Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive74

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Having trouble blocking a user?[edit]

I don't know why this is, but there is a vandal who I have attempted to block completely, yet they seem to still be able to edit quite often. If you look at User talk:Odin of Valhalla, it lists all of the IPs this user uses, all of which have indefinite blocks on them at this point. And yet, even today the user seems to have been able to go through and vandalize the same page again (they insist on inserting erroneous and out of date information into List of countries with nuclear weapons, despite having been talked to about this for a number of weeks now and given about a thousand warnings). What gives? Am I doing something wrong here with the blocking? Why are they are able to still edit pages? --Fastfission 18:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Specifically, 69.218.202.201 (talk · contribs · block log) was blocked indefinitely on 9 Feb 2006 but was able to vandalize up a storm on 10 Feb 2006. --Fastfission 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    The shortest active block takes precedence and overrides all longer ones. (You also should almost never indef block an IP: knock them out for 1 month, 3 months or something, but not forever.) -Splashtalk 19:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You should really only block an IP for 24 hours. Secretlondon 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless it's an open proxy, of course, which can be blocked indefinitely. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've converted most of those IP blocks to a month, I hadn't realized that they shouldn't be blocked indef but I can see why. So, is the answer here to my general question: I should "unblock" the other blocks and then "re-block" with the one I really want? --Fastfission 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You can't block a range of IP addresses for a month as per policy because of the collateral damage. 24 hours please. Secretlondon 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It isn't a range, it is a set of a few addresses this one fellow seems to use, and nobody else seems to use. Two of them in particular seem to be his primary IP and it seems relatively fixed (at least one is a public terminal at a library, a few of the others are probably things of this nature). The fellow returns every day to vandalize and does little else, and I think the IPs that look static could easily be justified as blocked for over 24 hours, though I'm happy with reducing the blocks in the other cases (though again without any evidence of collateral damage I'm hard pressed to see it as a bigger problem than a repeat vandalizer, but I digress). In any event, my main question is still unanswered about the technical nature of it, not the policy of it. --Fastfission 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • The policy on IP blocks is clear - I am really politely asking you to stick to it - or I will have no choice to revert you. Secretlondon 17:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • There are always choices. kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't understand the tech aspect in this instance either: there was an expired (24 hr) block from 4 Feb, then several indef/1 month blocks on 10/11 Feb starting at 01:20 on 10 Feb. No unblocking or shorter blocks logged until 19:10 on 11 Feb, yet a bunch of contributions from the IP in the intervening period. What gives? Rd232 talk 20:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and Analogdemon (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

These users have added clearly inappropriate content to their user pages in imitation of SPUI (talk · contribs). It is clear that as a project we aren't going to permit this sort of material on user pages; c.f. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war. I have removed the material in question and left notes on talk pages and have been reverted and accused of vandalism in both cases. I believe at a minimum these user pages should be protected but would support additional measures as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. If we ignore them they will get board.Geni 02:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see an upside to escalating this. Actioning their userpages only draws further attention and perpetuates this cycle. I'm pretty sure that, if left alone, it'd dissipate. User:Adrian/zap2.js 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Threats from Amorrow/Emact/Fplay/whatever name he's using now[edit]

[1], [2]. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Contributor on Irritable Bowel Syndrome article that is using personal attacks and threats[edit]

We need some help in dealing with a a new contributor on the Irritable bowel syndrome article. I have been called a nazi, having bias and being a vandal because their contribution was reverted even though I explained why the insertion was being reverted in the edit note. There was some discussion about this, much of it pure fabrication in the character assassination of myself, and now they have added threats to not revert their addition to the article or else. Can you please assist in how to deal with this. Ibsgroup 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of known sockpuppet User:Brian Brockmeyer[edit]

User:Brian Brockmeyer, User:Flavius Aetius and two IPs were checkuser'ed as sockpuppets of User:Almeidaisgod; all accounts have been used to POV push/edit war and evade 3RR's on similar articles (Ken Mehlman and University of Miami in particular). checkuser After noticing that User:Brian Brockmeyer had begun removing the sockpuppet notices on his userpage (aided by User:Juicedpalmeiro, who perhaps needs to be checkuser'ed as well), I added the sock tags back and asked him not to remove them unless he wants to use that account permanently and ditch the others. The response was: JuicedPalmeiro again removed the tags (replacing them with a barnstar) and Brian Brockmeyer left a message on my talk page calling me a cunt. [3] His userpage is now protected with the sock tags intact, and I have blocked the Brian Brockmeyer account for a week for edit warring to scrub the sock tags and for his unsavory comment about me. I leave this here for other administrators to review, since the attack was made against me. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lopperz[edit]

I blocked Lopperz (talk · contribs) because of edits to the now-deleted "article" U suck, which read:

I will keep writing nonsense, if u want wikipedia to be saved then maybe u should stop the war in iraq.

u have 48 hours to decide, the fate of wikipedia rests wit u guys now

hahahahahahahhahahah...ahahhahahha....ahahahhah.hahah.ehh, not funny

Via email, Lopperz claims that his/her account was hacked and they have now changed the password. I have unblocked the account. Please keep an eye out. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin taking it upon himself to veto IFD results and delete images himself[edit]

User:Wgfinley is going around making snap decisions on what constitutes fair use himself and removing and deleting images outright that he disagrees with, even ones that he unsuccessfully put through IFD and were kept because they did meet fair use guidelines. See User talk:Wgfinley for some discussion, where a number of users inclusing an admin on the IFD project all tried to talk to him without success. He is ingoring comments from people trying to explain the concept to him, treating anyone questioning his actions as "uncivil" behavior" and refusing to undo his deletions. Can we please get this person to stop playing cowboy and enforcing his own ideas of rules on the project?

Furthermore, we are seeing more and more cases where admins are just doing whatever the heck they want because they want to and not following any policy or listening to otehr editors or admins... It'd be nice if other admins and ArbCom members would actually stand up and show that this behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated. This is becoming more and more like the Wild West here, with people who are in the worst position to be making decisions going ahead and doing them and daring everyone else to do anything about it. DreamGuy 18:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately images can't be undeleted, which makes this sort of behaviour even more unacceptable. It certainly seems clear that Wgfinley has drifted into behaviour outside his remit as an admin. I've left him a message pointing this out, and asking him to put images through the appropriate channels in future. We're all human, and can all act over-hastily on occasion, but should try not to make a habit of it, as the discussions on his Talk page indicate that he is.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC).

