Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Pawan Kalyan: Difference between pages

Revision as of 20:24, 28 March 2006

Revision as of 21:54, 22 October 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox actor

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}

| name =Pawan Kalyan

| image =

|image size =220

| caption = Pawan Kalyan

| birthdate = {{birth date and age|1971|9|2}}

| ___location = {{flagicon|India}} [[Mogalthur]], [[Andhra Pradesh]], [[India]]

| height = 5'10''

| deathplace =

| birthname = Konidala Kalyan

| othername =Pawan Kalyan, "Power Star" Pawan Kalyan, Pavan Kalyan

| homepage =

| notable role = Balu in Toliprema, Subash in Thammudu, Badri in Badri, Siddartha Roy in Kushi.

| spouse = [[Renu Desai]]

| children = Akira Nandan

}}

'''Pawan Kalyan''' (born [[September 2]], [[1971]] is a [[Popular culture|popular]] [[India]]n film star and director in [[Andhra Pradesh]]. He is fondly called Power Star by his fans. His birth name is Konidala Kalyan.He is younger brother to popular Telugu Actor [[Chiranjeevi]] and Naga Babu.

== Early career ==

<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->

Pawan Kalyan entered Telugu movie industry with the movie [[Akkada Abbai Ikkada Ammayi]] as Kalyan Babu. This film did not do well at the box office. However, he was noticed for his [[Martial Arts]].

<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->

<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lost ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->

== Career ==

== [[Wikt:]]ionary blocks AOL ==

After his first movie, his second movie ''[[Gokulamlo Sita]]'' was an average flick but his next movies like ''[[Suswagatham]]'', ''[[Tholi Prema]]'', ''[[Thammudu]]'', ''[[Badri]]'', and ''[[Kushi (Telugu film)|Kushi]]'' went on to become hits which earned him a decent reputation. ''[[Kushi]]'' was a trend setter and was received well both commercially and critically.He even directed few song sequences and fight sequences in the Sensational Film [[Kushi]]. Also directed one fight sequence in the film [[Daddy]] for his brother Megastar [[Chiranjeevi]].

==Controversies==

At present, Wiktionary is carrying a message saying ''"AOL users are presently blocked from editing Wiktionary pending contact from AOL. We apologize for the inconvenience. For more information please visit the IRC channel."''. And it's not [[April 1]]. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Pawan Kalyan was rumoured to have threatened former TDP MLA Paritala Ravindra over some land grabbing rights. It was a fact that Paritala Ravindra illegally grabbed Chiranjeevi's land in Jubilee Hills and had to be warned.It was also falsely rumoured that Paritala Ravi who was a factionist had Pawan Kalyan's head tonsured (Gundu (in Telugu)/Takla (in Hindi)) before sending him back to Hyderabad. As fate would have it, Paritala Ravindra was later killed brutally, a fitting end to a violent life. Andhra Pradesh is a better place without Paritala Ravindra.

:Good riddance to bad rubbish, we should block them on enwiki as well. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]^{[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]}</small> ---- 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Source: http://movies.indiainfo.com/telugu/topstory/pawan_paritala.html ;

::According to our article, AOL serves nearly 24 million subscribers. Whatever may be the difficulties encountered in dealing with sundry AOL users, the suggestion that they are categorically (or even generally) "bad rubbish" is wholly preposterous. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.idleburra.com/feeds/8632234486587833225/comments/default ;

:::No it isn't, it wouldn't be true if AOL would actually deal with their delinquent users but since AOL doesn't give a fuck many many many AOL users run rampant and commit huge amounts of vandalism to the point where it starts to become mind boggling. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]^{[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]}</small> ---- 02:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.idlebrain.com/news/2000march20/pk-dcprotest.html

http://www.rediff.com/movies/2003/apr/22pawan.htm ;

http://infiya.blogspot.com/2007/08/pawan-kalyan-tollywood-actor-biography.html

== ==

::::The problem isn't that AOL subscribers are inherently worse netizens than individuals who use other ISPs. The problem is the proxy server system that AOL uses, where a single individual in a single session will appear to come from a new AOL IP address with each successive edit. This makes it extraordinarily inconvenient to deal with a vandal from AOL, because we cannot block them effectively without blocking all of AOL. In contrast, editors through most other ISPs will tend to have at least a semi-static IP address which makes it possible to block troublemakers without causing collateral damage to other editors.

2) He is supposedly involved in a bigamy case, currently under the Visakhapatnam District Court. As per sources, one lady Nandini filed a complaint under the section of 494 for bigamy with Vizag court on 22nd June that she is the first wife of Pawan Kalyan and Pawan Kalyan entered into second marriage with actress Renu Desai without her consent nor taking divorce from the first marriage. She also filed a petition with women's court seeking alimony amount 5 Lakhs per month for monthly maintainance. As per her complaint, she is married to Pawan Kalyan on May 17th, 1997 with the blessings of the elders. They seperated few years after that but Pawan Kalyan met her whenever he was in Vizag. Starting 2005, Nandini moved in with her parents and is now dependent on them. Pawan Kalyan married actress Renu Desai a few years ago. He shared screen with her in two films viz. Badri and Jhonny. The couple also have a son Akira.

::::Additionally, the rapidly changing (apparent) IP of each editor probably makes it very difficult for AOL (if they wanted to) to associate specific edits with a specific real-world individual. This in turn hampers one of our last-resort options in dealing with vandals&mdash;contacting an ISP to get them disconnected. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources: http://www.totaltollywood.com/news/ttnews1436.html ;

:::::True, but it's great for file sharing, AOL couldn't associate a client with any specific ip, even if a court told them to, lawsuits are virtually impossible! oh wait, that has nothing to do with this--[[User:64.12.116.65|64.12.116.65]] 03:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/21/stories/2007092154600400.htm ;

*also, someone really should tell them that the 172.x.x.x users behave like normal static ips, so they dont need to be range blocked, same for AOl canada ip ranges, i think--[[User:64.12.116.65|64.12.116.65]] 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://mynation.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/i-have-not-married-pavan-kalyan-counters-renu-desai/ ;

::::::Requireing them to log in would not be blocking the 24 million users, I think we should make them log in. --[[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]] | [[User_talk:Eliezer|<small>£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€</small>]] 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.idlebrain.com/news/functions/pawankalyan-vizagcourt.html

*At eBay in the early days, there was a similar problem with AOL, not just because of the IPs, but because AOL not only allows but encourages members to have multiple accounts -- and the promiscuous way in which AOL hands out accounts (how many AOL CDs can one person use?) compounded the problem. This was the source of a lot of the rules eBay had to develop on the fly -- for example, a list of domains from which eBay membership required further identification in the form of a credit card. This became onerous enough for AOL users that it was likely part of the reason AOL and eBay started collaborating on various levels, in particular user validation; my guess is that AOL based eBay users were numerous enough that their complaints to both companies caught AOL management's attention (eBay was aware of the problem almost from the very start.) Unfortunately, the only way this maps onto Wikipedia is to require registration ''with a validated email address'' from editors from AOL. Which isn't a bad idea; yes, it's making special rules for AOL users, but so what? AOL's overly trusting IP usage policy makes it necessary. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

== ==

3) On 22 October, 2007, Kalyan told the media he decided to 'surrender' his licensed weapon to the police. "I don't need (it) any more as there is no threat to my life now," he said. In connection with the elopement and marriage of Srija (Chiranjeevi's daughter), Pawan Kalyan said "I would like to assure her that no harm will come to her or the boy. I don't have any hired goondas (goons) or musclemen. I have come to surrender my revolver and its license to the police because I don't need this weapon now. We don't have hired goondas, we only have fans who love us and they don't resort such acts. Denying that he was an emotional and angry young man like his screen image, Pawan Kalyan said ''if he wanted he could have harmed Sirish because he had information that the couple was running away. But we don't want to harm them. If their love is true nobody can harm them.'' The statement obviously sounds ominous and people assume this as the rationale for Srija's elopement!

Source: http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/oct/22chiru.htm ;

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/004200710221641.htm

Power Star Pawan Kalyan announced Common man Protection Force (CMPF) to help the poor and helpless. He donated Rs.1.Crore from his personal savings for CMPF as corpus fund. He said "i am not angry,i am just emotional. I can't tolerate the injustice in this society. So i want to do some thing for the people... always. me and my friends are discussing about CMPF from many days. And we think this is the right time to announce it. I had 1000's of fans who love me. I am starting this to do good for the society, i am confident some other fans and like minded people will join hands with me. I am unhappy even now after earning so much Money, name & fame. I want to be happy by doing something to the people who are in need. I don't want to buy plots in different cities, agriculture lands and don't want to earn crores on them. I will do my best to my country and my people. And Mother Promise, i don't have any political intensions. Any one who needs help can contact CMPF on these numbers 98663 44833, 98663 44733. I stay at 32, nandagiri hills, Jubilee hills check post, Hyderabad. You can even visit me if you need some help. i will do my best to help you " -by Power Star Pawan Kalyan. Yes, We are with You.

: so much for the egalitarian promise of wikipedia...

:: If you want open anonymous editing get a real ISP. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is curious, I RC Patrol en.wikt and vandalism was cut by at least a third when AOL was restricted access. We've brought in a policy that should let us block AOL users instead of their proxy server, eventually it might be a good idea for WP -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 09:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Trivia ==

: Just to throw out a suggestion, anyone editting from the IP range of the AOL proxies to provide a valid AOL username. Of course, this would require participation from the AOL management. In any case, does Wikipedia have enough clout to get TPTB at AOL to work with us? -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*Pawan Kalyan is a [[Vegetarian]].

*He holds a Black Belt in [[Martial arts |Martial Arts]] and did real stunts for his movies - Akkada Ammayi Ikkada Abbai and [[Thammudu]].

::God Himself doesn't have enough clout to get AOL to cooperate. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

*[[Renu Desai |Renu Desai]] is the Costume designer for most of his films.

*Pawan Kalyan was the first south indian actor to appear in an endorsement,for the soft drink [[PEPSI]] but now replaced by his nephew [[Allu Arjun]].

*He returned money back to the distributors for his film Johnny didnt do well at the Box Office.

*Apart from being an actor, he feels also as a Director, Screenplay writer, Choreographer, Stunt Master and a Playback singer.<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0436302/ "Pawan Kalyan Filmography"]</ref>

*Pawan enjoys doing cultivation and spends lot of time in his farm house doing gardening

*Ali is the best friend of pawan kalyan

*[[Daggubati Venkatesh |"Victory" Venkatesh]] is a good friend of Pawan Kalyan and both expressed their interest to act in a film.

*Tamil sensational actor [[Vijay (actor) |Vijay]] is also a good friend and great fan of him.<ref>[http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-articles/movies-01/17-03-06-vijay.html "Behind Woods: Vijay at Hyderabad: Telugu fans happy"]</ref>

*Tamil and Telugu actress [[Trisha Krishnan |Trisha]] in an interview said that, she had a crush on Pawan Kalyan.<ref>[http://www.greatandhra.com/movies/news/may2007/trisha_love.php] "Trisha: I love Pawan Kalyan but don't know why"</ref>

*Telugu movie actress Nikita's favourite hero too is Pawan Kalyan.<ref>[http://www.telugucinema.com/c/publish/stars/nikita_profile.php "TeluguCinema.com:, Star Interviews: Nikita's Personal Profile]</ref>

*Telugu actresses Genelia and shriya are also big fans of pawankalyan.

*He has a good rapport with music director [[Ramana Gogula]] and the creative directors - [[Puri Jagannadh |Puri Jagannadh]] and [[A. Karunakaran |A. Karunakaran]].

==[[User:Deathrocker]]==

{{vandal|Deathrocker}}

==Filmography==

This user has been blocked for violating 3RR '''seven''' times in the past three months; twice in the past three days. He's taken swings at everyone who has come near him, especially Sceptre, who gave him a four-day block for his latest (read: seventh) 3RR violation. <s>This is becoming a disruption</s> This has become a disruption, and needs to be dealt with before it becomes an ArbCom case. I'm inclined to support a month long block, to enforce enough time for him to read [[WP:3RR]] '''very carefully''' and get the picture that disrupting the site will not be tolerated. Of course, before doing so, I want to hear others' opinions; opinions? <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] ^{[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|''Contact'']]}</font> 09:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable"

:3RR blocks by six different administrators, a tendentious history, and now he's starting to blank portions of his talk page. I'd say a month off is entirely appropriate. There's no reason why people should have to keep putting up with this. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]}/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

|-

::Especially me, just clean off a wikibreak close to taking another one ([[WP:ESP/ALERT]]). Or [[User:Leyasu]], who got an arbcom ruling restriction to one revert a day while warring with this user. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #09F">Sceptr</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color: green">e</span>]]''' ^{(<em>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #606">Talk</span>]]</em>)} 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

! Year !! Title !! Role !! Notes

:::Well, the user blasted me on IRC for dealing with their unblock request and was promptly kickbanned, no proof that the IRC user was the WP user but its too close not to raise an eyebrow -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 19:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

|-

::The talk page-blanking is nothing new; Deathrocker has continually done this since December. As a result, he/she received several redundant 3RR warnings from users who probably didn't realize that he/she already had been warned (<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathrocker&diff=33371021 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathrocker&diff=36591309 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathrocker&diff=36593553 3], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathrocker&diff=37678320 4]). He/she also routinely removed messages pertaining to various other issues (including general edit warring, vandalism, incivility, and the talk page-blanking itself). A one-month block seems appropriate. &mdash;[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

|rowspan="1"| 1996

| ''[[Akkada Abbai Ikkada Ammayi]]''

| Kalyan Kumar

| debut film,Average

|-

|rowspan="1"| 1997

| ''[[Gokulamlo Seetha]]''

| Pavan

| Play Boy

|-

|rowspan="2"| 1998

| ''[[Suswagatham]]''

| Ganesh

| Hit

|-

| ''[[Tholi Prema]]''

| Balu

| [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tholi_Prema]]; National Award for Best Feature Film in Telugu<ref>[[National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Telugu|"National Film award for the best Telugu Feature Film"]]</ref> and State Golden Nandi award for the best feature film<ref>[[List of winners of the Nandi Award for Best Feature Film|"List of Nandi Award winners for the Best Feature Film]]</ref>

|-

|rowspan="1"| 1999

| ''[[Thammudu]]''

| Subrahmanyam / "Subbu" Subhash

| Kick Boxer,Hit

|-

|rowspan="1"| 2000

| ''[[Badri (2000 film)|Badri]]''

| Badri-Badrinath

| Fashion Designer and Ad director,Hit

|-

|rowspan="1"| 2001

| ''[[Khushi (Telugu film)|Khushi]]''

| "Sidhu" Sidhartha Roy

| Mega Blockbuster, Also provided stunts and choreographed a couple of songs[[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0436302/]]

|-

|rowspan="1"| 2003

| ''[[Johnny (film)|Johnny]]''

| Johnny

| Flop

|-

|rowspan="2"| 2004

| ''[[Gudumba Shankar]]''

| Shankar / Kalyanji - Anandji

| Flop

|-

| ''[[Shankardada MBBS]]''

| Special appearance

|-

|rowspan="1"| 2005

| ''[[Balu ABCDEFG]]''

| Balu / Ghani

| Average

|-

|rowspan="2"| 2006

| ''[[Bangaram]]''

| Bangaram

| Flop

|-

| ''[[Annavaram]]''

| Annavaram

| Average

|-

|rowspan="2"| 2007

| ''[[Shankardada Zindabad]]''

| Suresh

| Played an important guest role.

|-

| ''[[Jalsa]]''

|

|pawan kalyan oadhi(dus)

|-

: Im violating my Ban by doing this, but im using an anon to add this comment here. Ive set up a rather extensive list of Deathrockers actions as part of my user page, which is linked [[User:Leyasu/Deathrocker|here, here and here]]. This also includes the extensive revert war on his talk page. All diffs are supplied so there is no hear say or attacks by me or anyone else. I hope this helps somewhat for the purposes of deciding his case, wether for, against, or just for reference/comment. [[User:86.132.130.69|86.132.130.69]] 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) ([[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]])

|

|

|-

|}

==See also==

Given that I've been involved, I'm not comfortable setting the month long block, but it certainly seems to have drawn consensus. Can an uninvolved admin (or one more rogue than I) set it, please? <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] ^{[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|''Contact'']]}</font> 08:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

*[[Chiranjeevi]]

:Blocked for a month.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]] ^{<font color="#FC0FC0">[[User_talk:Sean Black|(talk)]]</font>} 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

*[[Daggubati Venkatesh |"Victory" Venkatesh]]

::We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

*[[Allu Arjun]]

*[[Bala Krishna]]

*[[Ram Charan Teja]]

*[[Tollywood]]

== References ==

It seems there is no other way for me to voice my side other than this, (because some dunce has blocked my talkpage), Leyasu did the same so will I as my original ban is now up.

<div class="references-small"><references /></div>

== External links ==

Firstly; I delete all messages I receive which is stated on my page! Don’t like that? Don’t message me. I did not "delete the warning" from the last ban, I kept it on while the ban still stood, I deleted redundant talk.

* {{imdb name|id=0436302|name=Pawan Kalyan}}

* [http://www.telugucinemastills.com/xclusives/akira/akiranandan.html Pawan Kalyan's Son: Akira Nandan Konidela]

* [http://www.pawankalyansatyagrahi.com/ Pawan Kalyan's Satyagrahi]

* [http://www.pawanfans.com Pawan Kalyan Fansite]

* [http://www.megafans.com Chiranjeevi - Pawan Kalyan Fansite]

* [http://www.cherryfans.com Mega Fansite]

* [http://www.commonmanprotectionforce.org - Common Man Protection Force]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kalyan, Pawan}}

It is no different than people archiving their messages (they are still there for people to see if they wish), please tell me where it says I can't do that. And I can’t delete blocking logs so “boom” goes your silly little theory of “hiding“ anything.

[[Category:Living people]]

[[Category:1973 births]]

Second to '''Tawker'''; I do not even use ICR, period. Either for Wiki or personal. Let alone "blast" you on it.

[[Category:Telugu people]]

[[Category:Indian actors]]

I put an “unblock” tag on my page, as I had been blocked for 4 days, for 3RR, which [[WP:3RR]] states is not Wikipedia policy as admins can only block “up to 24 hours” for 3RR, a non admin user “Tawker” kept removing the tag, while the discussion was in process.. and before an admin has looked at the case.

[[Category:Indian film directors]]

[[Category:Tollywood]]

'''EssJay''' shows up to “look at the case” threatens me claiming I’m attempting to “game the system”, even thought I was just going by [[WP:3RR]], '''EssJay''' then threatened to block me for a week, if I put the tag back on my page (which is first ridiculous, blocked for requesting help?? haha and second, I didn’t re-add it after that).. I instead emailed the user, through Wiki to discuss the matter, to which they were still hostile, abrasive, and claiming Non existing Wikipedia policies to be golden, going against [[WP:3RR]]

[[Category:Indian vegetarians]]

[[Category:Telugu film directors]]

And on to Leyasu... (surprise, surprise)

This more applies to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Leyasu_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29

But I’ll post it here anyway

I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.

Its also hilarious that you are pretending not to be the IP addresses whose only edits were reverting the articles back to your versions and even using the exact same line as each other in edit summaries once the I.P. address was switched the second time. It wasn't even me who first reported it as been a suspected sock puppet of yours. If you were smart enough to actually check the records, you would know this.

The only people who were siding with your reverts were anonymous I.P.'s which were suspected (not just by me) of been YOUR sock puppets, something which you have been suspected of in the past in totally unrelated debates... actual users who were not suspected of been sock puppets were also reverting your trolling.

Even if I was not involved in the day this went down, you STILL broke your parole anyway, you reverted three perfectly reasonable edits by [[User:RJN]] to POV versions by yourself, because you think you own the article [[Gothic Metal]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_metal&diff=44125624&oldid=44124762][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_metal&diff=44123441&oldid=44122971][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_metal&diff=44120291&oldid=44119722]

You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.

The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.

There are no “rules” as to how users keep their talk page or user page that I am aware of or have read on here, there was no sexual profanity, or anything of that nature, so again, you’re clutching at straws.

You want Ironic? Here’s Ironic;

1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.

2. The fact that you kiss [[user:Sceptre]] ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.

Examples of Leyasu been a liar and a manipulator

For onlookers here’s a prime example of how devious Leysau is with twisting words...

Example #1.

Deathrocker on [[Talk:Gothic_metal]]: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times

I was refering to the edit war that was going on at the time

Leyasu on [[User_talk:Sceptre]]: Hes taking advantage no end, and just made a comment on the Gothic Metal talk page, that you dont exist!!!

Ok, now where in that sentence did I say Sceptre did not exist? This is prime Leysau in action.. ass kissing an admin, I never even claimed which admin's name was not familiar to me, let alone claiming they didn't exist.

Example #2.

On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little [[shrine]] to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;

Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.

This is an other blatant lie, I have called you a liar? Yes (because that is what you are). I have called you shit? No, I referred you to [[WP:BATSHIT]] though, asking you to stop the lunacy, Which isn't the same thing.

Called you a cunt? Total bullshit, I have not called a single person on Wikipedia a "cunt" and again you evidence of it either....

I have though called you an idiot, and a liar in the last, because your actions suggest that.

Example #3

Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.

Quote: Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu),.. Admin Sceptre reverted this himself, pointing out to Deathrocker that he cannot attack as being a 'sock puppeter' simply because Deathrocker cannot force his POV onto all articles,.

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising',

I added a "suspected puppetmaster" tag to Leysau's page, as he/she features on the suspected of using sock puppets page.

An anonymous IP (83.100.146.147) reverted and said "Guess I sock with 217.33.207.195, then (--Sceptre)"... to which I reverted back as that made little to no sense, was suspicious (why would an admin use an annoymous IP?) and had little/nothing to do with the whether Leyasu was suspected of using sock puppets or not, the line I used in the edit summary was.... "unexplained tag removal, it applies correct?"... nowhere did I say in that statement that everybody was “vandalisng“, just more bullshit from Leyasu.

Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...

At this time Leyasu was still blocked, rather suspicious that a so called “newbie”/annoymous I.P. would not only be reverting all edits back to versions by leyasu while he/she was blocked, but also keeping an eye on his/her userpage too?.... very suspicious. Why would a bran new person editing wikipedia for the first time be doing that? They wouldn't.

If I am to be blocked for a month for arguing in edit summary, the other party who was involved “Leyasu” should too. - [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

: To show the Personal attacks and fallacys from the above, i have quoted them with bullet points:

* '''I have never once claimed the policies don't apply to me, and do to others. Please feel free to show me exactly where I said that, you won’t be able to find it because you’re talking rubbish as usual.'''

:: Diffs for all Deathrocker's commments and attacks are logged [[User:Leyasu/Deathrocker|Here]], including the one where he called me 'psychotic for having a whole page devoted to harassing him'.

* '''You do not understand the concept that this is an open encyclopaedia where numerous people contribute into working an article, if its not your version, regardless of which user is editing it its "vandalism" according to you, and then after a revert war and both you and who you were warring with are banned, you come straight back with sock puppets.'''

:: This is a personal attack. Deathrocker states here i do not know something, when i have been known to let people know when they are acting Meglomanical. Its also wrong when i havent been banned seven times in three months for POV pushing, when Deathrocker has.

* '''The only way you can get any sort of pull in your edits is talking straight out of your ass, claiming to quote me on things I have NEVER once said.'''

:: This is another personal attack, in which he just called me an ass. Deathrocker will probally now claim he never one said im an ass.

* '''1. On your userpage you have a box that says “This user is short sighted.”... no kidding! You see everything that isn’t an edit by you as vandalism, or not worthy of been included in the articles you troll on a regular basis.'''

:: This is a personal attack at the fact im short sighted and wear glasses.

* '''2. The fact that you kiss user:Sceptre ass to have an admin on your "side", notice how on your talk page Sceptre said "be careful" trying to save your pathetic hide, did Sceptre give me the same warning beforehand? No... hardly an impartial stance for a so called "admin"... also, somebody who breaks a 3RR deserves the same punishment as somebody who is on parole for past idiocy, and is on a strict "1 revert a day" basis?.. ridiculous and a clear abuse of admin powers.'''

:: This is a personal attack at both myself and Admin [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]], due to Sceptre having made the initial bans, and because there is no animosity, unpolite language, or general hostility between me and the admin. Also, if i had an 'admin on my side', Sceptre wouldnt of banned me.

* '''Example #1. Deathrocker on Talk:Gothic_metal: Also, stop the personal attacks and lies in the edit summary, I have not been "warned by 3 admins" one of which I have never even heard of, your ignorant behaviour is somewhat overwhelming at times'''

:: Deathrocker here claims i am a liar, and he has never been warned by any admins. The irony of this is that Admins here have already showed multiple warnings that Deathrocker has deleted from his talk page.

* '''On Leyasu's tribute and rather odd little shrine to me that he/she has gone to the trouble of creating it says;'''

:: This is an attack at the [[User:Leyasu/Deathrocker|Evidence Page]] that is part of my userpage, which is also being used as my statement in Deathrocker's abbirition case.

* '''Quote: Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including called me a liar, cunt, and shit.'''

:: Yes this is on my Evidence Page, here are the Diffs as well, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moi_dix_Mois&diff=44123236&oldid=44122800], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_metal&curid=3203201&diff=44123681&oldid=44123441].

* '''Another one of Leyasu's greatest hits from his/her disturbing little shrine to me.'''

:: Another personal attack at the Evidence Page.

* '''Rather suspiciously my last edit on that userpage was reverted back by (81.157.88.186) who was suspected of being a “sock puppet” of Leyasu and was reported as so on the sockpuppets page...'''

:: Reported, by Deathrocker.

* '''If I am to be blocked for a month for arguing in edit summary, the other party who was involved “Leyasu” should too.'''

:: This is a plea to block me to achieve a 'beat the opponent' scheme, even though Deathrocker's 'comment' was riddled with personal attacks and infallacys.

: I am also going to add this to my Evidence page, so that it can be adminstrated into the Abbirition case. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".

I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?

Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.

If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"?? - [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

: I have bulletpointed the attacks from this comment, as well:

* '''Yet more shining examples of your ridiculousness, you claim every comment discussing things you have done is a "personal attack".... by your standards you personally attacked me multiple times in that last section due to you claiming I'm "personally attacking" you. Stop crying "wolf".'''

:: Deathrocker makes the personal attack of calling me ridiculous for noting that calling me a cunt, liar, bitch, twat, fool, shit, and insulting me for wearing glasses is a personal attack.

* '''I find your shrine rather disturbing, you expect me to lie? You aren't an administrator or anything like that, you are a user who is in trouble with ArbiCon, wy are you keeping tabs on me dedicating a whole section of your user page to me? That doesn't strike you as psychotic behaviour?'''

:: Deathrocker here calls me psychotic and claims im not allowed to have an Evidence page because im not an admin, even though other admins first told me to use Evidence pages such as these for 'sandboxes' when building up a case against someone.

* '''Again I said you were "talking out of your ass", I didn't say "you are an ass"... this is what I'm talking about with your selective reading and minipulation of comments. You also still can't show anywhere I have ever called anybody on Wikipedia a "cunt" because I never had.'''

:: Deathrocker again makes the personal attack of claiming im 'talking out of my ass', seemingly assuming that its ok to make personal attacks at users.

* '''If me suggesting both parties involved should be blocked for the same length of time is "trying to beat an apponent", exactly what is it you were doing when you said "we need something against Deathrock, as the other editor is on a 1 rever parole basis"??'''

:: Deathrocker then makes claim that i made a comment that was made by Admin Sceptre, going a backhanded way about claiming that myself and Admin Sceptre are the same person, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=44688755&oldid=44680090].

: This is more of the personal attacks and disruption of Deathrocker. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 23:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never called you or anybody here a "twat, cunt, bitch or shit"... I refered you to [[WP:BATSHIT]] though, as already explained which is not a personal attack, in an attempt for you to stop the lunacy during an edit war, while asking you to join the talk page.

Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.

I've called you an idiot and a liar, that much is true.

