I've been really busy outside Wikipedia the last few days, and may be the next few days, but could someone look into new user El Rei? His home page screams "problem user" to me, and I've already had one other user complain to me about him. It looks like his main (sole?) agenda here is to attack Catalan nationalism. Possible sockpuppet, because he's single-issue and already knows the ropes, but could just be someone who was previously editing anonymously, or jsut watching. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Several PoV edits. i have placed a warning about one particularly egrious edit on his talk page. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

... it appears that over-zealous admin action is not just an en thing. I had a Korean friend translate a short amount of text for the Korean version of the Municipality of Strathfield, however it was deleted (with no explanation) by ko:사용자:최담담. Same with ko:Strathfield. Doesn't bode well for the project (it's hard to find Korean natives who are willing to translate for you!). Considering that Strathfield has one of the largest populations of Koreans in Australia, I would have thought that it would be appropriate to have an article on the Korean wiki (South Koreans would find it useful when visiting Australia). Can anyone advise on the best way of dealing with this issue, or at least find out why it got deleted? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the latin alphabet titles? Does ko have policy on this sort of thing? Were they orphans etc... Secretlondon 02:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible, however I don't believe there is an equivalent Korean version of Strathfield... - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well if you look at undelete info it has a reason in Korean. The reason includes 2 links - one of which is to Sydney. Note that this is to 시드니 and not to a page called Sydney.. Secretlondon 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason isn't an actual reason, just the boilerplate "content was" and "only contributor". ~~ N (t/c) 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Are they not more likely to be able to speculate on their policies if you ask at the VP equivalent on ko:? This doesn't sounds like an issue that en: can usefully answer; except to complain about another Wiki. -Splash^talk 03:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Have posted to their AFD page. If something happens, then it happens. Otherwise, I'm not going to bother pursuing it. en is enough for me! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Trhead can close - a message to the editor who deleted, to PuzzletChang and to their AFD talk page sorted things out: seems like they have had spammers and my friend's translation wasn't too good (he didn't really know how Wikipedia worked...) Thanks for everyone's help! Ta bu shi da yu 11:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Is interwiki the thing that handles the html code for mediawiki? Or am I getting them mixed up, either way I hope they sort this problem out soon, just about every page I load has some stray unclosed html code gone astray--Hello'from^'SPACE 00:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• User:Guettarda, User:HistoryBA, User:Jpgordon, User:Accountable_1135, User:Nickptar, User:Shanes, User:Gamaliel, User:Scimitar, and finally User:Hall_Monitor along with a whole host of sockpuppets and anons seem commited to blind reverting all my contributions, this is counter productive, and downright trollish, I tried contacting a user User:MONGO, who seems reasonable enough, to help me deal with the problem, he sent me here, so here I am --Here I come to save the day 23:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

When a whole set of different editors are reverting your edits, perhaps you should look at your own edits. For example, you inserted several {{NPOV}} tags without making any attempt to explain what specifically you considered not in keeping with our NPOV policy. You chose not to act when I explained this to you - so you really should not be upset that Scimitar eventually reverted your tagging. Guettarda 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Acuse the acuser? oh that's origional--Here I come to save the day 00:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Policy states that NPOV tags can be removed if there is no explanation for them on the talk page. ~~ N (t/c) 00:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, of course it's not. People like you have been making false accusations throughout history. However, Guettarada's "accusation"(more accurately advice) is drastically more reasonable than yours. Superm401 | Talk 03:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Note this edit. Note that I have never reverted anything added by this user, to my knowledge. Note that my only involvement ever with this user has been that post. Note especially the false edit summary. Note that this is classic trollish behavior. ~~ N (t/c) 00:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean admins shouldn't be required to actually take time to think before jumping to conclusions, and making rash, snap desicions--Here I come to save the day 01:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Before making more accusations and complaints, please explain the lie in your edit summary. Superm401 | Talk 03:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rash, snap decisions such as? ~~ N (t/c) 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

lets see, parroting me then spitting my own words back at me with a question mark at the end? Now that is classic trollish behavior if I've ever scene it--Here I come to save the day 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's more important than policy, it's common sense :) - NPOV tag is saying "there is a problem with this article because X". Without X it's essentially a null statement. (After all, someone could easily tag an article on the basis that they think it leans too much towards one POV, then someone might try to fix the flagged undefined problem by making it lean more towards the opposite POV.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rd232 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend admins ignore this post until the deceitful edit summary has been explained fully. Superm401 | Talk 03:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If you refer to my edit summary "fmt", this was accurate. I made two minor changes to the initial comment. (And forgot to sign - it was late :) ). Always check the history before accusing people of deceitful edit summaries (in my experience pretty rare anyway - unhelpful or absent summaries yes, but outright unambiguous deceit, rare). Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Superm401 was referring to the original poster of this thread. See [1]. android79 15:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, probably. I was confused because Superm401's remark wasn't terribly specific and was right below mine. Rd232 ^talk 16:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The only deceitful person here is you and maybe a few others, how do you expect me to answer you when i have no idea you're talking about--Here I come to save the day 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I just left you a message on your talk page regarding a "deceitful" edit summary you left on Bill Clinton [2]. --Viriditas | Talk 06:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, your post above parroting someone seems pretty bad to me. Wait, why does that seem familiar?

i have no idea you're talking about It ain't rocket science. Your edit summary ("formatting text") bears no relation to the actual edit, which was adding User:Nickptar to your enemies list for the crime of disagreeing with you. Disingenuous claims of not understanding the obvious: another classic troll behavior. --Calton | Talk 05:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

My view is that "Here I come..." could benefit from toning down his rhetoric (re: "the only deceitful person here is you", etc. - see above) . At the same time, I do agree that Accountable 1135's actions ought to be looked into - I have had problems with 1135 myself. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Take that comment with a grain of salt. See User talk:The Epopt#Help! I am being hassled by what appears to be a sockpuppet vandal, for a start. Superm401 | Talk 07:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• hum, Q1werty (talk · contribs), I'm just saying..... walks off whistling....who was that masked stranger -- no name

Does anyone else think this was a little too obvious?--64.12.116.74 20:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

BigDaddy777, aka A1sdf, has been running a Metric Shitload of socks and never mind the silly little matter of his arbitration case. See block log for comedy. Accountable 1135 appears to be the same user as well, for more comedy, and, BWAHAHAHA, notably also shares an IP range with User:SuperTroll. Although that might just be coincidence. (no he doesn't, whoops) - David Gerard 13:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I wondered - "here I come to save the day" sounded very BD to me. But that he's now editing agaist himself...is he maybe a parody of a right-wing user? Guettarda 14:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a poor troll who can't stoke both sides of an argument as needed - David Gerard 16:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

omg is that really BigDaddy? Geezus that guy needs to get a life and go do something else besides be bitter at wikipedia for the rest of his life. --kizzle 20:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It seemed pretty obvious from the start that BigDaddy was supposed to be a strawman, so much so that he was probably a strawman of a strawman, ie, being himself, but exagerated, so it would look like it was a liberal pretending to be a republican.. yes my head hurts too.. but frankly whatever he was, BigDaddy was far too big an asshole to be any of these people. The question is of course, since qwerty was already blocked from editing, no matter who/what it was, for obvious reasons, then why would said person try to evade a block, yet draw so much attention to themselves? why virtually copy a pre-ban talk page, user name, even signature?? not to mention, this whole time, AOL anons seems to have been running around marking just about everyone involved in this whole deal.. last time I checked, only admins could see the ip of registered users, so how did some 2 or 3 post aol anon manage to pinpoint every single one of them? Hell, a few of the more obvious ones, like Big Daddy (talk · contribs), BigDaddy (talk · contribs), BigDaddy000 (talk · contribs), BigDaddy666 (talk · contribs), and a few others, were first reported by aol anons, except, half of those user names were registered after they were reported???!! Anyone find something strange about that? top this all off with the fact that after the dust cleared, it seems the only involved parties, not touched by the sockpuppet scandal are Rex and a random AOL anon, an odd turn of events since Rex was the one accused of being BigDaddy, just prior to the flood of sockpuppets, either way, there's something very strange going on here--Quickie smalls 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Could a Dutch speaker translate this [[3]]? 213.94.233.173 13:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello and good day to you. I am the inventor of the "SUPER COOL" robot. I write to tell that you the requirements of other smaller programmers are clearly false. This "SUPER TROLL" is only a bad amateur who tries require credit for my work. Or does this "SUPER sees TROLL" have the guard word to the accounts... I do not think so. That is all. Have a nice day! Programmer X .

• my dutch is slightly rusty but this close enough. 71.28.246.3 09:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I could, but why do you want it? A quick look at recent edits from your IP address and at some "please stop vandalizing" messages left on your talk page didn't inspire confidence that the person using that IP address recently was trying to help Wikipedia. Are you the same person or someone different? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 14:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What business of yours are my contributions. In fact, what were you doing looking through my edit history? And FYI, your conspiracy theories are a nonsense - don't you think I'd want to hide my IP address if I was the vandalbot? 213.94.233.173 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, when I read your message requesting a translation, I went to your talk page, out of the kindness of my heart, to translate the passage for you, thinking that it might not be appropriate here. (What has it got to do with the administrators' noticeboard?) When I got there, I saw so many "stop vandalizing" messages that I looked at your contributions to see if they'd give me a clue as to whether they all came from the same person. (No point in sending a message to the talk page of a randomly-assigned IP address.) And by the way, you haven't thanked me for doing the translation! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the translation. I now see that there has been some vandalism from this IP address, but I wasn't behind it. I do resent how, increasingly, any non-admin who posts on a talk page or vote has their contributions combed for anything suspect. 213.94.233.173 20:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW it's the creator of robot SUPER COOL complaining that the creator of another robot, SUPER TROLL, is taking credit for his work. Rd232 ^talk 14:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here goes:

Bright and good day to you

I am the creator of the "SUPER COOL" robot. I write to tell you that the claims of other smaller programmers are clearly false. This "SUPER TROLL" is simply a bad amateur who is trying to claim credit for my work. See if this "SUPER TROLL" knows the password for the accounts. . . I think not. That is all. Have a nice day! Programmer X

(Note from Ann: It's fifteen years since I left Holland, and I'm deliberately trying to forget my Dutch because it confuses me when I try to speak German. Nevertheless, my instinct is that that Dutch passage was not written by a native.) Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 14:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ann, I couldn't agree more with that last sentence... Especially the first and last sentence of the Dutch text are in no way something a native speaker would say. In fact, I am quite sure the text was translated by something like Babelfish. --JoanneB 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a policy or guidline on pages that are basically just copy and paste credit listings from IMDB? AlistairMcMillan 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, we do not per se. But your question reminds me of the United States Supreme Court case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. After Feist copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, the court ruled that there was no copyright infringement; "information" is not copyrightable but "collections" of information can be. So applying that ruling to your question, merely copying and pasting credit listings from IMDB would probably be no different. After all, IMDB is also essentially merely copying and pasting the data from the movie studios' publications and press releases. But then again, I am not an expert in copyright law. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think I misunderstood your original question. If an article just merely has a "data dump" of credit listings without asserting any sort of context in a lead section, it qualifies for speedy deletion (of course I and many others would prefer that it should immediately be converted to a reasonable film-stub instead of being deleted right away). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • However, you also have watch if the "Plot Outline" and the "User Comments" from the IMDB pages are copied and pasted too. That would be copyvio. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This article was nominated on WP:AFD, and the community came to a consensus to delete it as spam. This user subsequently recreated the article multiple times, and I deleted it every time. The anon is insisting that the article stay. What should happen next?  Denelson83  22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Place {{deletedpage}} and protect it against recreation. If he begins to post it in other places, warn and block. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The anon has now left the following message on my talk page:

I know the law because I am a lawyer and what you are doing is pure censorship. You allow Chicken Soup for the Soul to advertise website sales links but you will not allow another book to follow the same format. You are censoring material on an open forum

 Denelson83  22:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now had to block this IP for this.  Denelson83  22:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah; he was past ready. Jdavidb (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

*Please stop permabanning people using AOL sharedips every ten seconds I get block messages telling me I'm this blocked user or that blocked user, It's impossible to edit from AOL anymore, just about.. OMG, it's not even the same user, each time It tells me my ip has recently been used by "etc.. yada yada" and each time it's a different name, this is getting kind of silly, can you reset the autobans on AOLs shared proxies or what?--64.12.116.74 23:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no "autoban" on AOL proxies; in fact, the blocking policy makes it quite clear that blocks on AOL IPs are to be kept very short in order to prevent this kind of collateral damage. If you know of specific IP addresses that have been blocked for a longer-than-reasonable amount of time, list them here and they will get our utmost attention. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not responsible for AOL's... unique proxy scheme, nor is it responsible for the vandalism by AOL users that causes the IPs to get blocked in the first place. android79 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Editing through AOL is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural--64.12.116.74 20:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm... I could have sworn there was verbiage in the blocking policy that related specifically to AOL... android79 23:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  The verbiage is mostly confined to MediaWiki:Blockiptext, which is shown as the header of Special:Blockip. --cesarb 23:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that if a blocked user comes in from AOL, their IP gets caught by the autoblocker. Presumably an AOL exception could be added to the autoblocker, if someone can be bothered writing one - David Gerard 10:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

if (preg_match("...",$ip))
 {
   //autoblock for 10 minutes
 }
else 
 {
  //normal procedure
 }

was that hard? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I had a busy day yesterday dealing with a vandal who persistantly evaded blocks on Úbeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see the discussion over at /Incidents#Úbeda). It is been pointed out that exactly the same strategy, including the use of silly anagrams of user names occurred on another page: Schnorrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I won't list all the user names: there are so many of them, and they can all be found on the page histories. I would like someone with checkuser access to look at these accounts, and let us know what can be done to enforce a block. --Gareth Hughes 15:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the same method that is used by the Schnorrer vandal. Apparently they got bored with that page protected. --Fire Star 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's exacly the same person. What is the policy on checkuser, and how do we request it? We could let this user merrily keep on editting WP, ignoring the blocks. However, as soon as they start this spelling-revert behaviour again, we'll have to go through this process again. It'd be good to know that we have an effective tool to use against this user. --Gareth Hughes 18:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish that I knew enough about how to do that to be more helpful. It is kind of a pain to keep the affected pages protected all time. --Fire Star 22:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Users with checkuser access can be found here. You can ask either of them for help. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll follow up the checkuser. We've just had Shilip (talk · contribs) revert changes by the Philip Baird Shearer. --Gareth Hughes 22:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There are two users with access to checkuser. Tim Starling just says "Talk to David Gerard", and he says that he won't do it without an ArbCom case. Is there any possibility of bringing a case against a whole list of user accounts we suspect of being the same person? Otherwise, we have no teeth at all to deal with determined vandalism. --Gareth Hughes 22:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser is a vexed issue at the moment. We want more people to have it, but the Foundation board have the willies about the privacy policy. We are now at the stage of dredging our way through non-profit organisation politics. I don't quite have words to express just how much fun this is - David Gerard 21:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that this vandal could well be NoPuzzleStranger (an anagram of Gzornenplatz), a recognised sock of Wik. Does the middle of this history page give enough evidence to carry out the check on the basis that is in connexion with the evasion of a hard ban? --Gareth Hughes 12:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems more than likely that Kolokol is another incarnation of Wik. Same editing style, same peculiar language, same interests (such as 1921 in France), same reckless attitude. I would suggest to block the account, and if he wants to appeal, let him prove that he is not Wik. Kosebamse 10:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Should stuff like this be blanked? CambridgeBayWeather 21:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedied. Thanks, --MarkSweep✍ 21:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm new at this admin stuff and would like some information as to what should be done. This user seems to be editing almost every day. The main targets are Pumpkin pie, Circuit City, Bernard Sumner, Peter Wolf and maybe others. Things range from blanking the entire article and removing categories to adding links to non-related articles. The address changes each day but the articles hit are always the same. CambridgeBayWeather 23:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like this person is either using some sort of dynamic IP address or proxy server -- which means that trying to block might be useless because he will essentially evade the block by re-logging into his ISP, or cause collateral damage by blocking other legitimate users using those same IPs. But looking at the recent page history of the articles you mentioned, protecting them might be the best thing to do for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

When removing or un protecting , the button should say unprotect or unlock or remove protection. On my browser, it continues to say protect which is confusing.--Jondel 06:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the "two kinds of protection" issue, I believe... (scrounging for link to discussion) - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

scrounging? Was this brought up before?--Jondel 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This fellow apparently created his self-admitted sockpuppet just to post on my talk page. Is there a policy against Wiki sockpuppets?

Atlant 17:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, no, there is not, unless that sockpuppet is used to circumvent policy. The Silent Majority should note that civility is, indeed, policy, and that hiding behind a sockpuppet in order to make uncivil remarks to your fellow editors is pretty shameful behavior. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Atlant 11:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The User has blocked this page, Urdu, after being actively involved in editting it. He reverted to his preferred version and blocked it. May someone please take a look at this and warn him, as it goes against Wikipedia policy. Thanks--JusticeLaw 20:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have protected it against persistent blanking. Why? Please take a look at the Page history. Consistent blanking without any justification has been going on for the last month or so. Interestingly, the user JusticeLaw (talk · contribs) and several suspected sockpuppets (StephenCox (talk · contribs), Frederick24 (talk · contribs) ) are involved in same type of blanking vandalism almost everyday ... alternating between accounts to avoid 3RR violation. Anyway, the issue of dispute here is due to the blanking of the detailed classification of the Urdu Language by JusticeLaw (talk · contribs). He consistently blanks the details (Indo-European->Indo-Iranian->Indo-Aryan->Western Hindi languages->Hindustani->Urdu) to (Indo-European->Indo-Iranian->Indo-Aryan). The detailed classification is taken from the widely used Ethnologue language reference site, and pointed out in the Urdu language page. For the record, my only "Active" participation in editing the page is to revert blanking and adding the Ethnologue link to the classification.

By the way, since it came to ANB, could someone with m:checkuser privilege please check the IPs for JusticeLaw (talk · contribs), StephenCox (talk · contribs), and Frederick24 (talk · contribs)? It's too much of a coincidence when 3 users dedicate their entire wikipedia edit history to editing exactly same few articles, and doing exactly the same kind of edits. I asked Nichalp to do this several days ago, but he told me to check with someone with m:checkuser permissions.

Also, if, after reviewing the edit history and the Ethnologue/any other references, anyone feels that the current vprotected status should not apply, feel free to unprotect it. The page history has become dedicated to a tug of war between JusticeLaw (talk · contribs) and everyone else, so this needs to be resolved soon. Thanks. --Ragib 02:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

From September 2004 to October 18, 2005, there was some form of notice in MediaWiki:Uploadtext that read (in its original version):

"By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License."

When it was originally added, it was argued that this was implicit in the terms of Wikipedia:Copyrights which says:

"If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

Regardless of whether or not it is a good idea (or even generally enforced), removing the clause that requires images to be licensed under the GFDL is a fairly substantial change, which didn't even provoke comment during discussion of the revisions. Hence I am asking the question now. Should we include that notice that all images uploaded by their owner must be licensed under the GFDL? Dragons flight 17:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that if it's in Wikipedia:Copyrights, we should put it on MediaWiki:Uploadtext as well. Perhaps it should be removed from both, I don't know. But any files uploaded by the owner should be licensed under GFDL, I believe. Ral315 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• A significantly related discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Limited Use. It is my view that a degree of limitation beyond a strict GFDL requirment should be permitted for images, for reasons I have detailed there at some length. DES ^(talk) 20:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Syrthiss indicated to me that he thought 71.112.115.22 (talk · contribs) and 131.107.0.80 (talk · contribs) might be in use by some kind of bot for modifying date articles. There have been no responses to messages left on their talk pages and edits they have made to the date articles have sometimes been destructive or not according to style consensus. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 20:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what I brought up above in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two anon users making subtle edits to date pages?. I brought it to jdavidb's attention because I saw a comment of his on 71.112.115.22's page suggesting that they use edit summaries, and told him that it was unlikely that he'd see a response (I haven't yet to either of my inquiries on their pages). I'm only still concerned because I've seen a few other bad edits, both on my own or commented on their talk pages by other editors. --Syrthiss 20:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a warning on the talk pages of these two anonymous users that if he (or they) do not confirm within 24 hours that they are not a bot (and are thus listening) that I will block. If they don't, I will block for 24 hours and we'll see if some program owner notices. Edits are not too terribly destructive, but it does sometimes look like changes are being made based on out of date copies of the pages. In any case, if these are bots, they need to be approved. Wikipedia:Bots states that sysops should block unapproved bots without hesitation. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 20:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's been very forthcoming in guidance, here; I blocked 71.112.115.22 24 hours and left another note on his talk page that he could let me know there if he's a human rather than a script. Meanwhile 131.107.0.80 has been making some humanlike edits at the moment, so I've done nothing.

Hopefully this will prompt somebody to notice and either begin answering when people question their edits or else bring their bot(s) up for discussion and approval before further activity occurs. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 00:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked 131.107.0.80 24 hours. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That block hit User:Jmabel as collateral damage, so I've unblocked. The IP belongs to Microsoft and is probably being used by several users. It's possible the messages left for our date-article-editing user/bot have never been seen by him but instead by other users at Microsoft. I think rolling back these changes might be a better way to get the guy's attention. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bleh. Even with scripted rollback (and knowing for sure that every edit is bad), I don't think any human can compete with the bot for speed. --Syrthiss 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

One could write a bot then, although I don't know if my skills are up for that or if it would be approved. The main purpose would be to disrupt the edits enough that the person starts poking around trying to find out what happens and finally communicates with us, so we can get answers to questions like, "Are you running a bot? Will you stop doing destructive things like delinking some dates and removing information from date articles? Will you start using edit summaries? Will you please communicate with us rather than ignoring us so we can address any issues caused by your edits?" I don't think one would have to perfectly roll back all of the edits to achieve that, so a competing bot would probably be unnecessary.

Short (15-30 minute) blocks might also help. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

MY USERPAGE ISVANDALISED BY ADMIN WHO REVERT + ADD BLOCK TEMPLATE AND THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND IS COMPLETE INAPRORATE PLEASE INTERFENRERERE AND STOP.

User:Surbian Legsmith who posted the comment above is a probable sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels, see his talkpage. All he has done is vandalize, so the account is blocked indefinitely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

At least use the caps right... --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A85.104.163.244

I get to get blocked once per every two edits or something like that. User:David Gerard tried to resolve this with limited success. --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hai. I've also tried to unblock Cool Cat with no success. Yet more evidence that the autoblocker is stupid. :( --Phroziac^(talk) 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to plug bugzilla:3706 again. --cesarb 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

why is my user page protected? i should be free to edit my user page. unblock and unprotect and i cease activity. msg left by Idorunet (talk • contribs)

If you read the note on userpage carefully, it is used for administrative purposes, which overrides anything else on a userpage of a known vandal. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This was left on my talk page, and I'm not quite sure how to respond to it. Suggestions?

