Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive74

Having trouble blocking a user?

I don't know why this is, but there is a vandal who I have attempted to block completely, yet they seem to still be able to edit quite often. If you look at User talk:Odin of Valhalla, it lists all of the IPs this user uses, all of which have indefinite blocks on them at this point. And yet, even today the user seems to have been able to go through and vandalize the same page again (they insist on inserting erroneous and out of date information into List of countries with nuclear weapons, despite having been talked to about this for a number of weeks now and given about a thousand warnings). What gives? Am I doing something wrong here with the blocking? Why are they are able to still edit pages? --Fastfission 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Specifically, 69.218.202.201 (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked indefinitely on 9 Feb 2006 but was able to vandalize up a storm on 10 Feb 2006. --Fastfission 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  The shortest active block takes precedence and overrides all longer ones. (You also should almost never indef block an IP: knock them out for 1 month, 3 months or something, but not forever.) -Splash^talk 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You should really only block an IP for 24 hours. Secretlondon 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's an open proxy, of course, which can be blocked indefinitely. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've converted most of those IP blocks to a month, I hadn't realized that they shouldn't be blocked indef but I can see why. So, is the answer here to my general question: I should "unblock" the other blocks and then "re-block" with the one I really want? --Fastfission 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can't block a range of IP addresses for a month as per policy because of the collateral damage. 24 hours please. Secretlondon 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't a range, it is a set of a few addresses this one fellow seems to use, and nobody else seems to use. Two of them in particular seem to be his primary IP and it seems relatively fixed (at least one is a public terminal at a library, a few of the others are probably things of this nature). The fellow returns every day to vandalize and does little else, and I think the IPs that look static could easily be justified as blocked for over 24 hours, though I'm happy with reducing the blocks in the other cases (though again without any evidence of collateral damage I'm hard pressed to see it as a bigger problem than a repeat vandalizer, but I digress). In any event, my main question is still unanswered about the technical nature of it, not the policy of it. --Fastfission 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The policy on IP blocks is clear - I am really politely asking you to stick to it - or I will have no choice to revert you. Secretlondon 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • There are always choices. kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the tech aspect in this instance either: there was an expired (24 hr) block from 4 Feb, then several indef/1 month blocks on 10/11 Feb starting at 01:20 on 10 Feb. No unblocking or shorter blocks logged until 19:10 on 11 Feb, yet a bunch of contributions from the IP in the intervening period. What gives? Rd232 ^talk 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Analogdemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users have added clearly inappropriate content to their user pages in imitation of SPUI (talk · contribs). It is clear that as a project we aren't going to permit this sort of material on user pages; c.f. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war. I have removed the material in question and left notes on talk pages and have been reverted and accused of vandalism in both cases. I believe at a minimum these user pages should be protected but would support additional measures as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. If we ignore them they will get board.Geni 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an upside to escalating this. Actioning their userpages only draws further attention and perpetuates this cycle. I'm pretty sure that, if left alone, it'd dissipate. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Threats from Amorrow/Emact/Fplay/whatever name he's using now

[1], [2]. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Contributor on Irritable Bowel Syndrome article that is using personal attacks and threats

We need some help in dealing with a a new contributor on the Irritable bowel syndrome article. I have been called a nazi, having bias and being a vandal because their contribution was reverted even though I explained why the insertion was being reverted in the edit note. There was some discussion about this, much of it pure fabrication in the character assassination of myself, and now they have added threats to not revert their addition to the article or else. Can you please assist in how to deal with this. Ibsgroup 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of known sockpuppet User:Brian Brockmeyer

User:Brian Brockmeyer, User:Flavius Aetius and two IPs were checkuser'ed as sockpuppets of User:Almeidaisgod; all accounts have been used to POV push/edit war and evade 3RR's on similar articles (Ken Mehlman and University of Miami in particular). checkuser After noticing that User:Brian Brockmeyer had begun removing the sockpuppet notices on his userpage (aided by User:Juicedpalmeiro, who perhaps needs to be checkuser'ed as well), I added the sock tags back and asked him not to remove them unless he wants to use that account permanently and ditch the others. The response was: JuicedPalmeiro again removed the tags (replacing them with a barnstar) and Brian Brockmeyer left a message on my talk page calling me a cunt. [3] His userpage is now protected with the sock tags intact, and I have blocked the Brian Brockmeyer account for a week for edit warring to scrub the sock tags and for his unsavory comment about me. I leave this here for other administrators to review, since the attack was made against me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lopperz

I blocked Lopperz (talk · contribs) because of edits to the now-deleted "article" U suck, which read:

I will keep writing nonsense, if u want wikipedia to be saved then maybe u should stop the war in iraq.

u have 48 hours to decide, the fate of wikipedia rests wit u guys now

hahahahahahahhahahah...ahahhahahha....ahahahhah.hahah.ehh, not funny

Via email, Lopperz claims that his/her account was hacked and they have now changed the password. I have unblocked the account. Please keep an eye out. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin taking it upon himself to veto IFD results and delete images himself

User:Wgfinley is going around making snap decisions on what constitutes fair use himself and removing and deleting images outright that he disagrees with, even ones that he unsuccessfully put through IFD and were kept because they did meet fair use guidelines. See User talk:Wgfinley for some discussion, where a number of users inclusing an admin on the IFD project all tried to talk to him without success. He is ingoring comments from people trying to explain the concept to him, treating anyone questioning his actions as "uncivil" behavior" and refusing to undo his deletions. Can we please get this person to stop playing cowboy and enforcing his own ideas of rules on the project?

Furthermore, we are seeing more and more cases where admins are just doing whatever the heck they want because they want to and not following any policy or listening to otehr editors or admins... It'd be nice if other admins and ArbCom members would actually stand up and show that this behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated. This is becoming more and more like the Wild West here, with people who are in the worst position to be making decisions going ahead and doing them and daring everyone else to do anything about it. DreamGuy 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately images can't be undeleted, which makes this sort of behaviour even more unacceptable. It certainly seems clear that Wgfinley has drifted into behaviour outside his remit as an admin. I've left him a message pointing this out, and asking him to put images through the appropriate channels in future. We're all human, and can all act over-hastily on occasion, but should try not to make a habit of it, as the discussions on his Talk page indicate that he is.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Given that the Foundation's lawyer has recently explicitly said that on en: admins should delete if in doubt (on foundation-l) — and that he refers you to what the Foundation's lawyer has said — I suspect it's possible he's right and you're not, and legal exposure is not really something that's up for a vote or straw poll. Don't let me hold you back, though - David Gerard 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Legaly any claim of fair use is in doubt until it has been through the courts. Since this is not the case with any wikipedia images we would have to delete every fair use image in order to follow that directive.Geni 19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you take the time to read the discussion on User talk:Wgfinley referred to above, you will see examples such as AP photos being claimed "fair use" when the copyright holder has expressed actual pissed-offness about us claiming that, and that the Foundation would rather not do that unnecessarily. But again, don't let me talking about the case at hand hold you back from going from specific to general and back to a different specific as if it's related to what I said (strike undue snappiness) - David Gerard 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen every abuse of fair use you can think of. I know how bad things are. I was just pointing out the legal advice is pretty useless. Personaly I would have orphan the image (since it isn't fair use in this case). Re-educate anyone who objected and then wait for the normal deletion of orphan fairuse images to take place.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, sorry about me snapping at you like that - David Gerard 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Geni. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tempting as killing every fairuse image would be I can think of a few narrow areas in which they are legit.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

edit-conflict It looks like one of our articles about a porn star was using a DVD cover as an illustration of her, rather than to identify the film in question. We probably shouldn't do that. We certainly shouldn't vote on WP:IFD to allow that. As far as I can tell, the only interesting things here are why User:Wgfinley deleted this image and not the thousands of other images used in precisely the same wrong way, and why anyone is making a fuss about the deletion of an image of a DVD cover, which is surely replacable if we ever have a legitimate use of it. Jkelly 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also important to note that one set of complaints about the deletions is plainly inappropriate. This set of disputed deletions (example at Image_talk:Adele_Stevens.jpg) required the insertion of linkspam -- not simply a copyright credit -- as a condition for image use, and essentially required Wikipedia to accept advertising links. It's hard to see how any responsible editor would not have deleted all such images on sight, given the copyright holder's position. Monicasdude 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy that removal of fair-use images from articles where they're not used fairly is good parctice. I'm also happy that sometimes images are claimed to be fair use when they're not. I'm not happy about three points, though.

1. David Gerard seems to be saying that, because in some of the cases discussed on Wgfinley's Talk page he was in the right, therefore he's beyond criticism, full stop. That's such an obvious logical fallacy that I can't believe that he meant it, but I'm unsure what he did mean.
2. The existence of the image on Wikipedia can't be fair use or non-fair use in itself, because it's not being used. Fair use applies to the use being made of an image. If I up-load an image in preparation for genuinely fair use in an article, is Wgfinley entitled to leap in before I can go further and delete it on the grounds that it's not fair use yet, because it's not linked to an article?
3. Kim Bruning has followed my comment at User talk:Wgfinley by saying essentially that I'm wrong, and asking to talk privately about the matter because it's "political". OK, ignoring the last bit of characteristic ostentatious cloak and dagger stuff, his reason is that Wikipedia policy is: "if in doubt, zap it". Are we really supposed to accept that any admin can delete an image because of a feeling of doubt, even when a group of other editors have discussed the issue and decided that the image is OK? When did admins gain these god-like powers of discrimination, and why was I left out?

   I did not say that you were wrong. In fact, elsewhere I have been stating that I may well have to concede that you are correct. Kim Bruning 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Oh, a fourth point. We're supposed to put up with sarcastic attacks from one of the finger-waggers because we go against what some nameless faceless lawyer said on some forum of which many of us aren't members? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

not nameless, not faceless. --BradPatrick 12:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Use is a key part of fair use. You've got a week to get the image into an article (probably longer becuase it will take a while for people to find it).Geni 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine: we put a tag on the image, let the up-loader know, and after a week the image can be deleted if no objection is raised or consensus reached. We don't take a quick look and delete, especially after an IfD has been held and passed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wether or not an image listed as fair uses has been in an article for a week is an objective criteria. There are no posible objections that can be made.Geni 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we would get a lot further here if some of the inflammatory tones could be avoided, I won't cite chapter and verse, it's pretty obvious and there's major contributor on my user page already. I have explanations on what I did on each of these pages. Why did I delete them out of process? Because the process is broke. IFD is a broken, it's a cesspool of stuff that sits there and gets deleted. If someone has a gripe about their image they post it there and their image is spared because the vast majority of images on IFD have little or no input. That's not a good sign of community support, it's a sign of indifference.

Frankly, I don't know why copyvio isn't a speedy category and it should be. But, I'll admit it, I saw the email on Foundation and I chose to make a stand with those images -- two were as blatant copyvios as they come, had no fair use rationale provided, were link spam and incorrectly tagged several time before Fair Use was the fallback option. The other I was making a point that these images are frequently being abused and, as frequently happens, someone goes to fix the abuse only to get reverted. I removed the image being abused.

The two other images, again, blatant obvious copyvios and should be framed as examples of such -- I have yet to hear any argument here that states these images are not copyvios, just that what I did was out of process. So, what's more important, the process or the fact that copyvios get removed and protect Wikipedia from exposure to litigation? If the answer is that avoiding litigation is more important than great, let's do something about fixing the process. I don't wish to set a precedent that any admin can delete such images on site (although I think two of these are incredibly obvious), I was trying to correct something that's broken. --Wgfinley 08:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't like IFD? That ok we have WP:CP instead. Want to speedy copvios? You can CSD A8.Geni 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I considered that but since A8 applies to articles I didn't think that would work. The problem with WP:CP is that there's not much image traffic there, everything seems to go to IFD. Maybe that's a correction that would work here but the page is usually in need of admin attention. If you look at the very top of WP:CP right now you'll see what drew my attention to this in the first place. --Wgfinley 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Then start putting together a consensus for A8 to be expanded beyond the article space. WP:CP deals with images quite frequently.Geni 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

I wonder if it would be helpful to prominently place a disclaimer like the following:

If your contribution to Wikipedia is material under a non-free license, and you claim that it is "fair use", please accept that it may be removed or even permanently deleted at any time for reasons that may appear capricious or nonsensical to you, and that you may never receive a compelling explanation.

