Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive88

After weighty consideration, I have deleted the inappropriate picture that resided at Lolicon. I put my justification on the mailing list: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/043119.html. As I say in that email, I am extremely reluctant to bypass policy in this way. Nevertheless, I make no apology for actually deleting the image when it was so clearly appropriate. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good move. People wanting child porn can look elsewhere than Wikipedia. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are people wanting child porn really going to seek out, and be satisfied with, a Japanese cartoon rather than real pictures? *Dan T.* 23:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Ashibaka tock 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who participated for a long time at Talk:Lolicon (but withdrew recently due to it causing me far too much wikistress), I say well done. The image is clearly inappropriate, there is an alternative and it would long ago have been removed had the "OMG WP:NOT censored" crowd and several self-admitted paedophiles not engaged in a concerted campaign to keep the image. Mikker ^(...) 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, jolly good show. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As someone who was vaguely in favour of keeping the image in the first place, I'm very happy with the deletion and Sam Korn's latest replacement image. --Fuzzie (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Free images should always be preferable to fair use. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My compliments, Sam. Your arguments are sound and reasonable, and this move has long been overdue. If this move means you are part of an evil pro-censorship cabal, be it known that I would be honored to become a member too. Kosebamse 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. I regret my own mind was not so clear on this issue. Hiding talk 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The deleted image has been added to the article by an external link. It was soon removed, perhaps accidentally as editors reverted each other over the new image. If an edit war ensues and protection is done, could we protect with the external link gone? It made no sense to me that the article was protected for days with the image in the article. It was a clear copyright violation in that state, out side of fair use. This is a cabalish request, I know. But does it make sense? Several days ago I added a comment about this at Wikipedia:Protection policy FloNight ^talk 21:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam. If the link becomes a problem, we could request that a meta admin add it to the blacklist, which would prevent it from being added again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is back and forth editing going on now about the external link with the deleted image and also the new image. It is a large group doing it on both sides so no 3RR (yet). FloNight ^talk 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure we can talk about issues of appropriateness when a couple of clicks takes you to a close up where you can clearly see girls of dubious ages, one shoving a refreshing glass of lemonade up her nether regions, another being groped (and unless Japanese smiles go the same way as their writing, i.e. backwards, she's not enjoying it) plus the usual masturbation, bukakke etc.

Nonetheless, a free picture always trumps a fair use, and I've been on the Internet long enough not to care the least about taste. Oh and by the way Sam, it's spelt "rouge". 212.225.66.153 (logged out for obvious reasons) 22:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Rouge" is red makeup. Somebody who breaks the rules is a "rogue", just like Sam spelled it. --Calair 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (Unless that was a joke and I missed it, which is entirely possible. --Calair 23:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

The long term joke has been to use the mispeliing "Rouge admin." This came from a problematic editor who kept making accusations about "Rouge admins." JoshuaZ 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Sam for his action. The image was, in addiiton to everything else, extremely divisive. -Will Beback 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why that had to be mailing list first, wiki second. -Splash^talk 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the message on the mailing list first because it's good to have a single set of reasons that you can point to. Writing on the mailing list means I could point to it from various places on the wiki without pasting a long rationale each time. For everyone's benefit, there is an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Korn. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Diffs to, e.g. a talk page edit (on e.g. Talk:Lolicon) work in exactly the same way as a link to a mailing list post. A diff, however, has the benefit of having been posted to the relevant page in the first place. -Splash^talk 00:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but I find diffs illegible. I find it far, far harder to marshal my thoughts and I find that using the mailing list and linking there is clearer to understand. I apologise if you did not. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty fucking poor suboptimal behavior. The article has a talk page, it was getting used. There was a request for a protected edit, and we really didn't need cowboy antics. - brenneman^{L} 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, Aaron, do not dismiss my actions in this way. I spent a good deal of time considering what to do and writing a rationale for the mailing list, and have spent several hours after the fact discussing them. Please afford me a little respect. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very very upset at how little respect you've demonstrated for those of us who were working towards a solution on the talk page of the article, and without falling back on force (deleting the image) and appeal to a higher power (the mailing list.)
  brenneman^{L} 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I understand that you are upset. As I have explained before, I saw that this was the only method by which the issue could be resolved. As for the mailing list, I was not using the mailing list as an appeal to a higher authority. I was mainly using it as somewhere where I could place my rationale and link to it from different places. I apologise if people think this was a mistake. My attempt was to make this as calm and as flame-less as possible. I resent a great deal being labelled a cowboy when I have put a huge amount of effort into being as conciliatory as possible. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Conciliatory? That's simply insulting. You didn't even use the article's talk page, and the hurried archiving of all the old discussion where there was talking is odd, too.
  brenneman^{L} 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  This discussion does neither of us any favours. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I do sort of agree with Aaron in that people finally seemed to be discussing things despite the cry to jimbo - and for those who would bother the last image "proposition" that Sam did (the rack of magazines) was actually already discussed in archive 3 of the talk page. I'm just hoping it doesn't ignite an even bigger edit war. Oh well, I guess if that happens I can protect again thus starting the discussion cycle over again... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Aaron and perhaps some others are presumably not aware that this problem had persisted for well over a year until someone had the guts to take action. --Tony Sidaway 08:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  It was just about ready for deletion under Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 March 29, due to Fair Use issues, imo (bit consensus-lacking, but it clearly didn't qualify for fair use, so). Several people in the talk page were discussing imminent replacement with a decent GFDL image (which has now happened). This is a lot further than it'd gotten before, and so trying to pull out "persisted for over a year" when the discussion seemed to be coming to a productive end within days is, I feel, misleading. --Fuzzie (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  There's no need to be dismissive of those who have tried before. <small&gt;Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 11:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, my point is that owing to the intransigence of some editors we had a clearly obscene and unsuitable picture on the site for well over a year. To suggest that progress had been made because the image was a copyright infringement is to completely miss the point. The picture should not have been uploaded in the first place, and when uploaded it should have been deleted at once. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  I'm kinda disappointed that he deleted it, because I had just logged on to delete it when I found out that he beat me to the punch. Damn you Sam for taking all the glory! ;-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  "There is no road of flowers leading to glory" Jean de la Fontaine Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel_Brandt (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is making silly legal threats on his user page again, citing a new Federal law that almost certainly (1) doesn't apply to this site and (2) is blatantly unconstitutional if it does. (But IANAL.) *Dan T.* 03:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He should never have been unblocked. But, what do I know, eh? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, am I the only one who finds it ironic that someone who claims to be concerned about privacy is essentially making a threat to strip other people of theirs? JoshuaZ 13:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC) And having just looked at his "hivemind" page, I don't see why he shouldn't be indef blocked until he takes it down. He has massively violated the privacy of many Wikipedians. If that isn't continual harassment, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ 13:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[1] --kingboyk 15:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Now he's claiming people are harassing him, he's threatening individual editors, he posted a legal threat on his user page, and now on the Wikipedia Review he's threatening to add to the hivemind page anybody who votes delete on the legal threat on his talk page. I'm permanently blocking this troll again and removing the threat. Gamaliel 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good someone has taken actrion against a blatant legal threat, SqueakBox 18:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody unblock him. I'm no friend of his, and I don't agree with his methods, but blocking him is not the way to go. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; we blocked people over less severe stuff as this. This guy, from the diffs I see above, is doing everything under the sun to bully his way onto Wikipedia. He has threatened other users too, and I am not going to stand by and watch this happen. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He's not a vandal. There has to be a better way to solve this than to block him. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest? He won't be happy until he has complete editorial control over Wikipedia. Shall we just give that to him? Kelly Martin (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with message directly below) How would you feel if you were one of the people whose names he has posted on his hivemind page? His repeated threats, posting of private information and other behavior is so far beyond the pale that I'm not sure I'd support his unblocking if he came back on his hands and knees. And in any event, it is completely unacceptable to allow him to edit while the Hivemind page is up. JoshuaZ 02:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to negotiate a solution with him, although he is quickly running out of options and resorting to personal attacks about mine and NSLE's ages. I'm doing my very best, but I'm beginning to get the impression that he's very reluctant, if inclined at all, to negotiate. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

