Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:13, 8 April 2007

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Problem regarding the article OmegaT

On April 1st 00.22 Tokyo time I send a mail to info-en-c@wikipedia.org regarding registered trademark infringement by a Wikipedia author.

The ticket number is [Ticket#2007033110014917].

I was first replied to by Mr. Benn Newman who suggested that I follow the procedures proposed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I read the page and considered that most of its contents was not relevant and replied with a request for more information since our case seemed to not be addressed there.

I received then a reply by Mr. Guy Chapman who told me he had considered my request and 1) removed the conflicting article and 2) banned the user "laseray".

Following that, the user laseray used an unregistered IP resolving to vandalize the OmegaT page and to remove references to OmegaT in other related pages.

see 216.252.81.89 on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer-assisted_translation&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OmegaT&action=history

We know that it is highly probable that it is him since the IP resolves to a domain he advertises as using on other sites: http://www.proz.com/post/543150 (Proz is a site for professional translators). His profile page is at: http://www.proz.com/profile/649046

where he indicates he uses the colba.net server, the same name than the one to which the IP 216.252.81.89 resolves.

For a little background information, OmegaT is one of the few existing free (GPL) software to help translators. It is developped by a team of volunteers of which the Wikipedia user "laseray" (Raymond Martin) was a member from the automn of 2004 to the spring of 2005 when he left after upsetting pretty much everybody in the team. He went on to create his fork and since then never ceased to arrass us. We were forced to register the "OmegaT" trademark and started to request that our right to that name be enforced in various places on the web of which Wikipedia is one.

Currently, all the IP that resolve to colva.net that do edits on computer aided translation related pages (translation memory etc) are used by people to falsify information concerning OmegaT, althought it is highly probable that all the edits are made by one and the same person: Mr. Raymond Martin. It is starting to take a significant amount of time to maintain the pages, where, out of honesty, we even added information related to Mr. Martin's fork.

We are currently at loss and would like to know what is possible to do. We do not want to have the page locked because there are a number of contributors to that page who would be harmed by that process but we would like to know how to deal with such savage vandalism.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-Christophe Helary (Jc_helary)

Images in Signature

Hello. I have a problem with images in user signatures. Especially S V G images. For some accessibility software (screen readers etc.) S V G images are read as text because their file is not recognised as binary, and vector graphisc slow computers considerably, and when they are removed from display the formatting is not always kept, this creates great problems in user signatures, but then I see policy WP:SIG forbids images. I asked[1] one user if he could remove image from signature as per WP:SIG#Images. I received no response and the comment was archived in less than 24 hours. The user continues to sign with an image.

The user (User:AKMask) also had another request to remove image from signature which had this response[2]. I can understand that the user has had the image before the policy was created, but I disagree the policy does not apply because the flag image is small. “I dont(sic) have any issues with people refactoring(sic) talk and discussion pages to eliminate it if they so desire” I think this is very backwards. By the time I see the flag it has already caused a problem, then the user is asking me to edit it out? Even on this A N I page I am posting this user is posting with his flag. I think the rules should apply to everyone evenly. Many people had images (even small ones) and removed them. I do not think it is fair that there has to be a "significant outcry" (Who judges this?) before an accepted policy should be followed by a particular user. I post here to hope an administrator could ask him again please to remove the image from his signatures.--Dacium 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, he's soon going to have to be blocked until he removes the images from his signature. It's a simple rule that we all have to follow, and there is no grandfather clause. --Cyde Weys 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: aren't SVG images usually rendered to png by MediaWiki? I'm uncertain as to why they're specifically creating a problem. But yes, Cyde Weys' warning seems pretty reasonable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used a flag before the policy came in, I removed it when the policy came in. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain once and for all why images in signatures are not allowed. Even the most obnoxious, ornamented, 1KB signature you can think of is still nothing more than HTML, and it is sent inline with the rest of the discussion page. Now this may inflate bandwidth by a little bit, but that's not a huge problem. Images, however, are handled totally differently. Each image needs to come across through a separate HTTP connection. People are saying, "Oh, but this or that image is only 300B" — that's not the point. The point is that it puts a lot more load on the server by requiring another HTTP request, not through bandwidth. If images in signatures were allowed and a lot of people were using them, rather than the typical discussion page generating a few HTTP requests, it could potentially generate dozens of them. That would be putting an utterly unnecessary increased load on servers, and to prevent this from happening, images are banned in signatures, period. I have spoken with AKMask on IRC and explained this with him, and he is removing the image voluntarily. The draconian block threat is unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Images are banned, but the other restrictions on sigs don't seem to be so clear. Is there a client-side solution (eg, user CSS sheets or GreaseMonkey extensions) that re-factor a user's local page? That would allow users to post with ugly sigs, and other users to avoid those sigs. Dan Beale 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the script is called TonySidaway.js ;-) Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAH! El_C 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the use of images in signatures is not forbidden at all. WP:SIG#Images is a wiki Guideline and is not policy and therefor not enforceable. Any admin who blocked a user because of an image in their signature would themselves be violating wiki policy. There are two options for this issue. 1. Change the guideline into actual policy. 2. Automate the system to prevent the use of images in signatures. You can see from this entry that people are already working on this: bugzilla:6379. In the meantime, while you may request a user remove an image from a signature, there is no wiki policy at present to enforce this. Z Ha Dum 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read here, guidelines are actionable. Saying that because community consensus is expressed on a page marked as a "guideline" instead of a "policy" equates to "not forbidden at all" is ludicrous and not an accurate reading of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actionable YES! and in this case the action taken would be to request a user to remove the image from their signature. Proposing or applying a Block on a user for refusing to remove that image is not appropriate. The fact is that this is NOT policy, it is a guideline which is proposed by wiki consensus. It is a suggestion of how things should be done. If this was to be a hard and fast rule for editors then it would be POLICY and would have a preset consequence well defined by that policy. At present it is not POLICY and has no predefined consequence. While an admin may request a user to apply this guideline, they may not enforce it. Read the first line of "Guideline" it states that it is a guideline only and is NOT set in concrete. While the use of images in signatures may be an annoyance to some editors, to others it has no affect at all. If you don't like the guideline then I suggest that you apply to have it adopted as POLICY or joint the group at bugzilla:6379. Until then, you should lay off the bully tactics focused at editors that do not share you POV and try and focus more on editing wikipedia. After all, that is the real reason we are here - or do you have some other agenda? Z Ha Dum 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree

Could someone investigate a series of odd incidents, mainly concerning Category:User templates, and the following pages: User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short.

PatPeter (talk · contribs) has been using this page to replace what's been accepted as userpage format, and as far as I can tell, there's been no one but him working on the category 'rule' changes (see below).

Cat page changes:

Also refer to [13], [14], and [15]. Bl a st 05.04.07 0424 (UTC)

I've already questioned the use of WP:StS on WP:AN earlier. Note that the CFD has now been closed as "speedy keep" due to orphaning of the category by the nom, PatPeter (talk · contribs), amongst other irregularities. See here. Also, as a result of this comment, my first encounter with this user, I received this reply. - Alison^☺ 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats because you made it clear as mud that you were trying to tell me to assume good faith on behalf of other users and not myself. -PatPeter 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out there's apparently some history to all this on ANI - Alison^☺ 05:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It appears that this is not the first time PatPeter's conduct has been raised on this board (see this archived thread). I have recently become aware of a range of questionable edits by this editor:

The bringing of an TfD for the user category Category:Cub Wikipedians on the basis of it containing only one member when he had orphaned it himself ([16], [17]). Given this, I have speedy closed the discussion and suggested a new debate at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion with proper nomination (the category is a little problematic, especially given the difference in meaning ascribed to the word "Cub" between the gay community and the Scouting community).
The user created userbox User:PatPeter/User antigay which stated an opposition to gay rights in general (not just same sex marriage etc). It has been speedy deleted by Grandmasterka as divisive and inflammatory per CSD T1.
At present his userpage contains a flashing alert declaring that he is about to commit suicide. It appears highly distasteful and likely to distress users with personal experience of suicide.

I don't know enough about the templates listed above to assess PatPeter's edits to them (though the "rules" do seem expressed unnecessarily strongly) but would ask they be investigated by someone who does. WjBscribe 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's trying to be distasteful or offensive with this suicide message. I think he's suffering from some serious depression. One of his userboxes says as much. I wouldn't treat this as a joke or an attempt to be rude; actually I think someone completely uninvolved might want to leave a nice note recommending that he make an appointment to talk to someone. He's on a university campus, and most have free and confidential counselling available at the drop of a hat. — coel acan — 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re. the "suicide" comment. These things, even if made in jest, often run deeper, in my experience - Alison^☺ 05:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only interaction with him so far was this, which I found to be in rather bad taste. Potential socks? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be overlooking something. What's the sock potential you're seeing? — coel acan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I guess you were talking about this.... That is really weird. I don't know if it yells "sock" so much as "weird random stuff". — coel acan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was presumably done to make the templates appear more used than they really were... WjBscribe 07:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Some of them were done after the Tfd closed. — coel acan — 07:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's troubling me right now is the title overrides on User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Category Cleanup and User:PatPeter/Wikiproject:Source to Short. Over at User talk:Mallanox one can see how he directed someone to these pages as though they were Wikiprojects making guidelines that should be followed, or at least that's my reading of it. Anybody else troubled by the title overrides, or should I just drop it? — coel acan — 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unacceptable, especially given the use of the redirect WP:StS and WP:CGC so the user has little to tell them that it is NOT a Wikipedia page... WjBscribe 06:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. But I wasn't going to keep reverting as my own one-person inquisition. — coel acan — 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As redirects to userspace for WP: shortcuts are expressly excluded from CSD R2, I have listed the shortcuts at Redirects for discussion. WjBscribe 07:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

watch out for category emptying

PatPeter has now admitted that he was emptying a category prior to speedying it, to "fight fire with fire". So if anyone is doing speedy deletions, and you see a category tagged by User:PatPeter or an Oregon State Univeristy IP, consider that it may have just been emptied. — coel acan — 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think I live in Oregon? I live in Chicago, it says so on my userpage. -PatPeter 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate user page

Please see User talk:Captain scarlet/Trollbox. Andy Mabbett 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it inappropriate? It looks like an archive of trolling against him to me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate to lump concerns made by other users into a "trolling" category. It promotes assuming bad faith when we should be assuming good faith. It only serves to aggravate any conflict that may have stemmed from the alleged trolling. If you believe someone is sincerely trolling you, it's acceptable to simply remove their comment from your page -- there's no need to put it on a "trolling" shelf to display your displeasure with those users. Leebo ^T/C 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how unappropriate me putting comments I view as trolling onto a seperate page. All contributors I feel trolled on my page are well aware of the regard I have for their comments. I prefer to keep them archived than to delete them. It's simply an archive. Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be incivility on both sides in this "trollbox". A less loaded name for it might be "Archive of disputes" without any references to trolling. I stand by my assertion that it's not appropriate to relegate certain users' comments to the side as trolls. Leebo ^T/C 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request - I'd like to see Andy/Pigsonthewing's thoughts on the matter, specifically why he felt it was inappropriate when he reported it, it doesn't seem right to leave Leebo alone on this, and there may be another concern we're not yet aware of. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with Chairboy's request, but I will say that I agree with Leebo and don't like calling the page anything close to "trolling"; especially since, in the first section at least (which is the only one I read), there wasn't any trolling (at least not by the other party...). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF; WP:NPA and, further up this page "Attack pages aren't acceptable, even as a user sub page.". Andy Mabbett 14:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while although some of the incidents are hard to track down, neither Hardouin nor Adambro were trolling. In Adambro's case, asking a person what they meant when they made a very cryptic statement about you isn't trolling. (If you don't want people asking such questions, then be less confusing when you talk about them) And, as far as the sock puppetry case is concerned, I don't know whether it's true or false. However, I do know that you should give a person notification of a case you've made against them. (That is, if he hadn't informed Captain scarlet of the case, then that would've been a lot worse) It certainly looks like an attack page. Bladestorm 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Leebo and Bbatsell. Trolling is a loaded word and nothing in this "archive" is actual trolling. This is a series of user disputes apparently based off of content disputes. Archiving them is fine. Calling them "trollboxes" is not. I'm going to suggest that Captain scarlet (talk · contribs) voluntarily moves them to a more WP:NPOV name like "dispute archives".--Isotope23 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Image:Sheffield Town Hall 04-10-04.jpg and many more like it. Andy Mabbett 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be highlighted that the user in question, Captain scarlet, is currently blocked from editing Wikipedia and this is probably a retaliation about that. It does of course however mean that he is unable to take part in this discussion to clear up any misunderstandings. I'd suggest this issue should also be raised over at commons. Adambro 19:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I count 64 images replaced with that, see [18]. Adambro 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this as a new issue, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Captain scarlet's photographs. Adambro 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still there, under the original name. Andy Mabbett 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is now editing again; the page is still there . Andy Mabbett 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username question

This is a strange situation that I'm not quite sure how to handle. I used to have the username SuperMachine (talk · contribs) until it was renamed to ChazBeckett (talk · contribs). My SuperMachine user page and talk page were redirected to ChazBeckett. Now someone has created User:SuperMachine and removed the redirects. My former signature (SuperMachine) is all over the place and now points to this new user. I'm not quote sure how to approach this. Do I ask the user to please stop using the name SuperMachine? Should I find all my old signatures and update them to point directly to ChazBeckett? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, ChazBeckett 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it should have shown up as a "taken" name and therefore ineligible for a new user to acquire. The short version thereof is that he can't have it, and the software should have let him know that. Since it didn't, it's up to one of the admins to do so. Utgard Loki 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that would be great if an admin could handle it. The user has only made four edits, so it shouldn't be a big deal to choose another user name. Thanks! ChazBeckett 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I surely empathize, there really isn't much to do about it. When you changed names, you left the old handle behind and all of your contribution attributions were changed accordingly. The only thing that changing your name doesn't do is adjust timestamps; that's up for you to do by hand. As the changing usernames pages says, the old account isn't blocked as it has been left empty and abandoned. I suggest you approach the user nicely and explain the situation, and ask if they could change names out of courtesy. If they don't, well... you gave up that old account. Sorry that I couldn't be of assistance. Maybe someone else can. Teke 01:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... my understanding was that the software wouldn't allow anyone to register a username which had been renamed -- perhaps that change was more recent than I realized, or my understanding is otherwise flawed. Not sure about the best thing to do, here. Only other idea that comes to mind is a "user disambig" link, but eh... – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bowlhover: talking back to admins is not a permablock offense

Resolved

– User unblocked, everyone lives happily ever after. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Higher up on this page, this chickenrace with Carnildo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Yamla (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just got an editor indefinitely blocked. A real, productive, editor, not a vandal, sock, or adder of unconstructive material, except for one April Fool's joke (not a very funny one IMO, but that's sort of not the point). I consider it disgraceful for admins to throw their weight around in this way, and bait users. "If you really feel that you need to be punished in order to know that you've done something wrong, I'll be more than happy to give you a 24-hour block" might stand as the perfect, canonical example of what not to say to a user who is already upset. It's certainly the perfect way of backing the user into a corner where all alternatives are humiliating. I have asked Carnildo, who blocked for 24 hours, and Yamla, who followed up by blocking indefinitely, to unblock.[19] [20]. I hope one of them does, and soon.. By the way, deleting Bowlhover's user talk was a mistake. We're not supposed to do that, only blank it. The history should remain accessible. Since it only is visible to admins, I will quote from Yamla's block message, which was also his "unblock denied message". (Are these two really supposed to be telescoped? Well, never mind, that's a minor detail.) Bowlhover had written (among other things) this in his unblock request:

"This 24-hour block is useless. I will repeat what I said two times before: I will not apologize for my actions, nor will I refrain from them on April 1, 2008. I guarantee that extending the block will be also useless."
Yamla declined the request, with the comment: "I have reverted somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 instances of this sort of thing. That's no exaggeration. You may think it is funny but we don't, not after that many "pranks". As you have promised to continue these actions, I have extended your block to an indefinite one. If you later promise to refrain from vandalism in the future, please request an unblock and someone will be happy to unblock you. In the meanwhile, please note that if you create any new accounts to continue editing while this one is blocked, this may be grounds for a permanent ban."