If we are really moving to a "If in doubt, delete" position on copyright infringements defended by a "fair use" claim, we can't rely either upon a somewhat difficult-to-parse remark on a mailing list very few editors read, nor upon WP:OWN, nor upon the diplomatic or consensus-building skills of those people who are volunteering to deal with image policy, nor upon every logged-in user understanding WP:FU. This issue has been generating an enormous amount of ill-will. We should invest the time in thinking about a way to reduce the level of antagonism. Jkelly 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a warning sounds good to me. It might stem the flood of non-free images. --Carnildo 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would generally be in favour of a warning something like that. I think that the problem is that a lot of users don't really understand copyright law. Even experienced users don't always know when something is fair use (fair use is a very tricky concept) or in the public domain. A lot of users don't really understand that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and that copyvios are a major risk to that idea. I think that we definitely need to emphasise more the importance of copyright compliance to the project. JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be expanded upon at WP:OWN. That guideline should probably mention contributions not even vaguely owned by the contributor in the first place. Jkelly 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating CSD

I have been bold and updated CSD I5 to reflect the new policies that the Foundation apparently wants. I know David Gerard thinks that process killed his puppy dog, but maybe next time he could take the 3 minutes it takes him to think up witty barbs of well-meaning editors and admins and update the policy or talk pages, instead. Nandesuka 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories for Speedy Deletion overrides all else again eh? specifically Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and Wikipedia:Fair use today, I see :-)

This is in fact the official CSD "owners'" position, see: [4], where the explicit statement was removed as rejected.

Ah well, good luck getting it to stick by the way. I hope it works, because that will save me some sleepless nights. Thanks. :-) Kim Bruning 13:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've pulled it. The current version is fine since all it requires you to do is orphan the image then wait for a week. Patience is an important traint in an admin. Even in it's current version it is still far more liberal than A8.Geni 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to wait for a week to delete copyvios. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, policies describe what it is that we do. It is clear that there is a Foundation mandate to delete images for which bogus fair use claims are made. Given that, it should be in the policy. Nandesuka 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the number of mistakes that have been made (will people please remeber that mirrors exist) I think it is reasonable to have to wait a week. Remeber A8 exists for obvious cases.Geni 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gengineer (talk • contribs)

As I recall from a few incidents during hurricane katrina, wikipedia *might* have a block-on-sight policy for blantent white supremacists, somebody look into this--152.163.100.65 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a block on sight semi-policy for vandals who vandalize high-traffic pages with racist crap; being a white supremacist (if he is) is not in itself a blockable offense. Any more than being a pedophile is. *chuckle* --Golbez 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is that funny?--152.163.100.65 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, a recent wheel war over some templates. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. (I actually think someone should create Wikipedia:Lamest wheel wars ever to discuss this and other admin-level conflicts. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Make it a category. As time goes on, it appears it will fill to the brim... Tomer^talk 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names

My first rouge action. I've deleted the redirect despite it not being a speedy deletion candidate. I've also (slightly more provocativly) protected it against recreation

• First AfD
• Deletion review
• Second pseudo-afd

Verifiability and neutral point of view are not negotiable, and the article exists in a location where it can happily stay until these problems are corrected. Cross-namespace redirects are allowed if they are "useful" and this one is not.

brenneman^{T}{L} 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to mention that the outcome of the deletion review (c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and 14 for endorse) was noted at User_talk:R._fiend#Deletion_review and not contested by User:R. fiend, prior to the relisting as per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed. -- User:Docu

Please put this up for deletion at MfD, rather than speedying it. I had restored the redirect after finding two different users who had been searching for its current location (after seeing the AfD result) but hadn't found it. Usefulness includes having existing external links to the page, which this years-old list certainly has. Verifying or neutralizing statements about what is or is not unusual or list-worth is a recurring problem, and not a reason to move article content into another namespace; that's not what namespaces are for. +sj + 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They'll just have to get used to the new URL. Jeez, typing 11 more characters is hardly going to kill anyone. FCYTravis 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

*cackles maniacally at Brenneman's journey to the dark side*--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOIOUPN anyone?Geni 10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell unblocked

I have unblocked Brainhell (talk · contribs), upon request received via info-en. A review of the circumstances of the block, conducted by myself and Antandrus could find no reason for Lucky 6.9's original accusations of personal attack, and the response by Lucky 6.9, including three blocks of Brainhell appears to me to have been disproportionate, if not wholly unjustified. The parties are being notified. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking without a discussion with the original blocking admin is inappropriate, and has led to Lucky 6.9 having left the project since you took the side of a harasser over a well-respected admin. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that an unblock without discussion with the blocker is automatically inappropriate. Sure, as a general rule, discussion is good. But it's up to the blocker to make the reasons for the block clear. If people looked for reasons for the block and were unable to find them, unblocking is not unreasonable. Blocking should not be done lightly, and it should be well-justified so others can easily see why it was done. Friday (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

false vandalism charges

I have been blocked for apparent repeated vandalism, but I have never vandalized a page. How does something like this happen? What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave troll (talk • contribs)

There's nothing in the block log for you, so you do not appear to be blocked--and if you are able to post here, you can't be blocked. What exactly is the problem? Antandrus (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably an autoblock or a rolling IP block; those often prevent editors from editing the main article namespace while allowing them to edit the other namespaces. As to why, I have no clue, but I've seen it happen enough to think of it first when I see something like this. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tactik and Tactik's IP erasing comments

As evidenced below, Tactik and his IP have been erasing my comments on pages, and in some cases creatively editing other user's comments to be less critical. Also, User:Muzboz User:Tobler1 and User:Andy hoffman have all been recently created and their only edits have been to vote in a poll [5] in support of tactik, a poll in which Tactik himself has openly voted twice (once with registered, and once with IP). Clearly these are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

User:Tactik Erasing my comments: [6] Tactic's IP erasing my comment at the bottom (as part of "cleaning up"): [7]

Knowledge management

Dmezei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that removing citations to his own publications means that we can no longer use "his" text in this article. He tells me that if I try to use "his" text, I will be blocked for violating his copyright. Knowing how seriously we take copyright, I think you'd better know about it. And you might want to check whether his edits constitute vandalism, and whether he's violated WP:3RR. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

< defuse defuse defuse > I would like to try and calm Dme

zei down a bit, and would like to take a long look at the edits and references now deleted. I have some moderate familiarity with KM. Though I don't think you're in the wrong, JzG, it might help if you left him alone for a bit while I take a look. < / defuse defuse defuse > Georgewilliamherbert 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Should have spotted this before, you are of course entirely right. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential Troll

I just recently removed a slanderous comment from an article talkpage [8], and I am bothered by this user's comments on his user and talkpage as well[9]. However, I decided to assume good faith and leave a welcome and small warning regarding this; I'm requesting an administator keep an eye on his contributions and dealings with wikipedia just to be on the safe side. -Zero^Talk 18:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hrm... looking at his user page gives that impression too. Your warning was tactful: nice work. Anyway, I'll be happy to do my part keeping my eyes on him. Thanks for the heads up. – ClockworkSoul 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • He seems to have not-so-fuzzy-feelings towards User:MegamanZero. Perhaps he is yet another "Wikiterrorist" incarnation? – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never crossed these users before. Why do they hate me...? -Zero^Talk 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kikodawgzz

• Kikodawgzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has recently uploaded a number of images that have been "gleaned" from various USENET postings. Because these sort of postings have absolutely have no copyright information whatsoever, I am seriously considering speedy deleting them as blatant copyvios. Comments? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, unknown copyright is not any different from copyrighted. – ClockworkSoul 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The other problem is that this user has been removing a few "no source" tags on images that (s)he has uploaded without giving any reason [10]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I notice that he has also been adding source tags to images that he doesn't have the right to add them to (GNU tags, for example, to images that he claims to have taken from some USENET post). He needs to be warned sternly but fairly that this is inappropriate. If he does not or cannot shape up, a block is in order. Can somebody with a more thorough understanding of our IP policies than I do it? – ClockworkSoul 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • He's been blanking his talk page of warnings about the images. I support speedy deleting them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• "You may fire when ready, Gridley." --Carnildo 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images have been added to Kingstonjr (talk · contribs)'s non-worksafe gallery at User:Kingstonjr. Jkelly 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• He seems to be heading in the right direction. Most of the images that I check seem to have valid tags. Of course, I haven't done an exhaustive check, but he'll adapt in time, I think. – ClockworkSoul 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

KAJ/Johnski

I blocked KAJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock/meatpuppet of Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has emailed me a couple of times asking me to reconsider. I mention it here so someone can review my decision if they want to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Goatse vandal

A vandal has been creating new accounts rapidly and changing links to goatse.ca, as well as other vandalism. He has edited many warning/welcome/etc templates. He uses deceptive edit summaries like "rv vandalism" (while adding vandalism). IMO any account with this pattern should be blocked indefinitely on sight. Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-14 00:13Z

• Indeed it should, if it appears that it was created for the sole reason of vandalizing. – ClockworkSoul 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Indef-banned 10 of them so far, see Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts#goatse_xlink_vandal. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-14 13:23Z
    • I have to chuckle a bit... all of his account names are somehow cat related (Meow1, Meow2, Clinton's Pet, Alley cat), but right in the middle is this one: ChineseChef. Yes, I know it's wrong, but I had to chuckle out loud a bit. – ClockworkSoul 15:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI

It seems to me that SPUI, banned for ten days, is still using his talk page to fan the flames of the pedophilia userbox dispute. He has reproduced the userbox on his talk page yet again. I have removed this and I recommend that the page be protected yet again to stop his unwelcome trolling. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you having some sort of vendetta against SPUI? Instead of trying further to upset a well-regarded content contributor, perhaps you might be better advised to beg him to come back? Grace Note 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I't neither polite nor truthful to suggest that I'm engaged in a vendetta. I like SPUI, I think his road edits are great. But he's trolling and that isn't permitted here, and he knows that. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was a question, Tony, not a suggestion. Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well regarded by whom? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is the best option, this hurts other people who want to contact him more than it hurts him. He's going on Wikipedia:Probation, per tha Arb decision. Each time he reproduces the userbox, inform him that he'll be blocked an additional day each time. Log it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Once he sees that his ban length is entirely within his control, I think he'll get the point. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what makes me ask the question, because it's far from reasonable to continue blocking someone for something so negligible. It certainly doesn't help. Why not just leave it and him be and allow it all to blow over? Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not negligible. The userbox war is a real problem, and it's not going to go away until everybody (SPUI included) stops pouring petrol on the flames and gets down to discussing a workable consensus. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it should be a minimum of 24 hours for each offense. Because it's to the point where he's just trolling, and I'm personally getting sick and tired of it. He's a great contributor, there's no question about that. But if he can't be even slightly civil about this whole thing, then it's time to question our reasons for letting him be here in the first place. Editing is a privilege, not a right. Ral315 (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

General Medical Council

Request civility block of 217.207.116.154 (talk · contribs) for civility violations on Talk:General Medical Council. JFW | T@lk 12:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Further provocative edits. Would be honoured to block that troll, but I am the main disputant. Could someone please have a look. JFW | T@lk 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

24 hours. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:InTheHouse

I've blocked this one as a WoW sockpuppet. Made me strongly suspicious for just so happening to choose WoW's VIP page as a redirect target for SPUI's talk page. But because it's not the standard page move thing, I thought others might want to review what I did. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Zogu blocked indefinitely

Zogu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trolling or near-trolling to push what it considers an Albanian POV. The fun bit is, it seems to use nothing but open proxies and compromised zombie PCs to post through. I've blocked it indefinitely as an account quite definitely up to no conceivable good. Other account names following the same pattern would be most welcome.

