Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive383

Arsenic99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Arsenic99 appears to be on Wikipedia solely with an agenda of denying the Armenian Genocide. In the last few hours, he created Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists and added it to several BLPs, including that of Taner Akçam (to my knowledge, the only person whose Wikipedia article has result in the subject's detainment by law enforcement). I've removed the category from all articles and put it up for CfD, but I remain concerned about Arsenic99's editing. This post to my talk page indicates that he doesn't consider the Armenian genocide a fact, only a "historical interpretation". Such an approach is ahistorical and unencyclopedic, to say the least. I think we should consider banning Arsenic99 from editing, or at least consider a ban from anything having to do with Armenia and related subjects. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed in my talk page, User Talk:Arsenic99 that Akhilleus seemed to have a very hostile reaction (This link) to a simple discussion as to whether the Armenian Genocide is a fact or a historical interpretation based on years and years of research. I didn't deny the Armenian Genocide, nor is that the sole purpose of my account because anyone can see my contrib list, though I do have an interest in the subject which is clear. History changes all the time, which is why events and labels are not declared as facts in history, but simply interpretations based on CURRENT research on the subject. Sometimes research changes, an example would be the research at one time was that the Earth was Flat, but later research confirmed that the Earth was Round. I did not promote any POV, since it is OK to have categories such as Category: Nazi propagandists or Category:Soviet propagandists I thought it was OK to make the category Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists but a simple renaming to a better term, could have been suggested by Akhilleus, instead he has had an agenda to censor me by deleting my work and proposing the category for deletion and writing numerous incident reports about me rather than discussing the issue with me in a mature manner. He has acted in a hostile manner towards me which I don't believe I deserved, and if I did, please explain to me why. Banning me for simply making one category, while Andranikpasha (who has numerous incidents about him) has been able to make the category Category:Armenian Genocide deniers is simply unfair and excessive. Wikipedia is not a place for censorship or hostility, and I am hoping an apology will be in order, and a pleasant discussion for the category's deletion or renaming will continue. I would argue that declaring a historical name for an event a fact is like saying "Bob is a fact". — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but User:Nat earlier closed this discussion because in his opinion, it appeared to be a content dispute. It's not--there is no dispute about whether there was an Armenian Genocide. This is about Arsenic99's disruptive editing. Therefore, I'm un-closing this discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a content dispute in that the category in question is disputed. Besides, it doesn't seem to be like Arsenic is being especially disruptive. I don't think this is something that merits administrator attention, seeing as dispute resolution is intended for this very thing. But I'm not an administrator, so this is just my opinion as an uninvolved editor. --clpo13_(talk) 08:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:AE because of this ArbCom's remedies? Orderinchaos 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be more appropriate. I'll try to post there later today. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ban Arsenic99 from anything related to Armenian or the Armenian Genocide in a couple of hours unless anyone objects. WP:ARBAA2 is perfectly applicable here. Not sure we really need more tendentious editors like this. Moreschi (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, I've speedily deleted the "Propagandists" category on CfD, per my earlier closing of the "deniers" category discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've banned Arsenic99 from Armenian Genocide, Talk:Armenian Genocide, as well as reasonably related articles and their talk pages. Logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Bot action on 9-1-1

Resolved

 – I reverted the bot. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 08:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot denies reversal of scrambled latest version of 9-1-1. This is the incident code:(267521) .

The previous version defended by the Bot is scrambled and needs to be either reversed or cleaned up. --OCTopus-en (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Expressions

I haven't seen this immediately, so I'm reporting this with a delay. However, this must be reported. On 8 Feb 2008, User:Kukar wrote: "You must be on some serious hallucinogens Kubura " [1]. This is not a way of communication. I don't find these messages pointed to me as funny. Kubura (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have given the editor a level2 warning for failing to AGF. I can't do more since the incident is a little stale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of admin tools and harrassment by User talk:JzG, harrassment by user:TenOfAllTrades

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Will ^(talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG (aka Guy) first used his admin status to threaten and intimidate in this diff, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196068061&oldid=196066345

This was then followed up by TenOfAllTrades, mocking me on JzG's talk page seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=196068724&oldid=196032343

I then discussed comments left on my talk page by users, which JzG didn't like. Note, I did not discuss these matters on reference desks on other public pages. The discussions were on my talk page which others initiated, and I responded to. Regardless, JzG used his admin status to block me since I responded to comments left by other users, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196151165&oldid=196115180

The harshness of Guy and TenOfAllTrades has been commented on by user:Lomn as too harsh, seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A64.236.121.129&diff=196106752&oldid=196102864 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You again? Stop being obnoxious, and you won't get blocked. Friday (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The last diff is misrepresented. Lomn actually says the opposite of what has been asserted. The first few diffs reference sarcastic remarks, nothing improper, and have also been presented in a false light. This IP appears to be trolling and should be blocked if it will not stop. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IP critcising JzG, 10OAT. Nothing needs to be said, really. Marking resolved. Will ^(talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this IP was beating the same drum liast week at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive130#User:TenOfAllTrades yelling to make a point on reference desk, using admin status to intimidate and threaten. Apparently he didn't get the message then that his trolling was unwelcome; perhaps a block is necessary at this juncture, as he is now ignoring the good advice offered to him by multiple editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This user was mocking me in the diff posted above. It is a violation of civility rules. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:STICK covers this nicely, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the complaint is against you, that would be a natural retort. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Halo2nutter

Can anyone see what User:Halo2nutter doing? Special:Contributions/Halo2nutter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just fooling around, I guess. Only 3 edits today, nothing serious. Just leave it alone.--Atlan (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Random weirdness, potentially disruptive editor

• Mhsb (talk · contribs)

I don't understand what's going on, but this editor is doing some very strange things. Like edit warring with himself on White Brazilian (add afd, removing it, re-add, re-remove). I suspect there was an attempt to "change username" to Opinoso (talk · contribs) (see [2]), perhaps to make it look like Opinoso was removing the AfD tag? Dúnadan (talk · contribs) (an admin on ca:) seems to be involved, so I've asked them for input here. In short, I don't know that there's been anything concrete, but it sure looks really weird. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that he be blocked for 36 hours, and warned that if he continues being weird that he'll be gone for good... it is very strange, and his edits really don't merit the trouble I suspect he's going to cause!! User:TreasuryTag/Sig2 09:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though I have been involved in other discussions with Mhsb, I was not aware of Mhsb recent edits. He is a fairly new user, mostly unaware of the policies of Wikipedia. At first, he seemed to be a very disruptive user at Talk:Mexico, but eventually, after a very long discussion, apologized, and agreed to reach a compromised consensus.

Based on the links above, he inserted/removed/inserted/removed the tag in 4 minutes which to me, suggests that he didn't know what he was actually doing. Trying to change his name to "Opinoso" is indeed a very weird and possibly disruptive behavior, but I don't see that he was warned or asked to explain his actions neither in his talk page nor here. A temporary blockage may seem appropriate as long as he is explained the reasons and also be given a chance to explain his actions. --the Dúnadan 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:Mhsb inviting him to join this discussion. Without deep investigation, one can observe that his User talk looks very strange. You can tell that a number of editors have already been very patient with him in a variety of situations where his behavior caused some puzzlement. One of those trying to educate him on WP policy was User:Dúnadan, who is an admin on the Catalan Wikipedia. Checking Talk:Mexico you can notice Mhsb using up a great deal of space and receiving some well-informed advice that didn't seem to make much impression. I think he is in the process of running out of good faith very soon now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he and Opinoso have been edit warring on Model (person), which resulted in protection on the article, it would be exceptionally strange for him to try to change his name to Opinoso.Kww (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

threat

Resolved

A sockpuppet by user: Mmbabies made this threat here late last night. What should we as the community do, another guy I know has contacted the FBI, Texas Rangers, Houston PD, and various other people. I filed a abuse report on 3 Feb 2008, and the other guy filed a abuse report on 24 Feb 2008. Can somone please give advice or atleast foward this to Jimbo or the Foundation . Rio de oro (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On wikipedia we get "threats" from users all the time, I suppose posting a thread on here about it, doesn't help because they will have possibly done that looking for attention! WP:DENY. AndreNatas (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon user has been blocked for disruption. If he continues, he will get extended blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Didnt Jimbo say if someone made a death threat , we should take action(ie. notfiy police...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never read anything like that, but I don't see any reason why individual users couldn't report it. Evil saltine (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked many times before (see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Mmbabies). should read before commenting Evil saltine (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I herd that a school bomb threat that was reported here on ANI was reported to the cops , and also Jimbo stated clearly when ever people /person life is threatned we schold contact law enforcement. Should we ask Jimbo Walles or the Foundation. Can an admin or a steward foward this to the Foundation ASAP.--Rio de oro (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Threats of violence made on Wikipedia have been reported to various authorities, although not always law enforcement. Dealing with these sorts of situations is a judgment call and there are no hard and fast rules about how to respond. Some threats have been ignored, some have been forwarded to ISP abuse departments or school authorities, and some have been reported to law enforcement. If you reported this to law enforcement and feel that was the best thing to do, then that's fine. Natalie (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See for example WP:VIOLENCE, (also links to same place WP:SUICIDE for suicide threats). If you see a threat and aren't worried that it's at all credible, we won't make you do anything. If you're worried that it's credible, we feel that it's responsible and appropriate for you to take the initiative and report it to proper authorities. The Wikimedia Foundation also wants to know if you do that, and posting to ANI is also encouraged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlong block of 90.200.0.0/16

RIPE query block log

A full year for 1/4 of an ISP seems extreme, we have had an OTRS query about the block and I was hoping it could be reviewed. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, as a checkuser on enwiki, I've seen this range show up again and again and again at RFCU. The fact that it's blocked AO/ACB is the least disruptive as it allows other, established editors use of this range. Furthermore, without saying too much, checkuser results show that that range is surprisingly inactive apart from one seriously disruptive editor. I'm not in favour of rangeblocks unless they're totally necessary and I'm not in favour of long blocks but in this case ... well, I can certainly see the rationale for applying it here. Would you be willing to share the ticket # here, by any chance? I also have OTRS access and can take a look if you like - Alison ^❤ 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

#2008030810014496 - TheDaveRoss (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like a pretty standard account creation request. You could simply request a username and create the account for them, as we do all the time on the unblock mailing list. That way, they can get to editing through the block without any problems. I wouldn't be in favour of lifting the rangeblock at this time, though, whatever about shortening it - Alison ^❤ 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems rather extreme for a well-known IP. Nfitz (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking seems rather extreme for one account request, given what Alison said above. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries and its AfD

again, more of an eye since the current vandalism has been reverted. User:Bg357 has 'dealt with' the situation by removing the AfD in the name of vandalism. This article has been apparently host to a number of shenanigans in the past, some of which is quasi-explained at the talk and may ( I don't see or get it) be explained on this blog. User:Rlmmedia may be involved but in an odd way. I think this needs an eye on it more than anything at the moment, with possible admin looking into logs to see if we're rehashing previous issues from other incarnations of this article (which was speedied, I believe). TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• ETA warnings are disruptive edits. I'm not engaging with that user anymore as I don't need agita, but it's worth watching TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling IP

• 24.18.108.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP has been used almost solely for trolling talk pages, although I can entertain the possibility it's just an idealogue who doesn't appreciate NPOV. However, in the latter case, I'd expect more mainspace edits to try to "fix" this. Seems most likely s/he's just here to cause disruption. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed yet another warning on the IP's talk page, but I will not yet block, as the edits are not technically vandalism. Bearian (talk)

This IP has edited tendetiously for some time, and has started to attack other editors. Given the pattern of edits, this is obviously a single-user IP, and I would fully support a multi-month block on this IP if the incivility does not stop NOW. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a handful of IP's who consistently troll and abuse article talk pages but don't vandalize per se (the Vermont Public Library editor being another prominent example). I think it's reasonable to have some limit on how much we tolerate such (non-)contributors, and agree with Jayron. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The level of disruption and trolling we put up with here is absurd. This person has nothing worthwhile to contribute to this project and has stated their disruptive intentions on the IP's talk page. This IP need to be blocked Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours after another disruptive edit and various threats to change IPs on the talk page. If they evade by resetting router I recommend a rangeblock as appropriate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please watchlist Eliot Spitzer

