I ran across this very unusual editing from this account hereUser talk:Textuvre. What do you think? --HappyCamper00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the indef block is fine, not least because of username similarity. People can play around in the sandbox, but not if those are their only 'contributions'. Particularly not when it's clear they are literally just playing. -Splash^talk00:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon (User:152.163.100.72talk) keeps edit warring onGilles de Rais, removing sourced quotes[1][2][3], while ignoring points made through edit summaries as well the talk. A couple of other anons have also been behaving in a similar manner. This is in violation of bothWP:NPOV andWP:V.SouthernComfort12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is an AOL IP address, and would be very difficult to actually block or communicate with the user who is actively avoiding any sort of communication. Might a semi-protect be a good alternative here? --HappyCamper12:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it to me. It looks to me like the anon isadding sourced comments too, which SouthernComfort is removing as well. SouthernComfort seems to be the only significant editor with a username to the article in the past few months and may be having someownership issues as he has reverted everything added by anyone else except for an interwiki link to fr:.Angr (talk •contribs)12:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Review the edit history (and take a good look at the diffs I have provided) and compare the versions and do not make blatantly false accusations - I have retained their edits. The anon(s) in question have been deleting sourced quotations and adding edits that are clearly not NPOV. As well, they have also failed to provide proper citations to back up their claims that "many" historians are against Murray's theory. And again, I do not inappreciate your accusations (ownership issues, eh?) which are clearly notcivil. I also find it interesting that Angr ignores the fact that the anon(s) have not made a single comment on thetalk And please do show me what "sourced comment" the anon has been adding? There are none. What a world. That I have to even explain myself, as an editor with long experience here, is ridiculous and appalling.SouthernComfort15:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the anon hasn't been using the talk page; I didn't mean to sound like I was exonerating him in any way. Buthere the anon added a source which you removedhere. Perhaps I was hasty in accusing you of ownership, but it struck me as suspicious thatthis andthis seem to be the only additions made by anyone other than you in the last three weeks that you've allowed to remain.Angr (talk •contribs)15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving this message to ask that another administrator remove the block ofUser:Prasi90, as an endorsement of the suggestions I have made here[4]. I could un-block this user myself, but I feel it might be in conflict of interest to do so. I am confident that Prasi90 is ready to turn over a new leaf, so to speak. Let's all assume that he is willing to do so, and willing to abide by the terms that I have offered to him, and to other involved parties, indeed to Wikipedia at large that I can help him to become a more productive and community minded editor. Thank you in advance for your consideraton in this matter.Hamster Sandwich18:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this is one admin who is against any unblock and against any unilateral unblock by another admin. Iam a neutral party here and have been watching what's been happening with this user for some time and feel any unblock is unwarranted, especially given the extra conditons and demands that Prasi has the nerve to demand. Just my opinion. I'm sure other reasonable admins will disagree....but none have yet commented here....Gator(talk)18:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider it is reasonable to go ahead and unblock, and be ready to reimpose block if begins to vandalise again. I think if one more admin agrees here the unblock should go ahead. Hamster Sandwich is going guarantor.--FilÉireann18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich requested admin review of his request to unblock, so to expedite this I went and had a look at the thread on theuser's talk page. The one glaring ommission to me was any mention ofwhy the unblock is requested. I posted the following question:

Can I just ask: For what purpose do you request an ublock? What articles do you have in mind to edit and in general terms what edits do you plan to make? --kingboyk18:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems innocent enough to me.Hamster Sandwich then recommended that Prasi90 ignore my question and bundled me in with the "detractors". If this is the level of civility Prasi90 will receive during his mentorship I think it better he remain blocked. --kingboyk19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony's comments on the incident page are illuminating. Seehere.19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Many active users have a "todo list" (mine isUser:Kingboyk#Todo). If for some reason I were to be blocked, I'd be frustrated at not being able to work on those tasks. I just want to know what tasks Prasi90 is itching to get done, or just he want to be unblocked because he doesn'tlike being blocked. In other words, what encyclopedic contributions has he in mind to justify this experiment? I don't see the relevance of the diff you provided (other than suggesting we should tread very carefully, that kind of hatred can't be tolerated - and I'm not American). My question addresses the future not the past. --kingboyk19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I've had an exchange of views on my talk page withHamster Sandwich, and reviewed what other folks have to say. IfHamster Sandwich is game I see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to give this kid a second chance, although I await with interest to see any useful contributions to the encyclopedia! Instant and long term block for the user if he posts anything vile again, of course, but other than that go for it AFAIC. --kingboyk20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Would anybody object if I were to cut and paste this thread over toWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Prasi90? We seem to be discussing this in multiple places which doesn't help the flow of conversation. --kingboyk19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this an "Incident" or is it a "notice" that something is happening? Perhaps the thread atWP:AN/I should be pasted here? So I guess I do have an objection!Hamster Sandwich19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Either/or :) But if it's gonna bother anyone one let's leave it. --kingboyk19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved fromWP:AN/I:Continued from above,[5],Prasi90 (talk ·contribs) is going to be under possible mentorship byHamsterSandwichas sown here. I am posting a little more information, a sampling of sorts, that demonstrate why I am washing my hands of the matter.

Here Prasi90, using his IP202.177.246.3 (talk ·contribs) refers to Americans as Nazis[6] calls U.S. troops neo-nazis[7] and in article space "perverted,sadistic mentality of American troops and Americans in general"[8], he blanked the article on the United States here to post his commentary[9] vandalized the same article earlier[10] redirects the Category on the United States toSudan[11] and more vandalism[12],[13]. Prasi90 with his IP login asks how to make a template "anti-American"[14], there is a whole series of edits made from his IP to Prasi90 userpage[15],[16],[17],[18].

With the IP account, he states that the victims of 9/11 are "clearly rotting in hell" in article space[19] and when I first stumbled into him was after he added this lovely comment to my watchlisted articleSeptember 11, 2001 attacksAmericans being roasted to death even as they leap toward certain death-Kodak Moments. Ip then insults one editor on his usertalk about his sexual orientation[20]. IP adds information to the Rfc filed against Prasi90[21]. Using his Prasi90 account, editor again calls Americans neo Nazis[22] tells another editor he has a mental deficiency[23]...oh the list goes on and on. I haven't even touched the rather hard warnings he gave some vandals that they would be blocked and yet didn't do even one vandalism revert that I could find. There is a series of opposition votes on Rfa's that served no purpose aside from disruption.

There have been numerous threatening emails to myself and other editors and he has been asked to stop. I asked him why he posted a user:vandal template on his userpage and he lied and told me that he was reflecting that he was a student at the university of Idaho[24] and I ran three IP checks on his IP and they all came back as India. Anyway, a look at the block logs for the IP[25] and for Prasi90[26] demonstrate that this editor has been blocked by numerous admins and has been released from those blocks prior to their expiration after apologizing, only to return to the same disruptive editing pattern.