Was Bowlhover perhaps being punished for all the 10,000—20,000 April's Fools' pranks that Yamla had reverted..? It was hardly Bowlhover's fault that Yamla was burned out on April's Fools. It seems to me that both these admins have thrown their wieight around in an inappropriate way. The admin is supposed to be the bigger person, not use his/her powers to back a user into a corner.
Look at [Bowlhover's block log]! No previous blocks on this established long-time user. Weren't we supposed to have been promised more care with the block button from Carnildo? In his latest RFA, he made the undertaking that "I'll discuss any blocks that I feel need to be made on the Administrators' Noticeboard beforehand." Yeah? Bishonen | talk 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Surely a preventative block would have to be issued on March 31, 2008? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all let's calm down and review this. Bishonen, don't make this a 'get Carnildo' vendetta-crusade. I'm gong to investigate it, so should others. But lets hear all sides of this story without any sarcastic animosity.--Doc^g 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply 10,000 to 20,000 April Fools jokes, I meant vandalism generally. Bowlhover promised to continue these pranks and that is simply inappropriate. I made it quite clear that if he promised not to vandalise any further, he should be unblocked immediately. But someone who promises to continue vandalising in the future should not be permitted to edit. That the user implied, at least, that he would use sockpuppets to vandalise also weighed in on my decision to extend the block. --Yamla 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also hope that we all learned from a recent arbitration case that calm consideration can prevent a mistake from becoming a disaster. I second Doc's plea, and will investigate further myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I am quite happy for any other admin to unblock this user if they have reason to believe this user will no longer vandalise the Wikipedia, or if they are willing to take responsibility for that vandalism if they believe he will continue vandalising. --Yamla 18:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have looked into the history and also have serious concerns about this indefinite block, although I am also unimpressed with the user's complete indifference to the possibility that his April Fool's prank about a toxic spill in a major city might cause genuine alarm, and his complete unwillingness to consider moderating his comments regarding future actions. I find no basis for the suggestion that Bishonen's raising this matter was primarily based on the fact that the first blocking admin was Carnildo rather than anyone else (she frequently posts with concern about blocks she considers unjustified). Newyorkbrad 18:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page was tagged db-author, so the unability thereof is his own fault and not the outcome of malicious machinations. I'll note that this kind of post [21] is singularly unhelpful, if distressingly common. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for the appreciation, Mackensen, it was nothing. User talk pages are not supposed to be deleted according to the guideline Wikipedia:User page. How would you have liked me to put it? "I assume good faith and by no means malicious machinations and apologize for opening my mouth, but deleting user talk pages is a mistake"? I actually thought it might be minorly helpful to point it out. And I thought it it would be majorly helpful to take issue with this pushing-out of an established contributor, which had roused no interest until I did. Doc, if I had wanted to make it a "get Carnildo vendetta-crusade" it would have sounded quite different. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It looks like overkill to me. Serious problem editors are often not treated this harshly, though I too am unmoved by the "humor" of the edit in question. I think this user should be unblocked, but I would have no problem with a remedy that blocks the user every April 1 until they agree to stop. IronDuke 18:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right... unblock him now and someone put him on the docket for a preventative 48 hour block starting March 31st, 2008. I'll actually be impressed if anyone remembers to do that...--Isotope23 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked him. The activity was highly immature and I've every sympathy with Carnildo's initial 24 hour block. I'd have done the same. However, despite his bravado, I doubt he'd do it again. If he did, we'd simply block him then. Feel free to replace the block if the consensus here is that he should remain blocked.--Doc^g 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support an indefinite block (note that indefinite and infinite aren't the same thing), but at the same time this [22] isn't a message that would move me to unblock somebody. In effect, it promises continued disruption and sockpuppetry if admins don't do his bidding. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we leave him unblocked but consider him on community parole. Forget/ignore his foolish words, the first sign of actual intentional disruption, we block him for good.--Doc^g 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. You said you wanted to hear all sides of this incident before making judgements, so why did you call me "foolish" before I had a chance to defend myself? And forgive my bragging, but do you really think I'll intentionally disrupt Wikipedia if I haven't done so for the past year and a half? --Bowlhover 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. WP:AGF, it was a lot of bluster in response to his block.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) Note that he specifically stated that if unblocked he would not promise not to do somethign simialr next April first, which could be taken as an implied promise not to do anything of the sort on any other date. This is surely not the most explict or graceful way of handling the matter, but is not quite the same thing as proclaiming himself a committed and unrepentant vandal. I agree that this block should be lifted. DES ^(talk) 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with these charges of vandalism and sockpuppetry? Yamla's reason for his block was "User claims he will continue vandalising, unblock only on a promise from user to never again vandalise any article.)" Well, I never vandalized Wikipedia and never will. Vandalism is always done in bad faith, by definition; the prank I posted, no matter how awful a joke, was done in good faith. I wasn't thinking "Let's make these stupid editors have heart attacks". I was thinking "Hmmm, let's pull a prank on somebody like millions of other people are doing right now".

The reason for my outbursts at Mathew, Cardillo, and Yamla was anger. Cardillo and Yamla never discussed my reasons for the prank ([23][24]) before blocking me. Tell me, fellow Wikipedians: if an admin is trying to block you while ignoring your defense, what would you do? Wouldn't you get angry? If the admins don't want to cooperate, negotiate, or be flexible, fine. I will not either.

Will I do something similar on April 1, 2008? Well, I do like pranks, but hopefully by then I will have become better at it. I will definitely not post any hoaxes until 362 days later. By the way, I've never posted anything that could be interpreted as a "disruption" prior to this incident.

Now for the prank itself. Please discuss the reasons I linked to above before making judgements about it. About sockpuppetry: I don't know how you twisted my words to make it seem I threatened to create sockpuppets. I wanted to leave Wikipedia forever instead of "vandalizing" using another account.

I challenge Yamla to find a single vandalism, i.e. obviously bad faith, edit made by me. --Bowlhover 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that perceived hostility from admins or editors justifies reciprocal behaviour on your part. That's not a particularly helpful attitude. It seems that some people were angered themselves by your initial actions, and I have seen any sign that you apologized them (if you did, please point it out so I'm not making false statements). Regardless of intent people thought you were disrupting the reference desk. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest. The indef block was a poor call - but so was you getting angry and engaging in bravado. Let each reflect on their own actions; forget recriminations; and go back to doing whatever we do round here. Pride has been injured here - but if you insist on defending yourself, the admins will too, and the temperature will rise. It seems that what the events of 2nd April show is that not one comes our well of that confrontational path. Cool it one and all.--Doc^g 21:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if we are going to have April Fools' pranks, I would rather see meta-pranks, such as Shii's announcement that he was going to unblock and mentor a certain banned user, or nominating WP:RFAR for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was an attack page. Pranks that directly affect article content and hence interact directly with the real world are dangerous, and ought to be treated like vandalism. It would be nice if Bowlhover would acknowledge this. Thatcher131 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Nothing too scary on April Fools day, especially not for a major city. Maybe I'll nominate a vandal for adminship? --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Prank was uncalled for April Fools or not in the particular place it was done. But the indefinite block was also uncalled for since it obviously was a good faith attempt to make some people smile and construing it as "vandalism" was borderline violation of WP:AGF. The user in question isn't some noob out to cause trouble and even a cursory look at his history and block log bears that out. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's not. Let's not do the pissing contest" God, I do hate that expression! Please do show some use of vocabulary! - or else shut up. Giano 23:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doc^g 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, despite your previous criticism of me, should I assume your call for peace was made in good faith? O.K. I forgive Carnildo and Yamla for blocking me, but please be more lenient next time with blocking users. Thanks a ton to Bishonen for bringing this incident up on the administrator's noticeboard at a time when I felt very alienated; I highly appreciate it, and you've made a gloomy day much better for me. And thanks, Doc, for the unblock. I very much appreciate that too.

To everyone reading this: I wish you a happy Good Friday and Easter if you're Christian, and an enjoyable ultra-long weekend if you're not. I'm eager to finally close this case. --Bowlhover 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user:Serafin sockpuppet

Resolved

– Current ban discussion at WP:CN. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked user:Serafin has created another sockpuppet and is using it on numerous articles.

Momo111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

he has had over 40 sockpuppets now, can we semi-protect recovered territories as that is the article he commonly vandalizes.

--Jadger 19:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Yamla 19:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please move for a community ban against this user. Alternatively, if I have not done so within 24 hours, please prod me and I'll do it. This vandal has no place on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personnal attack and threat received

Resolved

– Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a threat from User:67.10.203.37, which includes a violation of my privacy.

Please see wikipedia article including the threat.

What are my options ? Hektor 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks are extremely serious in Wikipedia. If the ip makes attacks again, report it at WP:AIV. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a block on the IP address that made those edits. Durova^Charge! 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xanucia

Resolved

– No block issued, pending mention of any problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin take a look at this user's recent participation in AfD discussions? It is not as helpful as one might hope.-FisherQueen (Talk) 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the there is much that can be done - there is no requirement that comments on AFD be based in reason or in policy. CMummert · talk 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against voicing a keep bias. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

Resolvedblock ended now Tyrenius 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On his talk page: [26], Paul venter (talk · contribs) has been blocked for incivility. He has since leveled a charge against the blocking admin that says, and I quote, "have chosen instead to abuse your powers of blocking, that your lack of evenhandedness is not appropriate to your office". It should be noted (see Paul's contrib list) that he has been involved in edit wars with several other editors over what amounts to minor stylistic differences (Paul's version of the articles in question is frequently the one in violation of the MoS, though the differences are largely moot). Also, Paul has left incivil comments in his edit summaries (again, see his contribs list) which is the specific reason he was blocked by the admin in question. I am not taking any formal stand on the issue, only to post this here per a request at Paul's talk page and seek further comment from admins.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked out the contribs before the block, but accusations of that nature towards the blocking admin should simply be ignored. People get upset by a block. I'm sure Tyrenius doesn't take it personally. If I had a penny for every blocked user who's told me I'm not fit to be an admin, I'd be, I don't know, driving an Italian car or something. Bishonen | talk 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed with Bishonen. I've gotten comments and emails a lot worse than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted, in the interest of full disclosure, that Paul has done a quite a bit of good work here. He has created or substancially expanded a number of articles, his silly editwars over picture size and placement notwithstanding. If everyone involved could simply cool their heads and let things settle down, the stylistic problems can be hammered out later. However, none of that excuses the incivility and editwarring. I only say that if we can get the editwars to stop, on the balance Paul as an editor can be an asset to Wikipedia.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed in the mail: Something I find disturbing in this recent block. If you look at the following chronology, both personal attacks by Paul venter (talk · contribs) took place before the first warning by Tyrenius (talk · contribs).

Time	User	Page	Edit summary
11:19, 5 April 2007	Paul venter	Otto Beit	Revert image shrinking by stalker
11:23, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius
11:23, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul ventner
11:24, 5 April 2007	Kittybrewster	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul venter
17:28, 5 April 2007	Paul venter	Charles Collier Michell	Repair damage by stalker
00:45, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	PERSONAL ATTACK WARNING
02:40, 6 April 2007	Paul venter	User talk:Tyrenius	→User:Paul venter
03:34, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	Block for personal attack
03:44, 6 April 2007	Paul venter	User talk:Paul venter	→Block
03:58, 6 April 2007	Tyrenius	User talk:Paul venter	→Block - If you follow the instructions in the block notice, another admin will review it.
04:02, 6 April 2007	Jayron32	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents	User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

Therefore, Paul venter was not ignoring Tyrenius' warning. He hadn't received it yet! --Kevinkor2 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is right - I got the times muddled. However, he had previously been warned about ignoring guidelines and consensus[27] and responded by attacking other editors.[28] He was also warned previously about leaving uncivil edit summaries and editing warring.[29] He has no excuse. He blanked an ongoing discussion on his talk page [30] and carried on with a belligerent attitude [31][32]. He continues to insist on his personal ideas about, particularly, image size, regardless of other editors, MOS or policy, which in this case Kittybrewster was attempting to implement. I'm letting the block stand. Tyrenius 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy Wikipedia

FYI- a prominent neo-nazi blogger/publicist (and past Wikipedia editor) has announced on his blog a plan to "Destroy Wikipedia".[33][34] However he's also known as a provocateur and self-promoter (just last year he posted a blog, ""How To Pull A Media Stunt",[35] based on plenty of experience.[36] We should be vigilant without overreacting. -Will Beback · † · 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His evil plan will not work. we have previously blocked anon edits from wireless hotspots, it's no big deal. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty funny though... all his research for nothing... I'm more afraid of people who add vanity than this "threat". --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 12:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durova/The dark side. Durova^Charge! 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love it :) Orderinchaos 11:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any admins reading this should probably just follow a short term block of the IP and WP:DENY reversion of any attempts by the vandal to make statmenets of position.--Isotope23 13:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to the guy on his blog and told him we can shut down his little plan with just one or two carefully designed range blocks and that we've got plenty of admins to implement them. -- Nick^t 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arigato1 blocked for a week

AfterArigato1 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) continues to contribute in non constructive ways. In view of multiple prior warnings ([37], [38] et al) and incidents ([39], [40], [41] and the next several revisions, [42], [43], [44] in which he reverted an edit by a likely sock or meatpuppet and tryed to smear Valentinian with it, but a CU showed "not related" to that sock for Valentinian and "related" for other socks that consistently support Arigato1, [45], et al.)I have blocked for a week and explained my actions here. It is suspected that Arigato1 is just the latest sock of a persistent troublesome user, believed first seen as Comanche cph (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) who has a somewhat slanted POV regarding Denmark and Sweden, and who seems to have a grudge with long time valued contributor Valentinian (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email). Some CU checks have been performed, and there is a pattern of sockery and meatpuppetry associated with these accounts and other ones that are intertwined (see for example [46]). Many of the single (vandal or PA) edit accounts have already been blocked indefinitely. The next occurance of this sort of activity will likely result in me blocking Arigato and his IP (which should shut him down, as Danish IPs stay with the same user for a very long time if not indefinitely) indefinitely. As always, I invite review of my actions. ++Lar: t/c 13:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of the edits of Klovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), most importantly the first edit I don't really think a CU is necessary to establish that this is yet another sock. The dispute concerns exactly the same thing. Like Arigato, the user name is Danish. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Klovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. Even if not a sock, this is still a WP:POINT account that has been trolling a couple of articles (and apparently decided to declare themselves an admin on their userpage).--Isotope23 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Isotope23, I concur with your action. I'm now inclined to block Arigato for more time for block evasion, especially if this stunt is repeated. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A CU confirms that Klovn and Arigato1 are almost certainly (as sure as it ever gets) the same user. Given the past history I'm increasing the block to 2 weeks, and added account creation prevention from this IP. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

user Iwazaki has violated the WP:NPA towards me. He has called me "Elalan" Elalan (talk · contribs)(a blocked user for sockpuppeting) and has also insulted me number of times.

If you see his contributions you can see in his edit summary saying "Reply to elalan" which is actually a reply to me. You can see it here. This is insulting me because I am a new user and to be branded a outlawed user is not the way I want to be treated. I have left warning on his user page but he has crossed it out with comment "removed useless remark". Link is here.

Here is another link where he calls me Elalan the first time to which I have clearly said I am not. here. You can see he has written this:

"Who ever wrote the above paragraph disqualified himself from writing anything regarding LTTE and related issues.With such a naive knowledge of Sri Lankan issues I would kindly ask this above person to study the issue before even start touching the article..And I would also like to ask this person to use glasses and see what's written on those posters properly"- Personal attack

"way to go Elalan, with your hilarious editing.They were immediately reverted.Actually I am kinda surprised that You talk about AGF here while condemning Our country,Wikipedia Admins, several of Wiki Editors before..I still remember what You wrote at your Talk page " - another Personal attack.

Here is another link where he has called me biased editer (violates WP:NPA).here

"And I am sure later, you would say even all the suicide bombings,mass murders by LTTE should also be under the GOSL section!! Even though I admit you have a fair good knowledge of the LTTE, some of your remarks made me(and very well the others too) speechless !! "- here he implies that I am a biased editor and that my remarks makes people "Speechless".