Given that the Foundation's lawyer has recently explicitly said that on en: admins should delete if in doubt (on foundation-l) — and that he refers you to what the Foundation's lawyer has said — I suspect it's possible he's right and you're not, and legal exposure is not really something that's up for a vote or straw poll. Don't let me hold you back, though - David Gerard 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Legaly any claim of fair use is in doubt until it has been through the courts. Since this is not the case with any wikipedia images we would have to delete every fair use image in order to follow that directive.Geni 19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
If you take the time to read the discussion on User talk:Wgfinley referred to above, you will see examples such as AP photos being claimed "fair use" when the copyright holder has expressed actual pissed-offness about us claiming that, and that the Foundation would rather not do that unnecessarily. But again, don't let me talking about the case at hand hold you back from going from specific to general and back to a different specific as if it's related to what I said (strike undue snappiness) - David Gerard 19:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen every abuse of fair use you can think of. I know how bad things are. I was just pointing out the legal advice is pretty useless. Personaly I would have orphan the image (since it isn't fair use in this case). Re-educate anyone who objected and then wait for the normal deletion of orphan fairuse images to take place.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, sorry about me snapping at you like that - David Gerard 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me Geni. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Tempting as killing every fairuse image would be I can think of a few narrow areas in which they are legit.Geni 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
edit-conflict It looks like one of our articles about a porn star was using a DVD cover as an illustration of her, rather than to identify the film in question. We probably shouldn't do that. We certainly shouldn't vote on WP:IFD to allow that. As far as I can tell, the only interesting things here are why User:Wgfinley deleted this image and not the thousands of other images used in precisely the same wrong way, and why anyone is making a fuss about the deletion of an image of a DVD cover, which is surely replacable if we ever have a legitimate use of it. Jkelly 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It's also important to note that one set of complaints about the deletions is plainly inappropriate. This set of disputed deletions (example at Image_talk:Adele_Stevens.jpg) required the insertion of linkspam -- not simply a copyright credit -- as a condition for image use, and essentially required Wikipedia to accept advertising links. It's hard to see how any responsible editor would not have deleted all such images on sight, given the copyright holder's position. Monicasdude 19:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy that removal of fair-use images from articles where they're not used fairly is good parctice. I'm also happy that sometimes images are claimed to be fair use when they're not. I'm not happy about three points, though.

  1. David Gerard seems to be saying that, because in some of the cases discussed on Wgfinley's Talk page he was in the right, therefore he's beyond criticism, full stop. That's such an obvious logical fallacy that I can't believe that he meant it, but I'm unsure what he did mean.
  2. The existence of the image on Wikipedia can't be fair use or non-fair use in itself, because it's not being used. Fair use applies to the use being made of an image. If I up-load an image in preparation for genuinely fair use in an article, is Wgfinley entitled to leap in before I can go further and delete it on the grounds that it's not fair use yet, because it's not linked to an article?
  3. Kim Bruning has followed my comment at User talk:Wgfinley by saying essentially that I'm wrong, and asking to talk privately about the matter because it's "political". OK, ignoring the last bit of characteristic ostentatious cloak and dagger stuff, his reason is that Wikipedia policy is: "if in doubt, zap it". Are we really supposed to accept that any admin can delete an image because of a feeling of doubt, even when a group of other editors have discussed the issue and decided that the image is OK? When did admins gain these god-like powers of discrimination, and why was I left out?
    I did not say that you were wrong. In fact, elsewhere I have been stating that I may well have to concede that you are correct. Kim Bruning 00:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oh, a fourth point. We're supposed to put up with sarcastic attacks from one of the finger-waggers because we go against what some nameless faceless lawyer said on some forum of which many of us aren't members? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
not nameless, not faceless. --BradPatrick 12:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Use is a key part of fair use. You've got a week to get the image into an article (probably longer becuase it will take a while for people to find it).Geni 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fine: we put a tag on the image, let the up-loader know, and after a week the image can be deleted if no objection is raised or consensus reached. We don't take a quick look and delete, especially after an IfD has been held and passed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Wether or not an image listed as fair uses has been in an article for a week is an objective criteria. There are no posible objections that can be made.Geni 01:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we would get a lot further here if some of the inflammatory tones could be avoided, I won't cite chapter and verse, it's pretty obvious and there's major contributor on my user page already. I have explanations on what I did on each of these pages. Why did I delete them out of process? Because the process is broke. IFD is a broken, it's a cesspool of stuff that sits there and gets deleted. If someone has a gripe about their image they post it there and their image is spared because the vast majority of images on IFD have little or no input. That's not a good sign of community support, it's a sign of indifference.

Frankly, I don't know why copyvio isn't a speedy category and it should be. But, I'll admit it, I saw the email on Foundation and I chose to make a stand with those images -- two were as blatant copyvios as they come, had no fair use rationale provided, were link spam and incorrectly tagged several time before Fair Use was the fallback option. The other I was making a point that these images are frequently being abused and, as frequently happens, someone goes to fix the abuse only to get reverted. I removed the image being abused.

The two other images, again, blatant obvious copyvios and should be framed as examples of such -- I have yet to hear any argument here that states these images are not copyvios, just that what I did was out of process. So, what's more important, the process or the fact that copyvios get removed and protect Wikipedia from exposure to litigation? If the answer is that avoiding litigation is more important than great, let's do something about fixing the process. I don't wish to set a precedent that any admin can delete such images on site (although I think two of these are incredibly obvious), I was trying to correct something that's broken. --Wgfinley 08:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't like IFD? That ok we have WP:CP instead. Want to speedy copvios? You can CSD A8.Geni 16:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I considered that but since A8 applies to articles I didn't think that would work. The problem with WP:CP is that there's not much image traffic there, everything seems to go to IFD. Maybe that's a correction that would work here but the page is usually in need of admin attention. If you look at the very top of WP:CP right now you'll see what drew my attention to this in the first place. --Wgfinley 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Then start putting together a consensus for A8 to be expanded beyond the article space. WP:CP deals with images quite frequently.Geni 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer?[edit]

I wonder if it would be helpful to prominently place a disclaimer like the following:

If your contribution to Wikipedia is material under a non-free license, and you claim that it is "fair use", please accept that it may be removed or even permanently deleted at any time for reasons that may appear capricious or nonsensical to you, and that you may never receive a compelling explanation.

If we are really moving to a "If in doubt, delete" position on copyright infringements defended by a "fair use" claim, we can't rely either upon a somewhat difficult-to-parse remark on a mailing list very few editors read, nor upon WP:OWN, nor upon the diplomatic or consensus-building skills of those people who are volunteering to deal with image policy, nor upon every logged-in user understanding WP:FU. This issue has been generating an enormous amount of ill-will. We should invest the time in thinking about a way to reduce the level of antagonism. Jkelly 21:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a warning sounds good to me. It might stem the flood of non-free images. --Carnildo 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I would generally be in favour of a warning something like that. I think that the problem is that a lot of users don't really understand copyright law. Even experienced users don't always know when something is fair use (fair use is a very tricky concept) or in the public domain. A lot of users don't really understand that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and that copyvios are a major risk to that idea. I think that we definitely need to emphasise more the importance of copyright compliance to the project. JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be expanded upon at WP:OWN. That guideline should probably mention contributions not even vaguely owned by the contributor in the first place. Jkelly 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating CSD[edit]

I have been bold and updated CSD I5 to reflect the new policies that the Foundation apparently wants. I know David Gerard thinks that process killed his puppy dog, but maybe next time he could take the 3 minutes it takes him to think up witty barbs of well-meaning editors and admins and update the policy or talk pages, instead. Nandesuka 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories for Speedy Deletion overrides all else again eh? specifically Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and Wikipedia:Fair use today, I see :-)
This is in fact the official CSD "owners'" position, see: [4], where the explicit statement was removed as rejected.
Ah well, good luck getting it to stick by the way. I hope it works, because that will save me some sleepless nights. Thanks. :-) Kim Bruning 13:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I've pulled it. The current version is fine since all it requires you to do is orphan the image then wait for a week. Patience is an important traint in an admin. Even in it's current version it is still far more liberal than A8.Geni 16:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't have to wait for a week to delete copyvios. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, policies describe what it is that we do. It is clear that there is a Foundation mandate to delete images for which bogus fair use claims are made. Given that, it should be in the policy. Nandesuka 19:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Considering the number of mistakes that have been made (will people please remeber that mirrors exist) I think it is reasonable to have to wait a week. Remeber A8 exists for obvious cases.Geni 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gengineer (talkcontribs)[edit]