I'm also going through the assorted IPs the account has used trying to work out WTF variety of open proxy or compromised boxes it's using. I don't know if Zogu's operator will be slowed down for even a moment, but it may help reduce the general noise level.

(Anyone with a lot of experience tracking this crap, please leave a note on my talk page or /msg me in IRC (DavidGerard on Freenode); I'm usually AFK but I do check what notes people have left me.) - David Gerard 12:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer socks on Freemasonry

Humanun Genus (talk · contribs) had the same edit pattern as Lightbringer and - woohoo! - edited only using open proxies. Blocked. Please keep me up to date on my talk page, he's making a very useful open proxy canary ;-)

By the way, a fantastically useful page for checking suspicious IPs: http://rbls.org/ - goes to a bunch of RBLs and checks the status of the IP on them. Please don't use this to block with unless you know very well what the reports mean - and why several red entries don't mean anything we care about (things like 'blocked sender', which means home dynamic IPs you don't want to accept email directly from). But if you do know about RBLs and their history, you'll like this - David Gerard 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Paulo Fontaine

Paulo_Fontaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, as usual, started adding nonsense again ([11], [12], [13]). Since this account semes to exist solely to play silly buggers and previous blocks have not changed that, have indef-blocked the account. We only have so much time to spend cleaning up after idiots. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 17:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a UK university account. If it comes back, note it here and I'll have a word with the university network admin - we've had some success in dealing with such cases in a conclusive manner - David Gerard 07:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Another reason commons sucks

Shizhao (talk · contribs), an chinese admin on Commons and Meta who has limited English skills (self-declared: en-1), has been deleting images on Commons and removing links to them on the English Wikipedia (see log at Commons, contributions here). I suspect that most of these deletions are correct to the extent that they remove fair use content from Commons, which doesn't allow fair use. Unfortunately, they also remove images (like the FedEx Logo!) where a prefectly reasonable case for fair use could have been made here, if only the images had been uploaded locally.

Could someone with a greater understanding of Commons talk to him/them about checking whether fair use content is actually being used here before deleting, and if so, move it over here first. I would presume that if someone is going to the trouble of removing the links here, that it would not be too much greater a burden to look at whether those items should have been preserved as fair use here. Dragons flight 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is something to bring up on Commons. I'm an admin there but woefully inactive, so I'll look at it. I just left him a comment. --Golbez 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And removed it - this should be handled on Commons, not here. --Golbez 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And I see no reason why the snark against Commons is needed. This is not "another" reason Commons sucks, unless you know of several others. This isn't even one reason Commons sucks. Maybe if uploaders had read the copyright guidelines before uploading images not allowed there, we wouldn't have this problem. --Golbez 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you actually like a list? I've had my own rights and work abused by the poor integration between Commons and Wikipedia, and honestly believe we would be better off if all images were managed locally. Dragons flight 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would love a list. --Golbez 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. If anything, User:Shizhao should receive a warm "thank-you" for taking the bother to clean up on another project by removing the dead links. The idea that a Commons admin should be forced to take responsibility for uploading copyright infringements on en: and assert that they are "fair use" strikes me as absurd. Remember, the uploader is taking personal responsibility for those copyright-infringements and is personally defending them as fair use. No one should have that demanded of them. Jkelly 19:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If a valid fair use rationale is provided at Commons, it should be copied here. We shouldn't permanently delete usable content just because someone couldn't figure out the right place to put the notice. Also, I have noticed several cases where Shizhao deleted links to images even though a local copy of the image already existed. In other words he didn't bother to check that a legitimate copy of the image already existed on EN before removing the link. Dragons flight 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the implied sentiment that there are other unaddressed concerns regarding the use of commons as an image repository for en:, I do not believe that this particular issue is anything other than the fault of the original uploader of fair-use material to commons. Commons doesn't permit fair use, and it is never the responsibility of the deleting admin to find alternate hosting for material that isn't permitted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

100% agreed with UC. Admins who clean up things like this get given far too much crap. If you're uploading fair use images, it is your responsibility to do it correctly. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:164.58.145.60

164.58.145.60 has been continually vandalizing Wikipedia articles, especially (repeatedly) Classen SAS. It is also very probable that this is a sockpuppet of Ncurses. --juli. ^{t ?} 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert McChesney Site Vandalism

User Adkinsjm, having been warned once, continues to vandalize the Robert McChesney site, posting non-neutral flaming political commentary (i.e., calling Noam Chomsky a 'hater of America'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewelch7 (talk • contribs)

"Site?" User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Robert McChesney

You mean the page? Or is he asking people to do something to someone's website? --DanielCD 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He means the article. I removed one quote, as the source is Lipmagazine.com. As it's fairly inflamatory and accusatory, I think a stronger source than this is merited. I left an offer to assist in finding new sources. If the critic is interested, he's got the ball in his court. But I don't think Lipservice.com is a reliable source. --DanielCD 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

End of WiC attacks

I am User:Wikipedia is Communism. I started vandalizing on April 10, 2005 and have continued my vandalism over a long time. However I noticed that i was falling as a vandal, and that I could not become the most persistent vandal, because WoW and the NCV have both become more prolific vandals. I have been impersonated numerous times and am now deciding to apologize and stop, and never vandalize again,

Sincerely,

Wikipedia is Communism (editing as User:Alvam so that I won't get blocked)

• Well, I, for one, am pleased to hear that. You would, of course, understand if there's a bit of healthy skepticism on the part of the administration here. Over time, we've developed what may be described as unpleasant feelings towards persistent vandals, such as the one you claim to be (you impersonated me, I think, 6 times). In fact, though I choose not to do it myself, it's very likely that you'll find yourself blocked anyway. That being said, I appreciate your decision to cease your vandalism, even if it only because you've come to the conclusion that you cannot be the #1 vandal. – ClockworkSoul 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to discussors, see also Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism#Update. 68.39.174.238 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou franklin

Lou franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated Societal attitudes towards homosexuality for AfD, and in the ensuing discussion has begun making homophobic personal attacks on those voting to keep the article. Is explicitly suggesting a vast homosexual conspiracy is keeping his POV "corrections" supressed. Georgewilliamherbert 09:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:IanDavies evading ban

User:84.9.210.195 and User:84.9.211.38 are sockpuppets of banned user User:IanDavies being used to repeatedly revert pages. See Special:Contributions/84.9.210.195 and Special:Contributions/84.9.211.38 Owain (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked - David Gerard 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Rbj

Hi all, I've blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) for a week, for his continued personal attacks against Karmafist (talk · contribs), such as this edit, where he says, among other things, "this is an admin who should never have been conceived in the first place". He's been blocked in the past for making personal attacks against Karmafist which is why I chose a week as the duration. See also the message I left on his talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye, Talk:Anarchism, and Template:AnarchismDildo

I've blocked Hogeye (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for personal attacks on Talk:Anarchism (among other places) and disruption. He has re-created {{AnarchismDildo}} after I deleted it as an obviously inflammatory and divisive template. android79 17:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One of these days he is going to end up blocked indefinitely.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A pretty obvious sockpuppet DildoDaggins (talk · contribs) then re-created it again. Time to salt the earth. android79 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

George Steinbrenner - defamation

Drtjumper has posted defamatory vandalism on the George Steinbrenner article. I reverted his changes and he has been banned indefinitely, but someone may want to actually delete the edit, particularly considering the subject. Kafziel 18:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon 24.69.14.159 personal attacks

Abusive comments by 24.69.14.159 (talk · contribs)

• Diff [14]

This person has been abusive in the past using other IP addresses and usernames:

• 24.64.223.203 (talk · contribs)
• Jim Heller (talk · contribs)

User has verbally abused me in the past see: [15]

I cannot ban him as I am involved in editing that article. Can another admin take a look. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Another instance of personal attacks. See diff [16]. I request a temporary block as per WP:NPA

The abuse continues. Diff: [17].

• • Hmmm...seems to have left...perhaps. Give him a warning of WP:NPA, and I'll block his IPs if he continues. He is more argumentative than a regular troll through...and the personal attacks are not as bad as "automatic block" ones I've seen before. Notify him of WP:Civility and tell him to calm down.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There are already two {{NPA}} notices on his talk page. In any case, it seems that he has gone. I will keep these diffs handy if he ever trolls again. Thank you for checking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Phone number vandalism. Personal info?

Today, I interrupted a vandal (69.174.229.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) who was posting what appears to be a North Carolina-based phone number in articles. I'm thinking that this might be considered personal information: should it be purged form the histories of the affected articles? – ClockworkSoul 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina? North Carolina or North Carolina ? 68.39.174.238 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question, but I think that it was just North Carolina. I have no way of knowing for sure, though, and he only vandalized a handful of pages before I blocked him. – ClockworkSoul 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please block User:204.128.70.65

User:204.128.70.65 have been vandalising articles. Could someone block this user from editing at Wikipedia. --Abögarp 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• It appears he had stopped about a half hour ago, but I thought it might be wise to block him anyway. Afterall, he may have just been taking a break from typing "penises" so many times. Wow, "penises", that's funny. – ClockworkSoul 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do use WP:AIV the next time. Thanks! :) Mailer Diablo 02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tracking Andrew Morrow (banned user:Pinktulip)

Is there a central page where this fellow is getting tracked? His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong ISP complaint, if not actual legal action - David Gerard 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.Geni 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We could start a subpage of one of his User pages, such as User:Amorrow/incidents. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Only thing that comes close is the Template:Pinktulip. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be creating a vandalism in progress page soon on this. --Sunfazer (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dussst may be banned user User:Bourbons3

I put this up for a sockpuppet check, but the circumstantial evidence may provide enough for preliminary action. Bourbon3 was blocked for copyright violations on 15 January 2006, and his response was "**You've just lost a valuable editor to the Userbox project, JACKASS - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C}. Dusst first edited on 16 January 2006, and his second edit was to add himself to the Userbox project. Also note the format of his current signature: • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C}. I don't want him to think I'm targeting him because I oppose his opinions on userboxes, but I came across this today. Maybe there's some sort of logical explanation for the coincidences? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep its the same user... still uploading stuff as "Self edited on Adobe Photoshop" or "Edited in MS Paint" and using that as grounds to make PD stuff that clearly isnt. see Image:Barking Abbey school badge.jpg (not PD), Image:Sir Alan Sugar.JPG (Screenshot), Image:Jason Dawe.JPG (not PD), Image:Random_Event_Pillory2_crop.jpg (Screenshot), the guy clearly did not learn from his last block and persists in uploading copyvio.  ALKIVAR™ 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have gone and reblocked this user indefinately for 2 reasons 1) repeated copyvio after being warned. 2) block avoidance, this user was already indef blocked for repeated copyright violations. If anyone has a problem with the length of this block, I will not fight a reduction.  ALKIVAR™ 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Anotherblogger and his threats against Wikipedia

All -- Anotherblogger (talk · contribs) (who is likely this blogger) is frustrated because several editors on Perverted-Justice.com (myself included) have rejected his attempts to add his rather juvenile blog to the PJ article as an external link. He has announced that the article WILL contain the link, and basically gave an ultimatum about what might happen if it doesn't stay added ("Don't be stupid. Sites such as Wikipedia tend to be vulnerable to DDOS and other unfortunate such incidents, when its administration makes stupid censorship moves. Make the smart choice and cease from censoring the truth. As has been stated before, the revisions will be made from various IP blocks and sources, so essentially your options are limited.") I'd block him myself for these kinds of threats against Wikipedia, but am involved in the dispute over the link. I'd appreciate someone else evaluating his behavior in general and this threat in particular. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Anotherblogger (talk · contribs)? Seems disruptive enough for a block, though I'm not sure how much good it'll do. --W(t) 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Username is actually Anotherblogger (talk · contribs). I recommend an indef-ban, as threats of a DDOS automatically end any consensus-building conversation, just as legal threats do. Jkelly 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, yes. Thanks for fixing that. Here's another lovely one [18]. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Account indef-blocked by both User:Friday and myself. Jkelly 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User Robot32 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)