I've listed maybe 30% of the edits that clearly demostrate this editor has disrupted, has vandalized, has harassed and has trolled his way around Wikipedia. I believe that Hamster Sandwich has his work cut out for him and also believe that there is a high risk that Prasi90 will open sock accounts once his IP is unblocked. I congratulate Hamster for being so willing to take this situation over, but I can see almost zero evidence that this editor will be a positive contributor to this project.--MONGO18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never encountered Prasi90 before, but his clear pattern of abuse, apology and recidivism, and the rather low quality and quantity of his article contributions in the time he has edited Wikipedia, suggest to me that he's a permanent block candidate. I've no idea why Hamster Sandwich thinks that mentorship will turn this editor into a useful contributor, but as long as it's understood that we'll stand for absolutely no more nonsense, I don't see any great harm that can be done by letting him give Prasi90 one last chance. --Tony Sidaway19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this user is waaaay past the point of an indefinite block. --Cyde Weys20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is also occurring on the noticeboard with some support for removing the block. I'd suggest that we also comment there or consolidate this.Gator(talk)20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I precieve absolutely no logical nor reasonable consensus for an unblock at the current momment or in the near future. This requires more discussion. -Zero^Talk20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have told Hamster that I will not be involved anymore on this matter as that will hopefully give him the best chance of success in reforming this editor. I am confident that Hamster, if anyone, will have the best chance of turning this editor around, and applaud his show of good faith in this matter.--MONGO20:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this.SouthernComfort (talk ·contribs) insists on disputing a section of the article on the basis that the claims it makes about Jami's views are just one person's opinion. The odd thing is that the "one person" is Jami. SouthernComfort's argument is that, as Jami's work has been translated, it's the interpretation of the translator, and so counts as merely a secondary source.

This seems absurd to me (and if taken seriously would have huge repercussions for Wikipedia articles more generally). He won't back down, though. I've listed the article at RfC, but it's not arousing much interest. What can be done/should I do? --Mel Etitis ()21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to say that Jami's poetry "deals extensively with the esoteric topic of pederasty", is simply the interpretation of the English translator of Jami's works. Nowhere is his work, Jami discusses "pederasty". His narrative is metaphoric and spiritual. --ManiF22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to this argument (which involves denying the claim about pederasty on the basis of interpretation of the poetry as "metaphorical") at the Talk page. Note that, despite his "exactly" below, SouthernComfort hadn't made this point. --Mel Etitis ()15:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I am shocked that Mel (an admin himself who should be well versed in WP etiquette and guidelines) keeps taking off the tag when there is still a legitimate dispute.SouthernComfort02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is withUser:Niz, but, a brief history:

User:Zzzzz threatened to de-list (and actually did, in some cases) GAs and FAs based on an outdated guideline stating filmogs and other lists must be oldest-to-newest. Now a discussion is under way to determine whether there should be a current guideline (seems left to preference ATM). Editors then reverted several of those articles to their appearance prior to the issue (which, by my experience, is hardly an uncommon move).

Here's whereUser:Niz jumped in, undoing the reversions and leaving behind edit summaries like"rvv" ("vandalism"?),"rvv, yawn" ("yawn"?!) and"rvcb" ("childish behavior"?!?). "Childish" and "childishness", in fact, are oft-repeated.

Given thatUser:Niz has yet to respond to my concerns, and that I tend to think an impartial third party would wonder whether this user is creating the very revert war (s)he decries, would I be out of line to request that this user get a refresher course inWikiquette andassuming good faith, at the least? (At best, I'd like an administrator to step in and revert each page to its appearance immediately prior to any changes byUser:Zzzzz to avoid further revert-warring.)RadioKirktalk to me14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears this resulted from a user trying to do a lot of work at once and some things got lost in the translation. Please disregard.RadioKirktalk to me18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear admins, there has been systematic vandalism and repeated deletions of major part ofMohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi article byUser:80.191.95.2 . --Uvolik19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call one instance of blanking in two weeks "systematic vandalism and repeated deletions." You handled it already so I don't think there is anything for an admin to do.--Alabamaboy19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather worrying that an admin should semi-protect his page, unless he intends never to interact with anons via blocks, warnings, etc. Do other admins agree? If so, could Nlu be advised to unprotect it? --Mel Etitis ()18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Its only been sprotected for a day, right? I've had to do that before when I was getting slammed with Iain Lee vandals. People can still email Nlu through his email link in the meantime. I wouldn't think it was a good idea if he forever left it semiprotected, but a day or so isn't something that I would be too worried about. --Syrthiss18:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As I explained already -- check out the page history of my talk page as well asWP:RCU to see why. The last few days,PoolGuy (talk ·contribs)'s sockpuppets have been thoroughly spammy. --Nlu (talk)18:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Sometimes we all get hit with socky goodness. :/ --Syrthiss18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And I find it disturbing that Ialready explained this to Melyesterday and he still acts as if he didn't see my explanation. I am going toassume good faith once more and assume that he has good faith basis to bring this here, but otherwise it becomes suspicious whether he is simply trying to pick a fight with me over theUser:Croatian historian situation. --Nlu (talk)18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you supply the diff, as I didn't see any explanation? (By the way, if you're going to assume good faith, do so — don't say you're going to do it and then make it clear that in fact you're not.) --Mel Etitis ()19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is lame. Nlu, feel free to semi protect your user talk apge to keep vandalising IPs away fro as long as you like. I for one see NO problem with it. Good for you. Mel: stop trolling and do something more productive with your time, please. Wow.Gator(talk)20:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My explanation is still right there onUser talk:Nlu. Feel free to read it there. If you mean what I was combatting, see[27],[28], and[29]. Again, see the entire history onWP:RCU as well. I fail to see what's so difficult to comprehend. It's not a case of vandalizing IPs; it's a case of vandalizing new sockpuppets, which are also generally blocked by semi-protections. (And, thanks, Gator.) --Nlu (talk)00:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu has not had vandalism on his page. If you readWP:VANDAL and the three references above, the posts were not vandalism. Nlu has protected his page simply to erase questions from an inquiring user that he blocked, and avoiding answering a legitimate question to the basis of his block. Unless vandalism has actually occurred, Nlu should not have his talk page protected, especially as an Admin responsible for inquiries from users. Nlu is stating that he is following policy, however just reading theWP:VANDAL page any novice can see that his page was not vandalized.AvoidingAvoidance06:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not asking a legitimate question -- which has been answered many times, by me and other admins. --Nlu (talk)08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Semi-protecting your talk page so as not be bothered with questions from annoying sockpuppets isn't really kosher. Nlu, please unprotect it.Angr (talk •contribs)06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It was only protected for a short duration. Of course, Mel Etitis's making it sound like I've been protecting it forever. Check the protection log. --Nlu (talk)08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

After unprotection, harassment by PoolGuy's sockpuppets resumed. See[30]. Happy now, Mel? (No, I am not reprotecting at this point, but I am not going to be asking your permission to do so.) --Nlu (talk)15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And I assume you are reading this, PoolGuy (or whatever your name is going to be next); pursuant toWP:SOCK, each time you use a new sockpuppet, your 1-week block will be reset, so if you actually do want your block to be lifted (as you claimed you did), wait it out. --Nlu (talk)15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, you are being asked a legitimate question which you refuse to answer. You refuse to answer because you are wrong in your position. If you are right in your position you will cite the reason for the block. As demonstrated atyour latest Check User Request there is no reason for a Check User to be completed, because there is no violation of policy. Your block states it is done because of a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets are not a violation of wikipedia policy, and can not be the basis for a block.

