Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive210

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Nadia Kittel[edit]

This user is completely uncommunicative for month and never really reacts to criticism of his edits which are often POV or redundant to existent content. He is uploading copyright violating images since at least December 2006 (the last one I found was Image:MMBLA3.jpg). I tried to reach him in German language (his native language) but my message was deleted just minutes after sending. I'm sorry to say that his ignoring is not caused by language problems but just foully. Maybe someone can solve but I really have no more idea... Geo-Loge 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There was also a situation recently where Nadia Kittel created a user page for User:Kay. Nadia Kittel claimed that Kay was a new username but did not respond when asked to log in as Kay and confirm. Leebo86 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well he ignored the ask for verification in this question. This is due this user is completely incurioused to basics of intellectual property law and problems. Geo-Loge 16:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If this person deleted a message, it shows acknowledgement - perhaps it is time to start warning this user for uploading copyrighted images or something? By the way, it's more likely to be a her, than a he, but that's just me. x42bn6 Talk 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Nadia used the image of Kay for a long time and replaced that image with the current image of.. I do not know exactly: Madonna? I think he/she lost the access data to the Kay account. But this is speculation which only can be verified by this user. I do not know how to warn him/her? His/her talk page archive is full of warnings. Geo-Loge 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Marilyn Monroe, I think, but the name is a female name. Either way, see WP:TUSER. x42bn6 Talk 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just for some background, I blocked this user in December 2006 for being uncommunicative, blanking his/her talk page and also all of these erroneous uploads. The idea was not to punish Nadia but to get his/her attention, i.e. to be instructive. Apparently it didn't work. There is nothing worse than a user who refuses to communicate with others. Honestly, I don't know what to do next. I could block the user, but I see no evidence of change. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There are normal and justified edits among his contributions, I know. But his understanding of copyrights is unportable. Some of his upload license information are lied and he knows that this uploads are illegal. I tried to communicate in German language.. I warned him that I will argue for an unlimited block of his account, if he just blanks this message.. he blanked and so I only see one way: Block this user for an unlimited period. Geo-Loge 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the image on User:Nadia Kittel supposedly of her (!?) is a copyvio too: magnumphotos.com vs Image:Kay33.jpg. ~ trialsanderrors 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice of magnumphotos: Image:MMBLA3.jpg is also a copyright violation to this agency. Geo-Loge 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A few hours after Image:Kay33.jpg was deleted as copyvio, the user uploaded a different photo of Marilyn Monroe with the same filename and a "PD-self" claim. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No reason to send this to IfD. This is knowing and decpetive circumnvention of copyright laws and should be deleted on sight. I'd say a last warning to the user and potentially escalating blocks are in order. I haven't looked at the positive contributions of this user, but behavior like this is uncondonable. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Afwiw, I'm convinced this is a dude. ~ trialsanderrors 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Commons:User:Nadia Kittel's image uploads also seem quite suspicious. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I speedied a couple that were obvious copyvios. There's also a few with a claim that they're posted by permission that look like possible acceptable fair use images. I'll contact an admin re the Commons pictures. ~ trialsanderrors 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't auto-archive this quite yet... --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
So how to move on in this affair? Geo-Loge 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

I figured I better direct people to Talk:Daniel Brandt myself. Zocky | picture popups 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Dramatic. Endorse. Ben Aveling 12:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What section were you pointing at? - Mgm|(talk) 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It was in reference to the earlier stubbing and protection of the article which has since been undone.Zocky (talk · contribs) posted a long justification for his action on the talkpage and I think that is what he is referring to.--Isotope23 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot has gone crazy[edit]

Hello -- just wanted to let you know that HBC AIV helperbot is duplicating content in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism every few seconds, which is causing its size to increase exponentially. Looks like a bug... Stephen Hui 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

HighInBC is now aware; AIV is operating normally again, and the bots seem to be running properly. --ais523 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a bug in the new fix instructions function, it has been fixed. It was stopped in minutes. Thank you for your patience. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Provocation by User:LordRahl[edit]

Any thoughts about how to handle this situation? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

More on this issue → [1], [2]. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks as if they've been reverted, and the user warned. I'm not sure anything more is warranted at this point. If he continues, of course, that's a different story. Shimeru 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal info[edit]

This edit inserted what appears to be a personal phone number. It probably should be removed from the history. JonHarder talk 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Portugal[edit]

Guys, I have been editing this page and it seems that for some reason it is not displaying the references section that is on the edit box. Categories and links to other language pages are not displaying as well. can you guys help or do I need to go somewhere else? Galf 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I'll have a look. Have you tried reloading your browser, BTW? Yuser31415 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. You forgot to close a <ref> tag :). Cheers, Yuser31415 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I, ahem....knew that, ... just hmm testing the ssytem, everything working... splendid, young man! Seriously, thanks Galf 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation (in autograph books)[edit]

I recently had a user sign my autograph book with Jimbo Wales's signature. Please view this diff. --Cremepuff222 (talk, sign book) 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have warned them. I also found another instance where they had also done it. I also reverted that addition. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, way to overreact. A lot of signature books have "Can I really edit this?" or somesuch, supposedely from Jimbo Wales, in them for the humour of Jimbo supposedly asking if he can edit it. You've gone a bit over the top by warning him for impersonation if all he's doing is signing signature books like that. --Deskana (Alright, on your feet soldier!) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't approve of the whole autograph sub-pages, but thats a little bit of an overreation to warn someone about it. The "Can I really edit this? -- Jimbo Wales" joke is sort of a recurring joke among users. Nothing that serious. — Moe 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's overreacting and maybe it's a joke but some users get excited when they see Jimbo has signed their signature book and are probably felt let down, angered and whatnot if they find out it was another user making a joke [at their expense]. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, autograph sub-pages should just be out-right deleted since they have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia. Anyways, Spawn Man is a established editor, not some random troll. We shouldn't warn our serious editors of this site about impersonation when it's obviously not their intent. — Moe 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Deskana Chrislk02 acted entirely appropriately in this matter, and I am glad the editor got a warning (which is really not much, in the great scheme of things). The issue is not who was impersonated, but that anybody was impersonated. You allow this under the guise of "joke", and then you open the door to people signing your name to Rfas and so forth. Where does it end? Good job, Chris. Jeffpw 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No, Deskana is on the other side of the debate. As am I. This is a long running joke, and it doesn't stretch into matters where comment attribution will ever matter. Impersonation on rfas is a long way off from "impersonation" on silly subpages. Spawn Man deserves an apology for this overreaction and the block threat. Picaroon 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I made sure to generalize. It realy wasent who he impersonate other than the fact he did impersonate. While anybody could track down impersonations it would make things alot worse. The only reason i warned him that he could get blocked is a previous discussion he had on his talk page claiming that he hadent been warned before blocking. I had given him a warning and wanted him to know that repeating it was not appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez! I was joking, as I saw a couple of other users placing the same joke on their autograph books & since Cremepuff wanted Jimbo to sign, I thought I'd be nice & sign it for him (Like santa's helpers...). Never knew you people would take a kind gesture so seriously. So a harmless joke which numerous other users make has been brought here because a girl can't handle being "let down". I was only trying to be nice & if you can't handle that then maybe you shouldn't be on wikipedia, where people try & be nice in different ways. Spawn Man 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being mean and you being nice. It has to do with falsley representing yourself, and that being innapropriate. The question is, where do you draw the line, autograph books? talk pages? Im saying that lets not even start the precedent. Show me somebody else who does it and i will similarly warn them. Perhaps in a nicer manner (and, I will apolagize if my warning seemed harsh). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Wykypydya has a fake Jimbo autograph. This is not the page I got the idea from, but I didn't fancy going through all the links I've visited to prove a point I know I'm right on.. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney/Problems2[edit]

This user page has been created by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs). It is against the userpage policy- libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea. I think the User has created this page after I notified this noticeboard of his use of the acronym IRA in is signature (see above); as well as other uncivil remarks he has been making recently- and refusal to enter into discussion about editing issues. If the user wishes to make a compliant about me- he is welcome to do so as long as it is in accordance with Wiki policy.