Again you are twisting words "''We need to get something against Deathrocker, though, to stop the two edit warring. With Leyasu limited to 1RR, and Deathrocker still on 3RR, there needs to be levelling of the field 18:05, 20 March 2006''".... was an unsigned comment, I presumed it was you as you were using an IP just a couple of replies above, and it sounds like something you would say.

Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?

And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.

Oh and Scepter on this comment; "''[[user:Leyasu]] who got an arbcom ruling restriction to one revert a day while warring with this user.''"... Leyasu got an arbcom ruling restriction for warring with another user, whos name is [[user:Danteferno]] on the [[Gothic Metal]] article, check [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu]], I'm not even one of the involved parties. - [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 00:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

: More personal attacks listed below:

* '''Its not a "personal attack" to call you a liar, because that is what you are and you prove it to me constantly... I don't care where you are, you lie, I'll call you on it. Stop personally attacking me and defaming my character by claiming I have said stuff which I never had.'''

:: Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything. Thus, he seems to think that its ok to make personal attacks against people, and then expect to be unblocked.

* '''Again you are talking rubbish, I have never claimed you and Sceptre are the same person, I have stated that I think you kiss Sceptre's ass, correct?... I have never said that I think you are the same person as you claim, your lies aren't even well thought out or following consistantcy, and you wonder why I have in the past refered to some of your actions as idiocy?'''

:: As can be seen above, Deathrocker inferred that a comment made by Sceptre was made by me, thus inferring that Sceptre and Me are the same person.

* '''And also I didn't say "you can't have a shrine" to me, because you aren't an admin, I asked why you have it and stated that it is odd, as you are just a user who has been blocked plenty of times yourself and you are even on parole. The fact that I find it disturbing and rather creepy that you keep tabs on me in some kinda warped shrine, is just my feelings on the matter.'''

:: Further personal attacks concerning the Evidence Page, and claims he hasnt made comments that are clearly quoted above. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 01:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.

''"Deathrocker here says its not a personal attack for him to call anyone anything."''

Yet mores lies, please study this aticle; [[truth]], and try again...

I never said that it is OK for me to call "anyone anything". If I called somebody a "cunt" or "twat", without any evidence of such activity, that would be a personal attack, thus I have '''not''' called you or anybody else for that matter, anything of the like.

Calling you a [[liar]] when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word [[liar]]. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.

Yet again, '''I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!''' Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above). - [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

: Continued attacks and violation of his ban by Deathrocker:

* '''Nice try at "twisting" words again, Leyasu. You continue to personally attack me by A) Claiming I'm personally attacking you B) Twisting my words into your own little perversion.'''

:: Now making personal attacks in the sense of attempting to deframe my character and the quotes of him both attacking myself, and violating his ban.

* '''Calling you a [[liar]] when you have clearly tried to distort words I have said and in some cases, totally made them up (and you can't even show where I've supposedly called you them) shows you fit the discription of the word [[liar]]. I call things how they are, unlike you who keeps trying to twist things, and you'll probably come back in a moment and try to twist comments make in this section, pathetic.'''

:: Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up ', and also personally attacks me, calling me a liar for quoting him. He also calls me pathetic for the same reason.

* '''Yet again, '''I DO NOT THINK SCEPTRE AND YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!''' Repeat these words until it drills into your head, as I've explained previously, why I thought that was a comment by you at first. (IE- It was unsigned, and you were using an IP just a few comments above). '''

:: Here Deathrocker assumes a threatening tone because i wont stop quoting him either on the ANI board or on my Evidence Page.

: This behaviour doesnt seem to of ceased, and someone needs to block his openly confessed sock puppet. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet you persist with your personal attacks and defemation of character, claiming I'm "personally attacking" you with every comment, is it any suprise that you are already Arbcom parole?

''"Deathrocker here claims that by directly quoting him, ive 'totally made them up"''

You knew'' exactly'' what I was referring to.

In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".

- [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

: Persistant deframing of my character by Deathrocker:

* '''In the last week you've claimed I've said "I dislike Gothic metal", and that I've called you a "cunt, twat, bitch, etc", when you can't even quote them, these are just two examples of what I mean when I say you "totally made them up".'''

:: Again, all these claims have diffs, supplied openly on [[User:Leyasu/Deathrocker|this evidence page]].

: Perhaps the user Deathrocker would like to use his sockpuppet to make comment on his Arbcom case, instead of personally attacking people on ANI. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 02:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your little [[shrine]] or "[[Temple]] of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.

Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.

Tawker and Rory69 are '''NOT''' admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place. - [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

: More personal attacks:

* '''Your little [[shrine]] or "[[Temple]] of Deathrocker" is incorrect on basic facts.'''

:: Personal attack yet again, regarding the Evidence Page.

* '''Firstly there are no "diffs" showing where I said I "dislike gothic metal" or called you a "cunt, twat, bitch".. infact I have only ever said that I like some Gothic metal bands.'''

:: Deathrocker claims there are no diffs for things on the evidence page, when they are clearly provided.

* '''Tawker and Rory69 are '''NOT''' admins, check their pages. If you are going to stick your nose in where it has no business atleast get the facts straight. Keep on with your pathetic little shrine kiddo, it doesn't make you seem creepy at all... half of the stuff you are harping on about in it you have little/no idea about in the first place.'''

:: Personally attacking Tawker and Rory69. Now telling myself that i have no place in commenting in the arbcom case or articles im heavily involved with. Also again attacking the Evidence Page. Personally attacking me using a sockpuppet to call me a 'Kid', and telling me 'you have little/no idea' about subjects im involved in.

: This user seems highly insistant on attacking me, rather than defending themself on the ArbCom case. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

: Deathrocker doesnt seem to realise he is on a 1 month block for a reason, personal attacks being one of them:

* Yeeeeeeeeah, totally personally attacking Tawker and Rory096 by saying they're not admins (which their pages show... ask them, they aren't admins), whatever, you are past help. I'm working on a reply to your shrine to me, by the way. - [[User:DeathrockerComment|DeathrockerComment]] 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Deathrocker again infers im 'past help' in the same vein as his attacks that im 'psychotic', an 'idiot', a 'bitch' and 'know nothing'.

: Perhaps the user would like to rethink their actions if they wish to be unblocked. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 08:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, I already have a girlfriend! '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #09F">Sceptr</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color: green">e</span>]]''' ^{(<em>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #606">Talk</span>]]</em>)} 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Put this argument somewhere else. We don't want your petty name-calling, persistent personal attacks, presumption of bad faith and trading of accusations, threats and arguments on AN/I. This discussion '''does not belong here'''. [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]^{[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]}\^{[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]} 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope I am not beating a dead horse here, but I have started a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deathrocker|RfC]] against this user. I'm new to the RfC/M/Ar process, don't kill me. '''[[User:Sceptre|<span style="color: #09F">Sceptr</span>]][[WP:EA|<span style="color: green">e</span>]]''' ^{(<em>[[User_talk:Sceptre|<span style="color: #606">Talk</span>]]</em>)} 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan]] ==

According to [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion]], articles are usually debated for "five days or so" before final action is taken. This debate lasted exactly three hours, culminating (after 5 votes) in a speedy keep by Sean Black. Under the heading of "AfD etiquette," participants are advised that "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the [[Wikipedia:Deletion Policy|deletion policy]]." SlimVirgin, the primary author, not only failed to declare her interest in the discussion, she also reverted the article three times, deleting the AfD template from the article in question, during the three hour time period. In addition, AfD etiquette recommends that participants should "Please be familiar with the policies of [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|not biting the newcomers]], [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette|Wikiquette]], [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|no personal attacks]], [[Wikipedia:Civility|civility]], and [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment." In her comments on the AfD page, SlimVirgin characterizes the AfD as "vandalism" and the initiator, a new user named [[User:IAMthatIAM]], as "a LaRouche activist with a new account trying to cause trouble." She then blocked IAMthatIAM when he restored the deleted template (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IAMthatIAM&oldid=44685408].) It appears to me that multiple policies have been violated here. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">[[User:Herschelkrustofsky|HK]]</font></font> 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:I've spent some time looking into this. Here are my views on your various complaints:

:#Speedy keeps happen when well-sourced, notable articles are put up for deletion for no good reason. That's a judgement call of the closing admin, and it was the right one here.

:#SlimVirgin didn't vote, so declaring herself the an author wasn't really a big deal. In any case, it's less important than the next point.

:#I do wish SlimVirgin had been a bit more civil. However, it is clear that [[User:IAMthatIAM]] was an account newly created by a knowledgable user (perhaps previously anonymous) for the express purpose of arguing about issues related to Lyndon LaRouche.

:#Likewise, SlimVirgin as an involved writer of the article ought to have gotten help dealing with this, rather than performing the disruption block herself.

:However, nothing that was done was unreasonable, so the case is closed as far as I'm concerned. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

::The same LaRouche supporter has turned up with a new account, [[User:IAMwhatsIAM]], and renominated [[Jeremiah Duggan]] for deletion. I reverted the edits and blocked the account for 24 hours for vandalism in the first instance, but Fred Bauder has advised that the account may be blockable under the arbitration rulings against LaRouche editors, so I'm going to discuss with him how best to proceed. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 07:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, socks of this nature may be treated as socks of Herschelkrustofsky and blocked indefinitely upon recognition and anything they do reverted. In such instances Herschelkrustofsky may also be briefly banned, but that is not mandatory action. Herschelkrustofsky is only permitted to edit under one account. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, Fred. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== User declaring himself to be a Crip... ==

Now that we've got our little nice discussion out of the way, hopefully... [[User:Thousandsons]] has, on his user page, a declaration that he's a member of the [[Crips]] -- a criminal street gang, by California's definition, and I'm sure by many other jurisdictions'. The question is -- is there a policy against such a declaration on a user page? If so, what might be an appropriate action to take about this? --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:IMO harmless until he starts trolling. [[User:NSLE|NSL]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">E]]</font> _{([[User_talk:NSLE|T]]+[[Special:Contributions/NSLE|C]])} at 07:14 [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]] <small>([[2006-03-21]])</small>

:If he starts dealing drugs on out-of-the-way talk pages, or does a drive-by shooting of [[house]], then call the cops. Otherwise, treat him like any other user. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

::lol [[User:ElectricRay|ElectricRay]] 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Hmmm... This user has both red ''and'' blue on his user page. Maybe he's just a part-time Crip, or was placed in a position in the organization through a temp-agency. He probably just does clerical work, or maybe he logs minutes in Blood beatdowns. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 09:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

::Present: Ice Dogg, CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA, Madd Hamsta, Masta Bater

::Apologies: E-Z Vauxhall Driver

::Secretary: Thousand Sons

::1. Beatdown productivity down by 12% on last month. Madd Hamsta to look into. Suggested this may be a temporary blip resulting from the recent shift of focus from 'critical' to 'lyrical' beatdowns.

::2. Ice Dogg complained that CaPiTaL lEtTa AlTeRnAtA had owed the crack kitty $2.67 for two months. AlTeRnAtA replied that Dogg could "stuff it up his ass in pennies". A full and frank exchange of views was held.

::3. Full and frank exchange of views aborted due to running out of bullets.

::4. Mad Hamsta to order more bullets.

::5. '''Any other business''': Masta Bater questioned the long-standing constitutional policy of "Bros before hos". Argued that this was unrealistic, and that particularly fine hos should surely take precedence over some particularly fronting bros. Agreed to form a sub-committee to research how fine a ho needs to be. Members and budget to be decided later.

::Next meeting will be 28th March 2006 if anyone is still alive. Agenda will be posted with a spraycan on the side of the Church of St Gareth of Glitter. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning <small>(formerly Malthusian)</small>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samuel_Blanning|(talk)]]</small> 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[[WP:BJAODN|BJAODN]]'d [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:BJAODN 42: The Answer to Bad Jokes, the Universe, and Other Deleted Nonsense}}#User_declaring_himself_to_be_a_Crip..._.28from_WP:AN.2FI.29]. — <small>Mar. 21, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[13:44] <[[user:freakofnurture/ |freakof]][[special:newpages |nu]][[WP:EA |r_x]][[special:random |ture]][[special:ipblocklist ||]]<font color=002BB8>[{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]</font>>'''</tt>

* Brilliant! &ndash; [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|<b>Soul</b>]] 17:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:Leyasu]] violating personal attack parole on his ArbCom ruling ==

[[User:Leyasu]] reverted an edit of mine, erroneously calling it

"disguised vandalism" when it really wasn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiamat_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=44756061]

. Both of us have already been warned that calling good faith edits

"vandalism" is considered a personal attack, and he obviously has not listenened to either admins or arbitrators.

A little background on [[User:Leyasu]]; before and after his ArbCom case, he has been claming ownership of various articles and changing the genres of many bands to his liking ("gothic doom", which is not even a separate genre to begin with, and several users have told him this over and over).

He has been banned repeatedly for 3RR; he used an IP address "81.157.93.18" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.157.93.18] during one of his blocks to revert another one of my edits back to his "gothic doom" claim on the [[Paradise Lost (band)]] page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paradise_Lost_%28band%29&diff=44390794&oldid=44386050];

Proof that this is him is based on 81.157.93.18's contribution history, which shows edits on [[User:Leyasu]]'s page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.157.93.18]

It appears he has been reported here by different users several times; I would appreciate that an administrator intervene. Also,the ArbCom ruling concluded that if he violated personal attack parole, he would be blocked for a specific amount of time.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu/Proposed_decision#Leyasu_placed_on_personal_attack_parole] --[[User:Danteferno|Danteferno]] 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

: First and foremost, Danteferno is under investigation for being the Sockpuppet/Sockpuppeter of the Deathrocker account: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Deathrocker_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_and_Danteferno_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29], to which end Danteferno has used the Check User board to make personal attacks at myself, and mentioned several times things having happened to himself, that have happened with Deathrocker.

: Secondly, Danteferno has also ligiated in [[WP:LAWYER|Wikilawyering]], targeting the Admins [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]] and [[User:WoohooKitty|WooWhoKitty]], per association with Deathrocker. This has been in regards to having me banned from the articles that the Danteferno and Deathrocker account have both been previously/currently banned for revert warring on, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woohookitty&diff=prev&oldid=45324851], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woohookitty&diff=prev&oldid=45324851]. The reason given was that i had violated my revert parole by one edit, after Danteferno went on to brag he had set up an anon to vandalise an article so i would revert it, so he could then revert to the version of the article he wrote, even though the revert was that made to the one by [[User:Deathrocker|Deathrocker]].

: These two users have been recognised by both the Abbirition Committe, the ANI, the Mediation Committe, various Admins, the [[WP:HMM|Wikiproject Metal]] and many other Wikipedians, as serially deconstructive users who have little to no intrest in editing in good faith. This is also confirmed with both users threatening and carrying out the use of Sockpuppets to disrupt and vandalise Wikipedia articles and policy pages when bans are given for their policy violations, per Danteferno's serial vandalism using anons on the Gothic Metal article, and his previous use of anon's to vandalise my talk page, and Deathrocker's open sockpuppet which he used to disrupt the ANI board and talk page, leading to his talk page actually being protected.

: As such yes, i violated my rever parole by one edit, one edit from a user who was warned by Admin [[User:Spearhead|Spearhead]] and user [[User:WesleyDodds|WesleyDodds]], about removing cited information from articles. Yes i violated my revert parole by one edit, reverting someone who bragged about having set up vandalism to disrupt Wikipedia and push their view onto the article. If the ANI board wishes to ban me for this for an example, then i accept and understand that. I however do ask that the above, and my reason for violating my revert parole, is taken into consideration when judgement is passed on me. [[User:Leyasu|Ley Shade]] 14:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

== possible hacking attempt or denial of service attack through password facility? ==

FYI,

I have received two emails stating:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 204.111.91.40)

requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password for en.wikipedia.org.

I am not this IP address, I don't know if it is someplace that could possibly snoop on the reply messages and try to pirate my account. But I have not noticed any unauthorized activity in my account. That IP is apparently involved in activity posting messages at this site. at this site: [http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:aDymze2-SlkJ:chat.amateurmasters.com/chat.php%3Faction%3Dviewprint%26postid%3D99994+%22204.111.91.40%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1]

I report this in case this is just one sympton of more extensive activity?--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 05:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:{{vandal|204.111.91.40}} they havent been editing, but that doesnt mean alot... <font color="green">[[WP:EA|A]]</font>[[User:Admrboltz|dmrb♉ltz]] <small>([[User talk:Admrboltz|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Admrboltz|C]])</small> 05:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

::You mean they haven't been editing while not logged in. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

*This has happened to me a few times. Usually it's after dealing with vandalism. In retribution, the vandals try to get my password. However, all clicking that "E-mail new password" button will do is send you a message alerting you to the attempt, ''and'' of course it includes the IP address of the person responsible. Thus the messages you received. I guess it's technically an attempt to hack into your account, but it's a ''very'' amateurish one. –[[User:Adashiel|Abe Dashiell]] ^{'''([[User_talk:Adashiel|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Adashiel|c]])'''} 05:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

*: I too received such an email, indicating IP address 216.239.124.38. What is confusing is that looking at [[Special:Contributions/216.239.124.38|this user's contributions]] shows no article that I recall ever looking at, let alone editing / reverting. Might this indicate a DoS attempt or some other nefarious activity? Curious, [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr Útlendi]] | <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala við mig]]''</small> 23:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==Block for review==

I have blocked [[User:Colin McLaughlin]] for one month for egregious personal attacks. Other admins may wish to review this action. See [[Special:Contributions/Colin_McLaughlin]] and [[User talk:Colin McLaughlin]]. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 12:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:Evaluation: Colin McLaughlin has contributed for about two weeks and ''has'' made some valid edits to athletics articles. The edit summary you warned him for was definitely over the line, and his response to the warning even more so. His continuation to use abusive edit summaries on the Ken Livingstone article definitely warrants a block. I would perhaps have made the block shorter for a first time offense, a week perhaps, but I don't think that a month is unreasonable either. Since this editor ''has'' made some valid contributions earlier, I suggest that he be unblocked if he is prepared to apologize. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, it seems harsh given that multiply blocked serial vandals like SPUI have admins wheel warring over reducing a one week block for edit warring over the insertion of nosnense to an article. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 12:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Say what? Are you quite sure you know the details of the SPUI case? [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:I would not have blocked such a new user for a month, although I agree his conduct was very poor and definitely warranted a block. However, given his reaction to your block, I don't think he's at all willing to change, and the result would've been the same, whether the block was one day, one week, one month or indefinite. I wouldn't have done it, but I can't see that you done wrong, either. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 14:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the comments. I worked out the block length by starting at one week given the nature of the comments, then considering as aggravating factors his refusal to apologise and general statements of disconnectedness from Wikipedia (which is particularly serious, because it so easily leads into major vandalism). A slight mitigating factor was that his worst remarks were in edit summaries rather than in articles. That all ended up with the one month. Naturally if he apologises or asks to make constructive edits again, it will be commuted to time served, and I may reduce to one week anyway if it would encourage him to be helpful. [[User:Dbiv|David]] | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 14:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:::[''The following comment was unfortunately removed by [[User:Rschen7754]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=45619274&oldid=45618751 here], presumably as an accidental consequence of the server fubar we seem to be experiencing. I'm reinserting it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] [[Image:Bishface.tulip.png|13px]] [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 00:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC).''] No, having the worst remarks in edit summaries isn't a mitigating factor at all. Edit summaries are the worst place for personal attacks, because they stick harder than article text does, and that's why [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] says that ''"Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."'' It all sounds rather abstract and bloodless without illustrative examples, so here are a couple of the edit summaries at [[Ken Livingstone]]: "I see the jewboys are busy determining the shape of this page. No great surprise there!" And a few minutes later: "Instantly, a 'no personal attacks' warning. You can't pick on the jewboys. No way." Me, I'd have permablocked. Possibly, on a good day, pending an ''abject'' apology. Don't reduce your block, a month's fine. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] [[Image:Bishface.tulip.png|13px]] [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC).

==IP {{Vandal|201.252.215.190}} being used to evade block on {{Vandal|NoToFrauds}}==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath&curid=4248557&diff=44961354&oldid=44891878] and continues pattern of reverting {{Article|Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahavatar_Babaji&diff=44960645&oldid=44912103] and continues pattern of reverting {{article|Mahavatar Babaji}}

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NoToFrauds#Temp_block Original block] by [[User:Fire Star]]

---[[User:Baba Louis|Baba Louis]] 16:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

<br clear=right>

I've blocked both after examining the edit history. NoToFrauds indefinately and 6 months on the IP. I will request a checkuser to confirm but I am pretty certain. If I am wrong I willl unblock accordingly.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 18:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:We try not to block IP addresses for more than 24 hours because of the risk of collatoral damage. A 6 month block on an IP address is too much. The IP seems to be allocated to Apolo -Gold-Telecom-Per in Argentina - the contributions look like they come from one person - but then most users of that telco will be Spanish speaking. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 07:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser was "inconclusive" so I lifted the IP block. Please supervise the edits of this IP and report any abuse.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==User:Jimididit trolling to be a dick==

*16:45, 22 March 2006 David Gerard blocked "Jimididit (contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours (idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk. This isn't how to deal with a username block. Please take 12 hours to do something else.)

{{user|Jimididit}} was username-blocked months ago for his old username, Jebus Christ. He is now back and wants his old name back! And is pissy about it and being a dick, e.g. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Admin__Freakofnurture]]. We really don't have time to deal with this level of stupidity, so I blocked 12 hours to give him time to think about how not to act like a disruptive dick. Review away - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

::He has the right to complain to Jimbo! I believe you abused your tools! Shame on you! --[[User:Anittas|Candide, or Optimism]] 18:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:I don't have any opinion on the username issue, but I don't see why the block was made. I don't see any explanation for the block on his talk page, and I don't see anything blockworthy in the diff you posted. I don't know much about whatever previous episodes of ill behavior this user may have been involved in, though - it's possible your assumption of bad faith is justified. I think users generally deserve an explanation of why they were blocked. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

::Err, block reason is appears to have nothing to do with link provided, and nothing on the talk page, so I'm unblocking. Won't sweat the slightest a re-block that at least ''pretends'' to be following the blocking policy. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the block, calling someone an idiot and a dick is ''completely uncalled-for''. Please, David, if you're in a highly emotional state, don't block people. As an experienced editor you should know better. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

: Well said, Friday. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 17:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

:I get the impression that this isn't exactly unusual for David. He isn't being rude. He's just blunt. It's just how he speaks. And, to be pedantic, he didn't call him an idiot either. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] ^{[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]} 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

::Civility is not optional, regardless of "how one speaks". I read "idiot trolling" as saying the ''person'' is an idiot, although I'm open to its intention to have been "idiot'''ic''' trolling." - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::"...he didn't call him an idiot either". How do you figure Sam? He ''quoted'' it right there in the first line of this section, "idiot trolling on Jimbo's talk". See up there? Just below the section title where he called Jimididit a "dick"? Above the paragraph where he calls him a "dick" engaging in "stupidity" a few more times? Trust me... that actually '''is''' "rude", not "just blunt". BTW, if you are going for semantic games about how it was the 'trolling' (which... actually ''wasn't'' anything like trolling) which was "idiot", and not the person doing it... I'll skip the whole spiel about how actions don't have minds ('idiot' or otherwise) and the description thus devolves to the actor, and instead just say, "'''still''' rude". --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::This is called Assume Good Faith. I know it's difficult sometimes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] ^{[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]} 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblocking. It's good to know that it was a breach of wikipedia policy. How should I best complain about the actions of this administrator and seek an apology for the accusations? I've not once ever been involved in trolling and the [[User Jebus Christ]] block had nothing to do with trolling. It was a username block. [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] didn't bother to even read what i'd written on Jimbo's talk he just assumed it was a rant about the username and that was enough to accuse me of 'idiot trolling' and being a 'dick'. What the hell kind of conduct is that? [[User:Jimididit|Jimididit]] 09:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that complaining about his actions will get you nowhere. Wikipedia is not a petty society where you need to seek retribution against those who have wronged you. An apology, I believe, is merited, but pushing for one is not yours or anybody's place. A single breach of Wikipedia blocking policy is not acceptable, but certainly does not merit a [[WP:RFC|RfC]] or [[WP:RFAR|Arbcom case]]. If, however, David continues breaching blocking policy in manners such as this, more action may be required. [[User:Werdna648|Werdna648]]^{[[User_talk:Werdna648|T]]}/_{[[Special:Contributions/Werdna648|C]]}\^{[[Special:Emailuser/Werdna648|@]]} 10:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking for retribution I merely want to see some sort of acknowledgement that what he did was wrong. I'd like to think this is a once off thing and that he doesn't always conduct himself in this manner. I'd also like to think that wikipedia doesn't find this kind of behaviour acceptible. I hope we don't have a culture of bullying here. Thanks [[User:Jimididit|Jimididit]] 11:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:You got acknowledgement that the block was wrong- from other people. The block was undone, so what else needs to be resolved? If David Gerard, or any other editor, is regularly being rude and/or blocking inappropriately, this will hurt his reputation over time, and could possibly lead to other consequences. But for now, the problem has been fixed. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== {{User|Freestyle.king}} ==

Freestyle.king was, after his last block had expired, reverting his user page to a state that, in my opinion, called for disruption of Wikipedia. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Freestyle.king&oldid=45064519].) I've reverted to his even older version (as I did previous to his last block). However, I would like opinions on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group, not an individual), deserving of yet another block? Am I wrong about this? --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 06:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:Many people have tirades like that in their userpage. The preferred version is acceptable, now it looks like it is protected to stop criticism. [[User:Lapinmies|Lapinmies]] 08:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:From my reading, I can't see any calling-for-disruption -- more of a complaining tirade more than anything else. The criticism is mild (and arugably with merit?) so I can't really see any attacking happening. It does look a bit like heavy handed censorship atm. {{unsigned|210.177.242.221}}

::OK, per discussion, unprotected. However, it is ironic that this user claims that Wikipedia is suffering from lack of civility, when the user's edits are nothing but personal attacks. --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 08:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Why is this page black?" things are quite common, for a certain value of "common". There's nothing wrong with it. [[User:MarkGallagher|fuddlemark]] ([[User talk:MarkGallagher|fuddle me!]]) 10:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

umm...if you read my talk page. you'll know i copied "why is this page black?" stuff from this user called "Silensor" so yeah it is quite common. it is also unfair to say i'm making personal attacks because as you can see on my contribution, i'm becoming someone who is capable of useful edits. i even got involved in a new project. Also, Nlu is the one who told me I can post anything I want on my userpage and talkpage as long as I don't personally endorse it. If my userpage violate personal attack, isn't user "Jiang's" userpage and talkpage "Taiwan=shame" even an attack that provoke racial confrontation to a greater scale. This is like public racism and defamation toward a specific ethinic group and their president. I seriously don't get the Nlu's logic, no offense. Anyway thanks guys. I appreciate you guys taking your time about this issue.--[[User:Freestyle.king|Freestyle.king]] 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== User SPUI has been blocked by a bot (page moves)==

[[User:SPUI]] has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=SPUI&page= move log for this user] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=SPUI unblock if this was an error].