User:Robot32 has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

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

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, the first two page moves are legitimate. Compromised account? --cesarb 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but considering the number of edits, it could just as well be an account created for this purpose, that was used a little and then left to age. --W(t) 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Orphan1 aka User:71.115.103.149 and threats of a lawsuit

I was contacted by User:Karrmann in regards to personal attacks against him over content disputes regarding the article Yugo which I protected after a request for page protection was filed. User:Orphan1 aka User:71.115.103.149 based on these edits:[19], [20] and was quite busy insulting Karrmann about his age [21], [22], [23] and then started making legal threats:[24] and I blocked him for 24 hours an he then continued the legal threats on his talk page:[25], [26], [27], and when confronted by Karrmann (who claims to be 13 years old):[28]. I'm thinking of a permanent banning, or at the least a longer block...any objections?--MONGO 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And all just so he could spam a link to his garage or something. [29] --Malthusian (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My God, this guy's not a spammer, he's... well, to make a pretense of staying within WP:NPA I'll content myself with 'insane' instead of various other words that came to mind. [30] [31] --Malthusian (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This user demonstrates incivility and continues to make legal threats. I suggest an indefinite block with "Please inform us when your legal case has completed its course, so that we may remove this block". That should give a clear 'stop it if you want to continue to be here' flavour. — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've given him threatban and an indefinite block. This stuff is just unacceptable. If he pleads for an unblock, we can let him back. — Gareth Hughes 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--MONGO 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have now also indef banned User:71.115.103.149 as this IP was not blocked previously and they are the same individual.--MONGO 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture use of block and debating style: "making shit up" and "for fuck's sake"

I was recently blocked by User:Freakofnurture. Where percentages were in digits ('26') not words ('twenty six'), I changed the percent and per cent to the symbolic form %. Unfortunately User:Freakofnurture blocked me and said I should delete the space character that remained between the digit and the symbol. Eventually he said Please provide some source for the use of a space or I will block you for a greater duration'. You will see other phrases from him/her like "making shit up" and "for fuck's sake"

I am no prude but I the issue was hardly worth swearing about, particularly since I had said that I would use his/her personal preference as he/she wanted. It would have been bad if we both started swearing. I even started a debate at the Manual of style to see if there is a 'correct' answer, but I really think that User:Freakofnurture should have done that. Somehow I have ended up the position of applying his personal style preference and acting as his/her agent on the talk page. See the discussion we had at:

• User_talk:Bobblewik#User:Freakofnurture_block_over_Bobblewik_edits_of_percentages

Are blocking powers really intended to be used like that? bobblewik 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know what the MOS says, but newspaper style is to use the numeral and spell out percent, always. As in 3 percent; 12 percent; 100 percent. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

He could have probably used a little more tact in his responses though.

In such cases, it's probably best to go ahead and yield, re-read the policy, then get a third opinion if it's that important to you. It gives me a headache to see conflicts over such things anyway, as they should be plain in the MOS. --DanielCD 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Percent has always been spelled out in every encyclopedia article I can recall ever reading; further, a search for "percent" at the Britannica website yields more than 6,000 pages (including this first result, with numericals) while a search for "%" yields none. In radio news writing, I can say from experience that we always write out "percent" while only numbers ten and under are written out. (And, yes, more tact is preferable.) RadioKirk talk to me 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about radio, but AP style is to always use the numeral with percent regardless of quantity; that ten-and-under rule only applies with non-percentage number references. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, AP (personal prejudice). My Chicago Manual (15th Edition) says in section 9.19 (page 384):

Percentages are always given in numerals. in humanistic copy the word percent is used; in scientific and statistical copy, or in humanistic copy that includes numerous percentage figures, the symbol % is more appropriate...Note also that no space appears between the numeral and the symbol %. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the response seems uncivil and disproportionate. Was the rationale for the block that Bobblewik was using a bot? (Although it's really beside the point in this case, I don't exactly think the MoS and bobblewik have plucked this idea from thin air: "%" for figures, "percent" or "per cent" for words. That is what I've seen in style guides. As for the space, who is to say? Proper typography would probably put a half-space in front of a percentage sign or a unit, but that is not possible in Wikipedia.) –Joke 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it done both ways, but it probably needs to be spelled out. I'd think it really wouldn't be that important as long as it's consistent with the rest of the same article. But definitely not worth fighting over. Be aware when these small things come up and irritate you, because if you have little experience here, and are that picky, it can get rough. Just try to be aware and use it as a learning experience. --DanielCD 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just remember, as a rule of thumb, when you are dealing with an admin who is being rough, get a third opinion. These trivial things can be sorted out quickly if a third party gives a fresh perspective.

Man it's hard to type on this page without getting an edit conflict! --DanielCD 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel slightly responsible for Bobblewik bringing this here. Apologies if I have been stirring things when I should have let them lie.

On the substantive question, having read WP:BOT and its talk page again a short while ago, I can understand why Bobblewik may have been blocked in the first place, if he was making fast edits using AWB. I think there may have been some mis-communication in the subsequent exchanges in User talk:Bobblewik; however, matters of style (short of disruption or making a WP:POINT) are not, in my book, grounds for blocking. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a firestorm.

1. When I questioned bobblewik's edits, he offered only the following response:

   I answered that question further up this page at the section titled Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch. I hope that helps. Thanks. bobblewik 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Then he continued to perform the same edits at a bot-like speed, as if to ignore me altogether. I questioned him again, stating that I had read the section above, followed the links to the manual of style page, and found this:

   The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent.

3. So I once again asked him why he was putting a space between the number and the percent sign. He responded by merely copying and pasting another portion of his talk page as if that was adequate explanation and as if I he thought I hadn't read it already.
4. Thus I blocked him for one hour, hoping that he would focus attention on his talk page long enough to give an adequate response, and also hoping that would be long enough.
5. If the edits in question were being performed from a separate bot account, as he has been previously asked to do, I would have blocked only the bot, and not bobblewik himself.
6. I don't believe any of the various formats are actually incorrect, thus his accusation that I blocked him to enforce my preferred style is deceptive.
7. I have never seen anybody besides him put a space between a number and a percent sign. I asked several individuals via IRC and nobody indicated use of that style.
8. He should not be making bot-speed edits from his main account.
9. I should not have sworn at him, but he caused greater frustration than I have experienced since mid-december.
10. WP:BOT#Current policy on running bots states: "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator didn't say they would do, messing up articles or editing too rapidly."

    Despite being a non-bot account, I believe bobblewik met these criteria for intents and purposes.

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:20, Feb. 15, 2006

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)" says that "The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol." This is for units of measurement, which it could be argued does apply to percentages, but equally might not. Under the percentages section it does not mention the use of a space. violet/riga (t) 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything violet/riga says and everything Freakofnurture says – other than 8 and 10 – seem perfectly sensible to me. –Joke 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that it can be seen that there is by no means consensus for placing a space before a percentage sign, and so it should not be done by a bot. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is, it seems, a good case to be made for changing "7 percent" or "7 per cent" to either one of "7%" or "7 %". So it seems perfectly reasonable to do that automatically. I don't think bobblewik was changing "7%" to "7 %". –Joke 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems much more reasonable. All the same, controversial bot (or something resembling a bot) edits are still to be avoided. I think it has been shown that this change falls into that category. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Joke. Let us be clear. I did not put the space before a percentage symbol. I did not add any or remove any. I was not dealing with the space issue at all. I merely changed the word into a symbol. As far as consensus, is concerned, there was none either way. It is a binary choice. I am not a mind reader and should not be blocked for not implementing somebody else's preference.

I do not regard this as a big complaint. I have made my point and perhaps that is all I wanted. I think User:Freakofnurture was genuinely mistaken. But incorrect assumptions are not an excuse for a misuse of power. The powerful have a greater responsibility to check before acting. I merely raised it here because of kind feedback from Atlant and ALoan. I am grateful to them. Visibility of actions by a peer group is often enough incentive to behave well. As to the style guidance itself, please feel free to join in the discussion I started on the talk page of the MoS. bobblewik 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a miscommunication on one hand, and an admin that was a little trigger-happy, though likely still acting in good faith. I suggest the parties involved discuss the miscommunication and try to look forward, as the alternative is to keep making discussion comments instead of doing real work/editing. My advice: Decide if there's a conflict to be pursued, which only the complaining party really can decide. Hopefully, they'll just accept the faults of communication as blame, and try to work together to solve the problem. Then they can perhaps serve as authorities if it comes up again somewhere. But it's ya'll's choice, to fight or edit. This is just my words, take 'em or leave 'em. --DanielCD 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the choice, I would prefer to edit. However I would also prefer that bobblewik didn't change formats that, as clarified by RadioKirk and others, are equally acceptable. The use of the space is what first upset me, but it was his discourteous lack of response, and continuing to make the same edits which convinced me to block, and I might add that mine was the mildest block he has ever received (see [32]). It was not intended to punish, but rather to overcome his apparent unwillingness to discuss the concerns I raised. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:06, Feb. 15, 2006

I would like to add that Freakofnurture has stated on my userpage that he likes to break the rules of adminship. User:Lapinmies/List_of_admins_that_have_violated_the_rules. Lapinmies 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of ignore all rules? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Amit jain online unresponsive to warnings

In trying to stem the flow of un-licensed images onto wikipedia I found User:Amit jain online uploading a reasonably large number of un-licensed images. He will not respond to my messages and has continued to upload images after multiple warnings. Could an admin have a word to him please about the seriousness of disregarding wikipedia policy, thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for the moment; I've warned him and directed him to Wikipedia:Image use policy. If he continues, we'll have to block. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content (userboxes)

I posted this message on Djr xi's talk page; I think it provides enough information that I don't need to elaborate further.

You're free to use whatever content you wish in your own namespace, assuming it doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. However, note that user subpages which are intentionally transcluded as templates (see edit 39723996) are governed by the same provisions of Wikipedia policy that govern templates. As such, the userbox subpage templates you created will soon be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G4 (recreation of deleted content) as well as the original deletion reasons. All instances of the templates will be substituted before deletion. This message will be crossposted to the administrator's noticeboard (incidents) if you'd like to comment.

