Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


"Roman Empirer" edits[edit]

Help! Akanemoto is adding a template to lots of dates with what appears to be a bot - however, the template is spelt incorrectly - I've tried talking to him, but he keeps on! Not sure how I can stop this - it will just leave a lot of re-editing afterwards... Stephenb (Talk) 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He is redirecting his talk page to a temp page so it won't show a message. I have blocked him while I figure this out, brb. Proto::type 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks - didn't notice the redirect! Stephenb (Talk) 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Doc Glasgow is faffing with his talk pages, I think he's done so I've left him a message. Proto::type 12:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, a massive template like that on such an esoteric subject is way, way too much information for each of the year pages - has adding this to each and every page been discussed? Proto::type 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've rolled back the "incorrect" edits. Will shorten the block to a day, if Akanemoto decides to respond to the requests and I miss it, please could someone unblock the guy. Proto::type 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it justifiable.....?[edit]

Sir,The article in the page u have protected from further editing(S. Jithesh) is about a noted Kerala Cartoonist. He is an artist who had drawn thousands of book covers in Malayalam. Whether there is any sockpuppetry is in the AfD or not[1] is irrelevent.A person who played in one Oneday cricket match is notable and a cartoonist who had drawn thousands of cartoons is non-notable. Is it justifiable...? Usually editors of encyclopedia are experts in such fields.In wikipedia it is edited by teenage computer professionals. They may be expert in computer related subjects,or films,or cricket, but not in art or literature. Atleast in Kerala related subjects in wikipedia things are going in that way...!Administrators just check the notability of the artist. Doing sockpuppetry or any thing on the page of a wellknown kerala cartoonist does not make him non notable. U know cartoonist used to get the enemity of many. He is a notable and highly controversial. Through his sharp nib of pen and brush he used to attack nasty polititians and communal brigades. This might have provoked many. Please note these links-[2], [3],[4]. Devapriya 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Devapriya 13:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use deletion review to appeal a deletion. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bb3b no2[edit]

This user had already received a final warning on his talk page regarding his recent vandalism to Oktoberfest before his most recent vandalization of the page. Vandalizing that page is also the only activity he has to date engaged in. Badbilltucker 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick note. You probably want to report things like this to WP:AIV where they'll be sorted out faster. Though the editor has certainly vandalized Oktoberfest enough to warrant a final warning, there was only one warning on the page when I checked. I added a test2 for his recent vandalism. Keep an eye on it (I will too), up the ante on warnings and then report to WP:AIV. Cheers. Dina 15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


User:Kilz has severe problem (diffs below):

I bring this here due to the combination of vandalism, PNA, uncivil, and NPOV, edit warring, and his personal involvement with the author of Swiftfox which is almost the only article he edits. Widefox 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Strothra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be abusing the deletion process in relation to Barbara Pierce Bush, more specifically in relation to an ongoing content dispute and whether or not to include her public intoxication in the article. --Mhking 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mvk page moves[edit]

User has moved Laura Bush to SLUT. Not sure if this is something I can fix, or if it requires an admin. -- Coneslayer 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. In the future, you can use the "move" button at the top of the page to move the pages back. Shadow1 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Large_Barge (talk · contribs), is a New user,declared himself as administrator and member of arbitration commitee. He put a temporary block tag at User_talk:Bhoy_Wonder

Blatant vandal warning issued in User:Large_Barge.

Regards. Mustafa AkalpTC 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Large Barge[edit]

Newly registered today, impersonating an administrator and member of ArbCom, see user page. Only edit has been placing an illegitimate block message on a user's talk page. Accurizer 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Disregard; intervening report above. Accurizer 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Avian flu[edit]

Avian flu is plagerized in the toronto daily news article Avian Flu Explained published today in its introduction where it says "Avian flu first infected humans in the 1990s, and since then H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that inflects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain. Avian flu continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing the world's number one expert on avian flu to published an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist magazine." It uses key phrases I wrote and have not seen elsewhere in exactly those words. WAS 4.250 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Toronto Daily News article introduces itself as "Medical expert answers questions about avian flu - the symptoms, the precautions, the research." Was, you should write to them and insist they credit you. "Medical expert Was 4.250 answers questions ..." has a certain ring to it. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if that was true and not just a coincidence, it wouldn't matter. People can do whatever they want with anything that appears on wikipedia- even lift an article word for word and then sell it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's entirely incorrect. You can do with it what you like, as long as you follow certain provisions, the main one being that a copy of the original source (before you modify it) must be distributed with it, and attribution must be given to that source (or somesuch), and most certainly any version of the source then modified must also be distributed with the GFDL license. Such is the GFDL, under which all things wiki are licensed. It's possibly a matter for the Foundation to look at.Crimsone 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Can't see what it'd have to do with the Foundation, its something the copyright holder should look into, it is they who hold the rights and have licensed it under the GFDL. --pgk 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's very true, though I'd assume that copying of articles wholesale is something that's encountered quite often, and is something that affects wikipedia as a whole on some scale or level. You're probably right though. Crimsone 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Write a letter/email to the newspaper and show that it was copied and ask for a correction. It is likely they will issue one if you are coherent and forthright. Also, a journalist or intern at that paper will likely be reprimanded or worse. --Deodar 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Deodar's approach. Got to admit that the situation is a little funny though. WAS, I could invite you to visit my hospital in Toronto to speak as a medical expert on avian flu if you want :) -- Samir धर्म 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned (no by-line) advertizement ridden Toronto Daily web-article consists of unattributed sentences from the Wikipedia article Avian flu introducing a copy of this from Temple University with Copyright © 2006 VG Systems Consulting Inc at the bottom. Toronto Daily News is one of many websites produced by Moscow Media Group Inc. with offices located in Canada and Russia says this. Anyone who wishes to ask them to credit Wikipedia when they use Wikipedia can use their contact page here (the e-mail box is optional). WAS 4.250 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I just looked at it again and the unsourced Wikipedia paragraph has been removed. I guess they read their reader input after all. Thanks to everyone who messaged them. WAS 4.250 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles[edit]

User: (aka,,,,,,,,,,,, Brianq, Dollys, Teddys, and Daphnaz) has repeatedly attacked numerous articles, most particularly the Judd Winick and Pedro Zamora articles. The identical nature of these edits and comments indicate that they are all the same person, or a group acting in concert. He repeatedly blanks out sections of the article, inserts unsourced assertions, removes the accompanying photo from the Winick article without any valid copyright reason given (the photo is one I took myself, and is properly tagged), he continuously refers to the deleted material as “lies” in his Edit Summaries, sometimes specifying that they are the lies of other editors who revert the article. He also makes personal comments about the article’s subject in his Edit Summaries, like “Judd’s a loser” and “a fraud”. He even nominated the article for deletion in June 2005 without illustrating that it met any valid reason as per WP deletion policy, and unsurprisingly, every single person who participated voted to keep it, concluding the process in one day. This vandal continues to add the AfD tag, even though the AfD was concluded almost a year and a half ago, and even tries to recreate the AfD page, which led to its protection. He also keeps adding a tag questioning the subject’s credits, but without engaging in discussion to elaborate on this charge. He has also removed the semi-protection tag. This person has been repeatedly warned on all of the Talk Pages listed here, and at least two of those pages ( and show an extensive list of warnings, including final ones, and in some cases, even blocks, not only for the Winick and Zamora articles, but numerous others as well. Nonetheless, he continues his activity. Is it possible to block this person permanently or do something more decisive? Nightscream 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Could this be Puck? JChap2007 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL. You know, it's funny, because that thought ran through my mind, but I don't think Puck would have a motive to introduce some of the stuff this guy did into the Zamora article, like taking away credit from Donna Shalala and giving it to Brian Quintana for getting Zamora's family in Cuba to the U.S., or inserting an unsourced quote by Zamora. I think someone mentioned that the vandal is Brian Quintana himself, and that one of the things he does is that he keeps trying to re-create an article about himself that has been deleted. One of the Usernames above, in fact, is Brianq. Nightscream 06:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez[edit]