Please take nessasary steps thanks. Watchdogb 14:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on his talk page, telling him not to refer to you as Elalan. If he continues to call you that, despite the note, give him a warning.--KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page move & history merge request

A newbie (JoeSanchez (talk · contribs · count)) has copied and pasted the contents of Abdalqadir as-Sufi al-Murabit to a page he himself created: Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi. Obviously, this ruined the edit history, but worse, naming conventions dictate that titles not be used in page names. The original name was therefore correct. Could a sysop please merge the histories (of the talk pages as well), and recreate the article at Abdalqadir as-Sufi al-Murabit?. Thanks! Er rab ee 14:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I did is merely according to WP:HISTMERGE.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. You applied it to the wrong page. Er rab ee 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. The WP:HISTMERGE assumes that the new title is the desired title, which in this case it simply isn't. Application of WP:HISTMERGE therefore leads to confusion in this case and should be avoided. Er rab ee 23:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block/possible puppet

I have blocked Anyone7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As well as inviting review of this decision, I invite closer inspection of the user's contribs as I suspect it might be a new account from some old "friend" or another. As a novice editor they sure seem to know what they're doing. --kingboyk 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody? --kingboyk 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the page got protected anyway. It's certainly possible it's a sock, but I can't tell right offhand who it would be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT User:Privacy on POV rampage

User:Privacy is on a rampage of re-organizing anything and everything related to China according to their (and I say they because of puppet allegations) POV. There's no discussion at all, it is entirely contrary to any previous discussion, and this will take forever to discuss and fix. Other editors are already bowing out with "ah fuck it, i'm not going to continue in this pathetic war" [47] because Privacy does not discuss and comes back over and over on the same revert. Hey, that revert warring behavior on China articles sure does sound familiar. Can someone put a stop to this until it can be sorted out, it is incredibly distruptive to watch hundreds of articles being robotically changed. SchmuckyTheCat 16:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick listing of the contentious edits he has created so far is listed here, with many of the last few categories created just a few minutes ago. He appears much emboldened by the results of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_18#Category:Economy_of_mainland_China--Huaiwei 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia edits are easily reversed. If this editor isn't responding to attempts to communicate, consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global edit summary

Privacy made 250 edits re-organizing everything related to China without consensus. I'm not putting up with that. I'm using the browser modification twinkle to revert most of them. There is no way I'm taking the time to make 250 distinct edit summaries. If Privacy wants to global changes, he needs to make big big discussions and get big big consensus. Others (*cough* he might be the others *cough*) have tried to make this argument for organization and entirely failed. He can't just impose it by fiat. SchmuckyTheCat 15:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASSIST

WP:ASSIST is far from being a helpfull unit. I have followed the proper procedures for commencing a discussion in regards to WP:RM moving WP:ASSIST to WP:AMA. But that was removed by Kim Burning.[48]. And the comments\discussion page was also removed.An editor has vandlized and removed this procedure. If WP:ASSIST trully is here to help they are not doing a very good job at respecting wikipedia procedures. My comments and other peoples comments: all removed. A TOTAL disrespect for wikipedia and the work. Doing this as per WP:VAN is vandalism and mocks the entire Concensus building on which wikipedia is built upon. Instead of trying to have a discussion he has threatened me "not to do this again or he will report me to AMA!"[49]. They have even removed the template that the page be moved.[50] Even most recently, that I am disrupting the process of WP:ASSIT... when in fact they are disrupting the process for building concensus. All I am doing is trying to gain concensus on what people want and I believe that their click of friends, because of my suggestions that WP:ASSIST is a WP:FORK of WP:AMA teams feel threatened and think I am perhaps a WP:TROLL. I think they are the ones that a disruptive by removing my edits. I would like to revert the vandalism to my last edits... however there will be some lost edits. I need some help from an admin. --CyclePat 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, thanks for bringing this group up, I now know about them and can send people there. But we did discuss this a while back, AMA is (was?) problematic, the assistance team should be much better as a result of being much less bureaucratic. Don't call Kim a vandal, please. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely a non-issue. If a group of editors want to start Wikipedia:Editor assistance and have no desire to be in any way involved in WP:AMA that is their prerogative. If they don't want to merge, then it might be a good idea to stop adding a merge tag. If there is a concern of duplication of effort, then perhaps an informal discussion should be started on the talkpage before tagging and claims of vandalism.--Isotope23 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "All I am doing is trying to gain concensus on what people want...." Do you realize that you are doing is not what people, at least those participating at WP:ASSIST, want? Multiple WP:ASSIST editors have suggested that we do not want to be adversarial with WP:AMA, and I agree. Furthermore, Kim is not a vandal. The diff you provided is disingenuous, because the next diff is Kim scubbing that threatening message and entering a more appropriate message. Please stop making this an issue when it appears, at least to me, to not be one. --Iamunknown 17:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved outside party, the thing that I see here is that the first clear interaction on this page is an attempt to move this under the canopy of WP:AMA with no prior discussion. This is probably not a good start to some good faith discussion between these two wikiprojects. I'd suggest for now, any proposed cooperation here be discussed civilly on a talkpage without tagging, moving, or other provocative actions.--Isotope23 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed start WP:ASSIST as a distinct process from AMA (and, if AMA had ended up being disbanded or deleted, a possible replacement to address the concerns raised). Even though AMA did survive the MfD, though, I believe it would work best as a separate project, as its structure (or lack thereof) and function are quite different. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no stress. This is User:CyclePat, he's inclined to be a bit overeager. Patient explanation usually works with Pat, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes stress, Guy. For once I disagree with you. CyclePat's behaviour is disruptive: edit warring in this manner against consensus is just wrong, especially with edit summaries like this. Quite apart from anything else, the AMA is a beached whale of bureaucracy-enmeshed inefficiency and despair. Something that is new, funky, cool, non-bureaucratic, non-elitist, and that might actually work should not be derailed by disruptive edit-warring and undiscussed moves. This continues, we should start handing out the blocks. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had long and frustrating arguments with Pat. He is not evil. He is not a POV pusher. He is pretty committed to the project. But by God he is vexatious at times, and this is one of them. Yes, that's an inflammatory edit summary. I said once before that when one has only a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. Pat has a hammer, a screwdriver and a wrench, so he sees every problem as a screwboltnail. He throws everything he knows at every dispute, and he has boundless energy, almost no patience, and a positive genius for pissing people off, especially me. But despite that he is a nice guy, wants to do the right thing, is genuinely anxious to help. His English is eccentric, mind, I believe he's a French-Canadian. I will talk to him some more. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now got some more food in my belly and take back that last part as somewhat hyperbolic. Seriously, though, this has to stop. The last thing a vibrant new idea wants is to be associated with the failure of the AMA, and edit warring and evil edit summaries are disruptive regardless of context. But OK, Guy, I'll leave this one for your gentle care to sort out. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BOLD... do the move. I moved it. You guys opposed by reverting. I let it be and I followed the instructions atWP:RM but my comments have been remmoved. No. I am pissed off at whoever took my comments off. Removing other peoples attempts for a discussion, my legitimate attempt to start a proper discussion on the touchy issue of merging, is totally unaceptable. Now! On top of that, Kim has created an extra stressor... all they had to do was voice their opinion and after 5 days the discussion would have been over. Probably in WP:ASSIST's favor. We'll never really know now that all the proper steps for such a discussion have been blatlantly reverted. Now for some reason the discussion on the merger seems to have ended up here on the WP:AN board when it really isn't the place. I have followed wikipedia's policies for RM and I will not appologize for trying to have a discussion in the proper location. I will neither appologize for pointing out the facts that Kim's removal of all my attempts and comments are all acts of vandalism as described in WP:VAN. I suggest you inform Kim and yourselfs that we want to get this over with quickly, instead of spending the next two weeks fighting over something which is totally trivial, that we concentrate on the main issue in the proper venue (the talk page); that my comments be return and that Kim and those that have assisted in her reverts appologizes for removing my comments and Good faith attempt to have a discussion. Even better, to mend bad feelings, it would be good to see the initial discussion I had started and my RM proposal, which I point out again was blatlantly removed, placed back on the talk page of WP:ASSIST. Perhaps then a proper concensus will be elaborated and in due time within a proper discussion... not some childish, deceptive and secretive styled conversation based on one or two editors POV's where "Words have lost their meanings and just become propaganda tools." ... There is still a problem... is anyone going to put my comments back or should I? --CyclePat 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:VAN, I have reverted the removal of my comments. I will follow procedures and place a warning on the users page. However, it deeply concerns me how WP:ASSIST will perform in the face of adversity and whether the talk pages their can trully be considered fair and reliable. Specifically, I am baffled by the mainstream of users at wikipedia's that have simply accept the fact that my comments could be blatlantly removed and that WP:ANI or WP:ASSIST appear to treat this issue as if it was the sole domain of a tin-hat conspiracy theorist or some WP:TROLL trying to cause disruption. --CyclePat 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the first sentence of WP:VAN, specifically that the action must be "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Vandalism is not just a codeword for anything you dislike. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c.f. Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" --Iamunknown 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As posted on my user talk page: ::Thank you for your suggestions but you may wish to specifically know that WP:VAN#Types of vandalism states that "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:" and it list many exemples of which pertinent to my case is... "Avoidant vandalism" and "Talk page vandalism". The later states "Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." My concerns regarding this issue and the expected appology are expressed at WP:ANI (historic link of change) and cover some other issues regarding WP:ASSIST --CyclePat 04:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, when someone removes an intemperate comment you've made, take it as a hint and put your point across more diplomatically. You are allowed to say stuff, you are just not allowed to stand an inch from someone's face and yell it. Above all, there is no way that Kim is a vandal, and you owe her an apology if you haven't apologised already. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I don't believe that you're trying to cause disruption. But here, on the talk page there, and everywhere else I've seen, there's already a pretty clear consensus in opposition. We don't do process for process' sake when the outcome is clear to start with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guy, Good luck talking with Cyclepat. :-/ He'd also threatened to do some somewhat WP:POINTy things at the MFD. I'm not happy with his behavior, and really was about to do something about it. I'll hold and wait for your action. --Kim Bruning 16:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) There was no consensus for the straw poll/vote. 2) As soon as it started, the vote snowballed in opposition to the move. 3) Even if the requested move was the right way to handle the question, there are more civil and consensus-building ways to go about it. There is process, and then there is common sense and courtesy. The issue of overlap with other DR processes has been discussed on the WP:ASSIST talk page -- with the conculsion that there are significant differences, enough to maintain an independent process. -- Pastordavid 17:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking military servers

When blocking governmental IP's we need ot inform the foundation. Does the same apply when it is necessary to block the IP of a military unit (e.g. US Air Force Base)? Thanks. -- Avi 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I see it as being on a similar caliber as blocking a public school or public library. Obviously it can't hurt to inform the Communications Committee, but it's not necessary. alphachimp 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Government IPs are more likely to blow up in our faces. I would hope that the military would be disciplined enough not to vandalise - is there someone would should report these things to? A military sysadmin, say? Secretlondon 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, Whois the IP, follow to the authoritative service providing whois info, and contact the DOIM address for abuse.~~ Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has this happened before, to the best of anyone's knowledge? I would think it would be helpful to inform someone from the Foundation, as it would be much more likely to get a slownewsday article than blocking a school or library. Grand master ka 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it's happened, I couldn't tell you when or where (too long ago to remember). But yes, I've definitely fielded unblock requests from a military base or two. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has happened. I know that IP addresses for the Royal Australian Air Force have been blocked in the past due to vandalism. It should be no big deal...as stated above it really is no different than blocking a public school or library.--Looper5920 03:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that I've blocked a base before. I don't remember when or what, though. alphachimp 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never blocked one myself, but I did come across an IP registered to the USSOUTHCOM editing about a week or two ago. Nothing questionable, just a slightly sarcastic remark about FFDOs. - auburnpilot talk 07:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case perhaps an e-mail could be sent to the base in question's civilian affairs Point Of Contact? The military is quite a bit different than a school or library. They'll wanna know about this because perhaps this soldier was edit warring or whatever on government time. Anynobody 08:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example Luke Air Force Base Public Affairs Anynobody 08:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not send an email to the base Public Affairs Office. There is no difference if a soldier of airmen is edit warring or an accountant with Grant Thorton is edit warring. Just block the I.P. doing the dumb edits. Are we here to ensure people at work making a few stupid edits are caught by their employers and made get in trouble. The guy/gal is on the computer while on duty over Easter weekend. Maybe they do not know the rules. To send that email is nothing but vindictive.--Looper5920 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Looper 100%. Getting in trouble in the military is a whole 'nother animal from getting in trouble in the civilian world. If there's a problem, just block the IPs or IP ranges in question. No need for a disproportionate response. A Train^talk 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Looper. Certain ramifications apply in this circumstance. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely as well. The only time somebody should be contacted is if there is long term abuse. We have no busy contacting employers/military bases/schools/whatever after minor incidents of vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coelacan and User:Alison's repeatitive harrassment of User:PatPeter

These two users have bombarded me with more posts than humanly possible to answer, they continue to harrass me, give me not even the time to reply resulting in edit conflicts, talk about me behind my back on as many other pages as they can, please someone please help I cannot explain my actions to every post, watch I bet you anything that one of them will delete this post, someone please help me. -PatPeter 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is somehow related to this.--Isotope23 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked your userpage and the above AN/I report and can see no evidence of harrassment whatsoever, beyond Coelecan, Alison, and WJBscribe telling you that your actions rearding wikiprojects in userspace and random campaigns against categories are inappropriate. Being repeatedly edit conflicted is not a policy violation. Could you support your allegations with diffs please? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dev920 (I was just reviewing the reporter's usertalkpage as well) and I don't see anything from User:Alison and just a few posts from User:Coelacan in regards to the fact that User:PatPeter edited another editors's userpage userboxes.--Isotope23 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I reply to all the posts that they have made about me? It is like they are recruiting an army against me. I will try to find every point where they have bombarded me. -PatPeter 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should think about why they are bombarding you instead of merely shouting out "conspiracy!" Of course, I'm just being figurative, but disputes are a two-way street. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User talk:PatPeter#Subpages - They sneak in remarks under other replys, I have no clue which are new, which are old, etc.
User talk:The Boy that time forgot#Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short - Why would I check this? You can see how coelacan is directing yet another user to hate me.
User talk:Coelacan#Subpages - now they are calling me sinister
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree - I just found out today that this has been going on.

And as much as I would like to take the time to find the diffs and more pages, I have other things to do. -PatPeter 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PatPeter, regarding your concerns: 1) replying in a non-linear fashion is a common way to do things here. I am not trying to "sneak" anything anywhere, but rather to put comments where it is obvious what I am replying to. 2) I left a note to The Boy that time forgot to tell him that your requests were not policy and not something he needed to act on, because you made it appear that they were. 3) That user asked me if I thought there was something sinister in your actions, I replied that I thought not, that your actions were rather well intended but heavy handed; you act in good faith, but with biting. 4) Blast San began the above thread on this page because of a legitimate concern about your actions and more biting. No one is out to get you, but this page needs to be a place where people can bring issues that they feel might need administrator intervention. They don't always need administrator intervention, but it's better that there is a place to raise concerns, just in case.

Now, my discussion with Alison amounts to us agreeing that you have good intentions and poor execution. If you are upset about this discussion, I'm sorry to hear that, but it is necessary sometimes for editors to discuss other people's actions. You respond, yet again, by saying that we are trying to discredit you, in a way that suggests you are very stressed. We are not, and I personally am troubled by your reaction. Perhaps you could benefit from a wikibreak. I am trying to do some damage control around some of the pages you've used lately, but I want Wikipedia to be a place you can enjoy spending your time.

