www.statistics.gr +MATIA ☎ 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Greek censi don't include that question anyway. Or do they now? When did a Greek census ever ask: how many people speak Macedonian here? Never. So obviously Ethnologue is refering to some other census, a census which DID ask that question. Something which you choose to ignore. REX 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This matter is somewhat subtle, but it is obvious that Greeks who have lived in Greece for 500 years don't like being labeled "Albanian". REX's insistence on that point is quite overbearing. Fred Bauder 22:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It may sound inappropriate but GOD BLESS YOU and THANKS! +MATIA ☎ 22:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The Arvanites of Epirus would appear to disagree with you Fred. Also, I never called them Albanians, that is just another of MATIA's calumnies. I am quoting UNESCO, Britannica, Encarta, Ethnologue, the HHRC etc who indicate that their language is an Albanian dialect. MATIA is insisting on something that would be like saying that American English is a separate language from British English because the Arericans don't identify as Britons. If you think that all my sources are wrong, you should notify them immediatly and tell them that they are wrong. REX 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

dropping the masks

Finaly that user labeled formally all Arvanites as ethnic Albanians (see his edit). I've added the proper totallydisputed tag, as this edit not only ignores the previously reached consensus, not only offends the culture and the history of one of the bigest group of Greek people but it also ignores all facts. I must thank now that user for proving that I was always telling the truth. +MATIA ☎ 17:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Everything I said can be found on the Helsinki Report. I never used the phrase ethnic Albanians, MATIA. You are lying (as usual). I also think that it's fair to point out that a consensus was never reached, there was always dispute, from the top of the talk page till the bottom. You also say all the facts. Which facts? You haven't provided a single source to support your arguments and you directly contradict the word of such reliable documents such as the cited report. You are a liar, there is no doubt about it. Gee, it's so sad the lengths you will go to try and discredit me. So sad :-))) REX 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

If anyone had a close look at the above interactions between REX (talk · contribs) and Matia.gr (talk · contribs), they will have a pretty good idea of what's been going on over at Arvanites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The solution to the disagreement would seem to be actually quite simple: there are multiple points of view involved, and they should be properly attributed and represented neutrally as diverging points of view. Instead, each side takes their own POV as The Truth and tries to discredit and malign the other side. Several attempts at getting the parties to work towards a compromise have failed: the article was protected, the editors were given a forced cooling-off period, etc. We need some new ideas. One thing to try would be to start imposing sanctions for inflammatory or insulting remarks (such as accusing others of lying) and general stubbornness (such as insisting on formal apologies). Not sure if that would have the desired effect though. --MarkSweep✍ 18:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I have already asked MATIA to draft a proposal, so that I know what he wants. He refused. He has started this conversation in a lame attempt to discredit me. The tactics are well known and such tactics are employed by people who have no sources to support their claims. I have made proposals twice, I have proposed mediation twice, I have found all the sources and I have requested comment (no one answered). MATIA hasn't provided any sources. Everything he said was in the form that he knows better and that I should listen to him because I know nothing about the Arvanites. I want to get this over with. MATIA is not co-operating, I want to know what he wants, I want to know what his sources are. He won't respond. MATIA, how about writing a proposal on how you want the article and present it with your sources like I have done on at least two occasions? It'll give you something to do instead of spending all your time writing that hate-list on me, User:GrandfatherJoe and the administrator who justifiably blocked you. REX 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel bad. That post of mine above is not very inviting. MATIA, I'm willing to co-operate to solve this dispute of ours. If you agree; then hopefully, we can work something out. REX 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you check MATIA's contributions, you will see that he has been active and knows what is going on on User_talk:Bomac, presumably through his watchlist. He evidently has ample time to do things like that, he however chooses not to answer my offer to co-operate which I made above. If I'm not much mistaken, that would only take about a few seconds and it is very easy to type something like yes, let's co-operate. Do tell me, if I lost my temper with MATIA's indication of bad faith and unwillingness to co-operate and come up with the first consensus that Arvanites has ever had; would it be wrong? REX 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Anittas: personal attacks & stalking

I know that a number of admins and other editors have run up against this person, and have dicovered that he's not amenable to reason. After an instant flare up when I copy-edited an article on which he'd been working, he's been following me around. I've already explained his (admittedly futile) attempts to gather a group to do things to me, they know not what, but they shall be the terrors of the Earth — he approached anyone he could find with whom I'd been in less than friendly contact, including banned vandals and sock-puppets, people I'd blocked for 3RR violations, etc. He's also taken to following me around to articles in which he'd hitherto shown no interest, reverting my edits with personal-attack edit summaries (e.g., one of the milder, leaving childishly insulting messages on the Talk pages of people to whom I'm replying (e.g., here), voting "against me" at AfDs, TfDs, etc., and generally making an annoying idiot of himself. His Talk page gives a good idea of the intransigence. Even if I thought that an RfC would do any good, it'd take time, of which I already have too little. Could someone please try to get him to see sense? I know that that's not likely to be easy, but I can't think of anything else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I went to his talk page to offer an olive branch, but Shauri has already left a lovely message that was much more generous than any I would've made. Hopefully it'll take. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're likely using the wrong stick: I think the time for olive branches has long past. Reading his Talk page, I can see that first I, then Knowledge Seeker, then Ann Heneghan, and now Shauri have all cautioned him in the most polite of terms against personal attacks, all to no avail. The pattern of Anittas' behavior and the utter groundlessness of his objections to Mel is such that I'm inclined to think that RFC would serve as nothing more than as another pulpit from which to bash Mel and his "defenders." I strongly feel the next step is a clear and unequivocal warning that continued stalking, personal attacks and the recruiting and encouragement of other nogoodniks to his campaign will result in temporary blocking for disruptiveness. I'll be pursuing this course with Anittas with Mel's permission should Shauri's attempt fail. FeloniousMonk 22:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to think that Shauri's message will have the desired effect, and it's only fair to give it a chance. If it doesn't work, I'm beginning to think that yes, that's the only route; thank you. (Thanks to Katefan0 too.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you to have a look at the reply at his Talk Page. I was expecting a better reaction, but I'm afraid that's all I could achieve. I may be naif, but not enough as to realize that his "offer of good will" means only a "surrender without conditions". Mel, my apollogies for taking action without your express consent - but despite we have only talked twice before, it's the least I could do for the person who welcomed me when I joined WP seven months ago. I'll keep an eye over this matter, and please, let me know if I can be of further assistence. Warm hugs to the three of you, Shauri smile! 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* - that was a beautiful message on his talk page. He's probably just mad or something and not thinking straight and probably needs a week off :). I'd try not to take it personally, as its always good to be nice :). Maybe things will be different in a while... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel, stop trying to make people do your (clean - not dirty) work. Hannibal and Byzantine relied too much on mercenary troops and look what happened to them. Yeah, I'm sure you don't have time to waste on a RfC against me - especially when you're busy with the RfC made against you.

Shauri, thank you for your lovely message. It was nice. I offered Mel peace. I offered him status quo. He didn't care to take it. He won't address me directly. He only likes to address me in third person. How am I supposed to communicate with him? If Mel wanted peace, he could have gotten it from day one. Then day two. Then day three, and so on. He could make peace, to-day, if he wanted to. But why would he want peace? He feels stimulated by my bitriol comments made against him. Mel, you're a philosopher and stuff. Tell us: what philosopher argued that man needs an enemy to define himself? It was something in that direction. You need me, Mel. See you tomorrow. --Anittas 05:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

timescapes article

I am afraid, the article titled, "timescapes" was premeturely deleted. I was planning to add more content and finish the article, in a short period of time. I am also in the process of wrting a book with that title and decsription, even though, there is a novel with similar name from the author Gregory Benford. Could you please contact me at: <address removed> to discuss this further? I appreciate your response. Thanks

I imagine you're referring to this? If you want to get it back, you'll have to go to WP:VFU.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Year-long block of IP