Apparently I have become Ruy Lopez' next target due to my attempts to make Deflation reflect mainstream economic thought. Though I no longer care to make this encyclopedia be a source of valuable information (see my User page for more details), I would very much like to be able to use my user-talk page as a vehicle to communicate important information to me. If someone could make User:, and all of his other incarnations leave me alone, it would be appreciated. See also [7]. Thank you. JBKramer 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are feeling disaffected from the project and hope the situation will improve. In the interim, I have removed the "disruptive editor" template that was placed on your talkpage by an apparent single purpose account. 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I just clicked on the link to my last 100 edits, and see 100 edits ago was in March. Which means, if spaced out, I've made one edit every two days. Yet for some reason, people tend to see me everywhere.
The user in question seems to have left his phone number[8] on a user talk page, perhaps someone can call them and ask him or her if they are me. Ruy Lopez 06:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Uknewthat again[edit]

Uknewthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of blocks for edit warring at Hafele-Keating experiment and Global Positioning System. He received a one week block earlier this week, and responded to it by insulting the blocking admin, SlimVirgin: [9]. With remarks like hundred years should be enough for every normal (non-Jewish) human being... and and your "people"..., I believe he has crossed the line and exhausted the community's patience. I believe the time has come to indef-block him. It is clear that he will not stop his editing, and there's no reason to believe that he'll stop attacking and insulting other editors. This user is only here to disrupt wikipedia. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This personal attack nonsense is unacceptable, and he has no grasp on the concept of dispute resolution. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
All I can say is "Wow WTF?" I saw those comments he made and I fully support an indef for that guy. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Endorsed - the personal attack via an anti-Semitic rant, in and of itself, crosses the line of what can ever be acceptable. Newyorkbrad 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There was an earlier rant about certain pro-Einstein "people" working for the Mossad and a rapist President. [10] He has also been evading his week-long block today using a new account and an open proxy, both now blocked. I'm quite willing to make his block indefinite. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that probably someone other than yourself should officially log the block. It doesn't look like there'll be any shortage of volunteers. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine by me. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reblocked indefinitely --pgk 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't see any notice of this on his user talk page. Should he be notified that the one week block has been made indefinite? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe an admin should apply the "indef blocked" tag to the userpage and talkpage, which will have the added benefit of getting the personal attack off the page. Newyorkbrad 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Done now. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, pgk. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Darn it, you should have blocked him for a hundred years to correct his mistakes, not indefinitely. Grandmasterka 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat in an edit summary[edit]

In this edit. FYI Fan-1967 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Warned user. It's the only contribution they have made, so I doubt they'll be back. PMC 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Street address given for building - semi-protection requested[edit]

An anonymous IP recently added in the street address for Lakemba Mosque. An imam who preaches there recently made some offensive comments. Adding in the street address doesn't help create an encyclopedic article, but it may be "useful" for those who want to engage in real-life vandalism. I think the mosque's address should be removed from its edit history, and the article either semi-protected or the anon IP banned until the controversy dies down or the IP promises not to re-insert the address. Andjam 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The address is easily available via the first Google hit (click directory and go to the Lakemba entry) when using the mosque's name as the keywords -- see here [11]. I'm not sure it is a major security threat, although it is somewhat unnecessary information. Just remove the information. It is a community building, its not like it is a private residence address. But if they repeatedly add the information and you have told them on the talk page to stop, then take it to requests for semi-protection here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Deodar 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[edit]'s contributions have been continued vandalism on Habbo Hotel, AIDS, and swimming pool, among a few other pages. This IPuser has demonstrated no willingness to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and has even parodied his former banning with an inappropriate comment on the talk page. Enough warnings have been placed on his talk page for the IPuser to "get the point." I also think that with the block of, there will be no need for sprotect on Talk:Habbo Hotel as I was originally going to request. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty minor vandalism, but yeah someone should ban the user. The article page is already semi-protected, the talk page could also be. --Deodar 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hrs. Chick Bowen 02:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Should this not have been directed to WP:AIV? Just trying to figure out why some requests such as this are instantly jumped on with reiteration that 'this is not the wikipedia complaints dept' and others are handled near enough straight away? Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
At the time I saw that this had other IPuser vandals and assumed this was the appropriate channel. Further cases regarding IPusers will be taken to AIV. Thanks for the heads up! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a revision of Benjamin Harrison[edit]

Could an admin please take a look at the history of Benjamin Harrison? A well-meaning anon has deleted some offensive vandalism from the article, but in order to explain what he or she did, copied the offensive text into the edit summary, so it's there forever in the history of a frequently viewed article. Perhaps someone could do a dummy edit, then delete the last edit. I'll drop a note to the anon. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Chick Bowen 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin school again[edit]

I removed links to the admin school on the grounds that it is not part of the RFA process and shouldn't appear to be (and it's at MfD in any case). The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) has been adding them back. I do not want to get into a revert war with him, so I leave it to others to decide what we think of these links. Chick Bowen 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be better to bring this up on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) since it seems to be a policy concern or on the talk page of the RFA page. --Deodar 02:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Not part of the RFA process, so no implying that it is. That's pretty much that. A person can have, "according to my standards [link to the page]," but it's not only not part of the process, it's getting pretty seriously hissed by the audience. Geogre 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's see, that makes three administrators who have removed such links, against one non-admin but wanna-be principle of an "Admin school" who wants these pages to link to his one-person project. I respect your desire to not edit war, but IMHO the issues raised at the afd - "this project treats adminship like a trophy to get for its own sake, going so far as to provide advice on gaming RfA and not even mentioning such principles (you might have heard of them) as assuming good faith, verifiability, NPOV and god knows what else that are a lot more important for admins and all of us to know about than edit summaries and using AWB to inflate your edit count, the topics this project seems to emphasize" among others - make highly undesirable that anyone might read this and think it is actually endorsed by the community. I welcome input on how to best handle this situation. The Transhumanist has put a great deal of work into putting together a complex package of pages, and its a pity he didn't float this past the community on the Pump before writing what is, essentially, "how to game the system and pass Rfa." I personally feel there is no need for this, but if others feel there is, with earlier input it might have actually be helpful and accurate. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets needed to be blocked[edit]

There is a massive farm of sockpuppets that needs to be blocked that are disrupting China. A list of the sockpuppets, graciously provided by Dmcdevit, temporarily lies at User:Cowman109/personalsandbox. I've blocked a good deal of some not on the list, but here still remains quite a bit, and I"d rather to to bed before 3am, so I was hoping others could help out with the blocks here. Thanks :). Cowman109Talk 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Am starting with Random section break 4 - Aksi_great (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Section 4 done. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Section 3 done. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
All blocked. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep just wanted to confirm section one done, so that's the lot. Aksi did all the others God bless 'im :) Glen 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! But, there is a new group of them that need to be blocked. This time I used word to convert the usernames into {{vandal| }} templates, so things should be easier. There are probably more to come once I forward more of the potential sock masters to Dmcdevit... Cowman109Talk 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections 6 and 7 now done. List is empty for now. JoshuaZ 00:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again! If any more show up I'll post back here, but I believe that's as far back as checkuser will go, so now it's a waiting game.. Cowman109Talk 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vague threat by probable sockpuppet[edit]