Finally, I have to wonder, how do I tell you that I think your Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Category Cleanup need to go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, without you taking this personally? I don't think you're a bad person, but I do think these particular ideas are ill-conceived, and full of instruction creep. — coel acan — 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've invesigated this thoroughly now, and the conclusion I've come to is you are a misguided editor who means well but doesn't really get what we're like at Wikipedia (I won't comment on the separate issue I found of your campaign against gay categories, which I suspect is why so many members of WP:LGBT are involved in this). Your main objection seems to be that people are replying to your comments with indents, a typical practice here to enable people to follow discussions, whereas you want them to use section headings and line dividers. The message Coelcan originally left on TBTTF's page didn't mention you at all by name, and was correcting misinformation you had sent him. TBTTF called your actions sinister - by contrast, you have accused him and Coel of bombaridng you and conspriing aainst you, as well as telling Coelacan and Alison to "shut up". Finally, while it may have been polite to inform you you were mentioned on AN/I, they were certainly not obliged to do so.

Basically, you have been pushing your own interpretation of the rules, editing other people's userpages (a BIG no-no here) and quoting a redirect (WP:StS) which leads to your own userspace. When Coelacan, as well as several other editors by now, not unsurprisingly informed you that this wasn't allowed on Wkipedia, you got defensive and started arguing incivilly and shouting "conspiracy" anywhere you could. Dude, you made a simple mistake but blew it out of all proportion. Accept that and go edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev, the WP:StS page is now in Wikipedia namespace, without the misleading title override. That's better. It just means now that the community needs to evaluate whether we want it in Wikipedia namespace. — coel acan — 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean whether such a project should exist at all (I have no opinion on the matter). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with Dev920's assessment. From PatPeter's talkpage and some of the "rules" and requests for things not to move forward without him, I'd say he doesn't fully get how things work here at Wikipedia. That seems to be the root of the problem more than anything Alison or Coelacan have done here.--Isotope23 19:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Physicq, that's what I meant. — coel acan — 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango

Your complaint is not clear.

What did you do?
What did they do?
When did this incident begin?
Have you warned them?
Have they warned you?
What in your opinion needs to take place to correct the incident?

Your explaining an unclear one-sided version. I've looked at this and its not clear what if anything happened. --Masterpedia 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide

PatPeter has put up notices on his userpage and talk that he intends to commit suicide shortly. Do we have a specific policy to deal with userpages of known deceased Wikipedians? Would it be appropriate to delete or blank the page, or maybe create a tasteful template for these eventualities? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue as to what to do here with the userpage. Any ideas, anyone? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My idea involves someone with checkuser access contacting Oregon State University and trying to help them figure out which one of their students is planning suicide, before it happens. Thoughts? — coel acan — 20:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they need checkuser access? Call the uni and tell them to look for a Patrick Peter who's a talented musician. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he appears to still be in high school. So call the high school and ask for a boy, possibly called Patrick, who is studying Latin and Western Civilisation. Can't be that many of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His userpage says he's against suicide prevention (or was it intervention?), so I think that would be a gross invasion of privacy, unfortunately. My personal opinion (harsh though it may be, sorry if I offend anybody) is that threatening suicide on an anonymous internet messageboard is the worst form of emotional blackmail. People who really want help should seek it somewhere accessible. Anchoress 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideals are very nice, up till a point. Hoax or no hoax, it is better to be safe than sorry. Somebody'd better make a call. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has threatened suicide and you're planning what template to affix to their page when they're dead?! Are you serious?

What did we do last time? Handed it over to the office I think? --kingboyk 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

The template isn't for suicides, it's for all dead Wikipedians. This guy's threat raises an issue I don't believe we have addressed yet - what to do with the userpage of a deceased Wikipedian? My proposal wasn't lighthearted, but I'll go propose it at the bottom of the page instead of here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why checkuser? If you know the educational establishment, why can't anyone do this? Having said that, judging by the userpage, shouldn't the place to contact be Marist High School (Illinois)? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guy should be left alone on that count. His userboxes suggest he has issues with depression and, as someone who's acquainted with both matters, I suggest we be as sympathetic and kind as possible. As I said on WP:AN yesterday, even jokey suicide messages often have an underlying something to them - Alison^☺ 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh no. Not Freud... —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This shouldn't be taken lightly, but this guy hates suicide intervention and talking to him would just make things worse. Tread lightly. {PTO} {speak} 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seriously. It's not funny. Been there, tried that - Alison^☺ 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, I might be harsh, but we're not here to be intimidated. I'm not saying take a laissez-faire approach, but threatening suicide to get one's way (whether true or not) is the most despicable form of blackmail and the most abhorrent form of morality. Wikipedia is not therapy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, agreed with that. We simply can't be intimidated in this matter. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's saying we need to let PatPeter create his strange rules? Aren't we discussing whether to contact his school to get him help? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being intimidated by the guy. I'm just concerned right now that he's okay. I notice that he's been putting up and taking down his suicide message over the last few days or so. He's obviously not in a good place right now - Alison^☺ 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to create an encyclopedia anyone can read or edit. If there is someone involved in this discussion who believes that getting involved in this editor's personal RL drama (or suffering if drama is too pejorative) will further that goal, then that person should do so. Anchoress 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about being a Wikipedian. It's about being decent human beings. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a decent human being by going and doing whatever your conscience dictates. But that doesn't require discussion on the AN. Anyone can send this user an email, leave a message on her/his talkpage, or track down some RL help. Anchoress 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am respectfully requesting that anyone with the needed authority takes immediate action to share relevant information with appropriate authorities to protect this user. If you have this authority and do not feel that this action is correct please review this immediately with anyone available with higher authority. Thank you. 71.82.88.117 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I did not take the time to sign in before. Edivorce 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Alison

Hi all. I just found out about this now, sorry for the delay.

Ok, the first time I encountered PatPeter was on Coel's talk page where he made this comment[51] re. title overrides. I replied with a gentle reminder of AGF[52]. In return, I got this message[53] from PatPeter. I replied here[54].

I then found out that PatPeter was using WP shortcuts in an unorthodox manner (and with the whole override thing) and this concerned me [55]. I brought the matter up on WP:AN here without mentioning the editor's name. I wanted advice, not more eyes at that point. There, I found out that the editor was already mentioned on ANI here and here. I found out that PatPeter had put Category:Cub Wikipedians on CfD here. As you can see, I commented there but recommended that the CfD stay open until PatPeter returned. As it was ruled that PatPeter orphaned the category himself and previously tried to have it speedied, the CfD was closed anyway. PatPeter posted another CfD the next day [56] which I decided to keep out of in the interests of civility other than asking one question. His response let me know! This eventually got closed for being inappropriate to CfD (should be WP:UCFD).

I'd like to point out that I *am* a member of WP:LGBT, as it happens, but hadn't made the connection until now. User PatPeter has an "Anti-Gay" userbox on his page which I find offensive. It was speedied for WP:CSD#T1 by another admin and immediately re-created by PatPeter, with a snippy comment on the userbox page. I have left it alone other than commenting on someone's talk page that I approved of their T1 deletion decision.

Since then, I've been largely trying to keep out of the guy's way. I did comment on PatPeter's WP:RFD here where I suggested deletion because of their misuse to-date. As you can see, I offered to help the guy with his WikiProjects and explained about the contrib log function. Like I said, I've tried to keep away but he's been posting on my talk page again this morning. I replied and asked him why he was bringing up the AGF thing again.

I have no doubt that PatPeter is editing in good faith and means well for the project however, I have certain issues with his approach around WP:BITE and how he's handling edits to other people's userpages. I'd rather help the guy than get into a battle with him as this is in nobody's interests - Alison^☺ 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent to school

I may be out of my league here, but just to be bold in a non-wiki kind of way, I sent an email on behalf of myself and only myself to the school's counselor. For the benefit of all, I've reproduced it here:

Sorry if this is the wrong person to email about this, but I did not see another Department thats apt for it. Im a user of the http://www.wikipedia.org website, and it has recently come to my and others attention that a user on the site, who is a high school student and spends a lot of time editing the article on your school, has make public notices that he intends to commit suicide. The user in question goes by the name PatPeters, leading me to suspect the student is named Patrick Peters or something close to it. The public notices can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540 and at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PatPeter&oldid=120797919 and there is a discussion coing on among the major contributors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide

The only other information that seems to be useful to you is that he has expressed a paticular interest in Latin and Western Civilization as well as claiming to be a talented musician.

Thank you for your help, if I can be of further assistance, just let me know.

-<name redacted>

-M^ask? 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit: it was sent to

Guidance Staff Bro. Vito Aresto, FMS - Department Chair aresto.vito@marist.net -M^ask? 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was out of line, and it's probably better than unending debate about whether or not to get in touch with anyone. Natalie 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... just realized I outed my name too, but I really dont care too much about that. -M^ask? 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name redacted from above. See WP:OVERSIGHT if you want it removed from the page history. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

naw, like I said, I dont care too much. Brandt allready has it. -M^ask? 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope Mr Brandt doesn't see this, you'll be on his website next :) More seriously, I think that's fine. Not sure there's too much more we can do bar a possible phone call to someone. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already had it. He sent me a message, and just to prove not everyone was as batshit crazy as him, I sent him my name, birthdate, hometown and a picture. Take a look at our correspondance at User:AKMask/Brandt. -M^ask? 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better safe than sorry. Even if it is just a namby-pamby boo-hoo for attention, the last thing we need is for this kid to kill himself and then have the press descend upon us with stories of "Wikipedia Administration Did Nothing As User Follows Through With Threat Of Suicide." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the Foundation, maybe? After that it's all really out of our hands. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also contacted the school to provide additional information found on his userpage - the fact that he is on the school math team and takes Latin must narrow down the search considerably. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward a copy to cbass (at) wikimedia (dot) org as well, with a short explanation, to keep them abrest of what people send out. -M^ask? 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easter friday The school will be closed. Contact the local police. Andy Mabbett 00:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone volunteer to do that and reply here? - Alison^☺ 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Is there anyone IN CHICAGO who can call 3-1-1 and report it to Chicago PD there? I've spent 10 min looking on their website for an externally accessible number and I haven't found anything useful. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am aware of Bro. Aresto since I am catholic and have friends in the Chicago area. I will forward that email to the Provincial Office of the Marist Brothers (email: info@maristbr.org) and let them know. They should be able to contact Br. Aresto over the weekend. Thor Malmjursson 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not a "email someone" situation; please try and call in to Chicago PD. I just found and tried a 312-747-6000 contact number for Chicago PD but it hangs up when I reach it, seems broken. Anyone in the Chicago area, please make the local 3-1-1 call... (And then report doing so here so they don't get 10 calls...) Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware its not an email someone situation. I thought to try and get hold of Br. Aresto a bit faster than mailing the school and waiting till Tuesday. Anyone who can 311 Chicago PD go ahead and do it. Thor Malmjursson 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - According to [57] (312) 744-5501 is the right number? I live in the UK so I don't know how American numbers work. I would try it myself but I have no credit on my phone for long distance calls and have no idea how to call abroad anyways. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Tried it. The source does say that's who it is, but it turns out to be the scheduling assistant for Chicago's mayor, not the Police Department. Everyone keep looking if you can help... Georgewilliamherbert 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        According to that source you could try (312) 744-5000 which appears to be a 24 hour emergency number. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And failing that, contacting just about any public department in Chicago and explaining what you need might work as they could point you in the right direction. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number is (312) 746-6000 or one of the other numbers listed here. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Information told me, too, but Georgewilliamherbert just tried it and it doesn't work. He's pursuing another lead... —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: (312) 744-5000 worked to get their emergency operations center, who sent me to the police communications center. Who politely declined to take a report, and instead asked me to call my local PD and have them send an electronic report to Chicago PD. *beating head on door*. So I'm doing that. Georgewilliamherbert 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, maybe try the 3-1-1 or 9-1-1? But they're emergency numbers... --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 02:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those only work if you're in the same city as the problem. Otherwise you get your local police department. Which is what I ultimately did, but they haven't finished getting the report info to forward to Chicago. This is bizarrely difficult. Georgewilliamherbert 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be someone around here who lives in Chicago... --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Contribs 02:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny's contacted his local police and they are on the way to his location... anyone knowing anything should go to the #patpeter IRC channel. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with a suicide note in December, looked up the IP address, and contacted the Pennsylvania state police. It took the dispatcher a moment to understand why I was calling but once he caught on it was straightforward and businesslike: I advised him to forward the IP address to his tech department to determine the street address and supplied instructions for how he could confirm the information I was reporting. A suicide note is one of the very few situations where I think that sort of action is not only justified, I'd regret if I hadn't followed through. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Danny's police is forwarding the information to the Chicago PD, and they'll try to find him there. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the police came and have filed a report, hope Danny will update us all soon on this page. Salaskan 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The local police were at my apartment, and they have promised to send all the information I gave them to the Chicago police department. That is about all we can do right now, but if anything else pops up, please contact me and I will relay the information. Thank you to everyone for helping with this. You may have saved someone's life. Danny 03:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right after Danny posted, I got a callback for my local PD to take my report; at this point, since Danny's is on the way, we both agreed that it seemed like that was good enough and we left it at that. I would also like to thank everyone who helped. Georgewilliamherbert 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww...I'm too late. I was busy when Veesicle contacted me...thus, I never received the message. Gosh, I'm so sorry guys. I would have been able to get the information in sooner. :( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be better off if we had a policy for these things? If so, I think that I'm going to be bold and create a policy page for this...--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense :) El hombre de haha 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's editing again, so presumably he's still alive. His IP is 67.167.255.36, and he's now saying "PatPeter is currently sleeping and will be for 8-10 hours, or the rest of eternity." on his talk page, so I guess the cops didn't get to him yet either. --Rory096 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's logged into his account right now. Someone should leave a message on his talk page, let him know we're all concerned for him & offer what help we can - Alison^☺ 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a wild goose chase if his name isn't Patrick Peter... The "rest of eternity" part doesn't sound too comforting either. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good chance he/she (Pat could mean Patricia) is just being dramatic, however on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to end their lives perhaps a fellow Catholic should jump in there and explain why that's not a good idea. I'm agnostic, so I could be wrong, but doesn't that guarantee one a straight ticket to hell? If there really is a hell, killing oneself in order to improve their situation is a pretty big mistake. Anynobody 07:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of a girl named Patricia calling herself "Pat"... I doubt the person will take that into account...I didn't even think about it till you mentioned it. But its worth a try if we have a volunteer... Oh and I nearly forgot...how coincidental that you mentioned it today. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many females have used "Pat". Pat Kennedy did. IrishGuy ^talk 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proven wrong. Yet again.... Well at least I know something about JFK's sister now.... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad, my original reason for pointing it out was that SNL character "Pat". Later I realized I have an Aunt who goes by Pat. Anynobody 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any editors who claim/have Catholic credentials and if unknown what would be the best way to search? I really would mention my point to the editor directly, but I can't even tell you where in the Bible it says that (plus if he decides I'm right in my beliefs he could decide to roll the dice). Anynobody 08:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my recollection of the bible, I don't think that it actually states that suicide is a one way path to hell, but people simply assume that it is... But then again, I am Protestant and maybe they have different interpretations? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC):[reply]

The Catechism lists suicide as a mortal sin, and if you do without confessing a mortal sin you get a one-way ticket to hell - kinda difficult to confess suicide... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give theological advice to suicidal teenagers. This is a Bad Idea. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Like I said before there is a big chance this is just drama, if it isn't what would you have us do? I realize this isn't exactly a Brandon Vedas situation, but it seems to me if we do nothing it could make Wikipedia look bad. Anynobody 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying nothing should be done, but it is way out of our league to try to convince the kid not to kill himself ("owever on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to end their lives perhaps a fellow Catholic should jump in there and explain why that's not a good idea. ") and may very well actually turn out to be worse than doing nothing if it is real. "Wikipedia does not give X (medical, legal, whatever) advice" was created for this very reason. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Many of the comments left in this section are shameless and shameful, and I don't only mean the ones that treat things as a joke. FNMF 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but some are very responsible. Next we need to create a page on how to respond to a suicide note. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't treat things as a joke, FNMF. It's my attempt at softening the mood of the grim situation that we were in. May you enlightening me about how my comments are shameless and shameful?. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some levity is called for. But obviously, it's a very delicate situation. --Otheus 12:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with that. Obviously, my comments aren't exactly the best, but they are still a long way from being classified shameless. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 12:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get of your high horse. You do not have the market cornered on how to deal with every situation. People deal with things differently and it is not up to you to critique others on how that is done. You have no right to label anyone shameless and shameful--Looper5920 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive, please?

