User talk:Fred Bauder/Archive 13

Copperchair

Is he allowed to continue his vandalism now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Copperchair

He's now reverted the War on Terror article to his version (ignoring consensus that the Iraq War should be covered) and his user talk page (including his ban on editing) as if nothing has happened. Shouldn't he be blocked as a condition of his RFA temp decision now? Thank you. JG of Borg 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know this message is about two weeks old, but I've been on vacation and I peeked in to see that Copperchair had been blocked for a month. It appears either the block has been lifted or you did not block him for a month initially; it's been far less than a month since the above violation and less than a month since your original warning on his Talk page. Meanwhile, he continues blanking his Talk page to remove all mention of warnings, etc. that countless Wikipedians have given him.--chris.lawson 02:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o. I've been out for about a month and I hadn't checked his contributions. It appears it's entirely Talk, which we'll just have to keep reverting. Thanks again.--chris.lawson 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep a vigilant eye on his talkpage, and just recently, I left a comment regarding that behavior. Its up to him wether or not he continues to revert. Ethier way, I'll keep reverting if he doesn't stop. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification from HK

Regarding Nobs01 et al: I am asking for clarification regarding the proposed penalty of indefinite probation to be imposed on myself. Given that there is no finding of fact against me, and that even the allegations against me in Cberlet's complaint boil down to nothing more than a few edits that he disapproved of in the article Chip Berlet, one and one half years ago, I hope that you can understand how I might have a lack of insight into any role my behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case -- it appears to me that my behavior is not an issue in this case. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me much more likely that the proposed penalty is purely in response to "the dissatisfaction expressed ...with the decisions reached in this case." This would seem to be an offense akin to Lese majesty. --HK 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second these concerns, and have no intention to edit under these restrictions. Sam Spade 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sort of thing we want to get at [1]. Fred Bauder 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern about statements such as that which you link to. I cannot understand placing a contributor of over 2 years and 30,000 edits on probation due to his opposition to your judgement. Sam Spade 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chooserr sockpuppet?

Hello,

You blocked Chooserr for a week, however FCYTravis unblocked him on his promise not to edit war over dates[2]. Just now a brand new user, IMaRocketMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), started date-reverting to BC/AD with intentionally misleading edit summaries, and has been blocked. Perhaps you might wish to do a checkuser and investigate if this is Chooserr breaking his promise. -- Curps 02:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different Fred Bauder 02:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice RfA

I saw that you voted to accept the Deeceevoice RfA. While I disagree with you on this decision, it is yours to make. However, I am curious how the fact that an admin posted false info on the RfA prior to your vote, then admitted that this info was false, plays into your decision? (For more on this, see User:Robchurch/deeceevoice. In my opinion, this RfA is a witchhunt and, like the RfC, has so devolved into nothing but a shouting match that I fail to see how anything can be decided from it. Finally, does your vote for acceptance mean you also are voting that Justforasecond is harassing Deeceevoice (as many users believe)? Best, --Alabamaboy 14:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just an alert

I know the arbcom is very busy right now, but just alerting you that we do have a temp injunction request in the Ben Gatti case. Been there for a week now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration

Mr. Bauder, there are some comments that have been written on the arbitration proposed decision talk page. I would hope you get a chance to read them. The comments are not made to undermine your authority as an arbitrator, but instead they are aimed at coming up with a solution that will truly solve the problem.