[12] The account's only edit was this post. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 09:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Already dealt with, by CSCWEM. – Chacor 10:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, both. What an odd threat: it's actually spelled correctly. -- Hoary 10:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Double thanks, he hit me too. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a public account[edit]

This is a public account used by Formby High School - do NOT block. --Oxbleye 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Public accounts are problematic, as there is no accountability (especially with the public password). Any reason why this is needed or even useful? --Stephan Schulz 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Especially when the passwords on the user page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The password given on the user page doesn't work for this account. Probably a troll. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 17:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This account has been indefinitely blocked. --Slowking Man 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Please be aware that students at Formby High School are responsible for A LOT of vandalism, sorry! -- 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Henry Middle School vandalism[edit]

Patrick Henry Middle School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota) has been nothing but vandalism since September. We're just running up a history of reverts. Perhaps a temporary editing block? --Wolf530 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

USER user:Freedom skies Vandalism and blocking edits USING ADMINISTRATOR TEMPLATEs[edit]

using locking templates only admins are allowed to use in Buddhism and Hinduism. There is an editorial battle and user is calling all editorials vandalism and those who agree as sock puppets... here is the history section[13] --Saavak123 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorting this mess out:
  • The article indeed isn't protected, so I've removed the protection tag
  • I've asked Freedom skies not to add protected tags to unprotected articles, and pointed him at the RFP page
  • Saavak123, a new account today with a remarkable knowledge of wikipedia practices and only contrubutions to this dispute is an obvious sock puppet, so I've permanently blocked him
  • I doubt this is the last we'll hear on the matter, so a couple of admins adding Buddhism and Hinduism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Hinduism to their watchlists would be a good idea.
That is all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Administrator note This complaint is crossposted to WP:RFI. I've protected the article and am conducting an investigation. Looks like a content dispute. Durova 19:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and Editorial Gang?[edit]

There has constantly been an editorial gang on Hinduism and Buddhism. Please check User:Freedom skies, User:Finlay McWalter and user:Addhoc

I user:Saavak123 have been accused and BLOCKED by Finlay Mcwalter, then he removes editorial tags from the page!

reason for blocking: I have a new account and I shouldn't know much.

But I have edited wikipedia before, since I don't have a home computer. This is a false accusation and I have added tags to other articles in the comparison Buddhism section (which is on the Buddhism template).

Please investigage these users.

Ultimate warrior[edit]

This is Kevin J reporting vandalism on The Ultimate Warrior wikipedia page. It has not been proven that Warrior and Andrew Wright are making arrangements to complete his documentary. But User keeps saying that these arrangements are taking place without any known proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talkcontribs)

I believe Kevin j is referring to the Warrior (wrestler) article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

account used for anti-semitic comments[edit]

this [14] is the one i found 1st & the user (User:Keltik31) responsible seems to have made a lot of fairly offensive & arguably anti-semitic edits & comments. does wp have policy against this type of thing? if so is this the right place to report? thnx Bsnowball 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well he has already been blocked once for a personal attack but I cannot see any real evidence, since that block expired, that he has 'attacked'. He is obviously very opinionated about the issues at hand and his comments reflect this. I would simply advise speaking with him on his talk page about it. If he uses personal attacks again or is uncivil then you should report that at WP:PAIN. You can also ask for comments to be made at WP:RFC if you feel it necessary.-Localzuk(talk) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question: there are no specific policies against anti-semitic remarks, but they are covered by Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Keltik31 victim of WP:NPA[edit]

Just reverted a rather nasty NPA made against User:Keltik31, made by User:Nosycramyrralysha. Nosy's probably an WP:SPA. I'll be keeping an eye on Keltik31's page to make sure there are no repeats, but if an admin or two would add his page to their watchlist, it would be greatly appreciated. Justin Eiler 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Be aware of another AN/I dealing with Keltik31 just above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#account_used_for_anti-semitic_comments. --Deodar 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

USER User talk:A.J.A. clear case of Vandalism[edit]

User User talk:A.J.A. has :

1) moved page from Buddhist-Christian parallels to Christianity and Buddhism. 2) deleted most material from the page, all materials are sourced. see history before vandalism: [[15]] after vandalism: [[16]]

the user has been warned. [17] -- 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This was posted yesterday and someone deleted this message...-- 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Sarahjohnson22 constant vandalism[edit]

User talk:Sarahjohnson22 is constantly vandalising the Kiefer Sutherland article. Something must be done. Ryan2807 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:[edit]

Please be careful about blocking (talk · contribs) - this is a school IP, that I'm on, and it's part of Internet for Learning. Be careful about blocking the IP address, as it is a shared one for an entire high school, well, two actually - Formby High School, and Range High School, over 300 + computers have this IP, so be careful about blocks, OK?? --Colbber 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really wish to edit wiki properly, register an account, as you did. It is a shame that the vandalism of a few will affect so many, but not blocking vandals will affect the millions of people who use wikipedia daily–a much more pernicious effect. -- Avi 15:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this warrant a block?[edit]

User:Netoholic is banned from reverting more than once per page per day as a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole#Remedies. He is revert warring on Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, including two reverts within 24 hours. See history.

Should Netoholic (talk · contribs) violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.

It should be noted that he usually finds someone to unblock him within a few hours. — Omegatron 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear arbitration infraction. I'd say so. --InShaneee 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Blocked for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

email exposure[edit] (talk · contribs) has been placing someone's email address on numerous pages. May be a privacy concern. JonHarder 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cjwright79 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user is being intentionally distruptive, either to prove a point or to make himself laugh. I don't know.

I first learned of him from his questionable contributions at the reference desks [18]. I then spotted the article Sexually dysphemic youth, which he seemed to request be deleted. After speedy tagging it, he immediately formed a hangon having to do with WP:OR and such things, suggesting to me that the semi-request to delete it was merely bait to provide him with a soapbox.

After that, he's acted increasingly strange. He went and created another now deleted article, Super irony. He's been rude on my talk page [19], insulting to others [20] [21], and has been making questionable/distruptive edits to articles [22].

This isn't the first time he's ever acted this way [23], however he archives comments in a page which is not linked to, so people seem to miss this. I've issued a test4, but I'm wondering how to proceed from there if he keeps it up. He does have some decent edits, however most are superficial, and a few are subtly vandalism or near to it [24]. I'm also guessing that he might complain if I block him myself, because I may have a conflict of interest due to his attempts at insulting me. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A few of those diffs are concerning, specifically the "adding vandalism" to the missionary position and the redirecting "mate" to asshole" on a user's talk page. The others seem to be silly and a bit counter-productive, but I'm not sure if any of them are vandalism. I suggest leaving a message letting him know that if he continues this snarky behaviour, he'll be blocked. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he's a subtle troll. Note this edit: [25] Not by itself, but as a pattern of behaviour. He trolls a bit, then does a few good edits and sucks up, then trolls a bit more, etc etc etc. Anchoress 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruption during polls and xenophobic remarks[edit]

