Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please feel free to leave a message.

Note: Reporting violations of the three revert rule should be done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

If you do post, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikipedia special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically. (The page archivers really need the time information.)

If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both.

Please be aware that this page isn't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. If you bring such disputes here, we will usually advise you to take them elsewhere, such as mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration.

See also:

• Arbitrators' requests for admin enforcement
• Blocking policy
• Controversial blocks
• Block user
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block log

User:CPS deleting other people's comments

CPS is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from VfD and Talk pages. I have warned him in the past that he should refrain, but instead, he deleted my comments from his Talk page, and returned to his old behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours, and have warned him that if he continues with this behavior, he will be blocked for 48 hours the next time, etc. RickK 05:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing this user probably had some sort of reason for wanting to delete other people's comments. On the surface, it sounds terrible, but I would like to know what sort of justification he or she would have. Everyking 05:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well there is no way of finding that out if someone deletes warnings on their talk page instead of talking :-( Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theoretically, he or she might be deleting personal attacks, for all I know, or he or she might not be deleting comments at all, but simply moving them around, refactoring, or something of that sort. Anyway, I'm sure if he or she was asked nicely, he or she would stop. Everyking 08:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is RickK's warning [1] it's firm but not rude.

This is what was deleted:[2] it's critism but not a personal attack.

But I'm willing to give dialog a go. I'll go do it now. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was his first Talk page deletion. RickK 10:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is a "semi-policy" which says that it is advisable to delete personal attacks on Talk pages. I don't know what a "semi-policy" is, but clearly it countenances the deletion of comments on Talk pages. As soon as you have a policy that sanctions the deletion of personal attacks, it opens the question as to what is a "personal attack". When is a personal attack just "criticism"? Who decides what is a personal attack and which personal attacks to delete? The person who feels attacked? Some neutral third-party? Also, again I ask: what policy gives RickK the authority to block somebody for this reason? The policies give administrators authority to block people in a limited number of situations. This is not one of them. We have an Arbitration Committee for dealing with behaviour that might require sanction that falls outside those specific situations. --BM 14:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The policy that gives RickK the authority to block somebody is vandalism. CPS is deleting other user's comments on article talk pages (ie, not the user talk page). This can be construed as vandalism, and IMO, is a blockable offense. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well deleting user's comments on article talk pages is not prime facie vandalism since, as I said, there is a "semi-policy" that actually advises people to do this in the case of personal attacks; namely Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. There might be some debate about whether something is a personal attack, but the consequence of getting that wrong should not be that one is summarily found guilty of "vandalism" and blocked forthwith. Moreover, assuming the behaviour in question is vandalism, with respect to vandalism, Wikipedia:Blocking policy states: Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism. In other words, even if this behaviour is "vandalism", which is debatable, administrators are not authorized to block a logged-in user for vandalism, unless the account is only be used for vandalism. What do these policies mean if administrators can make up the rules as they go along? Do administrators blocking people actually pay any attention to these policies, or are they all doing what they consider to be "the right thing", reckoning that they will be backed up by the consensus? Are administrators actually expected to read and comply with these policies? If the administrators aren't expected to read and comply with them, why should anybody be expected to? --BM 16:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obviously trying to apply Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks and getting it wrong is not a reason to be blocked. But that's not what happened here, so what is your argument? The key thing that you don't understand BM is that administrators are trusted members of the community and are supposed to use thier judgement. RickK warned the user that he'd block if he removed anymore comments.This is not a well meaning but misguided user trying to apply policy. This is someone who deleted comments from a vfd debate because they critisised his behaviour. I for one fully support the 24 hour block. (I wouldn't support a permenant block). Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've occasionally (and probably more than anyone else) employed Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, and I can confirm that it's rather tricky and easy to get wrong. If applied widely it might well make a Wiki unusable because it could become infested with trolls determined to take offense at the least negative statement. It can be a very effective tool, however, for keeping a discussion on track where one or two participants get into flame war mode, or where one obnoxious person is trying to bait you with insults. My rule of thumb is that if a sentence or fragment is solely intended to draw a negative inference concerning another editor it can be removed without changing the salient facts conveyed. "There is no evidence to support X's claim--he's clearly lying" can be reduced to "There is no evidence to support X's claim." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This user seems to have taken any comment that was slightly negative as a personal attack. In this case I think Rick was right to block CPS. Mgm|^(talk) 18:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