At least for a bit. Eliot Spitzer has been apparently outed by the NY Times for being some part of a Federal prostitution sting, and the attacks/BLP issues are already underway since Drudge broke the news on his site back to the NYT. Lawrence § t/e 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and there is a WP:RFPP on him right now. Tiptoety ^talk 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, we need more admins on Eliot Spitzer. We have allegations of BLP violations going now. Lawrence § t/e 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on David Paterson, as well. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, looks like someone has redirected Client 9 to Eliot Spitzer, there is a request at WP:RFPP that states that somehow Client 9 is linked to Mr. Spitzer, but I cant find much. Tiptoety ^talk 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been reported that "Client #9" in this ring's files was Spitzer. However, I fail to see how this is a valid redirect - who's going to search for that? Natalie (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let the edit warring begin [3] *sigh* Tiptoety ^talk 00:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Pgsylv blocked for 72 hours. nat.utoronto 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This SPU has started posting on talk: Quebec (I've since reverted his post), an article he is banned from editing. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ACLU

Resolved

 – user blocked

63.3.10.1 is continually removing referenced material from American Civil Liberties Union with "interesting" edit summaries such as 1, 2, and 3. The IP's sock account (63.3.10.2) is doing the same thing with the same interesting style of edit summary. (1) The first IP has a last warning message on his/her talk page, so is a block in order now or should some other action be taken. I'd suggest using the talk page, but that doesn't seem to be the way the anonymous user wants to handle the situation. There is probably a need for semi-protection on the page, if a request hasn't been made somewhere else already, and the discussion for that is here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind about the first IP, I see someone has just blocked the user. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic posts from an IP editor

Could someone please take a look at 70.132.25.45 (talk · contribs)? I guess we normally don't block IP addresses but this one has engaged in long-term abuse with no productive edits ever. Nearly all the contributions are either strongly anti-semitic [4][5], uncivil [6][7][8], contemptuous of Wikipedia's rules, or all three. Given how passionate this person is about Wikipedia issues in their very sporadic contributions, and with a single-minded focus on what's wrong with Jews, I wonder if this is an IP sockpuppet of another editor. Thks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what other sysops do, but I will block racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, and sexist comments without all 4 warnings. I have blocked this IP for 24 hours as noted at User talk:70.132.25.45 and in the block log. This is not to punish, mind you, but to avoid further Wikidrama caused by the trolling, vandalism, and edit-warring. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So will I. If ever there was a case for WP:IAR, in my book, this is it, and hang the consequences. It's not just the rules here, it's the general rules of society at large. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Boru is awesome

This user, Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · logs), keeps slashing messages I appropriately gave him last year concerning a few of his unconstructive edits. ASAIK, users are allowed to remove legitimate warnings, comments, etc., but not alter them. Since I don't want to get into an edit war with this guy over this, can someone revert and step in? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left an amicable note on the user's talk page about the general practice of removing talk page messages. I hope that helps somewhat. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuck (disambiguation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Let's drop it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 02:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thright keeps up putting speedy tag on the article and ignores the fact that the tag is invalid. Some admin seriously needs to step in. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to watchlist it; if he adds it again I'll decline it and have a chat with him. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I left him a warning about this; he deleted it. Incidentally, I tried to report this earlier, but the spam filter kept rejecting my attempts to do so, claiming that I was hyperlinking to a banned site (hatingautism.blogspot.com). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because the site got blacklisted as you posted. In any case, he [reverted TBM's concern on his TP as "vandalism"; I reverted it back as it is a valid concern, unintentionally wiping out another user's concern in the process. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 01:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, accusing a good edit as vandalism is vandalism itself isn't it? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No; that's called an assumption of bad faith. —Kurykh 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, he seems to have stopped tagging the article; I'd suggest we all just wander away from his talk page. We don't need him to admit he was wrong, we just need him to stop tagging the damned thing. Further tagging of the article would be cause for a short block, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I readded both TBM's and C1k3's concerns; he reverted them again and called them vandalism. Sarcastic, I'm a bit concerned about this user; he removed three concerns about his behavior and called all three "vandalism". -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And if he keeps this up, he'll be blocked; I just don't think that continuing to revert his deletion of content, even good faith content, from his talk page serves much purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the blacklist thing, I apparently failed at that. I reverted myself, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. Natalie (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Expect a prod or a AfD notice soon: [9] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow even [10] -- Longhair\^talk 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's rude to accusing the messages he gets to his talk page as vandalism. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Expect the AFD to be closed as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have informed Thright of the existence of this thread. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 02:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

? I placed two tags on the page? Second, my talk page is being flooded. Third everything has been backed up according to policy. 4th I have not attacked anyone, all I have done is questioned the content of the page TWICE!! I ask that this be deleted. Furthermore, it has been asked to stay off my talk page and several still change it. Jeske who started this claim keeps flooding my talk page. PLease delete this. Thank you. Thright (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

I never started this thread; User:TheBlazikenMaster did. I merely responded. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you, the page does not fall into any of the criteria for speedy deletion, which is the process you were attempting to use. Those particular criteria are very narrow on purpose. If you want to the article deleted you will need to start an articles for deletion discussion which is a longer process and covers more issues than speedy deletion. The issue here isn't with your desire to have the page deleted - the problem is that you are going about it the wrong way. Natalie (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) First of all, repeatedly adding speedy deletion tags after they've been declined is considered disruptive. No matter how right you think you are, please don't do it. Second, you did not cite a single one of the rationales for speedy deletion when you tagged it; those are the only reasons pages can be speedily deleted, and I haven't yet seen you claim that any of them applied. Third, you cannot order people to stay off of your talk page; you can request that they do so, but if they have something important to impart to you, that's the place they're going to do it. Fourth and finally, it is poor form to remove content from conversations that are ongoing, unless there is compelling reason to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"repeatedly" as in twice! All this over the page entitled "FUCK"! In anycase, I attacked no one, nor was this justified. I am sure if you have seen your child reading the page "FUCK" you would act in the same manner. Now please, stay off my talk page. Thank you. Thright (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright.

Not at all - we'd actually parent. Wikipedia is not censored for minors or morality. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Given that you are permitted to re-add the tag zero times, twice is twice too many to be undisruptive. As for the children thing, people have repeatedly referred you to WP:NOTCENSORED, but you've yet to show any evidence of having read it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As a heretofore uninvolved admin, I concur with Natalie and Sarcasticidealist. You'll have to find another way to approach this issue, because consensus is overwhelmingly against you. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its time for everyone to let this go. Why the need to keep adding to this? The tags were placed over an hour ago and some - who are admin - keep trying to add comments. I have not added, nor am I going to re add a tag. So why keep this up? I am done, so you should be too! If anything some of your actions towards me were not admin like and maybe you should think about saying sorry. In any case, it is clear that most dont have children. In that event, I will let time take its course. I hope everyone here - when that time comes - remembers this converstion. I hope you reacted the same way when your child watches porn on the internet and googles the word fuck. Take care, and please there is no need to respond.Thright (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Yes, apparently there is a need to respond, because you are not getting the gist of this noticeboard. Moralizing at us and trying to gerrymander Wikipedia to promote your worldview are going to get you in trouble here double quick. If you hit a beehive with a stick, this is what happens. You have to assume good faith in discussions. And what does "I hope everyone here - when that time comes - remembers this converstion" mean? Statements like that end up making the issue personal, and that behaviour has to change. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

really let it go. Are you trying to start a fight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:DEADHORSE. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually gave notice to Thright's talk page in regards to that actually. It's becoming tiresome to have to deal with the nagging that goes along with it, at various user talk pages and here. It's a dead issue. And with that... seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fuck (process). :o)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Catherine de Burgh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Page deleted, sock of [email protected] fed to the sock monster

Please delete User:Catherine de Burgh - it is an offensive anti-British sockpuppetry hoax (possibly by User:Giano or User:One Night In Hackney). Radoninspector (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has been deleted. I would suggest if you are going to accuse other editors of sockpuppetry that you provide some evidence. Natalie (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, these accusations are coming from someone who has a grand total of four edits, yet knows where AN/I is. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. That was one of the funniest pages on Wikipedia. Whoever was running it had extremely sharp wit and was not doing anything harmful. I recommend undeleting the page. People need to lighten up and not take offense at harmless jokes. Jehochman ^Talk 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice of [email protected] to post with his latest sock to ANI where it makes it easy to block. Anyhoo, back to the wikibreak. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any chance that 75.3.150.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is [email protected]? Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NO!!! R.M. Sieger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.1.81 (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as Robert says above, that's not him! :) - Alison ^❤ 04:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

V-Dash again?

Resolved

 – According to Alison, no more sleepers. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be trolling articles and users consistent with V-Dash. I don't really care who he is, he needs to be taken care of. Note that this is at least three socks tonight by now.

List of socks

• AceBanditX (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BadBonesBan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BirdyVonBirdy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Stinkerwinker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• VeryCleanSoup (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

A few example diffs

• diff to user talk
• diff to mainspace page. Edit summary implies 3RR baiting

—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Alison; I've been blocking and transcluding his pages on sight. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's close this thread; all are blocked. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Annnnnnd -  IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 05:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ThreatsOfViolence

The above proposed policy has been created in order to set the standard that Wikipedia takes all threats of violence seriously. This should hopefully put to rest any discussion as to a threat being a hoax, joke, etc. My apologies for posting here but very recent events seem to indicate that wide community discussion is appropriate. Bstone (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have one of those: see WP:VIOLENCE and WP:SUICIDE . You should redirect yours to that one... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VIOLENCE is an essay only and ideally will be merged into the new proposal. WP:SUICIDE does not include threats against high schools and other buildings and institutions. Bstone (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Both links redirect to the same location. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 05:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I just corrected the above when it ECd. My text: WP:VIOLENCE is an essay only and ideally will be merged into the new proposal. WP:SUICIDE, is same as WP:VIOLENCE. In my opinion, there needs to be a policy which clearly states all threats of violence are to be taken seriously. Bstone (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. The essay is the old WP:SUICIDE essay I did, adopted to include threats of violence but otherwise structured and saying the same. It covers this topic. If someone (you) want to make a policy I don't think anyone's going to object strongly, but as this documents what everyone has agreed is the right thing to do and is doing, it seems like just formalizing the essay into policy would be the easy and correct path. But I'm biased, as I wrote the starting essay. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok (talk · contribs)

Conflicts of interest happen all the time but I think this racial and biased comment of jjok (talk · contribs) is not acceptable in Wikipedia.[11] His saying is Korea built up the miracle by prostitution from his ill faith. I think he needs to hear a proper warning from admins. --Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is Prostitution in South Korea which is what the edit is about. It also has refs that seem to support it. Do you have evidence to the contrary? All countries have prostitution and the fact that many Asians go on sex tours is well known. Where are the alleged racial slurs in this? I don't see him saying something like "Koreans are (insert slur of choice here). This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he has a long history inserting biased or fabricated contents with alteration to the article like this [12]. The citation has no information about this. Besides, if someone who tends to edit against Japan said that the current Japan is a miracle of Geisha diplomacy, does it sound NPOV? The miracle of Hangang (Han River), a symbol of Korean archivment has nothing to do with the prostitution and if conflicts occurs, Jjok should've just reverted the edit or talked to people who disagree with his version at the talk page. He should not say the comment.--Appletrees (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The cited source is available on Google Scholar. It says that the yakuza have gotten into the sex trade; it does not appear to say anywhere that the Korean government set up official brothels, promoted sex tourism, or gave lectures on the importance of foreign exchange. Ultimately, this sort of deliberate long-term problem may require arbitration to take action against the editor(s) involved. Thatcher 19:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Great find by Thatcher. Appletrees-you need to be explicit about the problems someone is causing. Saying it's "racial and biased" only gives a vague idea of the issue. The real issue, as pointed out by Thatcher, is distortion of facts. If there's a long term problem of this nature by this editor or a closely associated group of editors, you may have an arb case here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse. I don't know whether you saw my another recent report or not Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets, but this is not a mere content issue. I tend to make lengthy or too abstract report for admins. However, Jjok (talk · contribs) is deeply associated with 2channel's disruptive meat/sock puppetry. I think this should go to arbicom case, but they are too many for me to deal with.--Appletrees (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think prostitution was "official", just "legalized".