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

'''This message was generated by the bot.''' -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 08:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:New day, new SPUI page move block... --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 08:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::Unblocked, in lieu of someone more familiar with the ongoing situation reviewing the all-too similar circumstances that lead to the bot-block. --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 08:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Getting kinda routine, isn't it? <nowiki></nowiki> &mdash; [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] | [[User talk:Rickyrab|Talk]] 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASPUI This] is truly astonishing. [[User:SPUI]] is on '''probation'''. "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI|[A]dministrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Wikipedia for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes.]]" Would someone like to try to explain how mass controversial page moves executed unilaterally without consensus do not qualify as "provocative edits"? Is there anyone who will suggest that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_State_Route_1&action=history this page], along with hundreds of others, has not been "disrupted"? Why is he being routinely unblocked? Why do so many admins seem so determined to act as his enablers? --[[User:PHenry|phh]] 19:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

: Blocks by the bot are routinely removed unless the page moves are vandalism. It's part of the tacit agreement that allows the bot to run. While SPUI's moves may not be a good idea, they are not vandalism and as such it is inappropriate to leave the block from the bot in place. If someone else should wish to block him on other grounds, that would be quite another matter. I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation to do so myself. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 19:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:I see [[Talk:State Route 2 (California)|no consensus, only groupthink]]. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::I have to agree, I do not see a consensus to move. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::True, but he also had no consensus to move the other way from where the articles originally were. So here we are at square one again. with half wanting it one way and half the other. Maybe we should have articles at both places. Because I see no solid consensus developing for either position.[[User:JohnnyBGood|JohnnyBGood]] 22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::::From what I saw at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_Route_2_%28California%29&limit=500&action=history], the article did not have brackets until early March of this year, then that is when the whole move-war began. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 22:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Exactly. SPUI took it apon himself to move the whole state's worth of articles without discussion and when oppposition arrived and tried to move back so discussion could occur before there was a mass move he began the revert war. However in the interim discussion has now stopped and both sides have dug in and aren't budging. [[User:JohnnyBGood|JohnnyBGood]] 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article naming revert-warring needs to be taken to an RFC '''now'''. I request that other administrators join me in enforcing blocks for further move-warring until this thing is dealt with in the appropriate manner. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:There's a current discussion at [[Talk:State Route 2 (California)]], in which it's about half-and-half. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::Again as I said... getting us nowhere really. There is a majority for California State Route XX but it's not at the 60-70% level. I'm open to suggestions. As I said before perhaps two articles one at CSRXX and one at SRXX(CA) would be the way to go. That way they can have their less informative infobox and their desired page name and we could have the same.[[User:JohnnyBGood|JohnnyBGood]] 00:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I do not think that will work, since anyone can come in and just redirect, causing this whole mess again. I agree with Cyde, send this to RFC now. Not as a person v person, but as the article issue as a whole. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 00:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a Mediation Cabal case open but no mediator yet since there is a huge backup. I would have done a RFC but have been reluctant to do so- should this be moved? Also, to make sure everyone understands, if anyone begins to move pages relating to California State Routes, they will be blocked, am I correct? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, move it to RFC <!-- Since I have no clue what MedCab does, but it sounds useless anyways --> and yes, anyone who moves anything related to the pages will be blocked. This applies to everyone. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By the same token SPUI has been doing mass conversions of {{tl|routeboxca2}} to {{tl|Infobox CA Route}} without consensus, and a major edit war is developing regarding this. Could we make any conversions from {{tl|routeboxca2}} to {{tl|Infobox CA Route}} or the other way around a blockable offense? (For only the users involved- if there's a user who has no clue and changes the infobox then they're not included). --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

: Disruption is a blockable offense. Edit wars over so many articles is disruptive. I take this to allow such blocks. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I am rewriting and expanding articles (I just did [[State Route 19 (California)|State Route 19]] and [[State Route 90 (California)|State Route 90]]), and will redo the infoboxes as part of that. I will not however go through and edit articles just to change the infoboxes. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 10:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Well if I do any adding to articles and happen to update the article back to routeboxca2 in the process would you object? SPUI please refrain from editing the routeboxes at all during this cool down. It will just start the war over again and you know it. Wait until there is consensus one way or the other to modify the article names or routeboxes any further then they already have been.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI has started moving pages again. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, four pages right now. Maybe more later. The discussion on [[Talk:State Route 2 (California)]] ended with no consensus for the incorrect names, so it's time to fix them. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::And we've all been ordered not to move any until a consensus is reached. You're now eligible for a block.[[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

<pre>

13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 35 (moved Talk:California State Route 35 to Talk:State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 35 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 35 to Talk:State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 35 (moved California State Route 35 to State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:17, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 35 (California) (moved California State Route 35 to State Route 35 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 15 (moved Talk:California State Route 15 to Talk:State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 15 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 15 to Talk:State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 15 (moved California State Route 15 to State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 15 (California) (moved California State Route 15 to State Route 15 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 9 (moved Talk:California State Route 9 to Talk:State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 9 (moved California State Route 9 to State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 9 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 9 to Talk:State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 9 (California) (moved California State Route 9 to State Route 9 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:California State Route 1 (moved Talk:California State Route 1 to Talk:State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:State Route 1 (California) (moved Talk:California State Route 1 to Talk:State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) California State Route 1 (moved California State Route 1 to State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]

13:16, March 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) m State Route 1 (California) (moved California State Route 1 to State Route 1 (California): no consensus for the incorrect name - see Talk:State Route 2 (California)) (top) [rollback]</pre>

Blocked for an hour until another admin can review the situation here. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this got removed from the page, but I've banned SPUI from making any transportation-related page moves for 48 hours (expiring 22:00 UTC on March 28). [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:Jayjg]]==

I thought this issue had been resolved but it unfortunately appears that it isn't. [[User:Jayjg]] accused [[User:Newport]] of being a "sockpuppet" of [[User:RachelBrown]] on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=44442993&oldid=44441866 the 3RR noticeboard]. RachelBrown has now left Wikipedia so this is just not true. Extensive discussions have been had among [[User:David Gerard]], [[User:Charles Matthews]] and [[User:Phil Boswell]] which established that no actual sock puppetry was involved and all users have now been unblocked without any apologies for their unjust blocking (AFAIK). It is just not acceptable for a Wikipedia admin to make false accusations on another user who has good intentions and has made good edits. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 18:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::Actually, I've had extensive discussions with David and Charles myself, and it has not been at all established that no sockpuppeting was involved. Rather, it has been established that extensive sockpuppeting was involved, though it has also been claimed that it was merely meatpuppeting (a sub-variety of sockpuppeting). And, unlike you, I actually know what I'm talking about here, since I'm the one who has all the original evidence, based on which 4 different Arbitration Committee members agreed that serious sockpuppeting was going on. It's only because of my own great forbearance that I haven't re-blocked the puppets; please don't make me regret that decision. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Arnie, it's pretty obvious that one person is behind the Newport and Rachel Brown accounts (the same person who posts on WR as "Guy"), and I'm not aware that s/he has denied it. You have to stop responding to his or her e-mails encouraging you to start another fuss. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 18:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::::No user asked me to do this, I just saw Jay's comment by chance, and, as I know it is not true it is not acceptable to make false accusations against a user who has done absolutely nothing wrong. [[User:Newport]] is a friend of [[User:RachelBrown]]'s who took on watching articles in December that Rachel had started and started articles which Rachel had planned before she left Wikipedia after almost having a breakdown caused by certain users aggressive behaviour. It is true that Rachel and I asked people to vote on Jewish lists and categories on afd and cfd as there was a strong suspicion that a [[User:Antidote]] was voting multiple times (see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments]]. The voting did not come as has been claimed under the [[sock puppet]]ing or [[meat puppet]]ing rules, as all the accounts that voted were different people who had been making independent edits on different subjects for some months before the alleged multi voting in November. The users were all friends of Rachel but at the time I saw admins asking their friends to vote on afds and cfds all the time so neither I nor Rachel were aware that we were doing anything wrong and the other users were never given a warning about it before being blocked (the users involved were: [[User:Poetlister]], Rachel's best friend, [[User:Taxwoman]], a university friend, and [[User:Londoneye]], Rachel's cousin, all of whom had been making independent edits before there was any controversy over voting on afd or cfds). No action was taken by any admin to block the suspected sock puppets of [[User:Antidote]] despite all my work to demonstrate that he had broken Wikipedia rules time and again. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::This is a non-issue so I'm not going to respond again after this, but I want to point out that (1) you do ''not'' know what's true and what isn't (unless you're the person operating the accounts); (2) you forgot about "Lisa," the flatmate; and (3) I wonder if you have any idea how often we're asked to believe that a bunch of users live together, work together, edit the same articles, hold the same opinions, and even make the same spelling mistakes (maybe because they all supposedly went to the same school). [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::This is not a non issue at all as I know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places and are therefore categorically not sockpuppets and as they all previously had completely different edit histories and did not join just to vote on afds or cfds they are not meatpuppets. Despite my requests to various admins including [[User:Kelly Martin]] and [[User:Ambi]] to review the information on the Antidote case none of his sockpuppets were banned and no comments were made in support of my investigations. I believe this dispute has been tied into the debate between people who are against Jewish lists or categories (such as yourself and Jayjg) and people who contributed to the lists such as RachelBrown and her friends (actually it was only when people started attacking Rachel that her friends backed her up re:the [[Jewish Year Book]] on [[Talk:List of Jewish jurists]]) and that unfair bias has been placed on silencing the views of these users as opposed to the lack of action that was taken against [[User:Antidote]] who attempted to force the deletion of Jewish lists and categories by using multiple sockpuppets (as well as numerous other violations, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments]]). The British users all made good edits edits completely independently before they voted on the afds and cfds, and I doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips. I believe this should be able to be checked as presumably some instances can be found where they edited at similar times. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 00:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::::You "know that these are all different people with different names who live in different places"? How do you know that? And you "doubt that they all made those edits from the same locations and ips". Why do you doubt that? As for my being against Jewish lists, that's simply false; I've even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=28680494&oldid=28672659 voted on AfDs to keep them]. I simply want them to conform to Wikipedia policies, specifically [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Anything else? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 00:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Jay, the argument that they are the same people just doesn't stand up with detailed investigation. They all edited on completely different subjects before November and it seems extremely unlikely that they would have deliberately edited completly different subjects on different accounts just so that they could use the accounts to defend against an attempted forced deletion of Jewish lists by a sock puppet user that was going to occur in the future. I don't think they even visited afd or cfd before User:Antidote started. I have been in contact with them via email and they all have separate names and surnames, one of whom googles as working for the British government. SlimVirgin accused the Guy person as being Rachel- this is impossible as I asked him to ask Rachel to check the Jewish Year Book for references and he said why don't you ask her yourself and gave me her email, so it's highly unlikely that he is her and I find no reason to disbelieve that all the other users are as they are shown in the photographs on their userpages. I realize you are not against all Jewish lists but you did support IZAK's amendment to remove most Jewish-related lists. I personally voted to keep some of the lists involved in the dispute which I now probably wouldn't vote to keep so I am not in favour of keeping most of them either although I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a historical lists but I can't really see the encyclopedic validity of listing living Jewish people. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 00:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Well, I said I wouldn't respond again but there you go. Arnie, just because they gave you different names doesn't mean they really do have different names. Just because you've googled those names and found entries doesn't mean those are the real names. (And the one you mention as working for the British govt: it's a minor civil servant's position, and there's no evidence that person is connected to the Wikipedia accounts). There's other evidence linking them, nothing to do with check user, but to do with material that person has posted or e-mailed, and it can't be discussed openly because then he or she will know to stop doing it. In any event, it doesn't matter so long as they don't post to the same pages and act to deceive other users. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:As I said above it is not just the names that make it extremely unlikely that these are all the same people. They made completely independent edits on completely different subjects for up to 6 months before the voting on the afds and cfds, RachelBrown on Bible and Jewish subjects, Taxwoman on fetish subjects, Londoneye on London locations, and Poetlister on literature. Why would they have made four different accounts in advance to stack vote if they had never shown any interest in afd or cfd until [[User:Antidote]] started his campaign of mass sock puppet deletion in late October? The other users only started backing up Rachel after she felt she was being harrassed on [[Talk:List of Jewish jurists]] and they voted on the afds and cfds after me and Rachel asked them to do so. All the users involved have requested that their full ip data be sent to them but this has not been done. I still haven't received a reasonable explanation as to why an admin hasn't reviewed the Antidote case and the sock puppets of [[User:Antidote]] who wanted to delete the Jewish lists have not been blocked whereas these users who are not sockpuppets and supported the Jewish lists were. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::See, Arnie, the difference between you and me is that your statements are all based on guesswork, "it seems reasonable to me" arguments, and e-mails from various alleged individuals with pretty pictures on their user pages. On the other hand, my statements are based on hard evidence, of which CheckUser results are only a part. And I'm certainly not going to release that evidence to you, nor to the often mentioned, but never actually seen, "request" by Rachel Brown that the evidence be released to her. We're not in the business of teaching sockpuppets how to be better sockpuppets. Now, since you are simply guessing about all this, whereas I actually know what I'm talking about, until you actually personally meet with the "individuals" in question, I'm going to have to insist that you stop bringing up this topic, which has crossed over the line from whining to actual harassment. Consider yourself duly notified. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 04:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I have tried to act civily here and I don't think I am harassing anyone. I shouldn't have headed this topic with your username as you certainly weren't the originator of this dispute, and if you feel attacked I apologize for that. I had thought that Rachel and Poetlister had made a request for ip data, if this was not the case I will ask them to do so and copy me the email. [[User:Arniep|Arniep]] 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I also have a complaint about {{user|Jayjg}}. He misidentified {{user|Baba Louis}} and {{user|Chai Walla}} as being sockpuppets of myself. When I asked him to reexamine in light of the fact that we were travelling together, he declined to do so saying that it was impossible to verify. I realize that he still would not be able to tell if there was one or three individuals, but he could have at least done nslookup and whois queries on the IP addresses to verify that the edits were indeed coming from first Austin, then the Hilton in Albuquerque, then the Taos Inn and a cybercafe in Taos, NM. At the point I made the request, I was already back in Austin, Chai Walla was in Seattle and Baba Louis had made a edit to my talk page from the Dallas airport. It should have been easy to verify that we had separated. I know records are only kept for a week, so refusing to revisit the issue means that when another admin gets around to looking at it, it will no longer be possible to verify the travel, only that we are now in separate locations. Either there should be a formal process to request a second opinion, or the first admin should be willing to look again if asked. &mdash;[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]] 18:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, I've read your explanation as well. It turns out you weren't sockpuppeting at all, but you "all" simply worked together at the same ___location, and then travelled together to other countries, where "they" were all using your laptop without your knowledge, making the exact same edits as you. Your story is compelling as Rachel Brown's. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:I never said they used my laptop without my knowledge. We were collaborating, and passing it to the next person who wanted to make an edit. We are all members of the same Nath lineage and have similar but not identical opinions on the articles we worked on. If you couldn't tell we were moving, you must not be very ept with network tools. Why would we all lug laptops to NM when we could share one? You are making an insulting assumption rather than looking again at the data and the subsequent data which would clear me. Why are you so stuck on your own opinion? Are you afraid that you will have to admit to having made a mistake? Even the person who filed the original request has now realized that he was wrong! &mdash;[[User:Adityanath|Adityanath]] 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:SmackBot]]==

Has this bot been approved to do what it says it's doing on its User page? I see a request to do quick non-manual changes, but the request never explained what it was going to do. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|^(talk)]] 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Bot flag was approved earlier this month: [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_bot_status&oldid=300107]. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Zsinj|Zsinj]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;">^{[[User Talk:Zsinj|Talk]]}</font> 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I am dismayed that a bot flag was approved for this bot with so little explanation of what it was going to be doing. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|^(talk)]] 22:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:Licorne]]==

{{userblock|Licorne}}

After [[User:Licorne|Licorne]]'s one week block expired, he has begun editing again. I have reblocked him because

# he is about to be banned for a year by the ArbCom (see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Licorne/Proposed_decision#Motion_to_close]]);

# his anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi vitriol deserve a long block (see the history of [[User talk:Licorne]]);

# he made numerous attempts to evade his block with various IP addresses (see [[User talk:Licorne]] for the IP's and block logs).

I am posting here for maximum transparency, because I think it is unusual to reblock a user after his block has expired (without clear evidence of misbehavior after the expiry). His talk page has also been protected, but I suppose he can email me if he likes. &ndash;[[User:Joke137|Joke]] 03:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Never mind, the ArbCom reached a final decision, so if anything about this was controversial, it's now an academic question. &ndash;[[User:Joke137|Joke]] 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== USAA - sockpuppet [[User:Philosophenweg]] for [[User:Robertjkoenig]] ==

The USAA page has a long history of vandalism by one user, originating with user [[Robertjkoenig]], who was permanently banned by Jimbo Wales. Since then, numerous sockpuppets have popped up to attempt to prop up his POV airing of his perceived wrongs [Talk:USAA/Archive09]. It culminated with what I believe to be banning of several of the sockpuppets when children's pictures were posted in Koenig's diatribe.

The vandal has returned, with the same modus operandi, and reverting the page to the same language, and I request this sockpuppet be banned as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USAA&curid=562106&diff=45209783&oldid=45209632]

--[[User:Mmx1|Mmx1]] 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I just want to add that Koenig recently said on [[Talk:USAA]] that the reason he is persisting is to get his material in Google's archives so it shows up in searches. I can't cite the diffs because the whole talk page was deleted and re-created without these comments, but I guess an admin can still see them. Anyway, I found this to be a serious misuse of Wikipedia and further cause to block all Koenig sockpuppets. --[[User:Amcbride|Allen]] 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Vandalism on my talk page==

Recently, [[User:Randazzo56|Randazzo56]], [[User:Fat Carl|Fat Carl]] and [[User:205.188.116.203]] have all vandalized my talk page. The first incident happened when Randazzo56 began challenging my interests in certain cars (namely the [[Eagle Premier]] and the [[Plymouth Acclaim]]). I warned him twice about it, then he left a last message on my talk page stating that he "couldn't care less" if I decided to take action against him (which I obviously did). Then shortly afterwards, Fat Carl arrived and said "Im laughing at your knowledge". Then after I reverted that, 205.188.116.203 came along and said he would "rather be a vandal than a snot nosed little shit, like you." Since all three of these guys have vandalized my talk page less than two hours apart, have vandalized similar pages and were all blocked for various offenses, I heavily suspect these three are related somehow. --[[User:ApolloBoy|ApolloBoy]] 03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have my suspicions about these two accounts being connected as well -- they've made similar contributions at [[Bonnie and Clyde]]. Have you considered entering a request for a check to see if they're editing from the same IP address? You can make one here: [[WP:RCU]]. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]}/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== Another [[User:Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark]] sockpuppet ==

{{user|Starways Common}}. Editing [[Guarana]] and [[Guaranine]] articles, frequented by recent sockpuppets {{user|TheCat'sMeow}}, {{user|Buster Hawthorn}}, etc. I guess now he thinks he's a chemist. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarana&diff=45198686&oldid=45192537 first article edit] was to get involved in an edit war. Also note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jclerman&diff=45211537&oldid=45209043 This post] accusing us all of corruption, the same old ZS crap. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser&diff=45215147&oldid=45210822 Confirmed by CheckUser]. Also {{user|BBQ Cheddar Bunnies}}. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 15:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== Checkuser '''!=''' big deal? ==

Looking at [[Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser]] is says not to request a packet sniff on "throw-away" accounts. How does this square with something like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolicon&action=history Lolicon] where we've got multiple <s>socks</s> very new users ([[User:Synergies|{{{2|Synergies}}}]] ([[User talk:Synergies|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Synergies|contribs]]), [[User:Hentai-King|{{{2|Hentai-King}}}]] ([[User talk:Hentai-King|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hentai-King|contribs]]), [[User:MonstrousBone|{{{2|MonstrousBone}}}]] ([[User talk:MonstrousBone|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MonstrousBone|contribs]])) but each only doing a few edits? Is this a fair call for check user now that there are more of the packet bloodhounds around, or not? - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:There's more to it. Who exactly are you suspecting the socket puppets belong to? Evidence? Violation? Using sockets in it itself is not against the policy. There has to be rules broken to request for a checkuser. --[[User:Jqiz|Jqiz]] 07:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::That's a valid question, of course, and I should have made that more clear. The reason I didn't was that I'm not actually ''asking'' for a checkuser (which isn't done here) I'm asking if I ''should'' ask (over at Requests for CheckUser).

::*If, for arguments sake only, these were '''your''' sockpuppets then you'd have broken the 3RR and would have violated a policy. In fact, I think that if ''any two'' of the three of these could be shown to be the same person, it would be a 3R violation.

::*Again, not making accusations but we've got you reverting to the explicit image four times, fuzzie doing so once, Gmcfoley twice, Sn0rlax twice and the "very new users" six times.

::*There are ''lots'' of possible combinations there that add up to 4 reverts, especially when noting that both you and Sn0rlax only started reverting after sprotect was applied.

::Despite everything I've just said, I actually just wanted an opinion on the ''bounds'' in which check user was applied, as it's not something I'm terribly familiar with.

::[[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd wonder myself to be honest if I were in your position. I have nothing to hide. If you do want to ask for a usercheck, you'd have my blessing to go on with it. I believe the revert war was due to prior disagreements on the explicit picture, hence, no consensus. --[[User:Jqiz|Jqiz]] 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::It is only pretty recently that we even started to formalize requests for checkuser. I think rules and practices are still a little bit fluid. In my opinion, in a case of lots of new accounts immediately joining a revert war, it is not even ''necessay'' to request checkuser, they can just be blocked unceremoniously as obvious socks, never mind who exactly is whose sock. I think people have better things to do than play Sherlock Holmes with sock artists. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|('''&#5839;''')]]</small> 08:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::::By doing this, you will ignore [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]] and all the precedent that goes with it. --[[User:Jqiz|Jqiz]] 11:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Jqiz, you're right that sockpuppets aren't prohibited. But using sockpuppets to be disruptive (in any manner of ways -- circumventing policies, manipulating consensus, etc.), then they may be blocked. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]}/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::(edit conflict)What precident? I have always blocked obvious disruptive sockpuppets as socks even if i'm not sure who they belong to. I have seen other admins do the same. Yes there are legitimate reasons for creating socks. Edit warring isn't one of them. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Then you may have a reason for the block for possibly violating the 3RR if you suspect it is under one person. Violation are per person. But, if a suspected socket jumps into the flay of a massive editting war, then is it really justified? A warning would have more merit than an outright block --[[User:Jqiz|Jqiz]] 20:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Attacked==

It has just come to my notice that [[User:Jimididit]] has posted a rather nasty message about me at [[Talk:Football#Conduct_in_this_article.]], then followed up with nasty crossposts at [[Talk:Football (soccer)]], [[Talk:Rugby Union]] and [[Talk:American football]]. I have never edited any of these articles, so did not have them on my watchlist. I have never had any interaction with [[User:Jimididit]] on Wikipedia, except for being one of the many recipients of his petition to get his old username back. He/she has not approached me to discuss anything. Basically, I wouldn't known him/her from a bar of soap.

As far as I'm concerned, going around attacking and undermining people behind their backs is unacceptable. On further investigation I see that Jimididit seems to be on a mission to accuse every single Wikipedia administrator of abuse of powers, and I am merely one of his/her victims.

Jimididit's grief with me appears to be based on the fact that I blocked [[User:J is me]] for repeatedly vandalising [[User:Grant65]]'s user page with bad faith suspected sockpuppet banners, while not taking any action against Grant65 for posting good-faith (and probably correct) suspected sockpuppet banners.

I would prefer not to act to defend myself, as I might over-react, and I'm sure any action I might take would only feed the troll. If anyone out there is prepared to review the situation and take appropriate action, I commend the situation to your care. [[User talk:Snottygobble|Snottygobble]] 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:This seems to be an extension of the unambiguously named thread "User:Jimididit trolling to be a dick" above, for the brave soul(s) looking to take this on. At the very least, the conduct, if not the issues themselves, seems to carry over. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 06:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::Cart before horse? I know I'm tired and my eyes are bleary, but isn't the unprovoked broadside on Snottygobble from ''before'' the bizzare complaint on Jimbo's talk page? I also note that the guy's talk page is still mightyly bare of "hey, be nice" messages. Perhaps we try to modify his behavior positivly, eh? - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes and no; his comments to Jimbo predate his attack on me at [[Talk:Football]], but nothing predates his attack on me in his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football_%28soccer%29&diff=prev&oldid=44050771 very first edit]. It has now become obvious to me that [[User:Jimididit]] is a sock/reincarnation of [[User:J is me]], created for purposes stated in J is me's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_is_me&diff=prev&oldid=44165027 last edit]. <sigh> the joys of administration.... [[User talk:Snottygobble|Snottygobble]] 12:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Attack of anonims on the color scheme of Harry Potter articles==

Moved from [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]]:

* {{vandal|71.140.221.92}} (Wed night) + {{vandal|71.138.70.75}} (Thurs night) + {{vandal|User:71.138.164.227}} (tonight)

All these vandals have edited Harry Potter character pages and changed the default Harry Potter colour scheme to something ridiculous . The first one was given a serious warning by [[User:Drini|Drini]] as well as myself, the second and third were both warned by me. This is starting to get out of hand as I've had to revert every change made. Check the user's contributions and you'll see what I mean. — [[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a]]</font>[[user:nathanrdotcom|nrdotcom]] ^{([[User talk:nathanrdotcom|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/nathanrdotcom|C]] • [http://www.nathanr.com W])}</b></font> - 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (posted via [[User:NathanHP|NathanHP]])

**Formally this not a vandalism, but a content dispute. Maybe you should report them 3RR assuming this is one user with socks. I can sprotect all the articles to prevent sockpupeeting. [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

***The one I looked at changed a background colour to black which made the black text unreadable![[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

***Note that if it's a dynamic ip like AOL, it might not be sockpuppeting so much as 3RR under multiple IPs. Sockpuppeting refers to using multiple accounts or purposely changing IPs. [[User:Ral315|Ral315]] ([[User talk:Ral315|talk]]) 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

**** The ISP of the user(s?) concerned is Comcast (an American cable ISP). — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a]]</font>[[user:nathanrdotcom|nrdotcom]] ^{([[User talk:nathanrdotcom|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/nathanrdotcom|C]] • [http://www.nathanr.com W])}</b></font> 01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

***** In that case, he might be purposefully resetting his connection so that he can vandalize more... [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 12:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

****** Actually, that's what I was thinking. :) — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a(?)]]</font>[[user:nathanrdotcom|nrdotcom]] ^{([[User talk:nathanrdotcom|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/nathanrdotcom|C]] • [http://www.nathanr.com W])}</b></font> 04:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think sprotecting the articles concerned for a couple of weeks may be the best solution. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 15:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

* That would (unfortunately) be every Harry Potter character's article on Wikipedia. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:nathanrdotcom|nath]]<font color="green">[[User:nathanrdotcom/Esperanza|a]]</font>[[user:nathanrdotcom|nrdotcom]] ^{([[User talk:nathanrdotcom|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/nathanrdotcom|C]] • [http://www.nathanr.com W])}</b></font> 01:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

* Here's another one: {{vandal|71.140.106.74}}. — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:NathanHP|NathanHP]] ^{([[User talk:NathanHP|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/NathanHP|C]] • [http://www.nathanr.com W])}</b></font> 08:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

* ...and another: {{vandal|71.130.199.35}}

*....and yet another: {{vandal|71.130.202.21}} Please stop the insanity? — <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>[[User:NathanHP|NathanHP]] ^{([[User talk:NathanHP|T]] • [[Special:Contributions/NathanHP|C]] • [http://www.nathanr.com W])}</b></font> 07:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Help needed, please==

:''Information by [[User:Rimmers|Rimmers]] taken from [[User talk:Premeditated Chaos]]''

Hi...if you have time, I'd like your help and assistance please!

I'm a relatively new member, so please bare with me :)

I would like you help and/or advice in dealing with a certain user please. The user is question is [[User:hotwiki|Hotwiki]]. After making improvements to articles such as the [[Spice Girls]] (which I completely rewrote) and their members pages ([[Geri Halliwell]], [[Melanie Brown]], [[Victoria Beckham]], [[Melanie Chisholm]] and [[Emma Bunton]]), its become very clear that hotwiki has a problem with me and constantly reverts any improvements I made to articles (best illustrated on the Geri Halliwell page, where he is also reverting edits made by other users).

There is a dispute over the Spice Girls discography; it was recently suggested that the Spice Girls library be merged with it and that the solo information included on the page be put on the girls own individual pages. The consensus agreement after discussions agreed with this view - with the sole exception of hotwiki, who seems to think he has some divine say over what does and does not go into the articles. And last night he made his objections personal, contravening wiki regulations on civility, in the Geri discussion page. This dispute has since spiralled and is effecting other pages. After discussions with other users on the best course of action, it was suggested that I should contact an admin to help resolve this childish situation - because quite frankly its petty and reflects very badly on Wikipedia.