although he is quickly running out of options What ARE you talking about? What options is he "running out of"? For what alternative? --Calton | Talk 03:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with keeping him blocked for the time being. Might give him an incentive to negotiate. Although the hivemind page has become somewhat of a joke or rite of passage around here, I'm quite disappointed that he hasn't added me yet, but fingers crossed.. ;). Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not very relevant, how will other users feel if they know that Wikipedia lets someone edit while he has a page containing the personal info of users he dislikes? If I cared about my privacy at all, I wouldn't be happy with it, and I suspect neither would most users. Just because Brandt is a clown doesn't mean he gets a free pass. JoshuaZ 02:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your personal information compiled by Brandt, don't release it. I don't have any info on my userpage that can be linked to me. If I get on the page, I'll probably laugh for a bit that Brandt is sad enough to put me on his list of people he dislikes, then I will get over it. This is the type of coping mechanism that you can see all the time. Somebody who feels rejected by general society puts together a "kill list", seeing this as a form of revenge. It can normally be seen in schoolkids who get bullied. I'm not worried in the least by it. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want your personal information compiled by Brandt, don't release it. What utter bilge. Wikipedia shouldn't have to bend to the peculiar whims of Brandt. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't care either, but other users will (I know at least once admin who became furious when a user used the admin's first name on a talk page) and the precedent it sets is awful. Given this, I'm highly worried about letting you negotiate. In negotiations, who are you representing and in what capacity? JoshuaZ 12:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to get him to work out his problems with the article, rather than trying to have it deleted, and making legal threats, hivemind, et cetera. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think thjis user needs some cooling down time. He started with this post [2], which he later admited that it was invented [3], which the continued insunuation that we think that way about him. I before that had asked him to retract his quote [4], and indicated that I would report him here if he would stand with it. I think he needs some thinking time on his role on Wikipedia, as he is continiously trolling evolution and related pages with repeated asertions of lacking NPOV etc, and he gets worse over time with now resulted in invented insults. KimvdLinde 03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I dealt with him before on Talk:Evolution and it wasn't pretty. Every so often we get these anti-science creationist kooks. We just keep whacking 'em individually but more inevitably pop up. --Cyde Weys 04:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I admit the made-up insults were wrong and rather foolish. Really. But here you are calling creationists "anti-science kooks"! You'd consider it a personal attack if I said that about evolutionists! Scorpionman 20:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Scorpion, after making up those insults, you aren't surprised that he would respond that way at all? JoshuaZ 21:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He's calling every creationist a kook. That's almost clarifying what I said in my invented insults! Scorpionman 15:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't anywhere close. He said "these anti-science creationist kooks" which does not by any means imply that all creationists are kooks. In fact, given that there are creationists constantly on the evolution talk page, if he meant all of them he would not have said "every so often." Try reading things slowly and assuming a tiny bit of good faith. JoshuaZ 15:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's been persistent vandalism from an IP which has continually returned from blocks to vandalise - he has a very distinctive style, so it's definitely one person. {{test6}} for repeat vandals says "action could be taken against the individual who uses it". WHOIS says the address is registered to York County Council and gives an email address to send reports of abuse to. Would it be good practice to send an email to that address asking them to look into it? Is there generally any point sending emails to those addresses? Would I be overstepping myself contacting someone off-site on Wikipedia's behalf in such a way? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would do it personaly Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the real part is "on wikipedia's behalf", that is like others you aren't employed by Wikimedia so pretty much anything you do is on your own account not wikipedia's per-se --pgk^(talk) 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I made a point of saying that in the email I just sent. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kind of system for this otherwise multiple emails could end up being sent? Arniep 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on just such a system, and hope to reveal it soon. My experience, however, is that email rarely works; phone calls, however, get very prompt attention. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My experience is that ISPs are relatively uninterested in complaints about their customers. Universities, on the other hand, will often hand you the head of the offender. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A large amount of vandalism is from schools/colleges too so we should also be able to get them to take action against persistent offenders. Arniep 12:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At least one repeat vandal is an instructor, not a student, at the college my daughter attends. He vandalizes articles as an object lesson, as part of his speech on "Wikipedia is not a RS." I only recently learned about this and have been mulling over how to proceed. Any bright ideas? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have slight sympathies for him. One should never cite Wikipedia(for that matter one should never cite any encyclopedia) one should always track down the sources cited by Wikipedia and cite those. However, deliberate vandalism to make such a point is not acceptable behavior. I would send a strong note to him that 1) If the prof's students need to be to told that Wikipedia is not an academic level RS then they sbhould probably be eliminated from the genepool. 2) Explain to him that many people are putting many hours into Wikipedia and his vandalism wastes there time. If he doesn't respond to that, talk to whoever is his superior. JoshuaZ 01:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll pass on suggestion 1, but I am thinking at least he should revert himself and clean up his own mess, and will probably mention that to him. I'll see what happens then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my. "His own mess?" Exactly how bad was the vandalism? JoshuaZ 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that it's vandalism of the worst sort: the subtle, hard-to-detect stuff. Blanking an article and replacing it with OMG GEORGE BUSH IS TEH SUXORS!!!!!111!! is easily detected by non-experts and quickly repaired. (In some cases, it's even fixed by a bot.) On the other hand, changing the date of the Battle of Arfderydd from 573 to 575 might pass unnoticed. A reference to a community named Forest Hill might easily be changed to Forest Park.

Encourage your daughter to critically evaluate the level of trust she should place in some dick that lies to strangers and schoolchildren just to make a point. Note also that many educational institutions provide some mechanism for instructor evaluation, and that it's always good to remember these sorts of things when you get to the 'any other comments' section of the form. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted a few professors after other Wikipedians have pointed out that the instructor made the "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" argument to students who were, in fact, Wikipeidans. I have a copy of my form response at User:Essjay/Letter. When I was head of my department, I certainly would have taken knowledge of such conduct into consideration, and I think similarly minded department heads/deans would as well. The young lady should make an appointment with the department head/dean/provost post haste. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(reduce)Thanks much to all of you. Yes, the vandalism was the subtle kind, the only specific article I knew about and checked had been reverted quickly anyway. My daughter is not precisely a child, she is at a university after all, and (being her mother's daughter) is extremely critical in evaluating information from anyone (trust me, I'm grilled about sources frequently.) And Essjay, thank you so much, I will avail myself of your effort. I am not certain whether my daughter will be interested in pursuing this herself, however, as in addition to being critical she is also careful about choosing her battles, and frankly if she weighs the benefits and possible repercussions she may determine it is not in her best interest to involve herself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say she's very wise not to pick a battle with an academic bureaucracy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your daughter should probably not be the one to make this battle. However, there are plenty of us here at Wikipedia who have no academic career at her institution who would love to take on this rogue individual. We can probably identify the vandal with our own resources (with a little help from you or your daughter) and file a complaint with the college based on our "independent" discovery of the vandalism. Your daughter need not be mentioned. You can contact me confidentially by email to my gmail account or use the "email this user" option that appears to the side of my user page. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Brand new User:Johnyrocket1111 has today made some potentially libellous edits to Cosima De Vito. I just want to let everyone know that:

1. I intend to delete the edits from the page history, per our libel policy;
2. If the editor cannot be convinced to desist, I will block indefinitely. My justification for this would be that the material added is a potential legal and financial threat to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Snottygobble 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnnyrocket1111 continued with his libellous revisions, and responded to my compromise rewrite with a legal threat. He has now been indefinitely blocked, and his revisions removed from the page history. Snottygobble 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Received an email from Constantine Nellis aka Johnnyrocket1111 containing the following gems:

if this is not corrected or wiped immidiately i will be taking legal action against yourself and any parties associated.

apart from taking legal action i am also seeing my large network of media associated to see how far we can take this

and shortly afterwards another email with:

I have just spoken to my legal representatives and they are making direct contact with wilkemedia regarding your actions. expect to hear from them dirctly.