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. Well I had the substituted version on my page and so did the user you quote above. I had no idea the original template had even been deleted - most users subst their pages to avoid the nonsense of templates being speedily deleted. As long as they are subst'd then feel free to do what you want. Deano (Talk) 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I semi-automatically substituted a broken userbox on the user's page in the previous edit. I assumed it was your intention to replace all instances of the deleted template with a subpage template; I apologize if that was not so. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

CatherineWest (talk • contribs)

Could someone take a look at this. New user, registered yesterday and with about 10 edits seems to have gone on a spree of marking userboxes for speedy deletion. I reverted those with the invalid reason of being "commercial", but now she's moved on to "divisive" (on admittedly controversial templates). I'd like to assume good faith, but this could just be a troll who knows exactly what buttons to press to cause controversy. the wub "?!" 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have quietened down. the wub "?!" 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

She continued this, so I have blocked her for 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. —Guanaco 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This user seems to have a sizable amount of knowledge regarding Wikipedia policy and process for a "newcomer." Would a CheckUser be out of the question? -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Proxy to block

Here's an open proxy to block: 72.232.67.202 (talk • contribs) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I thought open proxys are subject to indef, or am I wrong here? ;) - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that is an open proxy.. shared IP perhaps, but not open. Sasquatch t|c 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to indef as it is the same like an open proxy anyone can come to that page and type in a web address, feel free to change it. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• IP leads to Layered Technologies, a hosting company. [33] - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is used by http://www.projectbypass.org --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Current events

Can somebody figure out where the garbage at the top of the Current events page is coming from? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was coming from Template:Current_events --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please semi-protect Muslim

The article is being vandalized every few minutes, often by anonIPs. It's difficult to keep the article intact -- I just found that we'd been restoring a version that had already been vandalized (someone wiped out the bottom third of the article). Zora 09:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, please. Thank you! :) - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor Violating Probation for Disruptive Editing

Just over a week after [34] was closed, user Benjamin Gatti authored Clean safe nuclear energy, which is disruptive editing at its finest. We need three administrators to concur in this, and decide what is appropriate. Simesa 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin so that would be 1. I am not involved in this particular article and the arbcom decision makes no mention of involvement of the admin involved. Just wanted to add that I am pretty sure that he deliberately made that article to test his probation. Most definitely violates it. Here is the specific part of the decision that he has violated and here is the remedy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing. I really thought maybe all that stuff was done. I'd support a week block for disruption, as per his probation. On a side note, there's nothing in the arbcom ruling that says an uninvolved admin. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 08:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was recused from that case, but just to clarify, it is uninvolved admins implicitly, just as any administrative action should ideally be taken by an uninvolved admin. I think Wikipedia:Probation clarifies this. Also, to be clear, there is only one uninvolved admin needed to ban from an article or talk page where he is deemed disruptive (probation), and three for any more serious measures of your own devising, including a ban (general probation). He's on both probation and general probation. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, wait. So if I understand you correctly, you mean "uninvolved" as in "has never had a dispute with this person?" If that's the test, I can never meet it, clearly. But I've had absolutely no involvement in the article in question. Can you clarify this for me? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved means not involved in a current dispute with the user. It doesn't automatically count if you've previously had a dispute but not currently. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. The article is going to be deleted, so blocking from the article would not be much of a message. So we need 3 uninvolved admins. So. Help! :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Am I uninvolved? I just early-closed the AfD because there was simply no chance it was ever going to close in anything other than delete, and we don't need diatribes in the main space. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved; this is the first time I've even looked at any edits by Benjamin Gatti, as far as I can recall. Clean safe nuclear energy is an aggressively POV piece at its core; that appears to be exactly the sort of editing the ArbCom ruling is trying to discourage. I support either a one week block or a one week ban from all nuclear energy topics, enforceable by block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (I'm pretty certain I'm univolved with this one).Geni 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok this is duplicated with the notice on the WP:AN, so can someone just make that a link here and copy the comments over? This doesn't appear worth a block yet, but repeating similar actions would. The one week ban from all nuclear topics wouldn't be a bad idea though, and that makes three by the way, as I'm univolved with the current nuclear dispute, though for full disclosure, I have disputed with the user in the past for similar behavior of his and commented a bit in the arbcom decision based on that. - Taxman ^Talk 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record. I proposed the subject because I was continuously struck by those four words, and I felt they deserved to be fully understood. You're welcome to interpret as you like, but I find it unnecessary to suggest that I was "testing" the Arbcom stampede-to-judgement. The article quite probably could use balance; but I fail to see how the simple creating of an article refencing a fairly important Presidential phrase is itself expressive of a point of view. I think it was not agressively POV, while certainly it includes only a single perspective. There was no reverting other perspectives for example and such would be a critical element of aggressive POV editing. Benjamin Gatti 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was so obviously POV that your claims not to be able to see that are hard to believe to say the least. There wasn't any effort to edit it because it was so obviously useless. Don't bother trying similar stunts. If you have useful, researched material to help improve articles please stick to that and save everyone the headache. Do reallize though that everyone knows your game and is tired of it. - Taxman ^Talk 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually emailed Ben to ask him for an explanation because I'm just baffled. Probation means no more benefit of the doubt. You just can't jump over the line like that. I mean, it was as POV as these things get. You said "to announce plans to pump yet more deficit-funded tax dollars into the still unprofitable nuclear energy industry" in the article. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And Ben's response?:

"I will happily include your block as evidence of systemic bias against true and accurate articles related to nuclear energy. We criticize china in vain who do ourselves block the truth. Benjamin Gatti 14:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"

The block could be extended for that. I really don't think probation is going to solve anything with Ben. Probation does nothing with a user who doesn't care about our policies in the first place. It feels alot like zen master and his probation. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Need comment on Flemming Rose insertions.

Don't really know where to go, so this might not really be the right place. Sorry for that if it is not. Catstail (talk · contribs), Kembali (talk · contribs) and a few anonymous ips 60.225.187.87 (talk · contribs), 60.228.43.92 (talk · contribs) and 64.229.223.33 (talk · contribs) (which may or may not be the same person) continue to insert un-sourced and un-verifiable information on the Flemming Rose page several times a day over the last week. Flemming Rose is the one who published the cartoons of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I’m simple asking for them to source it. They don’t so I remove it, and they insert it again. We are in a deadlock it seems. Catstail has also started a strange moving around on the talk page, for no apparent reason. Can someone come by and take a look, maybe give a little help? Twthmoses 09:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in desperate need of assistants. Catstail (talk · contribs) and a cohort of new users and anonymous Ips have for seven days inserted un-sourced and unverifiable information on the Flemming Rose page. I have in seven days asked (read the talk page) to source their insertions. None of them does (I believe most of them are Catstail anyway). Could I ask a helping hand, maybe lock this page for anonymous Ip and new user edit? At least give a 3rd party opinion? Twthmoses 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

These are the users in case you are intreasted; Ronam2298 (talk · contribs) 71.134.249.113 (talk · contribs) 60.225.187.87 (talk · contribs) 60.228.43.92 (talk · contribs) 64.229.223.33 (talk · contribs) Kembali (talk · contribs) Catstail (talk · contribs)

Blocked unfairly

Yesterday I had been in a content dispute with Dbiv and without a warning someone listed me for 3RR. I had been unaware that I had broken the rule as there were various disputes, so I immediately stopped editing there. I showed that Dbiv had broken the same rule. Admin Tom harrison warned both of us and NSLE tried to mediate. However, Dbiv went on to revert two more times in the following hours when other users reinserted what he did not like. I complained and we both got blocked, I seven hours after my last revert. Can you imagine in a soccer game two guys in a conflict get yellow cards, and when one of them goes on with foul play BOTH get the red one? I think that is unfair adminship. The admin who blocked us did not reply to my email complaint although he was online and responded to Dbiv who threatened him. NSLE gave me the advise to report this here. Get-back-world-respect 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since both users are now annoyed with me, I must not have acted too unfairly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's always a good sign. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:38, Feb. 16, 2006

Wow, administrators proud to make mischief. Perfect presupposition for serving one's duty. Get-back-world-respect 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring is mischief. Stopping an edit war can end friendships, but at least it stops the mischief. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:08, Feb. 16, 2006

That depends on the circumstances. Admins' actions are not law. --DanielCD 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this "buddy" system of overlooking such things and dismissing them with cute comments should be put unters messer. And if both users are seeing an injustice, to assume that it was not "too unfair" for that reason that is crass to the point of insult. --DanielCD 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That is one of the silliest explanations I've ever read. Both users being annoyed at you is a sign that you haven't been more unfair to one than the other, but it is, by no means, a reflection that you've been fair to both parties. Hypothetically speaking, if I were an admin and decided to indefinitely block two edit warriors for all eternity, hell yes they'd be both annoyed at me, and hell yes it'd be unfair. I'm not bothering to address the actual dispute, but someone needed to point out that that is not "always a good sign." Yeesh. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 02:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As both of the blocked editors violated the WP:3rr rule, and both were blocked, there is nothing unfair going on here. The fact that one admin gave a warning instead of blocking should not stop another admin from blocking both of them. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv unblocked himself - that's not supposed to happen, even if he feels the block was wrong. NSLE _(T+C) 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As if we didn't have enough problems.Geni 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think that when someone comes into this forum to ask for clarity, they should be given consideration and assistance no matter how wrong they are/were, not mocking comments. It makes the admins look like dicks. That's my only point here.

As to Dbiv unblocking himself, that was definitely not the right thing to do. --DanielCD 02:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed no one redid it. I was all set to until I realized that this was from yesterday. You don't unblock yourself. PERIOD. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage Tom Harrison to demonstrate for everyone's benefit what the four reverts were that Dbiv made. I'm not disputing his actions, but the 3RR report seemed confused and included diffs which were definitely not reverts. Note that I'm not condoning Dbiv unblocking himself by questioing the original block. Mackensen (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• [35] Dbiv removes 'kicking while forced to the ground' 15:40, 14 February 2006

• [36] ditto 12:43, 14 February 2006

• [37] ditto 10:53, 14 February 2006

• [38] again 10:46, 14 February 2006 - and here I stopped counting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For an interesting side note to this, please view GBWR's user and talk page histories. Deleting warnings, blocks, and then trying to speedily delete your own page to hide the evidence is fun for everyone! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Or he could be just leaving in disgust and wanting to wipe away his existance here. Assume good faith and all that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm reapplying the block, for the principle that one shpuld not unblock himself/herself. For sysops who feel that the 3rr block is not justified, please feel free to unblock David. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I am editing this piece while not logged in. I am a very bad boy and must be punished. But as it is the middle of the night for both Geni and Mailer Diablo it seems the only way of raising general attention. The 3RR block was blatantly unjust because my edits to Current Events were not (apart from one) reverts. They were all different versions of trying to get a compromise. Check the edits and you will see this for yourself. This new interpretation of 3RR that each individual sentence counts is bizarre and never before seen, and in my last edit to that page at 21:37 I included "kicking" in a plural so it's not even true. If the 3RR is acting to prevent attempts at compromise, then it's certainly not helping. As for unblocking myself, I was quite open as to the fact that I was doing it, and cited WP:IAR. The direct reason was that I was in the middle of making this edit which had taken the best part of an hour and involved comparing five separate reference books. It was 1 AM local time and I had to be in work at 9 AM. (It took Tom harrison a whole 18 hours to reply to the email I sent him a minute after he applied the block) There is no way that I was going to see this work lost even if that meant involving myself in what I expected would be a whole load of trouble in the morning. I was very surprised when there was absolutely nothing and no-one seemed to have noticed: indeed no-one noticed during the day so I was hardly disrupting anyone! I spent the time adding a whole load of useful encyclopaedic information and writing an encyclopaedia (I actually rather like Southern Rhodesia general election, 1962, and if anyone speedy deletes it on the grounds it was made by a user who should have been blocked then that will be the height of lunacy). Blocks are not applied for punishment but to stop disruption. I was not disrupting anything, Q.E.D. I do hope someone will see sense and unblock me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbiv (talk • contribs)

Dbiv, while I have implied here that I felt your block was unjust and said as much on your talk page, I don't think your action in unblocking yourself was well thought-out. Though I am a mere user without admin powers, from what I've read, there's a strong consensus that under no circumstances should this be acceptable, and I think the reasons are obvious. Even when "justified," unblocking oneself has a tendency to cause far more trouble than its worth, especially when the initial block was for only 24 hours. Though I think hardly anyone considers you anything but a good faith editor, disruption is in the eye of the beholder, and as an involved party, I don't think you should be the one to decide that. The reaction right here could very well be considered disruption in itself, and the blocking/unblocking actions already feel like the beginning (if not the process itself) of a wheel war. I don't see your point about "losing" your work. Few changes to Wikipedia are important enough that can't wait a day, and those that are can be handled by someone else. Unless there's something I'm missing, I don't see why you couldn't have saved your work elsewhere, and waited to make the change after the block expired. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocks should never be applied "for the sake of form", only to help preserve the encyclopaedia. If it is true that there is disruption here because of the discussion of my unblocking, that's because someone brought it here more than 24 hours after it happened. The actual unblocking didn't seem to disrupt anything, but it did allow me to add useful edits yesterday. I want to be unblocked now to add useful edits today. I always thought the cardinal unwritten rule of Wikipedia is that "whatever it is, writing an encyclopaedia is always more important".