Hotwiki is generally rude, arrogant and very hostile with a range of users - simply look at his discussion page and/or the additions he made to other people's discussion pages for evidence of this. His problem with me personally could well stem from outside of Wikipedia; I was a moderator on a large internet forum, which stemmed from a Spice Girls fan site. I don’t know what hotwiki's username is on the forum, but he has made it clear he was/is a member; so his hostility to me might stem from the fact I gave him an official warning or banned him whilst being a mod. Who knows. What is clear though is that he cannot continue the way he is acting because it reflects badly on this site and creates a negative and hostile environment.

Any help or advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated - and for now I'd like to keep this conversation on your discussion page (rather than mine) if you don’t mind. I am also going to contact one or two other users to see if they wish to make a contribution to this complaint, that way giving you more scope and different points of view. Thanks for you time - sorry to bother you over something so incredibly lame! [[User:Rimmers|Rimmers]] 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I second [[User:Rimmers|Rimmers]]' statement. Your help would be beneficial. &mdash;[[User:Eternal Equinox|Eternal Equinox]] | [[User talk:Eternal Equinox|talk]] 01:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:This sounds like the beginning of a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct]], and it seems that there is another party willing to endorse. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I have no intention on opening an RFC yet, because [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] has made some fabulous contributions to Wikipedia, which includes categorization, creating new articles, and expanding to certain lengths. I merely wish for him to be warned or serve a short block for disrpution of a few policies for now. Perhaps an RFC will have to be opened eventually though, but certainly not yet. I don't wish to jump the bullet train. &mdash;[[User:Eternal Equinox|Eternal Equinox]] | [[User talk:Eternal Equinox|talk]] 20:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Possible Lightbringer Sock==

*{{vandal|Fyodor_Dos}} keeps trying to reinsert "occult society" in [[Freemasonry]] but cannot support the claim on Talk page in any way but his opinion that "Freemasonry is a secret occult society and keep that hidden from society (see[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry#Reference_for_Occult_-_Esoteric_Disambiguation here] in lower part of section), and keeps adding unrelated "See also" links to the [Freemasonry]] page (such as "Essenes", and three different esoteric WP pages), and then reverts correction of them. Believed to be {{vandal|Lightbringer}} sock, so he should not be editing [[Freemasonry]] at all. He has also made unsourced edits to [[occult]] which had to be reverted. -- [[User:MSJapan|MSJapan]] 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Moved this from [[WP:AIV]]. Another admin there has already expressed doubts whether this is Lightbringer or not. I don't know that much about the Lightbringer case, so I'll leave this to those more familiar with the situation. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::Doesn't look like the typical Lightbringer socks -- usually there's a whole chunk of material inserted. Account has been blocked for 3RR violations on [[Freemasonry]] though. .:.[[User:Jareth|Jareth]].:. ^{[[User_talk:Jareth|babelfish]]} 15:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::And again. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lok]][[User:Kirill Lokshin/Esperanza|<font color="green">s</font>]][[User:Kirill Lokshin|hin]] 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the rhetoric is similar to Lightbringer, recent socks have shown a tendency towards learning from his mistakes, the line about those who are prepared to identify as Masons didn't quite get to the 'should be banned' stage, but pretty close and some of the commenting in talk pages clearly shows some familiarity with the various viewpoints and previous discussions. I'd say likely but not definitive at the moment.

==Serial vandal 38.112.87.6 blocked for two months, second opinion requested==

{{vandal|38.112.87.6}} vandalised articles repeatedly despite {{tl|returnvandal}} and {{tl|test4}}. I blocked him for eight weeks after seeing that he had returned almost immediately after a 6-week block by [[User:Hall Monitor|Hall Monitor]] expired, and neither whois lookup nor a sample of his edit history indicated that I'd be causing collateral damage. I also left a link to my email as Hall Monitor did before. Nonetheless, as this is the first time I've blocked someone for a prolonged length of time, I'm checking here that this was the right thing to do. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning <small>(formerly Malthusian)</small>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samuel_Blanning|(talk)]]</small> 16:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Even though I am not an admin, I agree with the length of the block. --<font style="color:#22AA00;">'''[[User:Zsinj|Zsinj]]'''</font><font style="color:#888888;">^{[[User Talk:Zsinj|Talk]]}</font> 16:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Shared IP address? Did you check to see what it was before you blocked it? [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::This [http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=38.112.87.6 ARIN WHOIS report] says it's registered to "Performance Systems International Inc". That didn't seem to qualify as a shared IP from what I've seen of them. The earlier long-term block by Hall Monitor and the fact that I couldn't find any good edits made me more confident that I wouldn't be doing collateral damage. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning <small>(formerly Malthusian)</small>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samuel_Blanning|(talk)]]</small> 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Apparently an ISP in North Virginia [http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum11/1861.htm] [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Personal attack block==

{{vandal|Benapgar}}. This one was a 31-hour block after one edit, which isn't usual, but it was really quite the edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWarriorScribe&diff=45235566&oldid=45235042] (warning: contains pierced penis picture) and doesn't really rate a 'warning.' I left a pointed comment about this on the bottom of his talk. Please keep an eye out for further spectacularly creative edits of this sort, and cattleprod as needed - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked him for a month following his latest outburst. He has repeatedly been blocked for incivility and it is clear he has no intentions whatsoever of reforming. He's just getting even more vulgar and disruptive over time. Frankly, I think a one month block may be too short. Here's his latest:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benapgar&diff=prev&oldid=45236140]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WarriorScribe&diff=prev&oldid=45235566]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WarriorScribe&diff=prev&oldid=45235464]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WarriorScribe&diff=prev&oldid=45235319]

--'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 17:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, this wouldn't be the first time he's been blocked for a month. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 17:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Huh. After that, I'd be inclined to something similar - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

{{vandal|64.251.53.2}} School ip [[User:Antonrojo|Antonrojo]] 18:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

{{vandal|66.154.192.129}} YASP (yet another school proxy) [[User:Antonrojo|Antonrojo]] 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet of [[User:Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark]] ==

Zephram's latest sockpuppet {{user|Dirae}} is currently stalking my edits. Notice how his talk page was copied over from a previous sockpuppet {{user|Peace Inside}} (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peace_Inside&oldid=41150729 here]). Please block this account. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 18:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::Can someone '''please''' block this guy. I don't like being called a vandal in the edit summaries of dozens of articles. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 19:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him. The first time I've stepped into this Zephram Stark mess. But the copying of the previous sockpupet's talk page made it so obviously a sock-puppet. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 19:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*Thanks. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:It looks like ZS's list of socks has been growing endlessly, so I think it's time for an entry on him at [[WP:LTA|Long term abuse]]. --[[User:TML1988|TML1988]] 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== Quadell block ==

I have blocked {{user|Quadell}} for making the same kinds of edits which Bobblewik has made in the past (the frequent delinking of links to years). He is fully aware of the controversy Bobblewik has caused with his edits and he knows that there is significant disagreement over the relevant section which he claims to be enforcing. Given this disagreement, I think that people should not make edits away from the status quo in regards to date links until collective consensus has been reached, deciding what our guidelines should be on this issue. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 19:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Talrias, as you know I very rarely undo other people's blocks, but I've undone this one because Quadell is one of our best editors and admins, and extremely reasonable, so I'm certain you can talk this issue through with him. I'm sorry to undo your block. I mean no disrespect by it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Sarah, of all people I would have thought might unblock Quadell, you were probably near the very bottom, given our history. I'm disappointed you didn't ask me about it first. If you were to look at Quadell's talk page, you can see I was quite happy to unblock him if he promised to stop making those kinds of edits, at least until we come up with an acceptable compromise. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Yes, I'm sorry, Talrias. I don't like undoing other admin actions, but I felt this block was highly inappropriate, and you were arguably involved in the content dispute so that complicated matters. Moving on, I've posted a [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_delinking:_a_proposed_compromise|proposed compromise text]] for the MoS, which I'm hoping both sides might agree to. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What is going on? How is abiding by the policy of [[WP:DATE]] "disruptive"? If you want to change the policy on date links then do it the proper way, don't block people making edits that conform with the policy. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

: Cyde, the manual of style is recommended style guideline, not a policy. Also, as someone who has contributed in the discussion on the style guideline yourself, you are well aware that there is significant disagreement over the appropriateness of the recommendation in question. Given this, making fast and frequent edits enforcing a style guideline across multiple articles is not just impolite but disruptive. This is why I blocked. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::What? Last time I checked [[WP:CONTEXT]] has been active for awhile. There's no controversy here. [[Just]] [[like]] [[not]] [[every]] [[word]] [[in]] [[a]] [[sentence]] [[should]] [[be]] [[linked]], not every occurrence of a date should be linked. The only reason some dates are currently linked is for preferences formatting (there's actually an ongoing feature request to get that fixed too). It's not controversial to clean up the clutter of unnecessary date links that don't contain enough information to work properly with date preferences formatting. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::: How am I supposed to discuss this with you if you do not even accept that there are people who disagree with you on this? You are presenting opinion as fact - and clouding the issue by suggesting it is about whether all dates should be linked. I don't think anyone is arguing for that. What I, and many others, want, is for articles to be treated on an article-by-article basis, with years linked to provide historical context for the events described in the article. I just saw Quadell delink, through the same script which Bobblewik used, every single date link on a historical list. I can't think of a more appropriate article to have links for years on. In any case, as I have argued on [[WP:DATE]]'s talk page, people like finding out what else happened in the year in question. I am one of those people. What is the point of having an encyclopaedia on the web, with all the advantages of hyperlinks it gives us, if we do not utilise them? I don't really want to summarise and duplicate all the arguments made on the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#linking_of_dates|talk page]], but there is disagreement on the issue, and I think Wikipedia is better served by deciding and adopting a sensible compromise than one group of people removing as many date links as they can find and ignoring the fact that other people disagree, and another group of people finding out that a frequently-used group of links are being removed, causing much frustration all around. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::Talrias, contrary to your assertion above, we already have guidelines regarding dates, and that is that they should not be linked:[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Avoid overlinking dates]] - this is hardly controversial. Also, was his behaviour that disruptive? Did you contact him before the blocking? I see no justification for blocking a longstanding editor in good standing on such dubious grounds, and I'm quite concerned about the apparent precipitousness of these actions. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I don’t have an opinion on the date-linking issue one way or the other, but I am concerned with the blocking without warning of a longtime user and admin. Judging from Quadell's talk page, I don't believe his edits were disruptive enough to warrant a block (i.e., there aren't numerous messages there asking him to stop). Nor do I do see any evidence that you asked Quadell to stop before implementing the block—that, in my opinion, should have been the first step. &mdash;[[User:Wayward|Wayward]] <small>^{<font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:Wayward|Talk]]</font>}</small> 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:: In reply to both Wayward and Jayjg, I blocked Quadell without asking he stop first on his talk page was that he is making edits exactly the same as Bobblewik (in fact, using the same script as Bobblewik used/uses). Bobblewik was blocked for making similar edits. I am confident that Quadell knows that Bobblewik was blocked for these edits, and he knows that there is significant disagreement about the issue. Given this, I felt my blocking was appropriate. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 20:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I also do not have an opinion either about linking dates, but I am surprised that Quadell was blocked over a minor issue like this without warning. Talrias, I think you have overstepped and quite poorly. Quadell has a long history of productive edits and has stated that he is manually checking every date reference according to the MOS. You should have brought this to WP:AN/I. --''[[User:Reflex Reaction|<b>Reflex Reaction</b>]]'' ([[User talk:Reflex Reaction|talk]])&bull; 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: I think you are missing the fact that Quadell was using the same script as Bobblewik used. As you can see by looking through the history of Bobblewik's talk page, they have collaborated on it. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't think Bobble was blocked for delinking dates -- that would be silly. I think he was blocked for running a bot. I know there is disagreement between you and the Manual of Style, but I didn't see that as a reason for me to change my editing. &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] ^{([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Wikipedia:Bounty board|bounties]])} 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582 the feature request]. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm afraid that Bobblewik was blocked for delinking dates, in (at least) one case for being rather fast at it. I don't think anyone has contended he is running a bot for some time (with the exception of Jimbo, though how he got the idea, I don't know). I also note that one of his critics who criticised his speed had edited faster than he did. I also note that Bobblewik requested at the time a statement of what speed was ok to edit at and got no reply. In other words his blocks were on a par with Quadell's, the only difference is that Bobblewik showed an incredible patience with being blocked, Quadell a merely credible patience. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/talktome| Farmbrough]]'' 21:03 [[26 March]] [[2006]] (UTC).

:I've proposed a compromise text for the MoS [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Date_delinking:_a_proposed_compromise here]. Comments would be appreciated. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 20:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Cyde, that request is irrelevant. Quadell was making changes to solitary year links which has no relation to date format preferences. Correct me if I'm wrong. [[User:Gflores|Gflores]] ^{<small>[[User Talk:Gflores|Talk]]</small>} 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I was just linking to it because I mentioned it in one of my comments and wanted people to know what I was talking about. And it's a good proposal. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If he wasn't warned, he shouldn't have been blocked, especially for changes so extremely unimportant to the encyclopedia. This block is very counterproductive. I would suggest Talrias find a few articles to write. Even if Quadell was going against a guideline, it should have been submitted to [[WP:AN/I]] to wait for other comments&mdash;or are there some pressing matters related to date formatting that I am not aware of? &mdash; <small>_{[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]}^{<span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color="#222222">BRIAN</font></b>]]</span>} &bull; 2006-03-24 19:52</small>

: As for Quadell's changes... I almost always link the birth/death years in an article, as well as years for important events in the person's life. I've written over a thousand articles and have done this in every one. So, I would disagree with Quadell simply because I don't want to go back and unlink all of those dates :) If Quadell wants to delink them, feel free. It's not important, and does not warrant blocking a valuable contributor. Now, if Quadell has limited himself to making such minor edits, then I would suggest finding something more important to do; I see many of the MoS guidelines as "guidelines on starting an article" rather than "guidelines on fixing an article". &mdash; <small>_{[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]}^{<span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color="#222222">BRIAN</font></b>]]</span>} &bull; 2006-03-24

I did some digging around to find the basis for that section of the Manual of Style, to try and find some basis for the differing viewpoints we find ourselves presented with today. I found that it was originally added by, of all people, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=12341149&oldid=12255492 Bobblewik], back in mid-April, 2005, where he made an edit saying he was eliminating an inconsistency. He also added the text "Other date forms such as year only (e.g. 1981) should be treated like any other words and linked only if there is some particular relevance.", without mentioning this in the edit summary, nor discussing it on the talk page. A related issue was raised on the talk page, which can be seen in [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive17|archive 17]], however this mentions only the duplicate linking of years (i.e., where a year is linked more than once in an article). I believe this change should have been reverted and discussed on the talk page, especially since the edit summary does not mention this change.

Over time this gradually was changed by various people into the text we have today, as far as I can tell without much discussion, into requiring "special relevance" and a "strong reason" before linking a year. This is a good example of "creeping guidelines", where an important page has been modified slowly but surely over time into what its advocates can now declare are "uncontroversial" guidelines. Now, when people (such as myself) are questioning the guideline, I am being told "this is a part of the guideline, shut up and do something else". Well, I think that is appalling. There are only a few policies on Wikipedia which are not subject to change. I can count them on one hand, and this is definitely not one of them. I've tried to have a debate on this issue a number of times before, but it has always been the case that "the mos says this, end of discussion". Raul's [[User:Raul654/Raul's laws|7th law]], "[a]s time goes on, the rules and informal policies on Wikipedia tend to become less and less plastic and harder and harder to change", applies well here. This is the reason I suggested [[User:Talrias/Task forces proposal|task forces]] - to make sure policies and guidelines are discussed openly, are always available for debate and are not subject to this gradual and incremental modification we've seen on this dates linking fiasco ''(note: I also wrote this on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date delinking: a proposed compromise|the proposed compromise]] page; it seemed appropriate in both places)''. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 23:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I think that wording in the guideline is supported by [[WP:CONTEXT]]. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I don't care about the guideline. I care about its unimportance, and the amount of time being wasted on it. I suggest doing something more important, regardless of what the guideline says. If you want to incorrectly interpret that as "shut up and follow the guideline", feel free. &mdash; <small>_{[[User_talk:Brian0918|<font color="#444444">0918</font>]]}^{<span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">[[User:Brian0918|<b><font color="#222222">BRIAN</font></b>]]</span>} &bull; 2006-03-25 01:09</small>

== Yet another sockpuppet of [[User:Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark]] ==

{{user|Sappho of the Far Hemisphere}} is picking up where prev sockpuppet {{user|Dirae}} left off: going through all my rvts of his previous sockpuppets. Someone please block this account. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*I'm not sure if the 3RR applies when reverting banned users. I'm going to just go ahead and rvt his edits. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 21:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

**The 3RR does not apply in this case. Reverts of banned users or of pure vandalism are not subject to sanction. [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 22:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

*Further proof that it is Zephram: He's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JW1805&diff=prev&oldid=45321975 using an image] that he previously uploaded as Zephram. It appears he is now at Wikipeida Commons, and under the username [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tim Tim], has uploaded many of the images that were deleted from Wikipedia [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tim See here]. Good Lord... --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

** Blocked. Between the image, and the fact that he started up right after Dirae was blocked... - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I indef blocked (so make sure they don't conflict) and tagged and protected both pages.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

: No conflict. Mine was indef as well. That's what happens to sockpuppet accounts of banned users. - [[User:TexasAndroid|TexasAndroid]] 22:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

==Is removing administratove tags considered vandalism?==

[[User:Bonaparte]] removed the tag on his talkpage which read that he has been "blocked indefinitely" on Wiki. [[User:Irpen]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABonaparte&diff=45316167&oldid=45299568 restored] the tag by reverting the page and said that "removing administratove tags is vandalism." Is this really the case? Can't a user have the right to integrity on Wikipedia, or do we have to make the whole world know that they have been blocked? I understand why this is done to sex-offenders in the real world, but why must a user on Wikipedia be stamped with tags that says he has been blocked? This reminds me of the punishments of Medieval Age where offenders were ridiculed and embarrassed in public. --[[User:Anittas|Candide, or Optimism]] 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, Anittas, it is. I also find it laughable that you think this is to do with 'integrity'. What integrity is there in hiding something like that? [[User:Morven|Matthew Brown (Morven)]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 22:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::There is, because there's no reason to have the user feel emberrassed. Now you tell me why the tag is needed. --[[User:Anittas|Candide, or Optimism]] 22:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The tag needs to remain and I have protected the talk page too so that it stays that way. He is a banned user and now has demosntrated he can't be trusted to even edit his own page. Unfortunate.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Why is the tag needed? --[[User:Anittas|Candide, or Optimism]] 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I can think of several reasons. Warning users that any edits they come across by this user may be suspect, for one. Indicating to other users that Wikipedia volunteers have the means available to prevent disruption, for another. Certainly the word 'integrity' does not leap to the mind when considering sockpuppet farms. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning <small>(formerly Malthusian)</small>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samuel_Blanning|(talk)]]</small> 22:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I think it's wrong to punish offenders and use them as an example to scare off other potential offenders. As I said...Medieval. --[[User:Anittas|Candide, or Optimism]] 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I think the tag's not as important as his request to be unblocked - he just made one on his talk page, but no one seems to have responded. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::::He's made loads of requests to be unblocked - via "friends" etc. It's not going to happen any time soon. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 15:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::I don't think it's a 'scare tactic' at all. Rather, as has been said above, I think it's simply a reference for other users as to how seriously to take that user's edits/activity, and can be useful if a similarly named sockpuppet presents itself. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

===Unblock [[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;">&nbsp;Bonaparte&nbsp;</font>]] ===

Bonaparte has more than 4000 edits. He was blocked for more than 3 months now. I request an unblock for him. [[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;">&nbsp;Bonaparte&nbsp;</font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]]<small> & </small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonaparte|<small>contribs</small>]] {{unsigned|86.106.70.104}}

:I'm sorry, that's not gonna happen. In fact, I don't see it happening for years, if ever. --[[User:TML1988|TML1988]] 06:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Another [[User:Zephram Stark|Zephram Stark]] sockpuppet ==

{{user|Ipvirg48of1767}}. Same deal as above. Now this is starting to get ridiculous... --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Like I said, it's time for an entry on ZS at [[WP:LTA|Long term abuse]]. --[[User:TML1988|TML1988]] 01:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::Now this is one of those times where I wish I were an admin...if I were, this account would've been blocked already. Can someone block for me? --[[User:TML1988|TML1988]] 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am among the least able to recognize his sockpuppets, so I could well be wrong, but how about {{user|61.58.53.139}}? [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] ^{[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]} 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User: IP Address]]==

[[User: IP Address]] keeps on making personal attacks on my talk page.^{[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primetime#RE:_Spic]} I warned him on his talk page about the [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy]], but he kept up, anyway. We're having a dispute over an article I wrote, "spic". I kept most of his changes to the entry, even though they're unsourced (my sources are listed at the bottom of the entry) and I think, somewhat irrelevant. Now, he's edit warring with me, even though his version deletes a lot of information. (He says that [[etymology]] is irrelevant to an article about a word.)^{[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spic]} His current version is unacceptable because it deletes a lot of helpful information and it's repetitive. Thanks.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:See here...[[User_talk:Will_Beback#Spic]] [[User:IP Address|IP Address]] 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a heated content dispute. --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|^<b>talk</b>]] 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a waste of time for you lot. [[User:IP Address|IP Address]] 23:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see why all of his changes should be kept, but none of mine should. He hasn't compromised with me one bit and he's made personal attacks on me. His behavior seems very unacceptable to me.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you want the article merely to reflect your Wiktionary approach. [[User:Will Beback]] has already commented on this and has instructed you what is the proper course of action. It's not merely me that you are running into problems with. Perhaps you should [[WP:AGF]]? [[User:IP Address|IP Address]] 23:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:'''Will Beback has not commented on the matter.''' Please, someone intervene! Help!--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 23:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You want somebody to help in your [[smear campaign]] against me, is that it? [[User:IP Address|IP Address]] 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:You have provided no evidence to back up your claims. This is remarkable! Can someone please intervene!--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked both Primetime and IP Address for 12 hours for violating 3RR and appealed to them to come back to this issue with cool heads when their blocks expire. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning <small>(formerly Malthusian)</small>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samuel_Blanning|(talk)]]</small> 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I certainly haven't commented on this matter. Thanks to Sam giving this edit war a timeout. -Will Beback 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== Poliomyelitis ==

Could [[Poliomyelitis]] be semi-protected please? There is a spate of Vitamin C from IP addresses, at least if they are User IDs there is a little consistency in the trail. [[User:Midgley|Midgley]] 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:Doesn't seem in need of sprotection and has cooled off today. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:Benapgar|Benapgar]] indefinitely blocked. ==

I have indefinitely blocked {{vandal|Benapgar}} for incivility and disruption. As those who are familiar with his case (or his block log) know, Benapgar has had a detailed history of disruption and obscene personal attacks against other editors, especially as regards to the article [[Intelligent design]]. There is currently a [[WP:RFAR]] filed against him for this reason, which has not (at the time of this writing) been opened.

Some recent diffs, for which he was recently issued his second 1 month block (which I have extended to an indefinite block):

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WarriorScribe&diff=prev&oldid=45233698] "You are a fucking tool."

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWarriorScribe&diff=45235566&oldid=45235042] "How about this: Jesus H. Motherfucking Cocksucking Christ you are a Goddamned fucking idiot. How's that, shitfuck?" Also includes an image of a [[Prince Albert piercing]] on another user's talk page.

I don't see any need to waste the time of the Arbitration Committee with this user; in my opinion, he should be considered banned from the English Wikipedia. --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|^<b>talk</b>]] 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:I concur. No need to waste the ArbCom's time with this one. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::Good call, Ryan. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 00:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:I heartily agree with this move, which, in my opinion, is what the Arbitration Committee would have decided anyway, and I have suggested to the rest of the Committee that we avert the case despite the number of accept votes it had before this. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 00:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::As I have noted in private, I endorse this. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] ^{[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]} 00:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:::As do I. [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 01:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Ambi is revert-warring ==

{{Admin|Ambi}} is mass reverting edits by [[User:Quadell|Quadell]]. This already happened a few weeks back with Bobblewik. I don't think massive revert-warring is appropriate behavior for an admin. Also note that Ambi's edits are in direct opposition to the [[WP:DATE|established guideline]]. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:They should both stop it. Quadell is fully aware of the situation and the fact that Bobblewik has collected escalating blocks for exactly the same editorial behaviour, having recently collected one himself. I am minded to block him likewise. Ambi should should stop reverting, because one crusade is as bad as the next. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

: Cyde, you know full well that the section in question has been under debate for several months now. Please stop selectively ignoring some of the facts of this situation. It's duplicitous. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::That has nothing to do with revert-warring being a bad thing. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 18:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::: In that case, I suppose you'll also inculpate [[user:Vsmith|Vsmith]] for the same action - mass reverting - of Ambi's edits? [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 18:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Revert warring is wrong, whoever does it. And this is a bloody stupid thing to revert war over. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] ^{[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]} 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::::VSmith reverted or rolled back four edits, that had been made to articles he watches and was happy about. Ambi '''rolled back''' several hundred edits without checking them. Ambi has done this numerous times, and has had many people complain about it on her talk page (including me). Ambi is using her admin powers in a content dispute, as is Talrias. Ambi has also promised to revert any edits of this nature made by Bobblewik and I think Quadell. Yes there are arguments on both sides of the dispute, but using Admin tools in a content dispute is even worse than the edit war in the first place. Ambi and Talrias have also blocked users over this content dispute, which is in my opinion, plain wrong. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/talktome| Farmbrough]]'' 22:00 [[26 March]] [[2006]] (UTC).

== OrphanBot ==

{{user|OrphanBot}} must be blocked immediately. It meets several criteria for blocking. First of all, it disrupts the editing process. It basically spams Wikipedians who then must go back and (re-)tag images. True, these Wikipedians were responsible in the first place for not following image-tagging rules, but we must decide what we want this project to be. Are we going to let the rules fill talk-pages and make Wikipedian morale suffer? The way I see it, OrphanBot is a horrible thing that invariably acts in *bad faith*. I saw one case where a user left due to OrphanBot’s incessant spamming of him and ultimate deletion of his content, which could have been very important content.

OrphanBot is also inefficient inasmuch as many users will simply appease it by placing the wrong tag, just to save their important images and to get the obnoxious OrphanBot to leave them alone. It would be much better to simply have Wikipedians looking out for image-policy violations, since Wikipedians are able to follow-up. OrphanBot is easily fooled and I have to wonder how many great images it’s caused us to lose for no reason other than to stroke its creator’s ego.

Please take this proposal seriously; this bot is hated among Wikipedians and must go now.

<font face="Verdana" color="#000000">^{[[User:Juppiter|juppiter]]} </font> [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> <small> [[User_talk:Juppiter|bon giorno]] [[Special:Contributions/Juppiter|#c]]</small></font> 06:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

: I disagree with this comment. The OrphanBot is doing a huge amount of tedious but good work. If administrators would write to you about an image, the message would be basically the same.