Ignoring the paper tigers, one of the emails did actually contain some terse facts without all the abusive bulls**t, so I have made some minor corrections to the article.

If this is the way Nellis does business, by bullying and threatening, the content of the article w.r.t him doesn't surprise me one bit. Snottygobble 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeatedly modifying pages to change the words "is" and "was" to the words "are" and "were" in the case of collective noun forms for bands. He was previously warned to stop doing this but his solo attack on the English language has continued. He even went so far as to say "There's nothing you can do to stop me"[5]. He was saying that to another user; unluckily for him, I got dragged into this silly mess, and there is something I can do to stop him. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that's perfectly standard English; it's merely "incorrect" for American English. But never mind. :-)

James F. (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This rings a bell. I reverted Cyde on The Yardbirds a while back, as for a British band "The Yardbirds were a band" was correct. I suppose the reasonable thing to do would be to use the prevalent form of whichever country the band is from. This isn't always clear though, CSN&Y anyone? Leithp 08:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In that instance use grammar per the first substantial contributer to the article, as you would for spelling. If the article uses British spelling, use British grammar, likewise American or Canadian. Having just had a discussion over capitalising after a colon, which is American grammar but not British, I'll have to recheck that the MOS does make note of grammar as well as spelling in topics which are country specific. Hiding talk 09:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Where can I read more about these differences in grammar between British and American? Is there a Wiki article that covers this? --Candide, or Optimism 10:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The capital after a colon is actually more complicated than that in American grammar. First, many Americans(even educated ones) simply don't do it at all. Second, some only capitalize when the section after the colon can stand as a sentence on its own. So "blah, blah blah: list" would not have the first item in the list capitalized. I think American MOSes differ on what is preferable in such cases, but I haven't looked at the matter in much detail in a while. JoshuaZ 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a content dispute - it was irresponsible to block Mike Garcia. Furthermore, in most cases Mike is correct. I have discussed this at length and researched this thoroughly, and I am confident that it is grammatically correct to use were/are in instances where the band's name is a plural noun which represents the members. For instance, "The White Stripes are..." is the correct way to start the article. User:RJN continues to edit articles of bands and sports teams to insert this awkward grammar.

For those who support this awkward grammar, I have a question: Do you really believe it is correct to write "The Beatles was on the Ed Sullivan show"? Rhobite 14:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See also [6], which explains the use of plural band/team names. Rhobite 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar issues aside, I don't see that this was a useful thing to block over. It's a content dispute. Friday (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde also blocked User:158.223.1.117 on March 24 in order to gain an advantage in a revert war on The Decemberists. Although it was labeled a 3RR block, this seems to be a pattern of overstepping the bounds of the blocking policy. Rhobite 14:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rhobite, it appears that Cyde is using admin tools to gain an advantage in disputes where he is a party. Admin tools are not supposed to be used in a dispute by one who is involved in that dispute. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm trying not to be involved in this thing. I didn't even touch any of these latest edits. I was just warned that this user was again disrupting many articles by enforcing his particular views on grammar on them. Also, there was a long email conversation with this user awhile ago which basically ended with him saying, "I don't care what you say, I'm going to keep reverting." That's not an acceptable way of solving things. The closest analog would be if someone were going through articles changing American spellings to British spellings, repeatedly, and continued even after being warned. --Cyde Weys 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If they're doing something blockable, but you're involved in the dispute, the wisest course of action is to make a request here (or on WP:AN) asking another admin to perform the block. I think one of the few "reverts" being involved in that doesn't count as a conflict of interest for blocking purposes is clear vandalism, and Mike definitely didn't do that (I haven't looked at 158.233.1.117, so can't comment on that). --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, in the future, I'll leave it up to other admins. Anyway, I asked this guy to file an RFC regarding collective noun grammar and he patently refused; basically, he was sure he was right, and he was going to continue editing things to his way. I strongly warned against this course of action. And then yesterday, he continued with the reversions, maybe thinking I had somehow forgotten or lost track. Nope. --Cyde Weys 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Mike Garcia's editing style is ideal - when there is a disagreement over his edits, he immediately assumes bad faith, accuses the other party of vandalism, and threatens to revert endlessly, no matter how small the dispute is. However, that doesn't give admins a license to block him, especially if they're on the other side of the content dispute. I think an RFC would be a good idea - not about Mike's conduct (or yours, mine, or RJN's), but about the grammar issue. I am almost positive that I am correct. Every media outlet I have checked agrees with using are/were/they/their when describing plural bands such as The White Stripes. The New York Times seems particularly authoritative: "In 2003, the White Stripes left behind the Strokes and just about everyone else when they released 'Elephant'" (The White Stripes Change Their Spots, The New York Times, May 29, 2005 Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 2; Column 4; Arts and Leisure Desk; MUSIC; Pg. 1, 1548 words, By KELEFA SANNEH) Rolling Stone says "The White Stripes are at a commercial and creative peak." [7] It is very hard to argue that these publications are grammatically incompetent. I am going to have very little time this weekend, so if there is an RFC I would really appreciate it if someone pasted this comment into it, or mentioned the RS/NYT cites. Thanks. Rhobite 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, assuming bad faith, accusing people of vandalism, and threatening to revert endlessly are good cause for a block. But I digress. The last time this came up with this user I told him to file exactly the kind of RfC you and I are talking about. He refused and threatened to revert endlessly. Gahhhrr. And as for your examples ... the first one is using the singular they, which is an altogether different grammatical issue, and the second is from Rolling Stone, hardly a paragon of grammatical virtue. I think the end result is that either way is acceptable (much like British/American spelling of words), and general consensus on how to deal with that is to leave stuff alone and don't go through articles changing everything to "your" way. That's exactly what Mike Garcia was doing. --Cyde Weys 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on, I think you understand that I can find many more examples from reputable sources. Are you really going to attack each source I come up with? The NY Times is not using the singular "they", which is only used to refer to a person of unknown gender. It's obviously the plural "they" - otherwise the author would have written "when it released 'Elephant'", and "The White Stripes Changes Its Spots". Notice the plural verb "change their" as opposed to the singular "changes its" in the headline. Rolling Stone is a professionally-edited magazine and it's a little arrogant to say that you know better than them. Can you cite any American magazines or newspapers which support your usage? I don't see you providing any examples. As for your point about leaving articles in their original state, RJN was the one who went on an edit spree in the first place, in January, changing a great number of articles from "are" to "is". Rhobite 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Loom91 for 24 hours for disruption: user talk page spam. The edits (over 100) can be seen in Loom91's contribs.--Commander Keane 12:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good block. I got one of those myself. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not block someone right away, you should warn him first. Maybe he was not aware of the rule. ROGNNTUDJUU! 12:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you. --Cyde Weys 16:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; there was a sort of warning, but it gave no indication of a Wikipedia policy — it more or less said "stop doing this or I'll block you, because I think that it's disruptive" (is there a template for this warning, incidentally? With the rapidly accelerating template-creep I'm surprised that there isn't). Also, did you check to see how many of the recipients had voted in an earlier poll, and so deserved to be informed of a new poll on a revised propsal (I was one of those)?