Joy: A few months ago (July, 2005) I tried to get a listing on wikipedia for my company, Wilkins Media Holdings LLC. It was rejected as being non notable. Now, every time a search is made, people see that critique. PLEASE REMOVE MY COMPANY NAME FROM YOUR SERVERS. MY INTENTION WAS TO CREATE A POSITIVE LISTING. INSTEAD, THERE IS A CHILDISH, UN-PROFESSIONAL RESIDUAL. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at: (888) 252-7907 Best, Bill Wilkins October 29, 2005 ref: Wilkin Media Holdings LLC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_22#WMH, LLC

Joyous (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Linking... WP:AFD/WMH, LLC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agita... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What does Agita have to do with the company? In either case, I don't see what he's complaining about. "Non-notable" and "weak internet presense" are certainly not blatant attacks on the company. We shouldn't just remove an archived AfD discussion just because someone claims that it portrays the company in a negative light. It's not even an article, so I don't see how this poses a problem. If I were you, I would respond kindly to him telling him of our policies, and that if he wishes to take it further to contact the Board or Jimbo. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not the first and not the last to be disappointed to find a V/AfD turn up in place of an article that was basically an ad for a nn-company. If he wants the article back, he could try asking at DRV. With such an abortive debate, it'd be quite likely to restore it, re-run the AfD....and leave a more comprehensive deletion debate instead. -Splash^talk 21:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Direct them to our article Karma. Martin 21:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it. He's mad because if you Google for his company, you get a bunch of people calling it trash rather than his company website. This is bad. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 21:54

Yeah, thats what you get for spamming, anyway google will cache it for ages, plus soon it will find this page as well. Martin 21:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that if you're a big company, it's not spamming, but if you're a little company it is? I've removed the references to the company. Google will update the pages and remove them as well. There's no need for us to stop a currently non-notable company from ever becoming notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 22:02

It's nothing to do with big/small it's notable or non-notable, plus the article was written like an advert. Martin 22:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? When I follow the link to the Google search, I don't see people calling it trash — the only thing related to Wikipedia that I see, in fact, is the AfD. Could you clarify? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying it doesn't have a big internet presence can't be good for an internet company. My point though is that in the future other company pages that are deleted could have entries that are much worse than this one that will popup at the beginning of google.

Google is not the source of all knowledge. Show me the top shoe manufacturers in Zimbabwe. If someone knows, they'll create the article, people will VFD for no Google presenece, it'll be deleted. Thus, you have a notable company that, according to google, is non-notable (as the only hit goes to a VFD). As for its style, that's why there is an edit button. You don't delete an article for bad writing. Some of it was useable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 22:13

In any case, there is no reason not to comply with the person's request. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 22:16

I see no reason to mess up our record keeping just because someone made the misstake of trying to use wikipedia to promte thier startup.Geni 23:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing was messed up. Every page links correctly. You are also assuming bad faith, which is not generally encouraged. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:42

He admits to trying to create a posertive listing. The nothing is mess up claim only works if you assume that no one is going to go looking for the name of the article on the AFD page for that date.Geni 00:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

But the media company is called "Wilkins Media" [4] or "Wilkins Media Company" [5]. Google Site Search for "Wilkins Media holdings" (presumably a holdings company for WMC) on wilkins-media.com doesn't even get 1 hit. If a media company can't do SEO - and their site breaks in Firefox too - I don't see how that's our problem. However, it may be an issue in other cases (eg Zimbabwe example). Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

They are not Wilkins Media Company. Read the deleted page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-29 23:42

Now that the link in the log has been fixed, I can see the deleted page, and I see they're not. But my point stands - if they had an actual website, it would almost certainly be above that old Wikipedia listing. In other words, the criticism that bothers them - "a very weak Internet presence" - is still true. Nor is the content on the log "childish or unprofessional". It's not a pointless vanity page for a company that can't be arsed to pay for its own website either, but I see no reason to change the log. Rd232 ^talk 15:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that it would outrank the Wikipedia link. Not only is Wikipedia generally favored on Google, the AFD page of a given article is made part of the main AFD of that time range, which is viewed by a ton of people. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 15:47

I don't see why you doubt that, given what is currently top for that search (a website with hardly any mention of the company, low pagerank, no inbound links). In any case, the disgruntled person hasn't tried to come higher - he doesn't appear to have a website of any kind, which means I have absolutely no sympathy for him on this issue. Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have undone the posty-close edit to the AfD log, and the move of the subpage. The logs should not be changed merely in order to avoid an unfavoabl google result for someone. Or if they are to be so change, we shoul;d have a policy to do so, and should do it for all such cases. A non-profit (but also aparently non-notable) music festival was complaining about the same issue on DRV recently. DES ^(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly endorse DES's actions. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree too, these are archives, don't mess with them just because someone doesn't like a google search. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we not make it so google et al don't crawl pages we don't want them to, e.g. closed AFDs? Martin 15:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I forget how, I think it has something to do with the robots.txt file. If you tell Google not to index those pages, it won't. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 16:18

I believe that adding the below to the User-agent: * list would block out all AFD nominations. I strongly recomment against this, however. Superm401 | Talk 19:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Disallow: /wiki/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Why you say "we", kemosabe? Being able to search for the content of AfDs on Google seems useful to me. Wikipedia isn't this guy's SEO consultant, and we're not responsible for Google's results. — mendel ☎ 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any reason to do a favor for someone who unapologetically "I tried to get a listing[not article, mind you] on wikipedia for my company". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If all changes made in response to his request haven't been reversed, I urge an admin to do so now. Superm401 | Talk 19:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Superm401. I personally wouldn't worry about this guy's request.--Alabamaboy 19:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with Alabama boy, he tried for some free advertising, shot himself in the foot instead. This is not a trade directory. Not our problem. Giano | talk 19:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• • So if, say, your fiance(e) naively creates a Wikipage about him/herself, and some obnoxious wiki-editor deletes it with comments about "another stupid loser", then it's OK that this shows up higher on a prospective employer's Google search than the resume he/she created, and continues to do so for months? Wikipedia's ever-growing Web search presence may entail some responsibilities that get very muddy. - DavidWBrooks 01:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Other than acnolageing it's existance google does not index Special:Log so your senario is imposible. Keeping negative stuff from comeing up when people google you name is going to be much harder as time goes on. I don't think there is much we can do about this.Geni 03:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding to what Geni said: It's unfortunate, and at the same time it's not our problem to solve. Google result priority does not correspond to accuracy, and improving Google's algorithms is what Google does as a business, and teaching people to interpret Google results is hardly within Wikipedia's scope. In any case, someone Googling someone before hiring them is not looking for their resume, they're looking for the other things about them on the Web, and if "some stranger on Wikipedia said they were a loser" is part of a hiring decision there's nothing we can do to fix the long series of misconceptions at work. Besides, that example is something that has not happened, and the thing that has happened was someone who lost while trying to game the system. (Anyhow, there's already a policy in place to take care of that obnoxious editor.) — mendel ☎ 03:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Will people care that some random guy on the Internet thinks X is a stupid loser? Will anybody who matters care? ~~ N (t/c) 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Couple more thoughts: First, we're probably going to see a little rush of these because Google recently made some drastic changes to PageRank, and a lot of SEO techniques don't work anymore, and our PageRank is pretty much the antithesis of SEO. Second, since Joyous was wondering how to respond, the bottom of every Google results page has a "Dissatisfied?" link, and that's where the complainant should direct his complaint. — mendel ☎ 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm attempting to restructure test messages and other template/mediawiki messages to encourage useful contributions, rather than giving the newcomer no other option but to vandalize. This includes changing messages so they say "Please do this" rather than "Don't do this" (in the same way that "Keep off grass" or "Do not press the red button" don't work too well). Please leave comments at the link above. — BRIAN0918 • 00:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

72.144.92.64 (talk · contribs)

This person is creating tons of one-sentence stubs about supposedly famous mathematicians. Could someone knowledgeable check them for veracity? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• They look real to me and google. — BRIAN0918 • 04:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Existence is not encyclopedicality. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The ones I checked were all notable people, such as science academy leaders. We are lacking in that area. — BRIAN0918 • 04:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • On his talk page, he says he'll provide references for them. — BRIAN0918 • 04:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds new and enthusiastic. Zoe, please welcome them and encourage them to create a username ;-) - David Gerard 10:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I recognized two of the mathematicians that the anon wrote about: Mykhailo Krawtchouk and Nikola Obreshkov. Both seem notable enough. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just blocked him for 24 hours for these two: [6] [7]. Please keep an eye on him - he's quite capable of contributing with thought, but the personal attack parole was put in there for good reason - David Gerard 18:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Artificial delay .28very brief block.29 after username registration

-- Curps 20:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the template is extremely visible (used on over 2,000 pages), has been hit with vandalism lately, and is rarely edited (outside of vandalism, last edit was in July), I've protected it. Ral315 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Am very concerned about Bakewell Tart and Crusading Composer - both were involved in a bad faith nomination (overwhelmingly efeated) to get the Robert Steadman article deleted, both have continued (particulalry CC) to try to alter the article to show the subject in a negative light. COuld they be looked into? Are they the same person? Vhjh 08:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I welcome any enquiry. I reccommend that an aadministrator also looks very carefully at the creation entries to the Robert Steadman article: 19.06 217.42.67.174 creates the page and also adds Steadman's name to other sites. This continues until 09.07 when the editorial duties are taken over by Robeaston and Vjhj who also edit other pages either relating to Mr Steadman or adding his name. A series of other anonymous posters( 86.136.163.90, 86.133.71.137, 86.136.239.9, 86.136.167.52, 86.137.64.72, 86.136.235.69) then add further details to the article. What is noteworthy though is that each time the poster is only active for one day but in that time posts many edits to the steadman article and also Steadman related sites. One anonymous editor even finds the time to remove 'vandalism' from Vhjh's page. These editors claim that they have no relationship to each other or to Mr Steadman, but obviously there is some relationship. I am also skeptical that there are a series of people who have no realtionship to Mr Steadman but who have a detailed knowledge of his home town , university and personal life. I'm not claiming that they are ALL Mr Steadman but it wouldn't surprise me. I am also concerned that the various editors have the same style: call anyone who touches their site a bully or a stalker, whilst belittling THEM and constantly calling for administrators to ban them. Anyone who follows the links to the TES website will find that these are the very traits that the poster calling himnself Rob Steadman is accused of. I believe that this article should be re referred for deletion as a vanity article and the work of sock puppets. Mel Ettis claims that it was a bad faith nomination, but at least two administrators believed that there was enough reason for referring it. I was NOT involved in the original RfD, I was neutral until the editors above started abusing the page. It had been shortened (as recommended by an administrator) and was fine, however, when it attracted some positive responses the page was restored to it's full length. My take on it is that it is the work of mainly one person who reserves complete editorial control. When others added to it they asked for it to be protected, but when they realised that they could not have it permanently protected as a shrine, they preferred to have it deleted - especially as it had been recommended that it wasn't notable enough. To prevent vandalism, they then shortened the article, but once they started to get support they restored it with a vengeance. Why am I bothering to bang my head against a brick wall over this? It's not a vendetta, I just want the creator of this article to realise that it's not THEIR sole property. Once again, I have had a perfectly reasonable and accurate edit deleted for the sole reason that it portrays the subject in a bad light. If just cannot see how anyone else cannot see that this IS a real example of a classic vanity article -from the way it was created right up to the continuimg attempts to keep it free of anything that doesn't show the subject in the most postive light.Crusading composer 18:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No Crusading composer it is a vendetta on your part and that of Bakewell Tart. Today you bagen a new section for REVIEWS and yet only put in one review which you only included the negative points. You have said some of your knowledge and interest comes from the TES messageboard? I wonder if you had any knowledge of earlier vandalism to the page which made reference to the TES messageboards? admin really need to look at the behaviour of this editor - they are fixated an they are out to get the subject of this article - to the point of asking for a second AfD a day after the first had been rejected because it was a bad faith nomination. Vhjh 19:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Today Crusading composer has accused me of being Robert Steadman and questioned Mel Etitis [[8]]neutrality! Vhjh 21:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but this appears to be some sort of food fight between two editors. Either or both of you might consider availing yourselves of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Katefan - what is going on is that Crusading composer knows nothing about the subject and yet wants to make everything with a highly biased POV - all negative! It is a personal vendetta against the subject of the article - he has accused me of being Robert Steadman and has accused one of the admin (Mel Etitis) of not being neutral by removing an AfD because Mel and Steadman might have met at uni 20+ years ago. Crusading composer is a vandal with a grudge and some serious invetigation needs to go on about his behaviour. Last night a splattering of very minor edits to other subjects was the first postive thing Crusading composer has done on Wikipedia.CC is either an adult with a grudge or, more possibly, a school kid (as Mr. Steadman teaches). Really very pathetic behaviour. Vhjh 21:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