Now that the shameful Jogaila's RM poll is over, there is a strong need to shed some light on processes that have been going on during this poll and before that, so that the same disgraceful practices will not be applied in the future. By disgraceful practices is meant xenophobic remarks, spamming and spamming on the brink of trolling. Such disgraceful activities reached its peak when User: Truthseeker 85.5 has tried to turn the poll into the battleground between different nations by spamming multiple inflammatory messages [26], [27] [28]. Prior to that [User:Balcer], has started disruption campaign on Portal:Russia notice board by deleting information about Jogaila poll multiple times [29][30], [31], claiming that this poll has nothing to do with Russia. Note: Jogaila was a ruler of Smolensk (Russia) and there are many Ukrainian and Byelorussian users participating in Portal:Russia so these activities by User:Balcer can't be justified by any means. Prior to that [User:Halibutt] placed following messages on unrelated Talk pages (which can be classified as WP:POINT and spam on the brink of trolling) [32], [33] [34]. Bearing all those facts in mind, one can guess what were the motives behind another campaign by User:Halibutt. Prior to announcing RM from Jogaila to Wladyslaw Jagiello (that means from Lithuanian name to Polish name), Halibutt has started to create articles about Polish personalities under made up Lithuanianized names and anounce them on Polish notice board. [35] [36] [37]. Same user was leaving messages bordering with trolling on Wikiproject:Lithuania [38],[39]. Note: Slawomir Borewicz has nothing to do with Lithuania, because it's a fictional character from Polish literature, so this is clear WP:POINT case. This campaign was accompanied by xenophobic remark [40]. Note: Lithuanians are adding suffix -as to their names, and this way user:Halibutt is mocking Lithuanian language by adding suffix multiple times. And the saddest part is that the same pattern of behavior can be seen in the actions of some Wiki admins. Recent History of Solidarity FAC poll was accompanied by xenophobic remarks, cabal voting and namecalling regarding some users by Wiki admins. [41] " nie rozumiem ataków Ruskich na artykuł dotyczący Solidarności" Translates as "I don't understand attacks by Ruskies on Solidarity article" this message was left by Wiki administrator User:Darwinek. In reply to this message Wiki administrator User:Piotrus made this remark [42]: "Co do Ruskich - coz, jest tu kilku nacjonalistow i niestety nie udaje sie 'zakopac topora', i caly czas mamy taka niby Zimna Wojne". "If we speak about Ruskies, there are couple nationalists here, and we unfortunately can't bury the hatchet and we are having constant Cold War". Note: Ruski is pejorative for Russian in Polish, and Russian and Polish languages are related, that means even though those xenophobic remarks were written in Polish, they could be understood by Russian editors and offend them. Same poll was accompanied by cabal voting [43] "PS. Zapraszam do lektury i komentarza na temat HoS w FACu, kilka glosow za moze jeszcze przewazyc szale" ("I'm inviting you to read and comment HoS (History of Solidarity) FAC, couple votes in favour might shift the balance"). Same chit chat by Wiki admins included name calling directed against User:Ghirlandajo [44]. This name calling ( Żyrandol is Polish for chandelier) continues for almost a year now [45][46] and it's time to stop it together with all disgraceful practices mentioned above by taking appropriate disciplinary actions, so it never happened in future again, at least from the users mentioned above. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The translated comments do not appear to be xenophobia. A paraphrase: "Why would Russian editors care about the Solidarity article?" answered by "Because we have some (unnamed) Russian nationalists who won't let the matter drop, so we're stuck in the Cold War all over again." Whether anything untoward has happened or not, those comments by the two admins are not xenophobic, but rather commenting on how Wikipedia articles get influenced by real world political agendas, and one is lamenting the fact that the clock is being turned back by nationalists. If "Ruskie" is pejorative in Polish, I would have to take your word for it. I take no position on the talk page notices or any other matters, just the lack of inappropriateness (or at least obvious inappropriateness) of the administrators' exchange. Geogre 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Dictionary of Polish language gives straight forward definition of Ruski - Ruski pejorative for Russian[47]. Normative word for Russian in Polish is Rosjanin, not Ruski. You can use Wiktionary also [48] Russian - "Polish: rosyjski, ruski (pejorative)"-- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • While maybe not "classically" xenophoblic, these nationalistic excesses need to come to an end. They are not consensus building, and are truly giving more and more credence to the belief of the existence of a cabal. One that is networking and sockpuppeting some kind of agenda. And not a good one either. I believe that "E. E. DUDE" is right, and I agree with him. Dr. Dan 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem but I am not sure this board has a solution to it. We are not a dispute resolution institution we can only block/unblock editors:

  • User:Halibutt indeed behaves somehow strangely lately but he have made enormous contributions to the project and earned his right to be unpunished for mildly disruptive behavior. Still he apologized for the asas joke and I do not expect he would continue Alex Bakharev 12:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The relations between editors from Poland and Lithuania, Poland and Russia, etc. are sometimes less cooprative than we would like to, but I do not see how we could use the administrative intervention to solve the problem.
  • There was no abuse of administrative tools and incivility was not of a blockable grade.
  • Truthseeker is already blocked for his vote canvassing and harassments. I have reasons to believe that he also used multiple accounts in the infamous Jogaila vote but this fortunately had no effect on the vote results, so he is not the subject of WP:RFCU.
  • Darwinek contributed a lot into the subjects of Russian geography and his remark on the Piotrus talk page is the first time I could suspect some sort of hostility towards Russian editors (or indeed his hostility to anybody). As far as I know Darwinek is not a native Polish speaker, so he might not mean any insults. (Factually he was incorrect, only small fraction of Russian editors has any interest to Polish FAC discussions and we are almost always divided in our votes).

Lithuanian editors are in difficult situation - almost all their history is shared with Poles, Russians or Belarusians. They have different perspective and often even different names for the key figures. There are less Lithuanians then Russians or Poles, so they may feel like opressed by powerful cabals, but there are much much more neutral uninvolved wikipedians then both Russians and Poles together so the neutrality should win. Alex Bakharev 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As to what George have said, my response would be that, I think it doesn't matter much in what context ethnic slur was used. I might be wrong of course, maybe if aplied in genre of lamentation ethnic slurs have its place in Wiki. So it would be nice to have full list of poetic forms (lamentation, ode, epic) where the ethnic slurs are OK.
Also it would be handy if clear past contributions-allowed misdemeanor ratio was definied (for example for every 1000 edits user gets right to 1 ethnic slur, for every 5000 edits - 1 sockpuppet, for 5 FA - wildcard for 1 week anything-goes rampage).

