Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents: April 8, 2005 - April 11, 2005

Contents 1 Netoholic 2 User:203.103.60.119 3 Multi-project vandal, need help urgently 4 User:24.177.1.87 5 User:Professor Ninja 6 User:Samboy 7 Cumbey or 68.61.150.80 8 User:William M. Connolley 9 The China Syndrome 10 Blocked IPs 11 Pashtun 12 Agwiii 12.1 Cyberstalking by SqueakBox 12.2 Terminated discussion 12.3 Coincidence - not! 12.4 Sockpuppet letter 13 Copyvio 14 User:202.52.199.225 15 Arbitration notice - Baku Ibne, et al. 16 Arbitration case - GRider 17 Agwiii 17.1 Older username 17.2 Sockpuppet 18 POV redirects 19 Blocked User 24.242.214.82 20 Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg 21 User:65.12.194.210 neo-Nazi propaganda 22 User:Coolcat 23 GRider 24 LibraryLion 25 User:24.69.255.205 26 Long term persistent vandal

[edit] Netoholic

Netoholic reverted Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop [1] at 1:58 UTC, 8 April, in violation of an injuction from the ArbCom [2].

The injuction states: For the duration of this case, Netoholic is not to revert edits in the Wikipedia: page space. He should discuss proposed changes on talk pages instead. If he makes an edit any administrator judges to be a reversion in the Wikipedia: page space, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Netoholic has been blocked for 24 hours from 3:28 UTC, 8 April. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

/sigh. Netoholic listed this as an attempt by Neutrality to provoke him. I guess it worked. :( Snowspinner 03:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Injunctions exist to keep the peace in cases involving those apparently unable to control themselves without them. I'm afraid this appears to be the case here - David Gerard 09:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My edit was not a revert by any commonly applied definition. Neutrality removed the Template:Move to Wikibooks with no explanation, or edit summary. I placed a signed comment on the top of the page pointing out a discussion on the talk page about the requested move -- I did not undo Neutrality's edit. Noone would ever reasonably use my edit to justify a 3RR block, and such blocks would be quickly undone by people with a more practical standard of what a revert is.

This injunction is not a ban. Do not suddenly pretend that normal standards can be made more flexibly interpreted. Use common sense judgement. I now fear that people are going to block me for reverting vandalism, reverting myself, rephrasing a section of a page, etc. by using looser standards than normal. -- Netoholic @ 10:29, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I must point out that an injunction is not normal standards, that it was phrased as a tight leash and that it was quickly voted for as a tight leash. Probably a more productive approach that would reflect well upon your conduct would be to show that you can keep to it flawlessly (which would be strongly to your credit), rather than showing that you cannot (which would be strongly to your discredit) - surely that's the obvious sensible response - David Gerard 12:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (whilst logged in on User:Arkady Rose's machine, my apologies!)

Just confirming I wrote the above - David Gerard 22:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The injunction banned Netoholic from reverting in the Wikipedia namespace. It seems in this case he called attention to Neutrality's removal of a template in an unsual way, apparently in order precisely to avoid doing a revert, completely in compliance with the injunction. It got called a "revert" anyway, and he still got blocked. If the meaning of "revert" can be stretched to cover this edit, then almost any edit can be interpreted as a revert, and Netoholic might as well interpret the Arb Comm injuction as giving any administrator the right to block him if he edits in the Wikipedia namespace at all. Is that what the Arb Comm intended? --BM 13:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've interpreted it to amount to that before, yes. On the other hand, according to the Harmonious editing club, it should be possible.

Hmmm, no wait! They do allow reverting exactly one time. Interesting! ...but I digress.

While the HEC is voluntary, perhaps in future we could borrow the HEC editing rules for our concept of revert parole. I believe that would be kinder, and (because the HEC rules are quite likely designed to be realistic&usable) it'd be more likely to achieve the desired result. Kim Bruning 14:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Had I been asked to, I would have voluntarily adhered to the HEC/one-revert guideline while my ArbCom case was pending, as an act to show my good faith. This "zero-revert" injunction is unprecedented and is practically a ban, since I can make no mistake and every edit (even this very one) needs to be perfect so as not to trigger some gung-ho reaction. I can't even self-revert. I fear making any change lest someone dig up a similar edit from months ago and slam down the ban-hammer. If I make a change to something, it must be extraordinarily different from anything else. I hope at least the ArbCom takes this lesson away and doesn't bother with this again. A full namespace ban is at least cut-and-dry, and one-revert restrictions avoid problems with admins being "loose" with their interpretations. -- Netoholic @ 15:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

As I said above, I think, practically speaking, that you are banned from more editing in the Wikipedia namespace than it might first appear. Almost any edit that touches existing text can apparently be labelled a revert by some admin who might object to it. Even completely new text better not look too much like something that was previously deleted. In this case, replacing a template with a comment that there used to be a template there, and suggesting that the matter should be discussed on the Talk page, is a "revert" of the template removal in some administrators' books. --BM 16:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is where administrator discretion comes in, and common sense. Nobody is going to ban anybody for four edits in a row tinkering with older text. Nobody would even ban Netoholic for four edits in a row that tinker with older text. And if they did, I would remove the block as soon as I saw it. But that's not what happened here. Netoholic got reverted and found a way to insert the same content in different wording. Blankfaze saw through the stealth revert and blocked. Snowspinner 17:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Can we get real here? I didn't need to post that comment on the page if I wanted to "insert the same content". I could have, and did, just move the template to the Talk page. I can't remotely believe people think my edit was a "revert", and it was fully in the spirit of the injunction.... i.e. make better use of the Talk page. -- Netoholic @ 17:09, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so maybe what I say doesn't matter, but User:Netoholic is clearly getting the shaft here. Sometimes the partisanship and politics of Wikipedia makes me sick. Kevin Rector 19:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with your latter sentence. On the one hand, I do think that there's a plausible case to be made that this belongs in e.g. Wikibooks. Mind, I'm not saying I think I've concluded that it's more appropriate there than in Wikipedia:, it might well be better suited where it is. However, I don't think it's a slam-dunk that it ought to stay where it is. So I think for Neutrality to simply remove the template was out of line - it was a good-faith addition to the page. How he found his was there is an interesting question - I assume it was after it was listed in Netoholic's RfAr. It seems the Neutrality's following Netoholic around - which is bordering on (yet another) unhealthy Wiki-obsession. At the very least, getting in a revert war with someone whose arbitration case he is about to have to rule on displays very poor judgement indeed. On the other hand, Netoholic's sly reference to the template in his second edit really was (basically) an attempt to undo the substance of Neutrality's revert, while staying within some literalistic interpretation of his injunction. Everyone involved in this shabby affair ought to take a Wikibreak. Noel (talk) 20:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Neutrality is a party to the case and has recused himself as an arbitrator, so he's not going to be ruling on anything affecting Netoholic. That being said, I agree that we are way past the point at which it could be said that any of the parties are covering themselves with glory in this affair. --Michael Snow 21:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I suddenly thought of that possibility about 1 minute after I posted that - but at that point I was already out the door on the way to pick up my kids from school. Sigh.... Noel (talk) 21:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the 50,000 foot view, without trying to figure out all the rights and wrongs of this case is that it is fundamentally a petty, obsessive, ongoing feud between Netoholic, on the one hand, and primarily Neutrality and Snowpinner on the other, and that they are all guilty of much the same transgressions against civility and Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately for Netoholic, Snowspinner is an admin, and Neutrality was elected as an arbitrator. Fairness demands that all of them should be rebuked and disciplined, but that probably is not going to happen. --BM 21:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To try to reduce this to a Netoholic vs. Neutrality & Snowspinner feud is disingenuous. Just a quick look at Netoholic's RFA (vote:3/28/7) will show that just about everybody who has had dealings with Netoholic has had a negative experience with him. How many Wikipedia editors have been listed as reasons that someone has left the Wikipedia (e.g. User:Mintguy) or as a reason for Wikivacations besides Netoholic? Raul654 apparently tried to work with Netoholic and was burned by him (See Raul654's RFM). The only person who seems to have ever come to an accomodation or understanding of Netoholic has been Ta bu shi da yu (and unfortunately for Netoholic, Ta bu shi da yu "has left the building"). Kim Bruning now seems to be trying to work with Netoholic, but that effort is probably too little and too late to help Netoholic, so he is probably destined to be severely sanctioned by the ArbComm. With that said, I will agree that it looks like Neutrality has also not been on his best behaviour either. _Asylum^Inmate 06:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only one person "seems to have ever come to an accomodation or understanding of Netoholic"? You're trippin'. Did you mean to say that, in those words? I just don't have the time to wade through the voluminous documentation of this feud and take a stand on it, unfortunately, but it seems outrageous to me to speak of a long-term and useful contributor in that way. It's literally untrue: my own experience of Netoholic has been as a helpful and considerate experienced user. He helped me with practical stuff when I was new in June, and a little while back I noticed his gentle touch when reasoning with a particular social-skills-impaired contributor (who I needn't scandalize by mentioning here, especially as he has now left the project), that I for my part found it extremely difficult to keep a wikiloving tone towards. Whatever's been going down in this conflict, I really hate to see somebody's whole good work for wikipedia dismissed like that. Bishonen|Talk 09:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality's being an arbitrator has nothing to do with this, as he's off the case. And if Neutrality or I have in any way abused our administrator privledges in harassing Netoholic, I encourage you to submit it as evidence. The fact that we are administrators does not mean that we are "harassing" whenever we get into content disputes. Snowspinner 22:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