NO! What is going on here is that Vhjh is deliberately trying to wind me up. I have been invited to join in in redrafting the article. Vhjh is unhappy about that - I have as much right as anybody to edit that article as long as my edits are accurate. As far as being childish and holding a grudge: this person is obviously looking at my contributions and changing them for the sake of it. I am to assume that this person knows more about shield generators than myself and that they have some kind of right to decide what is relevant or not. Vhjh is also reverting my user page. This activity has only one purpose, to make me react so that he can point to my behaviour and say that my edits have no credibility. Make no mistake, vhjh is a very clever and manipulative person with an agenda to remove anyone who tries to 'play with his toys'.Crusading composer 22:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

After User:Silsor removed the entry on ITN about "President George W. Bush nominates Samuel A. Alito, Jr to the United States Supreme Court".[9], we both got into a discussion about the quote on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page that says "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest."

My question: is there any sort of good way one can determine if a news story qualifies for that criteria so one can add it to ITN, or remove an entry if it does not fit? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• It's unclear how the reconsecration of a church in Germany, or terrorist attacks in India, are of more international importance or interest than a nomination to the Supreme Court. Of the current pages, only the hurricane and the earthquake clearly meet this criterion. I can see why you would want a variety of regions of the world represented, but if this is the point it would be better to remove the oldest news item for the United States, about the supercomputer, and replace it with the newer one. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't see how we don't remove some older ones, even if it means replacing a United States story with a story about a different region of the world. And having 7 entries on (as I saw earlier today) is not the solution. I believe that Supreme Court nominations, confirmations, and deaths are all inherently notable, because United States laws affect other nations as well in the form of international, especially internet, commerce. Ral315 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not from the United States, but considering the way the United States imposes itself on the rest of the world I'd say a nomination to the US Supreme Court is notable enough to be at the top of ITN. Coffee 16:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Deciding the balance between notability within a region and the number of regions mentioned isn't always easy. What I do on Portal:Trains/Trains news (which is transcluded onto Portal:Trains) is list exactly the most recent six rail transport news items, regardless of the region, but try to stick to the more notable news events that occur. For example, right now I've got two US events, and one event each from India, Japan, China and Italy. I've had as many as four events from one country listed there before (there is an amazing amount of Indian rail news on Google News), but that's more the exception than the rule. My guideline for Trains news weighs notability more heavily than regionality, which means that some days will seem unbalanced toward a particular region. But if one region is producing more notable news than another, why not list them? The region balance will change as more news happens, especially with a strict number of events in the news section. slambo 16:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone using Tor has been repeatedly vandalizing, using even IPs that have been previously indef blocked. They are getting the IPs from http://proxy.org/tor.shtml I'm going to wikify and block them. — BRIAN0918 • 21:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Brion says he blocked the whole list. Unfortunately, these are continually updated. — BRIAN0918 • 21:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Body parts slang (discussion)
• b:Body parts slang b:(discussion)

Before it was deleted, this article was copied and pasted by an anonymous user to (bizarrely) Wikibooks. Naturally, the article has come up for deletion at Wikibooks. Several editors have expressed the desire to have the article transwikified to Wiktionary, for incorporation into various WikiSaurus articles, just as the list of slang terms for the human penis has already been incorporated into WikiSaurus:penis. (Wiktionary is the logical place for slang word dictionary articles, and WikiSaurus is the logical place for lists of synonyms. There's no reason for either Wikibooks or Wikipedia to host slang dictionaries and thesauri.) Rather than transiwiki the copy, which was itself not a proper transwiki (the anonymous user did not include author information), I intend, if there are no objections, at some point within the next couple of days to transwiki the original, complete with its edit history. This will involve temporarily undeleting the original, so that the 'bot can access the wikitext and the edit history, and then re-deleting the article. Uncle G 20:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• No objection whatsoever. I myself did something similar with some webcomic articles that were deleted on AFD. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's ready to be transwikied now, I've undeleted the full history of the articles and left protected. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've transwikied the original articles to Wiktionary, for incorporation into WikiSaurus, and restored Body parts slang to how it was. Uncle G 00:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

An IP user from Queen's University, User:130.15.82.217 is making physical threats against me, probably because I added a speedy deletion template to List of foods that cause unpleasant urine odors which he/she created. He/she has also created the attack page List of locations at which I will punch Andrew pmk. See diffs: [10] [11] [12]. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked. Sigh... ~~ N (t/c) 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

On Special:Ipblocklist, there are currently at least 2 IPs indefinitely blocked just today, for legal threats and vandalism, respectively. Am I right in saying that IPs should not be blocked for long periods? Would anyone object to a bot that would undo all infinite IP blocks that don't contain the word "proxy"? ~~ N (t/c) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A year is a very long time on the internet. Blocking an IP that is not a proxy for longer than a year is stoooopid. People change their jobs, isps and home addresses fairly often. I have no objection to a bot unblocking. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to check if they aren't indeed open proxies before unblocking them? Titoxd^(?!?) 22:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to get that bot to reblock for say 3months - or to list the IP's for manual review? Indef blocks of IP's (other than open proxy) is crazy - but, if we simply unblock, we could be letting a lot of bad guys out of the phantom zone at once. --Doc (?) 22:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. I once banned an IP for 24 months for many many months of egregious vandalism. If that IP changes hands 18 months from now, the new owner can ask for a reprieve. However, yeah, the two blocked today should probably not be infinite. --Golbez 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

2 years is a very long block. Probably too long in fact. But it's way shorter than infinite. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see no need for a block longer than a year - annually reblocking a recurrent vandal is not exactly ownerous for vandal-fighters. Less hastle than dealing with innocents who inherit the IP. --Doc (?) 23:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that any vandal sits around waiting for two years just to get a chance to come back and make one edit before being blocked again. If they're that determined to vandalize, they would've found a way around the block in any case. --Aquillion 02:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You two think two years is too long, and you see no need for a block longer than a year? Maybe. But consider that the IP had just come off a three month block, which followed another three month block. Aquillion, if he's willing to wait 3 months each time, why should we wait as well? Strike now, while the iron is hot. We won't have to worry about him for 24 months, unless some admin undid the block without thinking. Will he be back in 24 months? Hopefully not. If not, then everyone wins. --Golbez 18:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And PS, I noted the block both here and on AN/I, because it was such a radical move. I had originally made it indefinite, they convinced me that a year was better. I found a middle ground. --Golbez 18:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked? Someone with my IP has been blocked from editing. Err... now what do I do? --Goyanks193 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I see no harm in reducing all these to a brief time perhaps a month at most. Most of them will have moved on. Fred Bauder 03:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The following was placed in my user talk page. My attempted translation follows, feel free to fix anything I may have gotten wrong. I've informed the user that there is not a lot that I, as an administrator in the English-language Wikipedia, can do about issues in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. If someone is also an administrator in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, they might want to look into this. I have no independent judgment of the merits of these complaints. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Petición de ayuda

Saludos. Siento no poder expresarme con corrección en tu idioma, pero me dirigo a ti, porque no sé a quien recurrir y sé que dominas en gran medida el español. Soy un antiguo contribuyente de la Wikipedia en español, que hace alrededor de un año volvió a ella. Se encontró entonces con que la Wikipedia en español estaba dominada por administradores que violaban sistemáticamente las normas de wikipedia, como la de la neutralidad y la de no borrar informacion útil. Me he rebelado contra su censura, y he reivindicado el sentido original de las normas. Uno de mis contertulios en mi página de discusión y que ha renunciado a participar en la wikipedia hispana resume así la situación que se vive en la enciclopedia en español:

Una vez que me convertí en escritor y no sólo en lector comencé a descubrir la realidad que esconde este proyecto. Ediciones honestas que buscaban enseñar a quienes quisieran aprender fueron eliminadas inmediatamente. Mis intentos de diálogo se vieron contestados por insultos y acusaciones injustos y por la extendida costumbre de recuperar la versión "oficial", es decir, la de eliminar todo incluyendo la corrección de errores ortográficos. Sólo he sido capaz de conseguir algún avance tras interminables discusiones, mediante la búsqueda de docenas de referencias a revistas, periódicos o documentos oficiales capaces de demostrar la insensatez de las críticas absurdas que con frecuencia se hacen y, principalmente, recuperando una y otra vez los datos que se intentan ocultar. Es decir, la cantidad de esfuerzo que hay que hacer es inmensa.

El gran problema es que las causas de la situación son muy profundas. Por ejemplo, es verdad que hay artículos larguísimos que describen cómo aplicar la política de neutralidad pero no hay ningún sitio donde se establezca breve y claramente qué es lo que no se puede hacer. Así es absurdo que se permita eliminar una edición completamente recuperando la versión anterior sin dar ninguna explicación. Si yo añado algo como "el 12 de marzo Aznar dijo que se estaban siguiendo dos líneas de investigación" cualquiera lo eliminará inmediatamente sin dar ningún motivo. Si lo vuelves a añadir y preguntas en la página de discusión por qué lo han borrado, que lo que has escrito es verdad, que se miren los periódicos que tienen edición digital accesible de ese día y todo eso el resultado es que te lo vuelven a quitar. Y no puedes hacer nada salvo volver a recuperarlo hasta que tú o ellos se cansen. Y es absurdo que esto sea así, porque la política de no neutralidad se resume en dos puntos: sólo se pueden incluir (1) hechos objetivos o (2) teorías existentes descritas indicando que son teorías. Si alguien elimina una contribución que no es puro vandalismo debería justificar que lo ha hecho porque no es ni un hecho objetivo ni una teoría existente. Si no se está eliminando el esfuerzo de una persona que ha querido participar en la Wikipedia lo que desincentiva dicha participación cuando se debería fomentar ya que en realidad se trata de generar un enciclopedia seria.

Yo no quiero rendirme. Y no he dejado de debatir con esos administradores. En mi página personal, he escrito un ensayo donde denunció las practicas que se cometen en la wikipedia hispana. Lo puedes leer en [[13]]

Temporalmente he conseguido algunas mejoras, consiguiendo, por ejemplo, que algunos usen la página de discusión antes de borrar lo que no les gusta o no concuerda con su ideas. Ayer estaba añadiendo información al artículo del 11-M y acababa de discutir con un administrador que quería borrar el artículo dedicado a Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogénita de los Príncipes de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón y Letizia Ortiz, y segunda en la línea sucesoria de la Corona española. Este administrador decía que en la wikipedia no debía haber artículos sobre la recién nacida (cuando otras wikipedias lo tienen). Puedes leerlo en Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Ahora no puedo escribir en la wikipedia hispana, porque otro administrador, llamado FAR, que se declara amigo del administrador con que discutía, me han bloqueado la IP, tachándome de vándalo. No me dejan ni el derecho a réplica. ¿Puedes ayudarme, por favor? ¿Con quién debo hablar para solucionar esta situación?

Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

[Attempted translation by Jmabel | Talk]

Petition for help

Greetings. I'm sorry that I cannot express myself correctly in your language, but I'm directing myself to you, because I don't know to whom to turn and I know that you have a general mastery of Spanish. I'm an old contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia, who has returned to it after about a year. I found then that the Spanish Wikipedia was dominated by administrators who systematically violated the norms of Wikipedia, such as neutrality and not erasing useful information. I rebelled against this censura [a word that can mean either "censorship" or "sharp criticism" - JM], and have attempted to reestablish the original sense of the norms. [I find this next sentence a bit confused, I believe the confusion is in the original. - JM] One of my contertulios [a word that does not translate easily: literally, someone who attends the same tertulio, figuratively a collaborator in an intellectual enterprise] [I think there is a missing phrase here, probably something like "left a message"] on my discussion page that he had renounced participating in the Spanish Wikipedia and summarized as follows the situation that exists in the Spanish Wikipedia:

Once I became a writer and not just a reader I began to discover the reality that this project hides. Honest edits that seek to teach whomever wishes to learn were eliminated immediately. My intentions of dialogue were responded to with insults and unjust accusations and by the widespread custom of recovering the "oficial" version, that is to say, that of eliminating all including the correction of orthographicos errors. I have only been able to achieve some gain after interminable discussions, by means of searching for dozens of references to magazines, newspapers, or official documents capable of demonstthe the foolishness of the absurd criticisms that they often make and, principally, recovering one time or another the facts that they want to hide. That is to say, the amount of force I must bring to bear is immense.

The big problem is that the causes of the situation are very deep. For example, it's true that there are long articles that describe how to apply the policy of neutrality but there is no place where it is established briefly and clearly what it is that one is not allowed to do. In this manner, it is absurd that is is permissible to eliminate an edit completely, recovering the earlier version without giving any explanation. If I add something, whatever, like "On March 12 Aznar said that they were following two lines of investigaion", it will be eliminated immediately without anyone giving a reason. [I may not have fully understood this next sentence - JM] If you come to add it and ask on the dicussion page why it was erased, when what was written was true, that if one reads the newspapers that have accessible online editions for that day and all that, the result is that you come to the point of quitting. And you can't do anything except return to recover it until you or they get tired. And it's absurd that it is like this, because the non-neutrality policy [Huh? Presumably NPOV, but what he wrote definitely means non-neutrality] can be summed up in two points: one can only include (1) objective facts or (2) existing theories, described with an indication that the ary theories. If someone eliminates a contribution that is not pure vandalisme, they ought to justificar what they've done on the basis that it is not an objective fact or an existing theory. [I may be partly misunderstanding the next sentence, but believe I have the general sense correct. I'm guessing that there should have been a comma after "Si no", but possibly it has some other parse that I am missing - JM] If not, they are eliminateing the effort of a person who has wanted to participate in Wikipedia, which discourages participation when they ought to encourage it, given that in reality one is dealing with generating a serious encyclopedia.

And I don't want to surrender. And I haven't ceased to debate with those administrators. On my personal page, I've written an essay that denounces the practices committed in the Spanish Wikipedia. You can read it at [14].

Temporarily, I've achieved some improvements, achieving, for example, that some use the discussion page before erasing what they don't like or that does not accord with their ideas. Yesterday I was adding information to the article 11-M (11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings)and I had just argued with an administrator who erased the article dedicated to Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogenitor (first son) of the Prince and Princess de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón and Letizia Ortiz, and second in line of succession for the Spanish Crown. This administrator said that the Wikipedia oughtn't have articles about the recently born (when other Wikipedias have them). You can read it in Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Now I can't write in the Spanish Wikipedia, because of another administrayor, called FAR, who is a self-declared friend of the other administrator with whom I argued, has blocked my IP, accusing me of vandalism. They don't even give me the right of reply. Can you help me please? With whom do I have to speak to solve this situation?

Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

I think this should be discussed at Spanish Wikipedia or at Meta. English Wikipedia can't help. / Yo pienso que este debe ser discutido a la Wikipedia español o a Meta. La Wikipedia inglés no puede ayudar. ~~ N (t/c) 13:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[comment moved from User talk:Jmabel]

Before expressing any opinion, please, give a look to the user page of this person, who also is registered in the Spanish Wiki like Usuario:El Rei. Even more, above you have a coment User talk:Jmabel#fascists coming... from other user about this user. So, you'll see. Greetings from PACO 13:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[end moved comment]

Are Arbitration decisions enforced? In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute#Remedies are several remedies, but the corresponding Enforcement section does not list any actions. Other participants vanished, but User:William M. Connolley has been in violation since shortly after the decision. According to his parole:

"… William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references). This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change. Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations and administrators not directly involved in the dispute should act accordingly. …"

(emphasis is in original) — (SEWilco 15:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

— (SEWilco 15:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

• This arbitration ruling should be enforced. The key point, though, is that the user must not revert any climate article more than once per 24 hour period. He appears to have done this a few times in the edits you list (such as the two Oct. 19 Scientific opinion on climate change edits) but most of those edits seem to be permissible b/c he only did one revert per day. The problem with all of the edits, though, is that he didn't list why he did the revert on any of the articles' talk page. I will drop a line to him about posting on the talk page. I will also keep an eye on this and if I see him do more than 1 revert per day on any article I will treat it as a WP:3RR. If anyone feels this should be done differently, please let me know. --Alabamaboy 15:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested of interpretation of the judgement paragraph. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• It should be noted that this matter has been recently raised (and debated) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, where the large table above can also be found. It is curious that SEWilco decided to paste the entire table of alleged infringements here, rather than link to the existing debate. Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wish I'd had that info before.--Alabamaboy 16:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The above list are cases where the required Talk page was not updated or in a few cases the page is not obvious. The key point is that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references)." This obviously refers to every reversion, a separate restriction from the 24 hour rule. (SEWilco 16:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

• Is it really appropriate for this to be cross-posted like this? The reason we have pages like Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested is so this kind of issue doesn't have to constantly come up on the Administrator's noticeboard; and this is getting discussion on RfAr/AER. There's no need to have it here, too, especially not if it's going to involve that pagelong cut-and-pasted table. --Aquillion 17:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, double posting it is a waste of our time and space, so now that there is a link to the exact same thing on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, everyone is alerted to the issue and can discuss and deal with it in the right place. A simple note here pointing to the discussion would have been a much better idea. - Taxman ^Talk 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, folks. I hope I'm doing this at the right place, but it didn't seem to fit at WP:RM. A while back, I created Lengths of science fiction series/temp to work out a table format for Lengths of science fiction series. A few other editors helped, and eventually I put the table on the main page. The /temp page probably ought to be deleted, but I gather that its edit history ought to be merged with that of the main article. Would an admin be so kind as to take care of this for me? Thank you very much. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

In this case I'm not so sure that it would be a good idea. Both articles were being changed over the two days, and so checking the diffs between them will look very odd. My recommendation is that the /temp page is moved to a subpage of the talk and perhaps blanked. violet/riga (t) 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to do that, but the wiki software wouldn't let me. Perhaps it needs an admin to do it. (By the way, I came here after asking what should be done here and here on the Help desk, and this was the answer I eventually got.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Er... should I put the request to move the /temp article to a subpage of Talk:Lengths of science fiction series at WP:RM? 'Cause I can't do it myself... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

User:24.88.252.207 - continues to re-add the comment

"The company is particularly noted for its low level of customer service, among the worst in the cable industry, and for employing criminals. Several senior Charter executives received felony fraud convictions in 2003."

or derivations thereof to Charter Communications. A few users that watch this page continue to either revert the statements or delete the statements. The user has recieved warnings on User_talk:24.88.252.207 but to no avail. The user has only targeted this page, as viewed on User:24.88.252.207 Contributions the article has been growing slowly but steadily over the last few weeks, despite these statements. Also today Nov 2, they have struck again but from another IP 152.23.78.227.One attempt to report on WP:VIP, I received a hand slap about the page being for persistient vandalism. I'm not looking for a resolution, but more for if I'm approching this situation the correct way. Thanks! J\/\/estbrook       00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You could try discussing the sentence on talk. It doesn't seem to have even been mentioned. I agree that it's clearly POV, but you should definitely make effort to reach consensus before going elsewhere for assistance. Superm401 | Talk 21:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Gator alerted me to this post on Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance:

I have not been posting to Wikipedia for very long, but I made a couple of edits to Greek Reconstructionism correcting what I had reason to believe was a factual inaccuracy, and came back a month later to see that my edit had been attacked at length on the article's Talk page by this person who never seems to sign his/her posts and who had gone and somehow discovered my full name and apparently dug up every article I ever wrote to any Hellenic mailing list. This person is making all kinds of untrue statements about me, my group affiliations and my personal biases, and refuses to back up these statements with references or links. He/she keeps referring to past disputes I knew nothing about because they happened long before I was involved in the organizations in question. I have stated that I really don't care about the issue any more and they can edit the page to say whatever they want, but I really would like it if there were some way to remove all the references to my real name, permanently, because it makes me VERY uncomfortable to have my real name published on Wikipedia by someone who obviously thinks the very worst of me and will continue to make negative comments about me on the Talk page. I feel like I am being stalked, and I'm scared. Seriously, I edited like two lines of this article and I have already told the person that they should by all means fix it to say whatever they think is accurate, but they won't leave it (or me) alone! What do I do? AdelaMae 09:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't the time to dig into this right now, but it seems that if there's unwanted personal info on a talk page, deletion and selective undeletion of history is in order. If another admin could take a look at this and resolve it quickly, I'm sure it would be much appreciated by AdelaMae. android79 14:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Just saw this post here. I'll do this immediately right now. --HappyCamper 01:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Would have done this earlier had I not had my internet connection disconnected. --HappyCamper 05:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

One editor has created numerous sockpuppets to try and enforce what seemed at first to be a content dispute. The flood of new editors to revert leaves me wondering if some admins can watch this page. Quadell and others are treating these edits as vandalism and reverting, so please do not block for violation of 3RR. We're blocking the socks indefinitely, please feel free to do so as well. Ral315 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks exactly the same as what went on with Schnorrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Schnorrer (Yiddish) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Úbeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I found that constant reverting is not the way to deal with the problem: the disruptive user will create a new sock for each single edit. If you have to stop the disruptive user reverting, or stop well-intentioned users from feeding the socks, you can protect the page. Apperently there's nothing we can do with an idiot who wants to waste their time like this. --Gareth Hughes 23:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

NB - there is a parrallel discussion of this on ANI. --Doc (?) 00:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Nichalp has removed the RfA of User:Aaron Brenneman, even though the end date was November 9, citing some unofficial policy which allows that to happen when apparently his particular position goes ahead in the votes. Where is this policy documented, and why is it being condoned? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh, you just beat me to it. I just wrote a message complaining about the general principle at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#There's a numeric rule for removing?!. -Splash^talk 03:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The usual rule is that if it's a goddamn obvious pileon, it's a good idea to remove it. This is a judgement call. However, in this case I think Aaron wanted it to run. - David Gerard 07:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a sock invasion at Daniel Brandt, trying to blank the article. I'm going to {{vprotect}} it, but should the IPs blanking it be blocked? I'm not sure if they're open proxies. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've vprotected it. Don't know about the IPs, though. ~~ N (t/c) 04:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been protected most of the last three days. Everytime the protection is lifted he starts blanking it. There's more discussion here (talk page)and here. It seeems like he's willing to spend a lot of time blanking it. So do we just leave it protected or unprotect it and keep reverting him? My thought was to make an attempt to keep it open for as long as possible so he can't come back and say we're preventing him from editing. I know he's causing it but I'd like to be on solid ground if we have to keep it perma-protected... Rx StrangeLove 04:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoot the IPs on sight, they know what they're doing. If you have an open proxy checker you might apply it to them and block indefinitely if they are. If not, the usual 24 hours would probably do - David Gerard 07:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