Somebody needs to monitor these articles for possible WP:NPOV violations. There's a major WP:NPOV issue hanging here, which may need to be resolved at WP:DR. The part I detest is that the word "kisaeng" is being associated with prostitution at all. Despite sources such as this describing it that way, I suggest using the word "brothel" instead of "kisaeng". The Wikipedia articles should be careful to use NPOV words.--Endroit (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you so quickly switch your attitude from accusing me of making "snide remarks" at Jjok's talk page to defend for Jjok.[13] You followed me yesterday, so you're acting like a third person at Fut.Perf who takes interest in 2channel's disruption which is really amazing. Opp2 requested your help a lot which are mentioned on 2channel board as well. --Appletrees (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Appletrees didn't seem to understand, I'll clarify what I mean: I believe this to be a widespread WP:NPOV problem, rather than a WP:NPA violation by Jjok. And the "snide remarks" I ignored here actually involved possible personal attacks by Appletrees against myself and others.--Endroit (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, you already proved me that you gave me blatant several personal attacks on me including 'snide mark'. I don't see my any personal attack to you I focused on Jjok's personal and racial attack and you rebutted it with the inappropriate comment. I can point out "one by one" why I have such impression on you. --Appletrees (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please initiate WP:DR and we'll discuss it.--Endroit (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you on behalf Jjok who violates several rules like WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEAT, WP:NPOV? --Appletrees (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. Like I've said, there's a likely WP:NPOV violation, so we agree on that one point. I don't support Jjok's wording which equates the word kisaeng with prostitution, although some sources use that word. I don't support Jjok's wording which say that the brothels are "official", despite some sources suggesting support by high level goverment officials. Surely, there's no way that the South Korean government overtly endorses prostitution. That's ridiculous. If you like, I'll comment at Talk:Prostitution in South Korea to that effect.--Endroit (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, before going further, Jjok should explain the reason why he did it. --Appletrees (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My disputed comment seems this one in the edit summary:

"it is really a part of the miracle of hangang" (emphasized)

_{the color is added by Appletrees for the reason why Jjok is reported}

Appletrees, you do not have to think that I am saying "Korea built up the miracle entirely by prostitution" and I also recognize other aspects such as the compensation from Japan,[14] $1 billion from US by entering the Vietnam war,[15], as well as sending coal miners and nurses to West Germany and construction workers to the Middle East. In addition, Yakuza also describes in p. 237 as follows:

With tourism as the third- or fourth-largest earning of foreign exchange in these countries, and most of the visitors men, for years local government officials condoned and even boosted the sex trade as means of gaining hard currency. A 1984 report by the respected Korea Church Women United condemned the nation's kiseang houses as "an auction block where girls are bartered in exchange for foreign money." Indeed, these critics charged that the sex trade had become to pervasive that without it Korea's all-important tourist trade would collapse - and with it a startling percentage of the cash needed to pay off the nation's foreign debt. Despite a 1947 ban on prostitution, claim the church women, Korean tourism officials even sponsored ideological lectures for the prostitutes about patriotism and the importance of the foreign exchange they earned.

I did not implement the first paragraph since it may referring to other South East Asian countries, however, the importance of the contribution by those sex workers in South Korea who sacrificed themselves for the economic construction is clear in the text. Appletrees, they may be filthy prostitute for you, however, the miracle of Hangang, a symbol of Korean achievement actually has something to do with the prostitution and I think they should be appropriately acknowledged.

Thatcher, I think I summarized the above description as "official" because of the nature of approval and promotion by the government (and I heard they actually set up two big kiseang houses on the left and right sides of the embassy of Japan in Seoul, which I am still looking for the WP:V source). However, if my summarization is too far, please feel free to change it to appropriate words, such as state-promoted or something else.

According to my old edit that was done when I was frequently editing based on "what I know" and "I saw it on the internet!" (actually, I could not reach the proper references since I retrieved the net using wrong keyword, "kiseang diplomacy", that is rather used in Sino-Korean diplomacy), and I appreciate Appletrees to give me an opportunity to appropriately update the description based on reliable sources.--Jjok (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok, you're making further mistakes by saying like the above excuse. Your point of view toward Korean miracle is really amazing. You're not only violating the aforementioned rules, but also, I can say you're editing with WP:OR and your own bias. Wikipedia is not a collection of hearsays and original research. I believed that when you edit on Korean related articles, you're sticking to source. However, my belief turns out to not true. Do you ever think that what you know could be wrong? Your explanation is just absurd. --Appletrees (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot confirm any deliberate WP:V violation by Jjok. Jjok's source Yakuza: Japan's Criminal Underworld (ISBN 0520215613) says on p.234:

• "In every major Korean city, large, government-registered "kisaeng houses" sprang up. One pair of houses sat in a wealthy area of Seoul, on either side of the Japanese ambassador's official residence. Each could accommodate eight hundred men at one time. The owner was reportedly a top politician with past service in the KCIA. Along with the official kisaeng houses arose hundreds of brothels and tens of thousands of prostitutes." (bolding added for emphasis by Endroit)

So that's where the wording "official kisaeng houses" probably came from. As I said above, I believe this wording to be in violation of WP:NPOV, and so I propose this wording be changed to "brothels approved by government officials". And I believe it may be safer to say that prostitution was "tacitly approved" rather than "officially approved".

There's still the question of whether the topic of "prostitution for tourists during the 1970s" is worthy of mention in the article.--Endroit (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, with respect to Thatcher's concern about a source for the government giving "lectures on the importance of foreign exchange", p.118 of Women's Lives and Public Policy: The International Experience (ISBN 0275945235) says:

• "This time the South Korean state encouraged and condoned prostitution because it saw women as a valuable resource with which to earn badly needed foreign currency. The kisaeng, the professional female entertainer, is officially registered with the Korea International Tourism Association (KITA) through the party house to which she belongs. .... KITA also sponsors an orientation program for these women, in which "renowned personages and college professors" give lectures and say such things as, "You girls must take pride in your devotion to your country, for your carnal conversation with foreign tourists does not prostitute either yourself or the nation, but expresses your heroic patriotism"."

It's not clear what status this KITA actually had in the Korean government, if any. But at least, it appears that the stuff added by Jjok is not something he concocted. Major WP:NPOV concerns exist, if this stuff needs to go on the article (ie: that the government "encouraged and condoned prostitution").--Endroit (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, I think we're speaking of very different things in the thread. What I feel absurd at Jjok's explanation is that he affirms that the success of South Korea is made by not only prostitution but also compensation from Japan and other duty jobs like money from yakuza. I think his point of view is too distorted to contribute to those articles. I also checked out several articles in which Jjok edited show several other problems like WP:COPYVIO.[16] Besides, Wikipedia is not a place to advocate Jjok's political point of view or agenda. --Appletrees (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, please clarify if there's more.--Endroit (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jjok, let me ask you one more thing. You added a citation on gimbap which is a book written in Korean(ISBN 9788985846974) and does not provide any preview over internet and you can't read Korean. How do you know that your quote is from p. 90. "일본 음식인김초밥에서 유래한 것으로 한국인들은 근대 이후부터 많이 만들어 먹었다." --Appletrees (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have another source for the origin of Gimbap. Yahoo Korea dictionary says: "일본음식 김초밥에서 유래되었다." (My translation: "Gimbap originated from the Japanese cuisine nori-sushi"). Now you guys, will you also stop revert-warring in the Gimbap article?--Endroit (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit, I appreciate your effort, but you're talking totally another story. The example of gimbap is why I can't believe Jjok's credibility so requested how he found the quote. I had believed that Jjok tries to stick to sourcing even though he has several examples to fail WP:V and WP:NPOV such as the first article, chinilpa, dog meat. Most of South Korean know that gimbap is strongly influenced by Japan that is undoubtedly fact, but we need to back up it by reliable citations. I checked on the history of the article which has long history of edit warring for the claim that gimbap is a Japanese dish. Unlike many Japanese editors, jjok said it is a Korean spin-off, so it is not a Japanese food. Due to his saying, I believed that whatever he edit on Korean related articles, his editing is different from Azukimonaka who inserts bogus citations like this.[17] Jjok shows that he acts like a balanced person with sourcing, but if he inserted the citation from some hearsay like his above comment, I can't trust and cooperate him anymore unless he significantly improves himself.--Appletrees (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, if our combined vigilance helps reduce the overall revert-warring and the WP:NPOV violations, I believe we've accomplished something here. I don't know if sanctions are warranted against any particular editor at this point, but that's for the admins to decide.

If this case is archived or closed without any action, I will treat this like any content dispute and initiate WP:DR by moving my comments from the above discussion to each relevant article's talk page.--Endroit (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I repeatedly say Jjok did more than NPOV violations. However, I don't request him to get a sanction, but want to admins just to give an official warning to him. It appears that my wordings are not effective to him at all per previous discussions with him at his page and here. I still think that Jjok should've presented his thought more instead of your talking. He has been silence except the implausible statement. Besides, I or others interested in the articles Jjok edits should first check all of his citations since his sourcing seems dubious. It requires much time for people to look through whether he properly added or not.(he really betrays my WP:AGF--Appletrees (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees

As well as the source of Prostitution in South Korea having been deleted. Appletrees often tries the concealment of the source.

Case1 Namdaemun[18] Chosun Ilbo introduced Namdaemun. "Namdaemun was specified for the national treasure No.1 by a Japanese empire. The South Korean thinks the succession of the specification of a Japanese empire to be disgrace. "[19]" Appletrees was not able to deny the fact written in this source. Therefore, he tried to conceal this fact shouting, "You are a puppet".

Case2 Japan-Korea relations [20]Chosun Ilbo analyzed "Japanese boom in South Korea". [21] The South Korean was worshiping the electronic gadget made in Japan when South Korea was poor. However, the South Korean enjoys Japanese food and clothes today. Appletrees shouted "Vandallism". And, the source was deleted. He doesn't verify the source.

Case3 Hanbando[22]JoongAng Ilbo explained the movie Hanbando. "The end for which Japan apologizes to Korea will satisfy South Korean's anti- Japanese sentiment." [23] The signature of Ser Myo-ja shouted and he shouted though it was. He shouted though this was an article with the signature of Ser Myo-ja. "That is not a real "article" written by a reporter. Don' try to fool me again" And, the source was concealed. I advised. "Do not delete the source without the reason. "

He answered. [24] "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Japan-Korea relations, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, read the citation, possibly a 2channel meat/sock"

I have been perplexed to his behavior. What contribution can I do? --Opoona (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Opoona (talk · contribs)

Opoona, you're speaking very selective information and attempt to turn the subject on Jjok. You're certainly not a new user because right after you created your account three days ago, you jumped in to help the banned user, Azukimonaka (talk · contribs). He uses ODN ISP, and obsessed with anything related to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. On August, an odn user who seemingly looked like Azukimonaka inserted the category to the Hanbando article.[25] On March 7th, Azukimonaka (later confirmed) initially inserted just a 'claim' regarding the movie without any source, so I reverted it.[26] Then he reverted my edit to his version with the copyvio addition from the above mentioned dubious source and called me a vandal.[27]. In the meantime, you suddenly reverted the article to the Azukimonaka's reversion as calling me a vandal as well.[28] In this situation, you can't complaint that I gave you a warning sign. Your "shouting" like "Korean vandalism" is nothing but a personal attack on me. Besides, one of articles Azukimonaka gave has no reporter name, and the other is also has no information about who is Ser Myo-Ja and its like an opinion by a non-reporter.

As for Namdaemun article, you should answer that why you and your friends constantly refused to my suggestion to discuss at the talk page. Namdaemun which has several content disputes between Japanese editors and others ever since Namdamun fire occurred on Feb 11th. The former have not show any interest in the arson incident, but just tried to put "two photos" in a row and "National treasure" thing. According to Korean Yahoo encyclopedia, Japan never designated Namdaemun as a National treasure (gukbo, 국보), but just " treasure" (bomul 보물). Moreover, the book title which contains the photos is "Thriving Chosen: A survey of twenty-five years' administration". Japanese editors' intention is so obvious, so edit warrings over the inclusion of the images and the citation have crossed over the whole Wikipedia projects. Some editor provided better and clear images taken by an Australian photographer around 1904 to resolve this dispute. Besides, 3 b/w images taken in similar time are not necessary to include the all of them, because the article is not a repository like commons. As the result of the edit warring, the page had been under semi-protect for 2 weeks. It is later discovered that the news was reported on several pages at 2channel, and they talked the edit warring as well. However, you and your friends insist on putting the comparison pictures after the revelation. So I suggested to take it to the talk page. Now, Opoona, you should answer my question.--Appletrees (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Especailly, the InfoWeb ip user has tried to add the photo without any discussion throughout the whole Wikipedia (20 pages), so I can't assume good faith edit by this ISP user. That's why I reverted his/her edit and requested to participate in a discussion but these edit warrings in other language Wiki have been still ongoing. Here are examples.