See, it's all this talk about Evidence and arbitration that I find so distressing. What I'd love to see is if we could stop the legaleze and if everyone involved would just step back, take a big deep breath, and just let it go and then maybe go edit an encyclopedia article or something. Kevin Rector 22:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm permitted to comment here, and if not, please excuse me and do not imagine that I'll object to removal. But I'm the "other party" regarding the tutorial, and I have stated -- often -- I consider Netoholic's tagging of the tutorial to be in bad faith, merely an attempt to rattle me. I'm not hostile to the move per se, but I'm fearful of complications -- broken dishes, lost remote to the teevee, that sort of thing.

Just now, Korath has said that when an article is tagged for interwiki move, a bot comes along and does it -- smack-bang, there you go. I suppose there is a delay in time, but nothing more needs be done. Place the tag and it goes. Perhaps I'm misreading his comment. But if so, this puts the repeated tagging -- before any consensus is achieved, and in the face of objection -- in a sour light.

In any case, for sanity's sake, I've moved the tutorial with the ill-chosen name intrawiki and for that matter, intranamespace to Wikipedia:Graphics in two modes. I only came here because I'm tidying inlinks to the tutorial. — Xiong熊talk 07:07, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] User:203.103.60.119

User:203.103.60.119 made a series of edits today, including blanking User:Dr Zen and User talk:Dr Zen twice (second one with edit summaries of "Please respect my wishes. Zen"); both times he was reverted. I left a message on his talk page asking if he was Dr Zen; he responded on mine that he was. He was then blocked for vandalism. Since he was not warned before being blocked, and the blanking appears to be the only vandalism, I am going to unblock him. If I am wrong and anyone wishes to reblock, I will not unblock again. Let me know if I have this wrong acted inappropriately. Thanks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (updated — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Well, if Zen wants his pages blanked, why would anyone object? Everyking 05:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No reason to object, if it's really Zen, instead of some random anon claiming to be. Would it be so hard to log in first? —Korath (Talk) 06:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree; I asked him to log in and make his changes, but he had already been blocked by that point. Actually, that brings up something I'd been wondering: suppose an anonymous user is blocked—can he or she then register or log in and edit? I didn't think so, which is one of the reasons I unblocked. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, for what it's worth, I don't think it's Dr. Zen. If he was he'd have logged in before he was even blocked to make the changes. I think the anon is attempting impersonation. Can we email Zen directly from his user page? Is he a mailing list contributor? Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It would appear that he can be emailed from his user page. I don't know if he is a mailing list contributor or not (I'm not so I don't know how to find out). Thryduulf 09:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That IP address is registered to the same area as a previous IP address known to have been used by Dr Zen, so I'd guess it's him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • It points to the same spot as at least two other IPs he's used in the past, actually. The behavior and comments are "in character" too (including the part about not logging in while angry with Wikipedia). --iMb~Meow 08:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I don't like guessing, it could also be a "friend" trying to nuke his online credibility. We need permanent proof before acting on the request. Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-project vandal, need help urgently

English Wikiquote is currently under vandalism spree by q:User:Gumba ad verbatim, who is also vandalising Meta as 62.255.64.4 (talk • contribs). I need help contacting the sysops of those sites ASAP. Is there any steward online? jni 17:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's already had at least two accounts blocked here (Gumbagumba (talk · contributions) and Gumba Gumba power (talk · contributions). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote is now being looked after by an admin, someones rving on meta too. Anyplace else? Kim Bruning 17:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The vandal could have been following me around; I have been active both in Wikiquote and meta today and many targeted pages where selected either from my contrib list or from recent changes. I'm currently checking other projects I have edited recently. jni 17:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

17:10, 8 Apr 2005, Aphaia blocked Gumba ad verbatim (expires 17:10, 9 Apr 2005) (contribs) (vandalism)

[edit] User:24.177.1.87

Three revert rule violation on Mastodon (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 24.177.1.87 (talk • contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:13, Apr 6, 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:10, Apr 6, 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:00, Apr 6, 2005
• 4th revert: 18:55, Apr 6, 2005

Reported by: DreamGuy 22:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has made some more revcerts since then. Probably would have more of them more often if the page was watched more actively. User has been warned on that talk page and his talk page by myself and two editors. He responded that he will continue to change it so he can let the world know how bad the band is. DreamGuy 22:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for bad-faith editing: They may be the worst band of all-time and are certainly a bain on the contemporary music scene. A University of Connecticut student who unwittingly attended a Mastodon concert in October 2003 summed up his reaction to the band. "There were a lot of large, drunken, sweaty men dressed in ripped jeans and Metallica t-shirts," he said. "They were bobbing their heads to the worst music I have ever heard. The concert was exactly what I picture hell to be like.", silsor 23:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also vandalised DreamGuy's user page. silsor 00:22, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Professor Ninja

Three revert rule violation on Terri Schiavo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Professor Ninja (talk • contribs):

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]
• 5th revert: [7]
• 6th revert: [8]

Reported by: Jonathunder 05:01, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've never posted on this page before (and I hope I did it right), but six reverts and counting just seems silly, so I felt I had to. Jonathunder 05:05, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 18 hours. silsor 05:12, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:71.100.38.201 blocked for same amount of time. silsor 05:14, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • My two cents on the issue: hospice and hospitalization are two different things, especially since the idea of the modern hospice has only been in place since the 1970s. Hospice doesn't equal hospital; in fact, I believe that was Cicely Saunders' point. Mike H 09:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • This comment belongs on Talk:Terri Schiavo, not here. Noel (talk) 14:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I know very well where it belongs. I was making the comment as that's what the 3RR was about, thank you. Mike H 18:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Samboy

Looks like I mis-counted the reverts I did in a silly revert war at North American Man-Boy Love Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), it may be three or four reverts depending on how you count:

• One (Is this a revert?) [9]

• Two (This is a revert) [10]

• Three (This is also a revert) [11]

• Four (This crosses the line unless the first edit wasn't a revert) [12]

Reported by myself: Samboy 10:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well you first one doesn't appear to be as I can't find a version you have reverted toGeni 11:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like I barely didn't violate the 3RR. I shouldn't have gotten in to that revert war. Samboy 22:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cumbey or 68.61.150.80