It is my opinion and others that the proposal being offered will not help alievate the current situation. I guess the other option then is to let them just revert whatever they want. Having to constantly revert an article becomes a waste of time and takes away from trying to improve so many other articles that need to be fixed. It is my sincere hope you will take these things into consideration. Thank you for your time! Davidpdx 07:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye on the Chair made of copper

I'll be on wikivacation in the states with my girlfriend for the rest of the month, and I don't know if I will have access to the internet or not... Anywho, I;m just leaving you this to remind you to keep an eye on User:Copperchair, he keeps reverting his userpage to blank out context he doesn't want there. Anyway, I won't be around 24/7 to revert when he does, so...I just wanted you to ber aware of the fact. Finally, Merry christmas! -MegamanZero|Talk 08:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hi Fred — if you have the time at all, I wounder if you could run a sockpuppet check on L'Omnivore_Sobriquet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JohD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The first was indefinately blocked after being accused of being a sock puppet of the latter. I'm unblocking him for now, but it would be good to see for sure one way or the other. Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Linguistic evidence

Fred, I got your comment via another user.

Life here has taken a major hit on my time, and the NLP case is a complex one since theres apparently about a dozen people sock/meat-puppeting on it and a lot to document. I'll try to sort that out, you are right, it needs to be finished. Thanks for the nudge. FT2 10:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I've posted my evidence to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming/Evidence. If I get time I'll improve the formating and comments to make it clear and concise. --Comaze 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser (Please)

I know you get this a lot but could you check an user. Brazil4Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was disruptive and he was banned along with his sockpuppet Quackshot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Now a new user GroundZero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared who uses the same English, immediatly contributed to the same pages at the sametime, supports the same edits and has a vast knowledge of Wikipedia uncommon for new users. I don't want to blame an innocent user. Thanks! Jedi6 12:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jedi6 20:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist

[3] Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't see a place to comment on this at WP:RFAr so I will do so here. While I have been a repeated critic of Karmafist I don't think this is the best course of action. I don't think what Karmafist is doing is right, but I do think that he believes it to be right. That's why I have tried to get other admins on AN/I to comment on better ways for him to handle these things. Hopefully the mere existence of this motion will serve to convince Karmafist to re-examine the role of adminship. However, in general I think Wikipedia could be well served by less of a focus on preventing problems through punitive measures and more efforts towards suggesting different behaviours. That's actually one of the primary issues on which Karmafist and I disagree, but it's a widespread concern. People make mistakes. Slapping them down and taking away their ability to do so is a quick and efficient solution, but inevitably increases tensions and leads to hostility. Convincing people to act differently is admittedly much more difficult, but I think a better solution and sometimes not given enough effort due to all the other stresses of Wikipedia. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 18:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet checkuser request

I've been trying to get someone with CheckUser powers to do some sockpuppet checks, but apparently my making such requests makes people fall off the face of the earth. Beware! Nevertheless, here is the request I have been making:

To make a long story short, a couple of us were suspecting that some users that suddenly appeared out of nowhere making trouble and backing each other up were sockpuppets, and, it turns out, they more or less incriminated themselves. Read all about the festivities at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Dispute tags for Positive and Critical Links Sections, something one of them started in support of the other (sorry that there's a lot of unrelated stuff there), and the initial suspicions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#"Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files". But now that these first two basically incriminated themselves, we need to check on a few other users that also aroused suspicion before going around slapping sockpuppet tags on pages. I simply request a yes or no answer to a simple question: are these people from Denver (or the surrounding area in Colorado) too? Of course, if you do find some kind of smoking gun, that would be of utmost interest. Following is the list:

Retcon
Missionary
Netministrator
Cairoi
bUcKaRoO
Duffer1
Kool8
DannyMuse
IP law girl
Cobaltbluetony
Elgoodo
Steven Wingerter
Lucille S

I would personally doubt that every single one of those is actually a sockpuppet, but I only seek the yes or no answer to that one question (barring a smoking gun(s) of some kind), nothing that is especially useful to anybody for anything other than confirming or quelling suspicions of sockpuppetry. Thanks.Tommstein 11:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection of Bogdanov Affair

Not sure it's going to do you any good at the moment, because there's a bug. It's supposed to stop any accounts newer than 4 days from posting to S-P pages, but it's not working. It is stopping anons though. Note has been left on Brion's page. Who knows. It might be fixed by the end of the day. The vandalism on George W. Bush has gone way way down since it came into effect. For now, I'd just keep the tag on BA. Just a heads up really. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And btw Fred, you did do it right. :) It is semi protected. I tried going into it as an IP and it wouldn't let me doing anything but view the source. I know though. The new interface is a bit funky. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fairness to both sides

Dear Fred, So anyone that tries to edit out bias, mis-quotes, expand controversial articles is a member of the entity that is the subject of the article, and those that join the editing, reverting are too? Why would anyone want to edit articles at Wikipedia if he would be subject to such allegations? I request that the arbcom also deal with the issues that I and others have raised. I look forward to a solution that is fair to both sides of this debate. Sincerely, Johnski 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Mr. Bauder: I did not particiapate in any recusal requests or discussions of conflict of interest, as the histories will reflect. I waited patiently on several motion requests that affected the process, which never came. I reserved judgement on many of questionable actions throughout this hearing, and note, did not speak of them publicly until after the Committee voted. Trashing me to Jimbo is unwarranted, and unfair. But I have a story to tell, even if this sitting Committee doesn't want to hear it. All I ask is a fair hearing, from somebody. And trust me, there is enough interest in the story. nobs 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phroziac and Karmafist

Fred, I understand the reluctance to take on something so ostensibly petty, but I think you already understand a little the potential of poisoning regarding Karmafist. I have seen some of the brief discussion that ArbCom members have had regarding desysoping him, and there is no mystery why. There are a lot of legit editors who mostly want to create a great science library which doesn't usually have much POV issues. But when those of us are bullied by the likes of Karmafest, WP is in danger of losing some important talent. No one has offered me any apology and, in fact, 3 hours after I left the flap alone and walked away from it, Karmafest, at Phroziac's bequest, continued to harrass me about it. What gives??

There are lots of small towns in the U.S. where the school bully (who might also be a lineman on the football team) grows up to be one of the town cops. But he's still a bully. What happens if the town government does nothing about the bully with the badge and gun, people get fed up and move out. Or they leave out of fear. (it's probably nothing, but Karmafest is just down the road, I-89, a couple of hours from me.) Jimbo is sorta like the founder and mayor of the town and you and ArbCom are like the town council. You need to be careful about the bad cops in your employ. Please do not under-react regarding their behavior.

This is a serious issue of systemic admin bullying and misbehavior. Many/most admins are good, but you know, statistically, that some have to be bad apples. Some of these admins are kids with the maturity level of college freshman, and they're carring badges (the admin status) and guns (power to block, etc.). It is to WP's detriment if these bad apples are not identified as early as possible and removed. It's not just a justice issue, but one regarding WP health. Thanks for looking at this. r b-j 17:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat proposal

The suggested motion is:

"Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia or any article or page which concerns zoophilia, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns zoophilia shall be determined by the enforcing administrator."
"If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia, any page which relates to Zoophobia, or their talk pages..."

I am concerned thast this does not yet address DrBat's activities. I would strongly ask, may this wording be changed as follows:

"Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator."
"If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages...."

My reason is as before, the South Park article or page does not "concern zoophilia". It concerns animal sexuality and human-animal relationships as a discussed theme of a cartoon series. Ditto at least one other edit of this kind.

I've stated my position several times on why animal sexuality is not a recurring theme in the series South Park, which you would know if you actually watched the show (furthermore, the first sentence of the topic mentioned that "sexual activity with animals" was a recurring theme, with a link to the zoophilia article). You have yet to debunk any of it. --DrBat 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask strongly that it is specific subjects which are outlined, not just "zoophilia", and that the ruling wording is changed to prevent the editing on these subjects in any page, not just any page "concerning zoophilia". At present the proposed change will not address DrBat. Only a list of forbidden subjects will do that, and the above is a minimal list of 4 subjects that will probably do the job.

The above subject list is very tightly drafted, and does not unduely restrict DrBat in other edits. It is these subjects he has edited in this dispute, and hence these subjects it would be asked to prevent him editing on.

FT2^(Talk) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to simply refuse

Ben Gatti case

Look at this. Very POV edit on Price-Anderson from today. We also have several from nuclear power over the last few days. Please act. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Note

Can you check and see if 203.206.87.165 is really Grace Note? On Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum 203.206.87.165 is claiming to be her and is telling everyone, rather erroneously, to "chillout". freestylefrappe 20:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

Final statement

I have revised my final statement in regards to Nobs01 and others, please have a look if you have the interest. Cheers, Sam Spade 07:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DrBat

Thank you for your help on the above. It's appreciated.

I have one last request on the DrBat case, to ask if it may be considered, or what you'd think?

Ciz/DrBat/ShadowH has now used sock-puppets twice that we know of, and each time for abusive purposes. So any violative editings in future are likely to be via sockpuppet too. Spotting his actions is really hard if he's allowed to use sock-puppets this way in future. Is it possible to have a heavy duty summary deterrent for abusive sock-puppet use, something like a summary prevention (and strong enforcement) that he may not use a sock-puppet to violate the ruling, or may not use a sock-puppet without permission? The thinking here is that this will probably not deter any legitimate activities, but will make him really think twice about the cost if he uses sock-puppets in future this way, as opposed to "I can get away with it".

(On that note, might it be a useful ruling in future for sock-puppet abusers, in general, or add to WP:SOCK, that abuse of sock-puppets may result in a user being prevented from using them on pain of heavy punishment? Rationale: Sock-puppets aren't much loved unless there's a fair motive, and are not essential for editing, so withdrawal of sock privilege is not a restriction on editing. Perhaps a regular punishment for their abuse should be forbidding the user to use one (or requiring them to justify it first), on pain of heavy summary punishment. That would make it easier to track abusive sock-users too, reasonable in light of the complexity and problems that a new sock-ID costs bona fide editors trying to prevent abuse. Just a $0.02 thought)

Last, I am aware of the lingering Neuro-linguistic programming RFArb and plan get down to that during Christmas/New Year week. It's messy and complex and to present it simply for arbitration is not easy, but it'll be done.

Thank you for your understanding and help in all this. It's much appreciated (and a happy new year!)

FT2 (Talk) 12:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed enforcement includes blocks of up to a year, blocks of socks count toward the 5 ban threshold. Fred Bauder 14:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice Arbitration

I just wanted to let you know that while I remain opposed to the events that lead to Deeceevoice's current arbitration, I have been very impressed with your impartiality and work on the issue. While I wish this issue had not been pushed to arbitration, it does reassure me that arbitrators such as yourself are working here. Best, --Alabamaboy 15:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITE CRISIS crisis

Dear Mr. Bauder,

Comic book fans are notoriously territorial. What else have they got to do (jk!).

In the articles entitled Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis, a new user posted this statement:

!Similarly to how the original Crisis on Infinite Earths was an effort to clear the perceived confusion of multi-universes in DC Comics' continuity, Infinite Crisis is possibly the answer to some people's perception that the DC Universe has become too dark and "gritty". "

I am actually a comics professional. My name is Dennis Calero and I draw X-factor for Marvel Comics. In my professional opinion as someone extremely familiar with comics, this is a reasonable statement.

At some point, there was an argument about whether or not this statement was too "speculative", this in an article about a series that is not yet completed.

It was removed and replaced by several users several times. The original poster (anonymous) suggested that the question go to mediation and that the statement remain as an act of good faith and it was, for a time, cordoned in an area entitled "Speculation" along with some other tidbits that were in question. Many posters, whether they agreed with the statement or not, agreed that it was not a glaringly inappropriate addition.

This area was removed and the page blocked from anon and new users.

The sysop "Phil Sandifer", someone who boasts on his user page that his tactics are "jackbooted", in my opinion, made the situation worse by simply deleting changes, and made no attempt to form a consensus. Even though other articles on art pieces that include speculative analysis (what is the meaning of this picture etc), that have been cited to him, he simply recites that WIKI rules don;t make room for any analysis, only facts, even though statements in the article currently are analytical in nature. He simply refuses to listen!

Further, he sites "vandalism" as a reason for blocking the page, when the only real act of vandalism, a wholesale marring of the page, was done anonymously by a user who was against the change, not for it, who obviously became frustrated that it was being added back in by just asmany frustrated users.

The main question is to get an opinion on this contribution.

The second is whether or not Phil Sandifer should be advised on the use of his priveleges.

I apologize for any mispellings.

Thank you!

Dear Mr. Bauder,

Could you please advise me as to what negotiation entails. I'm not being sarcastic. Discussion has gone back and forth regarding this issue. I'm not sure what talking to one other user might accomplish. Could you elaborate?

Thank you very much.

Atomiceo 17:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Bauder,

It's been made very clear to me that there is a clique of users who've taken it upon themselves to delete any change the four or five of them have not personally contributed. Despite this site's very laudible goals, it just seems too easy for a small group of like minded individuals to completely monopolize the system and current safegaurds are inadequate. Of course, we're all human.

I don't think I have anything I can contribute. Thank you for your time though!

Atomiceo 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check request - User:Jonah Ayers

In connection to the incidents reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jonah Ayers, I am requesting a sock check to confirm whether these accounts use the same IP addresses.

Some of these haven't been used in months, so I understand that they might not show up. Let me know if this is request isn't made correctly, or if I should ask another ArbCom member. Thanks for this and all you do. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Some involved editors will be making a formal filing about this user soon. Given the nature of the violations and the use of so many socks, it appears that an ArbCom case is necessary. Fortunately this seems to be fairly straightforward. You'll be hearing more about this. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you could keep your own notes on whatever the sock check turned up, in case any of it becomes germane later. Best wishes, -Willmcw 08:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Vandal Tags

Hi Fred. I write regarding the vandal tag you added to my name in the NLP arbitration case. It seems you've been played a fool by one of your accused. I'd appreciate your removing the tag as it's based on zero evidence and the original accusations seem to be more mal-intended rather than merely misinformed. The amount of hassle your accused is giving me is really getting quite out of control. Peace. Metta Bubble 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request in Min Zhu and WebEx arb case

I made a request on the Min Zhu and WebEx arb case talk page to expand the case to include 8 related articles [4]Please let me know if this request is properly framed or if I need to make it in some other way. Thanks for your help with this matter--FloNight 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several comments from AndriyK concerning the arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is going to punish me for something what was (and stil is!) not forbidden by any rules (creating artificial histories of redirect pages). I did it to prevent disrupting Wikipedia and violating the Policies. Why not simply to say "do not do it anymore" instead of punish me for something which is not forbidden? How could I know that I was not allowed to do it if none of the policies forbids it?
In view of the Arbitration Committee, the existing policy about Ukrainian geografic names do not address the question of names associated with the Kievan Rus. How could I know it? There is no any restrictions to particular historical period in the policy about Ukrainian names. How could I know that spelling of Ukrainian names in Wikipedia should be different from Britannica and other English language encyclopedias? Which policy says it? It seem the policy states the opposite.
It's very funny that for a single revert of copivio article made by mistake I will get the same punishment ("Warning") as Ghirlandago will get for multiple insultigs and personal attack made on purpose!
It's very surprising if I will be forbidden to correct Ukrainian names and those who were distorting them and ignoring the naming convention are allowed to do it further.
It's very strange that multiple edist of my opponents that disrupted Wikipedia: broken links, sneaky vandalism, POV-pushing etc. were completely ignored by the Arbitration Committee.
The group of users that has been squeezing Ukrainian editors out of the Community by persisting and scoffing trolling, insulting and personal attacks now is about to succseed to use the Arbitration Committee for this purpose. I called this group "Russian Mafia". It was not a personal attack. It was merely a stating of the fact. Is there a more appropriate name? I do not think so.
The Arbitration Committee voted for decissions that were not discussed in the Worshop. And if any of them were discussed, the discussion has been ignored. As the result, the decissions contradict each other. The proposed enforcement #1 refers to Russian names, while #2 refers to Ukrainian names. What have I to do with Russian names? I did not change a single Russian name since I am here. What is the reason for this strange decision about Russian names? Can somebody explain me?
Nearly all my statements, comments, evidence, proposal were ignored. It would be OK if the Arbitration Committee would discuss them and then reject. At least I would see a fair procedure. But I did not see anything but silent voting.

Even a killer morder has a right to be heard in the court. You deprive me of this right just for the attempt to protect Wikipedia against pushing of Russian POV and distorting Ukrainian names!--AndriyK 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable feedback Fred Bauder 21:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration policy

The Arbitration policy makes it appear that the Arbitration committee has more power than they actually do, and sets tem up for a power grab when an opportunity avails itself. The arbitration policy should be dictated to the arbitration committee, not established by it. Hackwrench 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

195.92.168.165

This IP isn't in one of the AOL ranges listed at Special:Blockip. If there are other ranges that need shorter block duration this needs to be documented somewhere. -- Curps 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting (or lack thereof) on Reddi 2

It appears that while you authored the last two items on the voting page (Remedy #3, Extensions of Parole and Probation; and Enforcement #1, Enforcement by Block), you did not officially cast your vote for them. Did you intend to vote for these items? --TML1988 05:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communist revision

Hi- there is allready a section about Soviet revision. I dont want to just revert your addition, is there some way you can incorporate it into the existing section? --Stbalbach 21:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet problem

Hi there. I have my first sock puppet to report, and I'm stuck with what to do next after tagging the user(s) and collecting evidence. They told me on the Help Desk to ask on WP:AN/I. I did, but nobody responded. Then they told me (on the Help Desk, and later on the WP:AN/I) to contact an ArbCom member. So I contacted Mindspillage 3 days ago, but she didn't respond. Now I'm contacting User:Raul654 and you. Hope to hear from somebody, at last... :-\ --Dijxtra 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this user and supporting my suspicion with evidence, but I still don't know what to do next to get this guy blocked indefinitly (WP:SOCK says that's what's done with sock puppets). So, this guy is still at large and is still vandalising articles. What is to be done to make some admin block this guy? --Dijxtra 20:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppet

I have suspected that accounts User:Brian Brockmeyer,User:Almeidaisgod, and User:Flavius Aetius are sock puppets for some time now. I have gathered the evidence here [5] I tried to get someone to checkuser the accounts to make sure, but nobody answers me (or they are all busy) :(

If you have time, please check them, thank you for your attention. --Ichiro 17:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just posted a similar request at User talk:Jayjg, don't want to duplicate any effort. I'll place a notice of this request on his talk page as well. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fred. This helps. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

They may be fun and so on, but they're getting out of control. In the Catholic Allaience project deletion, the page's creator used a Userbox category to find over 40 Catholic target users whom he spammed with an appeal to save the page from deletion. Of 11 who voted to keep, 9 of them had been contacted in this way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Tony said. The problem is more widespread than I think you realize; writing off Zscout's proposed injunction with a "just don't use fair use images in userboxes" isn't helpful if no one listens to it. See, for example, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Mozilla, and its previous nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/November 2005#Template:Fair use-firefox, where local consensus that the images are "plainly kawaii (cute)" was allowed to override our foundation issues. —Cryptic (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and that's my point - that the fair use policy is being very widely ignored, and those trying to enforce it are being buried under an avalanche of userbox users. —Cryptic (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of the main WikiProject Userboxes tass at the moment is to remove fair-use images. And I continue to reove them. Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]