• 
  Namdaemun in 1910 during Joseon dynasty
• 
  Namdaemun in 1935 during Japanese occupation

Edit warrings on Namdaemun for inclusion of the two picture.

Thailand Wikipedia	French Wikipedia	German Wikipedia
124.25.228.163 infoweb.ne.jp 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp 61.124.98.90 (infoweb.ne.jp)	#124.25.228.163infoweb.ne.jp 219.107.205.178 (mesh.ad.jp) 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp 61.124.98.90 (infoweb.ne.jp) 124.25.232.128 (infoweb.ne.jp) 219.97.123.69(infoweb.ne.jp) 124.27.145.229(infoweb.ne.jp)	124.25.228.163infoweb.ne.jp 124.25.228.163infoweb.ne.jp 219.107.205.178 (mesh.ad.jp) 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp 125.0.14.162 infoweb.ne.jp 61.124.98.90 (infoweb.ne.jp) 124.25.232.128 (infoweb.ne.jp) 219.97.123.69(infoweb.ne.jp) 124.27.145.229(infoweb.ne.jp)

--Appletrees (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs)

That's why so many meatpuppets ruined the Wikpedia's Talk:Sea of Japan

• Opoona (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Limited200802th (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Princesunta (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Coraroidman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nyanyan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Amazonfire (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 124.87.134.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) OCN users as below.
• 125.200.62.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.199.33.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 218.224.54.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 125.200.60.174 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 61.119.222.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

As I submit the above reason, I request for checkuser on Opoona. The first three are all using OCN ISP, and show meatpuppting around Azukimonaka.--Appletrees (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

File this at RFCU. Then when that's done I think an arb case on the Japan-Korea mess is probably needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We should handle these cases less bureaucratically. Shoot on sight. I've indef-blocked Opoona as an obvious, disruptive meatpuppet. His contribution history was clearly focussed on harassing Appletrees. I say, zero tolerance, from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's way more to this than Opoona. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I know. But there's also way more to it than what Arbcom is ever likely to handle. Lots of anonymous IPs and throwaway accounts, disruption spread over a wide range of articles and involving a large, ill-defined set of editors. If this were to come to Arbcom, I bet you any sum they'll do nothing but place the whole area under general probation and "discretionary sanctions" rules like they did to the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Fine. But knowing that outcome we can spare ourselves the trouble and just do it ourselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:PatW

PatW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned numerous times for personal attacks, and talk page disruption (WP:NOT#FORUM, and WP:NOT#SOPABOX). Despite the warnings, PatW continues misusing talk page discussions with long diatribes, baiting editors, expressing personal opinions about the subject of the article, etc.

The user, upon my last warning, says that the warnings are "inappropriate and a corruption of honest values. I am fairly confident that uninvolved admins will agree with me and disagree with you. So bring them on by all means. To put it bluntly 'put your money where your mouth is' and lets see just how what others think about this."diff

Note: the user does not make edits in article namespace, only commenting in talk pages, and only about this subject.

The article in question, is on community-enforced 1RR and disruption probation (See Talk:Prem_Rawat/Probation)

Diffs, in descending order:

• Describing editors as "shameless servants". Diff March 9, 2008

• User was warned about article probation. March 4, 2008

• User_talk:PatW#Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks Feb 24, 2008 - for this comment

• User_talk:PatW#No_personal_attacks_3 Feb 9, 2008, for this attack: You horrible, HORRIBLE bunch of liars are all going to hopefully be revealed as the shameless dishonest, immoral brain-washed creeps you clearly are

• Previous warnings can be seen on his User talk:PatW

I kindly request an uninvolved admin to review this user's behavior, in the context of WP:NPA, talk page disruption, and the article probation, and his own request to assess if his behavior is constructive or disruptive, and assess the imposition of restrictions if warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I would endorse a block just for the bad faith assumptions and personal attacks alone, such as this, this and this if it continues on. Asking for banning with a smiley face is still pretty much assuming the worst. His comments reek of much incivility, and his personal statements against you is much unwarranted -- at Jimbo's talk page, article space and wherever. He's only attention-whoring and seeking as much of it as possible, hence why his talk page is nothing more than a winded soapbox. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A block certainly seems warranted; such personal attacks have no place here. — Coren ^(talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not an administrator, I also endorse a block. This user does not seem to have any intentions to civilly contribute to wikipedia. No user should have to endure the attacks as Jossi had. Disclaimer: I have not been part of any of the above disputes, infact I have never seen the Prem Rawat article and I have never met Jossi. (I mearly notice a message at Jimbo's talkpage that led me here.)--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is some kind of fair trial I am amazed. Perhaps some of you might like to look at my boiling over' comments (which I have apologised for) in context before pronouncing judgement. I think you will find I have made civil contributions to Wikipedia too. I am not perfect but there are two sides to this and I question how well-considered the judgements are here so far. Come and take a look at the actual arguments over at the Prem Rawat article. Your opinions on that I assure you are welcome. Jossi and I have a history of mutual baiting by the way which is not actually as venomous as it may seem. For a start we know each other and I have qualified my attacks re. his perceived COI with some acknowledgement that my animosity is actually intended to be restricted purely to arguments here. I actually like Jossi as a person though that may not come across in my heated objections to the way he handles the Prem Rawat article. Please don't block me I'm going to be good! And I am not seeking attention but am passionate about drawing attention to the article- not to 'me' I hasten to add! Thanks.PatW (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not about being blocked or not, Pat. It is a matter of a recurring behavior that it is not helpful to the aims of this project. WP:CIVILITY is not an option. Not making personal attacks is not an option. You have been warned many times, and you always respond with a "yes, I will not do it again", "I apologize", or worse, with a "Obviously we have different interpretations of what constitutes civility". And then you continue with the same behaviors. Some people never learn, PatW. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say I am used to having very heated arguments with people which have room for a fair amount of playful incivility, insults and cynicism which is all taken with good humour at the end of the day. Maybe it's a British trait I don't know. All the same I would prefer that people who rush to judgement about my intentions exercise a little more investigation into the article and my arguments about that before accusing me broadly of bad intentions. Not to do so seems also plainly rather uncivilised. PatW (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

a fair amount of playful incivility, insults and cynicism which is all taken with good humour at the end of the day. Not applicable, Pat, and not a good excuse. These issues have been explained to you numerous times, such as recently as Feb 26, 2008 here], in which User:Will Beback said to you that WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a recommendation. People are blocked and banned from this site every day for incivility towards other editors. To put it bluntly, you will be too unless you stop making negative personal remarks. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am among several editors who have warned PatW to refrain from personal attacks and negative personal remarks. He or she has made little attempt to stop them. On that basis I endorse a sanction on this user. However I disagree that PatW has been especially disruptive on the talk page aside from the personal attacks. Jossi appears to condemn PatW for being a single-puspose account, though there are several of those involved in the article, and for only contributing to the talk page, even though he is also only contributing to the talk page (due to a self-identified COI). I urge Jossi to take a less aggressive approach to policing talk:Prem Rawat in order to reduce tensions. Will Beback NS (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, can you tell me something please which I am unsure about? That instance where I called you and Momento 'horrible liars' etc. (for which I have apologised). Did I not delete that straightaway? If I did, wasn't a bit mean to drag it out of the bin to use against me? If I didn't delete it then I owe you another apology. But could you just confirm this as I find it hard to see from the history page?PatW (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I responded in your talk page were you asked. Please do not cross post. A copy of my response, below:

Here, to which you did not apologize, btw. In any case, an apology on its own will not do, Pat, as you have continued with your personal attacks such as in here]. A publicly made commitment never to do that again is what is needed, accompanied by an acceptance that if you do that again, you will accept the consequences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi you were Prem Rawat's personal webmaster and web PR guy. I am a critic and grateful escapee from Rawat's cult. Do you understand how unpalatable it is for me to lick your boots over this because you demand it under threat? I get the impression you are salivating over making me 'apologise'. What is wrong here is that everyone wants to make me apologise for not only my occasional outbursts but they don't want to look into whether I have actually spoken the truth (ie whether you have actually encouraged or turned a blind eye to heavy POV pushing and lies from followers of Prem Rawat), or to what extent your 'aggressive policing' (which is by no means just my judgement) amounts to thinly disguised baiting on your part. I am happy to pledge politeness to everyone on Wikipedia ad infinitum. I will not however disguise or desist from strongly opposing anyone who appears to be wrongly stifling discussion that is perfectly germane to the article. As I am attempting to argue with you about. Problem is you have such an antiseptic revulsion for ex-followers of your Guru that you apparently won't even answer my questions. (Visa Vi your comments about Sylviecyn and myself) I notice also someone on Wales' page suggested you might want to answer some of my questions instead of just archiving them without any decent response. That would certainly be a step towards less heated complaintsPatW (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, some people never learn, and Wikipedia may not be a place for them if they cannot WP:KEEPCOOL. As per all editors that have commented in this issue, sanctions may be the only way, given your last comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, I have reached a better understanding of Wikipedia methodology in the light of which I am no longer happy with certain aspects of my contribution to the debate on my Talk Page. I have therefore decided to remove it and to spend some time away from this debate consolidating my understanding of how debate is to be conducted in Wikipedia.PatW (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think PatW might manage to do just that. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. This thread can now be closed, and we can go back to editing the pedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi: Kim Bruning wrote on Wales' Talk Page - "So you would just like Jossi to police talk:Prem Rawat less aggressively? If that's all, that seems easy enough. :-) What can he do to be less aggressive? Also, if that doesn't work out, perhaps you could both agree on a 3rd party to police the talk page instead or as well?

Are you agreeable to her proposal to having a 3rd party to police the Talk Page as well? If so I would ask both you and Kim how this could be best arranged so that the invited 3rd party was obviously neutral? Maybe Kim could choose/invite someone for that role?PatW (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from archiving discussions there, and leave that to the archival bot. OTOH, if I see any disruption in talk pages that are not properly addressed by active editors, (such as personal attacks, soapboxing, and misuse of talk page for off-topic discussions) I will bring these to AN/I for evaluation by uninvolved admins, as per the probation wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Kim's suggestion? Is that an agreeable arrangement? If so would that be an 'instead' or an 'also'?PatW (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Irredentism vandalised

I have posted information about disruptive behaviour of the user:VartanM on page Irredentism. New user stpped forward and making aggressive unacceptabe commments and removes sourced information. pls. see his comment [29] and his constant removal of sourced information [30] --Dacy69 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• What have these two edits by User:Azad chai got to do with User:VartanM? Are you insinuating they are the same user? If so, suspected sock puppet reporting is this way. Black Kite 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would like to draw attention now to incivil comments by User:MarshallBagramyan - [31]. This comes after similar comments earlier User:VartanM - [32]. Note that both contributors, along with now third contributor User:Azad chai are being incivil and attacking contributors along national lines and simply for editing/contributing references to articles. I wonder if the problem with this group of users pushing pro-Armenian POV either by reverts [33], [34], [35] or by attacks are ever going to be addressed. I think the only solution is to define more strict definition of WP:AGF and require contributors to concentrate on topics rather than other contributors. Atabek (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This attempt to associate me with some other editor smells of dishonesty. I've been reported here three times under a week now. Azad chai is obviously yet another strawpuppet. We've been habituated of this dishonest method. Azerbaijani Irredentism in Iran is much more documented and would have been legitimate to think that it was a matter of time it would be added. So associating the position to a sockpuppet to later justify its removal would have only benefited Dacy not me (it is not the first time such a thing was done). Adil should find better term than Azad chai to make it sound Armenian. Or next time, a strawpuppet is created, better not call NK, Qarabaq like here from an Azeri variation, which no Armenian will call it. I won't waste my time answering Atabek. VartanM (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Azad chai (talk · contribs) is the same person as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs); no connection determinable to any other accounts. Thatcher 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. I gotta note that the whole Azeri "baboon" thing is quite alike this, or this. I bet if it was Ehud Lesar or Adil Baguirov name found in that link, they would have been immediately charged as sockpuppets, banned indefinitely without any questioning right away. But I see TigranTheGreat posting at VartanM's there, with expressed admiration of "baboons". Atabek (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you need a refresh memory as to how those userpage stuff originated from? I don't think you forgot how it started, besides in that case Tigran had another thing in mind and you're way off believe me. Besides the term baboon to call Armenians or Azerbaijanis is all over the web. And you're probably forgetting Adil's fascination with Armenian name Aram and orangutans see User:Aramgutan

It is fishy that it was Atabek who reported it first accusing Tigran. Atabek made that association when neither of us would do such stuff which does not benefit us at all. None of us would like to be associated with socks, or our positions to be associated to SPA's. And there is no way any Armenian will call NK Qarabaq, it's an Azeri variant of the term. Thatcher, thanks for the checkusers, but we're clueless as usual. I'll keep being suspicious, because this SPA reverted an admin and started being offensive, the result of which could only benefited Dacy. How hard it would be for anyone to revert even with a justification or change the part about NK, without an inevitable result for that person to be associated with that sock. That sock introduced himself before I even had a chance to comment or do anything. VartanM (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe when Azerbaboon first came up I checked Tigran and they are from very different geographic areas. Not to rule out a friend or maybe just a jerk with too much time on his hands. Thatcher 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting this administrator calls me a jerk as he bans me for what he interprets as uncivil behavior. What high school or community college(GED?) did he graduate from in order to receive such a high moral standard or impartiality for Armenia-Azerbaijan issues. I am suddenly banned for something interpreted as annoying or uncivil, yet the Azerbaijani community is promoted and praised for it's puppeting and vandalism of articles. Perhaps the only thing more amazing than Azerbaijani propagandists and sympathetic/apathetic editors who do not actually take interest in resolving problems, are the Armenian sheep being harassed for virtually every edit. It is clear the adminship here is not interested in resolving problems, but playing with it's food or problems.