::Destruction is good work? I thought Wikipedia was about information. We would be slower using human beings, but what rush are we in? It's not like the English Wikipedia is being published next month and all copyrights must be secure. We have plenty of time, and all this bot does is get things deleted. Isn't the goal to keep the images on wikipedia and just tag them? <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">^{[[User:Juppiter|juppiter]]} </font> [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> <small> [[User_talk:Juppiter|bon giorno]] [[Special:Contributions/Juppiter|#c]]</small></font> 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::: No, but Wikipedia is rapidly becoming a highly-popular site, which makes us more of a magnet for litigation. And who said that we have to wait until we publish to secure copyright? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])} 07:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Yes, it *is* becoming highly-popular. But the masses will abandon us if they start finding that every time they come here, the deletionists have gotten their hands on something else. I'm all for rules, but this adherence to the rules is much much too strict. We must put it in the hands of Wikipedians to control this privately, and not with this bot. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">^{[[User:Juppiter|juppiter]]} </font> [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> <small> [[User_talk:Juppiter|bon giorno]] [[Special:Contributions/Juppiter|#c]]</small></font> 07:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::We are published now - this isn't a private site by any means. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

: Could you please provide evidence on who left Wikipedia because of "OrphanBot’s incessant spamming"? [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 06:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::Someone on OrphanBot's talk page said they were leaving because of it. Who knows if they actually did? The comment was unsigned. But coming on and finding 10 image tag messages definitely does not put one in a good mood. It's very discouraging and makes this a more contentious atmosphere than it should be. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">^{[[User:Juppiter|juppiter]]} </font> [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> <small> [[User_talk:Juppiter|bon giorno]] [[Special:Contributions/Juppiter|#c]]</small></font> 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, and properly tagging images is required to verify its license. I'd rather be notified that an image I uploaded is lacking a proper tag so that I could quickly correct it, rather than later finding it deleted per Wikipedia policy.&#160;— [[User:TheKMan|'''<font color="#0000FF">The</font><font color="#FF0000">KMan</font>''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|<font color="#000000">^<u>talk</u></font>]] 06:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with you 100% that copyright should not be taken a joke, but like I said OrphanBot is not efficient. People get so annoyed with it that they'll just stick any old tag on their image (& I know because I've done it) and then not learn their lesson. In addition, the bot makes mistakes and will continue harassing you sometimes even after you've put everything on the page that logically needs to be there (i.e. the times when you actually put the right tag on instead of just trying to shut the damn thing up.) A peer-to-peer system is much better since the templates would not pile up on talk pages so much (I have about 5 on mine right now) and it would decrease aggravation. Remember, Wikipedia could survive without the bot. Without users, it cannot. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">^{[[User:Juppiter|juppiter]]} </font> [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> <small> [[User_talk:Juppiter|bon giorno]] [[Special:Contributions/Juppiter|#c]]</small></font> 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for admitting that you've deliberately mistagged images. We are currently far too lenient on people who upload non-free material. There is no way that humans could realistically tag all unknown uploads. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] 15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

: If people leave over orphan bot, those are the type of people that should leave the project anyways, since copyright violations bring harm to the project. Oprhanbot, and it;s creator, are doing a good job. The uploaders are notified, and if the license is changed to something false, we catch it and run orphan bot again. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 06:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:: It is not always a violation, maybe just a general ignorance of image policy! The bot certainly doesn’t help with educating people on that (maybe its text says something about it, it’s very unlikely that anyone does more than skim the message.) I don’t think rules were meant to be broken, but there needs to be leeway. It’s raising acrimony. Acrimony is bad. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">^{[[User:Juppiter|juppiter]]} </font> [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]]<font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> <small> [[User_talk:Juppiter|bon giorno]] [[Special:Contributions/Juppiter|#c]]</small></font> 07:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::::We cannot afford to have ignorance as an excuse for contributing to more avenues of attack that third parties have on us. If someone comes along and uploads something which has been copyrighted, and some litigious content owner sues Wikimedia, we are up the creek without a paddle, and no amount of "I didn't know" is going to help us. The image upload page makes it very ''very'' plain as to the responsibilities of anyone uploading any media file to this web site. [[User:Robchurch|Rob]] [[User_talk:Robchurch|Church]] 19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::The bot message does point you to [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]] and [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]]. I'm not exactly sure how a message that you say no one really reads causes acrimony. Personally, I find the wording to be rather friendly, though I can see how things could get redundant if multiple images are involved.&#160;— [[User:TheKMan|'''<font color="#0000FF">The</font><font color="#FF0000">KMan</font>''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|<font color="#000000">^<u>talk</u></font>]] 07:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:: The problem is the image taggers. OrphanBot merely carries the image tags out. Some people continue to tag an image as "no source" despite it being self-evident that the user created it. For example, I have uploaded an image with the summary, "by me" and it was still tagged as no source because I used the GFDL template rather than GFDL-self. I later found out it was deleted. This infuriated me quite a bit. [[User:Natalinasmpf|Elle <small>_{<font color="#CC9920">vécut heureuse</font>}</small> <small><font color="blue">^{à jamais}</font></small>]] ([[User talk:Natalinasmpf|Be eudaimonic!]]) 15:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:::The way I look at it is simply that Orphanbot is far better than having nothing (ie, hoping some wikipedians decide to sort through the then-massive backlog of untagged images). Sure, some people may find it annoying, but think of it this way: Once you learn how to properly tag images, you never hear from it again. Sure, incorrect tagging is a big problem, but not one that should be blamed on Orphanbot. I have a feeling that users that mistag images would do the same thing if told by another person that their image was untagged. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Yep. I think OrphanBot's doing a great service with image tagging; the actual humans doing the tagging and deleting are the ones who occasionally screw up, and would do so, bot or no. This is a really humongous problem, to the point where it would be impossible for a human to tackle without automated assistance, and from what I've seen of OrphanBot it does its task quite well. [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 01:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think OrphanBot is acticvely helping us make a better encyclopedia, and if there are failings here, they're all on the part of the human editors. -[[User:Colin Kimbrell|Colin Kimbrell]] 20:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:I think the functions that OrphanBot are undertaking are good ones, but I think it should be taken down a notch. It is behaving a bit over-zealously. I am particularly concerned about the occasional user that visits less frequently than once a week, who may not see the tag and find their contributions deleted. I was working with someone trying to track down a source and a picture got deleted. Here are some possible modifications to its behavior:

:#Extend the time period to longer than a week. I'd vote for a month. I've seen several images deleted from users that do not visit frequently, and thus are unaware that their images were deleted. I'm afraid to go on vacation.

:#Many images were uploaded before there were tags or rules. Assume good faith on any old images by putting them in a category to be reviewed by a human who can make sense of an edit history that says "by me".

:#Create an easy way for people to remove the image from the destructive powers of the bot. Perhaps a template for images that are being researched. Also have instructions with the bot's warning about how to add such a tag.

:#Create some standard templates for adding source material that is independent of the language of the Wikipedia version an image is uploaded to. I've copied many images from Japanese Wikipedia and it is very difficult to determine who the creator of the image is without being able to read Japanese. An iconic format would make it possible to get the information no matter what the language. Create new fields in the image upload page that must get completed (date of copyright, photographer, etc..), with options to say "unknown". These would be automatically inserted into the iconic image-information-template.

::-- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::#The seven-day limit is official policy, decreed by Jimbo Wales. If you want it changed, bring it up with him. (And before R.D.H starts shouting [[Nuremberg Defense]] again, it's a policy I agree with)

::#Image tagging has only been a policy for a little over two years now. Any image that hasn't been tagged or sourced despite extensive warnings, two major tagging drives, and plenty of notice probably won't ever be. If the upload history says "by me", then presumably the person who tagged the image and the person who deleted it had good reason to ignore it.

::#You've got seven days from the day the tag is put on. If that's not long enough, save the image to your hard drive and re-upload it once you've found the answer.

::#A good idea, if you can come up with something. In the mean time, there's [[WP:BABEL]].

:::--[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::It's difficult to respond, because many of the premises of the argument are factually incorrect. Orphanbot doesn't make any decision with regards to any image, it doesn't ''decide'' something is not sourced or licensed, human editors do. It also doesn't delete image, human administrators do. Orphanbot's main roles are informing uploaders that the image might be deleted (a service not at all required by policy) and delinking the image from articles, which is a way to notify people who may be interesting in the articles that something is wrong, and help the admins when we are deleting images that are at least 7 days old (almost always longer since we are very backlogged). Assuming your only complaint is that you are notified about images that might be deleted (since all other aspects of your argument are substantively false) I don't know what would be more helpful. I agree that if you are a new user uploading, say, 15 unsourced images the amount of messages and general response might be overwhelming, but you are, in fact, creating a lot of work for people. I think the message the bot leaves is fairly helpful, but you also seem to think no one will read it, so that might be moot. If the bot didn't help at all the messages usually used are {{tl|image source}} and {{tl|image copyright}}, which, to me, seem pretty similar in tone and content to what orphanbot does. We have also recently created [[Wikipedia:Image legality questions]] for people to get help with images they have been notified about, and links to that page are included in the two templates listed above as well as orphanbot's message.

::::I guess my question is, I understand your frustration with having to tag images and say where the source was, and with the general copyright law of the US, but what would be the solution? It sounds like maybe you would prefer us to not worry about it? Also, remember that hundreds of images are uploaded everyday with incomplete information, so any solution needs to take that into account. As people have said above, if there is a mistake it's some human editor's mistake, we all make them, but remember for every mistake that an image tagger makes there are probably 1000 images they have tagged correctly and saved from being deleted. That's the ultimate goal, to save images we can, and lessen the legal liability of Wikipedia by removing the ones we can't. There are tens of thousands of untagged images, and as of now we just don't have enough people to not use any automation - <font style="color:#137300;">[[User:Cohesion|'''cohesion''']]</font>^{<font style="color:#f98c0d;">[[User_talk:Cohesion|'''t''']]</font>} 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::I would feel better if the seven days began to tick when the uploader was notified or when the image was removed from articles (thus notifying the articles' community). Often the person doing the tagging does neither, and since OrphanBot typically doesn't visit until the fifth day, both the uploader and article's editors sometimes only discover two days in advance that the picture is in danger. Many nonwikipediaholics will miss that window entirely, and the burden of trying to research and save the image falls to the admin on day 8. I propose that either OrphanBot visit tagged images earlier in the week, or that it postdate the NL/NS tags to 7 days after its visit. '''''×'''''[[User:Meegs|Meegs]] 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Instantnood, post Arbcom==

Instantnood has now had his [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3#Final_decision|second Arbcom case]] finalized. Since it was finalized, Instantnood has continued the exact same behavior he's been restricted from doing: edit warring over naming issues and making POV re-orgs (and edit warring with those that change it).

Of 73 article space edits, '''53% of them(!!)''' are the prohibited behavior. Earlier today, he managed to rack up almost 30 reverts in a single hour of editing. On most of the pages he's edited, his revert wars take up the last several weeks (or months!) of page history.

So, can I ask an admin to take action? You can see a breakdown of the edits on this subpage: [[User:SchmuckyTheCat/Mick Jagger]]. Last few times I've reported his warring the response was crickets. Now that Arbcom had to rule AGAIN that he's a disruptive revert warrior...

[[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 09:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:Looked over his edits and I agree with you. Blocked for 48 hours. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 00:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==IP Address 24.199.123.229==

This IP address has continuosly been adding spam links to certain Tool related pages([[10,000 Days]] and [[Tool (band)]]. They have been warned and I think it's about time to consider a block. Hope I got this in the right place! [[User:Hellboy1975|hellboy]] 09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

== Possible Gastrich Sock ==

[[User:70751]] has a short and suspicious [[Special:Contributions/70751|edit history]], consisting solely of edits to Gastrich's userpage, and an unaccredited Christian College. Sockpuppetry is in direct violation of the terms of his arbitration. Is this worthy of a CheckUser request? [[User:Hexagonal|Hexagonal]] 10:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:I blocked him. Typical Gastrich sock behavior. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 11:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

==User:BenJohansenRulz|BenJohansenRulz==

Is there any way someone can stop this user from reverting my [[Bridges In Connecticut]] page? Doesn't 3RR rule apply here? Im gettin tired of dealing with this guy.[[User:Robot Builder|Robot Builder]] 10:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:None of [[User:BenJohansenRulz]], [[Bridges In Connecticut]], [[Bridges in Connecticut]], or [[User:Robot Builder]] exist or have ever existed. Can you be just a bit clearer? [[User:Eugene van der Pijll|Eugene van der Pijll]] 12:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. [[User:Robot Builder]] does in fact exist, as he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=45400408&oldid=45400221 posted the above while logged in]. [[Bridges in Connecticut]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Bridges+in&namespace=0 does not currently exist], and does not seem to have ever existed. Can't find [[User:BenJohansenRulz]] in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=BenJohansenRulz&page= log], either. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:#002bb8;cursor:crosshair;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)''

:I apologize to Robot Builder for my inaccurate statement. [[User:Eugene van der Pijll|Eugene van der Pijll]] 12:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::That's very nice of you Eugene, and I'm sure the user appreciates it. But to the issue at hand, he seems to have made only [[Special:Contributions/Robot_Builder|one edit]], the one to this board, so I'm rather afraid I don't have any idea what the complaint is about. The toolserver seems to be down so I can't check if he had made deleted edits. —''[[User:Encephalon|<span style="font-family:Times;color:#002bb8;cursor:crosshair;">'''Encephalon'''</span>]] 13:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)''

:::I think we just got punk'd. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:He's at it ''again''! I am no longer going to contribute to your website until you remove him![[User:Robot Builder|Robot Builder]] 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::You still haven't contributed to this website yet...except here. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Never mind. I took care of it myself![[User:Robot Builder|Robot Builder]] 03:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have indefinetly blocked this user for trolling. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|^(talk)]] 04:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==Unblock [[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;">&nbsp;Bonaparte&nbsp;</font>]] ==

Bonaparte has more than 4000 edits. He was blocked for more than 3 months now. I request an unblock for him. [[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;">&nbsp;Bonaparte&nbsp;</font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]]<small> & </small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonaparte|<small>contribs</small>]]{{unsigned|86.106.70.104}}

:Interesting how this IP refers to Bonaparte in the third person (particularly in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=45405568 this edit]'s edit summary) but uses his signature, complete with colour coding. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning <small>(formerly Malthusian)</small>]] <small>[[User_talk:Samuel_Blanning|(talk)]]</small> 14:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::I think it's a cut-and-paste [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:On behalf of Wikipedia I have this to say Bonaparte, uhhh no. <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]^{[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]}</small> ---- 03:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the IP that placed this request is an open proxy. Open proxy fraud was exactly the activity that got Bonaparte permabanned. Should the IP be blocked as well? --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 06:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, per [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies]]. [[User:Robchurch|Rob]] [[User_talk:Robchurch|Church]] 19:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==JarlaxleArtemis: WP:AN/BJAODN==

(moved from [[WP:AN]] as it's a current problem)

<pre>

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>

To: [e-mail]

Date: 25-Mar-2006 09:29

Subject: New subscription request to list CheckUser-l from [e-mail]

Your authorization is required for a mailing list subscription request

approval:

For: [e-mail]

List: [e-mail]

At your convenience, visit:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/admindb/checkuser-l

to process the request.

</pre>

<nowiki>*</nowiki>splutter* - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 11:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:And he just tried a password request from every admin on Uncyclopedia. Well done! He's been long blocked there too, for uploading porn, and I've blocked his IP for a month from Uncyclopedia. I've done so preemptively on Wikipedia too, because he's clearly in the mood for trashing stuff. I wonder what other wikis he's going to hit - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::Lirpedia? [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] ^{[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]} 15:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:::[http://www.whitenationalism.info WNwiki]? (not worksafe) The wiki where wall to wall goatseing is an improvement? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::::[[user:JarlaxleArtemis]] was previously banned permanently for attacks on editors on a variety of Wikis. He was unbanned in November 2005 on the urging of [[user:Linuxbeak]] conditional on certian requirements, including mentoring parole, apologies to harmed users, and turning over the passwords of doppelganger accounts that he had created. Because he never fulfilled those requirements he has been blocked, though he seems to be making some effort at meeting them, even while claiming he was never guilty of the allegations and has already completed the requirements. If this new act of mischief can be traced to him I propose that either his permanent banning, or the one-year banning originally pending at the ArbCom be re-instated on the grounds that this is a gross violation of his parole. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Vote Stacking]] at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan]]==

[[User:Bertilvidet]]s posting of this VfD on 14 talk pages.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DuncanBCS&diff=prev&oldid=45345117] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hectorian&diff=prev&oldid=45344544] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mukadderat&diff=prev&oldid=45344474] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Latinus&diff=prev&oldid=45344415] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NikoSilver&diff=prev&oldid=45344394] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Giant&diff=prev&oldid=45344154] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scranchuse&diff=prev&oldid=45344100] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Staffelde&diff=prev&oldid=45344063]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&diff=prev&oldid=45344022]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Choalbaton&diff=prev&oldid=45343887]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhoeble&diff=prev&oldid=45343817]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moby_Dick&diff=prev&oldid=45342744]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tazmaniacs&diff=prev&oldid=45342713] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mais_oui%21&diff=prev&oldid=45342690]

--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:IMO it complies with the proposed policy [[Wikipedia:Vote Stacking]]. All Bertil is doing is posting a link to the AFD. He's not telling people what to vote Without him informing me, I wouldn't have known about the debate. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 19:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::It does say that 'Notifing only people who you believe would agree with "your" position is a violation of this guideline'. I haven't checked yet, but it would seriously surprise me if any of the people he notified didn't vote with him, in which case I think action is still warranted. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked two sockpuppets participatig in the debate and will be keeping an eye on matters. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:You only blocked {{vandal|Hybridlily}}, one of the sockpuppets for 24 hours, whereas {{vandal|Shanex}} was blocked indefinitely. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 19:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

::That was negligent of me. Moment. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:Will anyone adress my request? --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 20:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::As a part in this case, I am curious to know what exactly is requested. [[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]] 13:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And do what? Strike out all the "keep" votes? I don't think that's possible... also, I think that it would be assuming bad faith (i.e. violating [[WP:AGF]]) to assume that Bertil only notified user who he believed would vote keep - there is no evidence that he believed any such thing (this is not wikilawyering - it is a defect in the proposed guideline and I have brought it to the attention of the guideline's authors so that they can remedy it). --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Nonono. First, you (Latinus) already have a conflicting bias in this situation: you have been notified (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Latinus&diff=prev&oldid=45344415) via talk page, and have voted keep. It's not your fault, but you can already be considered tainted. Second: the following people who have been contacted have voted on the AFD:

:*DuncanBCS - keep

:*Hectorian - keep

:*Mukadderat - keep

:*Latinus - Strong keep

:*Nikosilver - Keep

:*Scranchuse - Keep

:*Choalbaton - Keep

:*Bhoeble - Keep

:*Moby Dick - Strong Keep

:*Tazmaniacs - Keep

:*Mais oui! - Keep

:Three of the editors that were contacted did not participate in the AFD: Green Giant, Staffelde, and KillerChihuahua. You state that you think it would be assuming bad faith to assume that Bertil notified only users who he believed would vote keep... there's a difference between assuming good faith and being dense. Of ''course'' he only notified people that would agree with him; why would he notify people who would disagree with him? I mean, come on. Whatever your take on the issue is, it's blatantly obvious what has happened here. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] (drop me a [[User_talk:Linuxbeak|line]]) 00:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Excuse me, but I had edited [[Turkish Kurdistan]] twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=prev&oldid=43712767][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=prev&oldid=43717935] prior to it being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_Kurdistan&diff=45321691&oldid=45305924 placed on AFD] and prior to [[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMoby_Dick&diff=45342744&oldid=44719016 message] to me, so I would have expressed my view, message or not. I have had only minor communication with Bertilvidet, so it is rather presumptuous to assume that he could know what my view would be.

:: Where's this ridiculous policy going to go in the end? Disenfranchise all users who receive such a message? Now there's an idea with potential for abuse. --[[User:Moby Dick|Moby]] 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Oh, I have changed my 'vote' on the AFD to ''Strong Keep'' and am now updating the list above. --[[User:Moby Dick|Moby]] 09:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just got aware of this post. Cool Cat, when you posted a complaint about me I believe it would have been decent if you informed me about it.

The debate on the AfD became quite unpleasant, so I dont find it fruitful to advance my case there. Retrospectively, I can see that my spread of the word about the AfD could seem abusive. However, I want to underline that on purpose I sent it to people who I believe are open for arguments, and I didnt expect a common outcome. Furthermore I avoided to send it to people personally involved in the issue (didn't sent it to people I know as Kurdish or Turkish users). I also noticed that the message was passed on to the Turkish and Iranian users, who I would expect to support deletion - in most cases with the argument that voters should be gathered to get majority for deletion. In that situation I believed that a broad range of users with different backgrounds should have the possibility to voice their views on the issue.

In a short time, there have been several proposals for deletion of categories, stubs and articles related to Kurds - which has become rather trite, and probably created an atmosphere of irritation with lots of inappropriate comments (including personal attacks, semi racist and anti-Turkish comments). May I suggest that we from now on concentrate our efforts on improving Wikipedia, and consider our different approaches as an advantagde in order to write NPOV and balanced articles. [[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]] 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:As the accused part I am eager to get comments, including criticism if I did anything wrong. I do however demand my exculpation. 1) Taking into account that the AfD is controversial I believe that the ''request for deletion should be widely known''. It is not satisfying that only one part is informed - and I believe outsiders with interest in the subject, but not personally involved, should be invited to weigh in. The side in favour of deletion cannot have the monoply on deciding who should be infromed. 2) I consider Wikipedia as a global site, and thus I believe in ''a broad inclusion of people taking decisions''. Is it only up to Turks and Kurds to determine whether there should be an article on [[Turkish Kurdistan]]? I sincerely dont think so. 3) The policy that I am charged for, and plead not guilty, violating is only ''proposed, not passed nor implemented''.

:(Despite this debate I recently made another AfD, please tell me if I violated anything by posting [[Wikipedia_talk:Danish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Proposed_deletion|this]]).[[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]] 09:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::You dont gather "artificial concensus" bu just adveritising people you know will vote as you do. If you have to advertise you generaly ask one or two people who would write a rationale to make up a case either supporting ot opposing the deletion rather than gathering plain keep/delete votes.

::The vote is advertised on AfD page to everyone, Turk/Kurd or not. If you didn't mass advertised the result would be similar to [[Syrian Kurdistan]].

::Gathering tens of votes agreeing with you is NOT good practice. Do you really think it is aproporate to collect one sided votes?

::Sorry I am the most 'indecent' person out there, I do not advertise WP:ANI/I posts I make. I also do not advertise any vote to more than 2 people.

::--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

1) By insisting on claiming that I knew how people would vote, despite my refusal of this, is a breach of [[WP:AGF]]. 2) I do not agree that a vote is more fair the fewer that participate in the debate. 3) It is still a proposed policy. This little debate has inspired me to suggest that the rule about vote stacking should go hand in hand with an obligation to inform involved parties about a AfD. See [[Wikipedia_talk:Vote_Stacking#And_nominators_obligation_to_inform...]] [[User:Bertilvidet|Bertilvidet]] 19:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Even if that's the case - next time, do it by e-mail (it happens a lot - you have no idea how many e-mails of this nature I get from various users). The fact that [[User:TuzsuzDeliBekir|TuzsuzDeliBekir]] indulged in the same practice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A-Inanna-&diff=45397775&oldid=45389568], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ugur_Basak&diff=prev&oldid=45397697], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metb82&diff=prev&oldid=45397798], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raki-holic&diff=prev&oldid=45397755], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hakozen&diff=prev&oldid=45397742], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AverageTurkishJoe&diff=prev&oldid=45397729], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adkagansu&diff=prev&oldid=45397714] doesn't seem to bother Cool Cat... I'll refrain from comment... --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== SmackBot not reviewing edits ==

Please block [[User:Smackbot]].

Not reviewing every edit as required by AWB. Blindly piped UK and US in the [[List of all two-letter combinations]].

Did that repeatedly on the same page, after being reverted, and after notes on the talk page. AWB doesn't work well unmonitored.

Now, it just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_three-letter_English_words&diff=45487258&oldid=43681687 unlinked] "[[max]] [[may]] [[med]]" to "[[max]] May [[med]]" at [[List of three-letter English words]]. Again, AWB doesn't work well unmonitored. And there's simply no reason what-so-ever to unlink months! Or words that might be months!

:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Heck, it's worse than that! Reviewing the contributions (that it's making every 6 seconds), I see that it moves the trailing <nowiki>]]s to s]]</nowiki> on piped links. That's against [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Form]].

:--[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 00:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Have you tried contacting the bot's owner? [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[User:Hermione1980|<font color="green">''e''</font>]][[User:Hermione1980|rmione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the past! And posted on the [[WT:B]] page. --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::But you posted on [[WT:B]] before my user page. I resolved the then issue (I thought). And now you have posted on about half a dozen admin pages without coming back to me, when I was quite prepared to bend over backwards to accomodate you, and am still prepared to sort out any difficulty, fix any one off errors and scan for and revert any systemic that are confirmed to be wrong. I don't see how I alienated you here. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/talktome| Farmbrough]]'' 17:57 [[26 March]] [[2006]] (UTC).

And Slim Virgin blocked it yesterday --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 01:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::But two minutes later he said:

:::::"Actually Rich, now that I check the edits more carefully, it seems only to be delinking days and months, which so far as I know, no one objects to, so I'm going to unblock it. My apologies. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 07:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)"

:I have blocked SmackBot for three hours and notified Rich Farmbrough on his talk page. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[User:Hermione1980|<font color="green">''e''</font>]][[User:Hermione1980|rmione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you! --[[User:William Allen Simpson|William Allen Simpson]] 01:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now, so I hereby give any admin permission to unblock SmackBot if Rich Farmbrough gives assurance that he has fixed these issues, or if said admin feels I have blocked in error. [[User:Hermione1980|H]][[User:Hermione1980|<font color="green">''e''</font>]][[User:Hermione1980|rmione]]'''[[User talk:Hermione1980|1980]]''' 02:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Well I did unblock the account but only to extend the block.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 02:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::Hi, Geni did the right thing, there's no point putting a short block on a bot. I will be back later to discuss. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/talktome| Farmbrough]]'' 13:42 [[26 March]] [[2006]] (UTC).