And therein lies the problem with your assumption. Form and process are a part of ensuring a functional system for writing the encyclopedia; even if your initial block was unjustified, you are encouraging a precedent that one can unblock his or herself as long as one thinks it's for the good of the encyclopedia. Surely you see the problem with this thinking. Even if you are right in this instance, sanction of your actions has the potential to give excuse to those who would abuse such actions and has a long-term effect of making blocks ineffective. It causes ill will, gives newer users the impression of a Cabal, and has the potential to start disruptive wheel wars, giving Wikipedia a bad impression in general. Unblocking yourself was in fact the cause of the discussion here, as none of this regarding your action would have been said if you didn't unblock yourself to begin with. In fact, had you not unblocked yourself, another admin would most likely have, and you would have been easily vindicated. As for improving the encyclopedia, again, I see no reason your edits couldn't have waited till after the block, so the benefit to Wikipedia appears neglible to me. The harms, on the other hand, are already making themselves manifest. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 10:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make clear that when I say the "benefit" is "negligible," I'm not referring to the edits themselves which are exceptional. They could, however, have just as easily been made AFTER the block had expired or, at least, after another admin had unblocked you. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 10:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the initial 3RR block was unjust - there is no way that the diffs cited above are reverts, they are (as David says) a genuine attempt to find a compromise which is NPOV. However, given the self-unblocking, I'm not going to get involved. --ajn (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like admins unblocking themselves. Even if the original block was unjust. I agree with ignoring all rules when the situation dictates that it's better to ignore the rule than obey it. It would have been so much though to unblock both parties dont you think? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it either. But in the circumstances I had no choice. With regard to Hinotori, with my browser if you get the 'blocked from editing' page, you lose the edit. It was 1 AM and I needed to sleep; if another admin had removed the block, what was I supposed to do - stay awake and wait? I'm not asking for sanctioning my actions because I acknowledged I shouldn't be doing it right from the start. I know it was wrong - and I'm not going to unblock myself now. But since (a) everyone other than the blocking admin has accepted that the original block was unjustified, and (b) I didn't disrupt Wikipedia while blocked, what harm did it do? If you don't want good quality edits from me today, please say so explicitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbiv (talk • contribs)

The harm has been explained further up by Hinotori. As for your browser, you could have copied the entire contents of the edit box, pasted them into a text editor, saved them and then recopied and pasted them back again when the block expired. I'm not going to undo the block because i think it is important that we send a clear message to everyone that admins must not unblock themselves. I know this means that we lose your edits today. It's the lesser of two evils IMO. What I will do though is ask Tom Harrison to review your edits yesterday and his blocking of you both and consider if he wants to unblock you today. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused... I don't see why one couldn't save the edit to a text file. I have done that in the past, when pressed for time in writing a major edit that I wanted to submit as a completed whole. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 11:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I comment here because I was briefly involved in the middle of this skirmish, editing the section in question once and reverting once. I declined to revert again, for obvious reasons, and finished editing for the day before the discussions at Talk:Current_events#Iraqi_abuse_video and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR took hold. Having reviewed the histories and logs, I agree that GBWR violated 3RR and a block was warranted, although, given the highly charged emotions evident on these pages, perhaps more discussion / warning before the block might have been appropriate. Dbiv does not appear to have violated the 3RR and the block appears to be wrong.

However, I think that the self unblocking was utterly wrong and agree completely with Hinotori's points made above. David, you say you had no other choice - it was 1 AM and I needed to sleep; if another admin had removed the block, what was I supposed to do - stay awake and wait?. With respect, you did have other choices, as you clearly knew you were blocked at that point. Make a local copy on your computer and either wait out the block, appeal it by email to another admin, place the appropriate template on your talk page or post anonymously here identifying yourself as you have just done. You could even have elected to do any combination of the above. I also think that as an experienced editor you would be in the habit of making a copy of any major edit before submitting it, a practice made all the more important with the recent server problems.

Self unblocking is not the place for WP:IAR. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Hinotori, I understand the frustrations of not being able to edit - There are times where the Wikipedia servers appeared to have died on me, and I have no other choice than to save it in a text file and leave it on my desktop. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we would all agree at this point that Dbiv shouldn't have acted as he did; but also that he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place–especially as the block came some time after the non-existent 3RR violation, at a time when Current Events was not convulsed by an edit war. That's punitive. It's also clear that Dbiv recognizes (indeed, recognized at the time) that unblocking himself is a Bad Thing. In the interests of collegiality, assuming good faith and what not, might we all agree that several admins make bad judgement calls, but in the end no serious harm was actually done. Those are my thoughts, anyway. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked Dbiv. I acknowledge that many people think the 3RR violations were debatable, and the blocks for it unnecessary. I maintain that the two editors engaged in disruptive edit-warring, but it may be that my response was heavy-handed. I appreciate everyone's advice and input. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fun side note: Just like I expected and said earlier, after GBWR had his page speedily deleted to hide warnings and the block messages(which, btw should have been kept on there), he's Baaaaaaack. Guess that whole "I'm sick of wikipedia, I'm leaving" was a bunch of transparent nonsense: anyone who really wanted to leave wikipedia would do just that. Leave, and never revisit the website again. Why need to coverup?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Users have a right to get their pages deleted when leaving. It is unfair to force people to have a page where people can throw mud at them. Your tone is condescending and says more about you than anyone else. 84.59.79.243 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)

But you've already shown you have no intention of leaving. Look at your contribs, you're STILL editing your involved threads, this time as an anon. If you want to leave, just do it! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Users have a right to get their pages deleted. It is unfair to force people to have a page where people can throw mud at them. 84.59.79.243 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC

Furthermore will you show me where this right to get a page deleted when leaving is? No really, quote me chapter and verse from where in the Criteria for Speedy Deletion it says that you are allowed to delete a page to hide your blocks and warnings, then come back to continue editing the threads, because that's quite obviously what you've been doing, as noted by a second user than me on the discussion page. To whit, exactly what he said:'_ _ Handling this via speedy is IMO a gross abuse. WP:CSD provides for U1, covering subpages only, and for U2, covering only IP users. G7, "Author requests deletion" is quite explicit abt further criteria": "Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created...." Neither of those provisions is the case, let alone both as is required.

and also: That's Get-back-world-respect (talk • contribs) being referred to. If it's really the same person, they have over 4000 edits, mostly from a period of 8-9 months. (But BTW, they feel free to leave the above edit at the end of an apparently random section on my talk page. That sounds to me like either an ignorant newbie or someone being intentionally offensive.) As to having withdrawn, they have over 250 edits to articles alone in January and February, including 5 article edits in the last 24 hours. This is not a former user, but an abusive current one...., other choice quotes regarding your conduct include...your blanking was regarded as vandalism,; If someone wants to withdraw from WP, they can do it. If they want to edit article and/or argue with well intentioned editors, they have not withdrawn. In any case -- withdrawn or not-- this person has no rights except those that are provided by GFDL, which offers no right to withdraw their contributions under it, let alone the right to supress what others have said on their talk page; and likewise in a line, you want to interfere with others' ability to speak their minds. Whether that makes you a bad person or not is irrelevant here. It is likely to make you unsuitable here. And IMO it also renders everything that has appeared on your talk page evidence that may be important in judging the level of respect for NPoV and verifiability that went into the 2051 edits you made on articles. Everyone here inevitably makes, consciously or not, judgements about whether half-proven assertions should be let stand, and bases them somewhat on the record of the editor. IMO you are not an editor who should be permitted to expunge your record -- even if there are some who should.

But wait folks, here's the kicker: After all that opposition to the speedy deletion: GBWR goes ahead and BLANKS all that. Is this really the type of behavior that is being encouraged on Wikipedia? If this continues for more than another day, I'm bringing it to ArbCom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the right for that as can be seen here. It is absurd to say I wanted to hide my "blocks and warnings" because the block log is not lost when a page is deleted, it was only one block in all my time here, and the "warning" was merely from you who in spite of confirmation by various administrators insist that I have no right to delete content from my user talk page as many users do. I deleted the opposition to the deletion after my page had been deleted and the opposition was hence obsolete. I very much doubt that wikipedia is a place intended to encourage the constant harrassment of certain editors. Don't you have better things to do with your life? 84.59.79.243 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)

Help needed on Freemasonry

I seem to have found myself helping clean up the fallout from a messy long-term wikiflamewar, with sockpuppets, that I don't actually know the history of very well (and I have little interest in the subject). I found my way into it dealing with socks of Lightbringer (who only came to Wikipedia to push an anti-Mason POV and has come back several times) and have discovered other editors behaving very badly indeed (both pro- and anti-). But now the editors (most of whom are in fact of good will) are getting jumpy and seeing socks under the beds. I could do with another experienced admin in there to sanity-check with. I can run checkusers as needed - David Gerard 11:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

212.143.66.129

212.143.66.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) keeps inserting blatant spam (complete with referrer id) into Online casino. He has been warned with the entire line of spam-templates, but has kept inserting it 4-5 times daily. Might a block be in place? Perhaps even adding monacogoldcasino to the spam blacklist (probably overkill, though). Rasmus (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby

Would it be possible for someone to have a word, or possibly something stronger, with KDRGibby about civility and personal attacks. He has been warned about this before but he is still doing it. His current contributions summary [39] contains some real gems. "leave it alone jerks. (This is why I get in trouble...leftists delete cited and factual material and I have to keep putting it back...this is total bs))", "I wish stupidity was a violation of wiki policy", "the leftists here are so GD picky that they'll delete it, AGAIN, once that website is deleted once AGAIN, for the same freakin reason.)". That's just the edit summaries. Here [40] he calls another editor an idiot. This [41] is a long unsubstantiated rant about Natalinasmpf. It isn't getting any better... Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Coincidently, I was just browsing his user page and talk page. Something does need to be done, but to anyone with the patience to take this up, judging by his style, you are likely in for a rather protracted and involving "discussion." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him previously that he'd be blocked for further personal attacks. So I blocked him. Of course, he immediately deleted the notice that I'd done so from his talk page; if he does it again, I'll protect his talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that didn't take long. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

TheDoctor10

Check this out. It's not everyday that a person manages to attack two admins at the same time with such economy. Do what thou wilt; I'm going to bed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was coming to discuss that very edit. I've given TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another 24-hour block, but I wonder, given his behavior over the past week, whether he needs a longer block. Also, what's the best way to deal with Image:Khaosworks-improved.gif? I'd speedy delete it myself, but I don't see "blatant personal attack" as one of the criteria for speedy deletion of images. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

One last word before I really go to bed: if someone deletes it, of course I have no objection, but on the other hand, it's such nice evidence for an RfArb, isn't it? I have the image saved, in any case. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Block request User:66.186.176.3

I have just reverted two edits by this user at Francis Drake. According to his talk page he appears to have previously received a final warning and three subsequent warnings without being blocked. Perhaps it is time for him to be blocked for a while. Thanks. SMeeds 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Deathrocker Commiting Serial Vandalism And Personal Attacks

There is a serious problem with a user who is openly vandalisng musical articles including blanking, reverting any edit made to articles, POV pushing, ignoring WP:NPOV, personal attacks in edit summaries, and possible internet trolling.

Below is a revert war i have been involved with this user, [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75].

I stopped during this point to make comment twice on the articles talk page to the user, asking for co-operation and discussion of changes in line with Wikipedia policys, and also provided the NPOV tutorial and explained deliberatly blanking pages is vandalism, [76], [77].

I went on to make several minor edits to the article over an hour to make it less biased to any view, the cumulation of those efforts being here [78]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war that is in progress as i type this, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87].

The user then went on to try to delete the article by claiming a merger when there was no dispute on this, which i reverted due to it being vandalism [88], [89]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [90].

This user did not stop at the Gothic Music article though, he also went on to incite a revert war on the Nu Metal article, removing sourced information that User:WesleyDodds, a respectable and highly experienced involved with the article reverted. [91], [92], [93], [94]. This user then went on to vandalise the page using blanking and internet trolling methods, ignoring NPOV and i quote in this paticulat edit summary saying You are a prick to myself [95], the edit war is on these diffs, [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107].