As I recall from a few incidents during hurricane katrina, wikipedia *might* have a block-on-sight policy for blantent white supremacists, somebody look into this--152.163.100.65 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a block on sight semi-policy for vandals who vandalize high-traffic pages with racist crap; being a white supremacist (if he is) is not in itself a blockable offense. Any more than being a pedophile is. *chuckle* --Golbez 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
How exactly is that funny?--152.163.100.65 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Make it a category. As time goes on, it appears it will fill to the brim... Tomertalk 05:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

List of interesting or unusual place names[edit]

My first rouge action. I've deleted the redirect despite it not being a speedy deletion candidate. I've also (slightly more provocativly) protected it against recreation

Verifiability and neutral point of view are not negotiable, and the article exists in a location where it can happily stay until these problems are corrected. Cross-namespace redirects are allowed if they are "useful" and this one is not.

brenneman{T}{L} 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to mention that the outcome of the deletion review (c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and 14 for endorse) was noted at User_talk:R._fiend#Deletion_review and not contested by User:R. fiend, prior to the relisting as per Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Decisions_to_be_reviewed. -- User:Docu
Please put this up for deletion at MfD, rather than speedying it. I had restored the redirect after finding two different users who had been searching for its current location (after seeing the AfD result) but hadn't found it. Usefulness includes having existing external links to the page, which this years-old list certainly has. Verifying or neutralizing statements about what is or is not unusual or list-worth is a recurring problem, and not a reason to move article content into another namespace; that's not what namespaces are for. +sj + 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
They'll just have to get used to the new URL. Jeez, typing 11 more characters is hardly going to kill anyone. FCYTravis 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

*cackles maniacally at Brenneman's journey to the dark side*--Sean Black (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOIOUPN anyone?Geni 10:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Brainhell unblocked[edit]

I have unblocked Brainhell (talk · contribs), upon request received via info-en. A review of the circumstances of the block, conducted by myself and Antandrus could find no reason for Lucky 6.9's original accusations of personal attack, and the response by Lucky 6.9, including three blocks of Brainhell appears to me to have been disproportionate, if not wholly unjustified. The parties are being notified. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking without a discussion with the original blocking admin is inappropriate, and has led to Lucky 6.9 having left the project since you took the side of a harasser over a well-respected admin. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that an unblock without discussion with the blocker is automatically inappropriate. Sure, as a general rule, discussion is good. But it's up to the blocker to make the reasons for the block clear. If people looked for reasons for the block and were unable to find them, unblocking is not unreasonable. Blocking should not be done lightly, and it should be well-justified so others can easily see why it was done. Friday (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

false vandalism charges[edit]

I have been blocked for apparent repeated vandalism, but I have never vandalized a page. How does something like this happen? What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave troll (talkcontribs)

There's nothing in the block log for you, so you do not appear to be blocked--and if you are able to post here, you can't be blocked. What exactly is the problem? Antandrus (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It was probably an autoblock or a rolling IP block; those often prevent editors from editing the main article namespace while allowing them to edit the other namespaces. As to why, I have no clue, but I've seen it happen enough to think of it first when I see something like this. Essjay TalkContact 10:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Tactik and Tactik's IP erasing comments[edit]

As evidenced below, Tactik and his IP have been erasing my comments on pages, and in some cases creatively editing other user's comments to be less critical. Also, User:Muzboz User:Tobler1 and User:Andy hoffman have all been recently created and their only edits have been to vote in a poll [5] in support of tactik, a poll in which Tactik himself has openly voted twice (once with registered, and once with IP). Clearly these are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

User:Tactik Erasing my comments: [6] Tactic's IP erasing my comment at the bottom (as part of "cleaning up"): [7]

Knowledge management[edit]

Dmezei (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has decided that removing citations to his own publications means that we can no longer use "his" text in this article. He tells me that if I try to use "his" text, I will be blocked for violating his copyright. Knowing how seriously we take copyright, I think you'd better know about it. And you might want to check whether his edits constitute vandalism, and whether he's violated WP:3RR. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

< defuse defuse defuse > I would like to try and calm Dme

zei down a bit, and would like to take a long look at the edits and references now deleted. I have some moderate familiarity with KM. Though I don't think you're in the wrong, JzG, it might help if you left him alone for a bit while I take a look. < / defuse defuse defuse > Georgewilliamherbert 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Should have spotted this before, you are of course entirely right. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential Troll[edit]

I just recently removed a slanderous comment from an article talkpage [8], and I am bothered by this user's comments on his user and talkpage as well[9]. However, I decided to assume good faith and leave a welcome and small warning regarding this; I'm requesting an administator keep an eye on his contributions and dealings with wikipedia just to be on the safe side. -ZeroTalk 18:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hrm... looking at his user page gives that impression too. Your warning was tactful: nice work. Anyway, I'll be happy to do my part keeping my eyes on him. Thanks for the heads up. – ClockworkSoul 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I have never crossed these users before. Why do they hate me...? -ZeroTalk 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kikodawgzz[edit]

This user has recently uploaded a number of images that have been "gleaned" from various USENET postings. Because these sort of postings have absolutely have no copyright information whatsoever, I am seriously considering speedy deleting them as blatant copyvios. Comments? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, unknown copyright is not any different from copyrighted. – ClockworkSoul 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The other problem is that this user has been removing a few "no source" tags on images that (s)he has uploaded without giving any reason [10]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I notice that he has also been adding source tags to images that he doesn't have the right to add them to (GNU tags, for example, to images that he claims to have taken from some USENET post). He needs to be warned sternly but fairly that this is inappropriate. If he does not or cannot shape up, a block is in order. Can somebody with a more thorough understanding of our IP policies than I do it? – ClockworkSoul 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
        • He's been blanking his talk page of warnings about the images. I support speedy deleting them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "You may fire when ready, Gridley." --Carnildo 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images have been added to Kingstonjr (talk · contribs)'s non-worksafe gallery at User:Kingstonjr. Jkelly 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • He seems to be heading in the right direction. Most of the images that I check seem to have valid tags. Of course, I haven't done an exhaustive check, but he'll adapt in time, I think. – ClockworkSoul 15:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

KAJ/Johnski[edit]

I blocked KAJ (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) as a sock/meatpuppet of Johnski (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). He has emailed me a couple of times asking me to reconsider. I mention it here so someone can review my decision if they want to. Tom Harrison Talk 23:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Goatse vandal[edit]

A vandal has been creating new accounts rapidly and changing links to goatse.ca, as well as other vandalism. He has edited many warning/welcome/etc templates. He uses deceptive edit summaries like "rv vandalism" (while adding vandalism). IMO any account with this pattern should be blocked indefinitely on sight. Quarl (talk) 2006-02-14 00:13Z

User:SPUI[edit]