He never uses the same IP though, he blanks, we revert, and he's gone for 2-3 minutes reloading. Maybe someone can do a proxy check? Otherwise we're stuck perma-protecting it or locked in a blanking/revert/protect cycle. Rx StrangeLove 07:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

They're web proxies (the ones where you go to a web page and put in the URL instead of configuring in your browser). Most open proxy checkers won't catch them. I already found the URL for at least one of the proxies he used, and I'm preemptively blocking some of the other web proxies of the same kind. If another admin wants to help with the whack-a-mole game, just ask. --cesarb 14:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I blocked most of them. --cesarb 23:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, it seems to me that D. Brandt's biggest complaint is that he does not want to show up in search engines - a privacy thing. Why don't you put together a page formatting template for cases like this which allows the sharing of own meta tags and robots.txt file which keeps google, msn and yahoo spiders, etc from indexing the page? In this way, you maintain fidelity to the wiki mission of information, but you don't create needless hassles for D. Brandt. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wait untill someone tried to insists that such a template was insetered on jew.Geni 09:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What's the proper procedure in this situation? A user has been blocked for a short period by another admin. The admin posted the reason why on the user's talk page, with a link to an example offending edit. The user has edited the admin's signed posting to link to a different edit. It's been reverted a couple of times, but he's nothing if not persistant. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetically, I'd say protect the page, and unprotect it when the block expires. Without knowing the specifics of this case, I can't say if this is appropriate or not, or if other measures should be taken. --Carnildo 05:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's what I did. It's User talk:Zephram Stark, in case anyone is interested. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like some nut has sent an open letter to Jimbo. Let's all point and laugh! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's Daniel Brandt / User:Daniel Brandt. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's reassuring to know that the subject of an article has been unable to successfully be the final arbiter of its content. Pity about the protection, mind. Range block? Or are they not from a range? -Splash^talk 11:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"In the end, I remained unsatisfied with my ability to influence this article about me, particularly with respect to the sources cited." Poor baby. Superm401 | Talk 15:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are they all so fond of the Jimbo with babes on boat pic? - David Gerard 11:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should find a picture of Daniel Brandt with some babes to put on our page about him. hmm. Doc (?) 12:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sex r teh evils. ~~ N (t/c) 14:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep it up; my attorney loves this stuff. Something about "prima facie evidence of incompetence and bias on the part of anonymous amateur editors at Wikipedia." Daniel Brandt 15:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That looks like a legal threat to me.Doc (?) 16:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A whiny and baseless one at that. He can cry about this until the cows come home. How ironic... he comes here complaining about an article about him and he ends up officially becoming an internet troll. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the response you crave: (RESPONSE). HTH. silsor 15:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are already familiar with WP:NLT. As you are in violation of that rule, I will block you. Broken S 16:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

So there are incompetent and amateur editors on Wikipedia. How is that relevant to any legal action... or even news at all? ~~ N (t/c) 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is unprotected now per the talk page. Over the last three days he's blanked it every chance he had, we'll see if it continues. See the discussion two sections up as well. Rx StrangeLove 16:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If he blanks it again, I'll be more than happy to block him for an extended period of time. I also forsee an RFC in the near future. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I just had an idea. I'm going to try getting his side of the story, and I'm going to actually try working with him. If he's willing to listen to reason, perhaps we can actually make this situation work in everyone's favor; he becomes content (or at least more content than previously) with the articles regarding him, Wikipedia inproves an article, and everyone goes home happy. It might work. Linuxbeak | Talk 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, not to be a wet blanket, but is there a good reason for the abandonment of WP:CIV? By the contributors in this section, I mean. Lead by example, etc etc. - brenneman^(t)(c) 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect his requests will include breaking NPOV, permanent protection, and/or deletion of the article, none of which will be accepted. I foresee an RfAr, or a "ban by the Wikipedia community." ~~ N (t/c) 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Now the article is on VfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt). The nominator had no edits before, so I'm guessing it's Brandt himself. Broken S 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My test2 message here (user talk for 207.142.131.239) in response to this edit seems to have caused consternation: it appears that the Wiki has directed some users not at that IP address to the offending user's talk page with a new message bar, resulting in some innocent and unconnected bystanders being offended. Someone later posted this to the IP's talk page - is that analysis correct? - and if so is there anything here worth investigating further? I don't think it's anything too serious, and I have tried damage limitation by posting conciliatory messages at my talk page and by communicating directly with the two affected logged-in contributors. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This bug has existed for more than a year, although it seems to occur less frequently than before. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a penis on the Main Page. Somebody do something about it -- Gurch 12:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, don't worry, it's been fixed -- Gurch 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the featured article on the main page was always protected along with the image used on the main page. Cheese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been getting silly vandalism all day, so I've protected it for the day. Can we start doing this as a matter of routine? --Gareth Hughes 13:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the featured article on the main page is supposed to not be protected even if it gets George W. Bush levels of vandalism. I'm unprotecting. --cesarb 13:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The picture is, though - David Gerard 14:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, a protected copy of the article is made for use on the main page, but the main article is not protected. David Gerard is correct that the image should always be protected. Superm401 | Talk 15:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Many many different user names (I personally caught 5 just from recent changes page) are removing this template and other notes about foreign character in city/location names. User names include: User:Jeaijij, User:Agraman, User:Oagafauou, User:Diacrit (now reverted and blocked by User:Fire Star), User:Qesecaue, etc. It's persistent and continues from early morning. Can you do something about? Renata3 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it's getting seriously not funny: Uefot, Huaelo, Bifo, Timoa, Feoouubiao, Eooaqinol, Xeuuces - all users, made 1 edit, the same type vandalism and I have skimmed only through 500 recent edits.

I've reverted and blocked the ones I could find, but we seriously need checkuser here to block the IP doing the damage. «»Who?¿?^meta 03:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've systematically blocked all of these sockpuppets up to the present time (to the best of my knowledge) and reverted all of their edits that I found. Including socks blocked by others, there are at least 120 or more. There's little doubt that this is the same person as Iraqi insurgency, Sealand, Úbeda, believed by some to be Wik. He's using open proxies, which are troublesome to deal with.

At some point very soon (maybe yesterday), Wikipedia is going to need some actual real-live staff to manage the website properly... not just editing admins and operating system sysadmins, but "user relations" personnel. Wikipedia needs at least one full-time "vandal accountability" person who would spend all day every day blocking open proxies, tracing IPs, and filing ToS violation notices. The next fundraising drive needs to raise funds to hire such a person.

Nearly every online multi-player game out there has a sizeable full-time staff to ensure that gameplay runs smoothly and abuses are reined in, and that there's a level playing field that's fair for all. In a certain sense, Wikipedia is very much like an online multi-player game: we all log in and interact, engage in conflicts and resolve them. The difference is, the product of this gameplay isn't virtual castles and treasure, it's something that exists in the real world. However, no online multi-player game can thrive in the long run if only the players themselves try to ensure that it runs smoothly; all of them use behind-the-scenes staff.

Wikipedia will fail if that level playing field isn't maintained. If valuable contributors perceive that vandals and sockpuppets are running amok and unilaterally imposing their will, then they'll just walk away from Wikipedia. Many people take it for granted that Wikipedia is a success, but that's not yet true... it's still a work in progress, and history's final verdict could still be "it was a nice idea on paper, but it didn't work out". If the basic principles of NPOV, consensus, 3RR, dispute resolution, etc. etc. can't be maintained in the face of automated assaults then nothing else matters.

Sometimes, watching the escalating nonsense that we've been facing over the last few months, you feel like asking "who the hell is 'minding the store'?". Right now, the answer very often seems to be "nobody". Instead of losing focus with all sorts of side projects and "sister sites", it's increasingly urgent to shore up the security and integrity of the flagship project, which is by far the most important. I don't know if the powers that be realize what admins on the "front lines" are facing, if they're even aware that things seem to be worsening. As admins we need to have somebody else "minding the store" so we can get back to normal activities instead of all this firefighting. -- Curps 11:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

also posted at Wikipedia:Account_suspensions

• 19:24, November 4, 2005 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of indefinite (this has gone on long enough, blocked for harassment, entirely ignoring 3RR, incivility, violations of WP:POINT over and over again and many other offenses.)
• 19:23, November 4, 2005 Jtkiefer unblocked User:Boothy443 (to implement infinite block)
• 01:31, November 4, 2005 Dmcdevit blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 72 hours (now sending harassing, personal attacks to me by email, as well as the 3RRs and sockpuppet, block extended again)
• 01:30, November 4, 2005 Dmcdevit unblocked User:Boothy443 (for a longer block)
• 19:05, November 3, 2005 Dmcdevit blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 48 hours (used a sockpuppet for block evasion, resetting 48 hour block)
• 19:03, November 3, 2005 Dmcdevit unblocked User:Boothy443 (for longer block)
• 00:15, November 2, 2005 Dmcdevit blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 48 hours (egregious violation of 3RR as well as lack of civility)
• 15:35, August 23, 2005 Jimbo Wales blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 17 seconds (annoying gay porn link that embarassed me)
• 13:43, August 14, 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 48 hours (piles of vandalism as the assorted "IsWayneBradygonnahavetosmackabitch" usernames)
• 17:04, August 10, 2005 Kbdank71 blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR of Benjamin Franklin Bridge, vandalism, was warned)
• 14:01, July 11, 2005 Talrias blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Inserting links to gnaa/goatse/popup website.)
• 05:16, June 24, 2005 Radiant! blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism in the form of persistently re-deleting a VFD'ed article that is now on VFU)
• 00:54, April 28, 2005 Curps blocked "User:Boothy443" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism)

I have blocked Boothy finally for his latest escapades (stalking editors) compounded with all his previous offenses including but not limited to disruption, flouting 3RR, and that's not even including the link to Jimbo. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"Possible trolling". Yep, I guess I was such a terrible guy, like Hitler and Kimer Rouge officials, just for mentioning that possibility after the RfA NO votes....at least Jtkiefer sides with the people who actually are in line/have good faith.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 23:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't miss him. ~~ N (t/c) 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I unblocked him. An indefinite block is too severe for this user. I don't think a single admin has the authority to indef block someone except in cases of simple and severe vandalism; if he's so terrible for the project, take him to WP:RFAr. Then there will be no controversy. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't think an infinite block would be appropriate, surely going back to the pre-existing 72-hour block would be a better solution than unblocking wholesale? Shimgray | talk | 00:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If another admin would like to reblock him for a shorter time, they are more than welcome to. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to know what length would be appropriate- just that indefinite wouldn't be. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're not familiar enough with the situation, why did you unblock him? User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I put up a one month block for Boothy443.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 00:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh can everyone slow down and talk about this first rather than have a block war. There is no urgency, as he is currently serving (an apparently uncontroversial) 72 hour block. We have that much time, at least, to talk about it. If you are going to unblock, at least leave the original block in place, and if you are going to reblock, at least come talk about it here first. Dmcdevit·t 00:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