And VartanM - Aramgutan is not a personal attack against the Armenian community but stealing the identity of a legitimate user. Not only an attack on the Armenian community but the personality wielding the account.

I request a decision

As to what to do with Azad chai (talk · contribs), who seems to be a SPA/sock stalking Dacy69 (talk · contribs). I'm tempted to block indefinitely right off the bat. Moreschi (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Six edits all in the same topic area... Hard to call that stalking necessarily, but it does include two reverts of the same user. OF course, if they hit the same topic with different opinions and the topic isn't high traffic - that again would argue against stalking. SPA after 6 edits is a bit hard to conclude, too ;-) Let me take a closer look at the edits (shouldn't take long) and come back with more if necessary. Avruch ^T 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Same user as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), doubtful this is a good faith editor. Thatcher 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. I changed my mind right after making my initial post here anyway, but now I don't think anyone is going to undo the indefinite block. Moreschi (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ban evasion by Shankbone's stalker

DavidShankbone's harrasser is back and making innocuous and constructive edits[36]. But a ban is a ban; could someone please block him? Sockpuppets are listed here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's a big range with many possible users. I think we leave well alone unless we have evidence that it's the vandal, in whihc case we whack him there and then. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Posing as admin

Resolved

 – indef blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Gordon24fan is apparently posing as an admin - see this edit on my talk page. It's apparently a disagreement over uncited info on the Eliot Spitzer article. Nesodak (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a query on the user's talk page. - Philippe | Talk 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith here, my guess is that it was a typo since "Im an admin just to warn you now" is bad English, he probably meant "Im [getting] an admin just to warn you now" although his grammar makes it hard to understand. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he just told me that he's a "hide" admin - a "secret agent admin". - Philippe | Talk 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right...... one of those "secret" ones..... that only he knows about. Tiptoety ^talk 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

hmm...He added an Admin template to his usrpage 29 February 2008, but not an Admin--Hu12 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC)WP:AGF is pretty hard here. User has a history of blocks and questionable edits, while Nesodak didn't make any edit summaries I would consider anywhere near the realm of being "smart alecky". I would guess he really was trying (!) to pose as an admin. Looks like Phillippe is taking care of it, tho. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh, never mind that comment. Blocked one week for disruption, feel free to tweak my block. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would guess we'll see socks from this one, based on his history... - Philippe | Talk 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the admin userbox from his userpage, explained why on his talkpage. He removed (from his talkpage) the section about admins. I reverted it back once, but I'm leaving it alone now. (it's his talkpage). If he adds the admin userbox back again, I would support a block of any length of time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This young man has quite a history of edit warring and misrepresenting himself. If the pattern continues, I'm thinking we may want to consider something a little longer term. If he is to be blocked again in the future, it should probably be indefinite. – ClockworkSoul 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Would support any length of time as well, the admin template was added 5 days after creating the account.--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and deny his SECOND unblock request if nobody beats me to it. – ClockworkSoul 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I just got an edit conflict form a mysterious anon placing a "request accepted" template on the talk page. Anybody have checkuser? – ClockworkSoul 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant edit is here, lets run a checkuser and if its possitive or likely we extend the block to indef. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It quacks. I blocked the IP and protected the user page. I'll also extend the block to indef. - Philippe | Talk 00:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for checkuser when it's blindingly obvious. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

76.178.89.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) possibly User:Thechroniclesofratman--Hu12 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, plain and simple, no need for a checkuser. Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef it is. – ClockworkSoul 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Philippe | Talk 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason why I wanted a checkuser, that is that when the one week block was placed the autoblock was used, wich means this may be him editing from another PC wich may host several other socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed Gordon24fan is also Crackerstackerman (talk · contribs) and Bronxkingmeez (talk · contribs). Thatcher 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Man...not enough to be a sockpuppeting, admin-impersonating jerk--but did he have to bring NASCAR into it? It's not like us fans don't have an image problem already....:)Gladys J Cortez 01:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There must be something in the air. Here's another user posing as an admin - five minutes after creating the account! -- Zsero (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its got to be a full moon or something, any way AceBanditX (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Jéské.--Hu12 (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Todd gallagher (talk · contribs)

Resolved

User:Todd gallagher does not feel that WP:NPA applies to him. Gallagher continues to game NPA by using rhetorical techniques such as similes. He has referred to me both as a "racist"[37] and a "Neo-Nazi"[38]. Could an administrator please warn him on his talk page? Also, the user redirected his main account to an unused account with an alternate name (Todd Gallagher instead of Todd gallagher)[39] The result is that when anyone tries to check his contributions or block log from his user or user talk page, there is no link in the toolbox, and when one plugs in the name that appears, it has zero contribs since it has never been used to edit. This could be confusing for people not familiar with Wikipedia, making it seem like his contribution history is hidden. If one pays attention to the name, his contribs can be found with the lowercase version of the name, but this isn't immediately obvious in user space. Can someone fix this? —Viriditas | Talk 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the possible NPA yet, but did leave the user a note about their userpage. If he does not fix it in about a day I will move it. I have also directed him to WP:CHU so he can change his name if he wants. Natalie (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have given warning about personal attacks and notified him of this thread. Natalie (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone's use of the term "Hawaiian" racist is not wrong. I was citing a Supreme Court decision that also called it racist. Specifically, it deals with an issue in Hawaii where state law attempted to define only people of Polynesian-Hawaiian descent as "Hawaiian," and thus restrict their access to certain ballots. The High Court struck this down based on the 15th Amendment. I stated that several people were Hawaiian, and Viriditas got his feelings hurt and stated that I was wrong because they were not "Kanakas." That is racist. Plain and simple. A comparison would be for me to say that some Americans were at one time slaves. Then another person might say that no whites were slaves. That is racist because no all Americans are white--many are black, Asian, etc. I know what racist means and his statement was racist. As for Neo-Nazi," that is clear as well. We have a group of people who are trying to racially exclude others. That seems neo-nazi to me. If not, I would like a definition.Todd Gallagher (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Viriditas' comments were racist and whether or not he is a Neo-Nazi is still your personal opinion, and thus a personal attack. You are welcome to think whatever you like, but personal attacks on your fellow editors are not allowed. Natalie (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that a personal opinion? He specifically said that they had to be a certain race to be called Hawaiian. That is racist. The Wikipedia definition even states that is racist: "the term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." He does not deny that he believes that. If he denied that I could understand, but he specifically states that he believes race should be the determining factor.

A perfect example can be sexism. We live in a sexist society today. Is it wrong? Not necessarily, but many aspects of it are sexist. VMI, the last all-male school, was sexist. But federal law allowed it to be sexist until the federal law was struck down in United States v. Virginia (1996). I supported Virginia being able to maintain an all-male school and the right of Congress to legislate that. But it was sexist. Single sex bathrooms are sexist, but commonly accepted by society. In contrast, Viriditas believes that race should be allowed to determine classification in the state of Hawaii. That is racist. I really do not see what is at dispute. Maybe since it has a negative connotation, but it is racist.

However, obviously he denies being a racist or else he would not complain (even though what he said meets the definition provided by the United Nations). I will abstain from calling him a racist or Neo-Nazi. Let his own comments show him for what he is. As a great document reads: "To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Todd Gallagher (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Todd is a good wiki editor, and as such, gets attacked from single and groups of editors who do not agree with his edits. If I may suggest, take no action against Tood, but maybe ask Todd to take a wikibreak of a few days. This will solve the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I hold none of the beliefs that Todd as ascribed to me, and I fail to see how his attacks upon me, where he calls me a "racist" and a "neo-nazi" constitute an attack upon him. You have a unique way of seeing the world, User:Thright. Please feel free to attack me in reply, since according to you, that will be an attack by me upon you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, I will not attack you, nor discredit you. Maybe a wikibreak may help? No need for wikipedia to cause anyone stress. Hope this helps, take care.Thright (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Anyway, as Todd has agreed to stop making attacks and filed a request to have his username changed, this is resolved. Natalie (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin has apparently retired from Wikipedia

Not sure if we note these things or not, but I see that an admin has apparently left the project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't note them because it happens so very often. Use WP:MW if you like. In this particular case, I imagine she'll be back before all that long... Splash - tk 00:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Secret. He's done this a few times before, so we'll see if he remains gone I guess. Wizardman 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is something like the 15th time he's retired. Neıl ☎ 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ahoalton is requesting impartial admin to review block

Resolved

 – Reviewed by MZMcBride - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Ahoalton. Do what you want with him, but be aware that he is using multiple accounts and IP addresses to dodge a block and continue to disrupt at Order of the Arrow and Talk:Order of the Arrow. Thanks... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code (film)

Resolved

 – user blocked

• The Da Vinci Code (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would somebody like to take a look at the last score or so of edits on this article and knock a couple heads together? I also asked for page protection. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the last edit as the info is not reliably sourced, and I don't think it belongs in the article anyway. The first source is (going by the url) self-claiming ownership of some "copyrighted" idea, ans the 2nd source ends in *.exe. I didn't actually go to either one as the whole idea seemed like a tangent to the article anyway. R. Baley (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor making the addition also appears to have a conflict of interest (see User talk:Neights). R. Baley (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The conflict of interest is beside the point. Both editors are edit warring ridiculously. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not beside the point, but ok, I'm done with this now. R. Baley (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The warring editor has been blocked indefinitely. Black Kite 07:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuban artist mass linkspam

Reinadesaba (talk · contribs) and IP User:200.55.139.212 are adding a large number of links to cubancontemporaryart.com to various articles. The link had perviously been removed per consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_20#Category:Cuban_contemporary_artists as a spam link and added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/cubancontemporaryart.com. I've reported to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Cuban_artists and asked User talk:Reinadesaba why they are adding these links, but they have not responded and continue to add them. Since I'm now an involved content editor, I cannot use admin powers to revert or block and would ask an uninvolved admin to review and act as they feel appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 07:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• See linksearch. ArleArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be doing this as well. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• And Category talk:Cuban contemporary artists/Checklist could do with some action as well, I think. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fed the link to User:XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you two, I'll try get to wrapping up the content issues at the checklist. MBisanz ^talk 13:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Way to go, guys ... I originally created the checklist (under a previous IP account), but no longer have any interest in it, so I'm just going to sit back and watch the fur fly ... those two accounts have been blocked, and it looks like a bot will remove the links. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.142 (talk) _{15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)}

24.19.237.50

Resolved

 – Stale report removed from WP:AIV

I left this message at WP:AIV, but no action yet, so I'll try here for a response. I noticed the conversation a few topics above on this page where Bearian and Rodhullandemu mentioned that sometimes several warning aren't necessary, so here you go.