It seems to me that SPUI, banned for ten days, is still using his talk page to fan the flames of the pedophilia userbox dispute. He has reproduced the userbox on his talk page yet again. I have removed this and I recommend that the page be protected yet again to stop his unwelcome trolling. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you having some sort of vendetta against SPUI? Instead of trying further to upset a well-regarded content contributor, perhaps you might be better advised to beg him to come back? Grace Note 05:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I't neither polite nor truthful to suggest that I'm engaged in a vendetta. I like SPUI, I think his road edits are great. But he's trolling and that isn't permitted here, and he knows that. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It was a question, Tony, not a suggestion. Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well regarded by whom? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think page protection is the best option, this hurts other people who want to contact him more than it hurts him. He's going on Wikipedia:Probation, per tha Arb decision. Each time he reproduces the userbox, inform him that he'll be blocked an additional day each time. Log it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Once he sees that his ban length is entirely within his control, I think he'll get the point. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 06:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This is what makes me ask the question, because it's far from reasonable to continue blocking someone for something so negligible. It certainly doesn't help. Why not just leave it and him be and allow it all to blow over? Grace Note 06:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not negligible. The userbox war is a real problem, and it's not going to go away until everybody (SPUI included) stops pouring petrol on the flames and gets down to discussing a workable consensus. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it should be a minimum of 24 hours for each offense. Because it's to the point where he's just trolling, and I'm personally getting sick and tired of it. He's a great contributor, there's no question about that. But if he can't be even slightly civil about this whole thing, then it's time to question our reasons for letting him be here in the first place. Editing is a privilege, not a right. Ral315 (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

General Medical Council[edit]

Request civility block of 217.207.116.154 (talk · contribs) for civility violations on Talk:General Medical Council. JFW | T@lk 12:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Further provocative edits. Would be honoured to block that troll, but I am the main disputant. Could someone please have a look. JFW | T@lk 13:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
24 hours. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:InTheHouse[edit]

I've blocked this one as a WoW sockpuppet. Made me strongly suspicious for just so happening to choose WoW's VIP page as a redirect target for SPUI's talk page. But because it's not the standard page move thing, I thought others might want to review what I did. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Zogu blocked indefinitely[edit]

Zogu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been trolling or near-trolling to push what it considers an Albanian POV. The fun bit is, it seems to use nothing but open proxies and compromised zombie PCs to post through. I've blocked it indefinitely as an account quite definitely up to no conceivable good. Other account names following the same pattern would be most welcome.

I'm also going through the assorted IPs the account has used trying to work out WTF variety of open proxy or compromised boxes it's using. I don't know if Zogu's operator will be slowed down for even a moment, but it may help reduce the general noise level.

(Anyone with a lot of experience tracking this crap, please leave a note on my talk page or /msg me in IRC (DavidGerard on Freenode); I'm usually AFK but I do check what notes people have left me.) - David Gerard 12:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lightbringer socks on Freemasonry[edit]

Humanun Genus (talk · contribs) had the same edit pattern as Lightbringer and - woohoo! - edited only using open proxies. Blocked. Please keep me up to date on my talk page, he's making a very useful open proxy canary ;-)

By the way, a fantastically useful page for checking suspicious IPs: http://rbls.org/ - goes to a bunch of RBLs and checks the status of the IP on them. Please don't use this to block with unless you know very well what the reports mean - and why several red entries don't mean anything we care about (things like 'blocked sender', which means home dynamic IPs you don't want to accept email directly from). But if you do know about RBLs and their history, you'll like this - David Gerard 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Paulo Fontaine[edit]

Paulo_Fontaine (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has, as usual, started adding nonsense again ([11], [12], [13]). Since this account semes to exist solely to play silly buggers and previous blocks have not changed that, have indef-blocked the account. We only have so much time to spend cleaning up after idiots. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 17:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a UK university account. If it comes back, note it here and I'll have a word with the university network admin - we've had some success in dealing with such cases in a conclusive manner - David Gerard 07:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Another reason commons sucks[edit]

Shizhao (talk · contribs), an chinese admin on Commons and Meta who has limited English skills (self-declared: en-1), has been deleting images on Commons and removing links to them on the English Wikipedia (see log at Commons, contributions here). I suspect that most of these deletions are correct to the extent that they remove fair use content from Commons, which doesn't allow fair use. Unfortunately, they also remove images (like the FedEx Logo!) where a prefectly reasonable case for fair use could have been made here, if only the images had been uploaded locally.

Could someone with a greater understanding of Commons talk to him/them about checking whether fair use content is actually being used here before deleting, and if so, move it over here first. I would presume that if someone is going to the trouble of removing the links here, that it would not be too much greater a burden to look at whether those items should have been preserved as fair use here. Dragons flight 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is something to bring up on Commons. I'm an admin there but woefully inactive, so I'll look at it. I just left him a comment. --Golbez 19:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
And removed it - this should be handled on Commons, not here. --Golbez 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
And I see no reason why the snark against Commons is needed. This is not "another" reason Commons sucks, unless you know of several others. This isn't even one reason Commons sucks. Maybe if uploaders had read the copyright guidelines before uploading images not allowed there, we wouldn't have this problem. --Golbez 19:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you actually like a list? I've had my own rights and work abused by the poor integration between Commons and Wikipedia, and honestly believe we would be better off if all images were managed locally. Dragons flight 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would love a list. --Golbez 22:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Right. If anything, User:Shizhao should receive a warm "thank-you" for taking the bother to clean up on another project by removing the dead links. The idea that a Commons admin should be forced to take responsibility for uploading copyright infringements on en: and assert that they are "fair use" strikes me as absurd. Remember, the uploader is taking personal responsibility for those copyright-infringements and is personally defending them as fair use. No one should have that demanded of them. Jkelly 19:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If a valid fair use rationale is provided at Commons, it should be copied here. We shouldn't permanently delete usable content just because someone couldn't figure out the right place to put the notice. Also, I have noticed several cases where Shizhao deleted links to images even though a local copy of the image already existed. In other words he didn't bother to check that a legitimate copy of the image already existed on EN before removing the link. Dragons flight 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the implied sentiment that there are other unaddressed concerns regarding the use of commons as an image repository for en:, I do not believe that this particular issue is anything other than the fault of the original uploader of fair-use material to commons. Commons doesn't permit fair use, and it is never the responsibility of the deleting admin to find alternate hosting for material that isn't permitted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

100% agreed with UC. Admins who clean up things like this get given far too much crap. If you're uploading fair use images, it is your responsibility to do it correctly. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:164.58.145.60[edit]

164.58.145.60 has been continually vandalizing Wikipedia articles, especially (repeatedly) Classen SAS. It is also very probable that this is a sockpuppet of Ncurses. --juli. t ? 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert McChesney Site Vandalism[edit]

User Adkinsjm, having been warned once, continues to vandalize the Robert McChesney site, posting non-neutral flaming political commentary (i.e., calling Noam Chomsky a 'hater of America'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewelch7 (talkcontribs)

"Site?" User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Robert McChesney

You mean the page? Or is he asking people to do something to someone's website? --DanielCD 03:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
He means the article. I removed one quote, as the source is Lipmagazine.com. As it's fairly inflamatory and accusatory, I think a stronger source than this is merited. I left an offer to assist in finding new sources. If the critic is interested, he's got the ball in his court. But I don't think Lipservice.com is a reliable source. --DanielCD 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

End of WiC attacks[edit]

I am User:Wikipedia is Communism. I started vandalizing on April 10, 2005 and have continued my vandalism over a long time. However I noticed that i was falling as a vandal, and that I could not become the most persistent vandal, because WoW and the NCV have both become more prolific vandals. I have been impersonated numerous times and am now deciding to apologize and stop, and never vandalize again,