As do I. CPS aapears to be happy to use personal attacks a plenty himself though: you pathetic wiki-cop keep trying, dimwit look it up yourself dimwit get a life you jackass Republican scumbag remove personal attack: this is the chickenshit hillbilly's idea of an insult Note that last one was a removal of someone elses vote on a vfd debate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether the behaviour is appropriate or not, neither Mgm nor Theresa is addressing the fundamental point. The main question is not whether this behaviour is appropriate or not, it is WHO DECIDES and WHO APPLIES THE SANCTION for misbehaviour. The project has policies. What do those policies mean? In this case, one can argue about whether the behaviour was permitted under Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. But even if it was inappropriate behaviour, it is not VANDALISM, and even if it were, administrators cannot block logged-in users for VANDALISM under the blocking policy. Whenever this type of topic comes up, people always dodge the basic question as to administrator powers and conformity with policy, and try to focus on the behaviour that prompted the admin action. The presumption seems to be that if the behaviour was inappropriate (even if there is no policy against it), then any administrator has power to deal with it. It is like trying to excuse a cop for roughting someone up by arguing: "Well anyway he was guilty, and look, besides that, he isn't a very nice guy". My point is that in general ADMINISTRATORS HAVE NO POWERS to discipline logged-in regular members for misbehaviour, except in certain specific situations defined by policy. This isn't one of those situations. The only people with power to deal with it are JIMBO and the ARBITRATION COMMITTEE (as a group). That is the issue here. If you want to tell me I'm wrong and that admins have greater powers than I think, please point me to where it says that. --BM 21:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could someone block this guy for excessive lawyering? ;-) This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. --Carnildo 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't me who is excessively legalistic. The whole ethos of the Wikipedia is legalistic -- what with its extensive "policies" and "semi-policies" (good grief!), and a quasi-judicial "arbitration committee", with "petitioners", "respondents", "evidence", etc. However, it is all a bit of a sham, in my opinion, because there seems to be a group of administrators who basically discipline other members as they see fit, and the fact that there is no policy which authorizes their actions doesn't seem to slow them down much. I really don't even object to this, since I'm the God-King on my own web-site, and on my own site if the Terms of Use stop me from keeping things running smoothly, I just change the Terms of Use. If Jimbo wanted to designate "super-administrators" with greater discretion than others to block other users, etc, regardless of policy, I wouldn't object. The only thing I object to, really, is the intellectual dishonesty of the current situation -- the fact that administrators are described as "janitors", etc, subject to the same policies and consensus as everyone else, but that it is not really so. I think the actual system should be made clear. It would be kind of nice to know who those super-administrators are, too, and how and why they were chosen. Either that, or maybe people should be doing what the policies say they are supposed to be doing (and not doing what the policies say they shouldn't be doing.) --BM 22:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly blocking someone for 24 hours from editing a website is nothing like a cop roughing someone up. Please let's keep things in perspective. Really BM you need to pick your fights mate. Yeah you're right administrators are more than janitors. They are trusted members of the community. trusted that is not to abuse their powers. RickK did not abuse his powers in this case. We are all here for the same reason. Namely to build an encylopedia. Our policies are here to help us do that, and to prevent admins from abusing their power. Policies are not laws, and they are not straight jackets. This is a clear case of someone who was being disruptive, they were warned not do do something, and that warning was reasonable, yet they persisted. Note that we have no policy that states admins should use a measure of common sense. The power that RickK, and other admins have comes from the community. If you think he shouldn't have blocked CPS you are going to have to go to the community on it. Start a rfc. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a problem in that admins tend to make reference to their powers too often. When asking someone to stop doing something, one need only ask; there isn't necessarily any need to threaten: most people will stop even if they have no idea you're an admin. But an arrogant pretense of authority is enough to goad some people into continuing whatever behavior they shouldn't have been doing. A person should really have to be causing some problems to warrant a block. Page move vandalism, uploading vandalistic images, repeatedly blanking pages, etc. Blocking people is serious business: if a revert is a slap in the face, then a block breaks a nose and knocks out some teeth. It's not something one should do without a very clear and indisputable reason. A block does two very serious things: it prevents a person from contributing, when they could be doing a lot of good work, and it marginalizes the person and fills the person with animosity, and turns them off from the project. So we need to be more careful. If you can reasonably expect some people to dispute the block, don't do it. Everyking 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that blocking should not be undertaken lightly. And I agree that polite warnings should be given not heavy handed ones. But I support RickK's block in this instance. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa, I appreciate the advice, but in fact I am picking my fights. If I chose to protest cases where everybody was protesting -- where everybody thought that the admin had been unreasonable and the outcome unjust -- the issue would be buried. Nobody argues that administrators should be able to abuse their powers in order to achieve an unreasonable result. Everybody will be saying the administrator abused his powers in those cases. Those are not the interesting cases. I am saying it is an abuse of powers, EVEN WHEN THE OUTCOME IS REASONABLE. It is only when the result is reasonable that there is an issue about the process. My argument is that Wikipedia cannot have 400+ administrators all exercising their "judgement" about what is reasonable. If the policies are getting in the way of administrators dealing efficiently with problems, then we should fix the policies. The blocking policy SAYS, very clearly, with no latitude for interpretation, that administrators are not supposed to block logged-in users for vandalism unless the account has been, in essence, used exclusively for vandalism. If that is not the consensus of the community, and administrators are not obliged to follow the policy when in their "judgement" it shouldn't be applicable, then why does the policy state that? The policy could easily state what you say is the de-facto consensus: "Administrators can block logged-in members for vandalism after a warning for up to 24 hours. But it doesn't state that. Why not? If you think it should, then why not try to get consensus for a change in the policy. If the de facto consensus is already there, it shouldn't be hard. What is the meaning of these policies if any administrator can substitute his or her own opinion as to what the policies should be? Why bother having written policies that contradict what you claim is the unwritten consensus? --BM 00:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the blocking policy:

"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. (emphasis mine)

Now does removing people's signed comments from a vfd debate disrupt the functioning of vfd? Of course it does! When the admin who has to decide whether to delete a page or not comes to the page they need to be able to read through what everyone has said. If you don't agree that this user should have been blocked you really should start a rfc and see what the community thinks Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you a shifting to another pretext for the action. The disruption policy. Which is it, disruption or vandalism? And you've dodged my basic point and your previous answer, and are now arguing about policy again. So does that mean you have conceded my point that administrators should follow policy? By the way, the sentence you quoted refers to IP addresses. User:CPS isn't an IP address. --BM 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course administrators should follow policy. But no policy can cover all situations. Here is where we have a difference of opinion - I'm saying that administrators have to use thier judgement sometimes, whereas you are arguing that they shouldn't. We can argue this all day but we won't get anywhere. I feel admins are there to serve the community by making descisions and exercising good judgement. They shouldn't abuse thier powers, but they shouldn't be afraid to use them when doing so is the right thing to do. You are not going to change my mind on that. BTW I never claimed he was blocked for vandalism and neither did RickK, and we are not arguing pretexts we are giving reasons.

Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it wasn't RickK that claimed this block was under the rubric of vandalism. He didn't bother to mention which policy sanctioned it, and I dare say he was not detained much by the need to find one, since he was exercising his "judgement" and that, according to you, is sufficient.

Yep, you'll notice how he also posted his actions here for review.