I notice Redwolf24 has blocked 207.6.224.18 for one year for death threats. The contributions of the IP sure make it look shared, though. Comments? ~~ N (t/c) 00:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I picked Jtkiefer up on a similar block with another user recently. Personally I think it's a bad idea all round, and with little actual use. After all how long is it going to take that user to find a different computer to edit from, or a different Internet service provider? Probably less than a year, I'd imagine. -- Francs2000 00:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a canadian telecom company. Don't know about its shared status. I agree that it's a bad idea to block for a year. Perhaps a month would suffice? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I only block for that long if it's a real issue with threats and personal attacks and I think it's necessarry in some cases, you're more than welcome to check my blog log if you'd like, you'll notice on the contribs and the talk page history of all the IP's that I have blocked for that long it has been because shorter blocks don't work and/or they were openly flaunting the fact that we couldn't block them for longer (almost always at the same time they were threatening me and attacking me) so at that point I figured that a longer block was the only way to stop the vandalism sprees from these users. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for placing you on the defensive there, it wasn't intentional, just stating my opinion. -- Francs2000 00:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Ryan Delaney showed me a dif in IRC, this is what I saw: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyan_Delaney&diff=24852428&oldid=24749469 though, apparently it was three different edits, and I blocked the wrong IP. I have 0 tolerance for death threats. I thought Ryan showed me only one diff, so thats why I blocked the user I saw. I'll revert the block then. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you could say its a bad idea to block an IP for a year (provided its not shared) in the case of death threats. Jimbo has stated the overall seriousness of death threats, and they should not be tolerated. For all we know, its a sock of Mr Treason. So now I have blocked the real death threat-er, 195.56.229.232, for just as long. If you think that's too harsh, revert me. I would never engage in a block war. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't go so far as to 'revert' your block, but I think that switching IPs is as easy as switching gloves these days. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And switching accounts is yet easier, so why even bother blocking Willy? Why clean your room if its just gonna get dirty? Why brush your teeth if plaque will be back after the next meal? (sorry for the sarcasm, just want to push my point.) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Redwolf's overall thought on this, blocks may not do much but hopefully at least for the time being we've stopped this person from using his/her home computer to vandalize thus making it harder and possibly not worthwhile for him/her to vandalize. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Username blocking forces vandals to take extra effort. If IP-switching were the only issue I would support long-term IP-blocking, but the bigger issue is collateral damage - because someone else will probably use that IP in the future. Gods, I can't wait for IPv6... DOWN WITH DHCP!! ~~ N (t/c) 02:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Collateral damage applies to proxies. The true IP was not a proxy, so there's nothing to worry about. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Collateral damage applies to dynamic IPs as well. This could easily be one. ~~ N (t/c) 02:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) For most people, once someone hangs up a dial up connection or turns off a DSL connection they give up their IP, and the ISP then reassigns it to someone else the next time someone connects to the system. Hence if you block an IP, they might just hang up their modem connection, redial and get a new IP. Meanwhile, the IP you have blocked for a year could be picked up by anyone who uses the same ISP, and suddenly they would be blocked even though they are entirely innocent. Dragons flight 02:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt its dynamic just because it only has one contribution. And to Dragons flight: I've had the same IP for 4 years, even with resets...... Redwolf24 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Not that many people edit Wikipedia. My IP is dynamic, but having checked several different IPs I came into possession of, none of them had any contributions. I think, to be safe, the block should be dropped to a week (at absolute maximum, a month), but I won't do it myself.

But consider: for this person to threaten a user, they must have been pissed off by him in some way. Which means that they must have been editing, and been blocked from, Wikipedia at some time shortly before. If they had been using a username, it would have had to be more than 24 hours ago, or the IP autoblocker would have got them. I doubt any vandal stays that mad for 24 hours. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly likely that this person evaded their block by taking advantage of their dynamic IP. So I strongly recommend shortening. ~~ N (t/c) 02:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the hostname of that IP is "amazonas-1502.adsl.datanet.hu". ~~ N (t/c) 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hungary? And fine, I'll shorten the block. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, HU is Hungary. Zach (Sound Off) 04:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I had a nice person threaten to kill me and pretty much laughed it off. Since I'm usually armed due to the nature of my employment, I guess I take things like a death threat in cyberspace with a grain of salt, but don't see anything wrong with perma-banning anyone who makes a death threat...if they come back with a new IP, block them again.--MONGO 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• ullo, that's not an aol ip, that's an open source proxy, proxy users have a way of labling their pages with {{AOL}} and {{sharedip}} templates just so they don't get blocked, and most people take them at face value for some reason, either way, block away, oh and MONGO, stop starting flame wars with random AOL anons on the basis that they might be *that* very special aol anon that bugged you.. on a side note, at least I know why you threatened to have me thrown in jail and sodomized when I disagreed with one of your eidts a long while ago, but yes, use arin BEFORE just assuming that someone is an AOL anon, we're a very special breed of editor, and it really isn't fair for us to be lumped in with open source proxy vandals--64.12.116.5 21:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

regarding you being armed I don't even want to know :), but on the fact that any actions from IP's especially for AOL and such are just treated like oh well they're trolls but we can't block them because a legit person who isn't threatening to kill one of ouredits might be affected by the block and it's so hard for him/her to request to be unblocked, it isn't. I for one add to my watchlist the userpage of every user that I block for over a week just in case something like that happens and even though I would hate for a person to be innocently affected and I hate banning unless necessary I think that we can't stop treating IP's with kid gloves just because their IP's even if that involves forcing the ISP's to cooperate and deal with the issue themselves or risk being cut off. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rajput

The talk page on this article is home to a rancorous debate between some Hindu and Sikh Rajputs and some Muslim Rajputs. It continues to spill over into the article itself; in particular, a fellow named Shivraj without a wikipedia account keeps adding a hopelessly chauvinist and carelessly edited section to the article. I don't want to start a revert war, but his edits are awful and totally un-encyclopedic, and have made the article too long. Can anyone help? Tom Radulovich 01:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Spawn Man

Rather than respond to Shauri's, Bishonen's R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)'s and my requests that he cease to change other users' signed comments on his talkpage and that he observe Wikipedia's civility policy, Spawn Man has blanked his talkpage and he has told R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) that he has ceased to be Spawn Man and created a new user instead[28]. How are we to respond to this?--Wiglaf 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, he has left a message on his blanked talkpage that he intends to change his username. If no one objects, I will revert to its state pre-blanking.--Wiglaf 07:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I have reverted to its state pre-blanking. This way, there will be more transparency in the handling of his case.--Wiglaf 08:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In spite of the fact he has lashed out at several of my friends and now at me (because he feels I've somehow rejected his friendship), Iam compelled to write something in Spawn Man's defense.

• Contributions, he has made many, including numerous WWI battles and campaigns (and is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles ). He has had 5 of the articles he started featured in DYK over a very short period of time. So this is not some mere vandal, troll or pest but a very prolific and enthusiastic contributor.
• Age, while it may not be an excuse is certainly a valid explanation and should be taken into consideration. It is not easy being 14 with all the hormones gushing into ones brain. The sense of self-esteem tottering on a pin-head. And it is sometimes very hard just to say "I'm sorry". I'm still apologizing for or embarassed by some of the things I said/did as a teenager.
• A poor example. He made some silly, childish and rude comments earlier on my talk page, similar to those he would make later to Wiglaf. I deleted them, simply out of impulse because I felt they had no place there and made both him and my talkpage look bad. He noticed and took it as a sign that it was ok and would later do the same on his. I feel responsible for this, especially since it seems to be the major charge against him. Had I known, rest assured, I would have spared my delete key. Mea Culpa...sorry.
• Other circumstances. His user page has been vandalized no less than 3 times in as many days. This would put any of us in a combative mood and perhaps a wee bit paranoid too. Plus he has had some deletions/edit wars with some of his articles.

While I certainly do not condone his recent behavior, I think banning and/or blocking is an extreame measure. He has vowed to "Turn over a new leaf". I think he deserves a fair chance to do this. Please consider. Thanks, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If he keeps in line from now on, I don't see any reason to ban him. However, I think it is worth considering that all the vandalism on his user page come from New Zealand (where he lives).--Wiglaf 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, so he might be self-vandalizing in order to gain sympathy/support? The possibility cannot be ruled out yet. I only hope he keeps his vow henceforth. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope it for your sake Ghost, since you appear to appreciate him. His possible auto-vandalism would be consistent with his unsavoury use of the "wheel chair joke" to gain sympathy. A method he admits to use consciously on your talkpage[29], in spite of the fact the he claims it to be a "joke" on his talkpage. However, what concerns me most is that he still fails to grasp Wikipedia:Civility, like here, something for which he has recently been admonished by Bishonen who refers to earlier warnings. He barely saved himself from a huge block by me by turning an insult into a bitter observation on humanity. I would rather see an admin babysitting Spawn Man, an admin who would deal out time-limited blocks whenever he fails to be polite. However, rather than shouldering that responsibility myself, I would recommend Wikipedia:Request for Comment next time.--Wiglaf 08:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate his contributions, enthusiasm and his friendship, such that it is. I do not appreciate his behaviour at times, as in the examples you provide. But I'd like to think, overall, his good qualities outweigh his bad (I also noticed his Oriental retelling of "The Parable Of The Spoons", but had no idea it saved him from a block). So far he has kept his vow. I take this as a positive sign and that there is no need for him to be "babysat" by anyone yet. But should it come to that, might I recommend LordAmeth for this task? Should he be confirmed as admin and if he is willing? He has SM's trust and respect. He also hasnt crossed him yet, as we have, and seems a lot more patient with him than we are. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea.--Wiglaf 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.