--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this hunt. "Ruskie" is used in English as a very mildly (now quaintly comic) pejorative, derived from the Russian pronunciation of "Russian." I was merely reading the offered translations of those lines. It may well be that there was an awful name used, in which case the two administrators were being impolite and unhelpful, but the general conversation looked like one exasperated and one lamenting person. I take absolutely no stand on what the editors did, only on those comments, which, to me, do not look like xenophobia, or even nationalism. Imagine that, in the heat of that awful Gdansk war, an American and Canadian were typing. One said, "What's with all these Polacks and Krauts arguing over this article," and the other said, "Unfortunately, we're back in 1936 all the time." The American would have been using insulting terms, but what the two would have been saying would have been not "let's go beat up one side in this dispute," but rather a more neutral line. At the very least, I see nothing in Piotrus's comments that looks too evil. That's all I'm commenting upon: the words offered as proof of admin caballism. Geogre 03:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since my recent edits are mostly limited to creating such articles as Ateas or Palace of Poitiers, I can't say that I have watched the Jagaila vote as carefully as might be expected from a "Russian nationalist". The familiar incivility and gratuitous provocations on the part of several Polish editors induce me to post a general comment on their behaviour, however. The problem with Halibutt, Piotrus and other involved editors is that their editing may be qualified as tendentious per WP:TE. I believe that this tendentious approach arose from their intense concentration on historical Polish traumas. I advise all interested readers to check recent proceedings on Talk:Russian Enlightenment to see how historical Polish grievances are given undue weight in articles which have nothing to do with Poland. To discuss content with a bunch of meatpuppets (sometimes abusive, as Truthseeker) is very time-consuming and disappointing. It is more worthwhile to edit topics where the editors from this group are unlikely to appear. That's what makes me leave the articles on recent Polish-Russian history to their mercy. I agree with Geogre that this matter is not for WP:ANI. There is enough potential for an arbitration case in the future. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you George and Alex for replying to this; comments by neutral editors are always appreciated. I certainly agree this is no matter for ANI, but rather for WP:DR - although I most strongly disagree with EED about who is the guilty party. The above comments by EED and Ghirlandajo are a marvelous example of how one can twist facts to pursue one's own agenda. EED approach is nicely illustrated with this edit, where in reply to Halibutt civil post he calls him an 'egomaniacal troll'; anybody who would like some further examples of 'Halibutt bashing' and incivility employed recently by several editors should check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution - and indeed, their approach has succeeded in Halibutt loosing temper a few times (regretable, and he has been warned about this, but to see people who provoked him now using their 'success' here is rather despicable). As for Ghirla, a great content creator, but unfortunatly less than neutral and reasonable when it comes to content disputes, I'd advise any reader unfamiliar with him to take his 'neutral opinions' with a pinch of salt. For those unfamiliar with his stance, this ArbCom warning about his tendency to be incivil and launch personal attacks may be useful; and this RfC, a collection of his offensive posts from just a few months, should serve as a nice back-up to his 'credibility'; his block log is also interesting. Last but not least, lecture of Talk:Russian Enlightenment should certainly prove interesting, although I am afraid Ghirla may be disappointed as to conclusions neutral observers will draw there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This comment nicely illustrates why productive communication with this particular editor is so difficult, not to say impossible. Everytime some bias in Polish-related content is pointed out by me, he will emphatically refute my "credibility" by providing links to an (in)famous RfC instigated by him as a response to my opposition to Halibutt's RfA some year ago. IIRC he provides these links on a public board for the 11th time, of which four times were registered on T:TDYK alone. What is this but a personal attack? I appreciate the wisdom of ArbCom which refused to give them weight during the botched attempt to launch an RfAr against myself. For the umpteenth time, I urge Piotrus to switch attention from these routine attempts to discredit my person to his own confrontational attitude, which is the subject of the current thread and which has been a problem not only (and not so much) for myself, as for dozens other editors. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Ghirla, I certainly don't need to discredit you, you are doing it yourself quite well. PS. Isn't this a more xenophobic remark disrupting the poll we should be discussing?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed P.P. (Prokonsul Piotrus), that you were so busy making yet another "friendly" and personal "remark" against Ghirlandajo, that you forgot to apologize for making ethnic slurs. Do you have intensions to do so in upcoming future?
EED (aka Encyclopaedia Editing Dude) made a good point - what is going to be in the future when next vote will proceed? We will see yet another campaign which will involve spamming, raising tensions state vs state, ethnic jokes etc? To avoid such thing some actions should be implemented. M.K. 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • <Sigh> Please, folks, it's not about the persons, I hope. Ghirla is a wonderful editor, and so is Piotrus, and you both believe strongly in your principles -- which adds to your value as authors and contributors -- and no amount of pointing at one another is going to prevail on the substantive matters. We really do need more outside views on these matters, but American editors (such as me, certainly) are very poorly educated in the region and therefore have a tendency to either keep silent both on the reading and commenting or to very foolishly charge in based on liking one editor or disliking one editor. Are there editors from nations and ethnicities who might know the issues and yet be sufficiently historically and personally removed that they might offer neutral views? Are Estonians, Latvians, "Yugoslav" (i.e. all the nations formerly in the conferation), removed sufficiently, or have their experiences with the former Soviet and Russian regimes given them distorted backgrounds? Are Germans likely to be aware enough and yet removed enough? My point is that we need to find people who can be clear enough of ideology and ethnicity to try to solve the problems and yet knowledgeable enough to understand the issues that are setting these groups of valuable editors against one another. If such people can be found, will both sides consent to explain and accept the matters? (Yes, this is not the proper business of AN/I, but we've got to find a modus operandi sooner or later.) Geogre 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet User:Fake CliffX[edit]

User:Fake CliffX appears to be a sockpuppet for blocked User:CliffX, based both on the name and on the fact that his first edit was to make a personal attack and his third was to post a message on my talk page alluding to returning from the dead.--Srleffler 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Friggin sockpuppetry[edit]

Hi. I think that (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), and Appalachia100 (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Davins111 (talk · contribs). It's probably just a little kid who doesn't understand Wikipedia, but the linkspamming and warning removals are driving me crazy...admittedly, crazier than I probably should let them, but crazy nonetheless. Would anyone happen to have any ideas about what I should do about it besides revert over and over again? Perhaps that isn't even the proper answer. --Takeel 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. — Saxifrage 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Done...although I had to adjust my request. "Gut" feelings on IPs and accounts do not make good arguments, so I have done checkuser for accounts with more blatant evidence. --Takeel 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal spam emergency[edit]

Hey admins, an intnernal spam campaign is currently underway with ANNOYING CAPITAL LETTER EDIT SUMMARIES. Please handle it as appropriate, cheers. – Chacor 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ALL EDITS REVERTED. If this short block doesn't stop him I'm going to block him indef and unblock as soon as he promises to stop. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee started to spam the same talk pages again. I have blocked him for 24 hours. If Deskana doesn't extend his block, and he continues to spam tomorrow, I will indef block him myself. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Looks like Deskana has already extended the block to a week. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[edit]

This user has been warned a number of times on his/her talk page about vandalising articles, and has continued to do so (see Wallace Stevens and C++) royblumy 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a high school prank. In future cases, it would be best to leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut: WP:AIV). Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[edit]

The user at the above IP address was given a final warning earlier today about vandalism to the Liger article before his most recent vandalization of that same article. Badbilltucker 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mess at Church league soccer[edit]

Page was prod'd, removed by anon. Currently home to a number of attacks and ridicules. External link doesn't work, and googling suggests the entire organisation is made up or at least very nn. Content has been going back and forth between insulting different people courtesy of edits by IPs and new users. I humbly recommend deletion (may fall under CSD attack or nn), and watching for re-creation. --user:Qviri 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole page should be AfD'd due to non-notability, not to mention the article doesn't read like an article. Vpoko 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for AfD. Vpoko 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Please could somebody reverse the vandalism that has been done to this page? Many thanks 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Linkspammer on a massive scale, repeatedly warned and rolled-back, but continues to add his link to all and sundry. CRCulver 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

blocked. Fut.Perf. 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the page United Nations[edit]

This page has been vandalized quite a few times. I wonder if you can protect it. Sir Studieselot 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your looking for WP:RPP or WP:RFPP? ---J.S (t|c) 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bazuka Poo[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Username, "names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body" are not allowed. Does this also cover the result of those "excretory functions"? The username in question is Bazuka Poo (talk · contribs). Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'result'? :) Yes, I think "Pool of Urine" would generally be considered more offensive than "Functioning Kidney."
That said, and pointing out that I'm no admin, 'poo' does seem to fall under the category of excretory functions, although it's pretty tame. Usually the non-biological meanings are spelled 'Pooh', in my experience. --Masamage 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Pool of Urine is an obvious name; Bazuka Poo is not. The username policy is widely overused; a username with 'fuck' in it is an obvious block, but one with 'poo' is stretching it a lot. There's no big deal with something like "Bazuka Poo". Ral315 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. This seems to be covered by the letter of the guideline, but not the spirit, since I'd be surprised to see anyone offended by it. --Masamage 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate usernames are also names "implying an official position on Wikipedia." So what should we do with Wikipedia Scholar (talk · contribs)? Allow it, like Bazuka Poo, or ask the user to request a name change? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholar does not necessarily imply an "official" position. A scholar at a university cannot generally be assumed to speak for that university in any official capacity.--Srleffler 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Firefox question[edit]