I ask that this userpage be deleted and that One Night In Hackney is reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Astrotrain 11:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no libel, and it is in fact a preparation page for a RfC. Astrotrain is more than aware of this as I posted this in the two previous places he's mentioned this before he posted this report.[3][4] This is a clear case of forum shopping and attempting to destroy the evidence I have gathered to date. It should also be noted that the sub-page is not linked to from my user page or talk page. Thanks One Night In Hackney1916 12:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree here, that there is no evident libel or attack on this page. All it does is collect actions by Astrotrain that Hackney apparently disagrees with. Nothing that wouldn't be at home in an RfC. That said, I agree that your signature is provocative in the context at hand, and you should change the "1916" to "talk" to defuse the situation and show good faith. And then submit your RfC for whatever it is worth and be prepared listen to criticism. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly against userpage guidlines to have a subpage attacking the contributions of another editor. Astrotrain 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
As Hackney has stated this is preparation for a user RfC, I think it should stand for now. If it is still there in a week with no RfC filed, then we can revisit.--Isotope23 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If he is going to file an RFC- he should either do it properly- or do it offline. It is still against policy on usernames and I am surprised it is being allowed to continue. Astrotrain 14:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Astrotrain asked me on my talk page to delete that subpage, and I explained that it is not an attack page, and have asked ONiH to get the RfC ready as soon as possible so that it's out in the open. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Preparing an RfC in user space is perfectly legitimate. If it hangs around for months with no RfC forthcoming then it will be deleted, but right now it shows a series of statements which are credible as part of the preparation for an RfC. Hackney has previously spent many hours tracking down a prolific POV-pusher and vandal on wrestling articles, so I tend to support his right to at least gather a case. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review, please[edit]

Dr4chess (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - I went straight for a 24 hr block, without the classic intermediate test warnings, as I noticed multiple page blankings (or replacing with "U got cheesed") in a few minutes, even as non-admins tried to revert his edits, so this looked like an emergency. But looking a bit closer at his edits afterwards, I noticed that some of his blankings were reverted by himself... in short, here, someone else please take a look. I'm still 80% sure I was right, but not 99% any more. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, it looks like a necessary preventative block. We can do without this editor for 24 hours at the very least. Trebor 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request block for Phasemc and User talk:68.72.123.53 believed to be same user.[edit]

This user has been repeatedly deleting merge tags [5] [6] [7] on Mancow articles. The IP address and user are being reverted by many editors who regularly edit the Mancow articles, and has been left warnings by myself explaining why his edits have been reverted, and asking him to please stop. --Masterpedia

Signed to allow archiving. MaxSem 12:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard[edit]