Consolidated list, principal accounts in bold.

• 12.72.78.30 (talk · contribs)
• 155.84.57.253 (talk · contribs)
• 201.240.119.26 (talk · contribs)
• 203.61.246.14 (talk · contribs)
• 211.30.26.251 (talk · contribs)
• 24.0.91.81 (talk · contribs)
• 38.114.48.102 (talk · contribs)
• 38.114.52.98 (talk · contribs)
• 68.115.183.34 (talk · contribs)
• 70.252.26.105 (talk · contribs)
• AnimalFarm1 (talk · contribs)
• Can'tStandYa (talk · contribs)
• CantStandYa (talk · contribs) (still in use)
• CaptainJackWill (talk · contribs)
• DadoCut (talk · contribs)
• DonnaReed (talk · contribs)
• EinBerliner (talk · contribs)
• Katrina&TheWaves (talk · contribs)
• KnightsOfMalta (talk · contribs)
• LesbianLatke (talk · contribs)
• LittleDeadBuddy (talk · contribs)
• LordCornwall (talk · contribs)
• N1Arch1 (talk · contribs)
• OberstKlink (talk · contribs)
• ObsoleteMedia (talk · contribs)
• Prohibit0nions (talk · contribs) (Note: not User:ProhibitOnions, but an impostor)
• Quadralobal (talk · contribs)
• Seka'sBreathMints (talk · contribs)
• Shran (talk · contribs)
• Smegmann (talk · contribs)
• Stalingrad (talk · contribs)
• TonyTheTerrier (talk · contribs)
• WehrWolf (talk · contribs)
• YvaBraun (talk · contribs)

An editor who clearly exhibits a consistent editing pattern and other tell-tales has been using a variety of usernames and IP addresses. His use of multiple accounts in order to edit the same articles, or vote for deletions turned to sock puppetry. I bring this to other admins' attention in order to invite additional input to this this editor, whom I hope can learn to work in more collegial manner. He undoubtedly makes many useful contributions, but his prediliction to sock puppetry ought to be curbed. His past incarnations have included:

• see above

The editor is particularly given to editing lists, and articles on guns, Iceland, "Ich Bin Ein Berliner"/donuts, Battlestar Galactica/Star Trek (and other sci-fi), vampires/werewolves, the Cold War, the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as a variety of other articles. This is not a vandal, but perhaps an editor who can become more helpful to the project. -Willmcw 07:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Credit goes to Willmcw for finding the pattern in this confusing mess. I've been posting notes on any number of his or her user talk pages and article talk pages trying to get in touch with him regarding his "dispute" on Cold War. But instead the article gets reverted by one new sockpuppet after another almost daily... This is quite odd. Every editor who has shown such dedication to any goal on Wikipedia uses the talk pages, often to the point of soap-boxing. I can't figure out any way to explain this behavior. 172 | Talk 07:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add some more user names to the above list. If Willmcw wants to combine these with his list, that's fine by me:

• see above

I'm certain there's more, but that's all I've got for now. See also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shran. --Viriditas | Talk 09:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There are at least a dozen additional usernames that are suspicious but they take more time to pursue than I want to invest. The same user was recently reported at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Ich bin ein Berliner, where several more usernames are listed. Now that we've identified the problem, what's the solution? -Willmcw 07:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Both User:172 and myself have attempted to establish a dialogue with the user to no effect. I suggest we try again, documenting our attempts on the active user talk page, which at this time appears to be CantStandYa (talk · contribs); I see you've already left a message. --Viriditas | Talk 09:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added the usernames from the WP:VIP entry and consolidated the lists above. I'm sure it's not complete, but it's indicative. -Willmcw 08:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Willmcw, for sorting that out. There were a couple of names in the preliminary list I came up with that were probably innocent bystanders, and it looks like you've figured out which were which and found many more. I would tend to agree with you that this person could possibly still be turned into a useful Wikipedian; he or she seems to have both free time and a certain amount of energy.

However, one sockpuppet that wasn't listed is User:Prohibit0nions, which this person has used it to impersonate me. (I've added it to the above list.) I'd be glad to see that username blocked. ProhibitOnions 10:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin User:Redwolf24

• 03:17 October 5 Redwolf24's candidate statement, running for the Arbitration Committee in December 2005 includes the phrasing my proudest contribution is getting the medcom on wheels [30]
• 19:45 October 5 Guettarda notices [31]
• 03:44 October 6 Redwolf24 replies [32]
• 03:43, 6 October 2005 Redwolf24 User:Guettarda moved to User:Guettarda on wheels! (Revealing my true identity) (revert)

I'm not familiar with "getting X on wheels" as an English idiom. Unless this is regional slang (a google reference would help here), it seems Redwolf24 is just teasing us with an intentional choice of words and a small prank. He's joking about carrying a bomb in his luggage at airport security, and I'm just the humorless drone writing it down in the incidents log.

I realized though that I had no idea, offhand, what to do if we ever had an enemy-within emergency. Good bookmarks include m:Stewards and m:Requests for permissions, however the latter points out that if an urgent de-adminship is ever required, the best thing to do is to contact a developer on the #wikimedia-tech IRC channel. By the way, it turns out that admins can delete pages even when blocked (though they can't move them). I can picture at least one reason why that's not a good thing. -- Curps 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