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption makes no mention of sending messages about a poll to interested parties, notr am I clear why receiving such a message is disruptive. Unless anyone objects, I'll lift the block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This was grossly disruptive behavior. In a current arbcom case, another editor has been found to be disruptive for trying to stack a poll in this manner. I strongly oppose lifting the block. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I object also: is this sufficient to keep the block in place? —Phil | Talk 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There *was* a warning given [8], block seems justified. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this user messaged me because I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship, I think his edit to my page was completely justified. Please consider lifting the block - Serodio 15:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk page spamming is just a bad idea. The one time I think it's found acceptable is when a user is thanking people for voting on their RfA. At all other times it is highly frowned upon. Even during ArbCom elections people's talk pages weren't spammed; rather, a notice was placed in a highly visible place. If the anti-censorship WikiProject is having some kind of vote then placing a prominent note on their project page should be enough to get the attention of the users seriously involved. If there are users out there who aren't checking up on their WikiProjects even once a week, they simply aren't very involved with them, and it's probably okay if they miss a chance to vote on something. That's better than spamming up hundreds of talk pages, anyway. --Cyde Weys 16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I hate getting spam thanking me for voting in an RfA. Last time I got one I just reverted it as soon as I saw "Hello, {{PAGENAME}}". Angr (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, maybe it's a bad idea, but Loom91 was blocked without a serious warning to stop doing it. "Stop spamming user talk pages with this censorship stuff. You get blocked for disruption." seems more like a vague threat than a serious warning. Besides, as Loom91 was contending in his talk page, his actions are not prohibited by Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption nor Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming. The block just seems rather extreme and arbitrary. - Serodio 23:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Over at Lolicon there's dispute about the best way forward regarding external links to sites containing images which are of questionable legality. Jimbo suggested a way forward on the mailing list, as seen here ,which was to follow the precedent used at Last measure, and remove the hyperlink facility of the text, leaving only text which could be cut and pasted into a browser, and thus remove the accidental clicking of the link.

I put this into action, in this diff, however, I've already been reverted once, this diff. Obviously I'm in a content dispute so it would be a help top get some consensus on this matter and determine if re-instating the hyperlink is vandalism. It's entirely possible to click the wrong link on a page, I've done it many times myself. This suggestion by Jimbo removes the possibility entirely. Hiding talk 13:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Because User:Sandbot is not working correctly on the Introduction, vandalism has been staying longer. The latest time was a vandal edit at 11:21, 6 April 2006 that did not get reverted until 12:32, 6 April 2006. Since this is a high traffic page linked to in the header of the main page - some help to monitor it would be appreciated. I am also going to contact User:Tawker and User:Joshbuddy about having User:Tawkerbot2 help out on this page. Thx in adv Trödel 13:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Public thanks to Joshbuddy, and all blame to Tawker ;) for making the change. The speed of Tawkerbot's corrections is just incredible. When I tested it, by the time the page reloaded and I clicked history - the vandalism had been removed. My test 11:02, 7 April 2006, the correction 11:02, 7 April 2006. This will definately improve the likelihood that newcomers will see a useful page when they click anyone can edit on the main page. Thanks so much to both of these users and good luck to Tawker on his RfA Trödel 11:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have set an indefinite block on ROGNNTUDJUU! (talk · contribs) due to this user's persistently disruptive attitude, obsessive focus on the creation, recreation and defence of inflammatory/divisive (T1-criterion) userboxes, or copies in userspace. Has been combative and unwilling to cooperate in general; if you look at this user's contributions, the sole areas of interaction have more or less only been userbox DRVs, talk pages of his opponents to post rather caustic messages, and the creation of inflammatory userbox or userbox-like devices in both main template space and userspace. This user appears - despite having been informed by myself and others, and indeed this user seems to blank messages from his talk page he doesn't like - to feel that Wikipedia is solely a device for political campaigning, and that he has a "right" to do so on Wikipedia. Frankly I really don't see why we should waste further time on a user who is clearly of net negative value to the project; thus I feel a "community ban" is best in this scenario. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He has about 900 edits, about 150 of which were productive mainspace edits, everything else seems to be political campaigning. Not an impressive ratio. JoshuaZ 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the above assessments. --Tony Sidaway 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Wikipedia's newest recruits are, unfortunutely misled in the goals of this fair site. No one owns any part of wikipedia, especially in the point of selfish views and usage. Take that nonsense to MySpace. -Zero^Talk 14:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, yep, yep. His ridiculous whining and wikilawyering above has convinced me that this is necessary. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was surprisingly civil to me when he pointed out that I had made an error. He also might be able to "see the light," so to speak. Perhaps an indef is too harsh? He might be able to grasp what Wikipedia is for, he just needs some time and patience. As the blocker, Nicholas, it's up to you if you want to grant him that. Is he reformable? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a good question, BorgHunter. Initially, I'd have agreed with you, since interactions with other members had been reasonably civil. However, his handling of my attempts to discuss the matter with him were not, and indeed he blanked my messages that I left him on his talk page (replying, admittedly, on my talk page; but it is nonetheless not the sign of one who is willing to improve). It was more my exasperation at trying to tell him his use of Wikipedia as a political soapbox was incorrect, and his impolite and uncooperative stance towards attempts to get him to behave, which lead me to ultimately decide there was no other choice than an outright ban. So no, at this time, I would say that the suitable avenues for reform have been well and truly exhausted. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, while strongly opposing ROGNNTUDJUU's recent behaviour, I also oppose a cabbalist community ban on him. 150 productive mainspace edits is still 150 productive mainspace edits, and he hasn't necessarily stopped making them to wage a war for userbox campaigning. I think standard temporary blocks for personal attacks and disruption, if necessary, and seeking a ban from userbox-related editing from the ArbCom if that doesn't stop him would be preferable. If we can't find grounds for temporary blocks I can't see why a permanent one is justified. But I don't feel particularly strongly about it, and we do need a clear message that political campaigning is not acceptable. I'm just not sure it should be a swinging corpse. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but note that for each of his edits outside the 150 it generates at least 2 other edits on average. from other users trying to deal with him. JoshuaZ 15:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How about a community ban from creating, editing or deploying userboxes and making inflammatory political statements? This would enable him to function as an editor while making his problematic behavior blockable. --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. JoshuaZ 15:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

::hops on board:: —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong support. I believe he can be made a productive Wikipedian. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I support. Keep him away from userboxes, TfD, and DRV, and hopefully he can work on articles and not spend his time inflaming the userbox situation. --Cyde Weys 20:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why ROGNNTUDJUU has been banned. The cited behaviour, persistently disruptive attitude, obsessive focus on the creation, recreation and defence of inflammatory/divisive (T1-criterion) userboxes, or copies in userspace, does not seem in-and-of-itself a bannable offense. Could you clarify with some representative edits? If an obsessive focus on userboxes is somehow an offense, who here should 'scape wipping? StrangerInParadise 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I would-I don't have any userboxes on my userpage- and Cyde would become some sort of saint. The real issue here isnt the creation of the userboxes but their persistent recreation and his whining about censorship and refusal to stop wikilawyering. All in all, I think Tony's suggestion is a good one, although I would suggest making that ban maybe not permanent but maybe given a trial a probation 1 month? JoshuaZ 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that characterizing his expressions of concern as whining and wikilawyering is somewhat uncivil? StrangerInParadise 15:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"whining" is uncivil and was probably uneccessary, "wikilawyering" is accurate and I stand by it. JoshuaZ 15:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A ban for not editing enough in the main space is totally out of place. You may also note that the great majority of the template he ROGNNTUDJUU! created are just nice like "user plays in a band/the bongos/badminton/checkers/reversi/darts" or "enjoys hanggliding/ice skating/inline skating", and many others use them [9] [10] [11]. He has not done anything wrong, he has all the right to express his opinion, and I am quite concerned of the persistent bullying of this user that I already noticed quite a while ago when a template he had created was voted to get deleted by some users in retaliation for him taking the time to ask every single one of them to withdraw a crossed out flag he found respectless. I would also like to point out that NicholasTurnbull who banned ROGNNTUDJUU! had yesterday deleted and blocked a subpage of ROGNNTUDJUU! and after he had been warned and apoligized for this he now seems to use the user block to go on with his bullying. This is unacceptable. De mortuis... 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur. This seems to be using procedure to silence a vocal member of the "keep" faction of the userbox debates, not because he's violating policies but because his opinions are not shared by older members. I've yet to see specific policies that this user has violated, and nothing that it's even been implied ROGNNTUDJUU! has done warrants an indefinite block. If he 3RRs, or if he is brash and incivil, put temporary blocks on. But this was overkill. I've unblocked this user. JDoorjam Talk 16:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with BorgHunter's comments, as well as with those of Samuel_Blanning, StrangerInParadise, and De mortuis.... The idea of a ban on userboxes, etc., is better than nothing, but the ban was illicit in the first place (note the wording of the template: "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales, and/or the Arbitration Committee." The nearest to one of thoose is the decision of one admin, which I don't think counts as a "ruling of administrators". Disruption warrants a block of twenty-four hours, increased if the behaviour continues, not a permanent block. If no-one else wants to, I'm happy to lift it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't support the idea of a "community ban" from playing with userboxes either. This noticeboard is not ArbCom. We have neither the transparency nor the organisation to be throwing creative sentences around. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you object to the ban because you think it's the wrong solution, that's one thing and I'm fine with it. But don't object to it on some sort of procedural grounds intended to preserve the authority of the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee is not specially empowered as the only entity allowed to come up with solutions. If the community comes up with a solution and wants to implement it, they don't need the ArbCom to endorse it. The only time that the ArbCom is specially required is when someone needs to be desysoped or debureaucrated, and that's only because of procedural requirements imposed by the stewards on Meta.