See! Er, counting backwards, a lot happened in the five minutes it took me to figure out what was going on and write that. Dmcdevit·t 00:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what happened to prompt my (three) most recent blocks. First, I blocked him, and another user and an IP, for a 3RR violation, which occured on many pages with upwards of 15+ reverts in all. This was so egregious, especially considering I gave him a warning after he broke the 3RR and he just attacked me on my talk page and continued to revet, that I gave him a 48 hour block. During the block, Boothy came back with a (proven) sockpuppet to continue reverting. I blocked the sock and reset the 48 hour block. He attacked me, and admins in general on his talk page. Then I got an abusive email, telling me I support vandalism, and frankly full of lies (saying I assisted the other party). Accordingly, after three incivil messages on both talk and email, I extended the 48 hour block to 72 hours. That's all I did, and I don't know enough about Boothy's background at the moment to speculate on whether a longer block is necessary. Dmcdevit·t 00:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is attacking your decision to block him here. Except Boothy, anyway. It does sound like his behavior is pretty bad, and I wouldn't shed any tears of Arbcom decided he needs to leave the project. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I was just trying to give context above, hopefully I didn't sound defensive. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, there have been some times when there was no simple or severe vandalism involved where an indefinite block was so blatantly obvious, but Boothy443 is not a case. The arbcom takes weeks to do a case, and the same user can terrorize more people during this time, thus an editor like BigDaddy777 was among those non-vandalizers deserving of a common sense, regular admin unilatteral block. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

(response to Voice of All(MTG)'s 1-month block above): Whoa. Let's enforce the 72 hour block first, and in the meantime, we can discuss things here and come to a consensus. I've gone ahead and unblocked the one-month block and re-blocked for the remainder of the 72 hours. Thoughts? THanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 03:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. No need to hurry; there's at least 70 more hours to debate if a longer edit is more appropriate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. "this bickering is pointless"(Grand Moff Tarkin ~0 BBY). 70 hours+arbcom will do the trick.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 04:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You realize how much of an incredible geek it makes you to be able to cite that along with the (fictional) date? (Answer: Only slightly more than me for recognizing the date and identifying it for what it is.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What in the world is going on here? If you think that arbitration is needed, that's one thing, but this seems to be some kind of bizarre admin vigilantism. How can anyone even vaguely defend a unilateral indefinite block in this instance? This is just completely out of line. john k 05:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's to get a rush of absolute power? Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 08:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. Boothy has been a disruptive editor in the past. Although an indefinite block was (IMHO) not necessary, I see where jt is coming from. I think the appropriate action at this time would be to open an RFAr against Boothy. Linuxbeak | Talk 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer is empowered to block according to his discretion, and made people aware of a possibly controversial discretionary action. I don't see where "bizarre admin vigilantism" enters into this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The indef block was what Jtkiefer thought was a good-faith and appropriate use of admin prerogative. Although I disagree, I am deeply sympathetic to his thinking on this matter I fully respect him as an administrator. Since Boothy is no longer indef blocked, there is no need for this kind of inflammatory language. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it was done in good faith (I have no reason to think it was not), it was still highly inappropriate. I have never heard of a long-time user being blocked indefinitely for 3RR violations by unilateral admin action. (Actually, I've never heard of anybody being blocked indefinitely for 3RR violations). As an admin, it wouldn't even vaguely occur to me that this was a potentially appropriate use of my admin powers. The only times that indefinite blocks should be used are in cases of impersonation or otherwise inappropriate user names. I think it is arguable that this can be done for particularly persistent vandals, but beyond that, it is simply not a matter for the discretion of individual admins. In this case, it's simply indefensible, especially since the decision was not made in the heat of passion - Boothy was already blocked for 72 hours, so there was no urgency to the situation. Whatever the motives behind Jtkiefer's decision, the decision itself was so completely out of line that I can't but doubt whether Jtkiefer should be an admin at all. Good faith is completely irrelevant here. What this shows is a complete lack of judgment, and a lack of judgment of this sort is not something I'd want to see in an admin. john k 16:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, why isn't there an RfAr against Boothy yet? The accusations being made seem more than strong enough to bring a case before ArbCom. So why hasn't anybody done this? john k 17:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to see this user blocked indefinitely without a consensus to do so. If y'all can't agree that he needs to be blocked indefinitely, you should definitely file an ArbCom request. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not block him for 72 hours and proceed with an ArbCom request. If he still persists with vandalism, we can keep on enforcing blocks of 72 hours on him until the Arbcom decision. --Pamri ^{• Talk •} 17:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is not what Boothy stands accused of. He is accused of, specifically, incivility (of which there is certainly evidence, but which is not normally a blockable offense), 3RR violations (certainly seems to be true), WP:POINT violations (haven't seen specific examples of this), and "stalking other users" (whatever that means). None of these is vandalism - vandalism is just about the least constructive thing one can do on wikipedia, and everybody should be careful before carelessly calling behavior "vandalism" which clearly isn't. john k 06:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clued in on his case. Thanks. --Pamri ^{• Talk •} 06:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the block log, you will see tht four of his six distinct blocks cited vandalism. I think this vandalism was probably more along the lines of a WP:POINT, than full-on maliciousness. But I'm worried about what has happened here. It would have been clear to me that an indefinite block was never going to stick. I thought (after such an exteme display of your opinion of him) that it would surely go to arbcom if the block didn't stick. What worries me here is that if no one who is so strongly condemning Boothy here feels comfortable enough to take him to ArbCom, then how did anyone feel comfortable enough to impose an indefinite or even month-long block of him. It looks rather hit-and-run. If he needs a ban, or other sanctions, it's what arbcom's for, after all. I'm not out to get him, but after this fiasco (and it was one, with no less than seven admins blocking or unblocking) I would be disappointed if no one opened a case. Dmcdevit·t 07:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that in previous instances vandalism was cited. But it was not cited in this most recent case, which, itself, has only come several months after Boothy's last block. My mistake, but I still think we ought to be careful about using terms like vandalism. I completely agree with the rest of your post. I find the behavior of admins who are willing to impose unilateral indefinite or month-long blocks on users, but who are then not willing to take the time to lay out an arbcom case, to be quite disturbing. john k 19:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree Boothy443 needed a block. However, Jtkiefer has no authority for an indefinite block. I consider it very important that admins feel bound to policy. This is the second time Jtkiefer has blatantly disregarded policy and acted as a law unto himself. We have an arbcom for a reason, and the only authority for indef blocks are the arbcom and Jimbo. I would even be uncomfortable with unilateral 1-month blocks issued by Jtkiefer, but at least this would be within policy. This should stop here. Imho, there is no reason Jtkiefer should not block for a shorter period first, say a couple of days, and come to this noticeboard for second opinions. I would strongly recommend a voluntary parole on Jtkiefer's part to act like this in the future: If you block someone for a week, you have a week to figure out whether the block should be extended. Why would you want to make that decision alone, in the heat of the moment? Jtkiefer is not under voluntary parole, but under obligation as per policy to issue no blocks longer than one month to established editors. I am not questioning his good faith. But it does appear that he has a distorted image of his task and his authority as an admin. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To a certain extent I do confer with others (mostly over IRC) as to whether block if I question the merits of a block, that being said I reject the concept of a parole for it especially since very few people ever feel uncomfortable with my blocks and if they ever due I am usually in favor of my block being shortened if I have blocked for an overly long period of time. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's not like deleting an image where it can't be undone if another person disagrees. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could show some sign of understanding the general undercurrent of what people are trying to communicate here. You seem to be saying that it's okay to go too far with blocking, because another admin can come and correct your mistake later. I don't think anyone else shares this view. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that at all and I'm sorry if I was vague on that, I'm just saying that I think people are making too big of a deal of it since it's reversible and even if I do make an honest mistake I can easily undue it and several times have after discussing it with other editors who disagreed. I try not to block whenever possible, especially when I'm not entirely sure about the block, and even when necessary it's best when necessary to consult on any block that isn't say a small block for blatant vandalism or whatever. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In retrospect I made a mistake of not asking the views of a wider population on the Administrators Noticeboard or one of the other general policy pages on the wiki and the blocking policy goes beyond the particular block itself and why it was implemented. I still defend however that Boothy deserves an indefinite block but now realize that it should probably be done by the arbcom, though no case has been brought up against him yet. In response to the statements that this is not the first time that I have not exactly followed policies to the letter I don't know what to tell you, I am not a perfect editor nor am I a perfect administrator but every single time it has been me acting in good faith and if you really feel so strongly about it you should probably file a RFC. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I followed the instructions and created this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesMLane,

but when I try to add the link where I am supposed to, I see only this:

"((Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamesMLane))" .

Help!

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 09:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried curly braces: not for your trousers, but like {{this}}? You also have to get the candidate to answer the three questions at the bottom of the form, otherwise it will be rejected. --Gareth Hughes 13:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The questions are optional; the only requirement is that the user accept his nomination. — Dan | Talk 20:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked, James didn't want to be an admin.Karmafist 18:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

He's already declined the nom. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia:Spam is just a guideline, but when does it come to a point whereby we should actively warn people about internal spamming? Jtdirl (talk · contribs) is spamming all Irish Wikipedians about a new TfD vote, having been blatantly aggrevated by the nomination. violet/riga (t) 22:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, this is probably no different than Schoolwatch or the various $COUNTRYNAME deletion projects. Make a note of it in the TfD debate, and the closing admin can take that into account. android79 22:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning it on a noticeboard is fine. Spamming is not right. violet/riga (t) 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right, but the effect is pretty much the same, and the damage has already been done. If you're suggesting that a policy that discourages this behavior should be developed, that's probably a good idea. android79 22:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's probably just intruction creep. Most people have lot of talk pages on their watch lists. So unless some effort was made to hide the spaminator's intent with misleading edit summaries, it just drives up participation all around. Rising tide lifts all boat's equally, etc. If thing do start to get out of hand as the result of some spamming, a simple note someplace public (like here) should be enough to cancel it out. Now I'm off to examine TfD...
  brenneman^(t)(c) 03:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

From the Block log:

• 1. 15:43, 5 November 2005 Acetic Acid blocked "User:205.188.116.5" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Mexican G sock - lessened block as this is an AOL proxy)
  2. 15:42, 5 November 2005 Acetic Acid unblocked User:205.188.116.5 (Lessening block as I didn't know this was part of an AOL proxy)
  3. 15:39, 5 November 2005 Acetic Acid blocked "User:205.188.116.5" with an expiry time of indefinite (Mexican G sock)

This user has been attacking everyone who has blocked him, just look at my block log for examples:

Since he has said that he has no intention of quitting, shouldn't we inform AOL and ask them to ToS him? This is the kind of thing that makes me support Curps's proposal for a full-time paid position to deal with these kinds of things. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I have noticed something worrisome: this vandal has used the same AOL IP address (152.163.100.200) as User:Aranda56. See [15], and note the 18:17–18:29, 5 November 2005 edits are Aranda56 (confirmed here), while the 22:00–22:07, 4 November 2005 edits are the vandal. Although many AOL users use the same proxy IP, this does suggest that the person involved could be someone geographically close to Aranda56, perhaps someone who knows who he is in real life.