This user continues to flout established consensus on naming and indexing issues, and persistently reverts despite being told beforehand. This is particularly notable in his persistent attempts to forcibly categorise Muslims and Sikhs by their last name [8], despite media referring to them by first name. He has partaken in previous discussions regarding this [9] (see link to archived discussion, but persists in reverting them again and again - Yuvraj Singh is a particular favourite [10]. I feel that he is violating WP:POINT and is persistently disrupting the encyclopedia. A quick look at his contributions show that a large proportion of his edits are engaged in this sort of activity, and I think he needs to be blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours, especially as he uses malicious edit summaries accusing others and stuff like this [11]. Rama's arrow 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Having seen his edits and insistence on last name indexing, I endorse this block. --Ragib 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse as well. Khoikhoi 05:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Next time - please attempt to engage Gene in the AN/I discussion prior to blocking. He's a long time and highly productive editor. --Duk 06:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
O RLY?. He has been engaged long enough. Endorse block. I think it's time for an RfArb. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe it's enough for some admins to say "lay off the Pakistani cricketers for now" rather than just handing out a block. Gene is a valuable and highly competent editor. And while he gets prickly sometimes, he is usually willing to discuss the topic at hand, rather than making asinine and non-productive statements like "O RLY". --Duk 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Yuvraj Singh includes a link to a previous discussion at WT:CRIC about this issue where Gene was the sole voice arguing for mandatory classification for last name, whereas everybody else felt that it was correct to use whatever the main usage of the term was. That archive also shows that the examples of Indian Sikhs and Muslims who are indexed by first name are noted. When the switch was made to the Yuvraj entry, there was a reminder on the talk page. After another user came and fixed up typos and grammar in late 2006, they weren't aware of the way Yuvraj is categorised, so when I switched it back to Y, I left an invisible comment [12] in late December. Since then, Gene has reverted the article four times, despite the article having a note and the talk page having a note, for a total of six reverts, whereas other articles such as Harbhajan Singh and Maninder Singh, which do not have a reminder notice, have been less frequently targeted. As for Gene's comments that my failure to revert all his edits shows that I have a rationale problem; this is is incorrect - I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly, per the previous discussions. Robin Singh and VRV Singh are not Sikhs and are common referred to as Singh, while the others are referred to by first name. As for Shah Nylchand and any others, the same applies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Note carefully: I was the last voice addressing the issue on that talk page, and still am a month and a half later. Neither User:Blnguyen nor any other editor has addressed the points I raised there, in my only comment there.
Note more carefully that Blnguyen misrepresented what the previous link dealt with:
  1. It dealt specifically with cricketers from Pakistan, from Bangladesh, and from the United Arab Emirates—not with cricketers from India.
  2. It dealt with indexing all people in the categories related to cricketers from those countries by first name, not some haphazard mish-mash with some indexed by first name and some indexed by last name as Blnguyen proposes.
  3. It specifically dealt only with the cricket categories related to those countries, not to categories for cricket in other countries for people who may have played in more than one place, not for categories for people also notable as politicians or writers or whatever, not for the birth and death and living categories.
  4. What Blnguyen describes here, in his "I am categorising them by what they are referred to publicly" statement, is a category determination that depends on the establishment of a factual foundation.
  1. Even if that were the rule of our guidelines, it would require he establishment of that fact on an individual, case-by-case basis for each person, by proper citation to reliable sources, and not be based on WP:NOR by Blnguyen or any other editor.
  2. Blnguyen has not met the burden of establishing this fact in any single case. He has not even attempted to do so.
Discussions on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people have dealt with the guideline there ("normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system") by pointing out that we should not expect to readers to know whether a person is of Belgian heritage or Dutch heritage or German heritage or American heritage whatever, in order to figure out how his or her name will be sorted in categories. It is even more ludicrous to expect that readers should know a person's religion in order to know how his or her name will be sorted in categories.
I am taking this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people Gene Nygaard 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene has made a statement on his user page. --Duk 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm starting to see a big problem here. On the surface there are two serious editors with a content/policy disagreement. Both revert each other and both are sure they are right. One is an admin and complains at an/i; he doesn't take responsibility for his own reverting, he doesn't pursue the dispute resolution process - he asks that the other editor be blocked. The other editor is not a admin and gets blocked before being able to participate in the discussion. Also, there seems to be some article "ownership" issues on the part of the admin. Maybe it is time for an RfArb. --Duk 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not owning any article. I am the principal author of the Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj Singh article but there is little activity on the main body that is ever contested. It's only the indexing which is contested, and I'm not the lone ranger by any means. The DR occurred last year. It is up to Gene to try and change the consensus established last year in a discussion in which he partook. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I am not. It is you who is trying to change that consensus. Address the points I made above: 1) That consensus dealt with cricketers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and UAE, not those from India, 2) That consensus involved indexing ALL people in the cricket categories for those countries by first name, and 3) that consensus involved only cricket categories for those three countries. Gene Nygaard 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, that supposed consensus is not mentioned at all on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket page. There is no clear statement of what it is, so that editors can follow it, and more improtantly so that it could be discussed and fine-tuned as necessary. That year-old consensus is not on the current talk page there, either. Rather, it is hidden away in at least two, perhaps three different archive sections for that talk page. Nobody has any notice whatsoever that it exists. It isn't, as far as I know, mentioned on any category page or category talk page--though I've not checked them in detail for that, just a sampling shows that it is not mentioned on Category:Pakistani Test cricketers or its talk page, it is not mentioned on Category:Bengladeshi cricketers or its talk page, it is not mentioned on Category:Cricketers by nationality or its talk page, even though that does have a detailed discussion of "in cricket terms, the United Kingdom and Great Britain do not exist". Gene Nygaard 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Overturn. This is a spurious block, in my opinion. This a content dispute, and the block levied against Gene Nygaard is punitive, not preventative. I propose unblocking Gene Nygaard with the conditions that he behave civilly and that neither he nor Blnguyen make any potentially contentious edits until an RfC is opened. It's entirely unnecessary to bring in ArbCom over an editing dispute. A Train take the 20:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The block was imposed not punitively, but for prevention. The problem was that Gene was repeatedly undoing other people's edits without discussion, violating consensus on the topic. Additionally, he was incivil - accusing others of intentionally screwing up a version he didn't like - and behaving rudely to those to criticized him. All this is clearly disruptive. Gene has been dealt with fairly - the block is not lengthy either, more a slap on the wrist. If he is the productive editor Duk believes he is, he will understand his error and do something to address these complaints. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You admitted on my talk page, and here as well, that it was indeed imposed punitively.
Furthermore, it was User:Blnguyen who was repeatedly undoing my edits, without discussion, violating the guidelines on the subject. The changes were intentionally added in the form of a sort key, not an oversight that involved not changing the default from the article's name. Gene Nygaard 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
See wiktionary:slap on the wrist. Gene Nygaard 16:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I repeat - the block was NOT punitive. However, I do not expect anyone to be so naive as to not understand WHY they were blocked and do something to rectify their errors - the "slap on the wrist" was meant that way. I hope you do realize that you made some mistakes and that you won't repeat that behavior. Don't act like a victim, because you are not - you had your "rights." You could have requested to be unblocked, in which case another admin would have reviewed the circumstances. While it is natural for anyone to see a block as a punishment, you should have some faith in Wikipedia's policies and try to not see it that way. There is no reason for you to trust me (and vice-versa) but at least have some respect for Wikipedia. Rama's arrow 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I did request to be unblocked; you know that, you can publish it if you like. And I was not given any opportunity to address the issues before you blocked me, was not given any notice of the discussion here.
A "slap on the wrist" is punishment. Gene Nygaard 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You e-mailed me and I responded on your talkpage. When I say request for unblock, I mean putting this {{unblock}} on your talkpage and asking "another admin" to review. As far as I know, this is an old issue and you've been warned and asked to discuss numerous times. My job was to stop the disruption. You can take the block as a punishment if you like - I don't care, that's your choice. I certainly did not intend it as a punishment. Rama's arrow 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and by the time you responded there, 18 hours of the block had passed, and it was a couple of more hours before I saw it. The instructions to contact the blocking administrator first; though they don't preclude the use of that template immediately, that is unlikely to accomplish much unless as in the case of Darwinek's earlier block of me there is clear abuse of admin privileges by the blocking admin.
If that is "as far as you know", then what were you doing blocking me? Can you show me one place where I've been "warned and asked to discuss" the sorting issue involved here, and I have failed to do so? Can you show me even one place where your buddy, your use-of-the-block-button mentor Blnguyen[13] the one whom you owe for Blnguyen's conomination for adminship,[14] has tried to discuss this sorting issue with me and I have failed to do so?
The thing is, Wikipedia:blocking policy specifically provides "Blocks . . . should not be used as a punitive measure." Far too often we see admins giving lip service to this principle, then basically ignoring it. It isn't often one comes right out and admits violating the rules, though. Gene Nygaard 16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[15], Husond's warning is one of them, unheeded for close to a month. Other interesting diffs:[16], [17], [18], [19]. So I blocked you to return the favor of Blnguyen's co-nom? Phew! Thanks for letting me off easy - I see poor Husond was convicted of sockpuppetry by you.
Let's get something straight Gene - you have a long history of rudeness, boorish behavior and personal attacking. No admin will need hesitate in blocking you if this pattern of behavior continues unabated. Rama's arrow 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If you wanted to disprove your statement above that "My job was to stop the disruption" was a total falsity, and that what you intended was indeed punishment, you could not have done a much better job of it. Did any of that involve Blnguyen? No. Did any of them involve current discussions? No. Did any of them involve disruption that would need to be stopped with a block? No.
Why in the world are you bringing up a discussion with User:Hseldon10 that was resolved amicably between us two weeks ago? "Stop the disruption"? Bullshit. Don't be trying to invent post hoc justifications for your actions.
You were taking User:Blnguyen word for it on the issue of the sorting of Indian cricketers, something for which he has repeatedly misrepresented any earlier consensus. That's the main reason you blocked me, because he had asked that I be blocked so that he could revert my changes with impunity and gain an upper hand in a content dispute.
You claimed that you were blocking me because I had previously been "asked to discuss" the issues, without ever pointing out any case in which I had failed to discuss the issue when it had been brought up.
I'll even do you one better than what I said above. I challenge you to show me even one case from before your block of me in which User:Blnguyen has responded to me, when I have replied to him.
  • Did he do so here at Talk:Yuvraj Singh on 16 Jan 2007 UTC? No, he did not.
  • Did he do so here at User talk:Gene Nygaard on 4 Sep 2006 UTC? No, he did not.
  • Did he do so above, when I pointed out that he had misrepresented the old, archived consensus? No.
  • Did he do so anywhere else? Not that I can find. Can you?
I suggest you reconsider who really needs to blocked for refusing to discuss the issue. One of those non-punishment slaps on the wrist, of course. I won't hold my breath while I wait for it to happen, however.
Exactly who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here? An editor who goes through a category and fixed those which appear out of place? Or a different editor who reverts a series of those edits and then tries to gain the upper hand in a content dispute by gaming the system. One who runs here to ask that I be blocked, without my having reverted any of the unexplained reversions he has just made, without even telling me that he is coming here to complain,? Who does not discuss those reversions on the talk pages involved or anywhere else, but comes here and misreprents the existence a previous consensus? Gene Nygaard 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)



Suspicious creation of new user accounts -- vandalism? Sockpuppetry?[edit]

Resolved

I routinely check the New User logs, and I noticed tonight one user, MurrMan (talk) (contribs) created several new Users with similar names: MurrMan5, MurrMan6, and MurrMan7. In addition, just prior to the creation of these users, MurrMan2, MurrMan3 and MurrMan4 were created. All these accounts were created between 02:49 and 02:53 on March 2, 2007 (UTC). I have seen several recent incidents where similarly named accounts were socks of other users. As of now, the only account with a warning is MurrMan, with a warning from Feb 27 [20] noting that several edits by this person look like other edits from an anonymous user. I'd bring this up at WP:SSP, but there doesn't yet seem to be any active sockpuppetry, just the tools in place to do this. Please let me know if this is not the correct forum for this. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Something fishy, though hard to say if it's intended to be sneaky sockpuppetry. I can't imagine MurrMan7 denying any connection to MurrMen 1-6 :) Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 04:24Z
Since having multiple accounts is not a crime, is there a template we can slap on these pages so that if any one account starts vandalizing, people who warn him will know to post the warning on the main account's page? Xiner (talk, email) 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Right on. Natalie 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It did seem a little too much. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Anencephaly_front.jpg on top of page[edit]

Resolved

Why did I see multiple copies of Anencephaly_front.jpg on the top of the page many many times? I can't see where to remove it, but when I previewed this comment it was gone, so that is very strange. Any ideas? -- Whereizben - Chat with me 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They were in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader.Geni 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Geni beat me to it by seconds! Anyway, I blocked the IP ... apparently it's Willy on Wheels, a banned user with whom I'm not familiar. The IP had just come off a one-week block, so I slapped another one-week block on it, but perhaps that address needs to be blocked for a much longer term? | Mr. Darcy talk 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it's Willy, not the right MO and we've not seen that one for a while anyway as far as I know. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Admins unfamiliar with WoW?... jeepers, has it really been that long? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Any reason not to have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader fully protected? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I've protected it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting side-dust-up[edit]