They can also unblock themselves, so it's really a moot point. I'd personally like to see blocks disable all modifications to wikipedia, including rollback/protection/blocking and even self unblocking. That way we could respond more quickly to admins gone bad or hijacked accounts, and should things ever become so bad that admins start blocking eachother for dishonourable reasons without there being anyone not reasonable enough to unblock them again we've lost already anyway. I see no problem with technically enforcing the no-self-unblocks rule. --fvw* 08:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one, have questioned the admin self-unblock feature, though I was ignored :) I still feel strongly about it being disabled. If I get blocked for something, reguardless of reason, I would expect to be unblocked for a good one, not just because I was able. The ability doesn't give the right. ∞Who?¿? 09:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. The ability to unblock yourself seems particularly silly, but a blocked admin should really find themselves in the same position as any other blocked user; just able to edit their own talk page. One rule for everyone is a decent enough motto. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not an entirely moot point. In an emergency, you could simply do continuous blocking (one per second if necessary, or multiple admins tag-teaming) until a steward could be contacted. If the block itself has no effect, however, there's no point. -- Curps 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The ability to unblock oneself is probably needed as a failsafe sanity measure. With a block bot I suspect I could block all admins on the English wikipedia within 60 seconds or less. -- Curps 09:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well then I know what you will be doing on April's Fools day :) Chances of a rouge admin or compromised admin account running a block bot are fairly slim I think. ∞Who?¿? 09:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to add that the unblocking yourself feature is useful when one finds oneself blocked as a result of an block on a dynamic or proxy IP that causes collateral damage, which I have suffered on a number of occasions just this last couple of weeks alone. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not an unblock of yourself though, that's an unblock of an IP; you could still disallow unblocking yourself as a user. I'd be fine with both being prevented though. Regular editors manage to get unblocked when they get collateralled just fine, admins should be quite able to cope. --fvw* 14:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Failsafe's are easy, just allow self-unblocking when more than 50% of the admins are blocked or something. --fvw* 14:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, "getting X on wheels" is a pretty common American expression. I've said it: "Hey, let's get this thing on wheels." It means "let's move," or, in the context Redwolf used it in "got it moving." --Blackcap | talk 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Not that I want to reopen this after it's died down, but "get this thing on wheels" gets only 9 distinct hits on Google (for comparison "get this thing on track" and "get this thing rolling" get hundreds). I hadn't heard of it. -- Curps 22:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it's the most commonly used expression around, just that, at least in the States, it's common enough that if I said it I'd be understood and I wouldn't be given any funny looks. --Blackcap | talk 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• If you want to actually say something about self-unblocking to devs, bugzilla:3072 is the place to do so. Dragons flight 14:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh - the "X on wheels" is a willy on wheels reference, y'know :). User:Willy on Wheels Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course. The point is, he intentionally made the reference... while applying for arbitration committee membership. Just file it under Category:Trivia and Category:Things that make you go hmmmm. -- Curps 09:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is absofuckingloutely ridiculous. RedWolf24 is a great admin, one of the best. Calling him into question on a totally innocent question is nothing but pure and utter bullshit. Agriculture 14:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What's truly fascinating is that, because the comment was made after he moved my talk page, I never got the orange bar. If I hadn't seen this I would probably still not know. I find it terribly funny. Guettarda 14:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, to me it seems quite immature, and will probably constitute a shot in the foot as regards his ArbCom candidacy, but I don't think it necessitates any further action. — Dan | Talk 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, it was a response to a joke that I made, it was among friends, it did not disrupt Wikipedia, it was restricted to the user space, it was a clever response to my jest...does no-one around here have a sense of humour? The only "injured party" here was Essjay, and I very much doubt he was terribly upset by the extra work. Chalk it up to Wikipedia:Department of Fun and leave it at that please. Guettarda 15:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I too realized it was a joke, but felt it was one best reverted (for the sake of anyone who might drop by Guettearda's page and not know what was going on). It wasn't that much work, and I blocked Red for 17 seconds (a la Jimbo re: Boothy443) to remind him to be careful of what he does, and received a playful 17 second block back (which I don't mind at all, so don't make a big deal out of it). I felt, and continue to feel, that "Medcom on wheels" was an innocent colloquialism, and that the inside joking between Guettarda and Red was innocent and frankly, funny. We have to have a sense of humor here: If we take every action seriously and catastrophize it into the most nefarious plot possible (i.e., one of our more prolific admins is really WOW) then we will very quickly start to lose valuable contributors over molehills made into mountains. This should not become another RickK. -- Essjay · Talk 18:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Essjay. It was silly, and RC patrol was probably alarmed for a bit about the possibility of a doppelganger, so perhaps it wasn't the best thought-out joke. Essjay reverted it, no further mayhem occurred, no harm done, certainly not worth anything more than a reminder not to make the RC patrollers drop their coffeemugs in worry when they don't know about the joke. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• This incident reminds me of Ta bu shi da yu's RFA nomination in which he appeared to clinch an easy promotion, but vandalised the featured article of the day as a joke. In reaction, many people in droves changed their vote to oppose, forcing TBSDY to withdraw. Question is, should Redwolf24 be forced to withdraw too after this incident? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  Hell no. When TBSDY vandalized the article of the day, a large number of people were harmed. When RedWolf24 moved Guettarda's userpage, nobody was harmed. There's a big difference here. --Carnildo 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  I remember the "incident" and the 17 second block, I also remember laughing very hard. As stated above, and especially by the invovled party, multiple readers were not effected by this, and it was in user namespace. It's not much different then the April Fools pranks admins pulled, except this was lowkey. This action would not influence any comments I may or may not make on his ArbCom. ∞Who?¿? 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is truly unbelievable. An inside joke turning into being mentioned at AN/I. There was no harm to anyone, and if I was WoW, I'd move a lot bigger game than a friend's user page! Its ridiculous how a feeble attempt at humor can make someone do all this. I apologize for trying to make someone laugh, now let's get back to writing an encyclopedia on wheels!? Redwolf24 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Gee, people... there was no harm done at all (well, there was a little bit of harm done to me last night, see this diff :P), but let's think about this. Guettarda made a joke, Redwolf joked back, and both laughed it off. Redwolf is a respectable admin, but come on, does that mean that he is not allowed to have harmless fun with his friend, who didn't care a bit about the joke? Titoxd^(?!?) 22:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn my arbcom support, as arbcom members should be humorless apparently. Though the particular people I'm voting for are rather humorous, as I believe color is always good. Sorry for all of you who I've offended and made feel unsafe (airport bomb? yeh, that makes people feel unsafe. WoW? If you think I really am WoW, then I apologize profusely for scaring you.) Cheers. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the ArbCom voting form have a spot for write-in votes? --Carnildo 00:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

oh feck.Geni 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"I saw Redwolf24 with the Goody Parker! I saw Redwolf24 dancin' with Willy on Wheels! Reverend Hale save us all! Burn the witch, burn the witch!" People, please. -- Essjay · Talk 23:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS: You got what [you wanted]. I hope you're happy now. I have half a mind to go with him. -- Essjay · Talk 23:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh feckety feck — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What is going on? Is there some sort of anti-humor campaign currently underway or what? Let's remember that in order to make an encyclopedia we need people, and people have a sense of humor that shouldn't be repressed, lest we want to bore contributors and drive them away. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Sometimes I feel that wikipedia is going insane. This is one of those times. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This entire thing is ridiculous and borders on abuse of AN/I actually scratch that it is abuse of AN/I, it was a joke, granted it may not have been the best joke since Willy On Wheels is not known really outside the admin and recent changes patrol circles but it was still just a joke and didn't at the beginning and doesn't now merit posting on AN/I. I must say that I am very dissapointed with certain editors and the community in general on this one. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am appalled that people would take such an obvious joke so seriously. If Guettarda really gave a damn, he would have said something about it. And Guettarda obviously found humor in this. I see nothing wrong with administrators (or rather, any users) messing around in the user space, so long as everyone involved agrees that it's in jest, and it doesn't affect other users. This did neither. A few contributors who are a little too tight-assed about things have led to one of the best admins I know on Wikipedia to take a Wikibreak. I know some people were pissed over April Fool's jokes, but none of them were threatened with de-adminship, and their pranks were a lot more visible than Redwolf24's. Let's remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, but let's also remember that things like this don't disrupt it at all, and are part of what makes Wikipedia fun. Ral315 W_S 02:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I see RedWolf24 getting a lot of support in this thread, and so he should, as a conscientious, hardworking admin who played a joke in the userspace! Red, come baaack! And get your butt back on the ArbCom election page, I want to vote for ya! Bishonen | talk 03:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just got up to speed on this whole thing, and frankly, I'm disgusted. Sure, WoW is an asshole, but it's in NO WAY comparable to joking about a bomb in an airport--no way in hell. I had noticed the comment on Red's talk page, and laughed, but it wasn't until I saw Essjay's page that my blood really started to boil. Why in the world would you think that Redwolf24, a great contributor, and even greater admin, would be Willy On Wheels. It's a fucking colloquialism, people, I mean Jesus H. Christ! It's not so much that people can't take a joke (which they obviously can't), but that this seems to definately be a time when the community has overreacted. Redwolf was vastly ahead in his RfA, and this simple fact has made him leave? I'm disgusted, and I hope you all are too. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)}

Guys, let's not start finger-pointing here. One decent admin taking a break is bad-enough; we don't need to chase off any more, especially when all of this is a huge misunderstanding. OK, we've come to a consensus already. Do we need to continue to express our outrage that will do nothing but irritate some of the above admins? I urge everybody to take a deep breath, and calm down. On that same note, I urge that no one else posts on this thread; there is simply no need to increase the already too-high antagonism. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, my comment must have gotten lost in an edit conflict, but I pretty much was going to say what Flcelloguy just posted. Ok, it's a joke, we all understand, it's not a big deal, so let's go back to writing an encyclopedia. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of you please go back to the top of this section and carefully read what I actually wrote. The first paragraph is about Redwolf24, the second is a what-if scenario that does not mention him, which led to some useful discussion. Before protesting about overreacting, please consider carefully if you yourself aren't doing so. -- Curps 04:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a typo: for "even required", read "ever required". -- Curps 04:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... it was a joke. A joke. Nothing wrong. If Redwolf still runs for Arbcom I fully intend to vote for him. ~~ N (t/c) 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is stupid, but Redwolf didnt move the page, it was Essjay. JobE6 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin abilities while blocked