Why is it that I see the extra tabs such as watch, protect, etc. in IE 6.0, but only get the basic four in Firefox 2.0? I'm using the monobook skin. Thanks. -- Avi 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Try refreshing FireFox's cache by pressing Ctrl-Shift-R in FireFox. It sounds like it hasn't recognized your move from a new user to a standard user. Sasquatch t|c 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If Avi is seeing a "protect" tab, doesn't that imply adminship? Hesperian 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Of course, he is an admin  Doctor Bruno  10:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tried refreshing, it does not work. I don't even get the "watch" tab that every user should get. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Avi 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Still does not work :( -- Avi 00:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. What version of Firefox are you using?
  2. Do you have any custom scripts in your monobook.js? Justin Eiler 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Avi 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, the javascript you have affects tags displayed. Try cutting and pasting ALL of the script to a dummy page, refresh your cache (CTRL + SHIFT + R), and see if the tags are displayed. If this works, then there's some form of bug with the javascript.
If that doesn't work, try going back to FireFox 1.5.*. Justin Eiler 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My IE works, so I think I'm going to stick with that for now. Thanks for your help!! -- Avi 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user User:Yas121 is back as User:JEBenson[edit]

User:JEBenson has made his debut editing on October 23rd, a day after User:Yas121 has been blocked for two months for racist personal attacks & trolling. His contributions revolve around the same heated subjects Yas121 has dealt with. His biased edits are of the same style discussed here. According to JEBenson's talk page, he used an anonymous proxy for editing, which is congruent with a blocked user attempting to hide the link to his fresh sockpuppet. Please look into this matter, and have a nice day :) 11:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only has he been sockpuppeting as JEBenson, but also as User:E Jaffe and User:Geniusofall1. And valid editors have no need to edit from all sorts of open proxies and zombie machines. I'm blocking the lot, and resetting Yas121's clock for 3 months starting now. Jayjg (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Intangible removeing things[edit]

User talk:Intangible removes things from many articles and reverts people on many articles. For example on operation Gladio he deletes a big section and then threatens to report me when I restore it which seems a bit odd but then when you look into what articles this person edits and how he eidts you can see that he likes to delete and change alot of information that dosent fit with his views, I think somebody needs to talk with him and explain to him that you cant delete things just because you dont like what they say. So that is my request someone that will talk with him The Green Fish 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Intangible is under arbitration probation. Post some specific examples here or at WP:AE. Thatcher131 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything. The material User:The Green Fish wants to keep adding is already at Belgian stay-behind network. From my previous AN/I request (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#The Green Fish (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) & sockpuppetry):
Seems all to be the same user, according to their style of editing, behaviour, and article editing history. I came across this user after edits on Classical liberalism, Operation Gladio and Belgian stay-behind network. In the first this user was reverted by another user [49]. In the second article, Operation Gladio, this user removed a fact flag, and re-inserted material that is already available at Belgian stay-behind network [50]. In the latter case, this user tries to re-insert conspiricist information all linked to one source who is not an expert or writer about the Belgian stay-behind network.
Is a checkuser warranted here, or should this be dealt differently? Thanks for any help. :::Intangible 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do something about this user. Now his edits removed [51] the hoax flag added [52] by User:Morton devonshire. Intangible 16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A quick look of what is being fought over here shows that most of it is already tagged with fact tags, thus it is not vandalism to remove it; if anything I would question the restoration of the disputed material when it is being restored without citing sources. Not to mention that the same user removed the hoax tag without giving a reason. Brimba 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding those accounts, I can confirm by CheckUser that all three are sockpuppets of SuperDeng (talk · contribs), and I think they have been used abusively for reverting in tandem and supporting each other on talk pages. Dmcdevit·t 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Indef blocked the sockpuppets, blocked SuperDeng for one month, since these accounts were created during a previous 2 month block for disruption. It might be time to talk about a community ban, just based on SuperDeng's block log and this recent activity. Thatcher131 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be for at least 6 months. It's very obvious that he isn't going to improve. It's sad because he could be a good user and we've given him plenty of chances, but goodness. How many blocks is he up to? --Woohookitty(meow) 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy question[edit]

How can one tell if an IP is a suspected open proxy. I hve seen that edits that add a large number of "///"'s, especially around quotes, have been suspected as such. What about a case like this: where the WHOIS comes up blank, is that usually indicative of a zombie/open proxy that needs blocking? Thank you. -- Avi 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Any editor/IP that introduces the slashes is an open CGI proxy and is to be blocked immediately. Naconkantari 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack page for deletion[edit]

Wikipedia:Resysop_Tony_Sidaway, despite the title, is actually a page full of personal attacks. I saw this on WP:MfD, but an attack page of this nature shouldn't require a formal deletion process. Action against the creator should also be considered. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The article and its redirect have been deleted. This editor, FiLOyR5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), knows too much of wikipedia and its admin history for a newbie. This has to be someone's sock. But who? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
What about Fireblox (talk · contribs)? Username seems fishy and his edits too don't look as if he is new to wiki. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
FireFox (talk · contribs) impersonator, see Special:Listusers. Enter FireFox in the search box and you'll see an immense list of impersonators. Indefblockable as troll and vandalism-only account, as far as I'm concerned. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the user. See his latest edits claiming himself to me the communism vandal. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Another related user blocked. See Moonstar12 (talk · contribs) - Aksi_great (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I'm a "supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.". Who knew? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fys (talk · contribs)[edit]

I have blocked Fys for breaking 3RR on Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) inspite of discussions going on here . The relevant post at AN3 can be seen here. After making the block I came across Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and saw that Fys (previously admin Dbiv (talk · contribs) is already under probation. I am not aware of the details of the case and hence cannot judge whether Dbiv has broken his probation with his edit-warring at Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency), or whether he needs to be banned from the article or blocked for a longer period of time. Can someone please review my block and make the appropriate entry at the arbcom case if required. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request of this user, as it is quite evident that he is wikilawyering and gaming the system. The user also evaded the block and revert-warred with another user as an anon IP. The evidence of which is here. This edit which he made after he was blocked. This edit establishes that it is indeed the same user, who was known as User:Dbiv earlier. The user is removing warnings and decline templates from his page. Feel free to block him for a longer duration. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
PS: The block duration is now 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have banned Fys from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all redirects to it for one week, per the terms of his probation. --Slowking Man 13:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
don't forget to log it on the arb case page. Thatcher131 13:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the reminder. --Slowking Man 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL being edited while protected.[edit]