While I'm sure by now everyone is aware of the ... interesting events surrounding Essjay and his false credentials, a fairly disruptive side dust-up has occurred involving FCYTravis. As some may be aware, there is a straw poll ongoing at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay. Some have raised concerns that it an attack page by nominating it for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay. Irregardless of my own feelings there, it was improperly closed by Travis with the following rationale: speedy keep - I am an admin. Thanks. Deleting this page is not going to happen, period. At first he was reverted by fellow admin Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and then by myself. Am I the only one other than Betacommand that thinks that is an extremely poor closing reason? This has been discussed somewhat on his talk page, with what I think were fairly inoffensive comments, to which he responded with astounding vitriol. At first I gave him a {{uw-npa3}} warning, which may or may not have been too strong, which he removed, saying in fairly abrasive terms not to use a template, so I iterated my thoughts in my own words: If you cannot communicate in fashions that are civil and do not include personal attacks, then do not communicate at all. Wikipedia has a Code of Conduct. Occasional lapses are forgivable but continued infractions will be sanctioned. In my opinion his responses hardly follow the decorum expected of a Wikipedia administrator. The comment on Sagacious' talk page is particularly telling [21] as well as his response to my warning [22].

The issues here are several I think:

  • The MFD notice for the page has been disruptively removed several times.
  • FCYTravis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has improperly closed the MFD, and then revert warred when another administrator, Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted, ending when I reverted and asked him to recuse himself.
  • Travis' responses have been uncivil and abrasive, and his "I'm an admin and I'll do what I want" attitude is unhealthy. He has not maintained the decorum expected of a Wikipedia administrator.
  • Travis clearly has a strong negative opinion of Essjay, which is the topic of discussion on the disputed page. Him closing an AFD on the matter is a clear Conflict of Interest and is grossly inappropriate. Administrators should refrain from using their administrative powers in situations where they have a personal stake.

Sincerely, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The page close message was in response to my previous close being reverted by Betacommand who then posted "If you're not an admin, don't close this." Well, I am an admin, and thus that reason is not particularly relevant in this case. The MfD has also been closed by Mackensen, an arbitrator - a close which was reverted, by the MfD's opener, Corvus cornix. Peter M Dodge then placed a wikitemplate accusing me of a "personal attack" on my Talk page, when he knows (or should know) that unnecessary use of templates rather than personal messages can be interpreted as an insult. Furthermore, I am entitled to remove postings from my User talk page at any time - it's not a "permanent record" of alleged misdeeds. FCYTravis 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If the only response you have to these claims are to attack the person making them, I think it speaks volumes for their veracity. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's your opinion that the straw poll is not an appropriate venue for discussion. Many, many others apparently disagree with you. FCYTravis 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Wow, what a great way to address the concerns.</sarcasm> I am !impressed. He expressed concerns about your behavior and that is your only response? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is only one of four issues. Care addressing the others? Calling people names is hardly appropriate, nor is the "I'm an admin and I'll do what I want" attitude healthy to the project. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand things correctly, we are discussing whether there was a proper discussion about closing the discussion regarding whether we should continue the discussion that was set up to summarize the other discussion which was set up as an overflow from the original discussion. I consider myself as big a process-nerd as anyone here but the number of meta-levels here is high. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a MFD over the discussion. Travis improperly closed it, and followed it up with a series of personal attacks and "I'm an admin I'll do what I want" type comments to anyone who disagreed with him. I for one have an issue with that kind of attitude, and hence the post here. I apologise if it is unclear. I tried to summate it in the points above. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand the procedural situation, myself. But imagine trying to explain this thread to a non-wikipedian. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's your opinion that it was an improper close. Again, I note that I was far from the only administrator to close it, or to ask for a speedy close. The fact that you and I disagree on the nature of a close does not an "incident" make. FCYTravis 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel the template warning about personal attacks was justified. While it may have been FCYTravis's impression that the MfD would not pass, it was still inappropriate to close it prematurely. 12 keeps (1 made by a single edit user) and 7 deletes, in my opinion, does not in any way justify a closure at that point. Regardless of whether the initial closure edit summary was in response to the small message at the top, the user's behavior past that edit has done little to convince me that it was in good faith. Further to this, I believe this user may be in breach of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, mainly after they added this comment to the MfD. (Even if it's not explicitly stated in policy, the fact this user has an apparent strong opinion in the Essjay matter makes it difficult for me to see how them closing an MfD relating to the matter is fair and justified.) --Sagaciousuk (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we all would've learned by now that you don't solve problems by hastily trying to shut down discussion? --Cyde Weys 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Newyorkbrad's comment. I suggest we archive this discussion about closing the discussion about deleting the discussion .... aaargh, no, I can't stop.... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
My main complaint is with Travis' attitude and behaviour, which are in my view completely unacceptable. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to know why I was reverted without comment. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
My speedy closes were no more or less disruptive than your and Corvus cornix's attempts to shut down and delete a highly-active discussion about a Wikipedia arbitrator, administrator, bureaucrat, oversight and checkuser who has admitted to creating his entire life story from whole cloth and lying about it to a reporter. FCYTravis 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Special rights do not confer special status to people in closing discussions, Travis, and I think you just highlighted your conflict of interest better than I could have. Mackensen, I would like to know the reason as well, but it is tangential to this discussion - perhaps you can discuss this with the reverter on their talk page? ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realise that subpages on Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard were the new places for official dispute resolutions. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not. - Mgm|(talk) 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a personal stake in this issue, Peter M Dodge, given that Essjay appointed you to the position of checkuser clerk. You're showing loyalty, which is fine, but don't try and pretend I have some sort of personal vendetta while you're somewhere above the fray. FCYTravis 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're just attacking me and not addressing the claims I've made. If you don't want to address the claims, say so. Stop with the smokescreen. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wheel Warring stops now[edit]

May I remind the gentlemen Admins that these petty conflicts are an embarresmant for Wikipedia? If this goes on, expect Jimbo to desysop you in a instant as he did last week, when bickering admins couldn't keep their heads cool. --Edokter (Talk) 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • On top of that. If Essjay needs to drop any position, Jimbo will make that decision. As far as I'm concerned this new info has no effect on how reliable and efficient his Wikipedia contributions are. Voting this early is indeed evil. - Mgm|(talk) 20:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Out of interest, is there any way to override the MfD process - or to somehow lock the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Essjay page to help prevent matters getting worse? I really don't think the current 'discussion' is helping things in the slightest. Nevermind, finally it's moved to RfC. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't think it's interesting that virtually no one agrees with Jimbo that "What Essjay did is okay"? Just because it came as a result of some weird vote-like thing doesn't mean it's an opinion that should be brushed aside... obviously most people feel that way. --W.marsh 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    No not really. There are plenty of people who agree with Jimbo, and it doesn't surprise me they didn't want to join in alongside the wash of people !voting for the other side. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. In a community of tens if not hundreds of thousands, a few dozen people piling on to a straw poll is hardly a groundswell - and actually quite a few seem to think that no sanctions are necessary at this time, and that we should wait for Essjay to explain himself. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You don’t think those of us who find that subpage <expletive> <harsher term for ‘silly’> would validate it by participating, do you? The page cannot really be seen as anything but a non-representative list of opinions; in particular, ‘obviously most’ cannot be supported by it. Anyway, the RFC presumably obsoletes the subpage. —xyzzyn 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Therefore, we're not in a position to judge how many people agree or disagree with Jimbo's view - if we've only that to go on. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage being used to attack a user[edit]

User:Peter M Dodge has recently decided to leave Wikipedia. In so doing, he has posted a parting statement on his userpage which says, in part:

  • "Durin's edits were largely unhelpful, demeaning editors over edit counts and such"
  • "[Durin] made a very nasty comment being directed towards myself [1] - better than me because I have a mental condition? Pssh. Shove it."