this should help, a sub-topic heading. Acutually I did forget to comment on the ability to delete pages while blocked. I think this is much worse than being able to unblock oneself. Say we did have a rogue admin, this ability defeats the purpose of blocking someone, even if they could still unblock themselves, they could easily be blocked again. The damage that one could do while blocked and deleting pages far outweighs the need to keep this ability. ∞Who?¿? 04:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's happened once. They were shut down pretty fast. Rogue admins are not really enough of a problem to need to worry about.Geni 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Think of it like you think of a smoke detector. Fires aren't really much of a problem, and I don't expect them become a problem in the future, but it's a safe feeling to have one around anyway. --fvw* 07:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that one confused me :) Safe to have the ability, or no? Maybe safe to be able to unblock yourself, but not much need to delete things while blocked. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 07:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, I meant: I don't expect that an admin gone mad or compromised account will every become such a huge problem that the half-an-hours wait for a dev causes serious trouble, but I'd just as soon we were able to block admins right away. --fvw* 07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, IF it ever happens, again, a block should be able to solve the problem, w/o waiting on a dev. ∞Who?¿? 07:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Do we even need a dev to work on this? We can always ask a bureaucrat for emergency, temporary de-sysopping if it ever came to this. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor point, but we'd need to find a Steward to do that. Bureaucrats are the only (?) class of user who cannot undo their own actions. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that. You learn something new every day... but still, you don't need to bug the devs. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that an admin should be able to unblock any other user while blocked, but not unblock themselves, or use any other admin powers. That should satisfy any problem with one admin gone mad and blocking all others.gadfium 08:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but I don't think we should be too bothered about it if it'd mean a lot of work for the devs. After all prevention of ever promoting a rogue admin is better than any cure. Another point - page deletions can be undone, but image deletions can't so I think that would be the biggest problem. the wub "?!" 09:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that ther is also the possibility of an admin's account being hacked. I think it really makes sense that a block should actually block an admin from almost all use of admin poswers. If this is tricky to implemet, it may not be worth the trouble, but if it is fairly easy, it should IMO be done. DES ^(talk) 00:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

De minimis desipio →Raul654 02:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Back to Redwolf24

I think its worth stating here at this AN/I a few things:

1) I hold no grudge against Curps for reporting this
2) I'd like to thank those who defended me...
3) I have reentered the arbcom race after the constant prodding of a few people. Who knows, maybe 'any publicity is good publicity' ;-)
4) I'm back from my rather short break. I knew I wouldn't be able to make the break too long as I still have medcom stuff to watch over.
5) Perhaps its worth noting that I planned on running for bureaucrat October 20th. Unlike the arbcom run, this whole ordeal can hurt me because some annoyed people can oppose me. As for the arbcom, opposition votes don't exist, but of course I may have lost a voter, though I doubt those opposing me were gonna vote for me in the first place.

Comments always appreciated. Cheers, Redwolf24 (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

User:131.111.131.88

Just blocked this anon for persistent vandalism of, amongst other pages, List of Popes. I also noted that number 10 on his list was Pope Willie on Wheels. Just thought I'd mention it if anyone has the time/inclination to investigate further. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This may or may not be related, but there's been some recent vandals creating new pages with "Pope <insert profanity/offensive name>" and redirecting the page to either Pope Benedict XVI or Pope John Paul II. Check my deletion log (scroll down to the middle), and you'll see that I deleted a series of pages like that that 131.111.8.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had created. (Unfortunately, 131.111.8.103 is a shared IP address) One of the created pages was Pope Willy. Also, it should be noted that all of the pages I deleted had been created before by 80.47.40.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the day before. Just be on the lookout if someone creates a "Pope _______" page. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I just noticed that 131.111.131.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 131.111.8.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are both probably the same person, given the similarity of IP addresses. It's a shared IP, though. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 15:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Has now become User:Schizoider, whose user page consists of the statement "For every item of vandalism I find, I will create one item myself, thus ensuring vandalism homeostasis, while at the same time having good drunken fun.". One to watch. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to wait for any further vandalism, I've blocked indef. --fvw* 07:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, but my guess is that they'll be back. I'm going to add some more pope-related pages to my watchlist (the things vandals make us do!). Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's always the problem with blocking usernames. I can't wait until someone implements the "edits by blocked users only get show to the blocked edit themselves (and the user isn't told they're blocked)" feature in mediawiki. --fvw* 07:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I followed that. --Blackcap | talk 22:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

String Theory Article missing / vandalized

The String Theory Article page is missing / vandalized. I am a newbie and didn't want to risk doing the vandal reporting incorrectly. Thank you.

It appears that String theory was hit by a pair of vandals. The problem has been corrected by another Wikipedian. If you find a similiar problem in the future, Wikipedia:Revert provides the procedure to restore the information removed by simple vandals. --Allen3 ^talk 15:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Odd warning about alleged sockpuppets

I recieved a msg on my talk page from User:Adam1213, in this edit. This user seemed to be alleging a mass invasion of sock puppets. The only name he gave that seems to be an actual wikipedia user account was that of User:Linuxbeak whio I have never interacted with, but seems to be a well established and respected editor. Later User:Adam1213 blanked his own msg with the comment "I removed it because I relised that the person and all there accounts had been removed a little later.". I am not sure what is going on here, and I would welcome advice from one or more more experienced admins. Is this something I need to take action on? Did I miss something here? I responded to Adam1213 in this edit. Thnak you. DES ^(talk) 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a sock invasion a little while back by someone that didn't much care for Linuxbreak and created many accounts like "Linuxbreak sucks", etc. Unless there is something else recent, I believe that has all been entirely dealt with. Dragons flight 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleting The Sexy Sluts

Dear Administrators,

We feel it is unfair of PFHLai and Fawcett5

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/The_Sexy_Sluts)

to delete the profile description of our band. Although our name may sound perverse, I assure you we are an actual band. You can view our profile on myspace (http://www.myspace.com/thesxysluts) and hear our music if you must verify that we actually exist. We make music to make people happy, please let us on Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

The Sexy Sluts

Hi. The article was not deleted due to doubt that you are a band. It was deleted due to lack of any claim of notability. In order to be an encyclopedic article your band must have significant claim to fame. In addition, it is inappropriate to add your own band to Wikipedia. This is considered WP:VANITY and WP:SPAM. Please don't take this as any slight against your band. (They don't have an article on my band either...) - Tεxτurε 18:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Did this go through AfD or was it speedied? Everyking 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sexy Sluts is a red link, so it looks like a speedy. DES ^(talk) 19:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The deletion log suggests it was speedied for having little content other then a link. Would userfying it satisfy everyone that no harm was done? Friday (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The deletion log shows:

• • 13:14, 6 October 2005 PFHLai deleted "The Sexy Sluts" (spam ad)
  • 12:36, 6 October 2005 Fawcett5 deleted "The Sexy Sluts" (No assertion of notability, mostly just a link)

Looks like it was speedy deleted twice, and it looks like neither was a valid speedy. OTOH this looks highly unlikley to survive AfD, so I hesitate to taske it to VfU. DES ^(talk) 19:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Specifically it looks like a classic article about a band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. However, it does not look like the kind of spam that is vandalism IMO, and the band speedy proposal failed. DES ^(talk) 19:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't take it to VFU. The article does not provide sufficient context for undeletion. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• It was an obvious speedy. The "spam" speedy isn't there just for allnatrlv1agr@.com. It's for anything that is simply an external link. Those who believe in administrator discretion (such as Tony) should also believe in admin discretion on what constitutes "content" before the link. If the purpose of the article is advertising and there is simply a link, then it is a speedy spam. If it is advertising but there is a lot of text, then it is an AfD. I'm not sure where this sudden trend of calling speedies "bad" and "inappropriate" came from -- especially when people want to claim that they can undelete because admins have no need to consult (and the corollary argument is that they have the ability to delete without consultation), but "spam" is one of those speedy guidelines that has a lot of latitude in it to start with. I don't mind folks disagreeing with a speedy, but calling it "bad" is unnecessary and contentious. Geogre 15:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It was an obvious invalid speedy, but I don't feel moved to undelete it and I doubt whether any other admin will. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is no "spam speedy". A1 didn't apply to this case as there was ample context to determine what the article is about. A3 didn't apply as there were several sentances of text in addition to a singel link. teh CSD says "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." (my emphasis). As far as i can see, even a single sentance of text that is not one of the above means this criterion does not apply. A7 didn't apply because this was about a group, not asingle person. G1 clearly didn't apply, as this was quite coherent text. G3 is for "Pure vandalism". This looks like a reasoanbly good faith effort, albiet by a contributor who does not fully understand what content is welcome and what is not. I would have voted to delete this on AfD, but I think it is simply out of line to speey delete it, becaue no speedy criterion applies to it. I would like to take this to VfU for a ruling that this is not a valid use of speedy deletion, but the problem is that i don't really want it undelted, and i can't see any way this would ever survive AfD. This really is the kind of thing that a band-speedy criterion would be good for. DES ^(talk) 16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a spam speedy. WP:VAND defines spam as vandalism, and vandalism is a G3 speedy. It relies on external links rather than other content, however. I presume A3 is intended to derive from that, but doesn't actually say so and also specifies "single" whereas WP:VAND is plural. I'm wikilawyering, but the point is that spam is speedyable. -Splash^talk 22:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note that I am calling these speedy deletion's "invalid" or "incorrect", not "bad". I presume that Geogre belives, and the deleting admins belevied, in good faith, that this speedy was proper. I ask if they can carefully reread WP:CSD and still think so, adn i ask them to accpt that unlike many procedural policies here, CSD has and should have very little wiggle room, because it bypasses consensus. IMO if a page is not clearly covered by the wording of the CSD, it should not be speedy deleted, no matter how obvious it is that it doesn't belong here, or that it will eventually be deleted by AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, my beef is with Tony and others who feel that administrator priviledges should be used to undelete just about anything, without using VfU, because there is such technical latitude, but that administrators who used the same latitude to delete something are "obviously bad." That's the invocation of a petty squabble on another front and yet another attempt to expand the supposed "deletionist/inclusionist" bull flop. I never mind disagreement, nor disagreement that goes through the procedures, but the attempts to create political parties and posture as the heroes of factions is destructive. (And, incidentally, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger on this article, although it is one of those that can only fail on VAfD. Geogre 12:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Weird edits for User:Jamie Wales