68.61.150.80 (talk • contribs), which is the IP address for Cumbey (talk • contribs) vandalised Haile Selassie of Ethiopia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) here, which included linkin my user page. I am not sure if this is plain vandalism or what, but cannot accept my name bein maliciously inserted into the text of a wikipedia article, --SqueakBox 14:46, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Such a link is indeed inappropriate in an article (for any reason). Things seem quiet at the article at the moment, though. Noel (talk) 14:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey here has writen a blog including info about my and User:One Salient Oversight's work here at wikipedia. This may be a case for the arbcom. Jimbo has stated this sort of behaviour will not be accepted. I think she needs blockiong, possibly on a permanent basis. her blog includes a link to here which was on my User page, and partially identifies me, --SqueakBox 16:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sysop Mark (talk • contribs) reverted User:Kc9cqj additions to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumbey, apparently after taking instructions from a User on the IRC. Can he please not do so again. i don't believe interfering with a legitimate Rfc is anything other than trying to subvert the legitimaste process of trying to sort out my problems with User:Cumbey, --SqueakBox 16:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. I reverted the additions to the article by User:Kc9cqj at the request of User:Kc9cqj. I took note of the hostmask of the user in IRC who was requesting it, but did not want to put it in the edit summary as it contained a hexadecimal representation of Kc9cqj's IP address. - Mark 14:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I clarify and confirm Mark's remarks. I did ask Mark to revert the RfC only because I was still chasing down clarifications and a history of the event. Cumbey is not involved in that particular instance of reversion of the RfC. KC9CQJ 20:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OH, I THINK I GET IT. IT'S JUST FINE FOR SQUEAKBOX AND ONE SALIENT POINT (n o t) TO SLANDER ME ALL OVER THE WIKIPEDIA BOARD IN ALL OF ITS TWIST AND TURN FACETS AND ALL OVER WIKIPEDIA AND BE PICKED UP ON GOOGLE. IT'S 'UNFAIR' FOR ME TO FIGHT BACK.. I HAVE NEWS FOR ALL OF YOU. LEGALLY, TRUTH IS A DEFENSE -- THE TRUTH IS ON MY SIDE. IT'S OK FOR SQUEAKBOX TO SAY I HAVE BIASES FOR MY ACCURATELY AND FAIRLY WRITTEN ARTICLE ABOUT JAVIER SOLANA -- IT'S NOT OK TO POINT OUT WHAT HE SO FREELY AND PROUDLY CONFESSED TO ME ABOUT HIS BIASES -- HE'S INTO THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT - ALICE BAILEY, RASTAFARIANISM AND ALL. AND FOR THE RECORD, THERE WERE SOLANA FAMILY CONNECTIONS WITH HAILE SELASSIE WHICH ARE DOCUMENTED BY SALVADOR DE MADARIAGA IN HIS BOOK MORNING WITHOUT NOON. So very fortunately, there is much more to the world than Kangaroo Courts at Wikipedia which seem so very much like a Mad Hatter, Alice in Wonderland tea party! (Cumbey 22:40, 14 Apr 2005)

[edit] User:William M. Connolley

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). William M. Connolley (talk • contribs):

• 1st revert: 10:22, 8 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:06, 8 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:10, 8 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 07:57, 9 Apr 2005

Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The Lindzen section, initially added by SEWilco, has been reverted out of the article four times within 24 hours. — Cortonin | Talk 17:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed reference to Lindzen paper online at MIT 4 times, blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. This user needs to stop trying to gain ownership of articles on this topic, and chill out a bit. Noel (talk) 17:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• For the dates indicated by Cortonin above, what has actually been happening is that Cortonin keeps reverting William M. Connolley, and Connolley in turn keeps reverting Cortonin. If Connolley is guilty of a 3RR violation, therefore, Cortonin himself is equally guilty. I haven't bothered to trace the entire history of this, but this particular revert war seems to have been going on since sometime prior to 8 Apr 2005. --Sheldon Rampton 05:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So, file a 3RR on them, making sure to give the diffs. I'll cheerfully block all edit warriors. Noel (talk) 12:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• (William M. Connolley 13:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I confess to the violation of the 3RR rule: my apologies. It was a mistake, of course. Somehow the software ended up banning me for 48h not 24 (I mailed Jnc but he didn't seem terribly interested). As for the "ownership" nonsense: its nonsense, just like the Lindzen 98%: if you feel like contributing to the science of the article, do please join in.
  • Let's see - within 5 minutes of receiving your email (I didn't see it immediately - I do sometimes have a life outside the Internet), I had i) checked Special:Ipblocklist to make sure that your block was not somehow still active (it wasn't in the list of active blocks, and the log entry says 17:10, 9 Apr 2005 Jnc blocked "User:William M. Connolley" with an expiry time of 24 hours); ii) found an auto-block that had been generated on another account by that block; iii) cleared that (01:26, 11 Apr 2005 Jnc unblocked User:#19934); and iv) replied to your email, giving all that information. You have a strange definition of "not .. interested". Noel (talk) 13:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The point at issue was why the auto-block had ended up blocking me for 48h. This remains unexplained.
    • Sorry, I have no idea on that; that's a problem for the developers. You need to go over to Mediazilla, and first check whether the problem has already been reported, and if not, enter a new bug report,
      • (William M. Connolley 17:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) OK, will do, thanks for the pointers.
      • Sure. PS: one thing you might want to check - when you go to Special:Preferences it should list your "internal ID number" - if that number is the same as the one above (#19934) that would probably we worth noting in any bug report. Noel (talk) 18:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • (William M. Connolley 19:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)) My number is not 19934 (not sure if I should tell you what it is in case its insecure to mention it...).
        • I'm not sure it's a security issue to release it (I can't think of anything one could do with it), but probably best not to. In any event, I have no use for it. The fact that the account that was auto-blocked was not yours is a bit of data which would be useful to add to the bug report, though. Noel (talk) 00:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The China Syndrome

There is a dispute on the naming of certain China-related articles that has gotten entirely out of hand. Basically, there seems to be a naming consensus (involving User:SchmuckyTheCat, User:Huaiwei and User:Jguk, and possibly others), and one person intent on overthrowing it - User:Instantnood. I've seen this ongoing debate all over WikiPedia the last couple of days, even if I'm not doing anything China-related.

Even if all of it seems to be done in good faith, throwing up the same discussion in dozens of places feels like it crosses the line for WP:POINT. Both an RfC and an RfAr have been filed for the matter; it would seem appropriate to postpone all these similar discussions pending the outcome of those request. Maybe some China-related mod could look into it and kindly ask the participants to stop dragging their debate all over the Wiki? Radiant_* 22:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Category talk:Category talk:Laws of mainland China (and copy/pasted in a dozen other cats [13])
• Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia talk:HK wikipedians' notice board
• VfD:Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV/China_or_PRC_vs._mainland_China
• CfD:Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hong Kong-related categories with only one article
• RfC:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood
• RfAr:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood

There is now a new and clearer RfAr pending, posted by Snowspinner. Thanks for putting an end to this so-called chaos. Radiant_* 18:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked IPs

I've just received the following two e-mails:

62.255.64.9 has been autoblocked due to your block:

'Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Gumba Gumba power". The reason given for Gumba Gumba power's block is: "new account of blocked user, vandalising Holocaust denial".'

The IP is not listed in the BlockList, so I cannot discover when the block expires.

This is a transparent proxy provided by my ISP that I cannot bypass. Please advise how I should continue to edit Wikipedia.

Matt

---

Apparently my IP has been blocked from editing on Wikipedia.

However,

a) The banned IP in question is 62.255.64.9. My IP, however, is 80.7.169.132. That said, I am house-sharing with others, which may have caused this confusion.

b) I did not attempt to edit other articles prior to me being informed of the ban. The user name "Gumba Gumba Power" is completely alien to me. I certainly did not do anything which I feel would warrant me being banned from editing articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time.

Michael Z.

I've checked the IP addresses' contributions: 80.7.169.132 (talk · contributions) has no edits listed, ever, and 62.255.64.9 (talk · contributions) has been used to make edits this evening, so appears not to be blocked at all. Is someone trying it on, or am I missing something? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear in the list of Blocked IPs and in fact, there's a notice on the IP's talk page that says i belongs to NTL. I'd tell them to try to edit again... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I posted the above, one of the people (Matt) replied to say that he'd checked again, and hasn't come back to me, so I suppose that that's OK. As far as the other one goes, my reply to him bounced, and I suspect that he wasn't on the level. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pashtun

At Pashtun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), I don't want to violate 3RR, but I'm dealing with an anon who is persistently removing information long agreed upon by consensus and inserting POV material that even includes first-person remarks. I presumably can't block him or protect some state of the article, because I'm involved in the dispute. Would someone else please step in? I know all about the notion of "the wrong version" always getting protection, but in this case I think there is no question that I have been attempting to restore a consensus version, and this person is inserting material that is not even encyclopedic. I request reversion to my version and either protection for the article or some other strategy for dealing with this anon. I frankly don't have the patience (or the time) for dialogue with him right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