Setting aside whether my comment was as he notes for the moment (will address below), Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F states a position against polemical statements and quotes Jimbo Wales as saying "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". I have no means of defending myself against any reader who comes to that page. It would be inappropriate for me to post a rebuttal on his userpage, or to remove this content from his userpage since it is an attack against me. If he wants to leave Wikipedia, that's his business and I wish him the best of luck in future endeavors. But, it is inappropriate for him to use his userpage as a soapbox to blast other editors on Wikipedia. Thus, I am bringing it here to have it removed from his userpage, assuming another admin feels as I do that this is inappropriate. --Durin 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what he wrote, I agree that it's inappropriate, and I've removed it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking[edit]

Moved to WT:BP#Notifying users of blocks

70.53.94.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Thread title changed from "Requesting block of IP: 70.53.94.116" Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 12:54Z
Resolved

This IP added these messages to different articles: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theunicyclegirl (talkcontribs) 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I've diffed your comments because no need to spread the personal details anywhere. Requesting deletion of diffs, too. x42bn6 Talk 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, took it to WP:AIV. For stuff like this you should get a faster response there. x42bn6 Talk 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Goofybiscuit[edit]

Resolved

What is this awful userpage? please block ´em all.----Doktor Who (UTC)01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It´s ok now [28]--Doktor Who 01:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting IAR actions[edit]

As it says somewhere above. I earlier today tried to move the Brandt article away from another non-consensus AFD by stubbing it and spliting any useful information to other articles. I provided a detailed explanation at Talk:Daniel Brandt, and specifically asked any reverting admin to explain their reasoning, and everybody else to let it go after that and continue with the previous process. Not everybody agreed, but we were having some sort of conversation about what to do next. So I finally went to sleep. When I woke up, I found the article on AFD again, ahead of previously agreed time. So it obviously didn't work, and now we're maybe even worse off, and if we are, I'm sorry I caused it.

What I find curious is this: Despite my thorough explanation, detailed reasoning, and a polite request to handle the matter graciously, I was reverted by Majorly whose only communication with me or the general readership of the talk page existed of an unprotection summary. I tried talking about it with him on IRC, but it's obvious that we won't come to an agreement that way. In any case, this isn't a question about Majorly, it's about whether this kind of revert is justified in this kind of situation. Zocky | picture popups 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Majorly reverted your edit, just your protection of the page. Since you had just made a major edit to the page, protecting it on your chosen version was inappropriate. (Why, for instance, should only admins be able to revert you?) Your explanation was certainly detailed but did not appear to me to explain why you felt protection was needed. In light of that I think Majorly's unprotection was justified. Though I don't begrudge your effort to try something original, and I think your edit was probably good, protecting the page was not necessary. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My only admin action was protecting the page. When the page was unprotected, all my other actions were irrelevant. Zocky | picture popups 02:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but I think that the admin part of your action was largely unexplained, and inappropriate. The main content of your edit, the stubbing and merging to which you devoted hundreds of words of explanation, was not reverted. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understand, he unprotected the page specifically by request of editors who wanted to revert the article itself. But in any case, my question is not "should Majorly have unprotected the page?" I agreed in advance that I would have no problem with anyone doing that and I don't. The more relevant questions are: was there sufficient communication from my side for what I was doing? was there sufficient communication from his side? was he right to ignore my request for explanation? Zocky | picture popups 02:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Having read your statement, I don't quite understand why you protected the page, aside from the fact that you liked your version. But presumably everyone else liked their versions as well. So to use your words I think the communication from your side was not sufficient. Majorly might have been a bit rude in his responses and certainly should have said a few sentences more at your request, but I think his initial unprotection summary was reason enough; your action was exceptional (and basically contrary to the main rules on using protection, since you apparently were directly using it to win a content dispute) and not well-supported by the connected explanation. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
What content dispute? What my version? I have nowhere expressed my opinion on what the fate of the article should be. I was looking for a way forward. We don't have a deadline, the article doesn't have to be perfect today or tomorrow. Even waiting for the whole 13 months would not have made Wikipedia a worse encyclopedia, and we were obviously discussing things to be done before that, even today. Zocky | picture popups 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You dramatically edited the article which was the subject of a current dispute, in a way directly relevant to that dispute. That makes you part of the content dispute. And this clearly expresses your opinion on the proper fate of the article. (To quote: "The only possible solution left is disambiguate. Since this obviously can't be literally disambiguated, I decided to split, merge, stub and protect.") To then protect the page (preventing people from reverting your major edit should they disagree with it) is not appropriate at all, without some strong explanation of the need for an extraordinary response (for instance, doing this in a BLP situation might be appropriate). Christopher Parham (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a content decision, it was about process. I was summarizing the arguments and deducing from them based on what both sides said, not based on what I personally would prefer, nor even based on what I think is the right thing to do with an article. I was attempting to shortcut another round of AFD which, especially with the rumours of admins being willing to close a non-consensus discussion as delete, wasn't looking like something that will solve our long-term problem with this article. Where does the assumption that I did otherwise come from? Zocky | picture popups 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was definitely a content issue; you changed the content of the article radically. By doing so you offer a clear opinion on what the article should contain (even if based on the opinions of others and not your personal preference), and involve yourself in the content dispute you were trying to address. I'm not sure what you are getting at by saying this was a process action; what process involves stubbifying/merging an article and then protecting it? If the point was just to force a conversation, which is a valid goal, you can simply protect the article. There are very few exceptional cases in which you should both make substantial edits to a page and protect it. This was not one of them. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That's somewhat like saying that an admin closing an AFD is getting involved in the content issue. "Process" is not the same thing as "policy". Policy describes and prescribes process. What I did was out of other policy than IAR, but it wasn't out of process because I did what IAR, itself a policy, demands in such cases. Zocky | picture popups 04:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Question; "should Majorly have unprotected the page?" Answer; Yes. To make such bold changes to an article then fully protect it... what were you thinking? To do so then make it that only admins should be able to make amendments? Highly inappropriate protection IMO. Q; "was there sufficient communication from my side for what I was doing?" A; Irrelevant. Sorry Zocky I just dont see your logic here Glen 02:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, we're not going to abandon IAR, and this was a rare instance of it being used as it's supposed to be used: I made a decision which was not inline with other policy, but I thought it the best course of action. I fully explained my reasoning, and was engaged in the discussion about it on the appropriate page. I didn't delete anything, nor force removal of any information whatsoever. I even myself moved the information I thought was notable to another article.
Some people expressed support, some were outraged, others were outraged at first, but decided to engage in the discussion anyway. I was not threatening to force my way, I even offered to revert myself if we can't come to an agreement in a day or two. I left an open option for any admin overruling me and the return to the regular process at any time, all I asked was explained reasoning, so that we can move on normally.
It's not just a matter of "respecting your felow admins". Majorly could have chosen to undo my protection and leave a message on the talk page, explaining why he thought that that's a better way of dealing with things and advised everyone to wait for the originally suggested one week before going into AFD. If he did, I wouldn't be here complaining. Zocky | picture popups 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that anything D.Bran.dt-affiliated is going to generate angst and various other issues, so I respect any attempts to allay some of that. In my opinion, though, IAR is intended more to be a way to avoid cumbersome process, rather than to avoid longstanding and important policy (such as not using protection to enforce your version of an article). I don't fault you for attempting it for the reasons above, but I also don't think it's something that should be done and protection should have been removed. However, I also agree that communication should have taken place by whoever unprotected to explain the reasons why. In my humble opinion, 98% of the wikidrama around these parts could be avoided outright if people would simply hold their horses and talk it out rather than reacting disproportionately out of moral outrage (note: speaking in generalities, not saying that's what happened here). So, in summary, I like to sit on fences. Both sides could have done things better, and (hopefully once Majorly sees this) we can all move on with better ideas on how to proceed in the future. Unfortunately, we'll still have all forms of d.bra.nd-T-related drama. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? 03:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your rationale for the changes (though personally disagree with them) however, I dont understand what this has to do with fully protecting the article. The people you're protecting it from are good faith editors. Not vandals, not those involved in edit wars, but those interested in seeing the best article being produced. Just because I have a sysop flag next to my name should not mean I'm the only one able to disagree with you. This is a misapplication of IAR. If your changes made such sense - why do you need to protect it? Glen 03:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole point was keeping it at a near disambig for a time and moving all useful information about his activities to other appropriate articles. Let's face it, we're not talking about some random article. Without protection, I would have been immediately reverted. Sure, I could have gotten several people to do editwar for me and another admin to protect it afterwards, but if I tried that, the somewhat normal conversation we were having would have lasted 5 seconds instead of half a day. Zocky | picture popups 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted my concluding comment on the matter at the latest AFD, as linked below. Zocky | picture popups 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Logically, 'IAR' can only work if everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees that the action is correct/beneficial. If they don't then someone is just going to IAR to put it back. In short, IAR leads directly to edit/wheel warring and stagnation unless the action is uncontroversial. For actions which ARE generally agreed IAR is a way of saving time and cutting through red tape. For actions which are disputed it is a disruptive waste of time that would be wise to avoid. There was no chance of your Brandt rewrite being greeted with near universal acceptance - which you presumably knew and therefor protected the article. Therefor it was IMO a poor candidate for an invocation of IAR... and I am only surprised that it didn't turn out alot worse. --CBD 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination)[edit]