May I suggest we archive the whole school and suicide section of this. If and when User:PatPeter returns, this is the last thing he's going to want to see. Leave the other sections, by all means, but this may be embarrassing to him. It's served its purpose & the guy is obviously already upset. Let him make a fresh start.

Thoughts? - Alison^☺ 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would seriously impede our ability to handle and discuss things, and no matter what we do we can't let the actions of a user interrupt the normal operation of Wikipedia. If and when the school and/or Chicago PD contacts one of us, then yes, do it, but until then it is an ongoing matter and should remain up, regardless of his feelings. -M^ask? 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with you both, I think we should wait for the Chicago PD to call or something like that, or perhaps even PatPeter himself to leave a message, until we archive this. He may indeed be very embarrassed when seeing this and we should just archive this if possible, but that's not really possible when it's still an ongoing issue. Salaskan 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The police department will contact the foundation, I doubt they'll leave a note here. Nothing is getting accomplished in this discussion, higher authorities have already done what is needed. For the benefit of the reputations of all involved parties, I support the archival of this thread. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asucena (talk · contribs) over the line

This user has been repeatedly informed about personal attacks, civility, improper allegations, and other violations, and continues to act improperly.

Further perusal of this user's contribution history demonstrates that although she has been met with politeness, cordiality, and respect, even when she has intentionally violated wiki policies and guidelines, not only does she not begin to respect them, but she persists in acting more and more in violation of them, including soapboxing her user page, attacking other editors, editing articles in which she has specific conflicts of interest to further those interests, not treating other editors with the respect she has been shown, and assuming poor faith.

At this point, I am going to block this editor for four days (96 hours), with the hope that perhaps she can realize that she can do more to help the project and herself if she is able to agree to edit appropriately.

If another admin thinks this excessive, please note so here and take appropriate action, but in my dealings with this user, I am beginning to lose faith in her ability to contribute gainfully, and not use wikipedia as a vehicle for her own person issues. -- Avi 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in a content dispute with Asucena. You two edited the same articles. --Mihai cartoaje 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "content dispute"? I see various admin actions, mostly regarding COI, but no content issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They both edited the articles Move America Forward, Hamas, and Palestinian National Authority. --Mihai cartoaje 13:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is not being blocked for content, but for flagrant violation of wiki principles after warnings. -- Avi 19:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I wonder is why she wasn't blocked indefinitely. It's not the first time she's been warned about this, or even the 10th. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering the same thing, but I trut that Avi has good reason for not taking that step yet. After the block expires, perhaps this editor will break with past history and attempt to treat others with respect and courtesy, and follow our very few simple rules. Then again, perhaps not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think s/he needs to be blocked indefinitely if this continues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just doesn't make sense to me: if this editor really is what she claims she is then she's doing a very poor job of public relations and is conducting herself in a way that leads to sitebanning - and if she isn't what she says she is then she deserves an even swifter siteban. I contacted the Foundation shortly after I blocked her last month. What more can we do? Durova^Charge! 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's something very odd about the whole business. Is there any chance that Asucena could be a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user? Has a checkuser been performed at any time? -- ChrisO 14:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Slim and Chris (and how often do I get to write that sentence? :)). Indef block if behavior continues, and as to veracity of claims, something is indeed fishy. As they say on teh internets, "I call shenanigans." IronDuke 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by Mister-jones (talk · contribs)

[58] Calls me an "incredible idiot": "As a matter of fact, I could get those same fifty people to tell you what an incredible idiot you are for actually pulling in a press release as reliable information, and pulling out information that doesn't even exist in the press release."

Also, belittles me, "Have fun editing your little article, son". Has previously been warned multiple times, and has also admitted using an IP as a sockpuppet (216.80.64.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), from which he repeatedly blanked my userpage ([59] all the "blanked the page" are by him). He denies using this IP (24.148.16.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) which also blanked the VJ page a bunch of times. Mackan 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs do seem to resolve to the RCN Corporation so they may be the same person--VectorPotential^Talk 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further personal attacks, this time from the IP (24.148.16.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log))

[60]. Mackan 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Risker, User:Tjstrf, and others Disrupting WP, Hijacking Essjay controversy

Please, someone stop the nonsense these users are doing that are wasting other Wikipedian's time and energy and preventing people from creating good work.

See this post's edit summary: "is it time to create a distraction?" followed by this, this, this, and this MfD — C.m.jones 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating one of your subpages for deletion is not disruption. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At what point are we allowed to community ban users who stay within policy but are disruptive to the point the other editors are tearing their hair out? Or does this need to go to Arbcom? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a provision in WP:BAN that allows for banning for "exhausting the community's patience." —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many POV forks of an article do we need to let rot in sandboxes for Google to crawl possible BLP vios? None? :) - Denny ^(talk) 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Phoenix blocked

Resolved

Autoblock lifted. {PTO} {speak} 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From User:Cascadia's talk page:

Will an admin monitoring my talk page, or someone, please unblock me. User:CanadianCaesar has blocked an IP belonging to the University of Phoenix, instead of the username he was going after, and has such blocked all contributors within UOP (and it is a slow day here!).

Thanks for your help!

Oh, and please revert WP:BOLD if it hasn't been already. I as in the process of doing this when I was blocked. Cascadia^{TALK| HISTORY} 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJASE1 ^Talk 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly zealous, POV-pushing and un-CIVIL

Trouble may be brewing over an anon - 216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs). S/he seems to be pushing various POV issues through on pages, as a quick scan of the edits on the contribs page indicates. Trouble is, s/he has a point to a very minor extent in some cases - it's simply the dogmatic and un-civil attitude evident in messages like this and edit summaries such as this and the edits to User_talk:Dicklyon and the like that are a major cause of concern. There's no 3RR violations evident, and I'd hesitate to call it vandalism per se, but something definitely needs to be done, so I've brought it here. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Durova, although I am unsure that a conversation about behaviour norms wouldn't have had a better effect. Jkelly 00:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've called it vandalism, and got beat on by him for it. I also issued a 3RR warning, which may have stalled off his next revert by a few hours. He likes to vigorously clean warnings off his talk page and spew back at those he disagrees with and those who warn him. He likes to put his arguments in edit summaries instead of in talk pages. A real nuisance. But then he probably thinks the same of me, so what can you do? Personally, I think a permanent ban for persistent incivility would not be a bad thing, not just for him but for this problem that arises now and then. Dicklyon 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News service copying Wikipedia article verbatim

During my recent travails on Harvey Bialy, I happened to come across this news item from "PrimeNewsWire" which appeared on MSNBC.com, dated 29 March 2007. The description of Harvey Bialy is taken verbatim from older versions of the Wikipedia article which predate the MSNBC item. The really incriminating thing is that the unbylined author went to the trouble to mix up the paragraph order, and convert the inline footnotes into parenthetical citations. I'm not sure where to take this - does anyone look into these things when material from here is reused with the claim that it's now "Copyright 2007, PrimeNewswire, Inc. All Rights Reserved." ?? MastCell ^Talk 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do note this at Talk:Harvey Bialy, because someone else may take this to Wikipedia:Copyright problems thinking that the problem in on our end. Jkelly 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some so-called 'journalists' plagiarize material drawn from the web; as Wikipedia's quality and breadth of coverage continue to grow, we become an ever-more-attractive source from which to copy. The most recent case I can think of is Tim Ryan, who was fired from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin about a year ago for plagiarizing portions of several of his stories (at least one of which from Wikipedia). If someone can draw this to the attention of the Foundation, I'm sure they'd be willing to send a polite request for explanation to PrimeNewsWire.

It probably would be best if individual editors didn't send their own personal emails on this issue; too many contacts with no official ties to the Foundation will only confuse PrimeNewsWire. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be fun. By the time other people picked up the copy from PrimeNewsWire there's at least 14 duplications (Google reports 29). Of course, that means that someone had better be sure the source of the WP copy wasn't somewhere else, and they (PrimeNewsWire) didn't just get it from the same source? Shenme 06:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic, but we at no.wikipedia found out yesterday that a website belonging to one of the major Norwegian newspapers is stealing our content, claiming © all rights reserved. No mention of Wikipedia as the source or the GFDL. Should we involve the Foundation? Kjetil r 06:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kjetil r. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? How do we involve the Foundation? Sorry for my ignorance here. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, start a thread on foundation-l. If you happen to use IRC, somebody may be able to help you in #wikimedia – Luna Santin (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist and contribs

Resolved

– ²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The watchlist and contrib pages seemed to have gone strange these past few days. They all seem to be lagging by 20 minutes. Anyone else having this same problem? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Me too". Andy Mabbett 00:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's nearly impossibly to track vandals when their contrib lists are empty yet you know they just hit a particular article. Can't just warn/block with no apparent edits done - Alison^☺ 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is already listed on WP:VPT. Twice. —Cryptic 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but how is this an incident that requires administrator attention? Please use the proper pages. --Golbez 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To see if other admins have or had this problem, as the lag can seriously impede admin duties. But I'm spiting you, so ignore me. ;) —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a fellow admin deserves a sarcastic rhetorical remark? It was just a question. I had the same question and found the answer because Cryptic pointed to the discussion. --Hu12 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, since when was humor rationed? :) And yes, I did look at the linked threads, and all is back to normal (for me, at least). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I appreciate it being asked here. I thought my timezone was way off, I tried another computer... It definitely disrupted my admin activities. alphachimp 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise: I'm glad it was brought up here. The lack of a reliable "contribs" has been making it extremely difficult to do vandal-patrol today. Thanks all, Antandrus (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BassxForte, Uncivility, 3RR

BassxForte (talk · contribs) has been very uncivil in almost all encounters in talk pages. Completely unwilling to accept consensus, even though it's currently 7 vs 1 on Talk:Organization XIII. Has edit-warred multiple times, especially on this article, over the past month. If you want diffs, try the page history and his contributions page.

I have been extremely tolerant on this user in this duration, as his user page states that he is a reformed vandal. A recent edit[61] on his talk page has changed the following text:

"I am very stubborn, both in real life and all other situations, if you get into a argument with me in a talk page, you can be assured the conversation won't end until you give up or an admin decides the discussion closed, heh. Arguing with me is a lost cause, almost everyone I know in real life knows this, *evil laugh*."

Administrator input is definitely required. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, after giving Organization XIII a once-over, that almost the entire article is original research and does not have one single reference to a reliable source (because all of its references are to the subject of the article itself, not a published secondary source). The best thing to do is cut the article down to a stub and moot the argument with BassxForte. A Train^talk 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried mooting the argument a number of times already. He simply does not agree with us. Also, the concern I'm bringing up is not the article, but rather BassxForte's conduct. Despite multiple people directing him to pages with common policy(WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, especially WP:3RR, etc), he continues to ignore it. He also makes many comments which I consider to be personal attacks. Also: discussion, another discussion, [62].

Diffs: [63], [64], [65] [66] - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Go to Zero (Mega Man) and many other talk pages i've put my points in, you will see that not only am I ready to admit flaws in my argument, I have an honest desire to improve wikipedia. BassxForte 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the quote which you claim came form my page was never on my page to my knowledge. BassxForte 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing text out does not change the fact that you added it, and that it was on your userpage for a month (Note the dates), along with other inflammatory remarks that are still there, including "Although I try my best to be civil with other users, I admit that almost all of them are a bit... off." (Diff here.) Nique talk 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This remark is very worrisome. "Motto Never Give Up. (This motto has... regretabbly gotten me into some edit wars since I refuse to have parts of articles I like taken out, although in all said wars the other person was just being unreasonable.)" He put that in in January. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time they are acting unreasonable, the only time I have ever gotten angry about the way another user was treating the page was on the talk page for Metal Sonic. BassxForte 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by "off" I meant that most are kinda weird by my standards. (and keep in mind my standards are very eccentric) BassxForte 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that you've been aware of your habit of getting into edit wars for at least 4 months, and to appear to have not changed in any way since then. Calling people you've been in edit wars with "unreasonable" does not appear to be very polite, or have any assumption of good faith at all. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he's also threatened to continue an edit war previously (I see that as a threat of vandalism). [67] Recently, in direct response to this ANI posting, he has stated that he will respond in a way that "won't be pretty" if an admin intervenes. [68] - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block upon warring, then block longer, then block yet again. He's welcome to disagree until he turns blue as long as he doesn't get into a war over an article's actual contents... at which, we WP:BLOCK. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by User:Illwauk

Resolved

– User:Illwauk blocked for 48 hours for violation of WP:NPA.--Jersey Devil 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this where I report personal attacks? (I thought there used to be a separate noticeboard for that). Some here: User_talk:Illwauk#Civility.2C_please. Not a dog 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unacceptable language. [69] The user has been blocked for 48 hours.--Jersey Devil 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin

Resolved

– – Luna Santin (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin has appeared; User:Giza E, a rather obvious follow on from previous MagicKirin sockpuppet User:Giza D.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. - auburnpilot talk 05:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel: User:Ranapanna

Ranapanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a likely sockpuppet of Danny Daniel, as the user recreated (more specifically added info very similar) an article created by LuisPlank2X4 (68.37.205.18 was thought as an open proxy for the user and is also an IP sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Danny Daniel). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information). The user also edited List of characters in My Gym Partner's a Monkey (an article that Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to vandalise often) adding misinformation similar to to that of confirmed socks. [70], [71]. Not only that, the user edited The Good Ol' Days/Future Lost and Chip Skylark, which are both related to The Fairly OddParents (much of the confirmed socks edit pages related to it).

Note that I reported two likely sockpuppets of Danny Daniel in late March. Squirepants101 02:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user still hasn't been blocked, yet a case involving a sockpuppet of MagicKirin was looked at.Squirepants101 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk spamming by User:Smith Jones

I wasn't sure if this qualified as persistent spamming to be reported at AIV, but I know posting here will get a response.

User:Smith Jones has been spamming user talk pages and a couple of userpages (apparantly at random, mostly admins it seems, possibly those who made edits to homeopathy?) asking them to join a wikiproject. See his contribs. Screwing up the formatting in one, asking a bot, and marking all the edits as minor. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning assistance, please

I'm just reverting some vandalism. One user has vandalised twice in a few minutes. I am not an administrator and have no blocking authority. Vandalism is just non-sensical sexual terminology. [[72]] and [[73]]. User is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Username67876 . VK35 04:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Either that or actually block. I never use that warning because I don't have blocking authority and don't make idle threats.VK35 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has stopped adding nonsensical sexual references for the time being. If the user starts again, escalate warnings with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} then uw-vandalism2, uw-vandalism3 and uw-vandalism4, then report to WP:AIV. Regards, Iamunknown 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question: does anyone think that the username "Username67876" is inappropriate? It seems kind of random and imitating Wikipedia processes to me. --Iamunknown 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I reported it to AIV but the block was declined. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PatPeter

Back on-line and sleeping, according to the userpage message. Thank goodness - Alison^☺ 05:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so optomisitic about the message that says "sleeping for 8-10 hours or the rest of eternity". People who wish to sleep that long should probably not recieve a "Thank goodness"; probably more of a "keep prayer lines open"... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But the fact that he was on here 20 minutes ago is only a good thing. By all means, though, keep the prayer lines open ... - Alison^☺ 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Elias

It appearts that the subject is using the article created for biography as a total vanity page with no sources to cite and absurd claims. I have warned him not to revert the page, but he has threathned me and I can forward e-mails to validate this. I have warned him to stop to no ado. Would someone help with this incident as I am tired reverting vandalism.--XLR8TION 06:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll handle this. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stick him with a 3RR and a warning....Stopped. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! The vandal has sent me emails full of expletives which I can forward to an administrator. I have declined to answer them and instead I posted a message on his talk page to stop vandalizing and about the 3RR rule. Hopefully this should work. --XLR8TION 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism & adding defamatory content in Sathya Sai Baba related articles

User:Aoclery is continually vandalising, adding defamatory content and POV pushing in articles from Category:Sathya Sai Baba. I've noticed him doing it in the articles: Sathya Sai Baba, Prema Sai Baba and Benjamin Creme. Please block him. Krystian 07:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has not escalated so far that it needs an admin's attention. And it would help if you talked to him, instead of addressing it on your edit summary, in the article. I've also left a warning on his talk page, telling him to refrain from adding unsourced comments. Hopefully, that will stop him adding those comments. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

I'm sick and tired of this user, he seriously has a problem with Kurds he uses undo to revert people, he says clean up when removing relevant info with no explanation.