Since the "Mexican G" vandal keeps making vague threats with his choice of username (NOBODY MESSES WITH MEXICAN G"S and MEXICAN G"S IS MY NAME REMEMBER IT AS WATCH WHATS GOING HAPPEN and Lets play Attack Wikipedia Violently) in addition to the garden variety abuse, this might be a case where AOL should be contacted sooner rather than later. And it should be someone fairly high up at Wikipedia... if ordinary users or ordinary admins contact them, we probably wouldn't get the time of day from their low-level customer support staff. -- Curps 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think any admin could contact, cause even though being an admin is no big deal here, it carries a lot of weight elsewhere. Also to Acetic Acid and everyone: Please never block an IP indefinitely unless it's an open proxy. 1) Collateral Damage if its not static, and 2) people change, and although you can block accounts indefinitely, if you block a static IP indefinitely the person can never return. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest to everyone this js file by func? It notes on the Block form if it is an AOL IP or not. Very useful, and avoids blocking out half of the AOL users due to their super-proxy system. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 15:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note, i have often found AOL Ips I use when editing via dial-up to be ones thst had been earlier used by various vandals or other users. In a number of cases, these seem to be users who are unlikely to be geographically close to me. I do not think it is a safe conclusion that two AOL users who have used the same AOL IP are geographically close, much leas that they may know each other. DES ^(talk) 00:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, he just vandalized WP:RFAr/AER: [16]. He has no respect for Wikipedia, so I'm really urging the powers up above to consider contacting AOL about this punk. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC) More diffs: [17] Titoxd^(?!?) 01:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I just got a email informing about this notice. All I know is that I am (not) that MotherF***er Mexican G and I think I may know what got this user severly mad in the first place. Just less than a week ago I reverted vandalism of Scott Keith by probaly the same user Mexican G say and soon after I got a harrasing email from that user saying that Im something bad is coming to happen and Scott Keith is coming for you in which I ignored. I dont know how CambridgeBayWeather and Titoxd got into this. Probaly blocking the user. Than I noticed the attack user names with me involed and this user name User:GOD BLESS SCOTT KEITH which attacked my user page than I knew that has something do to about me and I got severly streessed about that. Im contacting AOL right after this to try to put a permanent stop on that MF before it gets worse as I think i still got that email around and I belive they will act quickly cause of that. Anyways Im going to be in a very long Wikibreak and going to edit much less as Im getting my cast off from my broken leg tommorrow (which let me to wikipedia in the first place) and I could go out to friends house plus baseball practice starts soon so dont expect me around here --JAranda | watz sup 02:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The FSF has changed the address listed on their licenses from

Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

to

Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301  USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Can an admin make the change? Superm401 | Talk 04:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Duly updated. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This guy has repeatedly reverted articles, removing sections not agreeing with his political opinions, while labelling legitimate sources he dislike as propaganda, and refused to listen to compromise on talk pages. In his user page, he spreads his propaganda and accused wikipedia of harboring 'anti-Americanism', and uses it to justify his actions. [18][19][20].

Have you raised this issue on his talk page? If so, a Wikipedia:RfC may be appropriate. Superm401 | Talk 05:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Could sombody take a look at todays history of Prüm? Looks like User:Akso, User:Geromeier, User:Pavel Pipovic, User:Ackermann, User:Ludowick and User:Kobiyashi are one and the same - which would put this person well over three reverts in 24 hours. Andreww 10:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the "anagram vandal" (no longer using anagrams), who also hit Iraqi insurgency, Sealand, Empire of Atlantium, Úbeda and German pages using {{Foreignchar}}. So far there have been almost 150 sockpuppets, but at the moment all have been blocked and their edits reverted. We can probably expect more though. -- Curps 18:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republika_Srpska&diff=0&oldid=27531372

There appears to be a POV dispute over 8000+ bytes. Can someone please interfere aproporately? --Cool Cat ^Talk 18:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. It should be unprotected by another adminstrator once the edit war subsides. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a proposal on the talk page of the article. Does anyone mind having another pair of eyes over it? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Persistent vandal (possibly User:Nick lantern) of Jack Thompson and George W. Bush creating new accounts. See diff, and block indefinitely on sight. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please check Mr. Tibbs with a sockpuppet inquiry.

Arsenal F.C. being todays FA will likely attract an enormous amount of vandalism, even for a FA. It has already had its fair share and even been locked for a short time. But as we should try keeping todays FA open, I unlocked it and hope people can keep an extra eye out. Especially when the kids in Britain, many with strong opinions on the subject, wake up in a few hours.... Shanes 00:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remember that as a rule of thumb the daily FA is always a target for vandalism. But at the same time, we do have the informal policy that the daily FA should never be protected because it is also designed to promote the idea the Wikipedia is a place where anybody can edit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know all about todays FA being target for vandalism, but agree in keeping them unlocked (I wasn't the one locking it earlyer). But I'm quite positive this article will set some kind of record in being vandalised when the UK-kids wake up. I'll actually be surprised if we get through the day without locking it from time to time. Hopefully I'm wrong. But we'll see. Shanes 03:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Is the image properly locked? - David Gerard 11:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • As a total aside, I believe that David's contempt for the edit summary is simply because he gets a kick out of forcing us to look at every single diff for the important ones. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
        • argh. I don't have contempt for it, I just, er, forget a lot. I will try to do better. How's this? - David Gerard 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
          • argh. That one had the perverse effect of making my look at the diff even though I knew it wouldn't be important. My head hurts. - brenneman^(t)(c)
    • I don't think it's a record. Cheese (Friday Nov 4) had substantially more vandalism, looks like. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Earlier this morning, Davidcannon (talk · contribs) blocked 220.236.16.19 (talk · contribs) and 144.139.30.93 (talk · contribs) for an entire month for single edits of vandalism, without warning. Since that was far too harsh, I have unblocked those two IPs.

If there is more to this situation than I am aware of, please let me know. --Ixfd64 21:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Given that both IPs vandalised Fiji-related topics, I'm assuming that Davidcannon thought they were sockpuppets of somebody, and hence felt no need to warn them. However, I don't know this, since looking at Davidcannon's talk page, it doesn't appear Ixfd64 talked to him before unblocking. --[[User:Scimitar|Scïmïłar]] ^parley 21:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes, not even I do that. Notices are required on IP blocks of that length. --Golbez 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • It does seem a little harsh. I've left a note on Davidcannon's talk page; hopefully he can clear things up.--Scïmïłar ^parley 21:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for letting me know. You're right, both instances of vandalism were to Fiji-related articles - and there have been a number of such attacks of late. I thought there might be some sort of vandalism campaign going on, so I decided to nip it in the bud. I'll take your point, though: I probably did over-react. I won't be so rash from now on. David Cannon 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The "anagram vandal" (who now rarely uses anagrams anymore) slipped up in his latest series of reverts: one edit was made with an IP address instead of a sockpuppet name [21].

There's no doubt it's him: he made this revert halfway through a series of about 120 reverts (always the same set of articles) from 11:55 to 12:15 UTC.

Examining the RIPE WHOIS database, we get [22]:

• Deutsche Telekom AG, Security Team
• phone: +49 180 5334332
• fax-no: +49 180 5334252
• e-mail: mailto:abuse@t-ipnet.de

Abuse Contact: http://www.t-com.de/ip-abuse in case of Spam, Hack Attacks, Illegal Activity, Violation, Scans, Probes, etc.

If you contact them, cite the following information

• IP = 84.172.240.205
• Timestamp = 8 November 2005, 12:05 UTC (GMT) = 13:05 local time in Germany

Mention that this is a banned user (very likely "Wik") who is abusively evading the ban by using multiple fake names, and that this is just one of a long series of similar incidents that have taken many users many hours to deal with.

-- Curps 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

By traceroute one can even trace it into a geographical region, and if I understand the "MA" in the hostname correctly he is in the Mannheim area. IIRC even that was the same with User:Wik. andy 13:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Given this [23], I suggest that User:Daniel Brandt now be indefinitely blocked. As a named party, I will refrain from doing it myself.Doc ^ask? 13:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gah! Wow. Done, gladly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Aw, I didn't get mentioned on the enemies list. Nobody has accused me of being part of a cabal or being a Zionist oppressor or anything like that in a while. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm so sad. :( When I saw ta bu had blocked him for a week, I almost responded saying, "A week!? A week for a legal threat? He should be lucky we don't block him permanently. A week is a slap on the wrist." If I had then maybe I'd be on his list. --Golbez 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You guys are such whiners. Whenever I deal with vandals/POV pushers/drunken hobos all I get is stuff like "pretend your normal" or "leave me alone you stupid kid" or "your censoring me". I never get to be part of a cabal, or an oppresor, or anything important ;) --Scïmïłar ^parley 21:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[24]. Should his talk page be locked? --cesarb 23:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say so, it is perfectly within policy to lock a userpage (especially of an indefinite blocked user) if the user continues to post legal threats or personal attacks. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree, it's a WP:NLT block. I just wonder if these "notices" are real and if Jimbo is really receiving them. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does, "The page also contains privileged and private information which violates my first[...] amendment rights under US Law." I don't know... Superm401 | Talk 06:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr Merkey has the service address for the Wikimedia Foundation; he knows where to send proper legal paperwork - David Gerard 16:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Background: some time ago, the president of Nash the Slash's fan club (user name Nashferatu) began waging an edit war to impose his view that Wikipedia should conform to the artist's personal preference not to have his real name publicly disseminated on the web even though the information already exists in the public domain. Recently, he began demanding that if the name is not removed from the article, then the Wikipedia contributors involved in the dispute should also be required to publicly reveal our names in that discussion as well, even though we're not public figures with Wikipedia articles whose real names are already public knowledge listed in other encyclopedias.

Issue: the one user he has "outed" so far has requested that his name be removed from the talk page, and that Nashferatu be sanctioned or even banned as a result of this action. As I've been directly involved in the dispute, however, I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to take direct action in this matter.

Could one or more neutral administrators please review the discussion at Talk:Nash the Slash and determine the appropriate course of action? (Note that while Nashferatu is registered under that user name, almost all of his recent edits have been made under anonymous IP numbers while he wasn't in fact logged in under his registered username. He did, however, sign them by typing his username manually.)

Thanks. Bearcat 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have warned Nashferatu not to reveal personal information about wikipedia editors without their consent. I have indicated that a repetition would lead to a block. I would like confirmation from other admins that such actions are blockable as a form of disruption. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that 'outing' other Wikipedia editors is an unwarranted–and blockable–invasion of privacy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As a new user to wikipedia I find the vandalism procedures difficult to follow. I would paste the warnings to the vandals talk pages but don't even know here to find them or even if they exist. The page Pete Price has been persistantly vandalised tonight by multiple users including changing hyperlinks to gay porn sites and rival forum sites and homophobic abuse. I would like to see the topic locked at rev 02:08, 9 November 2005 but the reporting system is very difficult to understand.

Click on the history tab on top. I'll be monitoring thePete Price page and blocking if necesarry.--Jondel 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress is often cumbersome; one quicker remedy to persistent vandalism is to place a notice on Admin intervention against vandalism, which can be used to swiftly bring vandals to the attention of admins currently online and active. Template messages for warning vandals can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. If you have access to IRC, the channel #wikipedia-en-vandalism is usually frequented by members of the Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit, a voluntary association of Wikipedians who focus on keeping the project clear of this kind of behavior. Hope this helps! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 04:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Would any other admin look into this page? I tried to arbitrate between two groups of very inflexible and often extremely vicious editors, and have given up. Each of the edit-warring group posts pages and pages of comments which often end up in rants. Since one of the parties involved claim I'm taking sides, it might be better that I keep off the page (the claim was:I'm taking sides because I removed a see also link to [[Talk:Acharya S]] from the main article space!!! That, after I explained the Manual of style!!!). Today, one edit-warring user posted Administrators... where are you? 11/8/05 -el Lobo, It is amazing that you Wikipedians allow this disturbed individual to continue his unethical and obsessive rant. Nuke this page while Wiki still has any credibility. So, it may be better if this article was looked into right away. Thanks. --Ragib 06:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the page. It's a bit long for a minor person; but (I presume) now does reflect what this controversy is about. Storm in a teacup. Charles Matthews 10:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Had a go at sorting this out way back. Its the only time I've provided 3 citations for one word and still been questioned.Geni 11:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

FireFox deleted an article but while closing the discussion on this page, he forgot to add the bottom header. As a result, though this AfD day is closed most of the articles voted for deletion are still posted there. I've sorted through them and closed the articles nominated for keeping or where no consensus was reached. Admins please delete the necessary and look through any mistake I may have made (I'm too tired now).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. I realised my mistake at once, but Wikipedia stopped responding so I couldn't correct it :( FireFox 18:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)