So lets look at "disruption". If you actually look at User:CPS' edit history, you find only two cases where CPS edited Talk pages or VfD and removed comments, going all the way back into February. One of these was on Mar 24, where he twice removed the same Megan1964 comment from a VfD vote that was referenced above. This was not a vote, but a comment critical of CPS' vote on VfD. One can argue about whether it was a personal attack,

It clearly isn't and he was warned not to do it a second time but he went ahead and did it anyway.

but as we discussed above, there is a policy allowing removal of personal attacks,

No there isn't.

and if there is a (semi-)policy allowing for their removal, then it should not be deemed a blockable disruption if someone somewhat oversteps consensus about what constitutes a personal attack.

Yes it should in a clear case like this one

The other case was on Mar 21, where CPS blanked User_talk:198.82.71.55. This was his own Talk page from before he registered as User:CPS, and the comments he removed were all in Nov-Dec, 2004.

Irrelavent. The block was for the above two removals of other people's comments from a vfd page.

So, removing one marginal comment on VfD, and blanking the Talk page he had as an anon before registering. Still think this was sufficient disruption of Wikipedia to warrant being blocked, Theresa? To me it doesn't look disruptive at all. --BM 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know exactly what he did, i read through his past contributions before commenting here. I even posted a link further up the page where he removed a vote from a vfd listing. So yes I still think he warrents a block. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 02:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, IMO, it was vandalism, and my opinion only, no-one else's. BM, I think I mentioned this before, but if every admin did things the way you suggest, they'd be looking up policy 2.3, section A, paragraph 32, subparagraph C "Woops, better check another section", while bad faith editors are hammering away at Wikipedia and laughing at us for being so slow to react. Sometimes, police, customs agents, detectives act on instinct honed from experience. I think admins are trusted members of the community who are experienced enough to spot a bad faith editor when they see it. If they're wrong, there are many other admins who can revert. I've read this board long enough to know that other admins can and will revert when they think the action is wrong. --Deathphoenix 03:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia:Blocking policy is short. So are the other policies. An admin can be reasonably expected to know these policies. You'd think before an admin blocked somebody, he might concern himself with whether he is allowed to do that. Nobody compelled them to become admins, and since the community is trusting them to follow policy and comply with consensus, they had better know what the policies and consensus are. Besides, the policies are simple. For example Wikipedia:Blocking policy gives admins wide latitude to deal with vandalism by blocking anonymous IP's. That is the "mop and bucket brigade" part of the job. It cautions admins to be very circumspect and conservative when blocking logged-in users. Admin's don't have to carry and thick law books. It is simple: when dealing with other established members of Wikipedia, you have very little weight to throw around, so don't. That is why we have the Arbitration Committee. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of admins who won't accept this. --BM 03:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa so we are down to whether removing one comment on VFD was "disruptive". Note that RickK's justification above is "repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VFD and Talk pages". "Repeated" turns out to be one comment deleted twice. Let us look at the edit histories.

1. At 6:21 21 Mar, he blanked his old User_talk page from when he was an anon.
2. At 6:24 21 Mar, RickK asked him on his Talk page why he had done this. CPS doesn't seem to have replied.
3. At 10:26 21 Mar, Megan1964 made the following comment on VfD/List of dead rappers: Well I guess your plea is better than simply blanking/removing/censoring other people's votes you dont agree with which you have a previous record of doing btw. Thank goodness you don't run a democracy. P.S. I seriously doubt there is a pro-Libertarian bias on Wikipedia. Megan1967 10:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) This seems like a personal attack to me, although in fairness, it is in response to an ad hominem comment by CPS concerning Megan's vote. Whether it is a personal attack or not, I can see someone reasonably considering it to be one. Incidentally, I'm not sure where Megan1967 found evidence for this accusation; certainly it wasn't recent behaviour.
4. At 10:47 21 Mar, he reverted the comment, with the edit summary was rv immature and irrelevant remarks.
5. At 20:34 21 Mar, RickK restored the deleted comment, with the edit summary restoring Megan's comments improperly deleted by CPS
6. At 20:36 21 Mar, RickK wrote on his Talk page: PLEASE stop removing other people's comments from Talk and VfD pages. This is vandalism, and will result in your being blocked from editing. RickK 20:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
7. Three days later, at 3:15, 24 Mar he reverted the Megan1967 comment in the VfD again, this time with the edit summary, these are personal attacks meant to distract from the actual issue at hand...please Megan1967, grow up. This makes it clear that he considered the comment to be a personal attack, the removal of which is allowed by the "semi-" policy, Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.
8. A few minutes later at 3:21, 24 Mar he removed the two edits by RickK from his Talk page.
9. At 5:43, RickK blocked him for repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VfD and Talk pages. Has been cautioned before).