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there's another AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination) - up about this thing, despite the DRV determination that it should wait a week. I'm of the strong opinion that this one should be closed and not brought up again until some arbitrary point in time after the emotions of the situation have died down. Is anyone else of that view? --BigDT 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No. A large part of the problem has been the denial of an appropriate forum for discussion due to early closures every AFD since November 2005. Let it run. Let it run long. Speedily cutting off discussion is making things worse. GRBerry 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I at this point have no choice but to agree that an AFD is probably the only way forward. But I'm extremely dissappointed that it was pushed today. We agreed just 3 days ago that the AFD would be in 7 days. After my IAR intervention failed, the proper thing is to return to the normal process, or possibly discuss other options, not run the AFD ahead of time. Many people indicated they want to present prepared cases at the AFD, and this cheats them of the chance to do that. Zocky | picture popups 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh, who cares. I can understand Isotope's motivation for opening the debate early: to preemptively frame it in such a way that SNOW/IAR don't get invoked and to start right off with a plea for everyone to be cool and civil. He could have waited but then he might not have been able to do that. I applaud his initiative there. Mangojuicetalk 04:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Only 13? Geez! :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Indigo7[edit]

User:Indigo7 is a new user who's bad-faith AfDing multiple articles, such as Internet Storm Center and Daily Illini, as well as disrupting Wikipedia:Press coverage. I'm trying to keep up with him.--Djrobgordon 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be AfDing all articles his real name was mentioned in because his vanity autobio was removed.--Djrobgordon 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Has been indef blocked by User:HappyCamper. Trebor 10:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what was that whole WP:BAMBI shit about? JuJube 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Attacking John Bambenek. That's about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
And who is that? ^_^ JuJube 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. But his article was deleted 8 timesRyūlóng (竜龍) 10:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aquinas4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Thread retitled from "Requesting block of: Aquinas4". Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 12:57Z
Resolved

I'm requesting that Aquinas4 be block. I posted her second {{uw-vandalism4}} today. It's her second final warning. xD --Theunicyclegirl 05:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please make these requests at WP:AIV. Though I will do this block now. :D Congrats on the good job at counter vandalism. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of: Hhwha1[edit]

Click here to see his history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theunicyclegirl (talkcontribs).

Please use WP:AIV for reports of obvious vandalism. This user has already been blocked anyways [29], which is the only reason he's stopped... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks...[edit]

I know there is a fair amount distracting us today, and I am just as guilty, but there is a HUGE amount of stuff at CSD, more specifically in unsourced / untagged / cv images. I'm attacking it now, but we need more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting down to a far more manageable size now. Thanks for the heads-up. --InShaneee 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Main CSD, yes, but there are still thousands of nosource images that need to be looked at. I finished off the 14th, it appears someone is on the fifteenth now. But there are still seven other subcategories jam packed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BillDeanCarter's comments on Essjay's Talk page[edit]

Could someone please consider a short term block for BillDeanCarter? He or she continues to make rude and hostile comments to editors on Essjay's Talk page despite several editors asking him to cease. I know that emotions are heated but telling other editors to "shut up", "shut up you big babies", "you are a big baby", "this is a moment when big babies can come out and whine", "you are a big baby", and "get over yourself" is only making the situation worse. Apparently the pleas to stop this behavior on his or her Talk page are not working; I ask that you consider a brief block to reign in this behavior. --ElKevbo 06:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can single out my occasional excesses when the entire Talk page is out of control. I'm trying to bring balance to what I consider to be a lynching of a fellow Wikipedian.-BillDeanCarter 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Your excesses were not occasional; literally every single edit you made to that page has been needlessly abusive and abrasive. That you continue to do so after being politely asked to stop by multiple editors is completely unacceptable. --ElKevbo 07:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
First, you can't expect balance from a discussion in which nearly everybody agrees. But even if it were different, attempting to bring balance by insulting people is not likely to work. Zocky | picture popups 07:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Although it is a bit late at this point and doing so would probably be more punative than preventative, this user certainly merited a block for the excesses of his incivility. (Netscott) 18:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Netscott. I agree that at this point a block would likely be punative rather than preventative. Appreciate your time! --ElKevbo 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the time has passed, and things do seem to be settling down. Metamagician3000 02:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Polypmaster (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Resolved

Polypmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues to revert to incorrect license tags, for instance on Image:Cota bus.jpg. Please advise. --NE2 09:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am blocking that account until the user starts talking rather than reverting. Not one single talk edit, only one user talk edit, no responses to numerous notices on the user's talk page. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Can the images be deleted? --NE2 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's probably better to wait and go through each Image individually tag them and wait for their impending deletion rather than press the deletion process foward. — Moe 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Request Block for 69.255.189.140 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Resolved

This IP address recently made repeated inappropriate edits on the article for Battlefield High School, including the addition of extraneous commentary and the deletion of the entire article. Bhs itrt 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

His or her vandalism was over a week ago. No warning or block needed. — Moe 15:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's already been a warning. Nothing has changed since. Metamagician3000 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

DeanHinnen (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Resolved

DeanHinnen (talk · contribs) is once again causing disruption, this time by unilaterally removing information from the ArbCom case , both evidence and workshop. He is of course free to ask the clerks to redact information should he wish to do so, but removing the evidence and workshop comments of others is plainly disruptive. Since I lost patience with him after about his third edit, perhaps someone else could educate him. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Left a warning. — Moe 15:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this his 50th or so warning? He's been through multiple Arbcoms, he knows the rules. How many times will Dean and Bryan and the Freeper gang get free wiki-abuse passes? It seems like the timespan defense (well, they haven't committed X in the last Y time period, despite having committed this offense Z times before) gets used way too often. And frankly, I think that the 'I'm in an Arbcom' defense is getting abused too. Dean's well aware of all of this stuff, he's been in multiple arbcoms, block him. ThuranX 15:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Not much a non-admin can do but warn him, sorry :) I would agree to a block if he continues though. — Moe 16:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
He appears to have stopped, at least for now. — Moe 16:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a 24 hour block. DurovaCharge! 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Thatcher131 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Noting my endorsement. Daniel Bryant 06:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:141.151.83.163[edit]