When questioned on PoolGuy's Talk Page you succumbed to the fact that your reason for a block was off base. You then stated the block was imposed because "You violated WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT, at least." Those you have not and can notcite. So when you were asked to prove those violations occurred you got embarrassed because you couldn't do it. So what you do is you delete the very legitimate question for you to explain where the violation occurred from your talk page[31][32][33][34]. I suppose it is embarrassing to leave a question you can't answer on your talk page. You also protect the talk page of the user you inappropriately blocked cutting off their communication and their means to request an unblock. You are acting nervous because you are unable to cite this 3RR and NPA and Point that have been violated that caused you to block the account.

I don't know why another admin has not tried to help you, and find the violation that occurred. Perhaps others have looked but could not find it. I don't know why you don't cite these violations and show everyone the edits that caused the violation so heinous that you had to block an account (probably because it doesn't exist).

I am sorry if you think you are harassed. I think it is harassing to take administrative action against a user when you can not even justify it with a policy violation. Perhaps you have been working so hard to make this issue go away because you can not justify your action. Other admins on Wikipedia justify their action all the time. They simply cite the edit that demonstrated the violation. I don't understand why you refuse to, except maybe, because the violation does not exist. Absent the violation you can't seem to find, please unblock and unprotect the accounts. Thank you.YouDontGetIt07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you're refusing to read the citation doesn't mean that policies weren't cited. --Nlu (talk)07:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How many times to I have to explain to you the reason you continue to be blocked is because you create sockpuppets to evade a block. How many times do I have to tell you thatGoldToeMarionette (talk ·contribs) was blocked for spamming people to support you onPet peeve, (even those who say didn't edit the article)something an ArbCom member even told you that wasdisruptive, yet you argued with him about it? How many times do I have to tell you to sit it out, and do whatever you have to do after the block? How many times do we have to tell you that for each sock you make means your timer resets (as your userpage says)? I've already asked Bauder to look into this, so please let him do what he has to do. Also, out of curiosity, what are you going to do with all the socks you created during your block? I don't see what anybody can do with so many sockpuppets, especially one which readsUser:YouDontGetIt. --LBMixPro^{<Spak|on|it!>}22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In the topic above Nlu has been unable to find the violation of policy. Perhaps someone can help Nlu and actually find the three policies he stated were violated. Just cite the edits to help out Nlu. I have looked and I can't find them. Maybe someone else would have better luck. If Nlu can't even find the violations that he said occurred, I don't know how anyone can. Perhaps the accounts should be unblocked and the pages unprotected since those actions appear to be baseless.

Thanks for trying to help Nlu fulfill his Admin responsibilities. Sorry he can't find the violations on his own.GreatTerriffic07:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I listed it onWP:VPM, but I think thats the wrong place to list it on. The problem is that at the moment there is a month old backlog there, it's stated:

Listings should be checked and processed by administrators after 7 days.

._→AzaToth21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is tag with {{adminbacklog}}.Stifle22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is getting serially vandalized by anons, with various RC faces making plenty of reverts in recent history. I don't know much about the subject but he seems to be a whistle-blower, or at least holds controversial opinions on pro-wrestling which might be a cause of discontent. He apparently survived AfD last year and seems to be here to stay, also judging by the banter on the talk the article has been under some kind of protection before. It would appear to be a candidate for semi-protection at the moment?19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain to the page being protected, as the vandal shares my IP (no, its not me, my IP is shared by the entire country sadly :) ) and I am often blocked.Banez22:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Peruvianllama blocked newcomerUser:Melgibson1 yesterday for vandalism. This may be partly because he kept leaving comments atLuciferene, which I improperly tagged for deletion.Gazpacho19:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It was probably for making this series of edits[35].Naconkantarie|t||c|m19:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He should probably stay blocked for having an inappropriateusername.Angr (talk •contribs)20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User ChrisO has deleted template about persecution of Serbs in the middle of the debate, and it was clear that he (who proposed the deletion) was beginning to lose the case. Instead of debating it, he decided to delete it before the period has ended. There were two votes to keep it at the time. From the debate it was clear that NPOV problems can be fixed, and that template has a legitimate place in Wikipedia. Also, his own template about Scientology is more biased than this one, as it slanders the whole religion by attributing a nonsensical doctrine (in a template) to it, while it is claimed that it cannot be proved/verified as it is secret. How can this be NPOV. I think ChrisO abused his privileges. Also, isnt it true that it SHOULD NOT BE THE SAME PERSON who nominates and deletes the page - otherwise, the tags make no sense if noone is to have a say. I think this moderator, who also made personal attacks, has to be investigated for other possible adminship abuses.CeBuCCuCmeM22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• RFC filed, so this should be ignored in favor of it.WP:RFC/ChrisO --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

Please have a look atSpecial:Contributions/Rgulerdem, for a long list of user pages that have been visited to leave a message aboutWikipedia:Wikiethics. Is this allowed? --KimvdLinde00:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there's atiger namedRgulerdem (talk •contribs •page moves •block user •block log) loose in the natural history museum and he's performingWP:SPAM#Internal_spamming.

Resid appears to have spammed upwards of one hundred (if not more) user's talk pages.

The following is just a sample of it. See some of the resthere andhere (do note the blind alphabetical order he's following).

spam 01 User talk:Borincano75
spam 02 User talk:BonsaiViking
spam 03 User talk:Blarneytherinosaur
spam 04 User talk:Benzai
spam 05 User talk:Ben davison
spam 06 User talk:Beau99
spam 07 User User talk:Bcat
spam 08 User talk:Banes
spam 09 User talk:Awcolley
spam 10 User talk:Averykrouse
spam 11 User talk:Archola
spam 12 User talk:Andrewski
spam 13 User talk:Andrewa
spam 14 User talk:Zjhafeez
spam 15 User talk:Zereshk

Might be worthy of a bit of admin attention... but I could be wrong of course.

Netscott00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Rgulerdem has beennotified of this report.Netscott00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is a discussion going on atWikipedia:Wikiethics. I am inviting people to the discussion. More input from the community will help better.Resid Gulerdem

01:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• User:Rgulerdem has managed to evenspamUser:Guettarda the admin whoblocked him yesterday for 3RR violation.... seems to berather blind spamming.Netscott01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 31 hours for talk page spamming. I will unblock (or will not contest another admin's unblock) if he apologizes and promises not to do it again.Kelly Martin (talk)01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ordinarily I'd tend to agree about the unblock after apology... but you might want to be aware ofthis 3RR report from yesterday that will put his spamming in perspective. Also perhaps take note of the bad faith and false 'revenge'3RR report he filed against me.Netscott01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Despite my constant banging the drum that wewarn andthen block only as a preventative measure, Kelly's block is quite fair in this case. That's a karmafist-worthy list of talk page contributions he's made. -^{L}01:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read those above from the bottom up, they are in alphabetical order. -Splash^talk01:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was part of why I blocked. It seemed obvious to me that he would have continued all the way to "Z" if not stopped. He's still demanding a reference to the rule against spamming; I'm not yet willing to unblock.Kelly Martin (talk)01:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well durable block or apology/unblock... good admining on the part of Kelly Martin, thanks. ;-)Netscott01:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