From this sequence, it is clear to me that CPS thought he was removing personal attacks from a VFD, and the User Talk pages he was editing were his own. Also, RickK warned him about vandalism, but these edits were not vandalism, and anyway as we discussed above, administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism. As for whether it was disruption, I don't see how removing one comment from a VfD vote, especially the one in question, could be construed as disruption of the Wikipedia rising to the level of blocking. Nor can I see it being disruption justifying a block to edit your own Talk pages. --BM 03:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if any admin agrees with you, they will unblock CPS. FWIW (not being an admin), I don't think RickK was in the wrong here. --Deathphoenix 03:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. The consensus (among the people who read this page) is that the block is appropriate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The amount of time spent in pointless, wasteful, inane wiki-lawyering here boggles my mind. Get a life, and use that energy doing something which actually contributes to the real point of this project - produce some content.

Having said that, one comment, about the claim that "administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism". If that were true, all vandals would have to do is sign up for a user-name, and we'd have to resort to the ArbComm to get rid of them. People block vandals with user-names every day. The policy says something rather different. Noel (talk) 14:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Why do we have these policies if it is "inane wiki-lawyering" to actually read them? Have you not read the blocking policy? What it actually says is that a logged-in user cannot be banned for vandalism unless the account is used "effectively" only for vandalism. So, yes, what you put forward as obviously stupid is precisely what the policy states: if someone intent on vandalism creates an account and makes some number of reasonable-looking edits, then according to the policy he cannot be blocked for vandalism by an administrator. It also says that a logged-in user cannot be blocked for "isolated vandalism". Presumably the vandal can still be blocked by Jimbo or the ArbComm. I would not argue that this policy is especially logical, but that is what it clearly states. (Really. Read it.) So what is the solution? (1) all the administrators just ignore the policy and try to follow the "unwritten consensus" about when they can block people, whatever they might think that consensus is; or (2) we revise the policy so that it reflects the de facto consensus. It is obvious that most admins have decided on option (1). Since few people seem to care what the policies really state, option (2) is just too much trouble. This is basically my point: the policies are more or less shams and nobody pays much attention to them except when they happen to support his pre-conceived position. When they don't support what someone wants to do -- well too bad for the policy and any "inane wiki-lawyers" with the poor taste and lack of common sense to mention the policies. --BM 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BM, I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the blocking policy. You have repeatedly quoted the following line: "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." Taken out of context, it appears that logged-in users should not be blocked, but if you notice, the phrase "the same time periods" and "in this manner" refers to the earlier sentences. I recently became an administrator and I have read through the relevant policies very carefully; this is how I interpret the Vandalism section: Dynamic IPs should be blocked for 24 hours. Static IPs should initially be blocked for 24 hours; repeat violators for increasing amounts of time up to one month; and that there are various rules of thumb for the schedule of increases. Then comes "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." (emphasis mine) I interpret this to mean that if a logged-in user is only vandalizing, he may be blocked for the same time periods, that is, up to a month for repeated vandalism. However, an account that is performing a mixture of edits should not be blocked in this manner; that is, not using the same increasing block lengths. However, it does not say that logged-in users who have good and bad edits should not be blocked at all. This seems the most logical interpretation to me, but perhaps we can reword it if you feel it is ambiguous. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:69.197.120.131