See also WP:AN/3RR#User:202.52.199.225. Noel (talk) 16:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've welcomed user 202.52.199.225 (talk • contribs). Let's try not to bite this newcomer. I noticed at /3RR that Noel has blocked him; I'm going to unblock because he wasn't warned a single time and was never even pointed at whatever policies we have. — mark ✎ 16:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the new user - I missed that angle. However, I'm quite dubious about this editor becoming a good contributor. Still, no reason not to give them a chance. Noel (talk) 22:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, they've gone on to revert twice more since your warning. (I'm not surprised.) So the block goes back on. Noel (talk) 22:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's now registered as Haider (talk · contributions), and has made the same edits at Pashtun. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we please have protection on this article? He is continually inserting the same material, against clear consensus. The material is clearly unencyclopedic. At least three different people have now reverted him. His remarks on the talk page are incoherent. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It has now been protected. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agwiii

Agwiii (talk • contribs) is making legal threats to me Talk:Abortion#FS 784 Cyberstalking Statute and accusing me of cyberstalking for my legitimate work here at wikipedia, as well as posting false allegations at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (twice now), --SqueakBox 16:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Typical of those who practice online harassment, Squeakbox (talk • contribs) is now accusing the target of his harassment of his very actions. Agwiii 16:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, it's difficult to see how Agwiii can honestly make the claims he has. His approach has been aggressive, and has occasionally bordered on hysteria. He would do well to consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fear Agwiii launched his campaign in order to try and stop me from editing articles in which he has had a major input. On the basis of the first edits of his I saw I decided to check his contribs, cleaned them up where I felt necessary, and put a Vfd on Ron Branson, --SqueakBox 17:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii put a personal attack on my home page which I removed, he then placed it again just now, here --SqueakBox 17:41, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I begin to wonder if Squeakbox understands the meaning of the words he writes, or of the truth for what I wrote could not be considered a "personal attack" by any rational person. A personal attack would be a statement such as "You are a XXXX." A polite Request that he stop his cyberstalking is not a "personal attack". Agwiii 20:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii (talk · contributions) removed the VfD notice from Ron Branson in an edit marked 'minor'. I've replaced it, but he needs to be watched. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agwiii, it appears that you removed the VfD notice here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• As I have written elsewhere, if the Vfd was removed by me, it was a mistake. Agwiii 18:11, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mel, you continue to ignore the fact that Squeakbox changed my words on a TALK page. That is not acceptable behavior. Agwiii 18:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• You are correct; in general, modifying others' comments is not appropriate. Can you show us where he has done this? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. As Knowledge Seeker says, some evidence of any of your claims would be helpful.
2. Where on Earth does SqueakBox say that he placed the VfD in retaliation.
3. It's a little difficult to see how your removal of the VfD notice ([14]) could have been accidental. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Simply scroll up a few lines and you'll see the admission. SqueakBox wrote, "I fear Agwiii launched his campaign in order to try and stop me from editing articles in which he has had a major input. On the basis of the first edits of his I saw I decided to check his contribs, cleaned them up where I felt necessary, and put a Vfd on Ron Branson." This is what we see with online stalkers, harassers, etc. They make self-serving statements to try to turn themselves into the victim, when they are the perpetrator. Review the complaints and you'll see that Squeakbox only began complaining after I posted notices about his behavior on the Vandalism board. His posting a Vfd on Branson is transparently a 'tit for tat' action on his part. Wikipedia deserves better! ==> Agwiii 18:39, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Mel, if you were being cyberstalked and harassed with almost constant edits and/or reversions to your work, you would understand how it's possible to make a mistake editing. I make no claims of infailbility, and I wrote to you that if I removed the Vfd, it was in error. I'm man enough to admit my mistakes. Again, now that I see it was simply a 'tit for tat' retailation by Squeakbox, I am offended by his action; Wikipedia deserves better. ==> Agwiii 18:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• One more thing, Mel. One of the PREFERENCES options is to mark all edits as MINOR by default. I selected that option. If it's an issue, then perhaps you should remove the ability to default to minor edit. ==> Agwiii 18:47, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Whether you chose to have the minor edit flag start off being on of off, you're still responsible for seeing that on every edit it's set appropriately - the software obviously cannot know whether an edit is minor or not, only the human knows that. Help:Minor edit gives guidelines on when it's appropriate to mark an edit as minor; please follow them. And before you say that in your opinion, your change was minor, please note that that page says: consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option , so whether you think they are minor is less important than what other editors think. Noel (talk) 23:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Here Squeak has DELETED my comments in the Abortion|Talk page. Not content to modify them, he deletes them. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion&diff=12135289&oldid=12134819

Agwiii 21:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that you have the nerve to bring that up. You struck out his comment, and he reverted; that was careless of him, as your comment went with the revert, but frankly you only have yourself to blame. For someone who has at dreary length been claiming that he has interfered with your comments, you went and interefered with his. Moreover, this can't be what you were referring to in your accusations, which considerably predate it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not place the Vfd on Ron Branson for retaliation, nor havew I said that I did. I gave a section heading to his comments. I did not to the best of my knowledge remove or change anything Agwiii wrote, but I will check, --SqueakBox 18:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

When Agwiii accuses ,me of touching what he wrote i believe he means this, --SqueakBox 18:40, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your explanations lack any credibility and you are wrong as usual. When I have the time to deal with your tampering, I will post it in the correct place. You did note one of your violations, but you know quite well that is not the point, or the serious violations. Agwiii 19:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

What I especially dislike is what agwiii deletes (his comment) here. get me extradited eh. As we say here, ¿A ver cómo? --SqueakBox 18:44, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I Vfd'd Ron Branson was because I thought him not noteworthy, and therefore wanted to see if other users agreed with me or not. I put lots of things on Vfd, but always based on my judgement of the piece. If I had been going tit for tat I would have put all his stuff up for Vfd, but the aother articles were all clearly valid. I am quite simply not cyberstalking Agwiii. I improved all the articles he refers to, removing repetitions, unencyclopedic bits etc, all good wiki work. So I feel I am the one being harrassed, compared to the Khmer Rouge, etc, --SqueakBox 18:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

For the man who wrote on his home page that, "My greatest achievements here so far have been elevating Haile Selassie I to the status of Almighty God," you bring an important political perspective to the reform of the American Judicial System. Clearly You know absolutly nothing about the issue. You've admitted you don't live in the United States, so then, what legitmate motive could you have --- and the only answer is none. You know nothing about Branson or J.A.I.L 4 Judges. Your sole reason for the Vfd is harassment. As we say here, "never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." Agwiii 20:00, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberstalking by SqueakBox

SqueakBox (talk · contributions) has a vendetta against anything that I post or edit.

• He follows my work on Wikipedia and dog posts creating intentional distortions of the facts in its bogus claim to be neutral.

• Most recently, it vandalized the J.A.I.L. 4 Judges ® page by turning the registered acronym into the word jail.

• This person is a prolific vandalizer of my work, a dog poster whose only purpose is harassment. These actions constitute the crime of cyberstalking, according to Florida Statutes 784.048(1)(d).

• The behavior of Squeakbox is typical of the online harrassers and cyberstalkers. After a period of antagonizing and threatening, the perpetrator often tries to spin the story around and play the victim.

• Typical of those who practice online harassment, Squeakbox (talk · contributions) is now accusing the target of his harassment of his very actions.

Signed ==> Agwiii 17:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

try WIkipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, without providing diffs, you will get nowhere: people want the evidence presented, don't leave it to us to find evidence of what you accuse people of (but, the collected evidence should go to WP:RfC, not to this page). dab (ᛏ) 19:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be aware of official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No legal threats. -- Curps 19:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminated discussion

I am terminating this discussion with you, Squeakbox. Any subsequent messages from you, directed to me, at me, or about me will be considered improper, intentional, wilful cyberstalking and harassment in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Agwiii 19:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

• And how is he supposed to solve the dispute you two have if you don't want to talk to him or listen to what he says? Mgm|^(talk) 20:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• glad to hear it. All we can tell you here is: If you want to take legal action, do it, but cease from editing Wikipedia while the case is pending. If you do not, don't make void threats and follow dispute resolution like everyone else. Using the "User contributions" feature is not "cyberstalking" by any definition. dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Always glad to hear from the peanut gallery, however you've come late to the dance and the music stopped long ago, but thanks for your opinion. Agwiii 20:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with dab and mgm. At this point you need to either leave Wikipedia or stop making legal threats. It's inappropriate for you to continue editing articles while at the same time claiming that squeakbox is breaking the law by attempting to communicate with you. Rhobite 20:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I have a legitimate right to edit articles about the USA,
• I have the same rights as other unblocked, unbanned wiki user to edit articles on the USA --SqueakBox 20:57, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, technically, legally, you don't. The Wikimedia Foundation allows you to edit all articles here (including those about the USA), the same as it allows all other Wikipedia editors in good standing. But they don't have to allow anyone to do anything. (The content, of course, is available for anyone to copy, under the GFDL.) Noel (talk) 23:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I think a response to a terminated discussion is a non sequitur. Agwiii 21:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Agwiii here crosses out my edit at Talk:Abortion, and again --SqueakBox 21:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I crossed out your response to me after I told you not to - nothing of substance and NOTHING WAS DELETED -- you don't listen well. However, this link takes all to the place where you DELETED my comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbortion&diff=12135289&oldid=12134819 Signed ==> Agwiii 21:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

hello, Mister? I thought you had terminated the discussion? As in, you know, no more responses? Are you even able to walk away from a discussion you terminated? This is not a schoolyard. dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidence - not!