General consensus after theUser:Ram-Man duel lisence thing was that spaming is bad however asWP:SPAM#Internal_spamming we never put together any solid rules. The problem is in defineing spam and the like. For example putting the same message on a large number of userpages appears to have become ingrained inWP:RFA culture. Bulk bot produced unserlictored messages are a key part of our anti copyvio stratergy (or at least a key part of minimiseing complaints about it). So yes the user is correct that there is no rule agaist spaming. If we look atWP:BLOCK the cloest policy to being aplicable is Users who exhaust the community's patience. However that is mostly meant to be for permablocks.Geni02:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still learning about WikiPedia and I'm not familiar with how WP:RFA works, are massWP:RFA User_talk page postings doneabsolutely blindly?Netscott02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case the people spammed are the people that actually bothered to vote, not some random number of people you've never met. —Ruud02:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Ruud for the response, but what you are describing doesn't sound tooblind to me... if they voted then it sounds a bit more "Opt-in".Netscott02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• And Rgulerdem is using a list from somewhere.Geni02:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, some users are identified as either muslim or christian, the groups that most likely would be in favour of some censorship at wikipedia.KimvdLinde02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No. The groups most likely to be in favor of censorship are the various people with strong political opinions. Of course they won't help his particular case. The oldWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency might once have been a logical place to start if it hadn't collapsed intoa rather messy VDF.Geni03:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to mix up something.Wikipedia:Wikiethics is not pro-Censorship.Wikipedia:Wikiethics is pro-Ethics. Censorship would mean, that an admin blocks your content because he finds it unsuitable. Ethics rather means, that the editor himself thinks aboutwhat andwhat not to write. That's a big difference, if you make an effort to think about it.Raphael104:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(removing indent)

He also sent out spams on the 10th and 12th of March. On that occasion his spamlist was partly composed of users who votedobject on thecensorship policy poll. I suggest someone request him to share the origins of his spamlist on his talk page. It might be a good criteria for unblocking. ॐMetta Bubble^puff03:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious he usedCategory:Christian Wikipedians for the A's and B's andCategory:Muslim Wikipedians for the Z's. —Ruud04:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a polite conversation withUser:Rgulerdem where he indicated to my satisfaction that he intends to continue talk page spamming. I have therefore extended his block by 72 hours.Nandesuka12:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sometimes we don't need hard and fast rules, we just need to do what is right. Asking for specific rules that prohibit a disruptive action is wikilawyering and not helpful. The block is covered under disruption. And finally the spamming is more likely to make people vote against the proposal anyway, but that's not an excuse to allow it. -Taxman^Talk13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I made an explanation above, my account is blocked, unfortunately. I would like to repeat my response to this accusation again. I hope that I can find some democrat admins here to listen what I am saying. Misbehaving users are no good for Wiki but admins misusing their previliges is even worse and may lead to chaos.

Admins should use their privilages wisely and consciously. Only then it may help to keep the place safe. Warning before blocking is not a luxury, it is a standard. Asking about the reasons for an editor's actions, if not well understood by an admin, is not a luxury, it is so wise. Asking and warning doesn't take more than 5 min and doesn't make Wiki a volnerable place. It rather creates a better and friendly atmosphere. There is no need for strong formality if and only if admins following well-established ethics and standards. The definitions of acceptable and unacceptable should not vary from one admin to another. If there is unclearity on an issue, they need to use extra caution. In a civil environment the standards are not only for poor ordinary users, but also for admins. An admin who is not so careful in his decisions distrup Wiki from functioning as well as a user who do not care about it. Unfairly blocked users are a good exapmle of disruption.

What I was doing was not spamming. I was justletting a selected group of people who might not be aware of the proposal and who might want to know about it. (Babylon - spamming:simultaneous sending of anirrelevant message to a large number of discussion groups on the Internet). I my case I am blocked without a prior warning, and blocked for 31 hours, and blocked on subjective decision of an admin which is extended subjective decision of another. 'Assumeing good faith' should not be just a link for the admins to color their talks, when talking to ordinary users.

I am expecting an apology from the admins involved for their poor behaviour against me and a promise regarding that they won't misuse their priviliges anymore towards anyone. I should add that I would like to see this incident as a mistake which should not be generelized for all actions of the admins involved, neither to the community of admins. I am sure and in fact I know that there are many who are doing their jobs as good as possible.

I checked my account and it was unblocked. I am signing my name as you see here. I hope some admins here won't ask me pay for the flaw in the system, if there is. Thanks.Resid Gulerdem21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the explanations above, I would like to keep informing a selected group of people who might want to know about the proposal and who might be interested. I would like to make it clear with you that there is no problem with that. Please let me know what do you think about it. I believe informing a group of people is nothing to do with spam and should be welcomed in Wiki. Thanks...Resid Gulerdem21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is not innocent "informing a group of people" so much as astroturfing. It is not kosher to attempt to radically shape polls in the way you have. I don't personally have an opinion as to if you should've been blocked for it, but it is certainly something you should not have done and should not do in the future. --Improv19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable question. I'm afraid I think the block was technically an abuse of admin powers, but I don't think there's any point in taking this further. It would be different if any of the recipients of the message had complained, but there's been no evidence presented of this. And, at the very least, IMO a warning should have been given before the block.

The root cause of the problem seems to be an attempt to gag this user by calling a poll on a policy proposal for the express purpose of getting it rejected. The opponents of this draft policy have declared that, assuming the poll fails (as is IMO certain, the proposal is not nearly ready to be a guideline, let alone a policy) that the proposed policy will then instantly become afailed proposal. What this means is unclear, but unfortunately an admin has suggested (I hope in jest) that they would then be willing tojust delete the proposal. IMO the tactic of calling such negative polls is to be discouraged. As far as I can see it does not violate any policy or guideline except perhapsWP:POINT, but it seems a pure waste of time. Assuming that this poll is rejected, that does not IMO prevent the proposers from working further on it, and calling a new poll when they are ready to do so. However the proposer is relatively new, and I think it is understandable that they should be worried about this apparent attempt to delete their work.

Even if all the allegations against this user were true, that would then make it even more important for admins to follow procedures and guidelines, and to encourage others to do so too. SeeWikipedia talk:Wikiethics. Please note, I'mnot defending the unfortunate and IMO misguided spate of "Christian" activism, advocacy and trolling on Wikipedia of which this proposalmay be part. Rather, I am saying that it is important not to descend to their level.Andrewa12:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is not innocent "informing a group of people" so much as astroturfing. It is not kosher to attempt to radically shape polls in the way you have. I don't personally have an opinion as to if you should've been blocked for it, but it is certainly something you should not have done and should not do in the future. --Improv19:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Improv, you made some assesments but I can not see any retionale behind your conclusions. Can I get your reasoning for your statements like:This is not innocent andsomething you should not have done and should not do in the future. Besides being impolite, 'it is not innocent' statement seems to be contradicting 'assume good faith' approach. I cannot see any policy, guideline or regulation to disourage this kind of informing procedure. I think it is totally unfair and unacceptable to think that with a single message all Wikipedians will go for the vote as I suggested. As the poll indicated, just a few users voted after my message. The message is clear, and my position in this dispute clearly stated in it. I am not pushing anyone to vote (it is simply impossible), neither hiding my position by using some flowery words to misguide the users. It is natural that my message reflects my perspective. I am ready to follow a consensus (and only consensus) among the admins, but please note that independent from the case, a consensus against this kind of informing procedure will highly restrict users' freedom of speach in Wiki IMO. If it is decided so, than some objective norms will be needed such as 'informing how many users will be considered as unacceptible'. Please note that, existing no-spam guideline is not applicaple to this case.Resid Gulerdem00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Resid's line above,"I think it is totally unfair and unacceptable to think that with a single message all Wikipedians will go for the vote as I suggested" seems so disingenuous when one reads hislast edit before going on this WP/AN reported "spampage":"I am leaving the decision about you and your actions to the community here.Resid Gulerdem 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)". Obviously Resid, you expected to have some impact.Can we stop thespin now?Netscott01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I cannot see your point Netscott, where is the insincerity? If you really want to see insincerety, spin and some cheap tactics you can check thisdiff.Resid Gulerdem11:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If Rgulerdem does anything resembling spamming in future, I intend to block him. This is one of the most egregious, bare-faced and unrepentant cases I have ever encountered. --Tony Sidaway04:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't 'anything resembling spamming' a little vague? Can I get your reasoning for calling it 'the most egregious, bare-faced and unrepentant cases I have ever encountered'? Please note that discretionary actions are not acceptable. If there is an administrative consensus on the issue, I would follow that. I cannot see a consensus so far. If there is, it would be better if the consensus is mentioned in some policies.Resid Gulerdem04:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the admins page WP:AN and there is no admin consensus on this being spamming. I have been blocked for this before and I hope people do not want to repeat the same mistake. Resid Gulerdem 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The above quote from Resid's talk page in reply to a warning from Thebainer.NSLE_(T+C) at 04:46UTC(2006-04-07)