==Posting of personal information==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America&diff=45498999&oldid=45498075#Jews_Did_WTC This edit] seems to me to contravene the "Posting of personal information" section of [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]. I'm inclined to permablock [[user:Femmina]] over this; this user appears to have few if any constructive wikipedia edits, and some downright unacceptable ones [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Femmina&diff=28918695&oldid=28858022]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=prev&oldid=40346234]. Opinions? -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 01:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure whether a permablock is warranted, but, as loath as I am to stand up for a GNAA member, I would at least temporarily block him until this is resolved. If this isn't considered personal information, it's certainly darn close. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 01:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::That first edit does look inappropriate and was removed. The other two, however, are ancient by Wikipedia standards. Barring future incidents, I'm not sure this is a huge deal (and a permablock seems like overkill). And if it makes you feel any better, InShaneee, you're not standing up for a GNAA member, you're standing up for evenhandedness, equal treatment, and [[WP:AGF]]. Or something. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 02:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Another bit of info in Femmina's defense: after I removed the section in question for being largely irrelevant to the article, Femmina came by and removed the corresponding URL at the bottom, which I'd missed, which indicates to me that, at the very least, Femmina is not simply looking to attack, and perhaps didn't understand why posting pic links from articles like that should be avoided; I really think we should just AGF, instruct Femmina not to post photos corresponding to editors' real-life personae, and call this "resolved". [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I hate to admit it, but now that I see the dates on those older edits, and considering this user's never been warned, I have to agree. Let's just explain to him what was wrong about what he did, and see how things go from there. Who wants to take a crack at it? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 02:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== IP vandal ==

Here's an interesting situation. {{user|152.163.100.197}} is an AOL proxy, and all said address seems to do is collect warnings, as a look at the talk page will illustrate. Is there a policy regarding blocking proxy addresses in a situation where all it seems to be used for is vandalism? There are other edits on the IP, but they seem to be nothing more substantial than simple wikilinking. [[User:MSJapan|MSJapan]] 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:No, that's exactly the problem. An AOL IP can be used by ANY AOL user, even the productive ones. No matter how much vandalism we get from them (and, as everyone knows, it's a whole lot of a whole ton, to put it lightly), we have to stick with short-term blocks. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Possible return of Willy? ==

[[User:GarageDoor]] just edited [[Talk:Humour]] with {{tl|move}}, suggesting that the page be renamed "Humour on wheels!" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humour&diff=prev&oldid=45504789]. I gave the user a {{tl|test2}}. S/he has no other edits, but I'm mildly concerned that this user is another Willy on Wheels incarnation. I'm not totally sure what to do, though, so I thought I'd post it here and let someone who's got a better idea of how to handle this user decide if anything further needs to be done. Thanks. [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 02:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Probably an inpersonator. Willy's MO has been largly neutralised these days.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 02:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Well at Meta we had a massive attack the other day... no "on wheels" notes but still... --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::There are other page move vandles.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 03:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== User Evading Block ==

There are three user pages being edited by a single user- [[User:213.121.151.142]], which is currently the subject of a 48 hour block; [[User:Ask me]], and [[User:Kingofspades]]. Given that they have all been editing the James Blunt article, and the last entry on the talk page of User:213.121.151.142 celebrates the further opportunity to vandalize that article, I suspect they are all the same person. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:[[WP:RFCU]]. --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|^<b>talk</b>]] 05:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you, I have forwarded this to the correct page. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::If it's blatantly obvious that someone is a sockpuppet, don't bother with RFCU. Just do what's necessary and take it further only if there is a complaint. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] ^{[[User talk:Sam Korn|(smoddy)]]} 11:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:Tammy I Had Better NOT See YOU With ANOTHER MAN!!]]==

I'm about to permablock this user based on their username, which appears to combine a personal attack with an attempt to engage in personal communications through Wikipedia - any objections? [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

: None at all. Just do it. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])} 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Go right ahead *thumb up*. Good find. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 05:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::Done, thanks! Turns out there are many similar ones on today's block log. [[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background:gold">'''''BDAbramson'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|'''T''']] 05:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::For some reason, I loved that username... --[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|Jeffrey O. Gustafson]] - ''[[User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Shazaam|Shazaam!]]'' - [[User_Talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson|&lt;*&gt;]] 08:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:TurdPyle]]==

This contributer has been vandalizing my user page with his lawnchair buisiness links for what seems like forever now. Could admin please put a stop to this.[[User:Biker Chick|Biker Chick]] 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Not to mention his borderline offensive username.[[User:Biker Chick|Biker Chick]] 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::I checked and that user name does not exist. I will see if the name is spelt differently on your talk page. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I do not see anything at all: the first edit this account made was to this posting here. There is nothing I, or anyone else, can do here. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 06:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys blind? It's right there! Right next to the panda bear link.[[User:Biker Chick|Biker Chick]] 06:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean open your friggin eyes![[User:Biker Chick|Biker Chick]] 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:This user was spamming WP, so I issued an indef block. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 06:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this got removed during one of yesterday's server burps:

:Looks like the return of [[User:Robot Builder]]. In future, if I encounter more such trolling, I will be removing the entire thread from ANI. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|^(talk)]] 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User|Eleemosynary]]==

Tonight I reverted an edit from {{user|Eleemosynary}} on [[Snakes on a Plane]] as unsourced and unverifiable. It was an edit claiming the entire movie was a hoax, sourced by a blog article. As blogs are generally not considered acceptable sources, I removed the disputed section. I noted that it had already been removed by another user once before. In my edit sumamry I explained my actions. Eleemosynary reverted back, claiming my blanking was vandalism. I removed the material once again, and brought it to the users talk page, asking that they kindly don't refer to my edits as vandalism (assuming good faith), and explained why I did what I did. The user then came onto my talk page with a condescending and rude, uncivil tone. Here are some quality excerpts:

"Your unilateral blanking of the section is very close to vandalism. Apparently, you need reminding of it."<br>

I then asked them not to come back to my talk page with an uncivil tone. I was greeted with this: <br>

"I'll come "here" in any tone I choose. Your blanking without explaining why on the talk page was a moronic move, and you've been called on it. Deal with it. I'll get my source, restore what you blanked, and you'll still be a... hey, you might want to check WP:DICK too." <br>

I asked again for them not to come back to my talk page with an uncivil tone. I received <br>

"I give as good as I get."<br>

I then added the <nowiki>{{subst:Civil1}}</nowiki> tag to their talk. Note this entire time I've maintained a civil tone and explained all of my actions, and been greeted with nothing but hostility. The user then goes and copies the same civility warning to MY talk page. Now I can't delete it, as that would be vandalism in itself, so I <s>struck</s> it and added a comment about it.

Eleemosynary is obviously trying to make a point over their reverted edit. This is disruptive behavior, and I'm requesting some action be taken, whether its a warning from an admin, or anything beyond that (I think a warning would be appropriate).

[[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Swatjester sent me the oh-so-civil "WP:DICK" item before I sent it back to him. Kind of detracts from the "civil tone" he claims to have exhibited all along. I welcome a review of the entire exchange between us, especially contrasted with the spin Swatjester is currently trying to put on it. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 11:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

: I left a comment on the user's talk page inviting them to discuss calmly and review the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]]. // [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] (_{''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Pathoschild admin]''} / ^{''[[User_Talk:Pathoschild/s|talk]]''}) 09:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:: It sure did a lot of good Pathoschild. Copied from their talk

"No problem at all. I just read "Swatjester's" little incident report, in which he has selectively edited our correspondence to place him in the best possible light, so that he may pose as a victim. Such disingenuousness from this pest is not surprising. I really have no interest in pursuing it further, as it falls into the realm of "feeding the trolls." Thanks for your advice, though. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)"

Apparently I'm a disingenuous pest troll tonight. whodathunkit? [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 10:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They just blanked their warnings. Freak of nurture reverted them, and I left a message that blanking warnings is considered vandalism as per [[WP:VAND]] and [[WP:TALK]]. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 10:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Since when are taunts like "I'm warning you, DON'T come on my Talk page in an uncivil tone" some sort of official Wikipedia warning that can never be removed? And Pathoschild left a helpful comment, hardly a warning. I'd like to hear from a disinterested administrator on this. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 10:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to that, I was referring to the <nowiki>{{Civil1}}</nowiki>, as I mentioned on your talk. And please don't misrepresent my comments as a taunt, when I was clearly asking you to be civil on my talk page, something that you refused to do no less than THREE times. I'd also ask you to stop referring to me as "Cpl. Hairtrigger"....personal attacks don't fix anything, and my military service has absolutely nothing to do with this dispute. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 10:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::You stated "they just blanked their warnings." More disingenuousness. You sent me one official warning, which I have retained. I have also retained Pathoschild's advice, though it was not an official warning. You seem to want to buttress your case by suggesting that it was. This all got off to a bad start when you unilaterally blanked my entry on the [[Snakes On A Plane]] page without giving a reason why in the edit summary or the Talk Page, then went into high dudgeon when I reminded you that this could be construed as vandalism. Your demeanor was dismissive and standoffishness, and I showed you as much respect as you showed me. And I have not attacked your military service, merely your quick-on-the-trigger behavior toward me tonight. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 11:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry, but as I've mentioned before, I explained clearly in my edit summary why I reverted your entry: because blogs are not acceptable sources on wikipedia. Further, it was not unilateral, as I was the second editor to do this. View the page history if you don't believe me, my edit sums are there, as well as the other user's reversion of your edit. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 11:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no military service, yet I still find Eleemosynary's conduct wholly unacceptable. — <small>Mar. 26, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[11:29] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

:Freak, you admonished me to not to blank my Talk Page. Funny thing is, I didn't blank it. I blanked some comments on it, and some warnings, which you reverted. Then, I blanked the comments (but left the warnings). Yet, you still reverted it. I left you a message on your Talk Page, which I assume you have not seen. Would you mind letting me know why I can't blank anything on my Talk page? Is it a Wiki rule, or your personal fiat? [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 11:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some diffs to show that I was not acting unilaterally: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=45520600&oldid=45519470], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=45524426&oldid=45523114], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=45531072&oldid=45525375],

And , here is where I clearly explained why I took that action, on edit sum [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=45539468&oldid=45539407], and on your talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eleemosynary&diff=45539700&oldid=44771312]. Your claims that I acted unilateraly, and did not inform you of my actions do not hold water [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 11:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel it shold also be pointed out that Eleemosynary's harassment, stalking and attacks on users have been found on other pages as well. Specifically the Mark Levin page, plus a number of other pages for conservative broadcasters, where he has been pushing his POV. He is uncivil, demeaning of other users, and not conducive to the community that you are trying to build. He has been warned by administrators for this on several occasions. [[User:88.108.195.104|88.108.195.104]] 18:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:I can't comment on Eleemosynary's general behavior, but he has been very helpful at [[Mark Levin]] in keeping that article NPOV despite the activity of unregistered editors who are apparently fans of the subject. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] ==

According to Wikipedia policy, fair use images cannot be placed in the user namespace, per [[Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy]] and [[Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page?]]. [[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] has been asked to remove such images from his page by four separate users thus far, in four completely separate incidents:

#[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] on 00:15, 4 February 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=38074472&oldid=38050249 here]. The request was not acted upon, and was deleted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=43499221&oldid=prev this edit] as "harassment, trolling and botspam."

#[[User:Scm83x|Scm83x]] on 10:20, 9 March 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=42949687&oldid=prev here]. The request was responded to with complete incivility and a misunderstanding of policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=43108996&oldid=43106797 here] and deleted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=43499221&oldid=prev this same edit] as "harassment, trolling and botspam."

#[[User:MattKingston|MattKingston]] on 23:38, 14 March 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=43805280&oldid=43803935 here]. The entire talk page was subsequently archived in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=44418881&oldid=44025698 this edit], though MattKingston's section was cut out.

#[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]] on 01:51, 21 March 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=44748189&oldid=44742874 here]. The message was blanked in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=44753990&oldid=44748247 this edit].

There is no doubt that he understands how fair use works on Wikipedia; it has been explained to him many times over. Regardless, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=41877230&oldid=41876286 this edit], he explicitly calls for the "challenge and defiance" of copyright law. Though copyright law may be unpopular and too restrictive at times, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to start his revolution.

After the user was given time to remove fair use images from his user page, but failed to do so, a number of editors have manually removed the offending images from his page. User page and fair use policy states that users are free to remove fair use images from others' user pages &ndash; especially after the user has been warned:

#[[User:MattKingston|MattKingston]] on 00:26, 25 March 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=45341237&oldid=44884876 here]. The edit was reverted as vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=next&oldid=45396439 here].

#[[User:Scm83x|Scm83x]] on 03:33, 26 March 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=45511326&oldid=45506584 here]. The edit was reverted as "[v]andalism by a novice, petty official" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=next&oldid=45511326 here].

#[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]] on 08:31, 26 March 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=45539061&oldid=45514906 here]. The edit was reverted as vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=45539805&oldid=45539061 here]. Notice that, by now, [[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] is bordering on a violation of [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]], for what is now three reversions at 02:48, 04:07, and 08:39 on the same day.

In summary, this user steadfastly refuses to comply with [[WP:FU|fair use policy]], is completely [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] in his responses, and is about to violate [[WP:3RR]]. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

*I protected his userpage. He is being civil elsewhere. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

*Can I just but in here and point out that "about to violate [[WP:3RR]]" is not something you can anticipate, fairly comment on or act upon until he actually breaks the rule. Even discussing anticipated crimes smacks to me of a little over eagerness on your part. My imagination I'm sure. I find the man deeply trying, but he is entitled to the same considerations as everyone else no matter how vexing he may be to one's patience. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 15:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:*Revert warring, even if it doesn't break [[WP:3RR]], and especially when it is breaking other policies, is frowned upon; that is what I was commenting on. Excuses if I didn't make it clear enough that he wasn't breaking [[WP:3RR]], or he would have been reported elsewhere. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

*It is misleading to say that "he explicitly calls for the 'challenge and defiance' of copyright law" since he was referring to the DMCA and software patents, which (IIRC) have nothing to do with fair use. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:*The reason the line in question raised my eyebrows is that it followed a discussion with [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] regarding a fair use rationale. I don't know enough to comment on the contents of DMCA. However, he has certainly challenged and been defiant of fair use policy on Wikipedia, and the whole issue here does, in the end, boil down to intellectual protectionism. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

*To be honest do you not think in disallowing the man to display his favourite album cover on his own user page is just being a teeny weeny bit over zealous. Is it actually harming anyone, is the copyright holder likely to say "Oi! Stop that now" or "Thank you good Wikipedians for stopping one of our fans displaying our album cover". No in short they don't give a stuff about that sort of thing. It's not as though he is claiming he designed it himself, is a member of whatever group it is, he's just one of millions of fans - nothing more - nothing sinister - and more importantly he is not deriving financial gain from the cover. There must be so many more important things you could devote your worthy time too, now why don't you just give him back his album cover and find something more useful to do with your time. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 16:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:*Protecting the integrity of the project is a pretty high priority around here. Ghost is lucky not to find himself blocked. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 16:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::*What constitutes the integrity of this project seems to be open to personal interpretation[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Carnildo_2] as I'm sure you realise. So at least you agree we have some leeway here. That's always a good start, shall we move on from there? [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:*No, this isn't a negotiable policy. And it isn't about how we interprete the law. Ultimately, this is foundation policy and it is absolute. Now, we need to allow latitude for those who don't get it, and make mistakes, but not for a deliberate breachs. He is in violation of the conditions under which we may use this site, and if he will not comply, he cannot continue to use the site. We cannot all turn into lawyers and reach 'consensus' as to where this policy matters and where it does not. That way lies madness. And will those who say 'it doesn't matter' underwrite wikipedia legally if a liberal attitude to copyright gets the foundation into trouble? No. Anyway, there is also a moral argument. Copyright owners cannot go around this massive website checking where their rights may have been infringed. Their rights will often be infringed. The onus is on us to make sure we eliminate every violation we can. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small>^ask?</small>]] 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::*I agree with Doc. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) must understand the policy by now, as it appears he's been warned about many times over. this needs to stop.--[[User:Alhutch|Alhutch]] 16:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

*Are you quite sure though though that he is in in fact breach of copyright law? If he is - then under the licence template {{:albumcover}} were he to accompany the image with a few words describing the album then he would be 100% legal even in your eyes. Would it not be better to try and help him find a solution rather than keep issuing him with repeated "tickets" rather like over zealous traffic wardens, because at the moment it seems to me a rather unimportant action is being escalated and inflamed into what is an unnecessarily angry and hostile exchange. Something which wikipedia has quite enough of already. Administrators should remember they are here to assist and advise editors. At the moment he is being ordered around in an inflammatory way, when he should be being shown a way out of the problem. You are the admins not him. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:*The problem is that he is in violation of what is apparently Wikimedia Foundation policy. If you would like to restructure Wikimedia policy, it needs to be taken up over there, not here on Wikipedia. R.D.H. has been guided through these policies by several editors, including administrators, over the course of nearly 2 months. However, he has not acted on their advice. Therefore, a page lock was justified. I am also unsure why you accused me of removing your comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=45596594&oldid=45594032 here]; that was an accident by [[User:Tom harrison|Tom harrison]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=45590975&oldid=45590477 here]. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 20:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::*I have also mentioned the policy violation once in an unrelated note to him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29#Orphanbot_help_page] (I just happened to notice all the images) but I didn't actually remove them, I thought maybe he would have himself. - <font style="color:#137300;">[[User:Cohesion|'''cohesion''']]</font>^{<font style="color:#f98c0d;">[[User_talk:Cohesion|'''t''']]</font>} 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:*Rebelguys and M.Kingston are '''not admins'''. And if I have anything to say about it they never will be. The only admin actions taken here, apart from Ashibaka's protection of my userpage, was undertaken by Reb's friend/roomie/frat brother Scm83x. Among whose first acts as a newly appointed admin was to remove most all the images from my userpage and not just the copyrighted ones. All because he thought I was being a bit "rude" to him earlier. I argued that at least my images were being used in a way that was related to the 'Pedia itself, for "community building" purposes and to illustrate subjects brought up on said page. Unlike PERSONAL images, which have nothing to do with either building the 'Pedia or the community and are perhaps better suited for a blog and/or personal photo album. I would not grudge them their pics at all, except they grudge me mine. First certain userboxes are verboden, now certain images. It is only a matter of time before personal pics are taken away too. This is clearly a case of petty vindictiveness, justified under the aegis of policy. Hardly the reward I would expect for all my contributions here... [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MattKingston&diff=45464421&oldid=41033876] and [[Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking|Wikistalking]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MattKingston Mr. Kingston]. All in an attempt to make my continued participation here unpleasant enough so I might leave the project. Also disturbing is the fact that the only ones who have come to my defense are Ashibaka, who I mainly know of from the infamous unpleasantness of last month, and my arch WikiNemesis Giano. I now find myself in the especially akward position of having to THANK Giano for his astute and welcomed help on this matter. But I must also warn him that if he keeps this up, I will be forced to start respecting him also:>--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::*It was not an "admin action" to remove images from your user page; our user page and fair use guidelines allow any user to do so freely if there is a fair use violation. In addition, only copyrighted images were removed from your user pages, of which there were four. No other images have been touched; I'm not sure why you believed others were. Please don't falsely accuse other users of ulterior motives and of actions they certainly did not undertake. Thanks. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 10:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:*In the interest of further resolving this mess, I have proposed [[User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)#Userpage protected|a Compromise]] to [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]]. Another evening I intended to use working on articles, I've now been forced to devote to defending myself instead. As Giano pointed out, we do actually have better things to do with our time than browbeating a stubborn old man into compliance with a policy he regards as unfair, unduly oppressive and in this case unnecessary (Those images have been sitting peacefully on my page since last year...and we havent gotten a cease and desist order from Sting's or Mr. Gilliam's lawyers so far). This is exactly the sort of petty bullshit which is destroying this community and project. It's getting UGLY here, kiddos...and I fear it is only going to get uglier.--[[User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)|R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)]] 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*I think that everyone should take a breath, relax, and realize what the central issue is here. We should simply recall that our fair use guidelines prohibit the use of fair use images outside the main namespace, save for case-by-case exceptions (i.e., templates for the main page). Any other arguments, such as R.D.H.'s false and bad faith assumptions of "petty vindictiveness," "petty bullshit," "Wikistalking," "harrassment," and collaborations with a "friend/roomie/frat brother," are moot; in addition, our allowance for personal images is in no way related to fair use. Issues such as these stem from Wikimedia Foundation policies, and discussion should be taken to channels there. It is unlikely that you will get anywhere hurling false accusations. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 10:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:*Rightly or wrongly you have pushed him into a corner back against the wall. So you now have the problem how are you going to help him out. For how much longer is he to be prevented from editing his own user page? I cannot understand why this has been allowed to escalate into such a huge issue which seems to be going nowhere. I am wondering where the more senior and respected admins are while this has been going on. (Another reason for training inexperienced admins!) Were this particular copyright issue to be taken to a legal court the chances are RDS would be allowed to continue his limited use of the image. However, in the absence of a court case, you have to decide how zealously you wish to interpret and administer policy, bearing in mind, who has he hurt?- What harm is it realistically likely to cause? and finally, has anyone actually complained or made official protest over Ghost's actions and use of the image? Bearing those questions and their answers in mind one can then assess the gravity of this case and where you wish to take it.........Without doubt, as I know to my own experience, and you must know surely too, he can be a very belligerent, pig headed and irritating person, but would Wikipedia be a better place without him? I don't think so - He is not one of those non-page-writing editors who flit about the site distributing wise opinions and advice to those that seldom want it, he actually writes pages on encyclopedic subjects, and for that deserves our respect and some consideration given to his views. You appear to have him now back against the wall into a corner, and for some reason seem surprised he is barking and shouting. Calm down and help the poor man out of the mess you have all got yourselves into, exercise a little tact and diplomacy when dealing with difficult customers - and it will be a better place for all. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::*A number of us had been courteously explaining policy to R.D.H. for the course of two months to which he made no response. We're not "interpreting policy" &ndash; it is one of the few fair use Wikimedia Foundation policies that are explicitly stated and unlikely to be misconstrued. It has come up many, many times, and never have I seen such a response. Never have I said that he isn't a worthwhile contributor; never have I said that he should be banned. I don't understand why you brought the issue of his departure up. We have only repeated to him: whether right or wrong, the issue is that this is one of the most clear-cut fair use policies we have on Wikipedia &ndash; here's why &ndash; here's what you need to do. I have also told him that, in all honestly, he should just drop the issue, as people were coming in every week or two to ask him to remove the images. We have never retracted our offers for assistance, our guidance through the bureaucratic web of Foundation copyright guidelines, or anything else he needs. If that isn't tact and diplomacy, I don't know what else you could want. We can and still offer help, but it is up to R.D.H. to accept it. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::*I bring up the subject of his hypothetical departure because if you bothered to visit his talk page you would see the way he is thinking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29#WP:AN.2FI]. There is a whole world outside of "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" and perhaps some people would do well to explore it. It does seem very sad that one can't have the image of one's favourite album on one's own page (with a few words about it), and yet can write on a main page about it and use the image, I wonder what, or whose logic, that is? Life is complicated poor old RDS no wonder he's upset, I'm totally perplexed by it all. You see if one was writing about oneself as one should on that page, and that particular album had had a huge bearing on one's life, then, by your logic, were one notable the image would be legit wouldn't it, because that user page could then be a legitimate main page, so it all boils down to interpretation of notability. I wonder if RDS is in anyway notable? He's becoming more infamous here by the moment. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 17:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::*You misunderstand. I certainly do "bother to visit his talk page;" various editors have been dropped in and out for ''two months'' regarding this issue. Do you really think I don't understand his position, or that I have such a severe case of tunnel vision that I don't bother looking elsewhere? I'm not as ignorant of what's going on as you think. I've read through his talk page, my talk page, the messages you left on ALoan's talk page, and the rest. [[WP:CIVIL|Be civil, please]]. I certainly understand his position. However, it's not my logic; I'm going by the logic of the Wikimedia Foundation. If I was wrong here, I'd have backed out a long time ago, but the policy is currently not up for negotiation. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 18:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::* If you knew then why ask me "''I don't understand why you brought the issue of his departure''"? [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::* Because his departure wasn't and isn't the issue. This issue is Wikimedia Foundation policy. I think [[User:Doc glasgow]] put it best at the beginning of this discussion: "[T]his isn't a negotiable policy. And it isn't about how we interprete ''[sic]'' the law. Ultimately, this is foundation policy and it is absolute." &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>} 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*Of course by the strictest letter of Wikipedia law your are probably correct in your understanding, but then I read, from just this page, the comments made by those discussing RDS's behaviour:

#"it's not my logic"

#Can I just but in here and point out that "about to violate WP:3RR is not something you can anticipate"

#"It is misleading to say that "''he explicitly calls for the 'challenge and defiance' of copyright law''"

#"we need to allow latitude for those who don't get it'"

#"Ghost is lucky not to find himself blocked"

# "never have I said that he should be banned"

#"if he will not comply, he cannot continue to use the site"

#"Please don't falsely accuse other users of ulterior motives and of actions they certainly did not undertake"

#"Rightly or wrongly you have pushed him into a corner back against the wall"

#"..his departure wasn't and isn't the issue"

There does seem too a confused hymn sheet here. The English have this marvellous word for people who take their responsibilities too seriously and officiously, it called a [[Jobsworth]] have you heard it? [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*Frankly, the whole thing seems pretty stupid all around, but given that the Foundation has chosen to have a very strict policy about fair use images, and that policy includes a ban on fair use images on user pages, the matter, while stupid, seems pretty clear-cut. If you keep restoring them to your (or anyone else's) user page, expect zealous enforcecement of the (possibly misguided, but entirely clear) policy. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 20:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:*I have to say I am coming to agree with Jmabel (above). The upside is that it gives those who never had the opportunity to be a [[prefect]] at school a few moments of glory enforcing those rules which to most seem pointless and frankly rather silly. [[User:Giano|Giano]] | [[User talk:Giano|talk]] 21:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::*Thank you, Jmabel. The only thing I have been trying to get across is that we can't have fair use images on user pages. I simply have not been able to comprehend why others continue to stray away from clear-cut foundation policy, and continue to ask for exceptions and discussing issues marginally related to unnegotiable guidelines. &mdash; '''[[User:Rebelguys2|Rebelguys2]]''' ^{<font color="#CC5500">[[User talk:Rebelguys2|talk]]</font>}

:::*Jmabel has the right of it. The policy seems clear-cut, and if Ghost is concerned about people enforcing "arbitrary" rules against him, he shouldn't violate policy and give them the ammunition. -[[User:Colin Kimbrell|Colin Kimbrell]] 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Cut-and-paste pagemove vandal indef blocked ==

I've just slapped an indefinite block on {{vandal|Fired Again|Fired_Again}}, who cut-and-paste moved [[Gasoline]] to [[Gasoline on wheels!]]. While a single case of vandalism would not ordinarily merit an immediate permablock, the account has no other edits and seems likely to be a "drive-by" account created solely for the purpose of vandalism. Comments welcome. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 15:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have reverted a pagemove of [[Wheels]] to [[Wheels on wheels!]] earlier today. A [[WP:WoW|WoW]] imitator, perhaps? [[User:Misza13|Misza]][[WP:ESP|<span style="color:green">'''13'''</span>]] ^{<u>'''[[User talk:Misza13|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Misza13|C]]'''</u>} 15:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::Seems to be the order of the week. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:Rose-mary]] and her sockpuppets==

Rose-mary has edited Wikipedia solely for the purpose of pushing a PoV on [[Phaistos Disc]] and some related articles. She prefers to edit while not logged in, and she has a dynamic IP in the 80.90.* range, which has the effect that 3RR violations, while common, are difficult to prove; the article is now semiprotected.

She is also, in the manner of trolls, persistently uncivil; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phaistos_Disc&diff=prev&oldid=45568927 this edit] and almost the entirety of [[Talk:Phaistos Disc/Archive6]] (and large parts of 2 through 5, but she's been getting worse.)

If this incivility warrants a long-term block, the article could be unprotected, and her anon identities would be (in effect) on probation. If they were uncivil revert warriors, they would be immediately blockable as sockpuppets. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Is semi-protecting the talk page feasible? --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::This is [[User:Irismeister|Irismeister]] ! Yes semiprotect. Do whatever is necessary!. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|Taste the Korn]] 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Before my time. Rose-mary's IP is Luxembourgeois. (The other reason I don't want to solve this by sprotection is that the same PoV-pushing does take place on other articles; I am involved because I was watching [[Pelasgians]].)[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Raul654's blocks ==

Last night, Raul654 blocked 24.6.0.0/16 -- and although he tried to unblock it twice and I myself once, my IP (a Comcast IP that is part of that range) appears to be still intermittently blocked, suggesting a database problem. Can someone look into it?