Visit the Vandalism page and notice that he had deleted the three individual reports I made of Squeakbox's his behavior. Amazing, he deletes or edits what I write, and gets away with it. Could it be there is preferential treatment for old users versus newer users? Coincidence? There are no coincidences. When you think you have a coincidence, check your premises, and you will find one is mistaken. I begin to smell a fish here. Agwiii 21:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here he removes my claim that I have a right to edit articles about the USA, --SqueakBox 21:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Okay I removed a personal attack. really I should remove all your personal attacks against me, --SqueakBox 21:29, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I beleve I was mistaken but I apologise, --SqueakBox 01:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

As I have not threatened Agwiii, nor less threatened him with death or serious bodil harm I don't believe anyone can say I have been stalking Agwiii. If he studied law he should no better than to make this claim with no evidence that I have been threatening him, --SqueakBox 01:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet letter

It appears that RexJudicata (talk • contribs) created Agwiii (talk • contribs) as a sockpuppet in order to give him some support at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act. Rex created the article at 9.12 on April 1 here. DJ Clayworth Vfd'd it 6 minutes later [15] At 11.14 Agwiii makes his 1st ever edit here with Rex coming back in here at 12.15. Here RexJudicata mentions and the elimination of Lenin's creation, the 'no fault' divorce.. Here Agwiii cretaes an article on this subject. They have very similar interests, and both supported the father's rights being POV'd into Abortion. Agwiii being a sockpuppet would also explain why he was so paranoid about having his contributions investigated, --SqueakBox 20:26, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

172.143.49.166 (talk • contribs) has been having a good time creating lots of copyvio articles. I fixed some of them but I just don't have the time to fixt he rest of the them right now. He/She has changed some of the text in some of the articles but most of the text is till copied and pasted. Would some one else finish this up so I can return to real woorld work? BrokenSegue 16:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:202.52.199.225

Three revert rule violation on Pashtun (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 202.52.199.225 (talk • contribs):

• 1st revert: 22:26, 9 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:54, 10 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 12:15, 10 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 15:41, 10 Apr 2005

and two more, since their explicit warning:

• 5th revert 20:13, 10 Apr 2005
• 6th revert 22:21, 10 Apr 2005

Reported by: Noel (talk) 16:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This was brough to my attention via WP:AN/I#Pashtun. Blocked for 24 hours. Noel (talk) 16:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Unblocked because this user wasn't warned, wasn't pointed at relevant policies and wasn't even welcomed. — mark ✎ 16:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, IPs shouldn't be blocked without notice of the rule. However, page protection may need to be considered here because the IP keeps adding the same material without discussing. --Michael Snow 17:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User has registered as Haider and has been welcomed by Mel Etitis and me. Has also been warned for breaking the 3RR by Mel. — mark ✎ 18:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • And they have ignored your warning, and continued to revert. So the block goes back on. Noel (talk) 22:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration notice - Baku Ibne, et al.

This case is now closed. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne, et al.#Final decision for the full decision - which includes a revert restriction and a personal attack parole on User talk:Rovoam. Please also see WP:AER for a request to indefinitely block various all sockpuppet accounts of LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou/etc. I haven't checked the block log, but I think most will have already been done) Thanks -- sannse (talk) 18:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Following the conclusion of this case, Rovoam went on an attack and vandalism spree on 11 April and has been blocked by User:Rdsmith4 for a very long time on grounds of Vandalism; belligerence; unwillingness to cooperate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case - GRider

Another closed case folks. User:GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 19:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agwiii

This user, Agwiii (talk · contributions), is becoming a nightmare. He has been accusing SqueakBox (talk · contributions) of harrassing and 'cyberstalking' him, has made legal threats against SqueakBox, has posted his accusations and threats – together with large chunks of Florida statutes(!) – to User pages and Vandalism in progress, and yet has failed to provide a shred of evidence for any of it. On his own account, however, he has removed a VfD notice from an article he started (Ron Branson [16]), and has struck out one of SqueakBox's comments on Talk:Abortion [17]. he really needs to be dealt with quickly, as things are getting worse, but I'm not clear that he's done anything that warrants a block, and he won't listen to the various editors who have tried to get him to stop and to calm down. Any thoughts? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If mediation has been tried, I would suggest placing a general RfC on his behaviour or more appropriate, contact the mediation commitee and add the dispute on their pages. Inter\^Echo 22:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since agwiii and squeakbox have both edited each others' comments, I think they should each be warned once and then blocked for disruption if they continue. Rhobite 22:04, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's now becoming rather more complicated. This user refuses to discuss anything with anybody. He has posted the following text to his talk page: "If you are a member of the "good old boys clique, don't contact me.", and he deletes anything that anybody posts there. He might accept mediation, but I fear that he may be simply too far gone. – ClockworkSoul 22:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true that SqueakBox deleted one of Agwiii's comments, but it was part of the revert of Agwiii's tampering with SqueakBox's comment. I also think that it would be unfair to treat them in the same way, as SqueakBox is rather more the victim in all this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me he is disrupting himself (and his case) by deleting anything posted on his talk page. Recommend 24 hour block to cool off. Inter\^Echo 22:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mel, your lack of objectivity and neutrality is the final straw. To think that Squeakbox is the victim is the equivalent of making O.J. Simpson the victim of Nicole Brown. I am deleting everything I wrote here, and as soon as I find out how to delete my account, IT'S GONE! Signed Agwiii 22:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Older username

I believe that Agwiii (talk · contributions) and RexJudicata (talk · contributions) are the same person. See [18] and [19] and [20]. --cesarb 22:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and this shows the beginning of the history; looks like he started as a POV pusher on the Abortion article. SqueakBox (talk · contributions) starts reverting him, and he gets more and more agressive with each reversion. --cesarb 22:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very clever, cesarb. Looks like you're probably right. – ClockworkSoul 22:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had reached the same conclusion about the 2 accounts on Friday but didn't say anything because I was only having trouble with Agwiii. After his POV looking edits at Abortion I decided to check his other contribs which is what he meant by cyberstalking, --SqueakBox 00:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Both Rex and Agwiii appear to have voted here, --SqueakBox 00:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

It appears that RexJudicata (talk • contribs) created Agwiii (talk • contribs) as a sockpuppet in order to give him some support at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act. Rex created the article at 9.12 on April 1 here. DJ Clayworth Vfd'd it 6 minutes later [21] At 11.14 Agwiii makes his 1st ever edit here with Rex coming back in here at 12.15. Here RexJudicata mentions and the elimination of Lenin's creation, the 'no fault' divorce.. Here Agwiii cretaes an article on this subject. They have very similar interests, and both supported the father's rights being POV'd into Abortion. Agwiii being a sockpuppet would also explain why he was so paranoid about having his contributions investigated, --SqueakBox 20:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously Squeakbox, I would take this sort of thing to WP:RfC. This is way beyond "admin intervention required" and concerns everybody, not just the admins. dab (ᛏ) 20:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV redirects