Can anybody take care of this vandal? He's been vandalizing Developed country for days, reverting and reverting. His point is that Central European countries should be included in the list. I have edited this page extensively and have only added those countries that are mentioned in the sources I've consulted (World Bank, IMF, CIA, UN). It looks like a very persistent vandal that won't go away unless it is blocked. —Cantus…☎ 01:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia:Vandalism - please read the definition there, and tell me how it falls under this definition. It's just another POV editor problem (I think using the sources you listed is probably a good non-subjective test). Their edit rate was a little troubling, but although they are still editing just this page, their rate has slowed: 11 times, on the 26th, 5 times on the 27th, 3 on the 28th, etc. The last time they posted to the Talk: page was on the 27th. Noel (talk) 14:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be the same person as WP:AN/3RR#User:Powertranz, no? Noel (talk) 13:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'u'lláh

A editor using a collection of anonymous log-ins and proxies is editwarring on above page being rude and obnoxious in his edit summaries. While trhe subject under debate might well require more community input currently it appears that said editor is alone agiant all otehr editors involved with the page. It is getting quite tedious now. An RfC has been filed. I would appreciate if someone could protect the page. I am too involved in this to do it myself. Thanks. Refdoc 01:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the worst offenders and I'll protect the article if it gets any worse. Gamaliel 02:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be overwhelmingly the bad behavior of one foul-mouthed user who has a list of open proxies and just wants to bully people. Michael Snow's approach of protecting the page will not solve this problem. I will unprotect and watch closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000 created a sock puppet, Nitram002, which proceeded to vandalize user pages, make homophobic insults and edit war. Blocked indefinitely; he can stick to one user like the rest of us. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's worked his way up to Nitram0011 (talk · contribs) now, with Bahá'u'lláh's family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) being protected because of him. violet/riga (t) 16:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

17 nowGeni 21:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See WP:AN for an account of the actions I've taken on this. Not very successful, alas. Any ideas? Apart from getting him arbcommed to hell and back, I mean. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom is probaby the only choice now there is little more we can do (my block button is starting to melt anyway)Geni 22:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is now protected (not by me). I've really come to favour this approach to dealing with edit wars, for several reasons. For one, it bring the edit war to a screeching halt - anon socks, etc are useless to the edit warriors (and no need for us to chase them and block them). For another, you don't have all the arguments over "is this a revert"; edit warriors don't get to use the 3RR as a weapon against each other, etc. It can last more than 24 hours, unlike a 3RR block. Finally, it's most economical in terms of admin time/energy. Noel (talk) 13:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but that just brings in the timing of prtection requests game. this isn't done much at the moment but if protecting becomes standard then it will increaseGeni 23:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Blocking is far and away a better method of dealing with miscreants. Protecting a page stops every edit to a page, not just the problematic onces. There are times when protection works, but it isn't a cure-all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have also protected Bahá'í Faith where there seems to be a related edit war. I'll check to ensure that both articles are listed on WP:PP. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:JarlaxleArtemis

This user may be violating his arbcom rulings. Examples:

• 189K page of ASCII art. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Also, he seems to have removed the copyright licence from the image—see the original at [3] or [4].
  • That was from Big Dave's cow page. I saw it many many years ago. Like in 1999. - 203.35.154.254 00:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Those of us who have read the citations will know that it's been around for many years before that. Like in 1989. Anyway, the source is irrelevant; the question is, why is it on Wikipedia? —Psychonaut 09:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Continues to upload images with questionable "fair use" status, or add the "fair use" tag to existing images which are not clearly fair use. [5], [6] [7] [8]
• Removing valid and indisputably correct information from articles. [9]
• Recreating VfD'd content (for the second time). [10]
• Making personal attacks, then justifying them, then repeatedly removing complaints about them. [11] [12] [13] [14]

—Psychonaut 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW (I'm an anon, I know), but this user appears to be acting in bad faith. - 203.35.154.254 00:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Who, me or JarlaxleArtemis? —Psychonaut 09:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Double Voting?

It appears that User:Centauri is a sockpuppet of User:Gene Poole.