The purpose of the ArbCom is to make decisions for the community when the community is unwilling to make them itself. If the community is able to make up its mind without the ArbCom's involvement, great. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to support an indefinite ban, although I would compromise on a shorter ban duration and an injunction against getting involved with userboxes and other wikilawyering. Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia and some people are gaming us with their MySpacing non-encyclopedic userbox templates. The templates ROGNNTUDJUU! was arguing about were clear violations of Jimbo's T1 policy and did not help the encyclopedia at all; they were simply foolish, stupid, and divisive. We don't need scores of people hanging around questioning the motives of those of us who actually care about writing the damn encyclopedia. And I find it ironic that StrangerInParadise dares show his face in here, because he's on ice just about as thin as ROGNNTUDJUU!'s. And to those of you attacking this block saying that no specific policies were violated ... that's because of the wikilawyering and the gaming of the system. Although I would say that WP:ENC, which is the spirit of the project, was violated. --Cyde Weys 16:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the community at large has the authority to impose a non-total ban on a user against their will. This is not the Arbitration Committee, and it is for that purpose that we have such a committee. Also, this section looks quite distinctly like a straw poll. That's not how community bans work. They only work when there is 100% unanimity among admins. If any admin is willing to unblock, then there can be no community ban and the matter must go to ArbCom. I for one do not support an indef ban on the back of ROG...'s editing, although he is being tiresome for sure. I certainly do not feel able to support any more creative bans, as I do not consider that admins have the authority so to impose upon an editor. -Splash^talk 16:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think administrators have, and have always had, the power to indefinitely block accounts whose only purpose is to disrupt the encyclopeda, or which do not contribute to the encyclopedia in any way (there's ample precedent in the case of several users being banned for using Wikipedia as a personal file server). ROGNNTUDJUU! could end all of this right now by leaving the templates be and wandering back into the article space. That he persists in disruptive behavior is troubling. What is his purpose here? Mackensen (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(After two edit conflicts)

The rules state clearly that idefinite blocks shouldn't be applied unless the named account has been used only for disruptive and vandalistic edits (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Expiry times and application, which this hasn't (as is indicated above). The ban is out of process.

(Incdentally, "ridiculous whining" isn't foul language, unless it has some meaning in a variety of slang that I haven't come across...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen, that's not at all what I said. I agree that admins can simply remove nothing-but-trouble users as long as all other admins agree. What I said was, that I don't think we can go imposing 'creative' remedies such as those suggested e.g. limited only to userboxes. If people want to play at arbitration, there is a club they can join. -Splash^talk 16:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above about the Arbitration Committee. I fully disagree with the claim that the community lacks such authority, and I urge people to disregard objections to such solutions that are grounded solely in procedural arguments such as the above. Argue against the substance of the proposed remedy, not against the authority of the community to impose it. There is no division of authority on Wikipedia: al administrators act on behalf of the community and have the authority to use their powers however is required to serve the needs of the community. The Arbitration Committee's purpose is merely to break deadlocks when it is necessary to do so. Remember, the ArbCom is not your mother. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why he is here, but shortly after JDoorjam lifted his block he turned up in ANI (see above) and argued against the blocking of a user who spammed over one hundred talk pages, saying that he should've been "warned" first. WTF?!?! It seems like he's just here to argue and rebel against "authority" on Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 16:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually his comment in the other case was made prior to his own block. I don't think he has yet resumed editing since being unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked he has not. --Syrthiss 17:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And many agreed with him, including me. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That you yourself agree with his argument does not make his actions any less disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection is not merely procedural. I do not think that a group of admins can impose arbitrary restrictions on an editor. If I must argue against only the substance, rather than the foundation, of the ban, then I would argue that all of the substance is wrong, because of the inherent problems. The community is not arbcom's mother, either, and there are some things that are only usefully settled by the committee -Splash^talk 16:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is attitudes like this that (a) let problems fester in the community, sometimes endlessly (because there is "no procedure for dealing with that sort of problem") and (b) overload the Committee by forcing it to deal with problems for which there is an obvious solution but which a handful of dogmatic holdouts in the community prevent from being implemented. Splash, and others who think like him, I ask you to consider whether your doctrinaire attitude against community action to resolve problems like these is in the best interest of Wikipedia. You've said that "there are inherent problems" but not identified them. You're not making a substantive argument, beyond "I don't like it, and therefore I will oppose it." If that is the meat of your objection, the community would be well-advised to simply ignore you. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in successful community bans on editors in the past and no doubt I shall in the future. You describe the restrictions in this case as "arbitrary" but far from it, they're specially targetted to stop his disruptive activities without interfering with his ability to perform useful edits. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the argument being made here, that if a user has even a single valid edit to the encyclopedia that they cannot be banned indefinitely? That's ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That an arbitrary restriction of the nature of "a community ban from creating, editing or deploying userboxes and making inflammatory political statements" is not appropriate for the community to impose. In any case, any kind of a "community" ban needs unanimity, and that simply isn't present. -Splash^talk 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally I can at least see the point of the other side, but in this case, I'm disturbingly in full agreement with the people commonly regarded as hardline boxen deletionists. I see no reason to unblock this user unless he agrees to stop disrupting Wikipedia. Let us remember that if your bad contributions outweigh your good contributions, you shouldn't expect much quarter unless you make a good faith effort to improve. I stay away from meta issues these days, but even I've run across this user now and then, and every time I've seen him, he's been stirring up a ruckus. Unless he agrees to stop (or at least try to reduce such incidents) disrupting our operations which (lest we forget) aim to build an encyclopaedia, he shouldn't be permitted anywhere near boxen-space. The community has every right to impose a ban on someone it finds intolerable. The only question now is whether enough people support the ban for it to be tenable. (Community rulings are getting rarer and rarer these days -- an unavoidable effect of having a larger community, which in turn raises the threshold for consensus.) While I personally support the ban and would like to see more "community rulings" in the future, I have a feeling this will end up in front of the arbcom pretty soon. Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was ROGNNTUDJUU banned now that he wrote on WP:AN/I, and not before if he really was so disruptive? Lapinmies 17:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We should've banned him earlier. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be done as a ban, entertaining as playing at being an Arbitrator must be. All that is necessary is for ROG... to be made to understand that people are low on patience with him, and view his edits, particularly to userboxes as at best borderline disruptive. If people (admins, that is) decide that he is being disruptive, then they have all the latitude they need to block for e.g. 24hrs, and escalating as appropriate. Clearly, such blocks remain open to review as usual. There is no need to construct this as a ban. It can be done entirely decentralized. Again, if people wish to play at arbitration they should stand in the next elections. I should make clear that I fully agree that he is being a pain and that he needs to stop and that he has not been being constructive. I just don't think that a "hands up, who wants to ban him" approach is right. -Splash^talk 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have expressed the sentiments of Splash's first sentence to ROG. Escalating bans are far more warranted, as is communication with the user about Wiki values and a warning that a block is imminent. If the user still doesn't get it after having this explained (which it now has been), then blocking becomes more appropriate. And perhaps Cyde is right: if ROG's 750 non-mainspace edits have been largely disruptive, why hasn't he been talked to and progressively blocked before? This user could have used lessons in Wiki values and Wikiquette a long time ago. Hopefully ROG can still be made into a productive editor. If he can't, well, that's too bad and he'll end up banned. But let's at least give it a bit of a shot. JDoorjam Talk 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange that you say "why hasn't he been talked to and progressively blocked before?" Well he hasn't been blocked before, but looking at his talk page I see plenty of evidence that other editors have complained to him about his disruptive behavior with respect to userboxes. If he wasn't blocked before, perhaps he should have been, but that's no reason not to deal with the problem now. He must be aware by now that his trollish actions are not welcome here. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for someone to post an example of edits so disruptive they merit a blockage of any sort. StrangerInParadise 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm waiting for you to look further down the page. Your answer lies there. Granted, you've never understood why sockpuppetry is frowned upon. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he need a second chance. What do you think? However I support a second chance if possible. StabiloBoss 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Today I reverted some very interesting vandalism committed by two young users having some fun on the pimp article. Normally, such innane nonsense would be no problem, but it contained personal phone numbers, real names, and an IP address that let me know exactly from where they were editing (a high school in Oregon. I deleted the article and restored in sans bad stuff (admin may want to take a look at the last ten or so entries), and blocked the two accounts for vandalism and adding personal information. All standard stuff.