An anon IP has created two redirects for George Bush: Smirking Chimp and Commander Codpiece. I've deleted them as they looked to me like POV vandalism, but the anon IP says I'm abusing my admin powers and the redirects ought to be put on VfD. Any input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

delete, warn, if repeated ban.Geni 22:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for seeking out advice of other admins rather than acting unilaterally this time. I respect that. I created the redirects because I feel that they fall within the requirements on WP:R. A direct quote from that page: "For example, redirecting Dubya to George W. Bush might be considered offensive, but the redirect aids accidental linking, makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely, and is useful to some people, so it should not be deleted." Furthermore, there has long been a redirect from Slick Willy to Bill Clinton, as well as numerous other unflattering nicknames for various individuals (Butcher of Baghdad --> Saddam Hussein). Either all of these should be deleted or none should be. I opened a thread on WP:RFD myself for these two; I am not vandalizing or trying to sneak anything past anyone here. Anyone should feel free to discuss the issue there, but I do not believe that admins should take it upon themselves to unilaterally decide that these redirects are inappropriate. They should go through the prescribed process. 63.173.114.141 22:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINTGeni 22:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I question the assertion that creating two redirects constitutes "disruption". Furthermore, as I stated in the WP:RFD page, I would have no objection if these redirected not to the main George W. Bush page, but to a page stating these are derogatory nicknames for Bush. Wikipedia has a List of ethnic slurs; why not a List of nicknames for George W. Bush with explanations of how these nicknames came about, how widespread they are, and so forth? I'm not being dogmatic in insisting things be done a particular way. I'd just like to see some consistency in the way things are handled. 63.173.114.141 22:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we already have List of U.S. Presidential nicknames, which List of nicknames for George W. Bush points to. How about a compromise position? Would you consider it acceptable to point Slick Willy, Smirking Chimp, and all of the other nickname redirects to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames rather than to the Presidents' individual pages? That would avoid POV issues while avoiding these terms coming up blank during a search. 63.173.114.141 23:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that may be true of "Slick Willy", which is common enough use that people generally know of whom you speak when you use that phrase, but "Commander Codpiece" and "Smirking Chimp"? Certainly not. – ClockworkSoul 22:49, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smirking Chimp has about 346,000 Google hits - granted, not all refer to Bush, but most of the top matches do. Commander Codpiece garners 1,340; Whistle Ass, 3,870. I think that at least Smirking Chimp should be redirected to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames, since that name is mentioned on the page. I'm willing to entertain arguments that the others are not newsworthy; still, I would advocate all, as Redirects are cheap. 63.173.114.141 23:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Smirking Chimp"=276,000 hits on google shove it to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames "Commander Codpiece" racks up 283 hits on google I think we can do without a redirect for that one for now.

Agreed. I've not heard it before now, but "smirking chimp" seems pretty common. "Commander Codpiece" we can certainly do without. – ClockworkSoul 23:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smirking Chimp --> List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. This nickname is shown on the list on that page, and has the most Google hits. I'll hold off on the others until/if further consensus is reached. 63.173.114.141 23:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on. These are ephemera googlebombs, not nicknames in meaningful usage. Scrap them, ban the asshole creating them, move on with our lives, please come again. Snowspinner 23:25, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 63.173.114.141 23:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"ephemera googlebombs"? Bullcrap. I've heard "Smirking Chimp" frequently enough, and allowing "Slick Willy" and not "Smirking Chimp" is the worst kind of POV special pleading. And calling someone whose vocabulary you don't like and who is clearly following established precedent an "asshole" isn't demonstrating very admin-like behavior, in my opinion. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smirking Chimp has a rather well-known website dedicated to it. Slick Willy has definitely gone into the lexicon. Redirecting to the actual biographies is inappropriate because it's non-neutral, but I think the anon's suggestion of redirecting to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames is acceptable. --Michael Snow 00:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. This is indefensible POV vandalism. If you want to write an article on the "Smirking Chimp" nickname, write one. If there's not enough to make at least a paragraph article (And if it's in meaningful use, there should be an article to write on the term), don't redirect to the subject of the insult. Snowspinner 00:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Give me a break, yourself. If you want to write an article on the "Slick Willy" nickname, write one. If there's not enough to make at least a paragraph article (And if it's in meaningful use, there should be an article to write on the term), don't redirect to the subject of the insult. Capiche? Notice the imbalance? Or does noting double standard make one an "asshole"? (Not to mention, of course, the double standard of an admin employing personal attacks.) --Calton | Talk 03:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There must be something about this US President that appears to get the worst out of people... Being reasonably neutral (Non American and disliking Bush and Clinton with equal measure) I would think it is eminently wrong to have such clearly offensively meant nicknames link directly to the person in question as if these were valid names. The appropriate way of dealing with them is to make them all redirects to the nickname page. Refdoc 00:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, everyone. "Smirking Chimp" can be listed as a Bush nickname at List of U.S. Presidential nicknames without having to be a redirect, which are supposed to help readers find pages. My own view is that Smirking Chimp and Captain Codpiece are definitely too offensive to be redirects and unlike Slick Willy are not in frequent use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a redirect, but having a redirect (or, alternatively, an article about the website itself) deters people from creating the article as "George W. Bush smirks and looks like a chimp." --Michael Snow 01:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can understand not wanting to have a redirect directly from Smirking Chimp to George W. Bush, as this might appear to implicitly endorse the nickname, thus violating NPOV. However, I don't see what the objection is to redirecting it to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames, which obviously describes what terms some people have used to refer to Presidents, without endorsing them. I still believe that WP:RFD is the most appropriate forum for settling such disputes. I can see a justification for leaving out Commander Codpiece and Whistle Ass, since they have far fewer Google hits, and this is why I did not try to re-create those redirects. But a nickname with hundreds of thousands of Google hits is clearly newsworthy. And it is mentioned in the article. Why is a redirect inappropriate? BTW, would anyone have an objection to changing Slick Willy to redirect to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames, instead of directly to Bill Clinton? 63.173.114.141 01:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the anon has a point. If Smirking Chimp is an inherently POV redirect that should be deleted, then so is Slick Willy. One cannot argue that one should be "in" while the other is "out" because of currency and degree of use, because both of them are in common use -- only by different groups with different points of view. Admitting one, and not the other, is far from NPOV. Since Smirking Chimp has been deleted and turned into an entry on List of U.S. Presidential nicknames, then Slick Willy should receive the same treatment. Given some of the other articles in Wikipedia (I notice the IFD vote on autofellatio_2.jpg is now completed, and the image was retained), we are being a bit touchy about such a trifle as respect for U.S. Presidents, aren't we? Or does only the reigning one merit respect? --BM 01:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(written before BM comments above, but caught in an edit conflict) Smirking Chimp has enough currency to warrant a redirect to the nicknames page. I think the anon is raising a valid point regarding disparaging POV redirects. Slick Willy should probably also redirect to the nicknames page rather than directly to Bill Clinton. There's no need to encourage (or at least make it easy for) people to use such slang POV terms to refer to either Clinton or Bush in articles. older≠wiser 01:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Most of Smirking Chimp's currency seems to come from the website or blog, not because it's actually used as a nickname. Anyway, we probably shouldn't be basing decisions on Google searches alone. Slick Willy has entered the public consciousness and has been referred to as Clinton's nickname in the mainstream press. I've never seen a mainstream reference to Smirking Chimp or Captain Codpiece. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't heard of the website or blog before this (or at least I don't recall seeing it). But I had heard the term used to describe GWB, though I can't recall where. I don't think anyone is still arguing that Captain Codpiece should be kept. I think SM and SW should be redirects to the nicknames page rather than to their targets of disparagement. older≠wiser 02:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either nickname is used very much by the "mainstream" press. Both of these are nicknames which are used by people who are inclined to use these insulting nicknames. That means, generally, Republicans use SW and Democrats use SC, and both are very commonly used. If Wikipedia is going to have one, it should have the other, or else it can kiss any pretense of NPOV goodbye. You could argue that it isn't encyclopedic to have articles or even redirects concerning common insulting nicknames for national leaders, but that would apply to all of them, and not just to the national leaders who one thinks deserve to be insulted. --BM 03:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say used by the mainstream press. I said referred to as a nickname by the mainstream press. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who keeps deleting this article, but I am creating it again as a redirect. This is NOT vandalism. Besides the original anon, of whom good faith should be assumed, four other people in this discussion have given reasons why this article should exist. These were Calton, Michael Snow, Bkonrad, and me. Since it is not vandalism, no administrator has the authority to delete it just because he doesn't accept these arguments. If someone disagrees with the existence of the redirect, he/she should make his case and vote on VFD/RFD -- JUST THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE. --BM 11:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know Commander Codpiece but Smirking Chimp seems reasonable. We can't go around deleting valid redirects just because they're unflattering. This particular case doesn't seem to be related to the google-bombing phenomenon where, for instance "Great French Military Victories" when queried with the "I'm feeling lucky" button was caused to return no result except the question "Did you mean Great French Military Defeats?" [22], however I'm sure that there are cases where a redirect could be misused in a similar manner, creating an unflattering but unencyclopedic redirect. Such redirects should probably be judged on content and not treated as vandalism as a matter of course--it's a judgement call. I don't think the administrator was wrong to delete and then seek advice here. Deleted redirects can always be restored if found to be appropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think the initial deletion was outrageous, although as I and others have argued here, it was erroneous. However, after most of this discussion had already taken place, to delete again my recreation of Smirking Chimp was much more questionable, and I would hope that it was done in ignorance of this discussion. By the way, in checking the Deletion log, the second deletion was done by RickK. --BM 12:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slim deleted Smirking Chimp again. I don't see that this is an admin decision, and the RFD votes on this article (and Slick Willy) should be allowed to run their courses. I'd like to ask Slim by what authority she is deleting this article, now twice. In any case, I am recreating the article again. Please stop using admin powers to delete it, and vote in the RFD if you don't think it should remain. --BM 20:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, looks like someone else already did it. --BM 20:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User 24.242.214.82