This user has ignored all offers to work peacefully and seems instistant on blanking articles that dont agree solely with their POV and then Deleting them through a paper trail of redirects if he cannot force his POV on them. I ask for assistance in this manner before the user causes any further harm. Ley Shade

Both of you are edit warring. I've protected the article, and I am blocking you both until 23:59 Saturday night Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76 harassing Gibnews

Ismael76 (talk · contribs) just posted the following on Talk:Gibraltar [108]:

I am convinced that Gibraltarian and Gibnews are the same person. Not only is it statistically probable, but they express the same paranoid behaviour, view points and disregard for facts, majority view and consensus. Any difference in style is clearly a good cop/bad cop strategy. I vote for Gibnews' Overseas British nationality be revoked and he be exiled to the island of Perejil where he will follow a national indoctrination program and learn to be a good Spaniard.

Now, I, like any "unbiased" user, do not buy a single bit of this nonsense (their edit histories will show that they are in fact different people). However, I believe the last sentence constitutes an unacceptable threat that violates WP:NPA. I believe something has to be done about this. --TML1988 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the history so there may be more to this than I've seen but that last sentance reads like a joke to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's MUCH MORE SERIOUS than what you think. Please take another look at it. I also believe that Ismael76 is violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:HAR. --TML1988 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it a serious threat? Please explain. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76 assumes that Gibnews = Gibraltarian simply because they both show a pro-Gibraltar viewpoint. In the statement above, that last sentence was clearly a call to "reeducate" Gibnews. Whether that is serious or not, it is simply UNACCEPTABLE to call for someone's personal status to be downgraded. Like I said, that statement violates AGF, NPA, HAR, and CIVIL. Theresa knott, if you don't want to look into this matter, please step aside and let another admin do it. --TML1988 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Skull 'n' Femurs blocked indefinitely

Skull_'n'_Femurs (talk · contribs) has been systematically removing information from Freemasonry under his own name and that of several sockpuppets. He's just posted a rant to Talk:Freemasonry wherein he considers it his Masonic duty to remove good and referenced information from the article. That's nice for him (and helpful of him to state it blunty), but it makes it my Wikipedian administrator duty to block him from editing indefinitely, unless and until he learns what's appropriate behaviour here.

This is quite separate from Lightbringer (talk · contribs), who keeps coming back with sock after sock (see above) ...

I've locked User talk:Skull 'n' Femurs so he can't remove the notice of his intent to vandalise, as he has routinely been removing warnings - David Gerard 12:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

DG, I do admire your work, I just wanted to point out that it is very likely that several other editors are associated with S&F's IP &/or IP range. Perhaps a block on his Userpage & of him on Freemasonry (I'm pretty sure you can do the latter too) would be good? On the flipside, I do know he's been a little off lately, but historically he's an excellent editor. There's a lot of shenanigans going on there right now, so I dunno what'd be best. Just some thoughts. Grye 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The socks were making the same sort of edits from the same IP (not range) at similar times - it's very consistent. His behaviour in consistently removing the many warnings about his behaviour doesn't speak to his good faith. He can contact me if he cares to come up with an explanation that doesn't sound like sockpuppeteer snake oil. In any case, systematically removing referenced content because he thinks it should be kept secret is unacceptable. (And I'm sure there's a proverb about horses, barn doors and bolts.) - David Gerard 14:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I may be completely wrong. That's why I posted this here :-) It's not possible to block a single user from a single page, unfortunately - David Gerard 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah your probably right, I was just mentioning that he'd said several times that others are on his IPrange & they'd all been blocked. But something's for sure funny. & not "Ha ha"... ;~D Grye 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination)

This has been restored and deleted again and the afd re-opened. I've left a note on Alkivar's talk page telling him that I think this was a poorly considered course of action, and told him that I am bringing it here.

In the (admittedly unlikely event) that it turns out that it was in fact a family member who requested this be taken down and the foundation agrees, the screaming of "ADMIN ABUSE" will now echo even louder. In the event that this was a hoax and the article is kept, do we doubt that next time something gets deleted by a close margin the "restore by brute force and take by to AfD" method won't get used again?

Can we set a precedent by social pressure and trout slapping that use of the accepted venues (namely here and DRV) are to be used, and that venue shopping is disruptive?

brenneman^{T}{L} 23:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what he said, but I certainly agree!

More seriously, the quickest route to laying this to rest is probably best. I agree with brenneman. Why are people so concerned? That procedure was not followed? --DanielCD 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Its funny you have no problems with the AFD consensus to keep getting shopped to DRV where simple majority rules. Yet when it gets moved back ... OH DEAR GOD VENUE SHOPPING! ... seriously dude get a grip. You'll note i never voted on this... Hell I WANT IT DELETED... I cant be any clearer than that. HOWEVER I want an ironclad unarguable decision that deletion is correct so that we can simply say "you've had your due process... you lost" to future recreations.  ALKIVAR™ 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats to Aaron btw.  ALKIVAR™ 23:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing is, at this point it's not a matter for a "vote" on any XfD/DRV venue. It has been deleted by a trustworthy administrator on the grounds of a potential legal issue. Regardless of any decision on DRV, I believe the venue for appeal for those who do not believe there is a legal issue is now to either the ArbCom or Jimbo/the Foundation Board. That's the only ironclad unarguable decision you're going to get at this point. FCYTravis 00:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Then again, people could just agree to let it go, and try not to let over-speedy deletions happen again in the future. It's not a necessary law of nature that it has to go through AfD again. The world isn't going to explode. --DanielCD 23:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When something was deleted useing a method I once suggested a jokely bit of rule lawyering no. The problem is the venue shopping started before the thing was deleted. "restore by brute force" doesn't appear to be happening.Geni 23:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Closing the ongoing afd

In the event that this newest AfD is allowed to continue, we'd certainly like to avoid a snap close at five days plus five seconds by someone partisan. The thought of another pass through DRV and the potential of another AfD after that is too awful to bear. Suggestions on how to close this would be welcome, and I'll place a note in html comments at the top of the page referring to this. - brenneman^{T}{L} 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If a partisan admin closes something early without agreement, there should be a penalty. --DanielCD 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

We could put a comment (warning) at the top of the article. Like, User:some_admin (whoever, as long as they're not a party to the dispute) has promised to close this article between (time when it closes) and (24 hours later). Please leave it until he/she gets to it. I am totally clueless on this dispute... I feel I should offer, but I'm afraid reading the votes might take all day. moink 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a lot of this going on lately. If something's in AfD, and people are still not satisfied, there are no grounds whatsoever to close it early. A consensus is not reached if people are still unwilling to close the AfD. These kind of actions just go overlooked, and that's what the problem is. These rules exist just to keep this kind of thing from happening, and it's the admin who closed the damn thing early who broke the rules. And before anyone gets their panties in a wad, know that I say this not knowing who it was. --DanielCD 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What should likely happen is this admin's actions should be reviewed by impartial parties, meaning admins or higher who don't know him. --DanielCD 01:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: my comments here are only indirectly related to the issue at hand. I thought that was obvious. As they are not directly relevant, I am striking them. However I will repeat that the rules exist to prevent this bickering from happening. Everyone looks the other way though, so it's just going to keep happening. --DanielCD 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a case where an otherwise useful article should be permitted to die quietly. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia that, after an apparently genuine request is acted on, the silliness starts, quibbling about rules and process and all kinds of pointless nonsense. Let it die. No debate needed, it's just a routine deletion done as a courtesy from OTRS. If this silly nonsense continues to happen, I guarantee that the board will be confirmed in its longheld belief that something serious needs to be done about our deletion process. --Tony Sidaway 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many genuine requests are received about many pages, such as Ashida Kim, Daniel Brandt, etc. If we act on some cases, but don't act on others, that means that each case needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Unless Jimbo steps in, that implies a debate. -- Curps 05:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; that's what I've been saying all along. The best thing to do is to let it die and move on. I'm not so sure what the problem is. It was closed early. Oh well. Let's get on to better things. --DanielCD 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the problem is not that it was closed early: it was that it was closed, and then the article was deleted out of process (the AfD in question was somewhere between no consensus and keep).

We have kept articles in defiance of the subject's wishes before (Ashida Kim, Barbara Schwarz), and it is not clear why an out-of-process deletion was needed in this case, and not in those.

In short: if the argument is that Brian Peppers is not notable, then that is grounds for an AfD discussion, not unilateral deletion. If the argument is that we have been asked to delete the article, then I do not understand why the aforementioned two articles (as well as many others) have not yet been deleted. --Ashenai 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The rationale, which is stated above as well as on the article's talk page, is that publishing the content is in violation of privacy laws. This is not a matter of whether or not the subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. And it is not merely a matter of deleting material based on the request of the subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I STILL don't understand this at all. Privacy laws? WHAT information in the article can't already be found publicly available online? -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 20:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that procedures are getting ever tighter around complaints about articles, partly because of our increased visibility. It would be nice if Danny could step in and make this a WP:OFFICE affair, but it would also be nice if users in general could spare a thought for the people who have to deal with the complaints that a tiny fraction of our articles cause. There is no slippery slope, Wikipedia continues to publish large numbers of controversial articles, but it is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in free speech or democracy. Physchim62 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The solution, then, is to make people aware of what is acceptable and what isn't. If there is not to be a slippery slope, then we need guidelines, or preferably policy, dealing with this. An admin (who, I assume, is not a lawyer) unilaterally deciding to do something is not a good substitute for policy.

Is the article on Barbara Schwarz legal and acceptable? What about the article on Ashida Kim? What about the article on Brian Peppers? I don't know, and I don't expect that the admins taking action in this matter do, either.

I strongly believe that the inconvenience of having a given article should never be a reason pro or contra its existence. I'm certain that the Church of Scientology could brew up plenty of inconvenience for us; and I am convinced that the reason they have not done so so far is because they realize that it would be futile.

Again: policy please! It would save everyone so much time, and so much effort. I have no doubts that this will not be the last such debate. --Ashenai 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Marina Girl" stereotype essay at Marina District, San Francisco, California

There is a group of users who insist on reverting to a version [109] of this article that contains a lengthy, tongue-in-cheek essay on the "Marina Girl" stereotype of this neighborhood. The essay borders on an attack, and my explanations on the talk page of why I feel that the essay violates WP:POV and WP:Verifiability don't seem to have done much good. While there may be a few examples of stereotypes (e.g. Yuppie) that can be sufficiently documented, I have doubts about this one, especially given that the scope is so limited. I ask that others read the disputed content and weigh in on the subject. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the disputed content is a bunch of nasty stereotypes and derogatory social commentary. We wouldn't fill the Arkansas article with a bunch of snippy comments about toothless rednecks who wear wifebeater T-shirts and screw their cousins; or the Oakland, California article with racially offensive remarks about looting. We shouldn't do the analogous to this locale either. --FOo 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooh There are so many articles on offensive stereotypes I'd love to delete! Chav and assorted rubbish for starters.. Secretlondon 02:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to have articles about stereotypes; quite another to clutter up articles about places with one person's (likely highly inaccurate) social commentary. --FOo 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

== User: Pink Floyd For Free ==

The above-named user is apparently here solely for the purpose of posting linkspam, and linkspam for a blatantly illegal site that requires third-party software to use at that. He has yet to make a single contribution that wasn't either linkspam or a thouroughly unpersuasive (in some cases downright dishonest) defense of same. What can be done about this? (Note that the same linkspam has been posted from several anonymous IPs prior to the recent creation of this account.) PurplePlatypus 04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice nobody's yet tried his talk page... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He's been told repeatedly, albeit intemperately (especially in my case), that his behaviour is unacceptable; does it matter that much where? PurplePlatypus 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. If it's posted on his talk page, he gets a big orange banner. You can miss posts meant for you if they are put in article talk pages or edit summaries, but your own talk page is a lot harder to miss. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact that he does not cease to break the rules is not related to missing the message — he keeps participating in the discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd. Summary of rules clearly broken by that user:

• WP:EL, 3: self-promotion link (the user has already openly admitted he is affiliated with the site);
• WP:EL, 7: the link he keeps on adding (on articles Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Syd Barrett and Bootleg recording — though we aren't focusing on the latter) is a self-proclaimed Pink Floyd ROIO website, but one needs to download a 3rd party software (P2P client) to have access to such content.
• 3RR: February 15, 12:58 14:32 16:07 16:22 16:33 (as 71.242.208.204, before registering as Pink_Floyd_For_Free — there's participation in the discussion with both "identities")
• as I was about to write that is was arguable if Wikipedia:No personal attacks was also broken... it was clearly broken!