• 24.19.237.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Racist and homophobic language on three articles today. 1, 2, 3, 4. The IP has received three warnings, but this kind of language isn't acceptable and a short block is in order to send a message. The IP has a history of using hateful language and only making vandalization edits. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the report from WP:AIV. No edits in three hours so a block now would not be preventative. Apologies for an inattention, and thanks for reporting the vandal. Pedro :  Chat  08:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, this IP editor has shown up on WP three times, making a total of 16 edits - all vandalism. Eight of these have been homophobic; five have been racist. The others have included repeated use of offensive terms. I understand that there have been no edits for three hours so the block would not now be preventative, but I do wonder how an editor with a history like this has never received a block. Jay*Jay (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Timing. Natalie (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate that a contributions page cannot be watchlisted; that would alert editors and permit a rapid response. I'd have no qualms blocking for one such similar incident. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeated addition of incorrect info on Collin Raye

A while back, Keri Nowling (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for repeatedly changing the date of birth on Collin Raye's page from 1959 to 1960. This user did not give up, even when shown four different reliable sources that all list his DoB as 1959. Since then, this blocked user has been apparently editing anonymously as 71.244.249.128 (talk) and 71.244.234.106 (talk) -- and doing the exact same thing despite even more repeated warnings. (This diff proves that at least one of the IPs is indeed our blocked user.) Given that this is only one user making the changes, I don't think it's sufficient to warrant protection of the page, and that it simply warrants discussion. (Note, technically, that it's not quite vandalism -- apparently his MySpace page lists his DoB as 1960, but a. MySpace isn't a reliable source, and b. God only knows who put that info there.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

80.249.49.86

Resolved

 – Nothing more to do here

80.249.49.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) : Per the talk page for this shared-IP user, this IP address has been recently reallocated to the Birmingham Grid for Learning, which supplies connectivity to schools in Birmingham, UK. IP addresses serving this group were apparently previously blocked, and someone representing themselves as an administrator of BGfL is requesting on this user's talk page that this be reinstated on these new addresses. If someone would like to check this out, I'm not sure what the previous policy was. In any case, this shared-IP user has been vandalizing since Feb.2008 (after the warning showed up on the talk page), so it may be legitimate. Best, -- Docether (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• This was brought to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and declined diff with No active vandalism take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Jeepday (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To avoid pranking I suggest that the IP who claims to be the admin of these IP addresses should email the Foundation from a verifiable email address, and I have left a message on the IP talk page to this effect. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic holy books page moves

Resolved

 – Moved and redirected. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has shuffled around a number of pages related to Islamic holy books. Per this brief discussion, it seems that the editor's movements are inaccurate and need to be reverted, but are so entangled that an admin is needed to sort this out:

• Move AL-kitab to Islamic holy books
• Redirect AL-kitab, AL-kitab (Quran) and Islamic Holy Books to Islamic holy books.

If someone could sort this out for us, that'd be great. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the talk page be moved back as well? —BradV 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To be specific, Talk:AL-kitab needs to be moved to Talk:Islamic holy books. And I've also nominated the implausible redirects for speedy deletion. —BradV 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense redirects

Resolved

 – blocked and rolled back Woody (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

99.228.184.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is creating multiple nonsense redirects to Alway. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He has been blocked and the edits rolled back thanks. WP:AIV should be quicker than here in these circumstances in the future. Woody (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor5435 & Spot

• Editor5435 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Technodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possible old account of Editor5435
• Spot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TruDef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Technodo, mostly edited by him and Editor5435
• SoftVideo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by Editor5435, almost identical to TruDef
• Fractal compression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - original article around which most of the disputes are occurring

I don't have the time to write this up completely. I hope this will be enough.

Editor5435 is probably due a block by now for incivility, article blanking, blanking and editing Spot's comments, personal attacks against Spot, and more. There are a few diffs on Editor5435's talk page already.

Spot has written a number of inflamatory against remarks against Editor5435 and a company called TMMI, which Editor5435 most likely has a conflict of interest. Spot may have his own coi problems as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(The archiving bot only copied the top of this incident and failed to move the rest of the discussion. I'll try to repair this now to the top incidents page) - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Policy.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We're having a problem at talk:list of the verified oldest people about keeping the 'race' column in supercentenarians. The argument that if we remove it, it would violate WP:POV where we try to 'pick and choose' what sources we want and don't want. The counter-argument is it is concensus - that is, a consensus that does not want the race column in the article's table. Particularly this edit explains it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_verified_oldest_people&diff=197413550&oldid=197391320

So can consensus override policy? This is a world table, so race for many countries. The people wanting to keep the race column are Americans, and the people against are from outside the U.S., which consider knowing someone's race to be meaningless. And therefore, should be removed. The argument is whether or not consensus can override policy. WP:POV talks about local bias. Neal (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

The short answer is the consensus can override policy (for example, under WP:IAR). However, I'm really not clear on what policy you think requires the inclusion of this column - I certainly see nothing in WP:NPOV that says that you can't list old people without mentioning the colour of their skin. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is simply and absolutely wrong. Under no circumstances can consensus overrule WP:NPOV and WP:V. That said, in this case, the tension is not actually as described, so that would not be an issue anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR would suggest otherwise, but I imagine neither one of us feels like getting into a debate about that. Suffice it to say that I can't imagine a scenario in which it would be advisable to invoke WP:IAR to overrule those two policies, that I have no plans to ever do so, and that I am very likely to oppose any attempt by other editors to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IAR is a feather in the face of NPOV's cast iron hammer. It can't trump it or move it. Lawrence § t/e 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So what does the "A" stand for, in your view?

Okay, I'm going to stop arguing this, because I agree that NPOV is, in practice, sacrosanct, and I don't want to find myself the spokesadmin for people who think that IAR gives them license to push their own POVs. I'm arguing a technicality, and it doesn't matter. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view the "A" stands for "A Poorly Worded" policy page, that poorly worded page being "IAR" itself. It should be just IR, since some rules you can't ignore (NPOV, V, BLP, in that order). Ever. Lawrence § t/e 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Any policy can be changed or overridden by consensus. The given policy dictates the level of consensus needed. NPOV, being our Number One Most Important Policy That We Serve, any consensus on any one little article page is irrelevant: it won't trump NPOV. Ever. You need consensus on a mega scale, on the level of thousands of users across multiple WP projects, the planets to align, and the duly elected WMF Board to sign off as well, probably. Lawrence § t/e 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When we cite a source, we don't include the entire source -- we cite the material necessary to establish the fact we are talking about. The article is about age, to which race is entirely irrelevant. The appeals to NPOV and OR (on the page in question) are entirely off base. There is no policy conflict here. - Revolving Bugbear 18:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay good points. So the question is more about specific source inclusion and not. NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles [...] all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This would violate this because we want consensus to remove the 'race' column, which is removing a signicant view. Followed by "This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." The source we are pulling from is http://www.grg.org/Adams/BB.HTM - where the 'R' column is race. Neal (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

With respect, I believe you're severely misinterpreting WP:NPOV. A person's race is not a "view", it is a fact (well, sort of, but I'm not going to get into that here because it's irrelevant). A view would be if many scientists thought that people of a given ethnicity were genetically predisposed towards longer lives while other scientists disagreed; in that case, you'd have to give coverage to each view. However, even that would be irrelevant in this particular case, because that section of WP:NPOV is about covering controversies, not about listing data in tables.

I can say with certainty that there is nothing in any Wikipedia policy that could reasonably be construed as requiring the inclusion of the race column. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) WP:IAR says that policies can be ignored if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. In other words, there needs to be a good reason. I can't see any reason for removing the race column, since the sources include it and it is fairly significant. In my opinion, removing the race column would be bordering on censorship. --clpo13_(talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right that WP:IAR requires a damned good reason to invoke. However, there's no need to invoke it here, simply because there's no rule requiring the inclusion of the race column. I believe that there are several excellent reasons for removing them, but that's something to be discussed on the talk page. For here, suffice it to say that there is no policy either requiring or prohibiting the column's inclusion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the question isn't if there is a good reason to include it, but if there is a good reason to remove it. And WP:IAR should say ignore it. Basically, this is now consensus vs. WP:IAR. Neal (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Er, no, it really isn't. It's just plain consensus: if consensus says keep the column, keep it. If consensus says remove the column, remove it. There's really no policy conflict here at all Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Being a cynical bastard, and seeing TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and his obsession with the geriatric, I was immediately reminded of the banned Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• By the way Guy, you were the 1st declining admin for Ryoung122's block. A week ago, conversation has been brought up at the bottom of user_talk:Bart Versieck's page on a 2nd unblock request. Just fyi. Neal (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Guys, you can't "IAR" Foundational issues. You can't IAR over NPOV. It's just not going to happen, ever. We serve NPOV. Anything that takes away from or diminishes NPOV is not helping the encyclopedia, period full stop. So IAR is meaningless to discuss here. Lawrence § t/e 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, back to whether or not removal of race in a table of the oldest verified by people column is a violation of policy or not. I just Ctrl F'd the talk page and found these 2 arguments by 2 different people. I just need to know whether they are true or not. Here they are. Discuss. Note that, I'm going to sign my name twice at the end of each point even though they are from the same post so people can colon them individually.

1."By selecting the source and then picking and choosing the information you want is the worst kind of bias and POV." Neal (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Completely wrong. Selecting sources and picking and choosing the information to be included is how Wikipedia articles are built. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

2."Wikipedia policy is that major points of view must be included in order for an article to be NPOV. Deleting the 'race' category is actually POV: "I don't like 'race' so it should be deleted." " Neal (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Completely wrong: deleting the race category is expressing a POV on the article, not on the article's subject. All editors have POVs on articles, which is why talk pages exist. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If none of these violate a policy (and unless someone can come up with another reason), I rest my case - so that there is no policy, so consensus will override. Thanks. Neal (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

Yes. If there is consensus for the removal of the race column, it should be removed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as no one is trying to override NPOV, V, or BLP via a disallowed and wrong usage of IAR, there's nothing really for admins to do here and this is a pure content dispute. Lawrence § t/e 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:Buddha

Resolved

 – User warned

A person who has vandalized Wikipedia before has done it again, this time to Portal:Buddha. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Buddhism&oldid=197492505 --jmeeter (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a simple case of vandalism, so give him vandalism warning, and at extreme level, report in AIV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

TomGreen

Resolved

TomGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Several unconstructive edits to Road rage (see [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]). Has engaged in edit warring when edits are reverted. I reported this to WP:AIV, but was redirected here. This user is not new to edit warring (see for example [45] [46] [47] [48], although he often knows just how far to go to avoid the 3RR rule). As a long term user, he should be aware of these rules. 81.152.148.200 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See [49] Apparently you weren't the only person who saw this problem. This was already dealt with. Thanks for keeping tabs on this, and good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment TomGreen has since been blocked by another admin.--VS ^talk 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, by me. Also protected the article for a few days (possibly on The Wrong Version^TM) for longer than the 24 hours I gave Tom. I didn't - and don't intend to - look into any other edit warring Tom may have been involved in. I'd suggest WP:RFC for that - but you may need to create an account to create the report. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, obviously, not you Steve. I meant 81.152.148.200 :oO ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Death of Michael Todd (British Police Chief)

Someone's written 'i am michael todd, i did not die' several times at the bottom of this article. Rather insensitive given that he died yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.67.151 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Already removed. I'm watching the page, no doubt like several others. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• That editor has been warned about this and other vandalism occurring today - since quiet - next vandalism is likely to result in a block.--VS ^talk 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in question is Michael J. Todd, if anyone wants to add it to their list temporarily. Bencherlite^Talk 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Danielroberts spamming Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut

Resolved

for now I believe

About 25 articles about heath in the last hour. Ward20 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Request delete of some revisions

Resolved

 – All previous revisions deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALoolylolly1997&diff=197144687&oldid=196927765

This user has self-identified as being a ten year-old girl. She had posted her full birth date in her user page, but I removed that, replacing with just her birth year, with an explanation on her talk page, and she not only didn't object but seemed grateful for the concern. I'd just like to have the revisions that contained the full birth date deleted. All those revisions are contained in the diff above. Thanks -- Equazcion •✗/C • 01:01, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Can you double-check from a non-admin view? I think I got it all. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You did, but now all revisions aside from the current one seem to be gone. I suppose that's okay though. Thanks Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock for a certain banned user

I humbly submit that you people need to blast a few more ranges; he seems to come back nightly. I've been rolling back his edits on the Pornographic film and Talk:Chihuahua (dog) pages. If you have any doubts whether this is the banned user, you are not familiar with his M.O.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee. This guy never seems to give up over something as minute as this. seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked out some range contribs and blocked the following ones:

• 71.127.224.0/20
• 72.68.0.0/18
• 72.68.64.0/19
• 72.68.96.0/20
• 72.76.0.0/18
• 72.76.64.0/19
• 72.76.96.0/21

Hope this stems the tide. east.718 at 02:12, March 12, 2008

Wow. Good luck cleaning up the collateral damage WRT unblock requests. A quick "back of the napkin" calculation shows you have blocked some 58000+ IP addresses with these rangeblocks. It may be neccessary and a good idea with the level and sorts of abuse from these ranges, but keep this in mind... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:220.157.71.55

Resolved

 – Everybody's happy

The above user, which is a vandalism-only account, continues to vandalize Wikipedia articles. Needs to be blocked indefinitely. Hochmanisajerk (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, this user has been warned for abuse and I have blocked indef for trolling and inappropriate username. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Blocked, 72 hours. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sporadic multi-state harassment pattern

Can someone with checkuser priviledge take a look at the history of User:Apostrophe? ( direct link [50]) there appears to be a clear harassment pattern being carried out by IPs from across the United States (as far away from each other as New York and California acording to WHOIS) all of these edits have a thing in common wich is the inclusion of references to "mudkip", usually as "So I herd you like mudkip", evidently and based on all the states that are being given as source for the address there is more than a dynamic address here, is there a precedent in such cases? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IT should be noted that, depending on the ISP in question, the WHOIS data on the location of the corporate entity the IP address is registered to may have little to do with the physical location of the computer being used to edit. While multiple IPs editing from the same location is usually a positive confirmation that it is likely the same person using it, the opposite is not ALWAYS true, due to the nature of how some IPs are registerred. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As it's all IP addresses, there's not really a whole lot that checkuser can achieve here. All you can do is block the IPs, check to see if they're TOR or open proxies (likely, if they're random) and maybe semi-protect the target page until they get bored and move on - Alison ^❤ 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgiacatcrimson (talk · contribs)

Will someone be willing to look into the activities of Georgiacatcrimson (talk · contribs). At first Georgiacatcrimson was restoring a list of fictional character from spoiled brat after the list had been deleted two AFD discussions (AFD1 and AFD2).