WP:EL is currently protected due to an ongoing dispute over the guideline. However, the page has been edited twice so far since it was protected (29 October), without the change being mentioned on the talk page first, or time given for people to object. I'm going to ask that the people who made those edits, Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) & Mushroom (talk · contribs), please explain their actions. --Barberio 03:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First, take a deep breath and assume some good faith. Next, did you check the edit summaries? One edit restored info lost during vandalism some time ago, the other was per a long discussion here about YouTube. Consensus of the community doesn't always occur on the talk page of the article in question, and yes, its hard to keep up with every forum for discussion, but perhaps a talk with the editors in question could have cleared things up instead of coming to the Incident board? Shell babelfish 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, the discussion on WP:AN never brought up any proposed changes to WP:EL for discussion. Just the idea that 'something should be done'. If the change that has been made had been put up for discussion, several legitimate objections would have been made to the actual edit, and suggestions on a better text to use. (Because I would have made them.)
If the guideline should have a line about anonymous sites is currently being discussed. Breaking protection to put it back in is circumventing the discussion.
I'm not making any assumptions about why this happened, just that it has. The root issue here is that people should have been given a chance to discuss this on the talk page before any edits were made to a protected guideline. --Barberio 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It can always be removed when the discussion about anonymous sites concludes, if it's decided that that line shouldn't be in the guidelines. Remember that there is no "right" version during a dispute. — Saxifrage 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You can certainly continue discussing and the page can be changed when consensus is reached. It appears that neither of the admins who made edits were involved in the revert war that lead to the protection. Its quite possible they're not aware of the ongoing discussion and that particular dispute; a quick note on their talk pages will usually resolve those type of situations. If you have a concern that administrator priviledges were abused and you don't feel you can talk to the administrators, WP:RFC is the correct place to bring forth those concerns. Shell babelfish 04:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter that the admins who made the edits were not involved in the dispute. The rule is to discuss first, this rule is to avoid people breaking page protection in ways that worsen the dispute. In both cases, the edits have been objected to as being inappropriate for the guideline.
Accidental changes are okay, but should be reverted as soon as the mistake is known about. --Barberio 12:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
When you say "in both cases", are you also referring to the edit which restored content blanked during some old vandalism? --bainer (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion as to if the line should be included or not. --Barberio 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Firstly, you only contacted one of the editors involved before posting here and then didn't wait for a reply before posting here. I think you should in future wait longer as people do not spend their entire lives on here waiting for messages on their talk pages. Both editors have entered into dialogue with you about this so it seems that discussion on this issue is a little unneeded.-Localzuk(talk) 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing protected pages is not an 'non-issue'. It's something that should be rarely done, and for specific reasons. It should be stomped on hard, and immediately, when people do it. Page protection is an important 'emergency stop' on content disputes, making this weaker by saying it's not so bad to break page protection will seriously damage that. Yes, people can do it by mistake, and yes they should be given a chance to fix their mistake, which they have been in this case. But it's still important to stress that breaking page protection without a clearly acceptable reason is a very bad thing. --Barberio 22:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but as I said, you did not approach both editors and then give them time to respond. Instead you instantly jumped over here and posted about it. What do you expect to happen? Both editors have started discussing it with you so this has become, to me anyway, relatively a non-issue. Why not go back to the talk pages and carry on discussing?
Also, to clarify, I agree that editing protected pages is a bad thing but both edits were done in good faith in order to a) restore a (what was seen as) non-vandalised version and b) add a line that was discussed elsewhere. Neither admin is 'in the wrong' here and it should simply be a case of asking them to revert their edits and giving them time to do so.-Localzuk(talk) 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I posted because two people had done it within 24 hours, and I wanted no one else to come along and think it was okay.
Mushroom has reverted his edit, and I consider that matter settled equitably.
Dmcdevit has not, and refuses to do so despite saying he had not noticed the page was protected and would not have made the edit if he had. Instead telling me to 'find another admin to do it' and making bad faith accusation about my motivations. [53] --Barberio 11:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


StevenCrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) uses his user page to publish his original research on the falsehood of the relativity theory and related subjects. Furthermore, he also posted his claims of falsehood on the talk pages of these articles. To top it off, he submitted special relativity for a GA review on the grounds that the math in that article was wrong, whereas it can be easily shown that his own theory is false. I've reminded him not to use his user page to campaign against relativity and related subjects per WP:UP, but that was dismissed by him. Errabee 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone to watch. He seems content to restrict his activities to talk pages for the time being, and despite some belligerance, doesn't seem to be causing too much trouble. I would encourage the GA people to speedily close the review of special relativity, as he opened it on invalid grounds. Actually, I see that it has already been archived – good! –Joke 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
For what its worth he put special relativity on GA review twice. The second time almost imediatly after the first was closed. I warned him about WP:POINT on his talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, he now claims to have the cure for cancer. Errabee 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
He just posted an extremely long winded response [54] which basically concludes with saying that we're all vandals intruding on his private space, and that he's going to ignore anything we say from now on. WP:MFD perhaps? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated it. It seems this user will not listen to reason. Errabee 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper full protection of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates by Omegatron[edit]

Omegatron was recently involved in a content dispute over Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. Omegatron reverted the page to his preferred version, and fully protected it. This action is inconsistent with the letter and the intent of the protection policy, which states that

Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.

John254 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation appears to be in hand now, thank you. [55] ~Kylu (u|t) 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not "involved in an edit war". If you look at my edits, I did nothing but revert to the stable, rejected version. I did not "express opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection". I was actually criticized for not being involved in the content dispute. Please look at the page history.

The page is rejected. Netoholic's been banned for a year from editing the page in the past because of his disruptions revolving around it. Now that he's not banned from it, he's trying to resurrect it by changing one paragraph. The info he's trying to add is not policy/guideline material. It belongs on an informative page like Wikipedia:Template namespace. Changing the page a little bit does not suddenly validate its fundamental concept.

A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.

It would be nice if the unprotecting admin had consulted me first. — Omegatron 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You were involved in an edit war (reverting is an edit), and moreover, you've been a long-time participant on the talk page. You are -involved- in the page and should not have protected it. No amount of poisoning the well by talking about me, blockquoting pages, or complaining about other admins is going to change the fact that you should not have protected the page immediately after reverting to your preferred version. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. What should I have done instead? — Omegatron 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
No really. What should I have done instead? Anyone?
The page and its fundamental concept have been thoroughly rejected, there is a strong consensus against the page (not just a lack of consensus for it; a strong consensus against it). Netoholic repeatedly revert wars in an attempt to remove the {{rejected}} template, in spite of this consensus, and despite the fact that he's been banned from editing the page in the past for the same behavior.
I may not have done the right thing here, and if I broke a rule, I apologize, but I'm not really sure what I should have done. What would a good admin do in this situation? Banned Netoholic from the page for disruption? — Omegatron 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Journalist's comment on Talk:Celine Dion[edit]

User:Journalist, an administrator, has made a threat towards another user here. [56]. Is this acceptable behaviour for an admin? If so I'm quitting, if not what can be done? Many thanks for looking -- 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not as much a threat as a warning. Telling someone they'll regret it if they turn a talk page into a battleground? I don't see that as much of a threat. Stick to the rules and no harm will come to you. Pretty simple, really. Perhaps it's borderline incivil but I don't think too much of it. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't think that comments like that are at all acceptable. We're supposed to have civil frickin' discourse and it doesn't matter if that doesn't explicitly fall into Wikipedia:X policy perfectly. That is clearing threatening a user, vaguely or otherwise, and that is simply not an acceptable way of discussing a page. Were it not an admin saying that he probably already would've been blocked. I'm going to go leave a note on Journalist's page. Snoutwood (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: I don't believe that Journalist is acting in bad faith, nor that this should become a big issue, but at the same time I can't hear comments like that condoned (which is what provoked my above comment). Snoutwood (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Journalist looks like he's threatening to use the Eternal Equinox ArbCom ruling against Velten. I don't know if it's considerate to give a fair warning when probation may be broken... Hbdragon88 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see (I had to look this up, so for the sake of reference, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox#Remedies). I still think that politeness is not sacrificable, and that it would have been hugely more appropriate to mention that and list it on WP:AE. Snoutwood (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the 'threatened' user's edit history, it looks like the admin was simply referencing their past behaviour and warning them not to. Ok, it wasn't the best way to say it - but then again I may be missing something (as the 'you'll regret it' part is in quotes). Maybe Journalist should come here and comment on it?
Also, to Snoutwood, no user would have been block for a single, borderline uncivil comment, they may have been warned about it but that is all.-Localzuk(talk) 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh, my point was more one of "I've seen new users blocked for saying things like that, so to say that this is perfectly O.K. for an admin is ridiculous." Snoutwood (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide some evidence to show that new users are blocked for a single uncivil comment without a warning? That is what I mean, the normal course of action is simply to warn a user - regardless of whether they are unregistered, new, an admin etc... So my comment is not that using 'incivility' (even though I don't think this is a case of that) is acceptable, but more that no user would be blocked for a single comment.-Localzuk(talk) 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really want to go through two years worth of block logs to prove this point, and you can substitute block with warn and my point reads identically. I fully acknowledge that normally, if not always, users are warned for single offenses rather than blocked. Snoutwood (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment I made was a warning, not a threat. Velten has had a long history of disruptive behaviour including sock puppetry, blocks, legal threats, trolling, lying the list goes on. I know from very personal experience how the editor behaves. Even after going through that lengthy RFA (and threatening to leave Wikipedia 1 million times), she has engaged in another messy battle with an Admin and has been blocked.