Can anyone figure out what this user is up to? --nixie 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• What user? Jamie Wales (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to exist. ∞Who?¿? 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be Jaime Wales (talk • contribs • block • block log). He redirected User:Jiang's user page, hardly the usual first edit of an actual newbie, not to mention the vague impostorship. -- Curps 03:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. Yea, I would think impostor, or maybe an actual real name? Seeings they didn't do anything else, yet. ∞Who?¿? 03:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Err, I meant "yet" in the sense of, before they were blocked, of course :) ∞Who?¿? 03:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's funny. I was under the impression that all possible variations of Jimbo's name are unavailable as accounts—seem to remember reading that either here or on WP:AN. encephalon 06:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis though, generally speaking. You should probably be able to have either "Jimmy" or "Wales" as part of the name, but anything that looks much like a combination of the two probably shouldn't be allowed. Everyking 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with that view, especially in regards "Jimmy". encephalon 07:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How about JimWae? ~~ N (t/c) 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch this dude

User:24.122.51.203 Contributions here has just been unblocked. He was blocked for spamming, but he promises he will not do it again. Keep an eye on him, and if he breaks his promise, slam him. --Maru (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Rhyddfrydol

This user has uploaded hundreds of images from Flags of the World and Flags.net/World Flag Database. However, both websites have come out and said that their images are non-commercial, which has been illegal since May of 2005. FOTW statement and WFD statement. I have been going through and tagged these images for speedy deletion, but I call on all users who are familiar with either site to help me in the tagging. If there is any other problems like this related to this user, a block for trying to get our website in legal issues should be in order. Zach (Sound Off) 06:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"trying to get our website in legal trouble"? Whatever happened to assume good faith? (Or even assume stupidity?) The user has only been around since the end of August, was only notified of the ban on non-commercial images five minutes before the above was posted, and hasn't logged in for two weeks. Why even suggest blocking now? —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo said we could block for presistant copyvio infractions, so that was why I posted the warning. If I guess he not going to be here now, I will just speedy all of his images. Zach (Sound Off) 07:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If the copyright violations were indeed persistent—if the user kept on uploading copyvio images after being warned and asked nicely to stop—then blocking would be fine. Threatening it before the user has (in all probability) even seen the warning is simply heavy-handed. The same goes for speedying all of the user's images; checking to make sure that they actually do violate copyright, or conflict with image use policies, is certainly in order. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I belong to both websites, and they have made it clear that their images are for non-commercial and, in FOTW's case, for non-political use. Jimbo said here that non-commercial images are not allowed on Wikipedia after May of 2005, so I am not only following Jimbo's order, but also the wishes of the websites that I work for. Zach (Sound Off) 07:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. It doesn't actually address any of the main issues he raised, but it shows that you're very good at following orders unquestioningly. --Calton | Talk 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just speedy anything that infringes copyright and wait with blocking unless they ignore the warning. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok MGM. Zach (Sound Off) 16:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am on wikibreak, and somehow just foolish enough to come by and read AN/I. Zach and everyone who supported him have just commited a massive (if well-intentioned) error. The statements of FOTW and WFD not withstanding, they and their users have absolutely no sustainable claim to copyright over the image of a flag produced in the standard colors, with the standard symbols and in the standard dimensions. Such a recreation lacks any semblance of the requisite creativity to substain a copyright claim in the US. The only possible entity with a copyright claim is the nation or organization that created the flag, and unless they have been defending that claim they have almost certainly defaulted on any protection long ago. That is to say nothing of the multitude of fair use claims that could be made for a flag. They all should have been tagged {{PD-flag}} and welcomed into Wikipedia. Zach, since you belong to both websites, feel free to inform them that their claims over such images are absurd on their face and entirely unsustainable in US courts. Dragons flight 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The above is probably correct except for one minor point -- unlike trademark adn patent claims, copyright owners do not lose protection by failure to assert claims. A copyright owner can slumber on infringments for decades, adn then asert his or her rights, and be upheld -- the inaction is irrelevant. Whether there is a copyright claim will depend on the laws and practices of the various countries involved. Whether ther is a fiar use claim depends on US law (and I am pretty sure that there is a good one). User:Dragons flight is 100% correct that FOTW and WFD have no claim to the flag images, as oppsoed to any supporting text or other original work. Therefore, their terms of use have no force or importance. DES ^(talk) 03:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As for the fair use stuff, that was one of the reasons why I moved PD-flag to {{Flagimage}}, because of all of these various copyright issues. Plus, even if we claim images under fair use, they still cannot be allowed due to the non-commercial licenses both websites have put on ther images. That is the heart of the issue, and frankly, if Wikipedia said that we cannot have non-commercial only images, then they have to go. Also, in order for an image to be fair use, the image has to credit the source. Many of the images were not crediting either website, which makes it not eligable for fair use. Plus, I also received complaints from FOTW members about their images being used on here, which means that they want their images gone. If I was not tagging these images myself, others would have. I will still continue to tag images using both templates until I make sure I got everyone of them tagged. Zach (Sound Off) 03:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That's nice and all, but they have no legal claim for their images to be protected, and hence the non-commercial clause and their wishes are entirely unenforcable. Oh and by the way, you knew the source, so you could have credited it. Dragons flight 04:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
        • • Thanks to some outside help, there was an edit by the host of the Flags.net website on {{Flags.net}} that gave us permission to use his images. Though this is good for now, I personally think we should get more graphic artists in so we could try to replace all images with free versions (ones we created ourself) as fast as humanly possible. Zach (Sound Off) 21:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Seduction selfpromo

After having his article removed and not being able to get it undeleted DutchSeduction (talk · contribs) is now havign a go at inserting his stuff in PUA. Could someone else have a go at removing it please? Thanks. --fvw* 07:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Semi-good spam

Could another admin take a look at the contributions from User:128.39.148.123. Technically this looks like spam linking and I would ordinarily revert the lot of them. However, the publication seems to be a subsiduary of UNEP and its more or less a good cause, perhaps some links should stay. -- Solipsist 11:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of spelling corrections

(See WP:HD#Admin_vandalism.3F)
While I await a clarification from fvw, could someone shine their light on the edit in the HD question and explain what's going on? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone already replied on the HD. But the anon is (thought to be) Skyring, a currently banned user who is to be reverted on sight. We don't make exceptions because, when we do, there are fights over what can and can't be reverted when it is done by a banee. My understanding is that, if another editor wants the reverted edit to stand, they should make it themselves. -Splash^talk 13:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Could someone go over the rest of his edits in all his many guises and change them back please? He made a lot of spelling corrections here, for example. It's probably worth someone keeping an eye on him to stop him making good edits. He probably thinks it's funny to see admins intentionally reverting back to mistakes to prove a point.

• Okay, I've made the edits myself, although I think my intial revert to the correctly spelled version shouldn't have been reverted. Skyring's edits might be reverted on sight, I hope mine aren't. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• More adventures in crazy-land. Wikipedia, the wiki where you aren't allowed to fix typos. What if I just say I take responsibility for all Skyring's typo corrections and that way when you see him make one, you will know that I'm vouching for it and thus not revert it? Everyking 04:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, maybe it's another administrator conspiracy!