See [15][16] for evidence of sockpuppetry. Also note that recent listings of the edits of User:Centauri and User:Gene Poole chronologically don't show much overlap:

• User:Gene Poole - 31 edits in a row from 8 March (02:14) to 15 March (06:00)
  • User:Centauri - 1 edit at 15 March 07:07
• User:Gene Poole - 6 edits in a row from 15 March (22:34) to 16 March (05:36)
  • User:Centauri - 1 edit at 17 March 11:40
• User:Gene Poole - 23 edits in a row from 17 March (21:51) to 18 March (04:36)
  • User:Centauri - 12 edits in a row from 18 March (08:02) to 19 March (22:31)
• User:Gene Poole - 34 edits in a row from 20 March (22:32) to 23 March (05:30)
  • User:Centauri - 1 edit at 23 March 07:24
• User:Gene Poole - 10 edits in a row from 26 March (02:17) to 26 March (02:40)
  • User:Centauri - 23 edits in a row from 28 March (03:57) to 28 March (21:01)
• User:Gene Poole - 12 edits in a row from 28 March (23:11) to 29 March (05:33)
  • User:Centauri - 4 edits in a row from 29 March (08:24) to 29 March (22:39)
• User:Gene Poole - 3 edits in a row from 30 March (22:44) to 31 March (01:40)

That's fine, but it appears that it's being used to double-vote on WP:VfD:

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lake Dow Christian Academy
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Sage School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Toowoomba Grammar School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Franklin High School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thomas Jefferson School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Saklan Valley School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Episcopal High School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Handsworth Grammar School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2WS
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bellevue West High School
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in the United States
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/College of the Sequoias

--Calton | Talk 04:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jersey City, New Jersey

I'd appreciate if some people could come take a look at this article. While doing RC patrol, I noticed an anonymous user was removing sections of it which I reverted as vandalism. However, he did respond to me on his talk page and explain his overall reasoning. It's not simple vandalism, so I'm not going to revert him anymore or block him. Furthermore, it looks like he's now at least making an effort to compromise. I'd appreciate an outside perspective on this. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can someone unblock 216.226.232.8

This is no longer listed as an open proxy. Please unblock. Conchroti 16:42, 31 Mar 2005

Sockpuppetry at Laura Bush

Someone with a growing army of sockpuppets very badly wants Laura Bush not to include details of a fatal car accident she caused while in high school. See User:StanleyBirch, User:Arnold4Prez, User:Tacosmell, User:Gmyu. RadicalSubversiv E 19:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gmyu's additional POV edits to Soviet Union leads me to suspect this is a reincarnation of banned user Libertas (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas). See also Rhobite's note on RFAr). RadicalSubversiv E 19:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great, another major problem user's back! NB: User:Libertas aka User:Ollieplatt. — Davenbelle 23:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

All right, enough is enough. People are mking too many changes which are going to be difficult to correct once all the "fun and games" have ended. And there are lots of editors who are becoming confused and think we've been hacked. RickK 06:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

We *have* been hacked. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, seeing dozens and dozens of April 1st jokes mixed with the usual vandal garbage trickling through during first ten minutes in RC-patrol is not very funny. Even some regular users seem to think they are allowed to commit all kinds of tasteless vandalism today: [17] . jni 08:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg is no April's Fool's joke. We got tough on Mr. Diaper. How is it possible we tolerate the recent insistence to have Wikipedia hosting gay porn? dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it's not illegal and it clearly had an educative function when divorced from whatever negative connotations our societies might assign to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

negative? porn making for a substantial part of internet traffic, its connotation is hardly negative. rather, it could only be encyclopedic if its positive fascination was reduced (e.g. by reducing image size!!). Note that I'm not singling out gay porn, I would be just as opposed to hetero porn, it just happens that people insist on uploading gay porn to WP, these days. dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the 'you have new messages' (redirecting to April Fools) note I get on all pages another developer who believes he is funny? User:Anárion/sig 11:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Fort Bleakeley vandal