It gets interesting here: always looking for a way to impress upon youths the need for privacy on the Internet, I looked up the number for the originating high school, spoke with the asst. principal, informed him that he had some students who needed to be educated as to the recklessness of their actions, and gave him all of the information (names, phone numbers, deduced ages). He was very grateful. :) – ClockworkSoul 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the story, ClockworkSoul :-) --HappyCamper 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've always wanted to do that, too. They made it so easy. :) – ClockworkSoul 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored all remaining 300~ versions bar the Lildev and Csbanks. (This isn't my first meeting with 13yo pimps on 'pedia before, either) Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already restored all of the non-anon ones. I had already restored all of the non-anon ones, but it's definitely better to have the history. Also, note thae one of the most recent anons was the same kids, and it also inserted a phone number. That reminds me, we need a way to delete individual edits without having to delete the page and restore all X "good" edits. – ClockworkSoul 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. In the mean time, you should get the check all bookmarklet. Godsend :D Sceptre ^(Talk) 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I should: that's a good start. The problem with that is by "checking all" and unchecking the ones you know are bad, one may inadvertently restore previously-deleted edits. Oh, well: to be brought up in another time and place. :) – ClockworkSoul 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deleting attacks in edit summaries. A technique is described which will remove the offending edit from the edit history entirely. -Will Beback 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Some American school administrators are highly fearful of "the Internets" and are likely to use a complaint as an excuse to work out their phobias upon some hapless student. In the land of "zero tolerance" (== "nonzero cruelty") policies, it might not be such a great idea to turn over personal information to school officials. --FOo 05:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but that isn't in the jurisdiction of the Wiki to decide. --HappyCamper 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[[12]] [[13]] Uncivil intervention on constructive editing in İzmir page by a Greek user and myself. In his wrath on all things Turkic, he also erased contributions made by yet another Greek user (see: last edit for the page). The man is a disaster zone. Marked down for 3RR last week. --Cretanforever 16:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Giati epitithesai amesws? perimene na deis pws tha xeiristo to thema. Kai min les 'a compromise between two users...blablabla hiding the truth'...den sumvivastika se tipota akoma! xereis polu kala ta edits pou exw kanei se diafora arthra, kai to mono pou den na me katigoriseis einai oti kruvw tin alitheia! Se ligo na deis to grammatokivwtio sou. kati tha exeis mesa --Hectorian 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Re sy den apeuthinomoun se sena otan elega auta, s'emena kai se auton apeuthinomoun (peri symbibasmous klp). Ok, opos nomizeis, se afino na to analabeis, ego tha kano ta reverts. Me exei thimosei omos epeidi blepeis poso diprosopos einai. Na anaferoume tis sfages tous apla prospathoume, oxi n'allaksoume to thema tou arthrou. Miskin 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dwse mou eikositesseris wres, kai an den kataferw kati, analamvaneis esy. ok? --Hectorian 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Please communicate in English on the WP:ANI page, you can communicate in other languages in your own Talk pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Consolidating this on WP:AN as suggested. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kenwood_3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a persistent pattern of vandalism against the Brand X article and albums released by Brand X. He has consistently attempted to insert nonsensical and untruthful information about the members of Brand X, including creating hoax articles at Ian Hart-Stein and Adeji Abeyowa. The sole reference I've been able to find about "Ian Hart-Stein" comes from a page at rockcrypt.com, which is a user-editable band site. User:Samuel Blanning banned him for 24 hours on April 4, but now that the ban is up, Kenwood 3000 is back at it. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked him as a vandalism-only account. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone please take a glance at User:Robert Lindsay's user page; my inclination is just to ban him and blank it for general obnoxiousness, but perhaps I'm oversensitive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

• The founder of Ziopedia is a sleazy porn merchant named Jimbo Wales. Jimbo has deep links with powerful US militant Jewish interests. He is also a passionate Zionist. The vast majority of Wiki admins, arbitrators and top staff are also Zionists and Judeophilic. Charming. I've no objection really. I suppose folks prefer that this sort get a warning these days, but I doubt it would do any good. Mackensen (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at his edits they all consist of a bunch of POV edits to articles related to Israel. Combine that with his userpage and it's quite obvious why he's here. I think a ban would be in order. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He's now been blocked indefinitely (just thought it should be logged here). --Cyde Weys 23:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• yeah, the more I looked, the less I saw to stop me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales runs this fruadulent website with an iron fist - too bad that's not true.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear admins, if one of you could please check out User:Billcica and what he has done in the past 24 hours, including vandalizing pages with POV, vandalizing user pages, and modifying other users' comments on his talk page, I would really appreciate it. Another user has contacted User:NicholasTurnbull regarding this matter; please see his talk page for more information regarding the incidents. Thank you for your attention and (hopefully) quick blockage of this user. --Romarin 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He does seem to be editing women's rights articles with a decidedly anti-woman POV ... Cyde Weys 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I wouldn't call any of it "vandalism". This is a new user who doesn't understand our core policies here, but who's made some constructive edits, and probably has potential. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. However, I would urge you to look at what this user has done to his talk page, and to look more in-depth into what he has done to the talk page of User:IronChris. If these don't constitute as vandalism, I don't know what does. Also, if you will look in his talk page history (it is no longer on his talk page since he deleted all complaints that were posted against him) you will see that I responded to his original posts in a friendly manner, especially since I saw that it was his first day on Wikipedia. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he came back with blatant personal attacks and user page vandalism. Please give this another consideration. Thank you. --Romarin 00:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no constructive edits among the sexist, POV edits. I also speedied an article he created, Weekly Musician which was just an ad to a website. He is also very insulting, calling me and Romarin hypocrites, biased and narrow-minded. He deleted all the messages that were posted to him giving him advice on how to make wiser contributions (see the history of his talk page), I'm pretty sure he didn't even read them as the deletion occurred just seconds after I posted my last message. I wrote to Nicholas Turnbull to ask for advice, you may see a longer description of the problem on his talk page. The latest contribution of User:Billcica was to belittle and make fun of Romarin on his talk page by making a collage of several of her sentences, which are quite insulting when removed from context. He also deleted parts of the messages on my talk page. These personal attacks cannot be tolerated as per WP:NPA. Regards, --IronChris 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A big Thank You to admin Nicholas Turnbull for taking the innitiative and blocking this user. Thank you for taking the time to look things over carefully enough to see the extent of this user's vandalism and personal attacks. Much appreciation. --Romarin 01:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Iheartdrann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suspicious edits. [14], [15], and [16] FloNight ^talk 00:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can this article be speedy delete instead of Afd. Started by Iheartdrann Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Tannen --FloNight ^talk 00:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, but too tired to work out how to close this properly. Can some friendly admin do it for me please? And thanks, FloNight. AnnH ♫ 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cookamunga (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) I have blocked this user for 24 hours for vandalism/nonsense edit summaries/disruption. (Please see also deletions: Template:PantsText and Category:Articles containing Pants). I think there's a good case for an indef. block as a disruption-only account (he also seems to have found his way around remarkably well for a newbie). Please review and extend if necessary. --kingboyk 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked it indefinitely as a vandal/harassment account. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, up to no good. -Will Beback 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