In any case, here's a story: New York City used to have a problem with graffiti on subway cars: they dealt with it by a zero-tolerance policy, immediately pulling out of service trains with any graffitti to scrub away the vandals's work. This caused a lot of short-term aggravation, but eventually the vandals, their pathetic bids for ego-boosting attention frustrated, went away. Just an observation, but if Everyking wants to enable some troll's crusade, he should knock himself out. --Calton | Talk 05:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyring is not a vandal by any stretch of the imagination, but actually a very good editor. This is actually all about a personality feud, and I think it's completely insane to let a personality feud get in the way of making quality edits to improve the product we're here to create. Everyking 06:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

...actually a very good editor. That's a strange new meaning of "good" I wasn't previously aware of. Let's see:

• sanctioned by ArbCom
• overweening sense of entitlement and of immunity from rules
• makes proactive attempts to provoke other editors
• makes strained logical arguments, in the face of overwhelming opposition, in support of minority opinions

So what is it about this guy that makes you sympathetic to him, anyways? If this guy fell in to a black hole tomorrow, Wikipedia would chug along just fine without his help. --Calton | Talk 08:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:MicrosoftRegulator

Whilst I'm not taken in by the statement on the user page, it does claim to be used by 5 users. After consulting on IRC (not something I normally allow to take precedence over on-Wiki), I have indef blocked the account. Two principal reasons:

1. It is impossible to reliably attribute the edits to the people making them, as the GFDL demands;
2. Such an account can be used for simultaenous vandalism attacks (not present from this account).

Also, their edits to date (about 30 minutes of them) are more than a little trollish (insisting heavy handedly that an allegedly POV page must be deleted unless blah blah). That alone isn't grounds to block of course.

I think this block is appropriate, but I'd like someone on-Wiki to check for me. -Splash^talk 17:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you're saying the user(s) have admitted to allowing multiple individuals to use the account? By all means block until they agree to individual accounts. WP:BP disallows "public accounts". encephalon 19:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Either this is a role account, or an anti-Microsoft satirical troll. Either way, the block is appropriate, even if the justification in official policy is slim. ~~ N (t/c) 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It gives the impression that we let Microsoft regulate us. We don't. I very much doubt it is Microsoft, though. [[Sam Korn]] 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The block is appropriate, Splash. If they really want to contribute, there shouldn't be any problem getting an individual account, is there? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Tim StarIing

This guy's impersonating Tim. Vandalized AIDS (I reverted), International Criminal Court (already rev), and WP:VIP (already rev). Block please. encephalon 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Done: indef. block by User: Cdc. –Hajor 19:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, thanks guys. encephalon 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Archive This Page

Anyone patient wanna archive? 245KB now - David Gerard 21:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it. encephalon 22:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin spamming with complaint

Admin spamming makes me raise an eyebrow. If someone thinks they can resolve this newbie's problem or error without biting unduly, feel free.

To: David Gerard dgerard#gmail.com
From: EKBK treegirl1#hotmail.com

Hi!
  Help! I have been unfairly blocked and am seeking administrators to
assist me! If you care to check out the history you will see procedure
wasn't followed, and no proof given for blocking me. The person even
blocked my user page! It isn't fair, so I am emailing as many admin as
I can! There is strength in numbers, and this is now a matter of
principle. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
       EKBK
206.176.211.72

- David Gerard 21:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be EKBK (talk · contribs · block log) who was unhappy about being blocked by Slim Virgin --Doc (?) 23:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet, or at best, a meat puppet, of user:Zephram Stark, who has also edited as Go Cowboys (talk · contribs), Professor Stevens (talk · contribs), Felice L'Angleterre (talk · contribs), as well as perhaps a dozen open proxies. He's been causing trouble at Talk:Terrorism since July, leading to the page being protected twice, an RfC, and an RfAr. More details at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark, WP:RfAr#Zephram_Stark, and this note on Angela's talk page. I've blocked all but one of the sockpuppets indefinitely. Black Angus (talk · contribs) is almost certainly Zephram too, but is still operating.

EKBK has e-mailed me to say s/he is not Zephram. We weren't able to sort the issue out by e-mail, so I've offered to discuss it by IM, but s/he hasn't yet replied to that suggestion. I'd say there's no reasonable doubt that EKBK is Zephram, or is a friend of his who's been asked to help with his trolling. But I'll continue to discuss it with him or her anyway. S/he's already admitted to me that s/he has another, older Wikipedia account, so s/he can presumably continue editing with that. The fuss s/he's making about the EKBK account is just an attempt to cause trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The IP listed in the email above (User:206.176.211.72) has made only one edit (19:09, 11 July 2005) [33]. This edit reverted to Zephram's version of the Terrorism article 15 minutes before he was blocked for violating the 3RR on that page. The anonymous edit was made over a month before the EKBK account made its first edit (22 August 2005). This is either an amazing coincidence or, much more likely, EKBK is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Zephram Stark. Carbonite | Talk 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never made any sockpuppets, nor do I have any meatpuppets. I don't think I need to say more than that. Anyone who cares to look at the IPs of the sixteen people SlimVirgin and Jayjg have blocked for expressing their opinion about about the "terrorism" article will know that addresses from all over the world could not possibly be mine. Likewise, anyone who knows how to test for open proxies can verify that SlimVirgin is just making this stuff up. EKBK obviously just doesn't want to be railroaded. I think that's pretty easy to understand. --Zephram Stark 01:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that 16 people were blocked. How would you have any information about their locations or whether they used an open proxy? Please note that I'm not talking about anon IPs, I'm referring to registered users. You'd have no way of knowing their IPs unless you had some external (outside of Wikipedia) knowledge about whom these users are. Only developers and David Gerard have access to IPs of registered users. Can you explain how you possess this information? Carbonite | Talk 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I can. I've explained this many times. The blocklist used to show IP numbers when the user tried to edit and the autoblock was enabled. It would say 141.76.1.121 has been autoblocked because it was recently used by soandso. Recently, that bug was fixed and you only see a number, but for a while Administrators used this bug to get IP numbers by blocking a person and waiting for them to try to edit.

Anyone with moderate to advanced computer knowledge can test for open proxies. The article Open_proxies gives a good primer. --Zephram Stark 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely false. Autoblock has never shown an IP. A search of bugzilla shows that no such bugs have ever existed. Please provide evidence to back up your claim. Carbonite | Talk 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't answer Carbonite's question. How did you know the IP addresses of the blocked user accounts? You did not get them, and could not have gotten them, from the block list. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case, then how do you know my IP? --Zephram Stark 02:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think I do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I assumed that you had at least based your accusations of knowing my IP number. My God, what did you base them on? --Zephram Stark 03:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Please answer the question that was asked: How do you have any knowledge of these blocked users' IP addresses? The most logical explanation is that you were in contact with these users outside of Wikipedia and asked them to show up here to support your positions. Thus far, you haven't answered the question. You've only provided false statements and attempted to change the subject. Carbonite | Talk 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to answer your question again, but I still have the same answer. I got the IP numbers from the block list. At one time, the IPs of many of the people that Jayjg and SlimVirgin banned (under the guise of being my sockpuppets) were on the block list. I don't know if this was a bug they fixed or what, but I don't see their IPs on the block list any more. --Zephram Stark 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are not being truthful. I've been here for nearly a year and have never seen the autoblock behavior you described. A search of bugzilla shows no such bug has existed. A long time user, User:UninvitedCompany [34] says that autoblock has not displayed the IP during the past few years (we're only concerned with the past few months). Even the Chief Technical Officer of Wikimedia, User:Brion Vibber is unaware of such a bug existing or being fixed [35]. Zephram, I will be quite blunt here: you are lying. You know perfectly well that you didn't learn anyone's IP through autoblock. If you lie about this, why should your other claims be believed? You've now lost any credibility you had. Carbonite | Talk 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It would also be very helpful (for this incident and your ArbCom case) if you provided a list of the 16 people that you claim were blocked. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 01:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If I was told by an unbiased party that it would make any difference as to whether or not SlimVirgin was demoted, I would jump through all the hoops they want, but SlimVirgin has already admitted to doing it, so I don't think that's going to make any difference. Either they demote her or not. If the people she blocked aren't complaining by now, I doubt they'll come back to Wikipedia anyway. --Zephram Stark 01:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does make a difference. You can't make claims of admin abuse and then refuse to provide a simple list of the abuses. Carbonite | Talk 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As you can see in the ArbCom discussion, I investigated three and she admitted the rest. If anyone I trust (which would be everyone but you and your two buddies) were to tell me that it would get her demoted, I would spent the hours necessary to fully investigate every case, but is that really necessary? Everyone knows the score. The only issue is whether or not you guys are going to stick together or do what's right. --Zephram Stark 02:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You haven't "investigated" anything and I haven't "admitted" anything. This is more of the same crazy talk you've been spamming Talk:Terrorism with. It's our own fault for not having a clear mechanism in place to get rid of trolls as soon as the nonsense starts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I provided links to the evidence I found and your quote. If you want the heavens to open before you will accept that I don't have any sockpuppets, I won't be able to deliver that. --Zephram Stark 02:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If you make a claim and then fail to provide any evidence of that claim, it doesn't reflect well on you or your motives. You constantly speak of administrative abuse and oppression, but when asked to back these claims up, you're basically saying that's it's too much work. The issue now is whether you're actually willing to substantiate your accusations or you're simply looking to disrupt things. If you don't wish to fall into the latter group, then yes, your investigation really is necessary. Carbonite | Talk 03:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the burden of proof falls on SlimVirgin. She is the one permablocking people and locking their User talk pages under the guise of being sockpuppets. Can anyone really be surprised that EKBK emailed us? What did we expect EKBK to do when SlimVirgin accused her of something that wasn't true on her User talk page and then locked it? --Zephram Stark 03:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, here is the evidence I have found so far. It is more than enough to warrant demoting her. I'll post more at the ArbCom as I find it. --Zephram Stark 03:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That's not evidence by any stretch of the definition, it's simple reiteration of your claims. Perhaps "evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means? --Calton | Talk 04:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That's for the ArbCom to decide. Determining an appropriate consequence for SlimVirgin in regard to her actions is not the purpose of this section. This discussion is only to determine if her actions should be undone. Should EKBK's talk page be unprotected? Should EKBK be unblocked? --Zephram Stark 13:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. That's not evidence by any stretch of the definition, it's simple reiteration of your claims. Perhaps "evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means? --Calton | Talk 11:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