Also, Raul, if you see this -- I also see that you blocked a lot of individual IPs indefinitely. You really shouldn't do that unless you're sure they're open proxies. --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 20:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

==Sanka123 sock==

{{vandal|207.44.237.168}} is clearly a sockpuppet of currently blocked user Sanka123 (see IP's edit history; edits on talk pages are signed with username Sanka123). S/he is currently editing the IP address in the {{tl|unsigned}} templates that I used to sign his/her comments on my page to suggest that they were made by a different IP. S/he just did it again, after I requested that s/he stop doing so. Didn't want to report this on [[WP:AIV]] because I'm not sure it belongs there (it's a more complex issue). Can s/he be blocked for evading the block on Sanka123? If not, could somebody else start warning him/her not to change the IP address? (Warnings from me will be ignored and will probably just bring further threats to get me banned for "harassment" when Sanka's block expires; maybe if someone else delivers them this user will actually listen.) Thanks. [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Update: User has been blocked. [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 02:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==Dispute between [[User:SPUI|SPUI]], [[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]], et al.==

[[User:Atanamir|Atanamir]] asked me last night to help him out with [[1964 state highway renumbering (Washington)]], which he was writing. I started out by figuring out exactly how Washington's State Route system working, and made [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington State Highways/Completion list]] (like the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/Completion list|California one]]) to help me figure it out and help the project at the same time. Rschen7754 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Washington_State_Highways&diff=prev&oldid=45528848 removed the link to that page from the project], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPUI&diff=next&oldid=45524963 started harrassing me on my talk page]. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:Harassing? Specifically, I did not want another California in Washington (who does? lol) Seriously, I didn't want the page move wars to go to Washington as well. These are the same steps that happened when the California page moves began, and I didn't want a war starting. I shouldn't be the one accused of harrassment, actually. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::I'm the one doing page moves to the correct titles; you and your gang are going around making that hard. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Now you're [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gateman1997&diff=prev&oldid=45619711 calling them in again] for more. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Because you're doing it without consensus, maybe? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, if there's a 'gang' going around and reverting your page moves, it might be best to ''consider very carefully'' whether or not your moves are supported by consensus, and whether or not your idea of a 'correct title' is actually the only reasonable option. I have no further comment, because I really don't want to get sucked into what is a '''bloody stupid naming dispute'''. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not talking about the page moves. I'm talking about me going and working on the Washington stuff and having to put up with them. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]] - <small>[[User:SPUI/SFD|don't use sorted stub templates!]]</small>) 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::I'll admit I don't see you disrupting the actual Washington articles yet. However based on your actions with California your actions with Washington do smell of a prelude to multiple page moves. [[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Also what is [[Template:Infobox WA State Route|this]]? It looks like the template that you used to edit war in California. I have a very bad feeling about this. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]] ([[User_talk:Rschen7754|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|contribs]]) ''' 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:The above comment borders on uncivil. Perhaps we could see less aspersions cat as this discussion moves forward. <br/> [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions">^'''{L}'''</font>]</span> 04:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==Licinius==

I've just blocked two abusive sockpuppets of [[User:Licinius]] per CheckUser who have been playing up (even on the RFCU page). I've also given Licinius himself a one-month holiday from Wikipedia, as on top of the sockpuppeteering, he seems to have been trolling something chronic. Just putting a note here for oversight purposes. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 22:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

== Probably Sarfatti ==

An anon ({{user|71.139.55.87}}), probably [[Jack Sarfatti]] (some of the edits from this IP refer to {{user|JackSarfatti}} in the first person, some in the third person), recently bombarded [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALethe&diff=45618930&oldid=45266264 diff1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALethe&diff=45623927&oldid=45619261 diff2] my userpage with some pretty heavy duty legal threats. He's apparently under the impression that I put some information about him changing his name into his article. I banned the anon account for 48 hours, but after reading [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive48#User:JackSarfatti|WP:AN/I/Archive48#Sarfatti]], I wonder if I should consider a longer (permanent?) ban, given his past record and our past dealings with him. These anon accounts have been pouring oceans of email textdumps into [[Talk:Jack Sarfatti]] lately, and there were legal threats against me there as well, but only when he brought it to my userpage did I think to ban. I haven't been an admin long, and this was my first ban (exciting! now I'm drunk with power!), so I'm not really sure how these things work. At the very least, maybe I'll start keeping track of all the IPs that do textdumps into the talk page.

By the way, not that this matters as far as our policy and response goes, but as for this name business, I never added anything about him changing his name to his article, I think he just hasn't gotten the hang of how Wikipedia works, and who is writing what. Furthermore, by his own admission with these vandalisms, he did in fact get his name legally changed, so the information that he's complaining about is not wrong (though perhaps a little misleading). -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] ^{[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit&section=new}} +]} 01:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:{{user|68.124.23.189}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lethe&curid=466962&diff=45643432&oldid=45630996 did me] again, I've blocked 1 week. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] ^{[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit&section=new}} +]} 02:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:{{user|68.125.8.213}} is doing it too now. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 04:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::I blocked that one indef. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 04:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Join the club, [[User:Lethe]]. Sarfatti came after me just for replacing the birthdate once in the article after he'd deleted it (it's a well-known date that he has often mentioned in his Usenet postings due to a mystical importance of some kind). He declared me his political enemy and followed up with off-Wikipedia threats. For his other hijinks Wales banned him permanently but he is irrepressible. [[User:Mperel]] is trying to bring the article to a better place and with luck and support he/she may succeed. It is probably worthwhile to track the IPs he's using though it may not be possible to block them cleanly. S-protecting the article/talk page may be a necessity if he is being disruptive. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I have been reverting most of [[User:Mperel|Mperel's]] efforts. She is of the opinion that Sarfatti is a "brilliant physicist", and wants the article to be much more in line with that thinking. On the other hand, I think Sarfatti is a crackpot of the purest breed, and do not want a Wikipedia article that makes him look like a scientist. Therefore I don't think Mperel will have much success with her efforts. I suppose this is the ultimate reason why Sarfatti wants to get me, claims about his last name notwithstanding. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] ^{[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit&section=new}} +]} 17:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::"Brilliant:" and "crackpot" are sometimes difficult to distinguish. My impression was that Mperel is trying to write a article that Sarfatti would approve of enough to stop interfering. If that isn't possible then the effort is wasted. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::MPerel does seem to have good intentions, though I don't agree with her goals (in particular, I think an accurate portrayal of Sarfatti is necessarily negative, and so he wouldn't be satisfied with it), and don't really appreciate the way she insinuates that I have ulterior motives. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] ^{[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit&section=new}} +]} 21:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:I think that a properly NPOV article should not directly call him either brilliant or a crackpot; it should merely present the facts about him so readers can make up their own minds. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with you about that. -[[User:Lethe/sig|lethe]] ^{[[User talk:Lethe/sig|talk]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Lethe|action=edit&section=new}} +]} 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Sockpuppets on [[USAA]] ==

I believe both {{vandal|Randonnne}} and {{vandal|Philosophenweg}} are sockpuppets of a user who was indefinitely banned for extremely disruptive behavior on [[USAA]]. I can't go into details here because a clandestine operation was undertaken at the request of parties who shall remain unnamed to sanitize all of the offending content from the page history and its talk page archives. Admins should be able to see the deleted edits and will know what I'm talking about. My recommendation is that these two socks be indefinitely banned but I'm first asking here to get opinions from noninvolved parties. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 03:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and indefinitely blocked all five of the sockpuppets who've been savaging this article. They were all attacking other users on talk pages and reverting to Koenig's POV version of the page exactly thrice. --'''<font color="#0055aa">[[User:Cyde|Cyde&nbsp;Weys]]</font>''' 05:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==Spammers tonight==

We have a fairly major spammer attack underway at:

* [[Diazepam]]

* [[Alprazolam]]

* [[Online poker]]

* [[Blackjack]]

* [[Hydrocodone]]

* [[Tramadol]]

and probably elsewhere, that I just haven't seen. All edits are coming in by open proxies, and there is typically only one edit per proxy. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:All seem to be posting links to scmantraffic.com. Might be a good idea to place it on the black-list.&#160;— [[User:TheKMan|'''<font color="#0000FF">The</font><font color="#FF0000">KMan</font>''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|<font color="#000000">^<u>talk</u></font>]] 05:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed though I think he'll just switch URLS, but it might be something to try -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::It seems to be a rather slow-moving spambot, i.e. edits only every couple minutes. How do we put something on the spam blacklist? I could protect the pages (there's at least six) but shooting it nearer the source seems like a more elegant solution. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I spoke with meta admin [[m:User:Amgine]] on IRC and he added it to [[m:Spam blacklist]]. I also believe Tawkerbot now tracks it as well.&#160;— [[User:TheKMan|'''<font color="#0000FF">The</font><font color="#FF0000">KMan</font>''']][[User_talk:TheKMan|<font color="#000000">^<u>talk</u></font>]] 06:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Thanks! [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 06:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==apparent steroid vandalism==

I have blocked [[user:207.229.174.14]] for 24 hrs. He/it has made hundreds of edits in the last couple of days, many simply substituting "anabolic steroid" for any use of the word steroid in all kinds of articles, including medical. Most of the changes are inappropriate, many are flat wrong as different steroids are being referred to. There is no user page. Is he using some kind of bot or is he on a one man mission of stupid vandalism? I have reversed dozens of the edits but suspect there are many more. Is there a way to simply mass undo everything he has done? [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 05:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:he just responded and promised to undo. I am suspicious but will undo the block and see. Please help watch. [[User:Alteripse|alteripse]] 05:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== Striver-Eric L. Haney ==

The user [[User:Striver|Striver]] has create the [[Eric L. Haney]] page already with an afd tag because by his own words:

:Im tired of geting my stuff deleted, so i dont even bother anymore, just create them with the AFD sign on it and get it over with. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 02:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Schizombie&diff=prev&oldid=45503721]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_L._Haney&oldid=45483452 This is the first version of the page he created with the afd tag already placed.]

*[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric L. Haney|This is the Afd page itself.]]

I believe that this breaks with [[WP:POINT]] and interferes with the regular afd process.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 05:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:LOL. Don't overreact. But maybe it should be pointed out to him before he repeats that stunt that such articles are immediate speedy candidates under CSD G7 :-) [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 08:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Revert War in Privatization Article ==

There seems to be a huge revert war in the [[Privatization]] article. Possibly the page needs protection.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privatization&action=history Privatization Page History]--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 06:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree; what the page needs is the application of 3RR to the editor defying a clear consensus. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::I considered that before protecting, but so far as I can tell, there were no 3RR violations. Therefore, a temporary protection seemed to be the best option. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Edits of 23:46, 00:36, 04:01, 06:04 are by the same editor and marked rv. They are exact reversions - two to 21:37, two to 01:13; but those two don't differ very much. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privatization&diff=45496272&oldid=45469438] They do have enough spacing difference to throw off the diff generator. (and if that's not enough, if you unprotect, I bet he will 3RR... [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 01:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)} [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 01:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::The 06:04 occurred two days after the other three reverts. 3RR only applies to one 24 hour period. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Oh, I see, there are 24h 10min quiet after 01:50. Sorry [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Then your bet will be wasted. I am not out to violate anything, that is not honorable and I do not do things knowingly to violate wikipedia rules. Please do not insinuate that I would. I do have a right to expect others will act in good faith and not revert without discussion, which is what Jersey Devil had done among others. I worked with Slimvirgin to ferret out the edit by HK to address people's concerns (namely 172, Rd232) and such said editors continued to complain, coming up with a definition of privatization that has no clear source or reference and looks like 'original research.' There is no consensus there, if so it would be to keep HK edit after it was cleaned up by myself and Slimvirgin (with further citations I submitted to talk prior to the protection)...Samspade would most likely agree to this as well. --[[User:Northmeister|Northmeister]] 01:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Glad to hear it; then there should be no problem getting unprotection. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== pagemove vandal... ==

<!-- 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC) -->

{{vandal|Rudi_the_Winner}} does not appear to be Willy on Wheels. One particular entry in this user's move log makes me wonder if this user is connected to the [[WP:CASH]] dispute. This may benefit from further investigation. — <small>Mar. 27, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[13:29] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

== blocked [[user:Swedenman]] another week ==

I've blocked [[user:Swedenman]] for an additional week. See [[User_talk:Swedenman]]. He keeps adding [[:category:Humanitarians]] to several articles, and seems to do little else. / [[User:Fred chessplayer|Fred]]-[[User_talk:Fred chessplayer|Chess]] 13:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

: It's hard to view his contribs in this regard as anything but trolling. I do note from his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=user%3ASwedenman block log] that you are the blocking admin for all but one of his blocks. To avoid accusations that you personally have it in for him, should the need arise again perhaps you might post here and not block him yourself, but rather leave another admin to do so. To quote the great philosopher [[Nelson Muntz]] [http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/information/scripts/5f22.shtml "Never hurts to have a second set of prints on a gun"]. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:I beleive that a much lnger i not indef block is warranted here. I will do it, but wnated to get Fred's take on overturning his block first.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==Stalking by [[user:AKMask]]==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_list_candidates%2FStarfleet_ranks_and_insignia&diff=45473633&oldid=45469673 Featured list vote]

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FTurkish_Kurdistan&diff=45627680&oldid=45611583 Vfd vote]

*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek]]

User has participating on any vote I am a part of in the opposing corner. User does not regularly vote on featured lists or vfds. Since I have a history of getting stalked by [[user:Davenbelle]] (23:01, 11 January 2006 Viajero deleted "User:Davenbelle" (per request of user via email)) and since he claims to have left wikipedia I suspect he may be a new alias as he has very few edits ^{[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=AKMask]} prior to davenbelles departure. I also find this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Duncharris&diff=prev&oldid=28976932 rfc vote] being his 8^th edit rather strange. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It could also very well be [[user:MARMOT]] but then again I always suspect [[user:MARMOT]] but still something to look into perhaps. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:Does AKMask know this discussion is taking place? I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AKMask&diff=prev&oldid=45710980 informed] him - there may be an explanation or all this may be a coincidence. While I do find this conspiracy intriguing ;-) It may be better to [[assume good faith]], at least until a serious problem appears. Appearing on three polls/RFCs could be a perfectly reasonable coincidence... AFAIK even if he is stalking you, I don't think the administrators here can do anything about it. --[[User:Latinus|Latinus]] 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::I do not assume good faith when stalked. Appearing on two polls is ok and can be a coincidence if the person regularly votes on afds and rfcs or if the votes are related. We dont observe this. There are wikipedia policies just AKMask isn't exempt of one being [[Wikipedia:Harassment|Harassment]] which covers stalking. If he is stalking me he will perhaps get away with a warning, if he continues he will eventualy end up getting banned.

::People have been banned from wikipedia indefinately for stalking in the past. Infact Jimbo personaly banned the person in question and it is rare for Jimbo to get involved on anything on wikipedia that direct.

::The point of Administrators noticeboard is to notify the administrators. Thank you for notifying AKMask you saved me the trobble. Know that notifying him was always optional.

::--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather simple explanation: I am a member of the Star Trek wikiproject, and was poking around those topics for a day or so before joining. As for the Turkish Kurdistan vote, I saw the link on his talk page while we were discussing the star trek page (look it up on his talk page) and a former girlfriend/summer fling of mine went to Turkey on Exchange. Minor interest. And I regularly participate in VfD's... over a hundred votes, actually. With a user at around 750 edits, thats a bunch. The RfC was last fricken year. Theres no way thats relevent. If I were truly wikistalking I'd have continued to vote on more current RfC's that you're involved in. Or I would've voted against one of your RfA's. This is purly coincidence from a shared wikiproject and reading your talkpage. -'''[[User:AKMask|<font color="#990011">M]]</font>'''^{[[User_talk:AKMask|<font color="#990011">ask]]</font>} [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 19:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:Edit: I never made an edit to the RfC you have linked.... I reviewed the date, then the history. Never touched it. -'''[[User:AKMask|<font color="#990011">M]]</font>'''^{[[User_talk:AKMask|<font color="#990011">ask]]</font>} [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::As a disinterested party who has interacted regularly neither with AKMask nor with Latinus, and after readily conceding that we oughtn't perhaps to clutter the noticeboard with this discussion, I think it is eminently clear that what Mask is doing is not wikistalking, and, more importantly, in no way proves deletrious vis-à-vis the project. One observes [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/contribution_tree?namespace=4&user=AKMask&dbname=enwiki_p many AfD, FAC, and RfA votes] by Mask; notwithstanding questions about whether Mask is Davenbelle, toward the proving of which proposition Cool Cat adduces Mask's having failed to make many edits prior to the departure of Davenbelle, surely Mask's voting on a few Wikipedia questions with which Cool Cat was involved does not wikistalking make. Finally, assuming arguendo that Mask has voted on sundry Wikipedia questions in order to express disagreement with Cool Cat, wikistalking would be demonstrated, in my mind, only to the extent that it was plain that his sole purpose for voting was to express disagreement; I can imagine, for example, that if Mask thought Cool Cat to have exercised bad judgment in voting in the past (and I surely don't impute malign motive or bad judgment to Cool Cat, about whom I know nothing), he might frequent pages at which he/she voted in order to express contrary viewpoints in such cases as Mask found Cool Cat's votes to be poorly supported. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 19:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Voting on vfds and afds as a personal cause against a user is wikistalking. From where I am standing this is the case. AKMask how many votes have you shared a vote with me prior to the encouter at [[List of Starfleet ship classes ]]? Just what I thouht, none. I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Oh, you are quite wrong. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAKMask&diff=30816603&oldid=30235472 this] diff to my usertalk from december where you THANK me for trying to fix some copyright issues on a featured list vote you were having. I wanted it to pass, I did some image removal, you thanked me. We've shared votes. -'''[[User:AKMask|<font color="#990011">M]]</font>'''^{[[User_talk:AKMask|<font color="#990011">ask]]</font>} [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 20:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Interesting, If I recal correctly you originaly voted oppose to that too. I still however do not feel your vote on the Afd was in good faith. I am ''way'' beyond frustrated. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::I did, because of copyright issues. It would be silly to support something that would get us sued. I then listed my problems, fixed them, and changed to support. As for you feeling whether my vote on the Turkish AfD was in good faith, that is of absolutly no concern to me. It was, it will be counted, and thats it. Your feelings on my vote are fluff. Take a wikibreak if you're that frustrated. -'''[[User:AKMask|<font color="#990011">M]]</font>'''^{[[User_talk:AKMask|<font color="#990011">ask]]</font>} [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 20:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I find this most insightful. You act like a dick and annoy people then suggest they take a wikibreak. Seems like you got this all worked out. Except it wont work. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 22:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I have not acted like a dick anywhere, and have not done anything out of the ordinary to annoy you or anyone else. If you get annoyed by my general presence, well, I'm afraid I can't help that. As to it not working... what wont work? I hardly think I'm going to end up blocked because you don't agree with me. It happens. Sometimes you'll win, sometimes my side will. But thats just how it goes. The wikibreak is something I'd suggest to anyone who says they're ''way'' beyond frustrated. Do you support someone who is under a lot of stress continuing to place themselves in a situation where more can be added? I hate seeing posts where users blow up and declare they quit or leave in a huff. I don't like seeing that happen to anyone. My remarks were intended for nothing beyond the statement that it appears obvious that Turkish Kurdistan is going to be no consensus, hence keep, and you can't really change that. Take a break, cool down before you get so frustrated you up and quit. -'''[[User:AKMask|<font color="#990011">M]]</font>'''^{[[User_talk:AKMask|<font color="#990011">ask]]</font>} [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There's really no evidence here that [[User:AKMask|AKMask]] is doing anything stalkerish. And this discussion is stretching the limits of [[WP:CIVIL]]. Calm down, step away from the computer if you need to, and find something to do that's more rewarding and productive than this argument. [[User:FreplySpang|FreplySpang]] [[User talk:FreplySpang|(talk)]] 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have no intention of letting this nonsense continue, I do not like seeing the same person on votes I participate in the opposing corner. This is exactly like RickK's case however I havent yet been stalked to excess... --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]^{[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]}</small> 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::What nonsense? I'm not stalking. And I fail to see how you will invalidate any votes I have placed. They are all legit, so you have no right to strike them, and you are not an admin, so you're not going to block me. And I have shown that I've not done anything wrong, or even attempted to do anything wrong, so your not going to get someone else to block me. Frankly, I'm considering opening a RfC because of some of your basless allegations here and harassing messages elsewhere. -'''[[User:AKMask|<font color="#990011">M]]</font>'''^{[[User_talk:AKMask|<font color="#990011">ask]]</font>} [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 17:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==RJII POV edits==

RJII continues to make POV edits even after he was banned for two weeks for it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Anarchist_FAQ&diff=45727345&oldid=45726310]

Frankly, I do not have the energy to put up with any more of his bullshit. For an explanation of why that edit is POV (if it isn't blatantly obvious) see the talk page of that article. -- [[User:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">infinity</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">0</span>]]''' 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:'''Administrators, please do not fall for this this time. He is trying to get me banned from Wikipedia, knowing that I'm on probation and taking advantage of that (just like he did last time). I have not done anything wrong. My edits are well-sourced.''' [[User:RJII|RJII]] 17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::Don't you ever stay banned? I mean your last 2 or 3 accounts were indef blocked, the most recent on a "voluntary" 6 month arbcom enforced wikibreak, and this current one on probation... don't you have anything better to do with your time?--[[User:64.12.116.65|64.12.116.65]] 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Don't make false accusations against me. Obviously you have me confused with someone else. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 17:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I doubt that very much--[[User:64.12.116.65|64.12.116.65]] 18:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Think about it. Consider it. I'm not who you think I am. You've been harrassing me about this for awhile. I don't who you think I am. This is the only account I've ever had on Wikipedia. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourced is not necessarily NPOV. -- [[User:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">infinity</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">0</span>]]''' 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:This is harrassment. You're using my probation in an attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia hoping that administrators will just assume I'm the bad guy because I'm on probation, just like last time. My edits are sourced and NPOV. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 17:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are sourced but not NPOV. You selectively quote things which is against NPOV. In a phrase, you make POV edits. -- [[User:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">infinity</span>]]'''[[User_talk:Infinity0|<span style="color:red;">0</span>]]''' 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:No they are not POV edits. They are NPOV edits. You are the one that makes POV edits that I'm trying to fix. Don't twist it around. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*Both of you are edit warring on [[An Anarchist FAQ]], and given both of your histories, I'm inclined to [[WP:1RR]] both of you on anarchism related articles. Hash this stuff out on the talk pages, not in the edit comments, please, and not here. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;]] 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

** Except for the last edit (which removes the description of a joke as being a joke, a disservice to the reader) the two versions strike me as being about equally good, and equally POV. - 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== Mr.Do! uploaded warez? ==

{{vandal|Mr.Do!}} has a history of two things: Editing arcade game-related articles, and uploading vandal files. I first came across him when he uploaded a map of the USA with Iraq colored green. Amusing, but not good. Now he's linked to copyrighted [[MAME]] files, first uploaded to commons: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MAME&diff=prev&oldid=45698783], second uploaded to eo: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MAME&diff=prev&oldid=45714365]. First of all, can someone tell eo that they need to delete this file? And second, I was ALMOST about to block him indef, but considering his edit history, I'm thinking maybe he's just an adolescent who's ignorant of how all this works. So I bring it to the community. Thoughts?

Edit (before saving): [http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciala:Contributions/Mr.Do%21]. He made an account on eo solely to upload the file. That shows premeditation and a knowledge that it wouldn't fly on en. I'm blocking indef, but I won't challenge if others disagree. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

== Unaceptable user name ==

I'm hopeing this is the right place to bring this up (I'm still learning the Wiki-ropes). Is [[User:Fuck_Me_That_Sux]] an acceptable username? It seems a clear violation of [[Wikipedia:Username]]. Thanks, [[User:Gwernol|Gwernol]] 22:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:Already blocked indefinatly about two weeks ago. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 23:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

::Currently a recurring AOL denial of service vandal, who comes back every 24 hours or so and triggers a dozen AOL autoblocks--[[User:64.12.116.65|64.12.116.65]] 23:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:Gnome (Bot)]]==

I have blocked {{user|Gnome (Bot)}} indefinitely. This bot is removing cleanup tags and replacing them with stub tags or, if there is already a stub tag, just deleting the cleanup tag. How is this useful? [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|^(talk)]] 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:FWIW, Eagle explains [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gnome_%28Bot%29/Help/CleanupCriteria here] why he thinks it appropriate to replace cleanup tags with stub tags for articles under 225 words (and to remove cleanup tags where a similarly-sized article is tagged for cleanup and as a stub (I agree with Zoe's reasoning and block--although I'd imagine that, inasmuch as the bot seems to be performing other salutary tasks, once the cleanup/stub function is removed, the bot should be unblocked--but I thought if might be helpful for users to see the reasoning of the bot's owner). [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

===Bot operator response===

First things first I've never been here before, so I'm not sure what to do to explain this...In a nutshell I have gotten agreement from several members of [[WP:CU]](the page that takes care of the cleanup backlog), and approval to run on [[WP:BRFA]]

These activites have been proposed [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#User:Gnome (Bot) requesting trial run and evential bot flag|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Cleanup#Janitor bot proposal|here]]

The reasoning behind this is, how do you "cleanup" a article that is so small. ---what the article needs is to be expanded (when the article is expanded all "cleanup" that has been done will be lost).

:Also please remember we have a cleanup backlog of almost 14000 articles... The person who requested that I would create this bot resquested it to reduce the backlog...That way the articles that need only cleanup are on the list.

:By the way every stub belongs in the cleanup category...After all they are all small, some are not wikified, some have grammer problems... ect.

::I will disable the function for now...but I believe that this issue needs to be debated in a more public forum. (looking at the merits of the idea alone), as I am not the only person who feels that this is a good idea.[[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]] ([[user_talk:Eagle 101|talk]]) ([[user:Eagle 101/Desk|desk]]) 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Also Zoe, will you be more specific next time you post to my talk page, or the bot...Which articles were you talking about??? I had to look in your contributions to find out that you had posted it on this page as well... Would have been nice to have a heads up...(than agian the block message might have pointed me here...but the bot shuts off as soon as you post a message on its page...So I will never know)

The bot operator is of course me[[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]] ([[user_talk:Eagle 101|talk]]) ([[user:Eagle 101/Desk|desk]]) 02:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

====[[Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay]]====

Zoe--you blocked the bot because of the edit it made to this page...the reasoning for the block is "(inappropriate bot)"...You left a message on my talk page that said this "Why would arbitrary deletion of cleanup tags serve any function?"...YOu left a message on the bot's talk page that said "This bot has no purpose other than to remove cleanup tags which apparently were put there for very appropriate reasons. Please stop."

I just want to make sure that you realize that the bot does not "arbitrarily" delete cleanup tags, It only does it if the article is a stub or should be a stub. The reason why I mention this is because you reverted both the removal of the cleanup tag, and the addition of the stub tag. (now the article is only tagged as cleanup, but it is a stub (cleanup or not).

:by your definition all stubs should be in the cleanup category????

Sorry if I sound rude... but I had to look in your contributes to find this page and to find out what articles you had problems with... and even then I had to read inbetween the lines, If it were not for joe, I would be in the dark.

[[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]] ([[user_talk:Eagle 101|talk]]) ([[user:Eagle 101/Desk|desk]]) 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

===Reblocked===

I've reblocked the bot for exactly the same reason that Zoe did originally (the original block seems to have been removed). There is NO justification WHATSOEVER for removing {{tl|cleanup}} from stubs, and I am getting heartily sick of rolling back this bot's activity, which I've now had to do to over a dozen articles. A {{tl|stub}} tag simply indicates that an article is too short and needs expansion - a {{tl|cleanup}} tag indicates deeper problems, such as grammar, layout, wikification, translation, style, context or inapproriate language. The two are NOT interchangable, and freuqntly an article needs both tags. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Hm...looking again, maybe I've just added a second block over the top of the first - both indefinite though, so it shouldn't affect anything. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 12:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::You are correct this bot has not been editing since it's original block, this there is NO WAY the bot could have changed any more articles.[[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]] ([[user_talk:Eagle 101|talk]]) ([[user:Eagle 101/Desk|desk]]) 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

===Bot oprerator response===

:::'''''In light of this contriversy, I will remove the replace stub with cleanup feature. (Would it still be alright to add {{t1|stub}} to short articles 225 words or less.) ''''' I the bot operator has tried to be as good about this mistake as possible...The reblock above was merealy adding a second block over the first block.[[user:Eagle 101|Eagle]] ([[user_talk:Eagle 101|talk]]) ([[user:Eagle 101/Desk|desk]]) 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Zephram Stark sockpuppets==

Just to let everyone know, [[User:Zephram Stark]] is still busy sockpuppeting. He typically creates one or two sockpuppets a day, though he can sometimes be even more prolific. I've just blocked a half-dozen of the more recent, including [[User:Ipvirg48of1767]], [[User:Osteodentine M. Spooner]], [[User:Jeff Iceni ]], [[User:C Haworthia Kalikimaka]], [[User:Bonfire Knight 0511]], [[User:Sigmund Fraud]], [[User:Coolerhead]], [[User:Julie Cruise Director]], [[User:Dirae]], etc. See here for the current list:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Zephram_Stark] Please be aware that when caught, Zephram's sockpuppets vociferously protest their innocence, so expect the same from these ones. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small>} 23:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

*I reverted all the edits from these users. That usually makes him mad, so keep an eye out for a new user who crops up and starts reverting them back to his versions. --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:I've created a section on ZS at [[WP:LTA|long term abuse]]. Feel free to expand/modify it or even create a new subpage if necessary. --[[User:TML1988|TML1988]] 02:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:: How can one tell if they are sockpuppets? Using the checkuser, or just "similar ranting style" :) ? [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Some instances are easier to detect than others, for example: [[User:Zephram Stark Does Not Give Up]], or anyone who edits [[Coving]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: Also, philosophical posts on [[User talk:ElectricRay]] :) --<b>[[User:JW1805|JW1805]]</b> <small>[[User talk:JW1805|(Talk)]]</small> 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== User Googoltriplex RK has been blocked by a bot (page moves)==

[[User:Googoltriplex RK]] has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Googoltriplex+RK&page= move log for this user] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=Googoltriplex+RK unblock if this was an error].