Sincerely,

Wikipedia is Communism (editing as User:Alvam so that I won't get blocked)

  • Well, I, for one, am pleased to hear that. You would, of course, understand if there's a bit of healthy skepticism on the part of the administration here. Over time, we've developed what may be described as unpleasant feelings towards persistent vandals, such as the one you claim to be (you impersonated me, I think, 6 times). In fact, though I choose not to do it myself, it's very likely that you'll find yourself blocked anyway. That being said, I appreciate your decision to cease your vandalism, even if it only because you've come to the conclusion that you cannot be the #1 vandal. – ClockworkSoul 04:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Note to discussors, see also Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism#Update. 68.39.174.238 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Lou franklin[edit]

Lou franklin (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) nominated Societal attitudes towards homosexuality for AfD, and in the ensuing discussion has begun making homophobic personal attacks on those voting to keep the article. Is explicitly suggesting a vast homosexual conspiracy is keeping his POV "corrections" supressed. Georgewilliamherbert 09:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:IanDavies evading ban[edit]

User:84.9.210.195 and User:84.9.211.38 are sockpuppets of banned user User:IanDavies being used to repeatedly revert pages. See Special:Contributions/84.9.210.195 and Special:Contributions/84.9.211.38 Owain (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked - David Gerard 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Rbj[edit]

Hi all, I've blocked Rbj (talk · contribs) for a week, for his continued personal attacks against Karmafist (talk · contribs), such as this edit, where he says, among other things, "this is an admin who should never have been conceived in the first place". He's been blocked in the past for making personal attacks against Karmafist which is why I chose a week as the duration. See also the message I left on his talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Hogeye, Talk:Anarchism, and Template:AnarchismDildo[edit]

I've blocked Hogeye (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for personal attacks on Talk:Anarchism (among other places) and disruption. He has re-created {{AnarchismDildo}} after I deleted it as an obviously inflammatory and divisive template. android79 17:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

One of these days he is going to end up blocked indefinitely.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
A pretty obvious sockpuppet DildoDaggins (talk · contribs) then re-created it again. Time to salt the earth. android79 17:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

George Steinbrenner - defamation[edit]

Drtjumper has posted defamatory vandalism on the George Steinbrenner article. I reverted his changes and he has been banned indefinitely, but someone may want to actually delete the edit, particularly considering the subject. Kafziel 18:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon 24.69.14.159 personal attacks[edit]

Abusive comments by 24.69.14.159 (talk · contribs)

This person has been abusive in the past using other IP addresses and usernames:

User has verbally abused me in the past see: [15]

I cannot ban him as I am involved in editing that article. Can another admin take a look. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Another instance of personal attacks. See diff [16]. I request a temporary block as per WP:NPA

The abuse continues. Diff: [17].

    • Hmmm...seems to have left...perhaps. Give him a warning of WP:NPA, and I'll block his IPs if he continues. He is more argumentative than a regular troll through...and the personal attacks are not as bad as "automatic block" ones I've seen before. Notify him of WP:Civility and tell him to calm down.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There are already two {{NPA}} notices on his talk page. In any case, it seems that he has gone. I will keep these diffs handy if he ever trolls again. Thank you for checking. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Phone number vandalism. Personal info?[edit]

Today, I interrupted a vandal (69.174.229.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) who was posting what appears to be a North Carolina-based phone number in articles. I'm thinking that this might be considered personal information: should it be purged form the histories of the affected articles? – ClockworkSoul 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
North Carolina? North Carolina or North Carolina ? 68.39.174.238 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Good question, but I think that it was just North Carolina. I have no way of knowing for sure, though, and he only vandalized a handful of pages before I blocked him. – ClockworkSoul 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please block User:204.128.70.65[edit]

User:204.128.70.65 have been vandalising articles. Could someone block this user from editing at Wikipedia. --Abögarp 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It appears he had stopped about a half hour ago, but I thought it might be wise to block him anyway. Afterall, he may have just been taking a break from typing "penises" so many times. Wow, "penises", that's funny. – ClockworkSoul 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do use WP:AIV the next time. Thanks! :) Mailer Diablo 02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tracking Andrew Morrow (banned user:Pinktulip)[edit]

Is there a central page where this fellow is getting tracked? His personal attacks have escalated to stalking and threats sent to other editors' employers. I'm trying to build up a pattern for a strong ISP complaint, if not actual legal action - David Gerard 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.Geni 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
We could start a subpage of one of his User pages, such as User:Amorrow/incidents. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Only thing that comes close is the Template:Pinktulip. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be creating a vandalism in progress page soon on this. --Sunfazer (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dussst may be banned user User:Bourbons3[edit]

I put this up for a sockpuppet check, but the circumstantial evidence may provide enough for preliminary action. Bourbon3 was blocked for copyright violations on 15 January 2006, and his response was "**You've just lost a valuable editor to the Userbox project, JACKASS - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C. Dusst first edited on 16 January 2006, and his second edit was to add himself to the Userbox project. Also note the format of his current signature: Flag of Great Britain (1707–1800).svg • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C. I don't want him to think I'm targeting him because I oppose his opinions on userboxes, but I came across this today. Maybe there's some sort of logical explanation for the coincidences? -- nae'blis (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep its the same user... still uploading stuff as "Self edited on Adobe Photoshop" or "Edited in MS Paint" and using that as grounds to make PD stuff that clearly isnt. see Image:Barking Abbey school badge.jpg (not PD), Image:Sir Alan Sugar.JPG (Screenshot), Image:Jason Dawe.JPG (not PD), Image:Random_Event_Pillory2_crop.jpg (Screenshot), the guy clearly did not learn from his last block and persists in uploading copyvio.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have gone and reblocked this user indefinately for 2 reasons 1) repeated copyvio after being warned. 2) block avoidance, this user was already indef blocked for repeated copyright violations. If anyone has a problem with the length of this block, I will not fight a reduction.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Anotherblogger and his threats against Wikipedia[edit]

All -- Anotherblogger (talk · contribs) (who is likely this blogger) is frustrated because several editors on Perverted-Justice.com (myself included) have rejected his attempts to add his rather juvenile blog to the PJ article as an external link. He has announced that the article WILL contain the link, and basically gave an ultimatum about what might happen if it doesn't stay added ("Don't be stupid. Sites such as Wikipedia tend to be vulnerable to DDOS and other unfortunate such incidents, when its administration makes stupid censorship moves. Make the smart choice and cease from censoring the truth. As has been stated before, the revisions will be made from various IP blocks and sources, so essentially your options are limited.") I'd block him myself for these kinds of threats against Wikipedia, but am involved in the dispute over the link. I'd appreciate someone else evaluating his behavior in general and this threat in particular. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean Anotherblogger (talk · contribs)? Seems disruptive enough for a block, though I'm not sure how much good it'll do. --W(t) 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Username is actually Anotherblogger (talk · contribs). I recommend an indef-ban, as threats of a DDOS automatically end any consensus-building conversation, just as legal threats do. Jkelly 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops, yes. Thanks for fixing that. Here's another lovely one [18]. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Account indef-blocked by both User:Friday and myself. Jkelly 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User Robot32 has been blocked by a bot (page moves)[edit]

User:Robot32 has been blocked by a bot intended to block pagemove vandalism.