More Threats

For the sake of clarity, the diff that Zeph keeps offering as evidence that I've blocked a dozen of his sockpuppets came in response to his comment that Go Cowboys was the 11th editor to be blocked [36] so I replied that Felice Angleterre was going to be the 12th and Zephram himself the 13th. [37] It was a joke. In fact, I've blocked four of his accounts: EKBK, Go Cowboys, Felice Angleterre, and Professor Stevens. Black Angus is next, and the only reason Zephram isn't blocked is that he's up before the arbcom, but I'm beginning to wonder whether that should necessarily stop me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone listening to what SlimVirgin is saying? Is this what you want Wikipedia to be? SlimVirgin lost a content dispute. "Terrorism" now has a definition that conveys information despite all the people she blocked to keep it from happening. (I guess I will have to go look up all those blocks now that she is even denying that she did it, and denying that she admitted doing it.) The dispute was over before she blocked EKBK, before she locked EKBK's user talk page, and before she threatened to block me in the post above. So why is she still at it? Why is she still permablocking people after the fact? Why is SlimVirgin still accusing people of being sockpuppets with absolutely no evidence after any conflict between her and those associated with the "terrorism" article is over? I think the answer to that question is as clear as the nose on your face. Please think about it and do the right thing. This little clique of administrators must end. --Zephram Stark 19:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Dvirgueza

Dvirgueza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone on a major page-reverting spree and has been blocked. He has not bothered to reply on his talk page, and I am therefore making the block indefinite. -- Curps 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this was a case of stalking and reverting all contributions by Mackeriv (talk · contribs) -- Curps 06:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he also committed vandalism on October 6 and earlier, based on his contribution history and other users' posts on his talk page. -- Curps 06:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sophie/User:XAL

This user has been sending weird-arse stuff to the AC as well. Fred Bauder looked over it and considered her so goddamn patently insane and disruptive that he blocked her username and IP indefinitely to save drawing out the agony. I find it hard to see any reason to reverse this. At least Plautus Satire could make sense for the first five minutes - David Gerard 09:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently she's been making legal threats too, so out she goes - David Gerard 09:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Was this (the "weird-arse stuff") on the wiki or e-mail? If not on the wiki there's no way a block for that is justifiable (even on the wiki itself it probably wouldn't be, depending on whether it's more along the lines of abusive or just strange, but even less so off-site). Obviously the legal threat issue is more serious, but she might be convinced to retract those threats after seeing how seriously we take them. Everyking 09:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, there's a ton of it on the wiki, so never mind the other ton on e-mail. For the wiki specifically, please see [38]. You'll see there that attempts to convince the user of, well, anything at all have been strikingly unsuccessful, note especially my reference to the mentoring attempts of Sam Hocevar, Bratsche, NicholasTurnbull, and Rama. Bishonen | talk 10:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"and disruptive" — check Bishonen's link above. Sophie/XAL operates in a reality completely disconnected from the rest of us, and is frustrated that no-one here will support her view of things and gets angry, abusive and disruptive. However, Wikipedia is not therapy - David Gerard 11:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What Bishonen and David Gerard say is absolutely true. Check out the edits; not one of them is in the main namespace. All of her edits are lengthy rants, mostly made on her own talk page, and that of the Bogdanov Affair. She simply does not listen to other users. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 18:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I have locked User talk:XAL since Xal has just been using it to rant about her agenda. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this rant will advance her agenda in any way, but in case the opinion of a French-speaking third party is need, I would like to inform you that XAL is not only making irrelevant statements completely at odds with reality (that David.Monniaux never edited Talk:Bogdanov Affair, to cite a particularly blatant example among many), but also employing insults, out of place irony, and downright rude language; she notably insults David by calling his PhD a secondary school certificate.

I am startled by the violence of these attacks, and reporting these on the arbitration page right away. Rama 21:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers to whatever overly helpful person of observably limited comprehension took it upon themselves to bowdlerise my edit. I didn't say "difficult to understand", I said "goddamn patently insane and disruptive". The lesser edit so understates the situation as to be a falsity. Don't do this. Thanks. - David Gerard 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. That helpful person was Fred Bauder, so I've changed it to his version again. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. It's got my signature on it, so I've put it back to what I actually wrote and meant. If someone feels I've misrepresented a situation, they are of course welcome to note so and sign it themselves, rather than e.g. change the words with an attribution to me still in place. Thanks again - David Gerard 22:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Cough, cough. You and your signature explicitly attribute the description to Fred. Bishonen | talk 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

But it's a personal attack, isn't it? Everyking 23:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I would pay much more attention to your considered opinions if you had read dot one of the case in question - David Gerard 22:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So I'm ignorant, OK. You tell me how "goddamn patently insane and disruptive" isn't a personal attack. "Disruptive", you can have that one, but not the rest of it. Everyking 08:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, then it was Bauderized, not bowdlerised. That's different. FeloniousMonk 22:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It must have been after being rewarded with those twelve slim virgins and a box of delicious candy for the heresy of schism in starting Wikinfo - David Gerard 23:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Foreign language articles

213.176.78.6 (talk · contribs) keeps creating foreign language stubs. (S)he has been warned continually not to do this, but does not/cannot understand. What do we do? Can we delete on sight? Would a block be appropriate? --Doc (?) 10:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Has kept going - I've blocked him for 1 hour to get his attention, but advice requested. It's all Farsi to me. --Doc (?) 11:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Look on Wikipedia:Babel for an active Farsi-speaking user and ask them to leave a note? Shimgray | talk | 13:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Busy beaver

Arcan (talk • contribs • block • block log) has been very very busy, but I'm unsure about his edits. Opinions?
brenneman^(t)(c) 13:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

His edits (the most recent twelve or so I looked at) seemed reasonable, perhaps a little overreaching on one or two, but not blatantly pov, etc. His user page indicates some very strong and one-sided views on some contentious topics, but so far he's stayed off those articles. Perhaps a more in-depth review than what I conducted is justified... FeloniousMonk 15:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Blog spammer

User:66.126.151.134 has been spamming a couple of blogs of his across a large number of articles, and the only edits on that account have either been that spamming action or to remove warnings from his talk page. Editors on a wide variety of articles remove his links on sight, but he come back multiple times a day to put them back. I suggest that stronger measures are in order. DreamGuy 01:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Check, all his interest in the warnings seems to be to blank them. I've blocked him. Bishonen | talk 05:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. DreamGuy 08:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)