Heads up please - this user is changing subtly the number of provinces in the Afghanistan page. I have blocked him after initially warning him for some silly stuff on which he self reverted, but then blocked him for 24 hrs after I realised what he really was up to . Refdoc 00:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Road Runner cable IP, cpe-24-242-214-82.houston.res.rr.com - semi-constant, I think, so escalate blocks as needed, up to a month - David Gerard 00:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg

Despite an utter lack of consensus to delete the image (according to the final count at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Autofellatio 2 of 64 deletes to 48 keeps, User:Timwi has deleted the image. He didn't even bother to modify the Autofellatio article to delete the link, and he didn't justify his deletion anywhere, he just unilaterally deleted it. RickK 03:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've re-uploaded it. Unfortunately, I don't have information about the original copyright grant, I just know it was free use provided that we give attribution. --Carnildo 04:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Image talk:Autofellatio_2.jpg. The person who obtained the image and permission was User:Christiaan. FreplySpang (talk) 04:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(the remaining discussion was moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (where it belongs) dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC))

does anybody agree with me that a 57% majority for deletion, while constituting an "utter lack of consensus" for both keeping and deleting, should be enough for the 'keep' voters to accept a compromise, such as, reduction of size and/or a black/white version. After all, the image is being kept against the will of the majority of voters. dab (ᛏ) 07:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No but I does mean there is more case for holding a revote in futureGeni 07:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turns out that Timwi deleted the picture in error during a vandalism cleanup. dab, I think your suggestion should probably be made on the image talk page. As you are probably aware, image size can be adjusted on the including page. Dropping color would surely result in loss of information from the image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and to think back when I said the original image would be used for vanderlism people dissagreed.Geni 07:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know, Tony. That's what 57% of people want: less information. Can you imagine? T.M.I.! not every one is fond of looking at hires penises. I am saying, don't make the image larger than required for its use as a thumbnail on the article page. Any additional "information" is a courtesy to vandals. dab (ᛏ) 07:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The attempt to delete the picture, despite an attempt to pack the vote, failed to gain consensus. Those who don't want to look at the picture should refrain from doing so and stop using vandalism as an excuse to try to subvert the decision-making process. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree the picture should be kept for now, possibly in a different format, but if nobody supports me on this, I'll just drop it. Deleting an image perceived to be disruptive, i.e. in a good faith attempt to clean up WP may be edit-warring, but it is not vandalism by our definition of the term, so I wish you'd stop calling it that. dab (ᛏ) 19:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously a majority of people support you on this, and on even stronger measures. Just not a large enough majority. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I realize a majority wants the image gone. I am referring to the more general idea that when an ifd vote reaches a majority, but no "consensus", that it should then be looked into if the image can be modified to address some of the concerns of those who want to delete it. It strikes me as obvious that the voters of 'keep' should be open to such modifications since they can see a majority disagrees with them. It seems straightforward to me, but do we have anything like this in the guidelines, and if not, does anyone else think that we should? dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That has been done: in particular, work's been done to address the concerns of the many people who wanted it deleted as a vandal magnet. It's no longer possible to inline the image. Demi ^T/_C 01:11, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

It being no longer possible to inline the image solves any vandalism concerns, does it not? How was this done—is it a software change, tied to the specific image name? I suggest in the vote for the previous image that we have a software change that prevented a suitably tagged image being displayed inline (and the image could be protected to stop the tag being changed), but I see no obvious tag on the image page.-gadfium 03:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I've seen Tim Starling's post on the Village pump saying how it's been implemented.-gadfium 09:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The inlining was done by a "fr:en:" hack, and support for this kind of interwiki redirect has been turned off. I must say I find the idea that one must delete images simply because they've been used for vandalism somewhat mind-boggling. If you delete one, surely another will be used. We'd end up deleting every image that could be regarded as even remotely shocking, when all that is required is to revert the vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg — very cool, I didn't realize this was implemented. Is this a hack for this particular image, or can we apply that to any image? This does satisfy a lot of my concerns. Now, if we could also prevent redirects to it (or, for that matter, redirects to any image page; I do not think they are ever needed). dab (ᛏ) 06:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course since you followed the IfD discussion you already knew this, but you must have forgotten. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dab, I already suggested that if you want to get a consensus on degrading the image in some way you should raise it on the image talk (and please, don't try to do any vote-packing as others have done--if you want to advertise it list it on current surveys or Violetriga's public watch system). I just don't see any chance of the idea flying, somehow, but give it a go if you must. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even easier, produce a degraded version of the image under a different name and try to get consensus to replace the image link on Autofellatio to a link to that one instead of the original. If you get consensus for that, the original can be deleted as an orphan. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reading your comments, one wouldn't think you are aware that you are in a minority position. dab (ᛏ) 06:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that you keep suggesting changes for which you are blatantly unwilling to even pretend to want to obtain any kind of consensus. Frankly I'm shocked at your attitude. If you want to degrade a photograph, obtain a consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the concept of consensus is based on respect for minorities, i.e. avoid the "tyranny of the 51%". I have no respect for minorities who lack respect for the majority, entirely. Such an attitude leads to a "tyranny of the 21%", which is certainly even worse than the 51%'s. dab (ᛏ) 07:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dab, for now you're alone, the only person suggesting degrading the picture. You're not even trying to get a consensus. Yes, you're showing disrespect. No, a minority that fails to support deletion for a picture is not required to support your proposal to vandalize it as an alternative. Put this as a proposal and get consensus on it, and stop trying to treat that slim majority, blatantly gerrymandered as it was, as anything other than a badge of shame for the vote-fixer who gleaned it by spamming editors who he thought would support deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:65.12.194.210 neo-Nazi propaganda

For now I'm treating this guy's edits as iffy on content grounds (he's planting links to what looks like a neo-nazi propaganda site). I've left him a polite note explaining why I've reverted all of his edits. Could be part of a wider attempt to plant dodgy nonsense on Wikipedia.

Articles affected so far:

• 12:32, 11 Apr 2005 Treblinka
• 12:27, 11 Apr 2005 Jennie Jerome
• 12:23, 11 Apr 2005 Winston Churchill
• 12:19, 11 Apr 2005 Terezín
• 12:04, 11 Apr 2005 Lockerbie
• 11:59, 11 Apr 2005 Drancy deportation camp
• 11:53, 11 Apr 2005 USS Cole bombing
• 11:48, 11 Apr 2005 Kristallnacht
• 11:43, 11 Apr 2005 Leopold and Loeb
• 04:00, 11 Apr 2005 Lindbergh kidnapping
• 03:57, 11 Apr 2005 Leo Frank

The thing to look out for seems to be dodgy conspiracy theories implicating shadowy Jewish or Zionist groups. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, he can always discuss things on the talk pages, and any notable theories can be included and treated in a NPOV manner. I think there's been a worrying tendency towards the idea that these views should be excluded outright. On the other hand, repeatedly adding dubious material without discussion would also be cause for worry. Everyking 13:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment. If he can produce a NPOV treatment of the subject matter that's fine. At the moment he's representing these conspiracy theory links as factual by adding them to the external links with either no comment or a misleading one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coolcat

Three revert rule violation on Kurdish people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Coolcat (talk • contribs):

• 1st revert: 04:47, 11 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:31, 11 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:55, 11 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 17:28, 11 Apr 2005