I noticed that a number of long(more than 24 hour) blocks have been put on IPs that have been marked as being shared among multiple users. AFAIK, this is aBad Thing. I have removed a number of these placed byUser:Hall Monitor. I am posting here for further consideration and discussion.JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with nice long blocks to vandal schools personally (long blocks to other shared IPS is different). If the IP has been a consistent vandal and has produced nothing but vandalism and the students can still use the site for research and education but simply cannot edit, I fail to see the harm. I personally feel it's better to miss out on the one good edit that will likely not come out of that IP then to put up with their nonsense, because we want them to be able to continue to edit and vandalise. The site is still available to them as an encyclopedia and it likely more than one idiot who is vandalsiing if it happenign that often so a one hour or three houtr block ain't gonna do it. I mean, look at the vandalism history...it ain't working! I say well done HallMonitor, we need more vandal fighters like you. My opinion.Gator(talk)13:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2nded. I have given a few long blocks to school ips as well, and shortened them if/when someone emailed me with an objection. My assumption of good faith doesn't go so far as to believe that there will be a single good edit waiting in the ether, and it will make up for the time that the vandal fighters take away from actuallybuilding an encyclopedia to remove vandalism. BTW did you (JesseW) try to discuss this first with Hall Monitor before removing the blocks and bringing it here? --Syrthiss15:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see anything...Gator(talk)15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note however that I do quite frequently have to unblock my own school IPs when i want to edit from work. Schools do frequently have hundreds of people sharing the IP. Slapping a 1 hour block takes half a minute at most.Theresa Knott |Taste the Korn16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I can't see it as a huge problem when the IP is primarily used for vandalism (bug 550 would help too), people can contact the blocker if they have an issue and I see no reason to believe that Hall Monitor is not receptive to this. Similarly the long blocks tend to invite a system admin to contact Hall Monitor. This seems to be a good way of trying to deal with the problem, see if the school/whoever is willing to try and work with us, rather than just saying it's a WP problem (or rather an RC Patrol problem). I wish people would do the same with AOL, AOL User blocked complain to AOL see if they are willing to help, enough do it maybe they will... --pgk^(talk)17:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said.Gator(talk)18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm very affected by long term school blocks. I just had a 2 week block instituted on my school IP (Which was unblocked by request), however after one case of vandalism, the IP was once again blocked for 48 hours. It's a major inconvinence when I want to edit from school, but am unable to due to some vandal. My school IP is shared throughout the entire school, and possibly the entire school district. Just wanted it to be known that there are good editors at school :P --lightdarkness ^(talk)19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do think a named conributor with a history of good edits requesting an unblock on such a block should be given a fair weight. --pgk^(talk)19:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I have yet to have that happen to me though, but would be willing to unblock in that case. Very rare though.Gator(talk)19:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have this problem too; a school network I often edit from had a 1 month block plonked on it, and it can be frustrating if I've just spent half an hour working on an image, only hit upload file and get a "You have been blocked by user:JoeAdmin".23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad I asked here. I ought to have asked Hall Monitor before unblocking, sorry about that. It seems like blocking school IPs for long periods is accepted, but blocking non-school shared IPs is not. Can someone update the blocking policy to reflect this, please? Also, it would be good to have a distinguishing template color for shared school IPs from non-school ones.JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You want to to update the blocking policy bases on what a handful of admins stated despite the fact that several people have stated that there is in fact very real collateral damage? I think there needs to be a fair bit more discussion before we start changing policy!Theresa Knott |Taste the Korn20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with the handling of blocks, so I personally don't have a strong opinion on this. My understanding of the above comments was what led me to the suggestion to correct the policy to be in line with what appears to be current practice. I'd be delighted for whatever further discussion anyone wants to do.JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fear not, for Raul has alreadyproposed a solution to this problem (Comment #13). I'm now prodding Rob Church to impliment it.Raul65403:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WP User Dave Null has violated privacy and personal copyright by editing in names of certain people when a shared PC was being temporarily used by User:AgainstFakeClaims. Section : Question and observation

The violated individuals are reporting unauthorized use of their names on public space in WP without their authorization. Following is the version in which this incident has happened.WP ADMINSPlease permanently delete entire page and all versions following this version below. This is a liability issue and personal right and privacy violations issue.

Thanks for your support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AgainstFakeClaims&oldid=46675721--129.188.33.22218:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Done I removed the three revisions with the private info in them. (Note to other admins, if this was the wrong thing to do, undo it and let me know on my talk page.)Prodego^talk22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove any private information that might be requested, but the only possible "private information" contained in the three deleted revisions is a three word phrase: "Abhiraj or Rupalee". I fail to see how this is anthing close to a case of "violated privacy and personal copyright"(whatever that might mean). If it was an address, a full name, a location, an employer, a personal ID # of some kind, or something like that, I would certainly agree it should be deleted, but two words? That's akin to saying that the phrase "John or James" is a violation of the privacy of anyone named John or James. I don't credit this. There's no reason to undelete the revisions, but I can't see what the complaint is either.JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To begin; I'm not sure if this is the right forum. If any response could include either a confirmation that this is the right forum to post to, or a suggestion for future queries, I would be appreciative.