No reason why he removes important information. He removes dozens of information this is not a dispute but this is vandalism, [74] where he says "clean up" he removes information about Kurds. His newest removal, [75] he continues his vandalism where he is well aware of what he does. There is much more vandalism by him but this is enough. Artaxiad 10:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm finding myself being wikistalked by this user [76] [77][78]. All in the last few minutes.--Domitius 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, content disputes are not vandalism. Secundo, those AfDs were listed in Turkey-related deletions page - most of his edits are template and keepup edits anyways, he is not spending all his time hounding someone or something as you make it out to be. You all might want to drop this, since there is enough blame to go around. Domitius, do you have a valid explanation as to how you turned up in that AfD so soon? I am not even talking about other stuff - guys, please cool it and get back to doing something useful: there are nearly 2million articles in Wiki, if you feel like you are having a particular tension with one user, just click the "random article" button and start editing something else! :) Baristarim 12:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

I think I owe an apology for the deletion of the main page and a few other irrational edits I've done lately. I made a bad work at keeping a few other family members away from the computer, which had really resulted in much trouble. Family aside, I'm not sure whether a separate workplace can be established very quickly. I hereby put my actions into the review of other admins — perhaps I should resign for a while. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 12:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry about resigning. I had no idea someone had dleted the main page, nice work! The closest I had seen to that was when someone deleted the FA of the day to remove some nasty edit summaries. I nearly shit myself when I saw a red link and he nearly shit himself when he did it (even though it was intentional). Viridae ^Talk 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wiki - nothing you do can't be fixed. Don't worry about it. -- Nick^t 12:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered logging out (either from Wikipedia, or from your computer) or putting a password and short delay on your screensaver? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, but I guess those little bastards come while I'm still logged in :) It's rather difficult considering the fact I'm using a shared computer. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 12:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not admin - but I note that the edit you refer to occurred on 02:15, March 27, 2007 - so given the time for your apology to arrive I assume that you just noticed. No doubt edits done under your name (by leaving yourself logged in) are your responsibility however I personally can accept your apology and make the suggestion that if you can't have your own workspace that perhaps not allowing the system to retain your login would fix the problem pretty quickly?--VS ^talk 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think recall is necessary, Michael :) Worst thing I've had to do is delete Template:FAMumbai to fix page move vandalism - except I forgot I deleted it, and only remembered about 8 minutes later... don't think anyone noticed, though :p Anyway, don't worry too much about it. – Riana ^ऋ 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go forth, and sin no more!That is, don't waste our time at RFA. Thou art not malicious, and every admin action can be undone. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on Random article and fix something - easily forgiven. x42bn6 Talk 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Firefox, make sure to log out before you leave your system, and hit the "delete personal information" to make sure you kill the cookie. No big deal, and don't be resigning, we've all made some errors! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk such rot about resigning! Myself and some other admins blocked the whole of Qatar, but we're still here! :) Martinp23 16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox has a neat toy buried in privacy settings... you can set the browser to not let a site like en.wikipedia.org set a cookie. That way, whenever you close your open (all open) Firefox windows, you should get 100% logged out. Useful! - Denny ^(talk) 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user evading ban?

I just ran into this. This user User:D.Kurdistani seems to be the same person as User:Diyako who was banned on May 25, 2006 for one year [79] (User:Diyako redirects to User:Xebat and is the same user [80]) and the User:D.Kurdistani was created on August 27, 2006 [81] - contributions list starts at August 17, 2006 [82]. User has the same style of edits, same nationality, same name "Diyako" as mentioned in his user page. Doesn't the block extend to other accounts created by the same user? If so, can an admin make sure that the block applies universally? It seems like a block evasion which has flew below the radar! Baristarim 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate action would be to post this on WP:RFCU following the procedure there. -- Cat ^chi? 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the editor, under all user names, was banned per ArbCom rulling. — ERcheck (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will file a checkuser request.. Baristarim 13:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DennyColt

DennyColt (talk · contribs) wrote an essay (WP:BADSITES) that admits to not being a policy, then proceeded to "enforce" this non-policy by altering others' comments on many talk and project pages, including editing a closed AfD (which violates policy). *Dan T.* 14:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Tobias, the essay/guideline/policy 'status' is fluid, and the true status is what reflects actual practice and precedent, I believe. Anyone can enforce anything that is applicable and 'right' under policy. We do not support hate, or attack sites. Do you support in any fashion websites that can cause personal harm to editors here? Are you a contributor to a hate site that outs Wikipedians? - Denny ^(talk) 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to motive ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this is an admin issue. Have you discussed it with him on his talk page?--Doc^g 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He left me a message, that I replied to. - Denny ^(talk) 14:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the tag on the essay. This is what the opening section of Wikipedia:Attack sites says:

Attack sites are sites that are used to facilitate, promote, enable, or encourage harassment of Wikipedia editors and users. Harassment and stalking of Wikipedians (editors, administrators, or others) who chose to edit the encyclopedia either anonymously, or pseudo-anonymously, is a serious matter. A number of websites hostile to good will and the editors of Wikipedia choose to engage in activities that could undermine the privacy, anonymity, physical safety, and well-being of editors. The activities include the posting of harassing comments, physical threats, libel, and defamation, as well as attempts to 'out' the private identities of Wikipedians. For the safety and well-being of the overall Wikipedia community, attack sites should never be linked to, nor promoted by editors.

Basically, we normally scrub any reference to material that is defamatory or grossly attacking, or attempting to 'out' the identaties of editors. I wrote this to define what would be removed, which wasn't done before. I think this reflects... our ideals and principles, so I tagged it guideline now. - Denny ^(talk) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Washington Post, for example, "outed" an editor on Wikipedia, or criticized the actions or apparent personal agendas of any Wikipedia administrators, would it then be an attack site? I admit that this type of discussion isn't appropriate for this page, but since it was started here, I thought I would ask the question. Right now the only websites that openly question the way Wikipedia is run can be labled as attack sites and censored because they're somewhat small in scope. But when more mainstream media decide to run articles about these type of issues (and I believe that it will probably happen eventually), will they also be labled as attack sites? Cla68 15:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an absurd argument. The Washinton Post is a key source for thousands of articles, Wikipedia Review isn't. It is pretty easy to draw a distinction.--Doc^g 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but where is the line drawn? If the Washington Post discusses an allegation originally reported in Wikipedia Review, then is it okay to link to Wikipedia Review then? Actually, I think that has already happened with the New York Post reporting on allegations from a Wikipedia "attack" site that isn't allowed to be mentioned here. Where is the line drawn and who decides where the line is drawn? Cla68 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously entitled to express your own opinion — avoid linking a site which contains anti-Wikipedia content — but you should never enforce an essay over a guideline by censoring other people's comment. Similarly suggesting to assume good faith doesn't obligate other users to remove bad faith assumptions. ~~I believe the entire essay is ridiculous and is likely to be rejected anyway.~~ Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a second thought, this had already been applied in the MONGO ArbCom case. Maybe if we'll get enough consensus for a guideline promotion? Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I objected, both at the time and still now, to the draconian removal of all links to Encyclopedia Dramatica in the wake of that ArbCom case. I strongly believe that discussion in talk and project pages shouldn't be stifled by suppressing links to sites we don't like; it is simply not possible to have a reasonable discussion of the content of such sites without sometimes linking to specific things on them, and those sites and their content do have relevance to us at times, especially when they have threads that talk about suing Wikipedia, etc. Anyway, "First they came for Encyclopedia Dramatica, and I didn't object, because it's a hateful, childish attack site. Next they came for Wikipedia Review, and I still didn't object. Then they came for my site, and there was nobody left to object." *Dan T.* 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the Godwin goes to Dtobias! (For the record, Wikipedia Review got itself banned because it was also a hateful, childish – or at least petulant and selfish – attack site. I can deal with slippery slopes when their slope is zero.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ToaT is exactly right, and his reasoning is also why Cla68's example of the Wash Post doesn't hold water. Even in the unlikely circumstance of the Post deciding to run some sort of exposé punching holes in the anonymity of our editors, it would not done in the grotesque and hateful manner of Wikipedia Review and other attack sites of its ilk. I don't think that we're supressing criticism here; we do, after all, have articles about Citizendium and Larry Sanger posts to talk pages quite frequently. A Train^talk 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss on-wiki about an attack site but to determine, "Does this site, a group of their users/membership, or a component of their content, cause, or seek to cause, harm to Wikipedians?" If a site aims to harm people here in 'real life', why support them in any fashion, be it promotion or linking? We are volunteers. If the project can't even try to protect us on-wiki from off-wiki harassment, that is a major problem.

As to what should be removed from, or included in the encyclopedia... It is a grey line. The trick I suppose is to draw the line at a site overall, because of the nature of it's content as a whole--do we gain as an encyclopedia by linking to x, to illustrate y? I think that the collateral fallout of z also is a major consideration. If a given website was the best authority EVER on a subject that is notable, and passed RS for that--but one or two clicks away was a section dedicated to defaming, libeling, or harassing people here--should we in good conscience link to or advertise/promote that site? Does doing so perpetuate and enable that harm to our fellow editors? "Do no harm." We are living persons, after all. - Denny ^(talk) 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we "discuss and determine" that, without actually presenting evidence in the form of specific cites and links? *Dan T.* 17:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, since its a wiki: someone links to x content or site, imports it, or advertises it. People will see it. If concensus is that its attack or hate content to harm living people here, it's removed. If it sticks, and concensus agrees its attack or hate content/site, then it stays gone and we remove the hateful crap. Precedent thus becomes practice, which becomes policy, innit? - Denny ^(talk) 17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in order to determine the nature of a site, we first have to link to it? This is a severe contradiction and invites to continue with the current system, namely a case per case analysis of every link posted here. If it contains libelous or other questionable material, it should be removed. If it doesn't and serves to illustrate a discussion, it stays. Sorry but with the MONGO case rules serving as official policy to be dinamically adapted to each case the system is OK as it is without the need to go on a MacArthyst rampage of blacklisting websites. No need to fix what it's not broken! FlatGenius 18:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's 4th edit. We do not support harassment or attempts to 'out' identities. - Denny ^(talk) 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following best practice, the removal of many of these attack sites will NOT be discussed on site. Instead they will be instantly removed by clueful editors. Then a request for warning and/or blocking of the user that made the link will be handled discreetly. It should not be brought to AN or AN/I for discussion because doing so harms living people. FloNight 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds kind of star chamber-ish. *Dan T.* 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way that some stories about incidents on the Internet often "break" now is that first, some "obscure" blog observes or finds something interesting on the web and reports on it. People read the blog and start sending the link around or commenting on it in their own blogs. Pretty soon enough people are interested in it that a more "mainstream" or widely read blog or net journal comments on it, then a "major" media outlet does a report on it. This here, then, is "the rub." At what point does the story change from being "an attack" to a legitimate news story and ok to link to or discuss in Wikipedia? A prohibition on links to certain sites for being "attacks", as opposed to spam, is going to be very difficult to enforce consistently and prevent the guideline from being used abusively and arbitrarily, especially by anyone that has a personal reason for trying to "suppress" the information contained in the site that the link links to.

In the articles on Wikipedia on controversial subjects, such as the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we debate the credibility and validity of sources all the time. It's often a natural part of the community article writing process. Wouldn't we also sometimes need to debate the credibility and validity of an off-site report on something going on in Wikipedia that we need to know about, without fearing that we're going to blocked or having the discussion shut-down by someone enforcing the guideline according to their own personal interpretation of it? And again, at what point does a story change from being an attack to a legitimate "news" story? Would you be able to write that definition into a coherent guideline? Cla68 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We use our common sense to distinguish between attack sites and the Washington Post. If the site contains actionable libel and innuendo about people's sex lives, if it's published by one person and is discussed by the New York Times as part of a "campaign of menace," the chances are high that it's nothing like the Washington Post. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wiarthurhu/User:Sugarcaddy/User:Matador300/User:71.164.9.103

User:Wiarthurhu was a disruptive user (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 AMC Machine,Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-31 User:Wiarthurhu mediation violation) - known for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wiarthurhu), who has been handed an indefinite ban. There is significant evidence that he has returned yet again as anon user User:71.164.9.103.

To quote Dual Freq from User talk:Wiarthurhu: "71.164.9.103 (talk · contribs), a Seattle area IP address, seems to have a similar disdain for McNamara, the F-111 and other things. Just a couple of notes to back up the linkage, POV edits on F-105 Thunderchief, the material reads just like the POV Wiarthurhu used to push especially on the F-14 article. Frequent POV pushing about McNamara as well. They also have a similar problem with the F-111, similar to this edit from the IP addy. They both edited the Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 article as well."

I compared the contributions of Wiarthurhu and his previous socks with recent contributions of 71.164.9.103 and in addition to the aircraft articles I noted that both accounts have edits in education-related and boy-scout related articles. This is more than just a coincidence so I requested a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wiarthurhu - but it was declined on grounds that "Wiarthurhu is far too stale".

I hate to think that this disruptive and abusive user should be back amongst us - especially since he appears to be acting in exactly the same way disruptive way he has in the past.

Thanks in advance. SteveBaker 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reddi

This user has repeatedly switched the disambiguation page Tesla (which has an extensive edit history going back to 2005) with the redirect to it Tesla (disambiguation) by switching the content via copy/paste instead of doing a page move (which would preserve the history). Aside from not following process and breaking the page history (which would need to get fixed by an admin), the editor has given no reason for this and I see no consensus. For the record, I don't really care if the page ends up getting moved properly (assuming there's consensus to do so) - it just should get listed at WP:RM if a move is necessary and moved with the Move function. --Minderbinder 15:31, 7 gApril 2007 (UTC)

Can please someone review Reddi's current ad hominems on his own talk page:

User talk:Reddi [83]

As I'm constantly in disputes with Reddi, I'd recuse myself from judgement.