I'm posting this here instead of WP:AIV as this is a low frequency vandal. 141.151.83.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just returned from a block and recently made 8 edits as vandalism. This IP's entire editing history has been vandalism to Philadelphia related sports topics. Can this IP please be blocked again for a longer length of time? --After Midnight 0001 15:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I reported this on WP:AIV before I reverted and saw no warnings on his talk page for recent vandalism. After Midnight, how does this user know how to stop his actions if you never warn while he is vandalizing? I left his a final warning message and that should do it. If he persists, report on AIV. — Moe 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
A small report on WP:AIV was logged and your complaint has been read. Me or my representative will be in touch.Ned606Wi 16:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, dare I ask representative of whom and for what purpose? — Moe 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Moe, you are correct that I did not warn the user while they were vandalising. However, you should note that the user had received several messages the last time that they vandalised and did receive a block. The user certainly had the opportunity to receive these messages and was blocked during a prior session, which is a pretty strong message in itself. Also, please note that AIV instructions specifically direct this type of vandalism reporting to this page as AIV is only for cases where immediate action is required. --After Midnight 0001 16:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
AIV is used for immediate response of IP vandalism, which of course would have been the case if you had responded accordingly. AIV actually says "use the links above", not specifically this page, just pointing out. Regardless of what AIV says, when a users starts vandalizing on this site, common sense tells us to warn him of his actions, not wait until he commits 8 acts of vandalism, not warn him and expect him to get blocked. Again, if he starts again, go ahead and revert and report so he can be blocked, but at least, next time, if an IP starts, warn them. — Moe 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Moe, I agree that it is best to warn when the user is vandalising, but until I get the special bells to ring in my head to alert me to check the articles and the watchlist when the vandalism is occurring, I can not always be there to do it in time. There is a difference between "wait until he commits 8 acts of vandalism" and just not being aware of something while it is happenning. Please keep in mind that we all do the best that we can here, we are not neglectful or lazy, as I feel you are suggesting to me. --After Midnight 0001 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this is what you are implying, because it wasn't my intention and I apologize. But you seem to want something more to be done, am I correct? If it a block on the IP, after the user has stopped, we must not block for the sake of blocking. — Moe 17:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I've seen you around here for a long time, so I'm glad that I was wrong regarding your intent. It is frustrating to me that a user who makes many vandal edits from a seemingly static IP can't be treated more harshly, but I understand that is the way it goes.... --After Midnight 0001 17:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding :) — Moe 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it was misrepresentative on my own behalf to bestow a title on my fellow computer user (now immersed in other computer matters (IBM)), to call him a representative. All I meant was; my roommate who's more knowledgeable on this matter will shortly be offering his help.Ned606Wi 16:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is fine. — Moe 16:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the roommate of Ned60wi and am quite perturbed to see that he offered my services for free. I guess he wants to pay all the rent this month. Nothing personal, but if you want my help you'll have to pay like everyone else.Veepersleeper 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't need help with anything, this matter has been resolved. — Moe 18:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's just that- my roommate keeps doing this crap to me! Im about ready to walk out of here, you know.Veepersleeper 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If he keeps doing that to you, maybe you should charge double for that rent :) — Moe 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
PS I left a firm message on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ned606Wi to let him know where I stand! and am asking you guys in advance not to block me since I toned down the blue streak. Thank ya!Veepersleeper 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please block Veepersleeper because I dont need sarcasm on my talk page. And no, Veep, you cant use my computer.Ned606Wi 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't block for this reason. If you two could take this conversation off-wiki, that would be most helpful. — Moe 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If those two would be civil, we could get a lot more done around here. Seriously guys, buy each other a beer.BoredRat 19:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It always worked with my roommate. Oops-former roommate. Having a beer after an argument is rarely a good idea.Ralph $20,000 yr Engineer 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You're an engineer and you only make 20,000/yr.? You are also an idiot.Danny the Destroyer 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that four brand new users have come straight to this thread to argue with each other? IrishGuy talk 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. And I count 5. — Moe 19:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I started all this trouble. Veepersleeper's the only one I know. The other ones are StellaConfusingNanniegoats.Ned606Wi 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked all five as troll accounts. I feel rather confident that these are all the same user. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. I didn't want to do it myself without getting input from someone else. IrishGuy talk 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks on a user talk page[edit]

Hi. I've tried to ask ask User:Curiouscdngeorge to remove the personal attacks on Ronbo76 on his talk page, without success. The guy misspells Ronbo's name in a dozen demeaning ways and makes section headers that look like Ronbo wrote it. I think the section should go, and I'm not sure what else to do besides RFC. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 00:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks are a blockable offense, but I don't care for that. All I want is that section be removed. Xiner (talk, email) 04:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
If there's a more appropriate forum for this type of problem, please let me know. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While going over a front page article, I came across this account: User talk:Curious2george. Please, can someone take a look at this issue? It'll only take a minute. Just scroll to the bottom of talk page. Thanks in advance. Xiner (talk, email) 01:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kmnmo[edit]

Can someone please look into this User and see whether they are eligable to have a temporary ban. Although not a significant issue, for one month this User has repeatedly (daily) continually reversed referenced data, and replaced with own data. The User has also ignored all attempts of communication in explaining what they are doing is against wikipedia policy. They have also made their own page of data in a forum with fake data, then referenced it. [30] thanks so much60.234.242.196 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter[edit]

For nearly 2 weeks now, this article has been under attack by sock puppeteers, vandals and agenda pushers. Could the editors there get some assistance? Some of the socks have been dealt with, but they keep coming back and have been joined by a number of people trying to push in controversial material despite discussion on the talk page. Any help would be fantastic. Kyaa the Catlord 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the problem is that regular editors oppose 'recentism' in any form, then use the 'it's been weeks and no one is talking about it' argument to avoid inclusions. The fact that multiple editors left comments about Coulter's use of 'gay' as an attack comment against Edwards, and even before that in multiple instances, thus constituting a notable pattern, and that one editor left a list of six different national specific coverage/reaction instances, and so on is ALL dismissed as activist recentism is no doubt part of the reason for the edit war. The simple fact is that Coulter's aware of the impact of her comments, and the media noise it generates, and so on. To not include a known pattern of behavior which even the conservative talking heads are repudiating, instituted against a major political figure, saying 'let's wait and see' each time she does it, is to make the article inherently POV. If she says something stupid, and gets called about it, it should be included with citation. That's what Wikipedia's here for. Documentation. No one's denying what she said, it's on tape and all over the internet. Apparently some editors can support that it's a pattern with citation, making it doubly notable, and still it's deflected with 'Let's avoid recentism'. I don't have a solution, but the page is guaranteed to keep being subject to edits seeking to include it. I recommend that the regular group of editors finds a way to include it with proper citation. If you take control of how it's phrased, you can probably control it more than the general denial on grounds of 'recentism' pattern. ThuranX 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thuran, you make some good points, but I think Kyaa's worried about sockpuppetry. Repost your content concerns to the talk page, but I would also like a checkuser on the new crop of rednames that have appeared on the article talk pages, just to keep things even. --kizzle 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No thanks. You already linked to this AN/I at the talk page. Anyone interested can read my comment here. ThuranX 21:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to do what you wish, I just think addressing content issues about Ann Coulter on WP:AN/I is not going to get a lot of attention from admins. --kizzle 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Offhand I think I agree with ThuranX. I hope article ownership issues aren't keeping important information out of this article, for example I heard about the Edwards comment today and... no mention of that in her Wikipedia article. Various things I know about her from over the years are also not in the article. --W.marsh 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you'd take a look at the talk page, you'll see that we're considering putting it in, we're just waiting to get a better assessment of how notable it is. Remember, Wikipedia is not a news site. --kizzle 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I know what Wikipedia is and isn't, no reminder wanted. If lots of people are looking for it, and it can be backed up by reliable sources... it should go in. If no one cares much after a few weeks or months, it should be axed. But lots of people check a Wikipedia article when someone is in the news... we write for them, not for ourselves. That's just how I look at it. --W.marsh 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, Like W.Marsh said. It's WP:OWN all over the place there. Kizzle's reply? "we're just waiting to get a better assessment of how notable it is. Remember, Wikipedia is not a news site." She means:'We want to avoid recentism' Forget it. This AN/I was a sham to look like they cared about other people's opinions. DeanHinnen will be showing up any moment to protect it all in the name of Freeper fair and balanced reporting. ThuranX 21:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So how does the fact that I proposed to include it factor in with your recent comment? Am I still a "freeper"? --kizzle 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You haven't proposed to include it, youv'e proposed waiting to see how it settles out to see if it survives your percieved 'recentism'. It's the same WP:OWN and defense of a conservative hero. You might not actually BE a Freeper, but you're sharing their same 'keep our heroes' pages clean of criticism' mentality. Do not represent reasserting recentism as b einb the same as actually wanting to include it. But I'm done with this issue. Nothing's going to change it, because no matter how many editors showed up to get it in, in a week, the article would bre back to it's core editors, who would revert it out again. Not worth debating any more.ThuranX 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The irony of your assessment of my political persuasion is amazing. Ask Kyaa. --kizzle 23:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was too busy laughing at ThuranX. :P Kyaa the Catlord 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, if people must argue about this somewhere, argue at Talk:Ann Coulter, and remember, she is a living person, with all that implies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:RFC is thataway. Unless someone presents evidence of sockpuppet block evasion this looks like a content dispute. DurovaCharge! 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. --kizzle 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [31] Your wish is my desire. Last time we had this same pattern, the admin who FINALLY stepped in suggested we waited too long to take this to AN/I. I don't wait and we get attacked. WTF Wikipedia? Kyaa the Catlord 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
We still need admin interest in this. Despite over a dozen distinct, national or international level Sources, despite editors expressing interest in seeing the info and shock that it was not included, Kyaa and Kizzle continue to sit on 'recentism' as a reason to not include the information. I have added it, in light of the massive amount of policy based support for its' inclusion, and Kyaa's response was to allege a WP:POINT Violation. I have offered to ignore that, but I doubt it will stand or last. An admin needs to step in NOW anre review it. ThuranX 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean, you disagree about an editor about the content of an article? That's a content dispute. Talk:Ann Coulter plz. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, This page needs an ADMIN. ThuranX 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the checkuser link. To make matters clear, allegations need to be supported by adequate and relevant evidence. It would have been better to have a description along with the checkuser link that connected all the logical dots. If you want admin volunteer time devoted to your problem, it helps to organize information that the admins can follow up on. I'll look into this. DurovaCharge! 01:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've upgraded to full page protection on the article, set to expire Tuesday. That should be long enough for the checkuser result to come in. DurovaCharge! 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look over there. - FaAfA (yap) 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
ThuranX, the page has an admin. Cool Hand Luke has been overlooking it and helping with edits for a month or so. And really, accusing kizzle of being an admirer of Ann Coulter is amusing on so many levels. Take a look at the archive pages. --Ubiq 11:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hank Ramsey[edit]