I've added speedy delete db-copyvio templates toAV Voice Changer Software andMusic Morpher and the templates have been deleted. I know that if aprod template is del, it is to be listed onAFD, but I can't see (from a quick wikisearch) what the best approach is here. I don't want to just edit war. Any advice, please?Colonel Tom11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, if a legitimate speedy tag has been removed, the thing to do is restore it, explaining on the talk page why you think it qualifies for speedy deletion. In these cases, however, you didn't provide evidence for your claim that they were copyvios.{{db-copyvio}} needs a parameter giving the URL of the site you believe the information has been copied from: {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.whatever.com}}.Angr (talk •contribs)11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the tags, but I nor someone else will delete it unless we got the urls, like Angr said. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>11:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I now understand when initially applying the copyvio tag, there is a responsibility to provide details of the vio. Fair enough. I must admit that I assumed that the links contained within the article(s), to the manufacturer's site, with the same info, was sufficient. I appreciate your answers and assistance. I'll revisit. Many thanks.Colonel Tom12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

These do not look like copyvios to me, although they are products of a company called Avnex added byAvnex (talk ·contribs) which is clearly a potential problem.Just zisGuy you know?13:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they do look like copyright violations, although since the copy was probably posted by the company that owns the copyright the company could technically release the text under the GFDL. That said, the articles are still linkspam and not notable and should be speedily deleted.--Alabamaboy16:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. If I write something and have it on my website then release it under the GFDL to wikipedia I should source wikipedia on my page since I have licensed it under the GFDL to wikipedia and no longer "own" it.Mike_(TC)20:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Licensing under the GFDL never limits the owner's original rights, it only grants others the right to use the material under the GFDL. The originator can use his own material in any way he sees fit. He certainly does not need to attribute it to Wikipedia, since it's still his own work. --Tony Sidaway18:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony is absolutely right and Mike (sorry) you have it the wrong way round. If I write a new article now, I am the author and copyright owner and Wikipedia have the duty tocredit me. If I want to go and use the article somewhere else - including publishing it in print or selling it - I can. It's my work, legally and morally. Work submitted here is licenced to the world (including but not exclusively Wikipedia) and Wikipedia no more own the content than any other 3rd party does. --kingboyk18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Could an Admin review the following Requested moves and wrap them up if deemed appropriate:

• Talk:Argyll
• Talk:Bute
• Talk:Ross (area)
• Talk:Moray (county)

--Mais oui!22:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take such request toWP:RFPM --pgk^(talk)06:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They were already there, I believe; the request was to close the debates.Nightstallion has now done so.Angr (talk •contribs)07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I closed three of them, Nightstallion closed the forth.JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please seethis edit and you be the judge. Nobody's blocked the user yet.

Thanks. —nathanrdotcom^{(T •C •W)}09:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by Curps for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning^(talk)10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The user Ankaram, is most certainly, and even certainly Sedat Laciner who is very close to the Turkish government who has written a good deal of materials specifically aimed at linking the Armenians with anti-Semitism, while this is not much a problem here, the main problem is that he is self-promoting himself, his organization and his journal in Wikipedia.

Evidences that he is Laciner are clear. First, the anonymous user who added on the anti-semitism article the links to the articles published by Laciner, and all the links from the Journal of Turkish Weekly, who Laciner is the chairman of. This was done on March 10, this anonymous user also added materials relating to Laciner organizations and affiliations, as well as edited the Armenian Genocide article with materials that Laciner has written himself. Not to forget also the fact that this same anonymous user has added a link in the Armenia article to his article and his journal. Here all this anonymous users contributions.[36]

While this anonymous user appeared in March 10, on March 11, the login Slaciner was created and he started contributing[37], on his user page, he rightly say who he is etc. He also created the page about himself. On 13:30 of April 1, 2006, he stop contributing with this acount, another account appear the same day, which is Ankaram and continue the work starting with the alias Slaciner and his attempt to place his works links and his journal everywhere he can find. Right now of course after that anonymous edit of his on theArmenian Genocide article he has not edited there, but this is probably due to the fact that the article is now locked for new users.

The thing is that his newspaper is not notable, neither it has the credibility to be used as a source for anything. This man consider Armenians to control the world public opinion and has written works with titles such as : "Armenian propaganda" etc, the newspaper also in various occasion been exposed to have manipulated and fabricated others statements, just recently a Courier writter was threatned with legal actions just because he has reported one of those fabrications. I was advised by Golbez and Bertilvidet to place Laciner cases in the administrators noticeboard, but I haven't done so because after my message on Ankaram talk page, he has stopped doing that a little, but he started back again adding another link to his newspaper at the entry on Turkish invasion of Cyprus.[38]Fad(ix)17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

apparently I've found out one more thing that AOL can do, I'm currently editing with twodifferent user namesat the same time, on the same computer, and will post this message on both WP:AN and WP:AN/i with both accounts, at exactly the same time--Chelloru20:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• If I had to guess I'd say that AOL somehow keeps two completely separate sets of cookies, one for each type of browsing window--Fernblogin20:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is by far the strangest thing I've ever found out about AOL--Fernblogin20:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be the only way to do that of course. One IE, one Firefox, one Mozilla, one Opera, and then the same in multiple instances of VMWare - a user could have a veritable sockfarm on one computer. --kingboyk20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

now that we know thiscan work, the question becomes, is there any reasonable expanaition for why it works? It is pretty strange--Chelloru20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing particularly unusual about it. Between the use of bots and multiple web browsers, I've edited from the same computer under as many as three accounts at the same time. --Carnildo22:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any sort of rule saying that you can't operate two usernames on Wikipedia at the exact same time, on the exact same computer? Would it even occur to anyone to make such a rule?--Chelloru20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

SeeWP:SOCK for the closest thing we have to that.Blackcap(talk)20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The above comment by Blackcap copied by myself from a duplicate section (which I'll delete now) from above; his was the only comment that wasn't in this section. Thanks!Flcelloguy(Anote?)21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as you dont use it to manipulate voting - in which case it would be a sockpuppet - no.KI20:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What if I manipulate voting in 2 different ways, one votesupport,--Chelloru20:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The otheroppose, basically the same thing as not voting at all--Fernblogin20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

fool proof, as long as I always have an even number of sockpuppets--Chelloru20:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really true, usually supermajorities are required in Wikipedia related things, so for example in an RfA, that would be like 2 net opposes, because 1 oppose is worth 3 supports. --Rory09623:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Of course that's probably covered underWP:POINT somewhere, either way I'm getting kind of tired of this, using 2 accounts at the same time isn't a glamorous as you'd think it is--Fernblogin20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, guys there seem to be massiveWP:BEANS issues here. I suggest that this conversation be taking off the noticeboard.JoshuaZ20:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you really think so--Fernblogin20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• WP:BEANS? I'd think this comes under the "so obvious it isn't worth mentioning" clause myself. --Carnildo22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They've started posting the same thread in duplicate now, so I've blocked both sockpuppets (no other contribs). Interesting experiment but enough is enough. However, I've been told it's triggered an autoblock? How can I reverse the autoblock whilst leaving the accounts blocked? --kingboyk20:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, I found it onSpecial:Ipblocklist and removed the autoblock (although if there's an easier way I'd like to know). --kingboyk21:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please watch overGeo Swan? He/she wont leave me alone. The user seems infuriated that I movedCharities accused of ties to terrorism toCharities with ties to terrorism - accused being a truism in my opinion. This move was undone but now this user wont leave me alone and keeps lecturing me about American politics, something I really dont care about. I dont know what angered Geo Swan, but my move seems to have struck a nerve. Thanks.KI20:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. I couldn't find evidence of significant harassment.JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I received several obscenity-laced emails ostensibly sent byUser:Homeworld5 to my email account. I have notified abuse@hotmail.com of the abuse, but at the same time, there were several attempts to get my Wikipedia password changed. The attempts all came from IP address 210.8.110.33. ARIN and APNIC are not very helpful at tracking down where this address comes from and whom I can contact to report the abuse. Can somebody help me?User:Zoe|^(talk)`