Please check the move log for this user and unblock if this was an error.

Please delete this message after the situation has been resolved.

This message was generated by the bot. -- Curps 20:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, the first two page moves are legitimate. Compromised account? --cesarb 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but considering the number of edits, it could just as well be an account created for this purpose, that was used a little and then left to age. --W(t) 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Orphan1 aka User:71.115.103.149 and threats of a lawsuit[edit]

I was contacted by User:Karrmann in regards to personal attacks against him over content disputes regarding the article Yugo which I protected after a request for page protection was filed. User:Orphan1 aka User:71.115.103.149 based on these edits:[19], [20] and was quite busy insulting Karrmann about his age [21], [22], [23] and then started making legal threats:[24] and I blocked him for 24 hours an he then continued the legal threats on his talk page:[25], [26], [27], and when confronted by Karrmann (who claims to be 13 years old):[28]. I'm thinking of a permanent banning, or at the least a longer block...any objections?--MONGO 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And all just so he could spam a link to his garage or something. [29] --Malthusian (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My God, this guy's not a spammer, he's... well, to make a pretense of staying within WP:NPA I'll content myself with 'insane' instead of various other words that came to mind. [30] [31] --Malthusian (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This user demonstrates incivility and continues to make legal threats. I suggest an indefinite block with "Please inform us when your legal case has completed its course, so that we may remove this block". That should give a clear 'stop it if you want to continue to be here' flavour. — Gareth Hughes 21:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've given him threatban and an indefinite block. This stuff is just unacceptable. If he pleads for an unblock, we can let him back. — Gareth Hughes 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!--MONGO 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now also indef banned User:71.115.103.149 as this IP was not blocked previously and they are the same individual.--MONGO 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture use of block and debating style: "making shit up" and "for fuck's sake"[edit]

I was recently blocked by User:Freakofnurture. Where percentages were in digits ('26') not words ('twenty six'), I changed the percent and per cent to the symbolic form %. Unfortunately User:Freakofnurture blocked me and said I should delete the space character that remained between the digit and the symbol. Eventually he said Please provide some source for the use of a space or I will block you for a greater duration'. You will see other phrases from him/her like "making shit up" and "for fuck's sake"

I am no prude but I the issue was hardly worth swearing about, particularly since I had said that I would use his/her personal preference as he/she wanted. It would have been bad if we both started swearing. I even started a debate at the Manual of style to see if there is a 'correct' answer, but I really think that User:Freakofnurture should have done that. Somehow I have ended up the position of applying his personal style preference and acting as his/her agent on the talk page. See the discussion we had at:

Are blocking powers really intended to be used like that? bobblewik 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know what the MOS says, but newspaper style is to use the numeral and spell out percent, always. As in 3 percent; 12 percent; 100 percent. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
He could have probably used a little more tact in his responses though.
In such cases, it's probably best to go ahead and yield, re-read the policy, then get a third opinion if it's that important to you. It gives me a headache to see conflicts over such things anyway, as they should be plain in the MOS. --DanielCD 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Percent has always been spelled out in every encyclopedia article I can recall ever reading; further, a search for "percent" at the Britannica website yields more than 6,000 pages (including this first result, with numericals) while a search for "%" yields none. In radio news writing, I can say from experience that we always write out "percent" while only numbers ten and under are written out. (And, yes, more tact is preferable.) RadioKirk talk to me 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Dunno about radio, but AP style is to always use the numeral with percent regardless of quantity; that ten-and-under rule only applies with non-percentage number references. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, AP (personal prejudice). My Chicago Manual (15th Edition) says in section 9.19 (page 384):
Percentages are always given in numerals. in humanistic copy the word percent is used; in scientific and statistical copy, or in humanistic copy that includes numerous percentage figures, the symbol % is more appropriate...Note also that no space appears between the numeral and the symbol %. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the response seems uncivil and disproportionate. Was the rationale for the block that Bobblewik was using a bot? (Although it's really beside the point in this case, I don't exactly think the MoS and bobblewik have plucked this idea from thin air: "%" for figures, "percent" or "per cent" for words. That is what I've seen in style guides. As for the space, who is to say? Proper typography would probably put a half-space in front of a percentage sign or a unit, but that is not possible in Wikipedia.) –Joke 22:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it done both ways, but it probably needs to be spelled out. I'd think it really wouldn't be that important as long as it's consistent with the rest of the same article. But definitely not worth fighting over. Be aware when these small things come up and irritate you, because if you have little experience here, and are that picky, it can get rough. Just try to be aware and use it as a learning experience. --DanielCD 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Just remember, as a rule of thumb, when you are dealing with an admin who is being rough, get a third opinion. These trivial things can be sorted out quickly if a third party gives a fresh perspective.
Man it's hard to type on this page without getting an edit conflict! --DanielCD 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel slightly responsible for Bobblewik bringing this here. Apologies if I have been stirring things when I should have let them lie.
On the substantive question, having read WP:BOT and its talk page again a short while ago, I can understand why Bobblewik may have been blocked in the first place, if he was making fast edits using AWB. I think there may have been some mis-communication in the subsequent exchanges in User talk:Bobblewik; however, matters of style (short of disruption or making a WP:POINT) are not, in my book, grounds for blocking. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a firestorm.

  1. When I questioned bobblewik's edits, he offered only the following response:
    I answered that question further up this page at the section titled Bot on SCi Opp Cl Ch. I hope that helps. Thanks. bobblewik 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Then he continued to perform the same edits at a bot-like speed, as if to ignore me altogether. I questioned him again, stating that I had read the section above, followed the links to the manual of style page, and found this:
    The format of the numeric and percentage terms should match. Thus pair 7 with % and seven with percent.
  3. So I once again asked him why he was putting a space between the number and the percent sign. He responded by merely copying and pasting another portion of his talk page as if that was adequate explanation and as if I he thought I hadn't read it already.
  4. Thus I blocked him for one hour, hoping that he would focus attention on his talk page long enough to give an adequate response, and also hoping that would be long enough.
  5. If the edits in question were being performed from a separate bot account, as he has been previously asked to do, I would have blocked only the bot, and not bobblewik himself.
  6. I don't believe any of the various formats are actually incorrect, thus his accusation that I blocked him to enforce my preferred style is deceptive.
  7. I have never seen anybody besides him put a space between a number and a percent sign. I asked several individuals via IRC and nobody indicated use of that style.
  8. He should not be making bot-speed edits from his main account.
  9. I should not have sworn at him, but he caused greater frustration than I have experienced since mid-december.
  10. WP:BOT#Current policy on running bots states: "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator didn't say they would do, messing up articles or editing too rapidly."
    Despite being a non-bot account, I believe bobblewik met these criteria for intents and purposes.

FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:20, Feb. 15, 2006

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)" says that "The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol." This is for units of measurement, which it could be argued does apply to percentages, but equally might not. Under the percentages section it does not mention the use of a space. violet/riga (t) 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Everything violet/riga says and everything Freakofnurture says – other than 8 and 10 – seem perfectly sensible to me. –Joke 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that it can be seen that there is by no means consensus for placing a space before a percentage sign, and so it should not be done by a bot. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
But there is, it seems, a good case to be made for changing "7 percent" or "7 per cent" to either one of "7%" or "7 %". So it seems perfectly reasonable to do that automatically. I don't think bobblewik was changing "7%" to "7 %". –Joke 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that seems much more reasonable. All the same, controversial bot (or something resembling a bot) edits are still to be avoided. I think it has been shown that this change falls into that category. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Joke. Let us be clear. I did not put the space before a percentage symbol. I did not add any or remove any. I was not dealing with the space issue at all. I merely changed the word into a symbol. As far as consensus, is concerned, there was none either way. It is a binary choice. I am not a mind reader and should not be blocked for not implementing somebody else's preference.
I do not regard this as a big complaint. I have made my point and perhaps that is all I wanted. I think User:Freakofnurture was genuinely mistaken. But incorrect assumptions are not an excuse for a misuse of power. The powerful have a greater responsibility to check before acting. I merely raised it here because of kind feedback from Atlant and ALoan. I am grateful to them. Visibility of actions by a peer group is often enough incentive to behave well. As to the style guidance itself, please feel free to join in the discussion I started on the talk page of the MoS. bobblewik 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like a miscommunication on one hand, and an admin that was a little trigger-happy, though likely still acting in good faith. I suggest the parties involved discuss the miscommunication and try to look forward, as the alternative is to keep making discussion comments instead of doing real work/editing. My advice: Decide if there's a conflict to be pursued, which only the complaining party really can decide. Hopefully, they'll just accept the faults of communication as blame, and try to work together to solve the problem. Then they can perhaps serve as authorities if it comes up again somewhere. But it's ya'll's choice, to fight or edit. This is just my words, take 'em or leave 'em. --DanielCD 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Given the choice, I would prefer to edit. However I would also prefer that bobblewik didn't change formats that, as clarified by RadioKirk and others, are equally acceptable. The use of the space is what first upset me, but it was his discourteous lack of response, and continuing to make the same edits which convinced me to block, and I might add that mine was the mildest block he has ever received (see [32]). It was not intended to punish, but rather to overcome his apparent unwillingness to discuss the concerns I raised. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:06, Feb. 15, 2006
I would like to add that Freakofnurture has stated on my userpage that he likes to break the rules of adminship. User:Lapinmies/List_of_admins_that_have_violated_the_rules. Lapinmies 09:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Have you heard of ignore all rules? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Amit jain online unresponsive to warnings[edit]

In trying to stem the flow of un-licensed images onto wikipedia I found User:Amit jain online uploading a reasonably large number of un-licensed images. He will not respond to my messages and has continued to upload images after multiple warnings. Could an admin have a word to him please about the seriousness of disregarding wikipedia policy, thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for the moment; I've warned him and directed him to Wikipedia:Image use policy. If he continues, we'll have to block. Essjay TalkContact 23:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content (userboxes)[edit]

I posted this message on Djr xi's talk page; I think it provides enough information that I don't need to elaborate further.

You're free to use whatever content you wish in your own namespace, assuming it doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. However, note that user subpages which are intentionally transcluded as templates (see edit 39723996) are governed by the same provisions of Wikipedia policy that govern templates. As such, the userbox subpage templates you created will soon be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion G4 (recreation of deleted content) as well as the original deletion reasons. All instances of the templates will be substituted before deletion. This message will be crossposted to the administrator's noticeboard (incidents) if you'd like to comment.

// Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. Well I had the substituted version on my page and so did the user you quote above. I had no idea the original template had even been deleted - most users subst their pages to avoid the nonsense of templates being speedily deleted. As long as they are subst'd then feel free to do what you want. Anglo-Indian identity.svg Deano (Talk) 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I semi-automatically substituted a broken userbox on the user's page in the previous edit. I assumed it was your intention to replace all instances of the deleted template with a subpage template; I apologize if that was not so. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

CatherineWest (talkcontribs)[edit]

Could someone take a look at this. New user, registered yesterday and with about 10 edits seems to have gone on a spree of marking userboxes for speedy deletion. I reverted those with the invalid reason of being "commercial", but now she's moved on to "divisive" (on admittedly controversial templates). I'd like to assume good faith, but this could just be a troll who knows exactly what buttons to press to cause controversy. the wub "?!" 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have quietened down. the wub "?!" 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
She continued this, so I have blocked her for 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. —Guanaco 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This user seems to have a sizable amount of knowledge regarding Wikipedia policy and process for a "newcomer." Would a CheckUser be out of the question? -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Proxy to block[edit]

Here's an open proxy to block: 72.232.67.202 (talkcontribs) Werdna648T/C\@ 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought open proxys are subject to indef, or am I wrong here? ;) - Mailer Diablo 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is an open proxy.. shared IP perhaps, but not open. Sasquatch t|c 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I have changed it to indef as it is the same like an open proxy anyone can come to that page and type in a web address, feel free to change it. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • IP leads to Layered Technologies, a hosting company. [33] - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It is used by http://www.projectbypass.org --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

Can somebody figure out where the garbage at the top of the Current events page is coming from? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was coming from Template:Current_events --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please semi-protect Muslim[edit]

The article is being vandalized every few minutes, often by anonIPs. It's difficult to keep the article intact -- I just found that we'd been restoring a version that had already been vandalized (someone wiped out the bottom third of the article). Zora 09:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor Violating Probation for Disruptive Editing[edit]

Just over a week after [34] was closed, user Benjamin Gatti authored Clean safe nuclear energy, which is disruptive editing at its finest. We need three administrators to concur in this, and decide what is appropriate. Simesa 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am an admin so that would be 1. I am not involved in this particular article and the arbcom decision makes no mention of involvement of the admin involved. Just wanted to add that I am pretty sure that he deliberately made that article to test his probation. Most definitely violates it. Here is the specific part of the decision that he has violated and here is the remedy. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's disappointing. I really thought maybe all that stuff was done. I'd support a week block for disruption, as per his probation. On a side note, there's nothing in the arbcom ruling that says an uninvolved admin. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 08:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I was recused from that case, but just to clarify, it is uninvolved admins implicitly, just as any administrative action should ideally be taken by an uninvolved admin. I think Wikipedia:Probation clarifies this. Also, to be clear, there is only one uninvolved admin needed to ban from an article or talk page where he is deemed disruptive (probation), and three for any more serious measures of your own devising, including a ban (general probation). He's on both probation and general probation. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, wait. So if I understand you correctly, you mean "uninvolved" as in "has never had a dispute with this person?" If that's the test, I can never meet it, clearly. But I've had absolutely no involvement in the article in question. Can you clarify this for me? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Uninvolved means not involved in a current dispute with the user. It doesn't automatically count if you've previously had a dispute but not currently. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. The article is going to be deleted, so blocking from the article would not be much of a message. So we need 3 uninvolved admins. So. Help! :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Am I uninvolved? I just early-closed the AfD because there was simply no chance it was ever going to close in anything other than delete, and we don't need diatribes in the main space. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved; this is the first time I've even looked at any edits by Benjamin Gatti, as far as I can recall. Clean safe nuclear energy is an aggressively POV piece at its core; that appears to be exactly the sort of editing the ArbCom ruling is trying to discourage. I support either a one week block or a one week ban from all nuclear energy topics, enforceable by block. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (I'm pretty certain I'm univolved with this one).Geni 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok this is duplicated with the notice on the WP:AN, so can someone just make that a link here and copy the comments over? This doesn't appear worth a block yet, but repeating similar actions would. The one week ban from all nuclear topics wouldn't be a bad idea though, and that makes three by the way, as I'm univolved with the current nuclear dispute, though for full disclosure, I have disputed with the user in the past for similar behavior of his and commented a bit in the arbcom decision based on that. - Taxman Talk 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record. I proposed the subject because I was continuously struck by those four words, and I felt they deserved to be fully understood. You're welcome to interpret as you like, but I find it unnecessary to suggest that I was "testing" the Arbcom stampede-to-judgement. The article quite probably could use balance; but I fail to see how the simple creating of an article refencing a fairly important Presidential phrase is itself expressive of a point of view. I think it was not agressively POV, while certainly it includes only a single perspective. There was no reverting other perspectives for example and such would be a critical element of aggressive POV editing. Benjamin Gatti 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It was so obviously POV that your claims not to be able to see that are hard to believe to say the least. There wasn't any effort to edit it because it was so obviously useless. Don't bother trying similar stunts. If you have useful, researched material to help improve articles please stick to that and save everyone the headache. Do reallize though that everyone knows your game and is tired of it. - Taxman Talk 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually emailed Ben to ask him for an explanation because I'm just baffled. Probation means no more benefit of the doubt. You just can't jump over the line like that. I mean, it was as POV as these things get. You said "to announce plans to pump yet more deficit-funded tax dollars into the still unprofitable nuclear energy industry" in the article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And Ben's response?:
"I will happily include your block as evidence of systemic bias against true and accurate articles related to nuclear energy. We criticize china in vain who do ourselves block the truth. Benjamin Gatti 14:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"
The block could be extended for that. I really don't think probation is going to solve anything with Ben. Probation does nothing with a user who doesn't care about our policies in the first place. It feels alot like zen master and his probation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Need comment on Flemming Rose insertions.[edit]