In essence, yes, you guys are missing a lot of things, and in no way do I feel I was out of line in my comment.

PS:Guys, can we format our arguments properly so it's easier to read? Orane (talkcont.) 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Or you'll regret it" is clearly a threat, and the comment that you start off with, "all talk and no sources," reads as taunting. I honestly don't want to make this a big deal: I just got into it becuase I didn't want to enforce the impression that (what I percieve as) incivility is O.K. There's a lot of ways to say what you wanted to say without being that provocative, and at least at first perusal that appears to be one of the only comments you've made to this user on that page (which makes "all talk and no sources" sound even stranger).
I don't disagree that Velten has been a problem (I am not familiar enough with this case to have any other opinion on that issue), and am fully prepared to agree that she may be a problem on the Celine Dion page. However, I think that you could be more civil. Snoutwood (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, first off, if you are adamant in believing that my comment was a threat, then there's no point in me commenting on the matter for it will do me no good. Secondly, a small note on my talk page about the issue would have been far more appropriate than coming here. What do you want me to do now? Apologise to Velten? I will not. As I said, you guys don't know the hell she has put me through. In any case, this discussion is over from my end. Orane (talkcont.) 20:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Continued on talk page. Snoutwood (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Velten has been engaging in vexatious editing several places and times. As a version of user:Eternal Equinox, he has demonstrated previous tendencies toward picking at people and articles to get attention. If he is going back to his old behaviors, then the previous blocks can pick up from where they left off, IMO. He can be a serious time sink. Geogre 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The remedy in this case is probation, allowing Velten to be banned from articles he disrupts for a week at a time (a rather unusual limitation). Any (uninvolved) admin can apply the article ban (use {{subst:User article ban}} or post some diffs at WP:AE. Thatcher131 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

MatthewFenton (talk · contribs)[edit]

Per WP:WAF (which I personally think is a very well written and useful guideline), I tagged a couple of articles with the In-universe template. User:MatthewFenton decided to revert these calling them [57] [58] "trolling". Regardless of whether I was correct or incorrect in adding these templates (I will note that the Leoben Conoy article doesn't even mention the name of the actor who plays the role), I don't don't believe it warrants calling me a "troll". I would appreciate it if someone would please remind him on the proper way to constructively deal with other. 17:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your above message prooves you didnt actually read the articles.. also the time span in between edits looks suspicious and you are an anon and hence a quick conclusion leads to trolling of articles.. if you had opend up a conversation though at these articles stating what you thought was "in-universe" it would of looked much better. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Read what it says at the top: This is not the Wikipedia complaints department or the place to go for dispute resolution. It doesn't take admin access to sort out a problem like this. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if that was a bad-faith edit, nothing warrants that any other user to call that trolling. It can be contrued as a personal remark. Matthew, please assume good faith while dealing with other editors and try to discuss issues with them and more seriously don't bite the newcomers. — Nearly Headless Nick {L}<;;;;/span> 09:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:, vandalism and civility issues[edit]

Some other editors and I have reverted this user for adding comments like "edward battye rules!!!!!!!!!!!!" to the current featured article. I reported him to WP:AIV but then the user insisted that it was a mistake and that he was only reverting vandalism. This is nonetheless very peculiar as he added the same line twice and some of the reverts were about reverting his own edits (i.e. capitalising "A" and then changing them to "a" and viceversa). The user replied using explective language on his talk page and removing warnings. He seems to have quite a good grasp of wikipedia terminology to be a newbie (i.e. AGF). Recently, he has started to leave test warnings on my userpage to make a point. At the same time, he has started to contribute to the article. However, he has a big civility problem indeed and seems completely unrepentant. I would appreciate if someone else can look into this. Regards, Asteriontalk 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I just found out he reported me for vandalism for removing his feeble warnings off my talk page. Unbelievable... Asteriontalk 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I added the edward line above by accident while reverting the removal of useful changes. After I got a little brathing space, I removed all vandalisms I accidently added [59] [60] [61].
I never knew about his AIV until another editor told me about it after it was already done.
I did not initially change "A"s to "a"s or vice versa.
Yeah, I did, though I never attacked anyone personally.
I did not remove any warnings except the ones Asterion added while vandalizing my discussion page.
I am not a newbie, and never claimed I was. What is it with you guys to never get that right?
I indeed left warnings on Asterion's user page because he removed discussion items. See WP:AIV for details.
I started to contribute to the article before any of this hit the fan. --
Quite obviously "my removal of content" was nothing but an edit conflict causing by editing through a diff. edits screen, therefore giving me no warning of you editing at the same time. I treat all users, newbies or not, with respect and expect likewise. Asteriontalk 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, why didn't you say so earlier? I don't use diff.edits screen (or even know what that is), maybe you shouldn't if they destroy data.
That got me laughing, thanks! A question: If someone puts a vandalism warning on your /Talk, do you always ignore that without even looking what's going on? --
I do recognise disruption to make a point when I see it, in the same way I recognise uncivil comments towards me and other users[62][63][64]. There is no need to make wikipedia an unpleasant place for anyone. Please be civil. Regards, Asteriontalk 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Then please share with us, as I cannot see WP:POINT in any way involved.
Your (collective) rv attempts were clumsy, Daniel5127 fingering of my /Talk was misplaced, and I don't see the problem with the last one.
You, on the other hand, have an axe to grind. Calm down and take a break. --
Vandalism isnt a mistake you make, you either vandalise or you dont - theres no middle line.. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
So I don't. --
"I removed all vandalisms I accidently added" - yes, apparently you do. Crimsone 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
(Ah great, bickering about words is just what we need.) I don't vandalized, I only accidently added text that should not have been added. Vandalism implies intent. --
I merely pointed out what the comment was responding to (ie, the contradictory nature of your previous words, which appeared not to have been noticed by yourself) - I'm not one for bickering. I'm merely the sort of person that explains the misunderstood. Crimsone 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please quit this bickering between the two of you. This is not the place for it. Incidentally, when you edit through page diffs, it's pretty difficult to botch up a vandalism revert unless there are multiple vandal edits and you fail to go all the way back. Even then, it isn't really botched as all you have to do is go to the correct old version of the page, and click edit to revert from there. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an indication of any edits submitted in the mean time, but it's easy enough to revert back and fix if you notice tha you've done it (and you should always check for it). I'm not even going to suggest dispute resolution as this particular dispute is quite trivial - all everybody needs to do is follow policy, and avoid making mountains out of molehills. Crimsone 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In particular I think both sides should admit they've made mistakes and get it over with. I saw this begin almost an hour ago and it's all pretty ridiculous. --Wafulz 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --