Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theresa knott (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 26 June 2005 (→Blocked IP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion



    User:204.56.7.1

    Anon user (on Albert Einstein) insists on inserting an infobox without coming to any consensus on the talk page first, as asked directly by a number of editors. Has broken the 3RR in the process (already reported, not yet blocked). Is also "gaming the system" -- adding the infobox in one edit, then making small changes elsewhere, then when the page is reverted back to a pre-infobox state, uses any of the small changes not transferred over as an excuse to protest "removal of content" and rv again. (because of the nature of the infobox changes, it is hard to easily do this by hand. I've done it twice but I'm getting pretty frustrated). Now is insisting that if the article doesn't have an infobox, it shouldn't have a main picture at all. I'm all out of reverts for one day, I can't attend to this, would really appreciate an admin 1. blocking this user for 24 hours at least (for the 3RR if not general accusations of vandalism and gaming the system), and 2. reverting it back to one of the edits in the non-infobox state (there needs to be some discussion over this first, and for the moment the non-infobox state is a lot easier to edit without this "removal of content" problem). If someone could take a look over there I'd really appreciate it, I'm getting pretty frustrated here by this anon user's refusal to discuss difficult-to-carefully-revert changes before making them. --Fastfission 17:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Could somebody please take a look at this? It has been almost two hours now, the User has continued to be highly disruptive, has violated the 3RR almost twice over, and I feel like I'm talking to myself here. --Fastfission 19:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Looks more like a content dispute more than any vandalism. Might want to put this up on requests for page protection. But I agree that Anon IP has violated the 3RR. I'll leave a note warning him and if he does it again, I'll block for 24 hours. --khaosworks 19:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

    Magnifying Transmitter

    204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs) keeps removing a {{totallydisputed}} tag, I've just inserted on Magnifying Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's hard to tone down the Teslaism articles in Wikipedia, due to their propenents guarding them, but that one definitively needs some work. --Pjacobi 16:27, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

    "Teslaism" is your POV. Try to be NPOV in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Definition of Teslaism: Inventions and theories by Nikola Tesla (or ascribed to him), only appraised by fans, which didn't find entrance to science or practical usage.
    Please do the content discussion at Talk:Tesla and don't simply remove the dispute tags.
    Pjacobi 19:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
    Similar problem on Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Biography of Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he removes the {{merge}} tags. --Pjacobi 17:18, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
    The information is needed, so that it isn't lost ... the article was split. See Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    See my comments on Talk:Nikola Tesla#Merge and be so kind to answer there. In the mean time it would be approbiate, to not simple remove the tags. --Pjacobi 19:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

    This IP is a shared location from "Linda Hall Library"; it's also currently the source of problems with Albert Einstein. Noel (talk) 19:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    204.56.7.1 is a problem in some other places too. Firstly, he never ever signs, which is just gratuitious impoliteness. Secondly, try Dynamic theory of gravity... if you can bear it. He should have been 3RR banned for that [1] but sadly wasn't. William M. Connolley 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).
    Sigh, our bad luck that Tesla was a Serb. Do the resulting Tesla partisans have any idea how inadequate/insecure their ridiculously outlandish claims make them look? Noel (talk) 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    GAP Project (I)

    User:CoolCat inserted two copyright violations into the GAP Project article, and when the article was deleted, he brought it to VfU, then changed his mind and re-inserted the copyvio. I reverted him, at which point SPUI reverted to the copyvio without so much as a discussion. When I reverted again, leaving an edit summary that I was reverting a copyvio, SPUI reverted it again, again without discussion. I have blocked SPUI for 24 hours. RickK 04:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    CoolCat has said several times on the wiki that he is the author of the content. Like I told you earlier, he also said this to me as soon as the trouble first started, on April 22. He told me this two hours after the very first copyvio notice was ever added to the page. Perhaps this is why SPUI was reverting without adding anything new to the discussion. silsor 04:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    You have no idea what SPUI's motive is. Where did he and CoolCat ever communicate this non-copyright violation status? I have re-blocked him. RickK 05:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    But how do you know what SPUI's motive is? Since CoolCat has said right on the wiki that he himself wrote the content that is alleged to be a copyvio, why not assume SPUI is taking his side? silsor 05:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    There's no proof of it being a copyvio, and that has been discussed to death. So let's assume a little good faith here. This block also shows RickK's disturbing lack of good faith. --SPUI (talk) 05:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Your past behavior would preclude good faith, and your failure to discuss the revert would enforce that. Silsor should not have taken it on himself to unblock you, but be warned, if you revert it again, I will block you again. Take it to the VfU page and discuss it. RickK 05:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    And now Ugen64 has taken it upon himself to revert it as well, also without discussion. I must wonder why the need to violate not only VfU but continual reversion to a copyright violation. Is there a particular reason why nobody wants to discuss this before making such major actions? I have protected the page, though I suspect Ugen64 or Silsor will revert the protection. RickK 05:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    You've not only broken protection policy but also the 3RR, and blocking policy, and assume good faith. But of course Wikipedia would fall apart without you. --SPUI (talk) 05:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I am removing the protection. RickK, this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy Wikipedia:Protection policy. I believe it to be inappropriate for you to protect a page when you are involved in the revert war, especially as you appear to be the only one reverting (four times in 24 hours) to your favored version. There are times when rules may be bent but this is too controversial. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) [updated — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

    • I have put a notificiation at WP:CP, requesting the participants there to clear up whether or not this is a copyvio. Radiant_>|< 12:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

    Knowledge Seeker, RickK was not involved in the article over a matter of content, but over the matter of copyright violation. It is appropriate to block someone who is setting Wikipedia up for legal liability. func(talk) 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Possible legal liability, which is exactly what's disputed. And it's not exactly a dramatic one at that, unless you expect a cloud of lawyers to roll in and shower cease-and-desist orders on us at any moment now (I'm not getting involved in this discussion, but let's not toss around big words.) In any case, hey, let's keep talking and go a little easier on the warfare. JRM · Talk 16:35, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
    Func, I didn't mention oops, I guess I did. I meant to say that it was a violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy (although, actually, I did disagree with the block as well). I unprotected the article with a note on the discussion page, and Gamaliel later protected it (which is the desired course of action, I feel). I think it's better to have a third party protect pages; it avoids any implication of improper behavior. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Because the participants all should know better, I feel that page protection is unwarranted. Behave yourselves or else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    RickK's talk page

    RickK has deleted his own talk page - this means that anything you have ever written to Rick is unavailable. I brought this up on the mailing list and received some rude responses - fine, so I'll bring it up here. Rick isn't special. I wish he hadn't left, but he did. Along with his departure, he decided to erase a good chunk of his history here. I just don't think administrators should have the prerogative to delete the contents of their talk pages, while ordinary users have no such right. I am suggesting that Rick's talk page should be undeleted. I'm also suggesting that he be de-sysop'd, because (a) he left, so he doesn't need to be a sysop and (b) unfortunately, we don't know if he's going to delete something else.
    So hey everyone, be rude to me, just shoot the messenger. Rhobite 05:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

    His talk page is an important community resource, not his own property. Like you said on the mailing list, "notes, chat, evidence and information". silsor 05:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    I won't be the one to undelete it though, because I don't want to put RickK through the hassle of quitting again when he comes back to revert my undeletion. silsor 05:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    I think our normal practice is to delete user talk (and personal) pages on request when they leave. The user needs to put a speedy tag on their page(s). Admins should do the same, rather than deleting them themselves, but I'd be surprised if RickK is the first admin to delete his own pages. User:Fvw deleted his user page (but not his talk page) before leaving, and I'm not aware that anyone objected. I think RickK's decision to delete his talk page should be respected. I was thinking of posting a farewell message to him, but I was unable to because he had deleted that page and to recreate it would have been rude.
    He should also be de-sysoped, not because he might run amok, but because we don't want permanently inactive sysop accounts sitting around, with the possibility that they might fall into the wrong hands. RickK has said he doesn't intend to ever return; I think it would be appropriate if he had to reapply for adminship if he changes his mind.-gadfium 06:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The policy I was looking for is at Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F.-gadfium 06:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I don't really follow the argument that RickK will go mad and delete stuff and abuse his admin powers, and he certainly hasn't done anything to warrant desysoping, his admin privileges should be deactivated after the normal peroid of inactivity, which I believe is the process for inactive admins.--nixie 06:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I think it's wrong to delete talk pages with non-trivial content. User pages, fine, but talk pages often contain valuable discussions about article content that shouldn't be just wiped from the wp-history like this. In the case of Rick his talk page had 11074 edits that now has dissapeared from the contribution history of everyone who wrote them. And, as is common on wp, many of those edits constitute half of many user-to-user discussions. They should be kept. To blank the page is of course fine, but not to delete it with history and all. Shanes 06:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The idea of removing inactive admins was proposed before and unfortunately not supported for the English Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 23#Requests for De-adminship due to inactivity). However, the policy on Meta is to remove admins after a certain period of inactivity, and to reconfirm their status every year (see meta:Admin#Policy for de-adminship) which seems to be working well there. A user announcing they are leaving the project should not be a reason to immediately de-admin them though. People do this all the time and then change their mind when they calm down. Hopefully Rick will too. Angela. 07:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

    Yes it is virtually certain that Rick will be back within a few days. Actions such as de-adminship in his absence would just be stirring up the pot by those who were rubbed up the wrong way by Rick. I am also fine with waiting a while before undeleting the talk page if that will also pour oil on troubled waters. Pcb21| Pete 07:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Given the amount of people who are still admins after being absent for over a year, I'd say it highly inappropriate to deadmin RickK when he's just been gone for a day. Also, I do believe consensus holds that a user can basically do whatever he wants within his own userspace (barring using it as a webhost, or copyvios), so I'd say RickK is well within his rights to delete something in his userspace. Including his talk page. Radiant_>|< 07:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, you are not allowed to delete them. If you read WP:SD: "Unless you are a sysop, it is not possible to delete your own user pages and subpages, so they must be listed here. If you are a sysop, it is recommended that you also list your pages here so they can be deleted by another sysop. For your main user or talk pages, you must list them here, not delete them yourself, to avoid the appearance that sysops can delete to hide negative comments, while others can't.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So you're saying that he shouldn't have deleted his own talk page, but he should have asked someone else and that person should have deleted it. I do agree that that's a better way to go about it, but the end result is the same. Radiant_>|< 08:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, he should have asked. And the administrator making the decision would be allowed to overrule him and say that the userpage and/or talkpage contains important information and should stay. This is especially true for talkpages, which are not really your "own". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • The administrator making the decision would also be allowed to agree with his request and delete the page. If he had listed it, and if I had seen his request, I would have honoured it (as, I suspect, would many other admins). Any editor making such a request would normally have it honoured, and someone who has contributed that much doubly deserves to have such a request honoured. Noel (talk) 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • In fact, if the decision of whether or not to delete the talkpage had been up to me, I would not have deleted it. At least not like it stands now. There is currently an ongoing RFC about RickK. I have no real opinion of whether an RFC at this time is appropriate or just plain spiteful, but under no circumstances would I delete the talkpage of a user who has an RFC filed against him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    If RickK is serious about leaving, he should ask for de-admining, and for deletion of his user/talk page. I agree people should be allowed to delete their user pages, but their talk pages should stay. After all, these contain messages by other users, which are gfdl and all. So yes, I support undeletion of his talk page (but it can be blanked and protected). dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The GFDL stuff is a red herring. We delete material every day that was contributed under the GFDL. As to the page, again, if he had listed it, and if I had seen his request, I would have deleted it (on the grounds that people who leave can ask for their pages to be deleted). So he short-circuited the process a bit. Big deal. People can do what they want on their talk pages, including deleting comments without archiving them (and let's be serious, nobody's going to look through that long a history to find things). It's not needed for evidence; there are no grounds to treat him differently and force him to keep a page in his user: space he wanted to see deleted. Noel (talk) 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Shanes and dab. Unprotect and blank with an away notice of some sort. His talk page contains text by other users, so I don't think it's okay to remove it. Also, they make up a fair chunk of several discussions which now miss a part of them. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • The point is now moot, as User:Geni undeleted the talk page history. Radiant_>|< 18:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Which was completely inappropriate, in my view: i) The request shouldn't have been acted on instantly, but after a wait, to give people time to express their opinion; ii) There is no rough consensus there to undelete. Noel (talk) 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It was deleted out of process. There was no consensus to delete the page to begin with. Rhobite 08:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
            • It's true that it was deleted out of process, but there's no rquirement for consensus to delete a page in someone's User: space - all that's needed is a request by that user. Noel (talk) 08:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • there is no requirement for a consensus to undelete it either. If one admin can unilaterly delete it another can restor it. There is nothing in policy say that the undeletion of User:talk pages has to go through VFU.Geni 12:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    MARMOT's RFAr

    Take a look at these edits by User:62.253.96.42. This same anon also proceeded to blank much of MARMOT's talkpage [2]. I also see that this anon has been making a number of disruptive and(or vandalistic edits. Am I the only one thinking that this anon is the same one as MARMOT? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Oh yeah, I'm very sure it's MARMOT, but because of the addition of the IRC conversation, I doubt that MARMOT is trying to hide his identity under this IP. --Deathphoenix 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Okay; seeing MARMOT has been blocked indefinetely by a developer, can we move all of this to the archives? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

    I left this old subsection on WP:AN/I because there were newer subsections for the same user, so it's more or less all part of the same incident. They will all go away when the newest subsection ages out (late this evening, provided no new posts have been made in it by then). Noel (talk) 20:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    MARMOT

    I am requesting the immediate blocking of User:MARMOT. It turns out that MARMOT has disrupted an RFA process by using a sockpuppet. This is a serious, serious violation, and while I am fully willing to block him myself, I am going to recuse for now (I created an RFC and an RFAr against him.) If no one steps forward, I will do it myself. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

    Erm... That's rather useless if you don't tell us which RFA and what sockpuppet. At the very least give us a source of the info. Otherwise you will have to do it yourself, since nobody else will have a clue about the context. JRM · Talk 23:47, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    This RFA and the sockpuppet was Master Shredder. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Whether or not it was a signature or the listing of a name, I agree a block is in order now following his latest personal attack on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and the responses of the arbitrators in his arbitration case. --W(t) 23:55, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    Weyes: He claims to know you. I'm assuming he's lying out of his ass again, correct? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Yup, that's just his usual MO, like here. --W(t) 00:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that simply voting Oppose on an RfA counts as "disrupting" a process - it's done a lot, and since it's easily detectable, it's hardly disruptive. (I would consider disrupting to be fanning a flame war, or deleting votes, etc.) While I agree that MARMOT needs to be dealt with at some point, this isn't the last straw by any means. --khaosworks 23:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Well, see, he's got an RFAr open right now, and the ArbCom seems to be leaning towards rejecting the case and just banning him. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Note that the edit was made six days ago; if it warranted a block, it should have been imposed by now. A long-period block (or ban) based on the whole picture is another matter. JRM · Talk 23:56, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
    JRM: He's been posting anonymously under this, this, and this. He's avoided using MARMOT for a few days now. I am asking that his user account is banned and his IPs are blocked. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    I've blocked 62.253.96.42 for 48 hours, according to my best judgment of the situation as a whole. I'm going to bed now, so feel free to review for yourself. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying MARMOT is a unique snowflake we should preserve to enrich our community. I was just pointing out that a fake vote made six days ago wasn't that much of an incident. The rest of his sockpuppetrous shenanigans is another matter. JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
    Just a quick note about how much I love snowflakes. Thank you. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Alright. The vibes I'm getting from the Administrators' noticeboard, the ArbCom, and IRC regulars are all pointing towards a ban. If no one objects within the next couple of days, or if someone does it before me, I will block his account for a month and renew the block monthly. Speak now or forever hold your peace :P Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    [Rm personal attack by Marmot]
    I've had to unblock 62.253.96.42, which I shouldn't have blocked at all (being in the 62.252.0.0 - 62.255.255.255 range). Live and learn. Marmot is free to roam. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

    Empty image files

    Why is the Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion suddenly filled with empty image files, was there a server glitch in July 2004, or did something more recent happened that made images disappear? - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

    MARMOT sockpuppeting on Weyes' RFA again

    See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Weyes2a#Comment - the socks (Zzyzx11, JackRabbitSlim101, Argon443, Raul655) are all one IP, and the IP and behaviour add up to MARMOT. Note that he socked on the previous RFA as well, as Master Shredder. Blocked for 24 hours, keep a close eye out for this rubbish - David Gerard 19:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Whoops, someone else had already indefinited him. I've restored the indefinite with a suggestion he come back with better behaviour - David Gerard 19:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    And that first sockpuppet should very probably be Zzyxz11, not Zzyzx11 the admin. --Michael Snow 22:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I don't know what to think when the impersonator successfully fools other admins. Does anybody know? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I think the other admin (that's me) should go "oops shite" and apologise to you :-) I shot a bit fast there - David Gerard 10:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Hey, Zzyzx11, that's what you get for having such an unpronouncable (expletive removed) username! :-) Noel (talk) 22:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Block log

    I found this entry near the top of ipblocklist... what's up with that? Specifically, who did that?

    "20:41, Jun 23, 2005, User: blocked 66.235.184.242 (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (Auto-added for persistent vandalism; possible open proxy.)"

    Radiant_>|< 01:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    Hm, interesting. Do a search with your browser. There are others, with the same broken User: link, and the exact same block reason. --cesarb 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Found an explanation about these misterious entries at de:Benutzer Diskussion:SORBS DNSBL#Ipblocklist. --cesarb 02:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    En inglés? --Carnildo 04:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Suspected open proxy by the SORBS listing... - 131.211.210.16 07:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "I didn't know this either, but I've asked User:Brion VIBBER, and he knew the answer. To wit, this is unrelated to SORBS. These entries are created, when one of the developers uses a shell script to block addresses directly from the server (Brion calls this a crude hack). This is done when the developers learn of addresses that are primarily used as proxy by vandals. The addresses are hand-entered; they're not from the SORBS or any other data bank. When a good reason exists, any admin can unblock these addresses. It would probably be good if such blocks would be attributed to a 'pseudo-user', so that there would be a location where this all can be documented. This will hopefully be implemented sometime." Radiant_>|< 08:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Babblefish was worse than usual at translating that. --Carnildo 19:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:Caster Troy and aliases

    I've been having some difficulty with a user for a few days and Gwalla suggested RFC but I don't think it's reached that stage yet.

    Caster Troy (talk · contribs), Jc57 (talk · contribs), 163.1.227.76 (talk · contribs) and 129.67.97.115 (talk · contribs), if you look at their contributions and compare them, are all the same person. They uploaded two pages that have been through vfd, Masud Rahman and James Dodd. See this page and this page for the discussions. Since this user has arrived and I first warned them about posting vanity articles here they have been disruptive and rude to a lot of people, however whenever I have brought it up with them I have been accused of every antisocial misgiving going. They have vandalised my user talk page, vandalised the James Dodd vfd page, used sockpuppets to push their pov and have been generally rude and condescending to a lot of people [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

    My view (now) is that this user should have been permanently blocked at some point, however they showed some modicum of intelligence in their earlier discussion points and I have tried to reason with them. This afternoon, I admit, I lost my temper:

    I shouldn't have to do that. That's quite an extreme length to go to in order to prove the validity of an article. If there is no other material available anywhere else that validates this article then what Wikipedia would be doing by keeping the material is aggrandising an otherwise non-notable individual, which is not what this project is about. Wikipedia is about providing factual information, not about making anyone more famous than they need to be.
    I also shouldn't have to criticise the supporters of any article on Wikipedia. However your actions have left me little choice. You have tried every underhanded trick in the book in order to get your non-notable pages kept: you have vandalised my talk page [11], you have created multiple accounts (as pointed out above), you have vandalised the discussion pages for the articles being deleted [12] and you have insulted and generally spoken down to a lot of people [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Why should other users on Wikipedia show you any respect whatsoever when you have thus far not shown any to our community yourself? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 16:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    (taken from the james Dodd vfd discussion) and their response was, to be frank, predictable:

    Un-be-bloody-leviable. I was merely wanting to participate in a non-sexual orgy of intellectual virtue and learning, but this has been denied to me by self-serving, narrow-minded, superannuated, and above all, nasty people. If I do not receive apologies from all those that have targeted me as a young, innocent schoolboy in a world of old, haggard men, then I shall be left with no option, but to leave the Wikipedia community, and, I do feel, deprive it of one of its most incisive, inimtable, and innovative members; the choice, as Bruce Forsyth often says during the gameshow 'Bruce's Price is Right', which, incidentally, has a more famous catchphrase - 'come on down!', is yours.Caster Troy 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I now think it's time I step back from this and let someone else take over because I'm obviously not handling it very well. Any comments or suggestions welcome. RFC also recommends someone else try and sort things out, which I would like someone to do please.

    I am of course more than willing to hand in admin priveleges if it is thought I haven't handled this well. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 03:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I read that I didn't see anything particularly wrong with what you said, given the circumstances...my only real impression was that Caster's response was way over the top. Everyking 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope I'm not offending him, but Everyking is usually the first in line to say something if an admin made a controversial or poor judgement call. The fact he's not questioning you, tells me a lot. You handled it pretty civil, so there shouldn't be any need to hand in your admin abilities. - Mgm|(talk) 07:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I think your first encounter with a troll went very well. No rescinding of adminship needed here. JRM · Talk 14:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    Well it's good to hear that I'm not at fault here, still could someone else please try and reason with this user? He has now created Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nick Colgan about someone who is notable and is voting for deletion using sockpuppets while dropping in subtle references to the two previously mentioned debates. I tried asking for help on IRC though no-one stepped forward and volunteered. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 20:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You're handling it fine. I think you showed great restraint in not directing the incisive and inimitable user to the nearest sexual orgy. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Lordy. I shudder to think how I would have handled this user, but I'm pretty sure I would have blown my top long ago. I agree with Bish's comments. You're doing fine. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Possible open proxies

    The IP addresses 66.31.78.27 and 82.100.24.235 have been spamming the same message from different countries. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    How does one test for an open proxy? Just so I can help... smoddy 13:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Try this list of tools. JRM · Talk 14:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    Isn't the official proxy checker for wikipedia SORBS? It tends to have fewer false positives. This link is Broken 22:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It could very well be. I couldn't locate any information on this topic. Wikipedia:Blocking policy gives general information; Wikipedia:Administration FAQ is for morons; Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide is silent on proxies; Wikipedia:Open proxies doesn't exist; in short, we have zero, zilch, bupkis on technical documentation, at least some that's accessible. I had to look quite hard to find m:range blocks. JRM · Talk 22:50, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    All I know of is Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Anonymous and open proxies - and that refers to the mailing list archives! We definitely could do with having this all documented better - autoblocking is not documented at all, AFAIK. Noel (talk) 23:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I generally try to actually access wikipedia through them before claiming they are, but a very decent heuristic is just plugging the IP into google: If it gets no hits, chances are it's not an open proxy. If it gets a few hits on bulletin boards and such, it's probably a shared but not open proxy. If it gets lots of "get rich quick/buy viagra online" hits and lists of open proxies, it's very likely to be an open proxy. --W(t) 22:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    Trying this heuristic on the IPs listed below, I get nothing. In fact, two random addresses I tried were not listed in SORBS either. I'd really like to know how Susvolans is doing it now... Portscanning? JRM · Talk 23:03, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    I don't think he's searching for them, he's just reporting addresses that do the spam he mentioned at the top of this report. Noel (talk) 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Also 24.164.242.113, 62.131.8.120 and 168.150.251.36 Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Also 24.207.210.2, 68.110.7.34, 206.51.237.44, 209.172.34.176, 212.112.224.176 and 212.251.12.68. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    And 213.239.210.243. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    All these are open proxies and should be blocked indefinitely. When editors block for 24 hours, the short blocks have to be undone before the indefinite block can be applied, so it's best to wait for the proxy check to be done. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Similarly, if you block for 24 hours just after an indefinite block is applied, you'll undo it, because apparently shorter blocks cancel out longer ones. So please check the blocklog before blocking. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    Still at it, User:62.142.224.55 and User:216.152.71.153 Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks Susvolans, this is very helpful. 216 blocked indefinitely, 62 Fuzheado is first going to undo his short block, then will block indefinitely. Please wikify any you report, so we can deal with them faster. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

    Mackeriv blocked Mateusc to protect your revision and hidding information

    The Administrator Mackeriv just blocked the Mateusc user for 24 hours, because Mateusc added information, justified its deletions in the summary (to move main article Brazilian Internet Phenomenon) and this didn't please the administrator in the orkut article.

    Note that Mateusc increased the article in your last revisions with information, and Macheriv instead to discuss and ask user about the points, just blocked him [20] maybe because the Orkut section was discuted excessively. [21]

    Highly authoritarian banishment and without quarrel, the administrator did not look for to know or to argue the point of them you finish revisions (that they had been justified in the summary).

    The two users are brazilians, and the Mateusc editions apparently didn't please the vanity of Mackeriv. ----203.197.239.218 22:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Hello, Mateus. Look, I really did try my very best not to do this, but you aren't not just listening to me. You're not paying attention to anyone. Do you have any idea of what talk page you are talking about? Is it the one that has the huge discussion about this same issue, and that had you alone sustaining the POV-oriented material everybody else agreed that has no place in the article, and on Wikipedia as a whole? Yes, it is. I frankly don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this. You sure have your rights to question the "authoritarian banishment", you're referring to, but this can't be any more explained than it already is. I will also not do anything about what you just did to that article again (at least not for now), under this IP adress of yours. It really did confuse me, since it points to India, but this just cannot be anyone else other than you. I'll leave this to the opinions of other administrators for now.--Kaonashi 22:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I have undone the block, since it looks more like a content dispute, and I can't see a justification on the blocking policy for the block. I couldn't find where he was warned not to change to that version on his talk page, not even on the conversations he removed recently. Since you are too involved in that content dispute, it might be better to ask for someone else to block him, instead of blocking him yourself (which means I won't oppose an uninvolved administrator undoing my unblocking). --cesarb 22:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well, from looking at Talk:Orkut, I see a disagreement over content, and Mateusc is in the minority here, but that's about as far as it goes. Input from more people familiar with the Brazilian influx on Orkut would probably help that situation. Meanwhile, Mateusc got blocked for reverting once, which is incredibly premature. Mackeriv/Kaonashi, please review Wikipedia:Blocking policy and adhere to it in the future. Stick to established justifications for blocking and don't block people when you're personally involved in the dispute, ask someone else to help. This page is a good place to ask for such help. --Michael Snow 22:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I agree with the fact that I didn't go all the way to his talk page to warn that he'd be blocked, but just pay attention to what this all means. First of all, he is going against what was stabilished by a consensus... for what, the third time now? He had removed content from the revision that was agreed by many users are being the optimal one for the article, and adding back characteristis from his own revision. As if that wasn't enough, he made use of an anonymous account to express his complaint instead of waiting for the blocking period to be over. I'll ask each one of you to go to the top of this page and pay attention to the "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks" part. That user did exactly that, and right here. I just don't know anymore.--Kaonashi 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm unblocked now. I just write in User:Mackeriv talk page and that's all ok. Mackeriv knows about my intention isn't vandalize or lack with information. A lot of things they had been argued about Brazilian Invasion section. I'm simply scared with the banishment of Mackeriv because him was part of everything: the discussion, the nonsense and un-discuted reverts. --Mateusc 22:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    To talk about backpedalling.--Kaonashi 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Now, I'm really worried. Mackeriv is making me threats on my Talk page. Before an authoritarian and controversial act, He intimidates a simple user.
    Sorry Mackeriv, but you changes a simply discordance in abuse of Administrator authority. The only thing that you made today is controversial act and to contranger me. I'm disappointed. --Mateusc 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'm really sorry that you're disappointed. I'm really sorry that I sound like I could eat your heart out with barbecue sauce. I really do sound all firespitting menacing, ya know. But I'll refrain from this discussion from now on. If anyone has useful words to exchange with me, my talk page is there. What I wrote here, and what was written right after, contains all the answers for anyone that gets interested on understanding this issue. Thanks for hearing.--Kaonashi 23:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I don't have nothing more to say. You only proved how much controversial it was your act today, scoffing of all situation.
    In my opinion, what you it made today, all constaint who made me to pass for a so small thing is enough to take off its status of Administrator. You abuse of your status to make to be valid the force of your opnion. This is very bad. --Mateusc 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Aetherometry

    Aetherometry and its VfD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aetherometry seem to be too stressfull for some new users like Helicoid and FrankZappo.

    • rude language: can't find the diffs in the very convoluted hiostory...
    • manipulating other users postings: [22]
    • personal attacks: [23], [24], [25]

    Pjacobi 23:13, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

    Can someone please give User:Helicoid a serious warning or block? He just manipulated my talk page posting the third time:
    I gave hime two warnings: User talk:Helicoid
    Pjacobi 00:34, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

    He inserted vandalism such as this [26], and repeated it multiple times [27] [28] [29]. I assume comments like changing "detractors" to "detractors who have not read the material", and continous restoration of article space comments like "do not delete" is vandalism.I hope reverting it doesn't make it a 3RR violation. -- Natalinasmpf 01:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Based on the arguments on the Talk page it appears that the insertion "Detractors of aetherometry who have not read the material state" (italics = insertion) is a personal attack on other editors. It's a complicated Talk page - have a look at it. This behaviour strikes me as unacceptable. Guettarda 01:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I am a relative newcomer to this article dispute, but it didn't take me long to see the disruptive behavior of User:209.29.93.65. Beyond POV pushing, he writes abusive edit summaries, using them to call editors he disagrees with moron and stupid [30], people who disagree with him vandals [31], and generally makes abusive comments that create a poisonous atmosphere, like get that? Or is it too hard a concept for you? [32]. · Katefan0(scribble) 07:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
    Well he hasn't been a model of civility that's true but reverting him without a proper explanation will hardly make matters better. [33] [34]. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    You're right of course, I could've done a better job (always learning), but I really felt like the objections to the types of edits he was trying to do had already been aired on the talk page, which he wasn't responding to in any fruitful way. Thanks much · Katefan0(scribble) 17:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

    Copyvio on protected page

    The page Moses Kalankaytuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been copied from this site, and the site owner has complained. The page is currently listed on WP:CP, but the page itself is protected, so it isn't possible to stick a copyvio tag on it. Could someone take care of this? --Carnildo 03:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I marked it as such as is policy. This link is Broken 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Is posting the request on the same site and same directory as the original article not enough proof for immediate removal? - Mgm|(talk) 11:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    I have been watching this page with interest since my run-in with Rovoam (talk · contribs) (see above). Tabib (talk · contribs) is now claiming that WikiAdm (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet for Rovoam and so his claim of copyright status should be ignored. I get the impression this is an issue that is not going to go away easily just by the deletion of the page. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 13:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Please do not block User:62.253.96.42 (NTL proxy)

    This is one of MARMOT's IPs, but please don't block it. The respectable and unfortunate User:UkPaolo uses it, and has already been blocked several times, and has had to scramble to get unblocked. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    This is an NTL cache proxy, and should not be blocked for more than 15 minutes. People, please take good note of the ranges on the right side of Special:Blockip. Read the instructions under "Read this part!", please. It's important. If you are an administrator and see a block in this range, undo it and inform the blocking administrator of the issue. If you must block to deter furious editing, make it a short block. 15 minutes; an hour at most. Any more and you'll probably affect innocent people. I know MARMOT is annoying and the fact that we can't permanently block him is doubly annoying, but that's the way it is. JRM · Talk 22:28, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    15 minutes is a good start. Use a message like "Blocked to prevent ongoing vandalism from User:MARMOT; we apologise for the inconvenience." Check after fifteen minutes to see if it starts again. NTL proxies have as much potential to be an ongoing pain in the backside as AOL ... NTL is the second-largest broadband provider in Britain (after BT) and the largest cable provider. Oh joy. - David Gerard 22:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Could we run a squid on one of the wikimedia machines that requires authentication before use and can only access *.wikipedia.org? That way we could give the affected editors a way of editing while their proxy is blocked until the blocking system has all the bells and whistles necessary to avoid this kind of collateral damage (which isn't going to be soon, I gather). It wouldn't help the first-time editors, but the regular contributors could at least keep working during blocks. --W(t) 22:37, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    A solution might be to, when it's a known NTL proxy, extract the real IP address from it, and use instead of the connection IP. I found [35] and [36] about it. However, there's the problem that it would be getting the IP from an untrusted proxy. --cesarb 23:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    We're already doing the same for User:Waerth's ISP I think. --W(t) 23:05, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

    GAP Project (II)

    I'd like some advice on what to do with this. Has the alleged copyvio been confirmed or proven wrong? It passed about two weeks on VFU and has no sufficient support to undelete - yet the article has been restored anyway. Radiant_>|< 22:18, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

    Then deleteagain I'd say. When in doubt, follow procedure. --W(t) 22:39, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
    There's been a pretty substantial re-write. I haven't compared it that carefully with the source, but it's rather different from what it was. Guettarda 23:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Purely hypothetical LJ post from Skyring

    http://www.livejournal.com/users/skyring/82954.html - I've left a note at the bottom on what would most likely happen in the hypothetical circumstance he outlines - David Gerard 22:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    All I have to say is that I am horrified by the rollback of Skyring's quality edits to the article he links in that entry. I haven't been following this matter closely but that sets off loud alarm bells for me that this user is being severely mistreated. Everyking 09:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well turn off your alarm, because he's only telling half the story, at best: he was being rolled back as a knee-jerk thing, given a) the vast amounts of BS/original research he was peddling on various Australian government pages made anything he wrote about government functions immediately suspect; and b) he was specifically altering the edits of his chief antagonist in his tireless battle to unilaterally declare Australia a republic. The rollbacks were ill-advised but understandable under the circumstances. --Calton | Talk 11:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    When I see something like that, I see personality feuds taking precedent over information and quality articles. The edits that were rolled back were quite good by anyone's standards. Everyking 20:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Ek, if you spent less time playing WP's collective conscience, you might actually notice the piles of bullshit people have to wade through. It is unavoidable that now and again a good edit is reverted. In such a case, it should be enough to complain on talk, and people will apologize to you. dab (ᛏ) 20:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Mezmerize

    Could someone throw a bucket of cold water over this? Blocks, a protection, pixie dust, whatever takes your fancy. --W(t) 23:45, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

    I protected the page. Since it's on Mike's version I asked him to support his version. Hopefully this will blow over, but I'm not holding my breath. Guettarda 23:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    User:CJ2005B

    Please see this entry on the Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log. I'd just like to know if my actions were appropriate. Thanks. --khaosworks 00:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

    • Well, I thought it was a bit too lenient, until I noticed it was an AOL IP. Don't see any problems with the block. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, he's back, and he's vandalised my user page and talk page again. Someone please deal with him this time round because (as Ed rightly pointed out) since I was involved in a content dispute with him, I don't want to be seen as a bully. --khaosworks 10:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • I've blocked him for 24 hours after he wouldn't stop vandalising some user pages and ignoring warning I placed on his talk page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked IP

    I just tried to edit the Blue Oyster Cult page since there is incorrect information on there ie:

    "They are currently in the studio with producer ChromiumSteel working on a new album."

    This is probably the work of pranksters or vandals, and is not true much as I wish it were even without producer 'Chromium Steel', that's a reference from BOC song Golden Age of Leather for those who didn't know.

    Anyway my IP is blocked because someone called Erwin Rommell has used it for vandalism. I am NOT Erwin Rommell, I am just a devoted BOC fan and a moderator on a BOC fans site (check Catholicschoolgirl out at www.bocfans.com) so I deplore spamming, trolling or vandalism especially with regard to my favourite band. If you can't unblock my IP could you at least see that the page is edited to take out the erroneous information.

    Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholicschoolgirl (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Well, you wrote this, so can't you just as easily edit the article the way you want? Everyking 09:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, was thinking the same. Anyway, I removed that note about Chromium Steel for you. Shanes 09:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Thank you Shanes. As for why I couldn't edit it myself well it seems I can post or edit here in this section but not on the page I WANT to edit since I get the 'IP blocked' message as soon as I click 'save page'?? You tell me, you're the administrators. This is the message I get:

    "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Erwin Rommel". The reason given for Erwin Rommel's block is: "blanking user pages; ignoring warnings not to do so".

    You can email Bumm13 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l). Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

    Your IP address is 195.93.21.40. Please include this address in any queries you make."

    Thanks again. CSG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholicschoolgirl (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Hmm. Are you using AOL? Looks like you have an AOL IP address. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    whois traces to AOL I've cleared the ip block. The name block is still in place it explains the user haveing difficulty editing different pages.Geni 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, I didn't follow that. Why would any block (or blocks) allow editing of pages in one space, but not in another? Noel (talk) 20:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It's because of the stupid way that AOL dynamically assigns IP addresses: addresses are assigned from a pool of proxies on a per-connection basis. This means that you get a new IP address for each page you download, so you may be getting a blocked address when trying to edit one page, and getting a free address with another page. Further, AOL assigns addresses from the entire /8 address space it's got, so you can't range-block one person without range-blocking all of AOL. (Not that that's neccessarily a bad idea, but...) --Carnildo 21:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    We have quite a few good editors from AOL, don't we? Everyking 22:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yep :-( Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Vandalism rampage on af:

    If anyone has admin permissions on af:, could they please check in - there's a vandal on the rampage mass-deleting content from articles. See http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spesiaal:Recentchanges and http://af.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spesiaal:Contributions&target=195.85.154.162 . -- ChrisO 10:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Christafari

    Can someone check this out. I tried redirecting to Christafari but cannot figure out what is going on. Perhaps I am mistaken, File:Messian dread - christafarianism 2004.pdf by User:Dubroom, SqueakBox 20:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

    It's redirecting ok but I think the pdf should be deleted. For one thing it says on the first page "This essay may be freely copied and distributed only in it’s entirety, provided that no money is asked (also no “production or shipping costs”)." This is not OK for here where we allow commercial distribution of Wikipedia articles. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I figured something was wrong, and it sounds like a speedy delete candidate. Can an admin please go for it. If the ;person puts it somewhere else on the net we could link to it, SqueakBox 21:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

    A quick web search reveals it to be from here http://www.dubroom.org/download/pdf/ebooks/messian_dread_-_christafarianism_2004.pdf Unless anyone has any objections I think we should speedy delete and add the above as a link. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=15886987"