[51] [52] [53]

He has also restored content deleted form List of tomboys in fiction that I initially deleted as being original research (and flat out wrong)[54] and when another editor removed removed the entire section as original research, Georgiacatcrimson restored it again.[55] When I added fact and original research tags to part of the list, he reverts again.[56] When I informed him that blanket removal of tag can be considered vandalism, he leaves this message on my talk page. And has now placed AFD tags on Tomboys in popular culture and List of tomboys in fiction. The latter, incidentally, had a previous AFD discussion closed earlier this morning.

I'm honestly at a lot on what to do as the editor tends to avoid comments on his edits. And the few comments he does leave are very hostile and authoritative. --Farix (Talk) 03:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

Resolved

Would someone review these edits Diff the editor has expressed a lack of confidence in my judgment since I tagged him for vandalism on similar edits. Jeepday (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it vandalism, POV pushing, a spade, what have you. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. Instead of repeatedly attacking, why don't you add your own counterpoints? Mine is not only true but well referenced, although the language may not be as objective as you'd like. But when only 4% of a student body votes, I think it's fair to say management slipped the bill past. The fact that it's a "segregated" (I removed this word) fee is meaningless to the 40,000 students who are paying those fees. As for my use of the word "Mismanagement" instead of "Controversy", I'm indifferent. I think either is appropriate, but clearly, the desire is to water down my criticisms with weaker terms. I'll try to devote some time to finding more references. BTW: I think this is here because Jeepguy would like to ban me from contributing. He threatened to do so if I do any "more" "vandalism", or things that he would like to consider vandalism. My concern is that there is such an overwhelming threat of censorship here based on monir changes, and Jeepguy works for the Wisconsin government. (Tortugadillo (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

You see, this is the problem with the calling a spade a spade argument. Disputes over content, wording, information etc..etc..are not classified as vandalism. It might breach NPOV, but it's certainly not an example of vandalism. Instead, calling it such is more disruptive than the edits. Potentially. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

its best if all the parties just move on. If needed use the talk pages. Stamp this as resolved before it gets out of control. Thright (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)thrigh

Agreed. It's better if the thread starter just discusses it on the user's talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright infringement

User Azalea Pomp has been warned about his imageImage:Albanian_Dialects_Map2.PNG. In doing so, I noticed 71.32.35.34 was using an Artist's name and song lyrics on the page. Deleted, just wanted to report it. Warned both of them.User:Twaz (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To simply write an artist's name and song title is not a copyright violation. The text left there by the IP user was not necessary, so next time, just take it out rather than leaving a note about it on that page. Metros (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden, Ontario

A Bearcat (talk · contribs) seems to be redirectifying mass number of articles on various Townships. The one on Cobden, Ontario (11,087 bytes) had caught my attention and I reverted his bold merges. He reverted back with the edit summary: "there was no removal of content; it was all merged into another article. there's simply no need for Cobden to have a separate article from the actual municipality that it's a part of." but I do not see it on Whitewater Region, Ontario (16,262 bytes). With little work that can be a good article. Please help sort this out. Administrative action may be necesary if the user is mass redirectifying mass number of articles without consensus (preliminary analysis agrees to this assertion: [57]). -- Cat ^chi? 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Current Wikipedia practice^{Subject to change. Your mileage may vary. Results are not the same for all participants. Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear} is for less notable subjects to be merged into their "parent" article. Now, generally, I can't argue with this, especially when dealing with minor pop culture subjects. But for long articles on "real" things, where the merge takes the form of digesting down to a paragraph, that's harder to justify. But, so far, s/he doesn't appear to have reverted you. So there's nothing to see here, unless s/he starts to re-revert back rather than talk about it. If that happens, come back. But the bold, revert, discuss cycle, whilst sometimes annoying, is often a Good Thing. You two have done the B R bit; just D remains. Some inline sources in the Cobden article would help your cause here. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no patience or tolerance left to people mass blanking/redirectifying pages due to my general frustration on this edit pattern. Weather it is to pop culture related articles or real world topics such as this particular case, I am very very tired of it. If such activity has consensus behind it, I'd like to see the evidence for it. If there is no consensus behind it perhaps admin involvement may be warranted. I'd welcome someone else, preferably an admin (a person who has understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines) to pursue this issue. -- Cat ^chi? 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my job to rescue articles people redirectify without even reading them. -- Cat ^chi? 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody "digested" anything down to one paragraph. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that mass anything without consensus is disruptive. It's an attempt at overwhelming rational process. The subject doesnt matter--the direction doesnt mater--the particular way of doing it doesnt matter. Even for something which explicitly does not require consensus, like removing PROD notices, if I went through PROD and removed every prod notice, which I am technically entitled to do, as is every editor here, it would be wrong, and someone should stop me. DGG (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus that in general, geographical locations such as towns should not be merged - they're notable in the sense there will be third party sources about them, and apart from a bit of cruft in the Cobden article, I'm not seeing any real problem with it existing in its own right. Orderinchaos 08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

On researching it, there's some indication that WikiProject Ontario is dealing with this situation in its own way. No objections have been raised in two months, so unless article development is planned for the article I'd suggest leaving it as a redirect. Orderinchaos 08:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects cannot dictate what becomes a redirect and what goes. That makes it more problematic. -- Cat ^chi? 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, from the top of this page, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." and "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting..." I've let Bearcat know about this but you might have got a quicker result if either yourself or User:Olsdude if either of you had asked him. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Non-consensus random removal of information will be reverted. We often consider these as simple vandalism. -- Cat ^chi? 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's been no removal of information. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy dictates what becomes a redirect, and this was entirely consistent with it. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the case of Cobden, it appears that Bearcat has contravened her/his own conventions v/v the merge, which were to merge only insubstantial articles, not those with content. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think Bearcat is vandalising then why not tell him that? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cobden is not a town. It's an unincorporated hamlet within the municipality of Whitewater Region, Ontario. The bottom line is that the municipality's article has to come first — the unincorporated communities within a municipality should only have independent articles once the parent municipality's article is itself long enough to warrant splitouts. Note that until I did the merge, Whitewater Region had a completely unreferenced stub article; the improved current state of the article is entirely due to the merges and redirects. And this is entirely consistent with WP:OUTCOMES, which explicitly states that communities and neighbourhoods within a municipality should be redirected to the parent municipality. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

but I do not see it on Whitewater Region, Ontario All of the content from Cobden, Ontario is in the article on Whitewater Region, Ontario, excepting that which is simply an unnecessary repeat of information from a standalone article on a separate topic such as Logos Land. Check the various subheadings. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if we're using loaded language here. When I see an argument about weather Cobden is or is not a town I wonder why it is being brought up. The points that other users have made are still valid regardless of weather Cobden is a town or hamlet. Plus, I'm having a hard time finding a definition of what is a town, hamlet, or village but I don't think that it's necessary to clarify.

Also, I have to say that I agree with the guideline for merger set out by Bearcat - The guideline being this: [mergers will be made] Essentially, for smaller communities which are either (a) still redlinks, or (b) only one-or-two line stubs identifying the topic as a community within Township of Whateverville but giving no other verifiable and properly sourced information about the community - That seems pretty reasonable. (I do however question when or even if this has ever become policy) However it seems as though Bearcat may have gotten a bit merger happy. It seems obvious that the article on Cobden, Ontario is neither a or b. I can't see how anything is helped by destroying a perfectly fine article (I'm basing this on other peoples statements) and I don't think it makes it any different if you are erasing article X because article Y was not as good as article X.

Finally, the reason why I did not go to Bearcat initially was because, I'm sad to say, in my experience with contesting administrators decisions the only thing it accomplishes is to have my credibility as a contributor called into question, a bunch of cryptic blunt messages dropped on my board and very little else.--Matt D (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As an unincorporated hamlet within a larger municipality, Cobden is not inherently entitled to an article of any length until the incorporated municipality of Whitewater Region has an article sufficiently long, detailed and referenced to warrant being subdivided. And the definitions of a town, a village or a hamlet aren't that hard to figure out: a town is an incorporated municipality which holds the legal status of town under the legal framework of the province or state that it's located within. A village is an incorporated municipality which holds the legal status of village under the legal framework of the province or state that it's located within. If it's unincorporated, it's a hamlet, not a town or a village, regardless of its population. (Check the population of Fort McMurray, Alberta, which is legally a hamlet, if you have trouble with this.) The definition of a town or a village inherently requires that the community is actually incorporated as a distinct municipality with its own distinct local government. A municipality has to have a good article before any community within it is entitled its own separate article. Bearcat (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this line of reasoning - the view elsewhere in the world is *very* different to this. For instance, every suburb of every Australian city and every town of any size (we don't have a concept of incorporation here) has an article, or is intended to have an article where none presently exists. Orderinchaos 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I normally would agree with Bearcat but hang on a sec. I recognize the name and looked it up, this is OR (which is permissible outside article space) - Cobden is a definitely established town in Ontario. It seems to qualify from the definitions of geographic entity, it's there and it's been there for a long time. If you're going whitewater rafting on the Ottawa River, it's the closest beer store. I disagree with Bearcat that there is any inherent requirement for incorporation. The existence of the settlement area is notable by its own fact. Cobden is there all by itself. It doesn't need Wikipedia to tell it so. WP however, should report it is so. Franamax (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether people say "Town of Cobden" in everyday usage or not, Cobden is an unincorporated hamlet, not an incorporated town. Being an incorporated municipality is an inherent requirement of being a town — any community in Ontario that is not legally incorporated as a town by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not a town no matter how many times you call it one. Wikipedia has to represent these things by their correct and proper legal definitions, not by popular misconceptions, so we cannot and will not say that Cobden is a town when it's an unincorporated community within a municipality.

But either way, you're misrepresenting the dispute here: whether Cobden has its own separate article or gets redirected to Whitewater Region, Ontario, Wikipedia is reporting the community's existence either way. This is not a choice of representation or invisibility — it's a dispute about how to represent the community best. And my position remains, and will continue to be, that until Whitewater Region has a sufficiently long and properly-referenced article that it is ready to be subdivided, Wikipedia policy dictates that smaller communities within it are to be represented in Whitewater Region's article rather than separate ones. Bearcat (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What an odd debate. I've lived in Ontario for most of my 40 years. Many, if not most, people in Ontario have heard of Cobden. I don't think many outside the Ottawa valley have heard of the "Whitewater Region" whatever that is. These are real towns, with histories, and are miles from each other. Just because there is no political structure for each town, doesn't mean that these are real places worthy of their own page. There is significant content for the Cobden article - it should clearly be a seperate page from the region. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A community has to be incorporated to be a town. If it isn't incorporated, it is a hamlet, not a town. And "who's heard of this" is not the standard for what deserves an article. As a municipality, Whitewater Region has to have a solid, referenced and substantial article before any subtopic of it gets split out — it doesn't matter whether Cobden is more famous than its parent municipality or not. Whitewater Region is the more important and higher-priority topic, because it's an actual municipality with an actual municipal government. Fame is irrelevant; the municipality is more important by virtue of being a municipality. It cannot have a short, unreferenced stub article as long as any community within it has a long one.