Reported by: Stereotek 17:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Coolcat has been insisting on adding "...and would significantly destabilise the region as declared in a uniform statement by all the countries involved in a uniform statement." and "...among the people and is opposed by the surrounding nations as it will destabilize the already troubled region..." to the Kurdish people article. Coolcat has been reverting the article 4 times within 24 hours to archieve that goal. Stereotek 17:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 23:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GRider

GRider edited Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Middle School earlier today, in violation of recent ArbCom decision. Radiant_* 18:07, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Snowspinner 18:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted GRider's vote while putting in your own. Would it be better to strike out his vote instead of deleting it? It makes it a little more clear that he actually voted on that page, and a strikeout (with comment) is just as good for the WP:VFD/Old person working on this vote. --Deathphoenix 20:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps - if you want to reinstert it struck through, go for it. Snowspinner 22:44, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm pedantic enough to ask, but lazy enough not to do it. ;-) --Deathphoenix 02:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why stop at a week? If you're gonna abuse powers, go ahead and make it a month, two, or a year. I think it is perhaps representative of one of our greatest failures as a community that we have allowed someone with such a totalitarian mentality to call the shots on so many issues for so long. Everyking 22:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I understand how this is an abuse of powers... I blocked in accordance with the blocking policy. Snowspinner 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because the arbcom ruling said (fortunately) "up to a week", not "however long the blocking admin feels like blocking". But of course "common sense" might dictate a longer block. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And leave it to Snowspinner to pick the most extreme penalty possible. Everyking 22:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought breaking the ban within 24 hours of it being imposed was particularly flagrant, yes. Snowspinner 23:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think before I told you that while a kid should not steal gum, a policeman shooting the kid for it is much worse. Do you see the logic here? Everyking 23:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How long would you have blocked for? Are we talking about 1 hour vs. 7 days or 4 vs. 7. This was a fairly flagrant violation and if their is a decent excuse GRider may email us and we can consider reducing the sentence. BrokenSegue 23:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have blocked at all, but I think a ban of perhaps a day could've been justifiable. A week is tantamount to telling someone "go away. We don't want you here." Everyking 23:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRider broke the arbcom parole the day after it was imposed. This was a clear attempt at thumbing his nose at the community, and the block was entirely appropriate. RickK 23:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BrokenSegue that this violation was quite flagrant. If you check the block log, you'll notice that I actually blocked GRider for a week before Snowspinner imposed his block. Last week, GRider violated the ArbCom's temporary injunction and was blocked for a day. After the ArbCom ruling was posted on his talk page, GRider blanked it and proceeded to edit VfD pages. This can not be taken as anything but blatant disregard for his deletion-related ban. It also emphasizes GRider's refusal to ever discuss his behavior. Carbonite | Talk 23:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Carbonite's reasoning. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I fully support Snowspinner on this. The arbitration committee's resolution specifically said:

1.3) GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page for a period of one year. Should he do so, he may be blocked for up to a week by an administrator and shall have the parole reset. Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator. Passed 6 to 0 at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are several points to consider with this:

1. Is the page he edited deletion related? I think everyone can agree that VfD is deletion related.
2. Was he covered by the ban at the time? The resolution was passed at 18:53, 10 Apr 2005. This edit [23] was made at 18:23, 11 Apr 2005. So, yes he was.
3. Could he reasonably be expected to have known about the ban? Arbitrator Sannse left the message about the ban on his user page at 18:58, 10 Apr 2005 (correcting the link 1 minute later) [24]. At 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 GRider edited his talk page [25], removing Sannse's post. It is safe to say therefore that he was well aware of the ban.
4. Does this deserve a punishment? Imho, yes. This was a clear violation of the arbcom resolution. If such rullings are not enforced, what is the point of the ArbCom?
5. What punishment does it deserve? This was a deliberate violation (imho) - editing a page that was clearly deletion related (indeed it is a vote on a school, the exact sort of article that broke the camels back and led to the case in the first place), less than 24 hours after the ban was enacted, and less than 2 hours after he had removed the notice of the ban from his talk page. Short of one or more frivolous nominatons to VfD and posting a message on his talk page about it, I don't think he could be more blatant in his defiance. If this isn't punished severely then what message does it send to him and other users subject to arbcom cases/resolutions/injunctions? It would say that it is fine to ignore them, and you'll only get a short ban at most. Imho that would be a very Bad Thing. The maximum penalty available is 1 week, and based on my reasoning I feel Snowspinner is perfectly correct to have blocked him for that amount of time. Fwiw, I am not an admin, but would likely have done the same thing as Snowspinner. Thryduulf 23:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does Grider have to check in with his Parole officer every week or so, to make sure he's still on the path to righteousness? Did we outfit him with a Wikibraclet on his leg so that he won't wander into areas his "parole board" has decided he shouldn't violate? Is there a set of "rules" on Wikipedia regarding his behaviour that aren't, of course, editable and changeable by the entire community, including Grider? I am concerned that if Grider is a recidivist and ends up back in Wikijail, he may get shanked by some of the other miscreants. Apparently if he uses Wikipedia facilities to the best of his abilities, he will be punished. Does his name need to be changed to GharrisonBergeron? I'm all for it; then we'll know what he's about. Too bad his name doesn't have a letter "A" in it, so he can change it to red. I hope I meet none of you in the road. --Jscott 17:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What an astonishing collection of silly rhetorical questions. The short answer to them all is simple: GRider simply has to not violate his ArbCom ruling. Period. And it's not a complicated ruling, either: you might want to climb down from your high horse long enough to read it. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LibraryLion

LibraryLion (talk • contribs) just removed a Vfd from War of the Stray Dog here. can someone please restore it and warn him, --SqueakBox 21:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.69.255.205

The above IP address keeps being blocked, I believe because of vandalism from User:Kracky. This is a Shaw proxy server and the block keeps catching legitimate editors too, even though this isn't their IP address. That is, it seems Wikipedia is only finding the proxy server in this case, not the individual IP address. I don't know what the best thing to do is. I'm also going to leave a note for Jamesday. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kracky was vandalizing the Mma troll page, which I've vprotected, so we can remove the block until he finds another page to vandalize. RickK 23:29, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. That's a Shaw Cable proxy, and LOTS AND LOTS of editors from Soviet Canuckistan will show as coming through it. So admins should be careful not to block it for long periods, only enough to dissuade a vandal (say, 15-60 min or whatever) - David Gerard 10:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long term persistent vandal

24.60.128.48 (talk • contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the same erroneous information into Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends related articles, and a similar pattern of vandalism on a few other articles, including Alien experiment (Lilo & Stitch). The contribution history goes back to Novemeber and as far as I can tell they have made no undisputed edits. Its taken me a good half-three quarters of an hour to revert his latest round. I request that they be banned, they have been warned twice before today and on numerous talk pages. See also Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#24.60.128.48. A minium ban of a week will be needed as they don't come here every day. I'd prefer a month or longer ban though. Thryduulf 23:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a reincarnation of the Cartoon Vandal, who makes tons of erroneous edits and never discusses them, gets reverted, and comes back and makes the same edits all over again. He/she seems to use lots of anonymous IDs which nobody else ever uses. RickK 23:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I can hardly fathom the workings of such a mind. Deliberate misinformation should be dealt with harshly, I agree. Everyone makes errors, of course, so one has to be careful in distinguishing it from honest mistakes. But this certainly sounds deliberate to me. Everyking 10:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I used to follow this guy around and remove his sneaky vandalism, but after a while I simply gave it up. It takes much time to fact check every one of his many many edits, you can't block him as he'll simply use another IP, etc. Between his vandalism he makes alot of valid edits as well, usually hiding his vandalism behind the good edits. He likes to create lists (like lists of episodes) with tiny mistakes in them for example. Sometimes I'd really like to simply revert him on sight, no matter what he is doing, and if there is consensus for that, I'll gladly do the job. I created a watchlist (just use the "Related changes" links) a while ago of articles that he edits frequently, feel free to use it and add new vandalized articles. --Conti|✉ 12:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that if his work is riddled with what we can judge to be deliberate errors, they should all be reverted, even if there is some valid content there. That would probably also get him to stop, if he saw the futility of his efforts. Everyking 13:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That didn't work with Michael. Snowspinner 13:59, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would not want to generalize from Michael to other problem editors. He is not really typical, from what I've seen. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Unlike Michael, this user does not make profanity-laden Talk page death and rape threats. RickK 04:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)