24.171.16.151 (talk · contribs) posted this; looks like a bit too close to a death threat to me. What is the best course of action here? Guettarda 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have a lot of constructive edits in the first place... --InShaneee 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any threat here. However, I agree with InShaneee, and this IP has been previously blocked several time sfor violating 3RR on Aryan Nation-related articles. --Golbez 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Since it's not a shared IP, I went ahead and put on an indef block. This stuff is un-called for. And yes, it is a death threat, here's the quote: "Look you need to stop harrassing me, if you have a problem with the Aryan Nations you state it but if you are a friend or follower of this williams fraud you will reap the same demise." --Cyde Weys 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked him for a week while we all figured out what to do. But I don't disagree with an indef block since it seems to be a static IP; I'll rescind the shorter block and reapply Cyde's. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll

He is definitely a problem on the Jonathan Williams AfD as well. Apparently there was a split in the Aryan Nations when somebody important died, and 24 thinks Williams is not a "Real" Aryan Nations pastor. Its astonishing that he would be resorting to this since the AfD is actually going his way, despite the massive sockpuppetry. A short ban for incivility and disruption was warranted anyway. Indef is too long for a first offense, though. AGF that he will learn from the experience. Thatcher131 04:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that a death threat, even a vague one, is so poisonous that it requires an indef block. Guettarda 11:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not his first offense; he's been causing trouble across multiple articles for a couple of weeks now. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dhanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a series of revenge AfDs on articles started by people who voted delete for his article Enterprise Audit Shell. This is after he engaged in a series of reversions of the AfD tag on his article. He has added AfD tags to Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger, Sprint William W. Hoppin and a few others. JoshuaZ 04:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He has also engaged in general attacks on "ignorant" Wikipedia editors which he has repeatedly reverted back into the top of the Enterprise Audit Shell article. JoshuaZ 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I added the aFDs because I felt the articles didn't meet the WD standards. If you feel they meet the standard, please use the discussion to prove why it should not be deleted. Dhanks 05:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

People aren't concerned with your feelings. They are interested in your arguments (if you have any). As is clearly explained here and on related pages, anyone nominating an article for deletion must say which standard(s) they believe that article fails to meet. If you don't follow through after adding AfD templates, these additions are likely to be viewed as pointlessly disruptive. -- Hoary 05:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm new to adding aFDs so excuse me if I didn't complete the process fully. I will add my reason next time. Dhanks 05:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF The AfD process is quite tricky the first time, as I can attest from personal experience. It may help to open multiple browser windows or tabs, such as in Firefox, so you can have the instructions available while you are working on the process. Thatcher131 05:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I am going to remove the incomplete AfD templates from the articles per WP:SNOWBALL that they would actually get deleted following a legitimate AfD discussion. However, if yoeu wish to renominate them, carefully follow the procedure. Thanks. Thatcher131 05:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• As of late the user in question has added some templates to the page which I would find as a reasonable compromise. If the AFD vote should result in deletion, I would hope that Dhanks would abide by that decision. I would have no problem with Dhanks adding a brief paragraph mentioning Enterprise Open Shell as a fork of sudosh on that article's page. I think it is more likely at this time that a user of sudosh, the current established product, would enter the query sudossh to find more information about enhancements, future versions, or information on competing products. Since Open Enterprise Shell claims to be sudosh version 2.0, in the interiem it should be best that it stay in the sudosh article. If in the future various open source unixish distros decide to include open enterprise shell, it then should get its own page in a more abbreviated form than it is now. Personally I think that Dhanks energy should be promoting his fork of sudossh to be included as a package with various unix/bsd distributions which would be greatly more important to his market share than a mere wikipedia article. Bige1977 07:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the 24.68.240.0/24 range for a week as checkuser reveals it was being used exclusively by Lightbringer sockpuppets. Hopefully, this will bring us some rest from the constant sockpuppetry, but I'm not going to hold my breath. In the meantime, if there are any reports of collateral damage, please unblock, and let me know so I can investigate. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The user, a suspected sockpuppet of User:Grazon according to the talk page, has made a lot of edits in the last couple of days (I haven't looked back further yet), virually every one of which has been reverted or should be reverted (I'm working my way back through the contributions list). Most of the edits are removals of conservative external links with no explanation, but a few are subtle vandalism, changing one character in a URL to link to a different, unrelated article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 12:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He's still at it, deleting the external links I reverted back in this morning. Except for the blatant vandalism he ocassionally commits, I'm not going to edit-war with him. He is on a campaign to remove any external links to NewsMax.com, and has now vandalized NewsMax.com twice today. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like an opinion on this. Not sure what to call it. Could be gaming, trolling, general disruption, or nothing at all: Talk:Pro-choice#Problem_with_Formatting Pro-choice history Immediately after Swatjester ran up against the 3RR wall, Freakofnurture jumped in. Then, I left a talk-page message that did not get a response, nor was the revert undone: User_talk:Freakofnurture#Pro-Choice_revert

At the same time, Zoe made a citation request and content deletion ("rm nonsense") to the Anal Cunt article that I provided cleanup assistance to moments earlier[17]. Zoe has no history of ever editing this article[18]. I have since provided the citations and rewritten the content because the quotes didn't match exactly. Despite Zoe's Anal Cunt expertise, however, no citation request was placed on a nearly identical paragraph that appears in Seth Putnam's article (which I have not edited), where Zoe also has no history editing the article[19].--Pro-Lick 13:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that, since you provided a citation on the article I put the fact tag on, I have not edited that article again. I didn't read the Seth Putnam article, so I didn't put the tag there. Are you saying that you don't need to provide citations for your allegations? I do see that you're trying to make backhanded claims of sockuppetry, but seeing as you have disagreements with just about everybody around here, everybody can't be sockpuppets of just one person. Maybe you could learn how to edit constructively instead of continuing to heap abuse and innuendo on people, then you wouldn't have so many people reviewing what you're doing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Although he is blocked, user Haham hanuka keeps on evading his block from various IPs. I suggest banning him for a much longer time now, or indefinitely as the Hebrew Wikipedia has done, because clearly this user does not care about our conventions. He hardly makes a constructive contribution and mostly disrupts. He is very time consuming, time that we all could spend differently here. I have left a request at WP:RFCU. [20] I hope we can change our muddling through method to a root approach this time. gidonb 15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• User:Poche1 has been continually removing comments from his talk page that are germane to an ongoing User Conduct RfC, he's been warned multiple times, but simply doesn't listen to me. Note that he's also a suspected sockpuppet. pm_shef 15:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that he's a sock, and I'm watching him. FWIW I'd suggest you trying to minimize contact with him, since the vaughan-socks/meats/whatever seem very polarized by you... It might reduce your personal stress as well. --Syrthiss 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Would someone else see if they can stop Erebus555 from making wholesale changes from American to British spelling (meter to metre and story to storey) in articles on structures in the U.S.? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. I left him a message, as did EurekaLott, but he continues to make changes a the rate of more than one per minute. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(combined two concurrently written and intimately related threads — Apr. 7, '06 [17:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>)

I've blocked Erebus555 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) for 24 hours for making numerous apparently automated/semi-automated edits like these:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BellSouth_Building_%28Nashville%29&diff=prev&oldid=47419291
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AmSouth_Center_%28Nashville%29&diff=prev&oldid=47419266
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riverside_Plaza&diff=prev&oldid=47419250
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rand_Tower&diff=prev&oldid=47419238
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J.P._Morgan_Chase_Tower%2C_Dallas&diff=prev&oldid=47413172
• etc., etc.