Rotring 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page last night, and I posted his IP address to the 3RR noticeboard yesterday. He has reverted his linkspam on the David Gilmour page twice ([110] [111]) and Pink Floyd once ([112]) using his user account since a warning on the talk page for his IP address. The link on the Pink Floyd page has been replaced again since by 68.32.128.247. A whois query shows the IP to be from Pennsylvania, which is where the site operator lives. - dharmabum 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Also note here that he threatens to disrupt Wikipedia by continually reverting to make his point, and mentions rallying the site's users to come here and also continually revert, coming close to threatening to bring "meatpuppets" to his aid. - dharmabum 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Solar panel

I deleted this to remove an email address used as an attack. Now I can't get it to restore. It will only partially load and then freezes. Help and sorry. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not working for me either. Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can get more to load in Firefox but still not enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can bring up the page text, but there's no history list. Argh. Someone want to hop on IRC #wikimedia-tech and ask a dev? - David Gerard 12:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

if you look at the page source, the form button is there. For some reason it's not being displayed.

<form id="undelete" method="post" action="/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&action=submit"> <input type="hidden" name="target" value="Solar_panel" /> <input type="submit" name="restore" value="Restore!" /> <input type='hidden' name='wpEditToken' value="6a292bbff76d1e25554e392443ea9cf2" />

I had daftly hoped that by posting it here it would display the button and we could undelete it. But no. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but one of you admins might try clicking this... Rasmus (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No that doesn't work.

I have found out what's wrong. Just above the delete button in the page source is the line

<span class="FA" id="pt" style="display:none;"/>

I don't know what's wrong with it. But if I remove it from the source i can get the restore button to display. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yippee I've done it! And I don't know nuffink about php! Excuse me while I congratulate myself - Theresa you are a regular sherlock holmes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I got it before you did. :-) Nevertheless, I had to use my secondary browser, Konqueror to do it. I first restored the two last versions, moved them to Solar panel/dump before restoring the rest of the article. Can anyone check that I restored the correct versions? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Konqueror show the page correctly? I'm using firefox. I had to copy the page source to a textfile removed the offending span tag updated the form action to include the full path name, display the page then restore. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Konqueror did show the undelete page correctly, with the undelete button where it should be. I usually use Firefox as well, but this time that displayed the article without the restore button. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it never happened before. But I must admit that's one way to remove an email address. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Any idea why the tag was there in the first place and how likly is it to happen again? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

FA is maybe featured article? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it looks like the portugese version is a featured article. I still don't know whats wrong with it though. When I accidentally put it here without nowikiing it it didn't cause any problems. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the source code for a typical undelete page, I see the undelete form is within the div#bodyContent. While HTML Tidy will close an unclosed tag, the closing will happen only just before the parent is closed — which is after the undelete form. I think this is a bug: either the div#bodyContent should close before the form, or the content should be enclosed within another div. --cesarb 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Reproduced and reported as bugzilla:5017. --cesarb 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out this hopefully soves such problems. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I want my page deleted

I had my talk page deleted. Someone however wrote there. An admin recycled it, removed my comment that I do not want any further messages and now Eliezer even protected the page. That is unfair. You cannot force people to stay here forever, and users clearly have the right to get their pages deleted. The only wrongdoing I had was a 3RR, the block has expired, and I now want out. Eliezer even removed my request to get my page deleted and removed my complaint from his talk page without answering. That is just rude. I wrote to all those who went on editing my talk page, and if someone has problems with a request for speedy deletion there is a page for it. 84.59.79.243 18:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)

Oh please, stop it. You tried to speedy delete a page that didn't qualify for it. You tried to hide you "just 1 block" which was in reality, "just 1 block, and about 6 warnings". You deleted ANY opposition comments to the speedy deletion, both on your page, on the speedy deletion candidates WIKIPEDIA page which is just obscene, and anywhere else you can find them. If you want to leave, just leave and stop coming back. Why on earth are you coming BACK here to complain that we won't let you leave? Nobody's putting a gun to your head and making you type in the address here. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the speedy deletion comment as the page was already deleted. Users have a right to get their pages deleted. And I do not want a page where people without manners like you throw mud at me. 84.59.79.243 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly get-back-world-respect)

I have no manners? Please review WP:NPA, thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have undeleted since userpage should not be deleted without good reason. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd help if we could clarify the guideline on deleting user pages and talk pages. Wikipedia:user page indicates it's not a big deal to delete such pages, and gives directions. The community generally may feel that such deletions should only occur with good reason. -Will Beback 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Get-back-world-respect/deletion_and_protection_discussions for a complete discussion with diffs provided as evidence WHY this user should not have their page deleted. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. However I repeat that there is a discrepancy in our policies - some of which seem to permit deletion of user pages for any reason, and some of which do not. I'll note that I became interested in this because I disagreed with the deletion of a lengthy user talk page (user talk:24ip) when the user was simply changing names, not even leaving as this other user is doing. If we don't make a practice of such deletions than that should be reflected in the policies. -Will Beback 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! This user is trying to leave. Let him go! I've blanked his talk page (not deleted it). Blanking is a reasonable compromise. it prevents casual readers from seeing stuff that the user would rather them not see yet everything is still in the history if it's needed in the future. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a right to get my pages deleted. At the very least post my statement that I want to leave. I do not want to be remembered here as the vandal whose talk page was blocked. Not only do I not deserve that after having contributed productively for several years with only one block for 3RR, I think no one deserves that. People have the right to leave. 84.59.79.243 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you leave you won't be remembered at all! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal Threat

user mini mike has just posted an offer to take me to court if I repost his IP address on my talk page. This all stems for constant denile of basic human rights and complete disregard for the data protection act. While I'm not bothered by his threats I am curious as to what the policy is to using the unsigned template and to posting IP address'. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolute rot. His IP address is public knowledge by virtue of his editing. He's delusional. --Golbez 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no policy. It's just common sense to add the unsigned template, since a message without a signature tends to "blend" with the following message, making it nonobvious where one message stops and the other one starts. If I were to categorize the "policyness" of using the unsigned template, I'd say it's a guideline that just was never proposed (and would be shot down as "instruction creep, just do it" if it were to be proposed, so don't try). --cesarb 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to propose a policy but just wondering if there was one that I couldn't find and if it's OK to (re)post the IP address'. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That last comment was not directed at you, it was directed at all readers (see WP:BEANS for the explanation). --cesarb 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it's OK. After all, the same information can be gleaned (and generally is) just by pressing the "history" tab. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that he's now removed them from here as well. And changed my original comments as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I had removed them as you were simply moving where you are posting my IP. Mini mike 22:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, it's not like anyone really cares enough to want to track you down through your IP, unless you've been messing around with the Seigenthaler article, or you're a congressman. =P Now, messing around with other people's comments is frowned upon. — TheKMan^talk 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the last post I didn't mean to put in the IP address again but hit the save button by mistake. Here's my original comments with his IP's removed:

"IP address 1, IP address 2 and IP address 3 who says they are mini mike has just posted an offer to take me to court if I repost his IP address on my talk page. This all stems for remarks at IP address 3. While I'm not bothered by his threats I am curious as to what the policy is to using the unsigned template and to posting IP address'. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"

thank you. right, all im asking is that you allow for my comments to be signed "Mini mike" as apposed to publicly displaying my IP, Not too mammoth a task i hope. :P Mini mike 23:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, if you hadn't TOLD everyone that there was a relationship between User:Mini mike and those IP addresses, nobody would have known. You outed yourself; it's not reversible. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you remember to log in when you post comments or do other editing, then it is all posted under your username, and your IP is not visible. Thus, editors actually have a greater degree of privacy if they're signed in than if they do it "anonymously". *Dan T.* 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok it's finished and I'll archive my talk page (without IP's) so the long set of comments are gone. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just what country's "Data Protection Act" is this person claiming to want to sue under, anyway? *Dan T.* 23:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The UK's - the IP addresses he's moaning about are a UK ISP's. And it's a laughable claim anyway, as the many of us who actually have to apply the DPA in reality will know. --ajn (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, legal threats are a bannable offense Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

66.254.232.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been engaging in a low-level edit war to add the text "considered by many to be the greatest hockey player ever" to Wayne Gretzky. At WP:VIP this was asserted to be "an NPOV statement of fact" - which is irrelevant, as the reason for removal is that it is redundant, the first para makes a much more complete and reasoned statement of his reported status. The text simply spoils it! Skating on the brink of 3RR, but low-level. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neowin lame edit war

I ask for admins take a look at Neowin article, some users just engaged in a lame edit war and personal attacks on talk page. --LaMaroche 01:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The view on that talk page is that LaMaroche is a sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. I think there's some reason to think that's the case. Do others agree? Chick Bowen 05:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I blocked. I check the first edit the sock performed, and it was the same edits that Brasil has made before, and continuing the edit war Brasil was involved in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

personal attack and much more

I do believe Dross82 should be banned for this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orthodoxe&oldid=39682756

ILovePlankton 01:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Warned. NSLE _(T+C) 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Report NPA violations to WP:PAIN in future. Thanks! :) - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Continuing to spam after repeated warning

I believe Boycottthecaf should be blocked or banned, he continued to repost a link to a site he obviously controls (his username is the site name) under Degrassi: The Next Generation episode guide. The site is crude and controlled by him and is a violation of the Wikipedia:External links policy, and especially after he has been warned multiple times not to post it here and been blocked previously for the same violation User talk:Boycottthecaf SirGrant 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Start of a wheel war over Brian Peppers

Brian Peppers has now been deleted twice and recreated twice, protected once and unprotected once, all in the space of half-an-hour... If the articlke is going to stay up, could admins make sure that the AfD tag stays on it (it has a nasty habit of disappearing). Physchim62 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently, this article should stay deleted for Foundation reasons. Physchim62 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  Um, can someone explain what that means, please? And give an authoritative reason for it? --Ashenai 17:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Brian_Peppers and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination), but I believe what was said that info-en got a letter/message from someone who wanted the article taken down, someone complied to the request. Some people did not like the deletion war, and some people claim that past AFD's were not relevant. But, I agree, this is one issue that needs to be solved quickly and swiftly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleting a page on the request of someone claiming to be related to the subject, against precedence and even if later shown to be part of a widespread hoax, is a 'foundation issue'? Hello, my real name is George W. Bush, and... --Malthusian (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. To forstall the "George W. Bush is clearly notable" rebuttal, I'm of the opinion that potentially having three categories of notability - 'notable' (you're George W. Bush and you get an article), 'non-notable' (you're Joe Bloggs and you don't get an article) and 'sorta notable' (you're Brian Peppers and you get an article but we'll delete it for bizarre reasons like someone sending us a hoax email) - is unworkable and silly. --Malthusian (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • IIRC, Snopes mentions that every so often, people claim to be related to Mr. Peppers and try to post information/try to get rid of information/whatnot. While many do turn out to be hoaxes, this is a situation where Jimbo might have to get involved with (again) and perhaps see some more people loose the mop (again) over some silly stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• I believe that this particular request is authentic. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if it's authentic. It's inconsistent to delete some content on request, but insist to other people that we don't do it. If anything is going to bite us, it's the unprecedent we'll set by honoring such a request. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If this lame pony isn't shot soon, it's going to turn into a snake that bites some ppl in the ass. --DanielCD 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just when you thought things couldn't get any weirder, Mike Church (talk · contribs) (remember him?) decided to add a link to Brian Peppers to the… Time travel article. -- Curps 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that this whole series of events counts as Deja Vu All Over Again ... Georgewilliamherbert 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been a slow burning wheel war there for a while now. No idea how to sort it out though.Geni 22:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)