Don't really know where to go, so this might not really be the right place. Sorry for that if it is not. Catstail (talk · contribs), Kembali (talk · contribs) and a few anonymous ips 60.225.187.87 (talk · contribs), 60.228.43.92 (talk · contribs) and 64.229.223.33 (talk · contribs) (which may or may not be the same person) continue to insert un-sourced and un-verifiable information on the Flemming Rose page several times a day over the last week. Flemming Rose is the one who published the cartoons of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I’m simple asking for them to source it. They don’t so I remove it, and they insert it again. We are in a deadlock it seems. Catstail has also started a strange moving around on the talk page, for no apparent reason. Can someone come by and take a look, maybe give a little help? Twthmoses 09:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in desperate need of assistants. Catstail (talk · contribs) and a cohort of new users and anonymous Ips have for seven days inserted un-sourced and unverifiable information on the Flemming Rose page. I have in seven days asked (read the talk page) to source their insertions. None of them does (I believe most of them are Catstail anyway). Could I ask a helping hand, maybe lock this page for anonymous Ip and new user edit? At least give a 3rd party opinion? Twthmoses 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
These are the users in case you are intreasted; Ronam2298 (talk · contribs) 71.134.249.113 (talk · contribs) 60.225.187.87 (talk · contribs) 60.228.43.92 (talk · contribs) 64.229.223.33 (talk · contribs) Kembali (talk · contribs) Catstail (talk · contribs)

Blocked unfairly[edit]

Yesterday I had been in a content dispute with Dbiv and without a warning someone listed me for 3RR. I had been unaware that I had broken the rule as there were various disputes, so I immediately stopped editing there. I showed that Dbiv had broken the same rule. Admin Tom harrison warned both of us and NSLE tried to mediate. However, Dbiv went on to revert two more times in the following hours when other users reinserted what he did not like. I complained and we both got blocked, I seven hours after my last revert. Can you imagine in a soccer game two guys in a conflict get yellow cards, and when one of them goes on with foul play BOTH get the red one? I think that is unfair adminship. The admin who blocked us did not reply to my email complaint although he was online and responded to Dbiv who threatened him. NSLE gave me the advise to report this here. Get-back-world-respect 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since both users are now annoyed with me, I must not have acted too unfairly. Tom Harrison Talk 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That's always a good sign. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:38, Feb. 16, 2006
Wow, administrators proud to make mischief. Perfect presupposition for serving one's duty. Get-back-world-respect 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Edit warring is mischief. Stopping an edit war can end friendships, but at least it stops the mischief. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:08, Feb. 16, 2006
That depends on the circumstances. Admins' actions are not law. --DanielCD 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this "buddy" system of overlooking such things and dismissing them with cute comments should be put unters messer. And if both users are seeing an injustice, to assume that it was not "too unfair" for that reason that is crass to the point of insult. --DanielCD 01:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That is one of the silliest explanations I've ever read. Both users being annoyed at you is a sign that you haven't been more unfair to one than the other, but it is, by no means, a reflection that you've been fair to both parties. Hypothetically speaking, if I were an admin and decided to indefinitely block two edit warriors for all eternity, hell yes they'd be both annoyed at me, and hell yes it'd be unfair. I'm not bothering to address the actual dispute, but someone needed to point out that that is not "always a good sign." Yeesh. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 02:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As both of the blocked editors violated the WP:3rr rule, and both were blocked, there is nothing unfair going on here. The fact that one admin gave a warning instead of blocking should not stop another admin from blocking both of them. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Dbiv unblocked himself - that's not supposed to happen, even if he feels the block was wrong. NSLE (T+C) 02:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As if we didn't have enough problems.Geni 02:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think that when someone comes into this forum to ask for clarity, they should be given consideration and assistance no matter how wrong they are/were, not mocking comments. It makes the admins look like dicks. That's my only point here.

As to Dbiv unblocking himself, that was definitely not the right thing to do. --DanielCD 02:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed no one redid it. I was all set to until I realized that this was from yesterday. You don't unblock yourself. PERIOD. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage Tom Harrison to demonstrate for everyone's benefit what the four reverts were that Dbiv made. I'm not disputing his actions, but the 3RR report seemed confused and included diffs which were definitely not reverts. Note that I'm not condoning Dbiv unblocking himself by questioing the original block. Mackensen (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • [35] Dbiv removes 'kicking while forced to the ground' 15:40, 14 February 2006
  • [36] ditto 12:43, 14 February 2006
  • [37] ditto 10:53, 14 February 2006
  • [38] again 10:46, 14 February 2006 - and here I stopped counting. Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

For an interesting side note to this, please view GBWR's user and talk page histories. Deleting warnings, blocks, and then trying to speedily delete your own page to hide the evidence is fun for everyone! SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Or he could be just leaving in disgust and wanting to wipe away his existance here. Assume good faith and all that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm reapplying the block, for the principle that one shpuld not unblock himself/herself. For sysops who feel that the 3rr block is not justified, please feel free to unblock David. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I am editing this piece while not logged in. I am a very bad boy and must be punished. But as it is the middle of the night for both Geni and Mailer Diablo it seems the only way of raising general attention. The 3RR block was blatantly unjust because my edits to Current Events were not (apart from one) reverts. They were all different versions of trying to get a compromise. Check the edits and you will see this for yourself. This new interpretation of 3RR that each individual sentence counts is bizarre and never before seen, and in my last edit to that page at 21:37 I included "kicking" in a plural so it's not even true. If the 3RR is acting to prevent attempts at compromise, then it's certainly not helping. As for unblocking myself, I was quite open as to the fact that I was doing it, and cited WP:IAR. The direct reason was that I was in the middle of making