Pjacobi 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

questionable deletion

this deletion by Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs) is nothing short of scandalous. There is nothing like a "consensus", and about half of the delete votes are from single-topic or trolling accounts. I knew "AfD was broken", but so far took it to mean it was impossible to get a nonsense article deleted if the trolls objected. This is the first time I see the trolls getting to delete a fully referenced article in spite of well-argued opposition. I will obviously take this to deletion review, but maybe someone can save me the trouble by looking at this and speedy-undeleting the article. thanks, dab (𒁳) 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 20 delete votes, only two are by recently created accounts, the rest of the delete votes are from long-time editors, including four admins. Calling half of those editors 'trolls' (am I one of them, dab?) is both disingenuous and WP:UNCIVIL. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are a single-topic pov editor. Nothing wrong with that, but deleting articles because you and your co-religionists don't like them would be like deleting Criticism of Islam because 20 Muslim editors voted to delete that. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is welcome to look at my contribtions going back two years to see for themselves. And please don't make too many assumptions about my 'religion' based on my most recent edits - my 'religion' is much broader than you assume, dab. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the deletion of a perfectly referenced article due to NPOV concerns is ridiculous, just like each of these AfD's who's sole purpose is to censor an article because certain editors aren't comfortable with its subject. I would definitely endorse a deletion review, but a speedy-undeletion might be a bit exaggerated act without a throughout discussion with Daniel. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:DRV. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No basis for a "speedy undeletion". Take it to the proper venue, please... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overturning my close, especially after being blatantly attacked ("scandalous") in the above thread without being told. DRV it; I couldn't give a shit what you do with it from there. But, if someone speedy undeletes it, there will be all hell on them; just a friendly note :) Daniel Bryant 21:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can only view the conduct of dbachmann, with his anti-Hindu paranoia to see why it got deleted. Four admins voted delete (Bhadani, Lostintherush, Nichalp whos a bureaucrat, and Rama's Arrow) and not all the delete voters are even Hindu, or affiliated with Hindutva organizations. Daniel was correct in noting the article was a lost cause, giving undue weight to a Phd in biotech (Meera Nanda) who is not even a tenured professor or scholar.Baka man 21:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Privacy

Resolved

Privacy (talk · contribs) and I have been having a disagreement over the use of navigational templates. I have now explained to him why I feel they should not be used, and he seems to accept my explanation, but for some reason he insists that I post my explanation everywhere that I remove a navigational template. We have had some revert-warring over the affected articles, and now he is reverting until I explain myself on the article's talk page. This is absolutely bizarre and seems like WP:POINT to me. Can someone get him to stop doing this? --Ideogram 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. I did not notice you were removing two navigational boxes in one go. Sounds like you are getting allergic. J/K. - Privacy 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has self-reverted and it is ok now. --Ideogram 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxiad

This user has been continuing to stir problems as mentioned on the RfAr page. Although the case is not yet closed, the user continues to cause disruption of various sorts in my opinion. User was recently blocked form commons for vandalizing by using sockpuppets. -- Cat ^chi? 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got any evidence of disruption on this wiki?--Domitius 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For example [84] or [85]. -- Cat ^chi? 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he means on Wikipedia. //PTO 17:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is committing similar behavior here:

Removing copyvio notice: [86]
- Same behaviour as on commons
Afding Turkish provinces [87], [88]
- User "attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines"
Revert waring on Greek War of Independence: [89], [90]. Revert waring on Skanderbeg: [91], [92]
- User is on Temporary injunction by arbcom and is "restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page". I see no comments on the talk page

-- Cat ^chi? 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any block should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Log of blocks and bans -- Cat ^chi? 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the rest of the situation, but I've blocked Artaxiad 24 hours for violating the 1RR injunction at Skanderbeg. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting BLP question

List of bisexual people currently has a "disputed" section, in which various people have been placed because they were alleged to be bisexual but there's no complete proof. As this sounds like a BLP nightmare, I removed it, but have been reverted repeatedly. On the talkpage, someone pointed out that we have articles like Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ's sexuality, and we should have a list of people whose sexuality has been disputed. It seems to me that if we can have a separate list, we can have a section on the current one, so I thought I'd pass this up, because the existence of those articles makes me wonder. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculating about the personal lives of living persons, or even the recently deceased, falls into a different and much more sensitive category than discussion of literature on the lives of long-ago historical personages. Newyorkbrad 18:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains both the living and the dead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dobbie

Peter dobbie (talk · contribs) was determined to be the real Peter Dobbie, a BBC news anchor. Unfortunately, after being informed that it was inappropriate for him to edit and add content to the page about him here on the Wikipedia, he continued to use his account solely for this purpose. I have blocked him for continued violations of WP:COI. I will also let the foundation know about my actions due to this user's status in the media world. --Yamla 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell ComCom, too. //PTO 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just fired off a message to them. In fact, rather than the foundation. If you believe I should still inform the foundation as a whole, let me know. I think the communications committee (and this noticeboard) is probably sufficient. --Yamla 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI situations are best avoided, but there is no outright prohibition of an article subject's adding accurate, notable biographical information about himself or herself. Was there any particular problem with the editing beyond the identity of the editor? Newyorkbrad 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem if he's adding unpublished information where before all the information was at least available from the BBC website. There is a problem when he's adding an enthusiastic narrative that reads like it was written by himself or the BBC. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked and I'm going to follow up with User:Peter dobbie by email. I've read the correspondence that he has already received and will make sure he understands our policies related to content. Patient editors are invited to help me edit the article and discuss problems with content on the talk page. :-) FloNight 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out the prior text added by an anon 21 January 2006 is copied directly from the BBC website, so the whole page is a copyvio back to that date. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wish you luck. The last thing I want to do is to tick off a BBC news anchor, but Mr. Dobbie has seemed unwilling to listen to my and other people's efforts to inform him about Wikipedia policies. The best solution obviously would be to have him unblocked and abiding by our policies but I completely failed in these attempts. Note that I attempted to point out our policies on image copyright and fair use, our policies on conflict-of-interest and verification, and our policies on article ownership. I provided both a link to the policies and a hand-written brief interpretation of these policies. The only response was that there was no problem and I should make sure nobody else changes the text of the article once Mr. Dobbie had incorporated what he wanted. --Yamla 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

Earlier today I blocked Giza E (talk · contribs) as a sock of User:MagicKirin. The user is now claiming that I should not have blocked, stating I am in a content dispute with him/her. Further, by email, Giza E states that the original block was by Essjay who has been discredited and "Ergo there is no sock puppet violation". I am in no dispute with MagicKirin other than the continued attempts at disruption via socks, but a review would be appreciated. The Essjay comment is a bit ridiculous, and basically confirms Giza E is a sock. - auburnpilot talk 17:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. If we have to unblock everyone who was blocked by Essjay, I quit right now. Natalie 19:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Giza E is clutching at straws here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past that, I've been treating MagicKirin/Decato as banned for some time, now. There's been plenty of discussion on unblock-en-l about it, and the user's brought up a painful number of socks, refusing to recognize even the most reasonable of policies or requests from any fellow Wikipedian -- it's always "my way or an army of socks highway." I haven't checked who set the original block, because it doesn't matter at this point. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SANDBOX

Resolved

– – Luna Santin (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An IP claims that it was vandalized. Is it possible to vandalize the sandbox? G.O. 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. It gets reset by a bot whenever someone deletes the header, anyway. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, please don't be too blasé about this. While less competently executed here, the redirect attack has been used twice recently that I've noticed, such as is mentioned here. Innocent named and IP users are getting caught by this. It is possible to "vandalize via the sandbox". Shenme 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Al Gore

Resolved

– – Luna Santin (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user vandalized Al Gore bya bizzarre 5-edit methodology. It was reverted, but does this show experience? Probably unrelated, but the "Sandbox vandalism" was making it redirect to Al Gore. G.O. 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may have just been using the sandbox to experiment with redirects. Al Gore is a pretty well-known person, so it's likely enough that someone would pick that article to use in a test. Absent any other evidence it's the same user, I'd be inclined to AGF here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide threat essay

I've started an essay at Wikipedia:Suicide threats - if anybody wants to contribute, thoughts and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. -- Nick^t 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the checkuser reference. See the talk page of the essay for more info, but suffice it to say that this would not be allowed. -M^ask? 19:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by author. Daniel Bryant 23:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EX STAB's persistent copyright infringement

EX STAB (talk|contribs) seems to have no regard for copyright. Every single image contribution by EX STAB has been uploaded under a self-made GNU Free Documentation License. However, it would seem the images were collected from various websites and not created by him. Examples of his copyright violation can be seen on EX STAB's talk page. EX STAB has been warned and continues to persist in using self-made GFDL for image uploads.Pettifogger 19:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through, deleting any suspect image uploads, and removing redlinked images from the respective articles. This is atrocious. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the user one final, unequivocal warning, and have asked him to let us know if English is not his primary language; I've seen that issue before where we kept warning people and it turns out they had no idea what they were being told. Should he/she upload again, please post here or on my talk page and they will get a block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the plot thickens: in the process of cleaning, I've found Jetwave_Dave (talk · contribs), who seems to have very similar image contributions (is the "Uploaded by Foo" an auto-summary?), with a lot of GFDL-self guns and such. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a test to see if the "Uploaded by" is a mediawiki auto-summary, and (at this point in time, at least), it is not, and I could find no evidence anywhere that it ever has been. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

management speak bullshit (Personal branding)

Hi - we have an editor who we cannot get to understand the Manual of style and persists in adding some godawful management bullshit speak stuff about personal branding (linked to a site flogging the stuff of course). You are the Brand and the Brand is You! A personal brand consists of everything that makes you exactly the individual you are.. and so on. Can someone sit in before we have an edit war, there are only a few of us working on the page but the rest of us agree it should not go in - or at the very least should be discussed on the talkpage. --Fredrick day 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about Omegalion I just gave him a 24 hour block for a 3RR violation. IrishGuy ^talk 19:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again. The material being added is unacceptable. Can someone with more time and patience than I please inform this guy what he's doing wrong? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to and will continue to do so - as with most of those things, it's get them to the talkpage that's the problem... thanks for the assist. --Fredrick day 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've watchlisted that page: if he tries to add the junk anywhere else please let me know and I'll try to sort things out. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, bad revert on this page back to the spam. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has bothered to actually leave a message on his talk page discussing why his edits have been reverted. That's a much better first step that coming to AN/I, Frederick. A Train^talk 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really fair, given the attempts to communicate on the article's talk. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember though: for true noobies, edit histories (where edit summaries would be visable) and article talk pages may be a total mystery. It's always best to go to the user talk page first. That orange bar can't be missed, no matter how green the user. A Train^talk 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Train: I've tried to explain it to him too, both on the article talk page and via e-mail (he contacted me at some point). There have been several elaborate (from my side) e-mails sent back and forth. I somehow didn't manage to get through to him, maybe the block will help. Didn't want to block him myself, given my involvement in the editing earlier. --Joanne B 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we did do this when he was editing via an IP address and also on the article talkpage where he left a couple of comment - plus the edit summaries asked him to come to the talkpage. --Fredrick day 19:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for jumping to conclusions. For what it's worth, I left the user a talkpage message. A Train^talk 19:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Job

You guys ought to see this. This spam is a result of a current joe job against several wrestling sites. The spammer behind it has gotten multiple warnings ect. The sites targeted in the joe job so far are gerwick.net and tnawrestling.com —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:58, 7 April 2007

Is that wrestling-spam issue in any way connected with the branding-spam issue noted above? If not, then you should start a separate section for it to avoid confusion. *Dan T.* 20:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spammer concerned, JB196, is community banned in fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been quite a few of these links - in places where admins are sure to find them[93]. The meta checkuser suggests that 198.138.41.54 (talk · contribs · block log) is responsible, and has been blocked for a year on the Spanish wiki[94]. It seems to belong to a wrestling fan. In fact, 198.138.41.183 (talk · contribs · block log) has appeared in a checkuser request concerning this banned user before and is currently indef-blocked. Maybe someone familiar with JB196 should take a look to confirm if we need to block this IP. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually posted that for open proxy checking a couple of days ago believing it to be used by JB196, and the fact it's been used for the spamming confirms it in my opinion. I already suggested to Eagle 101 that IP might need blocking now, then blocking for a longer period once it's been checked to see if it's an open proxy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB196 is at it again with a new Joe Job as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to block the IP now, its manufacturing more socks. Yogotstago (talk · contribs), Homemadejoke (talk · contribs), FortunateCook (talk · contribs), Gottodadoghouse (talk · contribs), FROAFROman (talk · contribs), TNArulestheOffice (talk · contribs), TNAWrestlingForeverBaby (talk · contribs), ExtremeEagle (talk · contribs). All accounts have exactly 2 edits. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More socks Nincoom (talk · contribs) OpenUpNoego (talk · contribs) ExtremelyHo (talk · contribs) Tobethebest (talk · contribs). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MincemeatMince (talk · contribs) and another one! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one got my userpage, and I assume is related

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of JB196 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one got your userpage, have you seen the recent history of it?! I think you've upset him somewhat. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its highly likely, I've refused to go along with his plans. Again, I urge anyone reviewing this incident to see the meta checkuser I listed above, this problem is not english wikipedia only. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New sock Template:Freshfruitrules —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExtremeHobo13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FROAFROman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) need blocking as well please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG versions of logos

I just deleted Image:Logo Real Madrid.svg since I don't think fair use applies there. In particular it fails to hold :

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos (...) qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

since SVG is inherently high resolution. However I'm dropping a note here so other admins can review my action. -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just yesterday I went through all the archives at WT:FAIR and I can say that there is not exactly consensus that SVG images fail the criterion of WP:FUC that you mentioned. I, however, think your deletion was appropriate. There are a couple non-svg logos made redundant by svg version at IfD that I argue should be kept and the svg files deleted. --Iamunknown 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More BLP on children; Nickelodeon babysitting

Regarding my archived query about Alex Wolff, Nat Wolff, Michael Wolff, Polly Draper, and the newly-launched Nickelodeon TV show The Naked Brothers Band (TV series), also The Naked Brothers Band, The Naked Brothers Band (film); there's another Nickelodeon article.

Allie DiMeco's article says she goes to high school at an "undisclosed location". I just reverted talk page comments that disclosed a lot of personal information, including (supposedly) her location: [95] I wasn't able to verify this via Google. I don't really know how much I should be reverting per BLP here, but since these are children, I've been fairly aggressive. I also don't know if these need to be scrubbed from history. Some guidance or oversight would be appreciated. There's a lot of MySpace type entries being made on articles and talk pages, and kids using the talk pages to chat. I'm feeling like a Nick unpaid babysitter, and the fun has only begun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An upcoming indef-block

I am, most likely, going to end up indefinitely blocking ZombieSlayer54 (talk · contribs). He seems to be under the mistaken impression that The Zombie Survival Guide is a piece of legitimate non-fiction, and has repeatedly edited it to say "supposed fiction" and the like.[96] [97] [98]

His first block (24 hour) came from his 3RR violation in regards to this; I added a "don't do this again" note to the block warning.[99] As soon as the block wore off, he was back at it, so I blocked for 48 hours and told him it was his final warning.[100] I also suggested he use {{unblock}} if he thought I was being a dick; he used it, and the block was endorsed by Kuru.[101]

His attitude most definitely suggests that he'll go back to adding the same content when his current block is done,[102] at which point I'll be escalating it to an indefinite block.

Related talk pages:

Since this could be seen as a bit of a content dispute, I'd like some extra eyes to "approve" of the course of action I'm taking it. I'm the one who wrote the ZSG article as it currently stands, so I'm looking to avoid any claims of ownership (and abuse of my admin tools) by being as transparent as possible about this whole situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite abundantly reasonable and patient on your part, as I'm reading things. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVula, you are completely in the right here; I've added another voice to ZombieSlayer's talk page. A Train^talk 21:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support; I like hearing that I'm not being an insufferable dick about things. :)

As a followup, Fredrick day has added pretty definitive proof that Brooks is joking about the whole thing; [103] hopefully that will convince ZombieSlayer54 to stop making those edits and I won't have to block him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book describes the Zombie war that already happened and the few survivors currently alive. I suspect trolling and someone with a private joke. Surely anyone capable of reading it is incapable of thinking it non-fiction. Geogre 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of World War Z, the author's clearly fictional follow up book. The The Zombie Survival Guide is more of a 'survival manual' parody. After reading some of the author's interviews, he's met many people who are, ah, confused by the reality of the text. I would weigh the probability of troll vs. misguided soul at about 60/40. Kuru ^talk 02:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratherduarm (talk · contribs)

Resolved

– Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is repeatedly nominating Uncyclopedia for deletion, with no arguments but the fact that ED got deleted. Please do something.

...wow, I've never actually made a report exceeding one line here. -Amarkov moo! 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Keeping an eye on it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilkunta

Could another set of eyes head to User talk:Lilkunta and help the user out? The problem is that Lilkunta uses a horrendous "chiller" font, in green, in size 2 through HTML code. Well the issue is that Lilkunta never </font>ed an of the posts, therefore, the entire talk page is green now, in that horrendous font. I've fixed it several times, as has another user, but Lilkunta refuses to take help from either of us because apparently we're jerks. This is how it looked after I repaired it, this is how it looks after Lilkunta's 6 attempts to fix it (note that several sections of talk and warnings have been removed in the process by Lilkunta).

Can someone else stop in there? It's getting really disruptive that Lilkunta insists on refusing help and that, despite our warnings and requests not to, the user still uses the ridiculous font on everyone's talk pages (s/he's stopped using the chiller font on my talk page and now just simply bolds everything which is equally annoying). Metros232 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this user to be absolutely impossible to deal with. Joie de Vivre 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joie I find u impossible. Again, u r not to post to me or about me.Lilkunta 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? Joie de Vivre 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joie, u & I have previous history so u r bias. Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have the power to tell people they can't post about you. Nobody does. Having said that, if you want to have unclosed font tags on your talkpage, people really shouldn't be trying to remove them. -Amarkov moo! 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ Amark: What about repeated posts that are unwanted. I receive unsolicited posts & I have to deal with them.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank U. I get that they dont want it on their pages, but they all changed my page which dont like. Joie is to make no comments bc we disputed about a page but she is.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"She"? This is a completely separate issue from the "content dispute" (if "Lilkunta ignoring policy and being really obstinate" should be called that). I can comment here freely, stop making decrees. Joie de Vivre 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R u a he? Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, Amarkov, is that Lilkunta wants the page to be fixed. In fact, when s/he discovered the page was all green, s/he posted this vandalism accusation. So, we're all trying to help, but getting shot down. Metros232 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was fixing my own page. Cascadia offered help. U metros just changed my page without my permission even after I asked you to stop.