After specifically being cautioned not to, here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erebus555#Monadnock_Building_and_other_American_buildings

However, I noticed that he has apparently been using identical edit summaries for performing a set of otherwise unrelated edits, such as this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minneapolis_City_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=47419201

In earlier edits (identified as "using AWB") he has used an identical edit summary for edits such as this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=900_North_Michigan&diff=prev&oldid=46605759

Where he adds a new paragraph of text (good), and this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve_Bank_Building&diff=prev&oldid=46599414

Where he changes from "meter" to "metre" in an article about a building in Boston, Massachusetts (very bad). Also, this edit, amidst his more recent edits to U.S. buildings articles, he curiously makes this edit with a deceptive summary, where he unicodifies the &sup3; and &cent; entities (arguably good):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minneapolis_City_Hall&diff=prev&oldid=47419201

I saw from the title that this was an American building, making the change described in the edit summary an inappropriate one, so I reverted the edit, but I looked at the diff and saw that he clearly brought that error on himself.

Somebody more bored than myself should look through all of his edits and make whatever changes (or un-changes) are appropriate on a case-by-case basis. People take offense to being called "bots" no matter how similarly to a bot they act in terms of functionality and responsiveness. "Cyborg" maybe? Fuck, I don't really know. I do know that use of automated tools for MoS (and/or personal agenda) pushing needs to cease and desist, because people either don't pay attention to what they're doing, or they simply don't care. — Apr. 7, '06 [16:31] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

It's the British vandal! --Cyde Weys 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked over some of his edits and they were very, very characteristic of someone using AWB, but with a changed edit summary to not reflect that fact. I revoked his AWB privileges on the AWB Check Page since he obviously cannot be trusted with it. --Cyde Weys 17:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be apologetic on his talk page and an inspection of his history shows a bunch of other good edits using AWB, so I'm not sure what to do at this point. Maybe we should leave it up to the person in charge of the AWB CheckPage? Anyway, I think this user should have a sanction levied against him: all edits made using AWB must reflect that fact in the edit summary. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll go you one further, and say that his edit summaries must reflect the actual change(s) being made, to avoid "ha ha, fooled ya" false positives in rolling back his edits, as seen in cases above. — Apr. 7, '06 [17:42] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Yes, please let's assume good faith here. He has been advised of the appropriate style guidelines. He has acknowledged his actions may have been inappropriate on his talk page and offered to revert them. [21] He also seems to have many other good edits. Characterising him as the British Vandal is entirely inappropriate. I think his AWB access should be restored to assist him in his reversion. In the absence of objections here I will restore it shortly. Let's not whack people unnecessarily. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if he has agreed not to make more of these kinds of edits, yes, go ahead and unblock for the time being, and he can participate in this discussion. I would hold off on restoring his "AWB" privileges as he has used the tool for inappropriate edits, and because his edit vague edit summaries make it very tedious to determine which edits are which. Being able to do this is an especially critical concern so many edits are performed so rapidly. — Apr. 7, '06 [17:59] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

And because we're not even done cleaning up the current situation yet. — Apr. 7, '06 [18:10] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I was also under the impression that AWB always included "using AWB" as part of its edit summary. I don't believe it is configurable to not display that...so removing his awb privleges may / may not prevent excesses / repairs. --Syrthiss 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I just downloaded the latest version of AWB and confirmed that it no longer forces the "using AWB" tag in the edit summary. I don't know why this would be :-/ Cyde Weys 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, the default edit summary can be overridden. But let's not lose sight of the point here. This appears to be a genuine misunderstanding by a good faith user. Nothing to see here, move along etc. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Another note, he was warned about this by User:DS1953 at 15:22, April 7, 2006, and he continued making the edits until 15:50, April 7, 2006 (28 minutes later), at which time I blocked him. — Apr. 7, '06 [18:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

<edit conflict>OK, I have unblocked him as freakofnurture acknowledged. I will leave a note on his talk page suggesting that he undoes the inappropriate edits he has done with AWB, reviews the relevant guidelines again and exercises caution in the future. Access to AWB would help him achieve that, so what is the current thinking? --Cactus.man ✍ 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Erebus555 has e-mailed me confirming that he'll work his way through his edits to undo any damage he's caused. This is a good faith user who made a genuine mistake so I'm going to restore his AWB access to help him get this done. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time getting the point of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references across at this template; help would be appreciated. Or am I wrong and links to WikiProjects are okay in encyclopedia-space templates? Enlighten me, please. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Nightstallion is correct, and have said so on the template's talk page. I've also noted that both Nightstallion and SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs) are close to 3RR and have warned them there as well. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a long request for investigation on me at Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#New_requests Requests for information. Please could it be removed as (1) I wasn't warned and (2) this is a content dispute and no RFC has been made. JASpencer 19:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I request deletion of my username. Inanna 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice try User:85.100.15.243. Log in first. --kingboyk 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If i log in, i cannot write as you can see. Inanna

Since you are an indefinitely banned user, I see no reason why this request should be actioned. --Golbez 21:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I said that my username would be deleted.I guess it's clear enough. Inanna

And I see no reason why it should be. --Golbez 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

...... shouldn't we be blocking User:85.100.15.243 for dodging a Wiki ban? JDoorjam Talk 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because i want so...That doesn't work because my IP chances all the time...Inanna

IP ranges can be blocked however. See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of -Inanna-. --Khoikhoi 21:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Beat you to it! Blocked 85.100.15.0/24 for an hour; checkuser shows no other users in that range. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you win this time... ;) --Khoikhoi 21:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Account deletion: Accounts on Wikimedia wikis will not be deleted. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Userpage of Latinus was deleted by his request.So mine will also.I can use millions of IP, Kokosh......Inanna

Anyone want to look into sock-blocking of this user? --InShaneee 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you delete my username, i promise i will never join again. Inanna

I've deleted your talk page, the history of your user page and [[Image:An2.jpg|]]. This is about as much as what can be delted and should have removed any persoanl information about you. —Ruud 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Sam Spade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for what can only be considered as harrassment and threats against another user (in this case, Bishonen (talk · contribs)). See his recent edits to "Re:" on Bishonen's talk page for details. Sam Spade also has an ongoing RFC that is closely related to these issues. --Cyde Weys 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He was also repeatedly warned on his talk page by Fuzzie as well as by Bishonen and he did not stop. --Cyde Weys 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the whole conversation between Bishonen and Sam Spade (she has since removed it from her talk page). --Cyde Weys 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I just removed the entire thread from my page, I wasn't about to force SS to keep his personal family stuff up there. He was trying to make me remove my input from his RFC (I'd written the only Outside View that other users were endorsing), on pain of continued harassment, after I'd asked him three times to stop posting on my page. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC).

I looked through that thread and nothing there warrants a block right now. Subjects of RFCs are permitted to contact those involved. They arn eiot permitted ot harass, but there was no harassment here. It was all, surprisingly civil. It was a discussion that, at times, got a little heated, but nothing over the line. If anything it was Bishonen who got more into it, but he/she is not blocked (nor should he/she be). But if Sam is going ot be blocked then he/she should be too. Please unblock.Gator (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)