An anon created a hoax article at Fort Bleakeley, which was listed on VfD. From that point on, the user, using a variety of anonymous IDs, repeatedly vandalized the article, talking about how smart they were, and how they've added more hoaxes to the encyclopedia which nobody is going to find. I blocked those IDs, and I have now received three proud, boastful postings on my Talk page:

Fort Bleakeley II

Hello Rick. Your ban didn't work. Why not try it again? Ban and ban and ban, I've still got tricks up my sleeve. See you around. --VANDAL!!! 10:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Letter to the Wikipedians

To the Wikipedians, and especially Plek and RickK, who have been so kind and welcoming to me these past days, I have a message for you. Read and understand this whole letter from top to bottom, for it is essential in knowing what will happen:

KNOWETH AND UNDERSTANDETH YE THE FOLLOWING MEN BY THEIR PRESENTS:

I, Jake Bell, 17, resident of New York, U.S. of America, wish to thank ye for your generosity and hospitality that ye haveth extended the past few days to me:

I thank ye especially for removing the Fort Bleakeley and other articles, and for not removing the real articles - the red herrings I put out.

However, since ye did not heed mine advice, since ye did not treat me properly, and since I have run out of hoaxes (Plek found them ALL!!!), I shall unleash a plague of 7 hoaxes among ye this time next weeke.

Ye shall find these hoaxes and eliminate them, as ye are supposed to. However these hoaxes will be among true articles; Ye must not destroy the true articles. Discern well. There will be only seven (7) hoaxes.

These hoaxes shall be submitted by different aliases of mine. Ye know some of them already. Ye must be very discerning and pick out only those men who are identities of mine. Do not apprehend the innocent - they have nothing to do with this.

That be all. If ye haveth problems, ye may call your head to assist ye.

Be careful.

Most sincerely, Jake0618 11:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, this is going to be so much fun!

P.S. Spread the word.

I'm back

: Really, pal, I don't see the point in banning me. I'll keep coming back anyway. And stop calling me a vandal. I don't vandalize articles. --Jake105021 11:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--RickK 20:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Submitting hoax articles is also considered vandalism as it disrupts Wikipedia. Why not be productive and stop creating hoaxes? Mgm|^(talk) 21:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pelican shit is back too. Yea, though the wicked Pharisees do continually hide the pelican shit under the Holy Altar of the Delete, yet doth the Great Google see the same even there and shareth it with the unwashed multitudes! (Heavydooty 08:53, 2 Apr 2005)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Our ultimate goal is to provide the sum of all human knowledge in a way that is factually accurate and espouses the neutral point of view. We'd very much like it if you joined us and helped the encyclopedia along in its goals.
Alternatively, if you prefer acting like a five-year old and have us waste time on undoing your defacement, time we could have been spending on improving the encyclopedia, that's fine as well. Don't expect any sort of satisfaction from anyone but yourself in your juvenile craving for attention, though, and don't expect us to indulge you. Unwashed we may be, but all of us can at least claim to have advanced humanity, in whatever a small and trivial way, by contributing to this project. I could hold a straw poll among our readers, but I doubt they'd say the same about you. JRM 11:53, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

what jerks... also the NY kid would do well brushing up his Early Modern English to sound less like an idiot. dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1)I am a member of advanced human society and (2)I am currently on leave from work. Put 2 and 2 (or rather 1 and 2) together and you get (3) a very bored member of advanced human society who has no means of expressing his frustration except by letting it out on the Wikipedians. My Old English may sound funny, but you cannot deny the extent of my knowledge and vocabulary. I know Latin, English, German, Italian, and Spanish. Greetings to all. Who knows? I might be a five-year old after all. Pretty childish, ain't it? I invite you to a discussion at my talk page at Vos conclavo. If you don't come, maybe I might change my mind about not unleashing my hoaxes on WP. Bye 84.154.115.79 13:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame. That is all. Inter\^Echo 13:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In light of the situation, I feel the need to repent for what I have done. I take back all the hoaxes and other sorts of vandalism that I have committed in the past four days. I am sincerely sorry for all this. To all who have been troubled by me, please forgive me. That is all I ask. 84.154.103.46 21:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)