Its owned by connect.com.au (from APNIC).Mike_(TC)21:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But I can't find an abuse email address.User:Zoe|^(talk)21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This one gives an abuse e-mail[39] -- not that it will actually help, I rarely get anything but a bot answer from those things.Antandrus(talk)21:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That email may be defunct due to takeover, there is contact info for AAPT here[40].Arniep22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When in dobut abuse@, but personally I wouldn't worry about it.Mike_(TC)22:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody.User:Zoe|^(talk)23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There's an anon user who has been blanking their IP talk page (User talk:70.27.217.5), which contains some vandalism warnings and other editing comments from the last couple of days. Is it appropriate to revert their blanking (I've done it once already), or is this a legitimate use of the talk page? Cheers,Ziggurat21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He does indeed have fresh vandalism warnings, and he's not served any block. He shouldn't remove the warnings, and I've reverted to your version. --kingboyk21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of a bug in experimental code for tagging new uploads, OrphanBot has been occasionally placing messages at pages of the form "User talk:User:Someuser". I've fixed the bug, and the list of approximately 270 pages that were accidentally created is atUser:Carnildo/Bot mistake. Could someone go through and delete them? Thanks. --Carnildo22:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm starting at the bottom of that list --pgk^(talk)22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like humans are still needed, huh? ;-)SoLando (Talk)23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

All done it would seem. You want the list deleted now? --kingboyk23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I've got no need for it now. --Carnildo23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Geoff_NoNick (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is a new editor, he keeps deleting factually correct information from theList of conflicts in Canada article. I discussed the matter with him at the articles user talk page. He disagrees with the reverts and has posted me as a sock puppet of someone named WritersCrampWikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp. Would you please remove my name from the request page and speak this person about proper etiquette at Wikipedia. If you believe I am a sockpuppet of this editor please close my wiki account. I will move on to another hobby. Thank youSirIsaacBrock19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone looking into this matter? I have not heard anything yet. CordiallySirIsaacBrock12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You can ask for acheckuser request to try to prove you and WritersCramp are different editors (assuming you are). I am unable to perform this check for you.Superm401 -Talk03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a check user and they said "Inconclusive" so I need a third party to remove my name fromWikipedia:Requests for comment/WritersCramp. I cannot do it myself, it has to be an admin, thank youSirIsaacBrock09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is nobody looking into this matter??SirIsaacBrock12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The RFCU was inconclusive, please feel free to post to that effect on the RFC. RFCs cannot take binding action against editors, so it will not mitigate against you.Stifle (talk)23:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mutters1 has moved the article "leaky gut syndrome" to "leaky gut syndrome sucks", reasoning "because it does". An admin needs to delete the existing redirect so we can move the old page back, sans "sucks". Also, the page now points tosnowboarding for some reason.Isopropyl04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like that was already resolved. --Golbez04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Check andmate.--Sean Black^(talk)04:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!Isopropyl05:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you can move a page onto a redirect if the page has no other history.Stifle (talk)23:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that userApostrophe (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), who was initially advised by administrator Stiflehere to observecivility andplease do not bite newcomers. Still, he has persisted in violating these and other policies in the following instances[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47]. This is only a small sampling of this user's persistently hostile attitude towards multiple editors. He is ignoring written warnings to modify his behaviour to conform with Wikipedia standards. Please assist, thank you.Netkinetic06:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.Stifle (talk)23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is quickly summed up here on my talk page.I am a very new member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reid_Welch&redirect=no

The irregularities are at "antidisestablishmentarianism", "Flatiron Building" and "carpe diem".

This is no emergency.

I stand by to make deletions if that should,

or especially, if deletion -must- be done.

Thanks for your guidance.

Reid Welch23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a poem about a building in any other encyclopedia? They don't belong here either. We collect information, not verse. --Golbez23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not seen any other verse about a building, period.

Nor is there a verse contextually defining the long word, "antidisestab---"

"We collect information, not verse"

Why, then, are pages filled with poetry citations, quotes and reprints?

This is my question: how does the entry of "A" (not mine any more=public domain)relevant verse --differ from the entry of the "same thing" by, say, some other person not its author?--

Very hazy here.

Reid Welch23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If we had an article,Reid Welch, you could put your poems there. You may also put them on your user page. But you can't put them on other pages; it's not relevantenough to the article.Ashibakatock23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree; we don't paste Hamlet toShakespeare. We could perhaps MENTION his works on his page, if ever he warranted one; however, they would belong only on Wikisource, except for exceptionally short works. --Golbez23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. SeeTo be, or not to be - it's all a matter of notability. :)zafiroblue05 |Talk01:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, posting one's own original poetry can be consideredvanity. Even if you release it to the public domain. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; seeWP:NOT. Your addition to the page in question must be of encyclopedic value.

It's also common practice to structure your posts in the form ofparagraphs. If you need assistance,help is available.Isopropyl23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the quote or poetry is vital to the understanding of the subject. "Carpe diem" was used in ancient poetry, and that is useful to understand its meaning. And it wouldn't matter if someone else inserted it, it's still not a proper addition. This doesn't fall under original research - it falls under original works.Wikipedia is not an essay or poetry depository, yours or anyone elses. We require reliable sources. These citations and quotes are required to expand our understanding of the subject; we can't, nor do we want to, include every single media involving the subject ever made. --Golbez23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that the three entries are removed, I do agree with you about two of them being not-vital to the encylopedic nature of the Wiki.

Then, too, the citation of a Honeymooner's TV sitcom quote at "carpe diem" =is not valid either= and should be excised.

So should all near-contemporary references to a subject word like "carpe diem", such as it's being employed in classical or modern poetry: not needed, so you state, to convey the (unimportant?)present currency value of the term in popular culture.

I would state that, vanity aside, which I have surrendered inasmuch as is possible,the antidis.. verse is completely relevant to the its subject-word.

":Because the quote or poetry is vital to the understanding of the subject. "Carpe diem" was used in ancient poetry, and that is useful to understand its meaning. And it wouldn't matter if someone else inserted it, it's still not a proper addition."

I do not see the distinction made except that you apparently feel that "vanity" is my purpose in wishing for the antidis.. verse, only, to be reinstalled.

This verse is not ancient but it is quite useful in helping to impart an understanding of antidisestablishmentarianism, ca. the 1860's.

And it defines the word, contains the word and makes the word very simple to understand, in a palatable, amusing way.

In every sense the "anti..." verse meets the criteria you yourself are now promulgating, except that the author is living.

Here it is for the record, for reconsideration. I would gladly surrender copyright and even author name to have this practicalverse applied to the entry "antidisestablishmentarianism"

http://poetry.tetto.org/read/15281/

Our Aunty Prudence disrespects

those who aim to disestablish

ties of England's Church to State.

Her hot protests of angry Ire-

land in the deaf ears of those men

who tarry not in grasping goals

while taking aim at an arcane

jingoistic jism-ism,

antidisestablishmentarianism

Reid Welch00:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles, not poems. We may describe poems, but do not create them because new ideas (and all poetry includes new ideas, to some degree) areforbidden original research. It's that simple.Superm401 -Talk01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Still in conflict with itself, this policy.

"We may describe poems..."

Superm401, Wickipediaincludes poems, not just descriptions...

"...but do not create them because new ideas (and all poetry includes new ideas,..."

I cannot make the leap that there is a genuine distinction between the anti... verse, vs.and other poetry, though old, which is printed in various Wiki articles.

There are no new ideas in the anti.. verse.

It is a summation of existing knowledge put into an exceedingly compact and memorable (utilitarian) form.

As such, it is of educational value as clearly as is a prose article, but set apart from mere prose by being art, and art is the iconography of a culture.

So that is that.

I've registered my thoughts without rancor or resentment.

Thank you all.