I've nuked all of them and gave Lilkunta a stern warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt ask for Metros' help. I do not want it. I dont know y Metros is watching my page. I have asked repeatedly 4 Metros to cease contact. I am fixing my page bc it is afterall my page.Lilkunta 20:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a really annoying font on that users' talk page hopefully that explains literally what some users are having to deal with here. BTW: I like different fonts but some really makes your eyes sore. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you too had a font preference but I c u r just bullying me like the rest of them.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of incivility floating around due to something as simple as <font> tags. Lilkunta, the problem would be solved if you agreed to close your tags on your talk page, and not use them at all on other pages. Leebo ^T/C 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you do realize that this is what people are seeing?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I c Chiller fine but now understand you all dont have browsers that do. Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's generous because the image is so large. It looks a LOT smaller if you look at it in a normal browser (that image seems pretty "blown up"). Metros232 21:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I dont know or talk to any of u. Just as u want ur page ur way, I want my page my way. I dont want any of u all to help me. Pls stop changing my page.Lilkunta 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If having your talk page configured in such a manner that some editors wanting to communicate with you have severe difficulty understanding the words because of the font you are using, then this is disruption. You don't get to disrupt any part of Wikipedia. Not even your talk page. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do others get to have many diff things on their page but not me? I just want to be in charge of my disc page.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm seeing.-- Joie de Vivre 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt realise that nt every 1's browser supports Chiller. Leebo was civil & much nicer than the rest of u & showed me. I'll use Chiller only when I must. Thx again Leebo.Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely unacceptable. Lilkunta must stop this. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently using hideous fonts and colors is vitally important to this user while typing in complete words and sentences is not worth their time and effort. I would advise Lilkunta to reassess their priorities and their reasons for participating on this project. Philwelch 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the incivility that Leebo mentioned earlier? Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they want to use that font on their own talk page, bully to them for it. However, using it elsewhere is problematic. Luckily, as a Mac user, I don't have that font (I'll classify that under "Viruses don't work for me" :D), but that really is disruptive to use elsewhere, especially if the user doesn't know how to use it properly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will maintain my font & colour& my disc page. If a user says a post I make is unreadable,I will gladly change it. Lilkunta 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rcommended that Lilkunta use her font/design talents in creating userpages and infoboxes instead of talkpage fonts. I hope s/he is willing to take me up on that offer, because well designed userpages are assets. — Deckill er 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I can't believe you had the gall, Lilkunta, to reformat this discussion and apply your new font. And you contributed to the incivility too. Leebo ^T/C 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leebo I was told this new colurfont type id ok. It is still hard to read? Lilkunta 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I support a block. He is clearly being disruptive. IrishGuy ^talk 23:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to remove Lilkunta's formatting of their messages here (and they used a font I did have installed); this isn't the user's talk page. Grrr. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a colon, Lilkunta, instead of your green font. It makes it much easier to read...and makes it less of a annoyance. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all the indenting in this section is gone. This happened on my talk page and on the article Talk pages that Lilkunta blessed with their Midas touch. Joie de Vivre 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For edits like this one in which s/he changed the font and the entire formatting of this thread despite being warned not to do that only a couple of hours ago, Lilkunta have been blocked for 24 hours. I strongly suggest that when the block expires that s/he does not use different fonts at all as it is clearly causing annoyance to a good percentage of Wikipedia members who have been involved with it. Metros232 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I... so, yeah, it's like this: I want to think you were a bit heavy-handed, but yet, I just can't bring myself to disagree with it...
I still think that they should be able to do whatever the hell they want to on their own talk page and only on their own talk page, but I will most certainly agree that editing the formatting (and, in the process, destroying the indentations) of this conversation, to put it delicately, showed poor judgement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the fact that s/he had been warned not to use the font, the fact that others had tried to help but s/he kept ignoring advice, the fact that we've all spent way too much time talking about fonts and formatting, it all leads up to disruption block in my mind. I'd appreciate any other comments on my action, but I do feel it was justified based on sufficient warning that was ignored. Metros232 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All seriousness aside, you have my full endorsement on the block. I completely agree that such blatant disregard for the overwhelming consensus that their font styling was disruptive is problematic (and I agree again that all this discussion has been a waste of time and energy). Hopefully a short block will help cement the whole "don't do that" thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I question the necessity or utility of changing fonts even on your own talk page (though I wouldn't block over it), but seriously, this was becoming beyond ridiculous. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. I believe that the font shouldn't be used anywhere as it is disruptive, but if as a consensus we are going to say that it's fine on user's own talk page, I won't have any objection is this case. But certainly, endorse block for disruption on ANI after warning. Daniel Bryant 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block endorsed and unblock request declined.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I have to say her attitude leaves something to be desired, too... HalfShadow 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

404 errors tonight

Anyone else had the following errors tonight:

Not Found
The requested URL /wiki/User_talk:Tjstrf was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

It's annoying, and stopping me from editing. Anyone know how to fix this?? --SunStar Net ^talk 21:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping wikimedia-tech IRC channel. I'll go and do that. --Iamunknown 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They already know. Picaroon 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered that. --Iamunknown 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm getting it all over the place. - auburnpilot talk 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to refresh this page six times to bring up one without the 404. Its really hampering the use the Wikipedia and vandal fighting. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting it alot as well.--Jersey Devil 21:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look on the bright side; it's probably hindering the vandals as well. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring the discussion on wikimedia-tech...I think it is fixed now. --Iamunknown 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. I was getting them in several other much smaller Wikipedias (I am updating my dumps and several returned 404). -- ReyBrujo 22:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png

i'm personally feeling that User:Timeshifter is being seriously disrutive to "the discussion" via these: (1st), (2nd), -my resolve attempt-, (3rd)+"You are approaching a 3RR violation" threat - scroll down to see it - please have someone review the history of the talk page and give an opinion. Jaakobou 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance

Administrator Jkelly has suggested that I post my problem here.

Someone at IP 24.182.0.54 posted an External Link to Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming. Matthew deleted the link. I looked at the link, an interview with Richard Hatch on the topic of the article, decided it was relevant, and reverted it back in.

Matthew re-reverted the link, and posted a warning against spamming on my User Talk page.

(I should mention that spamming is a practice I regard to be about as loathsome as, oh, say, child abuse; to be falsely accused of such is about as insulting a thing as I can imagine here on Wikipedia.)

I replied as is as calm a fashion as I could manage, suggesting that he take a look at WP:LAWYER and WP:OWN, and put the link back in.

He deleted it again, and posted to my user page a second warning against spamming, again a false accusation. He then deleted other relevant, appropriate links from the original article, falsely calling them spam in the Edit Summary to justify the deletions.

I posted a warning to him about article vandalism, as I regard the deliberate deletion of true and/or useful information from articles as unencyclopedic and, in fact, vandalism. I then requested intervention, posting a notice at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Admin Jkelly rm'd it, later suggesting to me that posting here would be more appropriate.

In the meantime, Illyria05 deliberately removed the warning I gave to Matthew. My understanding has been that anyone other than Administrators removing warnings from User Talk pages is cause for that person being blocked from editing. True? False?

Subsequent posts to each other's User Talk pages indicate that Illyria05 did it for "buddy" reasons, and that he/she and Matthew think my posting a vandalism warning was for "revenge".

While I am angry at having what I regard as a vile false accusation thrown at me by a total stranger, I also honestly regard Matthew's deletions to Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming to be inappropriate, removing value from the article.

I don't like edit warring any more than anyone else does. I would like this matter settled.

What do I want? I request that the link deletions be restored. I want an administrator to remove the vile, filthy, false accusations from my User Talk page and also delete them from the page history. And if appropriate, I request that the relevant warnings or sanctions be given to Matthew and Illyria05.

Thank you for your help. -- Davidkevin 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#LINK: "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines." and WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked". I really don't believe it gets any clearer. Matthew 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That explains the reason why you removed them, but doesn't explain why you warned him instead of talking to him. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I don't know. Perhaps in the hopes he would stop? I personally find the warning nicely succinct, "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". Matthew 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't adding links, he was reverting your deletions. IrishGuy ^talk 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the reverting wasn't an obvious violation of WP:EL. It would be much better to explain it to him. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidkevin, if you want the warnings off your page, then remove them, you don't need an admin for that. People don't get blocked for removing warnings either. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this threat be take seriously?

Moved from WP:VPA Viridae ^Talk 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the link to this page "How to destroy Wikipedia" reverted on the Bill White (neo-Nazi) page, so I went to check it out. It's a claim of a concept to build a mass vandalization system. I'm not enough of a hacker to know how easy it is to do this. But apparently a lot of individuals read this guy's postings, so hopefully someone with some technical know-how can examine the situation. Citicat 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wouldn't know how to do it myself but I don't think it'd be too hard. Whether that's any cause for concern or not I don't know. I'd imagine this has been tried before, it's a pretty simple idea. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See a similar post above. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Bill White and his ilk don't know what they're talking about and never have. We used to block AOL ips "without inconveniencing large numbers of people on an open network" all the time before they finally normalized how they handed IPs out. While cell phones may have different IPs, there is nothing special about "wireless laptops" that allows them to get completely separate IPs - because they connect through the same land router/connection. A vandal would have to drive around town and grab random wi-fi networks to do any damage, and it's likely that would take hours for vandalism that could be reverted in seconds. -Wo o ty Woot? contribs 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks are easy to make. In this case it should not be too much of an inconvenience either, how many people edit via cell phone? Prodego ^talk 23:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would find editing via cell phone way too annoying for the potential payoff of vandalizing a page. And expensive, too - those companies charge a lot for internet access. As far as the threat goes, he's talking out of his ass. Natalie 01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kipper and User:24.168.4.15 presonal attacks

Hi - anon user and I had a disagreement on a content issue, but anon seems to have blow things all out of proportion and has accused me of "energetic hatred", "admantine nastyness", "insist on having it his own way" and even accused me of calling him names! None of this is accurate, and I suspect the anon is using personal attack mode to try and get his way with the content issue. At this point I have backed off and won't make any further edits, but I was hoping someone could help moderate a little before things get out of hand? In fact most of the anons edits are good, but I see some changes that need to be made, but every time I make a change I get attacked with some very strong language. -- Stbalbach 23:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you both stop editing the page before a violation of 3RR occurs. Try and settle this issue with him before seeking an admin's help. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justanother: Please review unblock request

Justanother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 3 days for "repeat offense" against 3RR by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise this morning (UTC). I thought it rather draconian, as Justanother has only one 3RR offense in his block log before, and that was 6 months ago: 4th October 2006, blocked for 24 hours by SlimVirgin. I e-mailed Future Perfect, also this morning, to query the length of the block, but it doesn't look like s/he has been editing much today, and s/he hasn't responded yet. Justanother put up an unblock request some nine hours ago, where he argues that he didn't in fact breach 3RR, but it hasn't been reviewed. Perhaps he's a victim of the holidays. Anyway, having had dealings with him, I'm not the person to review his request, but perhaps somebody would? Is it normal that it takes this long?
(Incidentally, Future Perfect might conceivably have been misled by the word "3RR" being repeated several times in Justanother's log, but most of them are actually with reference to the WP:3RR article, not to 3RR violations.) Bishonen | talk 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, the reference was to breaking the rule, but even so he was only blocked twice for it, both times six months ago. -Amarkov moo! 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again. He has been blocked once for 3RR previously. Not twice. Seriously. The other block six months ago was for something else. I haven't researched it in depth, but that's what SlimVirgin has written in the log. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Amarkov, Bishonen is right. The first block was 24 hours for "3RR on Scientology and celebrities" (edit summary); the second (after an unblock ~2 hours later) was for "violated the unblock condition of staying away from the 3RR article [Scientology and celebrities] for 24 hours". The third block was not 3RR-related, but "Violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA". --Iamunknown 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was in violation of the rule, so I declined the unblock request. But since blocks should be preventative, and 3 days is rather long for 3RR, I offered to reduce to 24 hours(about 7 hours from now) if he promised not to revert on that page until the original block would have expired. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hr seems right to me, but to whom did you offer it? I would endorse the reduction to a day. No doubt the user is for his point of view and shouldn't have violated 3RR, but we should go with proportionality. Geogre 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I offered it to Justanother, not sure who else is being discussed. Still waiting on a response. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ULC Vandalism

user:Kbandrews is repeatedly vandalism the Universal Life Church Article with links to his site contrary to the agreed inclusion list on the talk page dispite repeated reverts and referral to the talk page for why it is being reverted.

74.193.235.188 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been edit warring to add this link for the past month without any communication whatsoever with article contributors. Already warned, still no communication. User then added the link again. Blocked indefinitely. —Centrx→talk • 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat?

I somehow missed this edit on my talk page. You also might want to delete this image more quickly than 7 days. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. Image deleted. —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,278: / Line 1,278: @@
 ==Threat?==
 I somehow missed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAugustus_Rookwood&diff=120876242&oldid=120869434 this edit] on my talk page. You also might want to delete [[:Image:KAREN1.jpg|this image]] more quickly than 7 days. [[User talk:Augustus Rookwood|<b><font color="#153E7E">Rook</font><font color="#808080">wood</font></b>]][[User:Augustus Rookwood|<font color="#387C44"><sup>Dept. of Mysteries</sup></font>]] 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
+:User blocked. Image deleted. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 03:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 03:13, 8 April 2007

Problem regarding the article OmegaT

Images in Signature

User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree

watch out for category emptying

Inappropriate user page

Username question

User:Bowlhover: talking back to admins is not a permablock offense

Suggested update to blocking policy posted

Another user:Serafin sockpuppet

Personnal attack and threat received

User:Xanucia

User:Paul venter levying accusations following recent block

Destroy Wikipedia

Arigato1 blocked for a week

User Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

page move & history merge request

3RR block/possible puppet

WP:POINT User:Privacy on POV rampage

WP:ASSIST

Blocking military servers

User:Coelacan and User:Alison's repeatitive harrassment of User:PatPeter

Evidence

It takes two to tango

Suicide

Comments from User:Alison

Email sent to school

Comment

Archive, please?

Asucena (talk · contribs) over the line

Personal attack by Mister-jones (talk · contribs)

User:Risker, User:Tjstrf, and others Disrupting WP, Hijacking Essjay controversy

University of Phoenix blocked

Overly zealous, POV-pushing and un-CIVIL

News service copying Wikipedia article verbatim

Watchlist and contribs

BassxForte, Uncivility, 3RR

Personal attacks by User:Illwauk

Sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin

Sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel: User:Ranapanna

User talk spamming by User:Smith Jones

Warning assistance, please

User:PatPeter

Quentin Elias

Vandalism & adding defamatory content in Sathya Sai Baba related articles

Disruption

Recall

Blocked user evading ban?

User:DennyColt

User:Wiarthurhu/User:Sugarcaddy/User:Matador300/User:71.164.9.103

User:Reddi

questionable deletion

User:Privacy

Artaxiad

Interesting BLP question

Peter Dobbie

Block review

WP:SANDBOX

Vandalism to Al Gore

Suicide threat essay

EX STAB's persistent copyright infringement

management speak bullshit (Personal branding)

Joe Job

SVG versions of logos

More BLP on children; Nickelodeon babysitting

An upcoming indef-block

Ratherduarm (talk · contribs)

Lilkunta

Blocked

404 errors tonight

Image talk:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png

Request for Assistance

Should this threat be take seriously?

Kipper and User:24.168.4.15 presonal attacks

User:Justanother: Please review unblock request

ULC Vandalism

Threat?