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

'''This message was generated by the bot.''' -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:hmmm either willy or an impersonator.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 00:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See below. He's going around making new usernames, and adding sockpuppet tags. Clear vandalism. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Violation of Page Protection==

User [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] has violated page protection [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privatization&diff=45739336&oldid=45669295] at [[Privatization]] after the page was protected due to a complaint from Jersey Devil of edit warring.

I ask that this user be sanctioned for his violation of protection and that the text he removed be restored until debate is over. Thank You.

--[[User:Northmeister|Northmeister]] 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:He probably didn't notice it had been protected, Northmeister. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::I see on the talk page he says he did it deliberately. I can't revert because I'm involved in the content dispute. Perhaps you should contact the admin who protected. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did notice. The section is flagrantly unsuited to that article (and probably any other) for reasons sufficiently stated by me and others on the talk page, and the debate has long since descended into irrelevant wikilawyering, edit warring, and bitching about Arbcom cases. None of this is conducive to producing a swift resolution of the matter; so by [[WP:IAR]], as I stated, I removed the section. I ''entirely'' stand by that decision. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 04:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:[[User:Rd232|Rd232]], as an active, non-administrator user, I find your action very disturbing. <s>Undoing<S> Ignoring the article protection of another administrator is not a step towards [[WP:DR]]. In my opinion, you need to re-insert the text, ASAP. [[User:FloNight|<font color = "darkblue">'''FloNight'''</font>]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color = "green">^''talk''</font>]] 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Section was already reinserted by Golbez. And I did not undo the PP, I amended which version was shown whilst PP is active, for reasons stated in detail here and on the talk page. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I didn't "ignore" the PP either, as my comment on the Talk page made clear the reasons for changing which version was protected. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 05:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:IAR is a sanity check, not a lifestyle. You can stand by it all I want, and I stand by reverting it. If you have a problem with my protection, you bring it to me. You do not insult a fellow administrator by continuing to edit the very paragraph over which there is a conflict. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Sanity check being exactly what is required in this situation. I have no problem with your protection, I just felt that something so obviously inappropriate, and with such unhelpful debate about it, should not be in the public version whilst lengthy and unproductive debate about it continues. I know PP doesn't ''endorse'' a page version, but it nonetheless shows one to the public rather than another. Since we are here to build an encyclopedia, we cannot entirely ignore this. As for insulting you, where do you get that idea?? We're here to build an encyclopedia, ego has no place in it. It's not like I reversed an action of yours - unlike you. And I fully explained my reasons in detail, unlike you. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Rd, admins are not allowed to edit protected pages, except in very limited circumstances (to correct a typo, for example). The section may be inappropriate, but not to the point where it must absolutely be removed as an emergency regardless of page protection. All we're waiting for, I believe, is for Northmeister to produce sources showing that outsourcing is regarded as a form of privatization. There's nothing so scandalous in that that an admin has to violate page protection because of it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 05:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Sorry, but I disagree. Sourcing on that issue is irrelevant as to whether the section belongs in the article - see my comments (muchly ignored by everyone else while they get bogged down in irrelevant definitional issues) on the Talk page. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Concur with SlimVirgin. Rd232, you're sitting too close to the screen, as it were, if you think leaving that para in for a little while poses any threat to the encyclopedia. A greater threat is posed by having admins use their permissions to give themselves advantages in content disputes. &mdash;[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::In general, I agree, which is why I've never done it before. I felt very strongly in this case that the section clearly does not belong ''and'' that the participants were ignoring the basic issues that I and others had raised. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ^{[[user talk:rd232|talk]]} 05:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::[[User:Rd232|Rd232]], ''obviously inappropriate'' is in the eye of the beholder. That said, and to be too be very fair about the situation, [[User:Golbez|Golbez]] probably shouldn't have re-inserted the text. Could have stood in that version. Or it was post here and someone else would re-insert it eventually. [[User:FloNight|<font color = "darkblue">'''FloNight'''</font>]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color = "green">^''talk''</font>]] 05:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Help needed at [[WP:AIV]]==

There's a lot happening at [[WP:AIV]], and I'd like another admin to take a look, please, as I may have blocked one user unfairly &mdash; but then again, I may not have! Thanks. [[User:Musical Linguist|AnnH]] [[User talk:Musical Linguist|<b><font size="3">♫</font></b>]] 00:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'd unblock {{vandal|Science3456}} if they made what seemed to be a sincere request. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quadragintillion_on_fast_wheels%21&diff=prev&oldid=45777508 This] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminum_foiI&action=history this] show weird editing for a newbie, but could conceivably be clueless testing. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 00:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:It follows a vandalism pattern over the past couple days of both the Large Numbers vandal, and the Wheels vandal, which is why I reported it. Regardless, Science3456 was created as a sock of the prior blocks and should be kept blocked for evasion anyway. The names that they were putting the sockpuppet tags on, while having weird usernames, had made absolutely no posts. If there's no posts, how can they be a sock for sure? Thus Science and his socks such as froogle, were committing vandalism. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small>^Ready</small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small>_Fire!</small>]] 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Revert war on ROC articles==

A revert war on naming conventions is currently going on on several ROC related articles. An anon is disputing the previous consensus where introductory references to the ROC are appended with the common short form "[[Republic of China]] (Taiwan)" (see [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV]]. The anon has appeared to have used several sockpuppets so far and has refused to acknowledge or discuss the previous consensus when efforts were made at contact. Affected articles include:

*[[Template:Politics of the Republic of China]]

*[[Republic of China Army]]

*[[Republic of China Navy]]

*[[Republic of China Air Force]].

Anon IPs and users which may be possible sockpuppets include:

* {{vandal|203.115.1.135}}

* {{vandal|128.120.179.41}}

* {{vandal|202.154.0.210}}

* {{vandal|Soimbox}}.

External mediation or monitoring efforts would be appreciated. -[[User:Changlc|Loren]] 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Strange diff of this page==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=45615586 Here] looks like some kind of edit conflict glitch. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/talktome| Farmbrough]]'' 00:42 [[28 March]] [[2006]] (UTC).

:It was; I entered that edit four times, several minutes apart. Three times it didn't register, and the fourth time that happened. I saw someone complaining about lack of server synchronization about the same time. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 04:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::It has also removed several contributions. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough/talktome| Farmbrough]]'' 14:08 [[28 March]] [[2006]] (UTC).

==A strange case==

I am blocking {{vandal|Harpercanada}} indefinitely (after a question and a warning went ignored) because they are apparently creating articles solely to promote books published by HarperCollins Canada. As far as I know, this is the first time a major book publisher has decided to advertise on Wikipedia. If there's no complaint I will delete all their articles within a few days. [[User:Ashibaka|Ashibaka]] <small>[[User talk:Ashibaka|tock]]</small> 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Don't wait too long. The articles are horrible. For example: "[[The Continuity Girl]]"

:*''This book, published in 2006 by HarperCollins Canada is one that readers will laugh out loud.''

:I hope this editor is not an editor at HarperCollins. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::I see no problem with speedying the lot; they're probably all copyvios. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I've taken my own advice. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 03:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I concur with your decision. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 03:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Call it a stretch, but this could also be a Username violation (Harper is the current PM for Canada). [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::Harper's not an uncommon surname, though, and it was all book spam (admittedly, that was my first thought too). [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion of [[Template:User feminist]]==

<strike>The user [[User:NicholasTurnbull|NicholasTurnbull]] speedily deleted the template [[Template:User feminist]] on the grounds: ''(Speedy deletion T1 - divisive in respect that feminism, or any other discrimination on the basis of gender, is unacceptable on Wikipedia and has no place here.)'' I don't believe that this template meets CSD T1. I believe that taking feminism to be "discrimination on the basis of gender" is itself POV, and hence the judgment that the template meets CSD T1 is itself a violation of [[WP:NPOV]]. I'd like to see this template recreated since it was speedily deleted in an out-of-process way. [[User:Catamorphism|Catamorphism]] 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)</strike> Never mind, taking it to the appropriate forum. [[User:Catamorphism|Catamorphism]] 07:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:You have to take it through [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates]].[[User:Geni|Geni]] 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Ok, thanks. I didn't know that page existed. [[User:Catamorphism|Catamorphism]] 07:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:Croatian historian]] ==

This user has been engaging in personal attacks and has been removing properly placed warnings from his [[User_talk:Croatian_historian|talk page]]. Seems to have been warned many times yet still does so and has a watchlist of people he claims to be vandals etc. I've blocked for a short while though his attitude to the block seems to suggest he will continue to be disruptive after that. Anyone care to take a look? --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]^{(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)} 09:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:I've blocked him for his behavior for 31 hours on the 26th. Since then, he has only worsen his behavior. I suggest a much longer block. Since his latest block, he has personally attacked me, pgk and OrbitOne. I have once again sprotected his user talk page until/if his block expires --[[User:Lbmixpro|LBMixPro]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|^&lt;Sp]][[WP:EA|<font color="green">^e</font>]][[User talk:Lbmixpro|^{ak|on|it!&gt;}]] 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There's something odd about all this, and I wonder if other admins could look in on it. I've unblocked <span class="plainlinks">[[User:Croatian historian|Croatian historian]] ([[User talk:Croatian historian|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Croatian historian|contribs]] &bull; [{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|user={{{2|Croatian historian}}}}} page moves] &bull; [[Special:Blockip/Croatian historian|block user]] &bull; [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{{2|Croatian historian}}}}} block log])</span>, and unprotected his Talk page. Some, at least, of the supposed personal attacks have not been (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBormalagurski&diff=45571341&oldid=45565161], and I've seen little to justify a block. Those attacking Croatian historian, on the other hand, such as <span class="plainlinks">[[User:User:Bormalagurski|User:Bormalagurski]] ([[User talk:User:Bormalagurski|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/User:Bormalagurski|contribs]] &bull; [{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|user={{{2|User:Bormalagurski}}}}} page moves] &bull; [[Special:Blockip/User:Bormalagurski|block user]] &bull; [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{{2|User:Bormalagurski}}}}} block log])</span>, have been behaving very badly, with genuine personal attacks, the removal of AfD notices from pages while discussion is continuing, and the removal of comments from article Talk pages. I'm sure that the admins involved haven't in fact been taking sides, but their actions have at least appeared a little one-sided. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

: To clarify, clearly Mel Etitis has looked into the background of this more than I did. I saw the user posting <nowiki>{{bv}}</nowiki> tags to an admins talk page in response to that admin reverting the removal of warnings from his talk page. [[WP:TALK]] states "Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Additionally the user was maintaining a "watchlist" on his page listing individuals as vandals, admin abusers etc. I consider this to be uncivil at best if not a personal attack. This [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Guanaco%2C_MarkSweep%2C_et_al/Proposed_decision#StrangerInParadise_is_uncivil|*proposed* arbcom decision]]. anticipates similar behaviour as being unacceptable. Additionally the user had been blocked a couple of days previously for similar. As a potentially controversial block hence the posting here. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]^{(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)} 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Privacy Harassment from {{vandal|67.160.251.14}}==

I received [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGator1&diff=45774710&oldid=45732366 this] on my talk page last night. I warned the user not to harass and threatened a block if he did it again. Thoughts?[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:As I posted at [[WP:AN]], you're not under any obligation to disclose any personal information to anyone and I certainly wouldn't give anyone your license to practice law license number.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Mass move-protections ==

I'd like to seek some external feedback on {{admin|Freakofnurture}}'s use of the sysop-move protection feature. He has move protected approximately 50 high-profile pages in recent days, though they had no move wars and in few, if any, cases have ever exhibited any. In few cases have they ever even been moved. I recognise that [[Albert Einstein]], for example, is unlikely to need a move for some time to come, but we really don't want to go slapping protection on articles "just in case the apocyalypse comes". It seems to me to run directly counter to the spirit of open editing and trusting editors.

FoN cites the database troubles that might, hypothetically, be caused by a vandalistic move of such an article. This seems a weak justification for amending (by fiat) the way we do things that has worked fine and dandy for a number of years. My feeling is that these protections have no basis in policy, guideline, practise, precedent or practicality and that they should be reversed. If people don't want vandals in their work, they should be writing on paper. Vandals (or, more accurately, admins' nightmares of them) are not the biggest problem round here. Should we be mass-protecting pre-emptively? -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:If it weren't so mind-numbingly easy to create an account and use it for pagemove vandalism only a week later, it wouldn't be a concern. If moving pages was actually as simple as changing which title pertains to a stationary stack of edits, it wouldn't be a concern. If it wasn't so easy to unintentionally delete a large stack of edits whilst performing a page move, perhaps if the software generated some kind of warning similar to that of an edit conflict, it wouldn't be a concern. If restoring 7312 deleted edits wasn't a task requiring developer access, it wouldn't be a concern. If this was some kind of Wiki-Utopia completely bereft of vandalism, it wouldn't be a concern. Unfortunately the sum of these conditions indicates that it is, in fact, a major concern. Even [[RuneScape]], for example, an article about a video game that none of us would think to take seriously, now has more edits than [[United States]] did on the day that it got moved to [[FUCK SHlT COCK WHORE SLUT PUSSY DlCK NIGGER CHINK]] and subsequently disappeared for an hour, before [[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]] was able to bring it back. Perhaps I'm assuming universal bad faith, maybe it's the way I was raised, I don't know, but immediately upon seeing [[Special:Mostrevisions]], I realized the level of damage that would occur if this information was read by the [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels|wrong set of eyes]]. If there is any legitimate reason to move [[RuneScape]] or [[Canada]] to an alternate title, anybody who is acting in good faith should see no problem in posting their thoughts at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] or asking an admin, or starting a discussion on the talk page of the article. These are not run-of-the-mill road-and-school cruft articles being discussed, these are a relatively significant percentage of all total edits. — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[15:39] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

[[Image:7312 deleted edits.png|800px]]<br clear=all>

Oh and, just for old times' sake, here's that "annoying" screenshot from December back to haunt us all, in case anybody wants it. If it gets deleted, don't worry, I got an extra copy. — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[15:45] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

::If you can't bear a bit of vandalism, then either write your work on paper, or use a different website. Here, we are open and welcoming, and not working on the assumption os imagined apocalypses to come. Less caffeine, less panic, and less protection. If people are going to go around slapping protection on anything that'd be edited a lot, then gradually there will be fewer and fewer things getting edited. I don't see any circumstance under which that is viable in short-, medium- or long term. Using move protection (somewhat under the radar, I add: no discussion, no announcement, no tags, no warnings, no notes anywhere) is just a rather quiet step in a profoundly wrong direction. If the servers have a problem, it is for the sysadmins and developers to fix it. It is not for admins here to lock the site down in quivering fear of a bad edit. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 15:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Move protection has no effect on the amount of editing that goes on, which is a significant amount, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Show me the bugzilla request and I'll campaign in support of it. Show me a legitimate title that one of those pages might be moved to, and I'll say yeah, unprotect it, move it, but re-protect it if and when you get done. — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[16:09] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

::: We protect high profile templates to avoid the disruption that causes when updated, surely that's also just a technical issue or vandalism paranoia, are we going to unprotect those also? similarly the main page is protected, [[United States]] has been almost permenantly protected against moves since the incident [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=United+States]. Personally I'm not currently 100% convinced that it's required to protect these against moves, but nor do I see it as being the beginning of the end to do so. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]^{(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)} 16:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::: I equally dispute the need to protect the high-visibility templates and can think of several that are not protected without the sky having fallen in. You are quite right that is simply vandalism paranoia, and allowing the vandals to have an effect on us when they should not be allowed one. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::: You can't be [[Imagine (song)|serious]]. What's next then? Unprotect the MediaWiki namespace? The main page? Where do you draw the line, sir? — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[16:36] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

:::::: I don't recall saying, ever, that we should unprotect those pages. These are articles, for goodness' sake, not part of the interface of the website. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::: You said "''I equally dispute the need to protect the high-visibility templates''" though such templates not articles, but rather part of the interface of the website, and should not be edited on a whim. Also (as I stated somewhere in this hopeless thread), protecting an article from pagemove vandalism does not hamper the progress of actual editing in any way, shape, or form. — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[18:42] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

::::: Equally there are plenty which have been protected and wikipedia hasn't stopped functioning as a result. --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]^{(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)} 16:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:I can't think of a good reason not to move-protect these high-profile articles. 99.9999% of editors won't be affected by this at all. Other proposals (such as semi-protecting main page FAs) do drastically affect new editors (and vandals as well), but move-protection only harms the vandals. Besides, if something ever happens to warrant moving [[United States]], I'm sure a bunch of admins would be edit-conflicting in trying to move the article. (High-profile articles get most of the attention, remember?) [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one has any call to move these pages, so move-protecting them is at worst harmless. [[User:Markalexander100|Henry]][[User talk:Markalexander100|^Flower]] 17:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::No, it's not. It says "oh well, none of us admins trust any of those editors. Must take cover from vandals! Must run! Must hide!" -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I trust most (not all) editors not to be malicious; I don't trust most editors not to cock up. Reducing the number and seriousness of potential cock-ups is a Good Thing. [[User:Markalexander100|Henry]][[User talk:Markalexander100|^Flower]] 17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure what you mean by that. It seems to imply that it's good-faith editors you would protect against, rather than the usual excuse of "vandals-mean-end-of-world-nigh-repent". I don't suppose you mean that, but it is more or less what it says. It's good-faith editors, who are the vast bulk of our community that are the reason we ''do not'' pre-emptively protect things: we trust them, or we don't participate in this kind of a project. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 17:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'd protect against both. [[User:Markalexander100|Henry]][[User talk:Markalexander100|^Flower]] 18:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:I want to hear from the developers about whether this is actually a problem from the database; often times, as we saw with the transcluded templates thing, people will make fanciful claims about how this or that is hard on the servers without substantiating it. I honestly don't know myself, although I remember that the database went read-only for about 10 minutes when Ed Poor deleted VFD. So it's definitely conceivable that moving an article with a huge edit history could be a problem. And I don't think it will be that much of a bother to ask on [[WP:RFPP]] for an unprotect in twenty or so years when someone thinks of a reason to move [[Albert Einstein]], so I generally agree with John here. --[[User:Ryan Delaney|Ryan Delaney]] [[User talk:Ryan Delaney|^<b>talk</b>]] 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::[[Albert Einstein (original source DNA)]] after the [[Albert Einstein (evil clone 23552)]] incident in 2022. =D --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Is that helpful? -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 17:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Not intended to be helpful or harmful. Intended to add some humor to lighten a discussion among friends. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::Wrong thead evidently. :( — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[18:28] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

Then consider where we stop. I wrote [[Electronic Travel Authority]] the other day. Noone has any call to move it. Why don't we move protect it? Why not move protect everything by default and say everybody has to flutter their eyelashes at an admin before they can move it? -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 17:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:An article which all of three editors (and zero vandals) have heard of makes a particularly poor strawman in this discussion, and borders on being a shameless plug. I guess I'll go undercover and anonymously edit it up to featured status, then put it on wheels. No, not really. I have neither the writing skill to do the former, nor the malice to do the latter, but I'm not the average person either. — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[18:28] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

::I'm not sure why I should need to advertise an article. It was just one that came to mind that I wrote and could have move protected on these grounds. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And this ''is'' a slippery slope. Next week, another IRC-crazed vandal fighter will say "per ANI discussion last week, I'm protecting the second set of 50 popular articles from moves". Ok, we say. Then it carries on, because now there's precedent: it's the done thing to protect-in-panic on a just-in-case. Just because it doesn't need a tag on an article doesn't make it a good thing. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Should I take offense to such labeling, or is it being used affectionately? I can't distinguish sarcasm from seriousness in Splash's words anymore. For the record I stopped at the end of page one because I got bored, and, in the capacity of ''thinking like a vandal'' I assumed that an actual vandal would get bored at the same point and go back to whatever he was previously doing, be it playing [[RuneScape]] or watching [[football (soccer)]] on the [[television|telly]]. I assumed good faith from #51 onward? It's hard to say with any certainty. Seriously, though, a better solution would be to increase the threshhold of account age and experience required for an account to perform page moves. As it is, they sit and do nothing, until some kid with an index card logs back into the accounts and wreaks havoc. Perhaps establish a minimum number of edits, at which point we can reasonably assume that if a user hasn't yet been indefinitely blocked as a vandal, he probably won't be. Hopefully good faith and common sense won't always be mutually exclusive goals, and hopefully (in the absence of protection) [[Abortion]] won't be moved to [[Nine-months-after pill]] at the drop of a hat, no pun intended. — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[18:16] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

::People do seem to emerge from IRC slightly vandal-crazed. Usually into #wikipedia in capital letters about needing a hundredthousand username blocks yesterday and all rollback buttons in action right now. Sitting in the anti-vandal channel for too long seems to give the impression that every edit is, with good probability, bad. It's not the full RC list, after all, by design it's only the dodgy stuff you get to see. This leads, I think, to a feeling of being taken over and needing to slam the doors (the horse having already both bolted and invaded doesn't seem to matter). I don't think you assumed good faith at any point (nor necessarily bad, though there has to be an element in preemptivity). I think you stopped probably unsure of whether you should carry on. If you do carry on, I will lift the further protections. Those pages further down have a few thousand edits, and the servers, I know for a fact, can handle that. I moved [[WP:PP]] a while back and nobody batted an eyelid. {{unsigned|Splash|}}

* I '''support''' {{admin|Freakofnurture}}'s page protections. Assuming good faith is not the same as leaving ourselves vulnerable to quite predictable attack that will significantly eat up people's time to fix. The "oppenness" of the wiki is not seriously hampered by this action. Performing a page-move is not some kind of God-given right that every user must have for every page. I support establishing some kind of guideline as to what the protection-threshold should be. In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with FoN's protections. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\^{[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]} 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

**Yes, actually, I think it is. The wiki is fundamentally based on trust: that's why you can "edit this page", to coin a phrase. Preemptive protection is an explicit statement of distrust. Sowing such seeds when they need not be sowed can't be a great idea. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

*I also think this protection is a good idea. It does not make it any harder for non-admins to move a page such as [[United States]]: moving this page has to go through [[WP:RM]] anyway. The only question is whether an admin is needed to close the move request. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 18:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::I agree, good point about controversial moves going through RM anyway, so why not protect against the possibility of page move vandalism/error. [[User:Petros471|Petros471]] 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::The point is that we ''don't'' have to ask before editing. [[WP:BOLD]] and all. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::The distinction between editing and moving pages has been quite clarified. — <small>Mar. 28, '06</small> <tt class=plainlinks>'''[19:48] <[{{fullurl:user:freakofnurture}} freakofnur_xture][[special:contributions/freakofnurture||]][{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit&section=new}} talk]>'''</tt>

Clearly I have to adjust my thinking somewhat. Whilst I do not accept that these move protections are either good or necessary clearly some people do. I won't lift them. But I do not think this discussion mandates any further widespread move protections without a discussion first. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small>^{[[User talk:Splash|talk]]}</small> 19:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==Sneaky move-protection==

I don't know if anyone cares, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huang_He&diff=41937487&oldid=41937421 this] is clearly an effort to keep people from moving [[Yellow River]] back to [[Huang He]]... [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:And a good thing too. [[User:Markalexander100|Henry]][[User talk:Markalexander100|^Flower]] 16:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:The sinister Myst]] ==

Vandal account that has a strange obsession with redirecting random articles to the [[Myst]] article. I went through all of his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/_The_sinister_Myst contributions] just recently and reverted all of his vandal edits. Its a vandal-only account so I'm humbly requesting an indefinite block. -[[User:Megaman Zero|Zero]]^{[[User talk:Megaman Zero|Talk]]} 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Update: user is currently in the process of vandalism as I construct this post. I will continue to revert until a block can be issued. -[[User:Megaman Zero|Zero]]^{[[User talk:Megaman Zero|Talk]]} 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, they were blocked by Gator1 at 17:00. --[[User:Syrthiss|Syrthiss]] 17:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::That's lovely. I caught his vandalism quite promptly too, so there's no mess to clean up. -[[User:Megaman Zero|Zero]]^{[[User talk:Megaman Zero|Talk]]} 17:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:Sussexman]] ==

I received the following [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmanderson&diff=45827889&oldid=45820994]:

:''Attorney?

:''As an English barrister I find it impossible to believe that you are a lawyer, given the grossly defamatory and entirely POV post you made on Lord Nicholas Hervey's page. [[User:Sussexman|Sussexman]] 07:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this legal threat was ''intended'' for me; my only edit related to [[Nicholas Hervey]] was to oppose the move request (on the talk page) on the grounds that the Style War should not be stirred up; but please act on it anyway. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:Miskin]]==

Interesting morning I've been having. I also received this[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pmanderson&diff=next&oldid=45851524]

:'' I was very tempted to just grab the opportunity and make public denouncements against you, but my moral values held me back this one time. As I'm determined to go through anything in order to keep your POV out of the article, I don't know long I can hold back before I rationalize my actions and take extreme measures against you. Thought you should know that. [[User:Miskin|Miskin]] 13:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)''

[[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 17:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:I've warned the user against further personal attacks. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== User:Rovno ==

{{vandal|Rovno}} has been submitting a number of copyrighted lyrics and blanking other pages. [[User:RJFJR|RJFJR]] 17:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Confirmed. The insertion persisted after several warnings; I'd recommend a 48 hour block. [[User:Robchurch|Rob]] [[User_talk:Robchurch|Church]] 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Blocked for 24 hours.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism ==

{{vandal|24.155.128.3}} School ip vandal [[User:Antonrojo|Antonrojo]] 17:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

{{vandal|216.26.133.2}} Blatant school ip vandal [[User:Antonrojo|Antonrojo]] 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:This isn't [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]]. [[User:Robchurch|Rob]] [[User_talk:Robchurch|Church]] 19:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Nevertheless, both have been blocked.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Reporting [[User:Hatchet]] ==

I'd like to report [[User:Hatchet]]. He has been vandalizing many articles for months now. You can see here [[Special:Contributions/User:Hatchet]] the list of his disruptions. Most of problems were on [[Cradle of Filth]] page. He has been changing the genre category entry witch is already under heavy dispute. Changes are against [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:POINT]]. The user hasn't been warned until recently, but I wasn't aware of his deeds and [[User:Leyasu]] would just revert his statements. I have properly warned him but if you could take some sort of standard measures for those types of offenses it would make things easier for fellow editors. Thank you! ([[User_talk:Death2|talk]]) [[User:Death2|Death2]] 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== Why Blocked ==

Why am I blocked when I have just created an account?

hollandave

:Hi there. The reason for the block will be listed on the "you're blocked" page, along with the name of the blocking administrator, and your IP address. We need these pieces of information before we can assess your situation. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for creating an account; hopefully, this was just a simple misunderstanding. [[User:Robchurch|Rob]] [[User_talk:Robchurch|Church]] 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:Well, according to your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AHollandave block log], you're not blocked....and you edited here....so...I'm confused.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:: Possibly an AOL address blocked, so one edit works another doesn't... --[[User:Pgk|pgk]]^{(<font color="mediumseagreen">[[User_talk:Pgk|talk]]</font>)} 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::Maybe. Without his IP address, we'll never know.[[User:Gator1|Gator]] [[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

== User Trigintillion has been blocked by a bot (page moves)==

[[User:Trigintillion]] has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Trigintillion&page= move log for this user] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&action=unblock&ip=Trigintillion unblock if this was an error].

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

'''This message was generated by the bot.''' -- [[User:Curps|Curps]] 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)