Reid Welch01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We do sometimes include poems, but only when they are short and have already beenpublished elsewhere.Superm401 -Talk17:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You could also tryWikisource.Stifle (talk)23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lately I've noticed reports toWP:AIV growing, and probably as a result not being dealt with as quickly as ought to be the case. May I ask administrators to consider adding this page to their watchlist if they haven't already, and if they have to please redouble their efforts to be actively involved? Thanks. ·Katefan0^(scribble)/poll22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes maam! Done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)}05:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This user onHistory_of_the_Kashmir_conflict is trying to censor views of

• New York Times Journalist Robert Trumbull:

Robert Trumbull, of New York Times sent this dispatch, published on 10 November:

The city had been stripped of its wealth and young women before the Pakistanis fled in terror, at midnight friday, before the advancing Indian army. Surviving residents estimate that 3000 of there townsmen including four Europeans and a retired British army officer, Colonel Dykes, and his pregnant wife were slain. St Joseph Franciscan Convent and the convent hospital was stormed and four nuns were shot.

• Alan Moorehead of the Observer (London):

reported that recruitment for the invasion had been going on not only in NWFP but all of Pakistan[2].

• And other authors who have published books on the topic of Kashmir, none of whom

is an Indian or Hindu. Akbar is a muslim and the other two are not Indians.References

  1. ↑ Hodson, H.V. (1969). The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan.  2. ↑ a b c d Akbar, M.J. (2002). Kashmir Behind the vale.  3. ↑ Brecher, Michael (1953). The Struggle for Kashmir

Anonymous editor is unhappy to see Pakistan's involvement and the atrocities committed by its armies be listed on wikipedia even though they are sourced frombooks that are considered unbiased and scholarly. Can somebody please check his vandalism?Here is the diff [[48]]

This is a content dispute, near as I can tell. Are you sure this is the place you're looking for? You might want to try getting athird opinion or opening a topic RFC instead. -A Man In(conspire |past ops)04:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is removing sourced material from reputed books and journalists, published in standard weeklies, newspapers common on wikipedia? I would expect someone to counter with another published source and not just blatant reverts.

OnKashmir page this user has deleted text which shows that hinduism flourished in kashmir for thousands of years and there are hindu temples from antiquity which can still be visited in this state. [[49]].Looks to me this person has a political agenda of not allowing facts that are opposite to his pov to be mentioned on wikipedia.

Definitely a content dispute, then. This isn't the place to air this; the relevant talk pages and related Wikiprojects handle this sort of thing, as no administrator intervention is needed, nor is inappropriate use of admin privileges in evidence. -A Man In(conspire |past ops)04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, please don't come running to administrator's noticeboard every time you don't like an edit someone makes.--Alhutch04:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No. This is not running to you guys. I am figuring out how this thing works. Read my comments above. Question to you does citing reputable sources have any value or can anyone reverse without citing his own?

It has value in that other editors are more likely to support you if those edits were reversed without good cause. It won't prevent other people from reversing without citation though (although such an action might well be difficult for them to justify). By the way it's good practice to sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end like so: ~~~~. --Derek Ross |Talk19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to various problems (content disputes and possibleWP:SOCK vio's) I've placedKashmir andHistory of the Kashmir conflict under temporary page protection, this applies to all editors (admins too). Please form a consensus on the Talk pages. —xaosflux^Talk00:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aomori_Prefecture&diff=47459008&oldid=46907076 seems tobe a new sort of vandalism to me.This user reversed some names andcorrupted others. Is this some sort of bot?Richard W.M. Jones21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the diff above the user also added the comment "(names are not Japanese but Aomorese)", which leads me to suspect he's changing names from Standard Japanese to the local dialect, which to my mind would fall under making a politicalPOINT. No, you're right, he's probably just playing. The message you left on his talk page is entirely appropriate, and considering it was only two edits is probably nothing to get worried about.Angr (talk •contribs)05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked with an Japanese person from Aomori, and the edit was not "Aomorese". Anyway - I'll keep an eye on it.Richard W.M. Jones08:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

When someone removes a vandalism warning template from their Talk page it is considered vandalism. Does the same hold true for when someone removes an NPA warning template?FiguringItOutAgain03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You'rebegging the question; removing vandalism warnings isn't necessarily considered vandalism. If you could let us know the circumstances that prompted your question – and perhaps the username that you usually edit under – we might be able to assist you with your concerns.TenOfAllTrades(talk)03:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to beg a question, I meant toask a question. On the vandalism page it is stated that removing a vandalism template on a user talk page is considered vandalism. "Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." Here comes the question:

When a user commits a Personal Attack, and they are warned with an npa template, is it considered vandalism for them to remove the npa template from their user talk?

I don't have an username I usually edit under. I have dozens of usernames.FiguringItOutAgain03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• The answer to your question is yes. All of warning templates are listed onTemplate:TestTemplates. Instead of listing every single warning template,WP:VAND does have a link to that page.Zzyzx11(Talk)06:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well that depends on the exact situation generally for properly placed warnings, yes. Clearly there are disagreements about if a personal attack occurred and if the warning was placed in good faith, so if it involves you personally it's sometimes better to ask someone independent for anoter opinion about the specific circumstance, rather than escalating any "hostility". --pgk^(talk)08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A user moved a page, but then decided, for reasons unclear, to edit the Talk page of what was then a Redirect. This meant that when the page was moved back, the Talk page was abandoned.

Could an Admin returnTalk:Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland back to its original spot:Talk:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland. The User in question is not questioning the return move (although theyare seriously questioning the actual content of the article.) --Mais oui!13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

'Tis moved, because I'm cool like that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -Shazaam! -<*>14:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding200.138.194.254 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log): is there a policy for dealing with users who repeatedly make edits in violation of theManual of Style (sometimes undoing attempts to bring the articles back in line with the MoS)? Template{{Mos3}} (which I left on the user's talk page) says"Continuous changing of content in articles to break agreed-upon MoS rules, when you have been asked to stop, is often seen as vandalism. Constant vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia", butWikipedia:Vandalism says that Manual of Style violations do not count as vandalism. The problem is, the user in question is making the same edits over and over to the same articles (e.g.[50],[51],[52]), and each time I've cleaned them up and asked that he/she stop, but they just carry on.Extraordinary Machine16:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with[53]? Shouldn't a remix name - by extension part of the song title - be in Title Case? --kingboyk17:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a discussionsomewhere about using case that the performers and their record label use, even if it violates usual Title Case. I can't find that discussion right now, however.User:Zoe|^(talk)21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah.Here it is.User:Zoe|^(talk)21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss it but I can't help myself :-) The problem with that is that record labels tend to be very inconsistent, exactly the same song can be named in multiple ways over the years. The other thing is, the diff provided is simply "Foo Remix" - it'snot the name of the song (it's the remix called Foo), but it ought to be title case becauseby extension itis part of the song title! :P Now, perhaps I've just proven that right and wrong is hard to define here and we should close this as "no case to answer"? :) --kingboyk21:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was told by an editor that it shouldn't. Regardless, the anon has been changing things like"Dirrty" featuring Redman to"Dirrty" (Featuring Redman), which goes against the MoS as the word "featuring" definitely isn't part of the song's title.Extraordinary Machine21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. As for what to do about it, I'll pass. I'm a (fairly) new admin and I don't really know, sorry. Others will chip in soon no doubt. --kingboyk22:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)