I have indef blocked this user. For any admins take a look here, here and also in my delete log. User has been continually abusive and blocked on many occasions. Personal attacks galore. I feel this is the right decision as we really don't need this on Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Sasquatch t|c 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would indef for this alone. — Moe 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, you beat me to it. I was right about to block him myself. I also had to revert some personal attacks he made about you on his talk page after you blocked him. IrishGuy talk 01:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks guys :-) happy editing. Sasquatch t|c 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Jetwave Dave re-uploading and mistagging deleted images.[edit]

Jetwave Dave (talk · contribs) seems to not understand or care about our Wikipedia:image use policy despite several attempts to point it out to him [32] [33] [34]. After attempting to delete the mistagged images speedily (he removed the tag) I took them to wikipedia copyright problems [35] where they were deleted.

Discovering they were gone - he simply reuploaded the images [36] (I speedied some of them) [37] and issued a firm warning on his talk page [38]. He has apparently ignored this and continued to upload images tagging them as GFDL see Image:Rolls Royce HMG.JPG.

He has made some useful contributions, however at this point in time his image uploading habits are making him more trouble than he's worth as a user. I would like him banned/blocked from uploading images. Megapixie 01:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been through the recent uploads and deleted those where the claim seems false. (i.e. Obvious scans from books and newspapers). I've also left a warning on his page. --pgk 12:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cooluser607 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Resolved

I indef blocked this user. He was only recreating the same deleted article, and then in anger he blanked part of my talk page and then went on to blank articles I had authored. I didn't give him a final warning before the block because it looked like he was beginning a spree of deletions. If I was in error for not giving a final warning first, please feel free to unblock. Thanks for any input. IrishGuy talk 01:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The first warning issued by User:Hojimachong was sufficient enough considering it mentioned the blocking policy, which you never mentioned. If the blocking policy was never mentioned I would have considered one more shot, but it was. Newbies biggest mistakes are wondering, "what are they going to do about it if I do screw up their site", and thats when when unexpectedly block them :| Support indefblock. — Moe 02:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. IrishGuy talk 02:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mass spamming of a survey[edit]

Resolved

I have had a nessage added to my talk page asking me to take place in a survey of wikipedians. [39] Anyone knoww whats going on with this. I have blocked the user temporarily, about to ask for an explanation and refer them to this post. ViridaeTalk 02:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User unblocked. Seems legit. Still would like opinions on this however. ViridaeTalk 02:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a attempt to gain personal information when you think about it. Who offers $10 to take a survey, and how else to claim your prize if you give him your personal information. But I could just be assuming bad faith.. — Moe 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's hosted on the National University of Singapore's website, not some random one, and it appears to be a legitimate research project. You can choose to have the money donated to the WMF (which is what I did), or emailed as an Amazon.com certificate to you. The only information required was your username and email. *shrug*. I've participated in a lot of university research projects, though, so maybe I'm more trusting than most. —bbatsell ¿? 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't ask for any compromising information. Less than most surveys, in fact. I took the survey, and am pretty sure it's legit. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be treating a seemingly legitimate research project with such extreme behavior; he's not spamming a pornography site or his personal blog, it's a research survey. We should be honored that people want to research us like this. — Deckiller 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeh, your more trusting than me Bbatsell :) Sorry for assuming bad faith to whoever is sending those messages out :0 But seriously, Wikipedia isn't suppposed to be used for advertising a survey, so I would discourage his mass spamming, someone like me may get the wrong idea about it. :) — Moe 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently only the first two hundred are getting the $10 for themselves or the Foundation and the rest just take the survey *shrug* If there was ever a time for Jimbo to have 199 sockpuppets, now would have been the time :) — Moe 02:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I took it - maybe I'm naive, but it seemed legit., if slightly intrusive in the personal info sought. Hopefully it is legit. and the Foundation will get my $10. Metamagician3000 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The user in question emailed me and demonstrated how the users being "spammed" were chosen for the study. If anyone wants a copy of the email, either email me yourself (and notify me of that on my talk page - it all goes to the junk email folder) or show me how to do a show/hide box to put it in here... Either way, I am satisfied that this is legitimate. I just got a bit jumpy when I had a look at the contribs and saw the mass spamming. ViridaeTalk 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the user who is soliciting for responses to this online survey. If you require more information about the study that my school is conducting, pls drop by my talk page. Once again, thanks Viridae for assuming good faith and lifting the block so quickly. --WikiInquirer 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Requesting checkuser[edit]

Resolved

Hello, everyone. My user page was vandalized by yet another "meatspin.com" vandal (I've been gotten this kind of vandalism several times now, one of them being on my talk page) and I think have every reason to believe that it's Oragoegrhroe (talk · contribs), Oragoegrhroeg (talk · contribs), and Bc2354234 (talk · contribs). Can someone please look into this for me? Thanks in advance. // DecaimientoPoético 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser → thataway. Picaroon 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot about that. Thanks! // DecaimientoPoético 03:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Policy[edit]

Fyslee has made it perfectly clear on Fyslee's talk page to never use Fyslee's real name for the security of his family. An editor has revealed this person's real life name without permission or consent. Further, this editor has made dubious accusations about Fyslee, a long standing good contributor to Wikipedia. This may be blockworthy. --QuackGuru 03:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) has not been around for a while. I warned/asked him.