And furthermore, all of the information in the Cobden article is also in the Whitewater Region article — and without that information, the Whitewater Region article is a short and unreferenced stub. And the fact that something exists does not automatically entitle it to a separate article — Cobden should only have a separate article once its parent topic has a long enough article to warrant subdivision. Bearcat (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I (2X) HATE EC'S - Ontario - Official Road Map - 1992/93 (yeah, I'm getting on in years) - Cobden (991), C14. Notability established. (There's a cool magnetic hill just south of Dacre, pretty close). I'm trying to convey that "Whitewater Region" is as artificial as it gets, whereas Cobden is a real honest-to-god place with churches and pickup trucks and all that stuff. It pre-exists Wikipedia and will probably post-exist it. No matter how you try to cut the definitions, it just plain and simple exists by geographic fact. I've been there, it's an Ontario small town, I don't understand which rule says it doesn't deserve its own entry. It exists, it has a postal code. If that Blofeld guy is pumping hundreds of French commune stubs onto wiki anticipating their expansion, then we can keep the Ontario village stubs as well. (And thanx Nfitz) Franamax (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) It's not all that great of an article, is it? But it can be made better...

"Artificial" or not, Whitewater Region is an incorporated municipality, which makes it a higher priority for expansion and improvement than Cobden is. We do not make judgement calls about whether things are "artificial" or not; we report on the things that exist, and Whitewater Region is an actual municipal government which consequently has to have a real article whether you think it's "artificial" or not. And for the last freaking time: Cobden is a hamlet, not a town, because places have to be incorporated as towns to be towns. Bearcat (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question is if someone wanted information on Cobden, wouldn't they be a little thrown if they end up at a different article which is for the most part not about Cobden? Orderinchaos 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet? That's not a word real people use. People will say they going to town, or going to the village. I have not heard one person in Ontario, saying "I'm going to the Hamlet to go to the store". It's just not a word that is used. Whether or not it is a legal definintion or not is immaterial. Short unreferenced stub article? Cobden is quite an extensive, though poorly written, article! That's no stub. And if you start eliminating articles for towns like this, what about articles for a part of a town or a city, such as The Beaches, Lower Town, Soho, SoHo, Gastown, etc. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether "hamlet" is what people say in common everyday speech or not, it's legally what Cobden is. You can call it a town all you like in private conversation — but an encyclopedia can't call it a town as long as it doesn't actually have that status under law. Our obligation here is to be accurate, not to reflect common usage even if it's wrong. And incidentally, Cobden is not equivalent to The Beaches, Lower Town, Soho, SoHo or Gastown, as those are all subdivisions of big cities — and each of those cities already has a long, substantial and well-referenced article that can be subdivided without turning the parent article back into a three-line stub in the process. Until the same can be said of Whitewater Region's article, Cobden is not an equivalent topic. Quality has to start trumping quantity around here. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Cobden is the notable entity, while Whitewater Region isn't. Logically speaking, the latter should be merged into the former. --clpo13_(talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that's going too far, that's an insult to all the people in Forester's Falls! Which reminds me - is anyone asking for admin actions here? Maybe we should wander off to our own sun-dappled glade... Any suggestions for a better spot for this? Franamax (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An unincorporated hamlet is more important and notable than the municipality that governs it? Gawd almighty, I need drugs to make sense of that one. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, I was mostly sarcastic. Second, I didn't say the hamlet was more important. If most of the content at Whitewater Region is about Cobden, why not have an article about Cobden? Why can't a municipality article be a stub? --clpo13_(talk) 01:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone still watching this, I'll tentatively say party at my place! I can open another bottle of wine and it sounds like Bearcat is out looking for some good drugs ;) Unless there's some argument, no admins needed, no admin wrongdoing, needs a good hat put on top? Franamax (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Test edit to get a timestamp. I can't believe this, ANI with only four edits in an entire hour? What about the drama people, what about the drama?? Franamax (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the only reason I brought up the whole town/hamlet thing was because I was afraid that the word hamlet was being used to imply "unimportant" (And maybe I was right). I also think a key point to remember is that the whitewater region article needing expansion is a very different thing then Cobden's article needing to be deleted. I wonder if anyone has considered that, perhaps, going to the library and getting a couple books about the history of the whitewater region would be a better method of expansion than the one currently being employed? Shouldn't that be the first step? Can we have an attempt at creating an article in the regular way before we start some territorial expansionist phase? It will have to be done eventually won't it? I mean, taking the history of Cobden and replacing the word Cobden with Whitewater region doesn't make a good article does it? All we are left with is no article on Cobden and a half-assed article on the Whitewater region. I fail to see the urgency that requires this merger. The Whitewater region article must be longer than Cobden's? Municipalities are more important by virtue of being municipalities? Maybe so but is this the only way to improve articles?

I realize that the history and information about Cobden would end up being in the whitewater region article. But anybody looking up the history of Cobden shouldn't have to dig through the whitewater article looking for it. And since, as other users have pointed out, the municipal government is, to most people, a more abstract entity than a real place that people live and grow up in, goto to get milk, are aware of being within, ect. people may want to look up it's history or whatever without caring about the greater whitewater region.--Matt D (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, hamlet does not automatically imply "unimportant" (Fort McMurray, anyone?) It does, however, imply located within a larger municipal entity. Yes, municipalities are more important — for one thing, they have actual governments. As for "the municipal government is, to most people, a more abstract entity than a real place that people live and grow up in, goto to get milk, are aware of being within", a municipality is a real place that people live and grow up in, goto to get milk, are aware of being within, etc. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer seems simple here. Bearcat appears to be a responsible and diligent editor. However the Cobden article does seem to be large enough, and Cobden notable enough, that it should have it's own page, which is referenced from the Whitewater Region page. Two pages, no overlap. If anything otherwise, then why not have a merge discussion on the two pages - rather than debating this here. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Victor64

This user was reported through WP:AIV. Despite an early constructive edit or two, edits had taken a turn for the negative, and I blocked them as a vandalism-only account. I believed that the user was not showing signs of wanting to be a productive member of the community.

I have since received several progressively more aggressive requests from a third party to unblock Victor. I agreed to an unblock, provided that Victor apologized for his vandalism and pledged to not vandalize again, and left a message to that extent on his talk page. In addition, I told the third party those conditions and also gave the unblock-l for them to get a second opinion if they wanted.

I have had no communication from the blocked party about this, and there has been nothing left on his talk page contesting the block. Nor has any email gone to unblock-l. The only communication has been with the third party, and has taken a turn for the ugly. The communication can be viewed at User:Philippe/Archive2#Your_block_of_User:_Victor64 and User_talk:Philippe#Your_block_of_Victor64.

I invite your review and have no objection if someone wishes to unblock. I would prefer that the unblock be accompanied by SOME indication from the party that they desire it and apologize, but I'm afraid I'm at a stale-mate with the third party now. - Philippe | Talk 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the block, and have no difficulty with the language. Out of 4 total edits the first two were minor corrections of anothers vandalism (most likely with a subject of personal interest to the editor) and the next two were major disruption of replacing a sizable quantity of content with an insulting term. Also, of course, indefinite does not equal infinite. I shall drop a note to the third party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. :-) - Philippe | Talk 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to raise this until after Easter, as I don't properly have time to address this until then. However User:Philippe blatantly mischaracterised User:Victor64 actions by referring to the account as a "vandalism-only" account. As over half of this user's edits were constructive, by the very definition, it wasn't a vandalism-only account. I've pointed out to User:Philippe his mischaracterization, and he has ignored my comments, so I can only assume that his mischaracterization is deliberate - hence he is lying to the community. I've documeted the actions of User:Victor64 on my talk page. User:Philippe blocked User:Victor64 on the basis that "because your account is being used only for vandalism". It was clear from his edit history that the account was not only being used for vandalism. User:Philippe knowingly trumped up the charges, and over-reacted. This was a new user to Wikipedia that within the space of 5 minutes did a couple of dumb edits. And was given an indefinite block. This isn't the appropriate action for a first or second offence. And this is not the way to welcome a new user to Wikipedia. User:Philippe's action and User:Equazcion's request for such action were clearly out of line with Wikipedia policy. At worst, User:Victor64 should have received a short block - the actions taken was completely unproportional and an overeaction. User:Philippe has lied to User:Victor64 and the community and needs to applogise. Nfitz (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure this situation was handled as well as it could have been, but I tend to agree with Nfitz that this was an inappropriate block. I believe Equazcion was in error: the first warning should not also be the final warning. Aside from egregious vandalism, I would have at least tried a couple warnings. Furthermore, a 24-hour block, not an indefinite block, would seem to be in order. I don’t think there is any precedent for requiring an apology after a couple episodes of minor vandalism (and noncompliance resulting in an infinite block). I would suggest removing the block, and applying blocks of increasing length should the vandalism continue. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this with Nfitz right after the block when his rhetoric seemed to be escalating, and proposed much the same remedy as Philippe: an appropriately-worded unblock request would be regarded with favor. At the time, Nfitz indicated that he had no particular issue with Philippe, but demanded that Equazcion be sanctioned somehow for reporting Victor64 to AIV. Since then, the word "lies" has been used freely (and without substantiation). The issue has become centered around a grudge, rather than a constructive remedy, which is easily available if Nfitz chooses to pursue it. Acroterion _(talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me say clearly, again, that an unblock has been offered, that the unblock-l address has been offered, and that although there were a couple of early constructive changes, 100% of the recent changes had been vandalism, including blanking the 5 pillars and replacing them with "this is retarded". I honestly feel like I've bent over backwards to help this user, and gotten nothing but abuse from Nfitz. But... preemptively unblock them without any expression that they're sorry for their vandalism? Someone else will need to do that, because I won't. I would also remind all that this is an indefinite block, not a permanent one. Should Victor express some remorse and ask to be unblocked, I remain happy to do so. - Philippe | Talk 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)You've got to be kidding me. This user has a total of 4 edits half of which are clearly vandalism, and Nfitz is actually complaining about an indefinite block and that Philippe "lied to the community" about being a vandalism-only account? Give me a break. I would have done the exact same thing that Philippe, and I think he is being more than generous in even considering an unblock. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am commenting on is the block of Victor64. I have not examined Nfitz’s comments in detail as their appropriateness or lack thereof is not relevant. My concern is the rash blocking of a new user. This is not the way to welcome new members to our community or show them how our procedures work. I also take exception to several of Philippe’s statements here. I could easily invert your statement to “…although there were a couple of recent vandalism edits, 100% of the earlier changes had been constructive…” And you’ve “bent over backward to help this user”? The only “help” I see is an indefinite block, the indefinite block boilerplate message, and then the message saying you’ll unblock him if he pledges to change. That’s not helpful. What would be helpful would be removing the block.

Look, new users who stumble upon Wikipedia often don’t fully appreciate its nature. The novelty of being able to edit the web site and see the changes live is irresistible to some, and they often don’t grasp the significance of what they do. Look at this case. A new user edits to fix an error, and receives a welcome message. The next minute, he fixes another error in the same article. Four minutes later, he vandalizes one of the links in the welcome message. Incredibly, he receives a final warning! And then two minutes later, after he vandalizes another page, he is indefinitely blocked. It is likely he hadn't even gotten the "new messages" box yet. This is no way to treat new members of the community. However, since you state it will be acceptable for the block to be removed, I will do so. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, obviously, with Philippe, being the editor who made the warning and the AIV report. Stepped vandalism warnings are meant for situations where it is unclear whether or not the user had intentional disruption in mind. The option to give an "only warning" is meant for other scenarios, when the intent to disrupt is clear from the get-go. I see no reason to "bend over backwards" for people like that, and saying that the temptation to see edits occur live makes it simply too unbearable to resist replacing content with inane and disparaging comments seems like quite a stretch of "assume good faith". I don't think removing the block was proper, Knowledge Seeker, at this point. Next time kindly wait until it seems like you've got some agreement before you act. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:15, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion I think you incorrect. Stepped responses are not only meant for unclear actions - they are also meant for new users, who are essentially doing test edits. I note that you were warned on your talk page on this incident by others about not reporting people to being only vandals, when that wasn't the case. Nfitz (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was warned, though I don't see what that has to do with anything. I disagreed then, and I disagree now. We are in disagreement. Replacing large chunks of content with inane statements is not a good-faith action. "Assume good faith" does not extend to trying to understand people's reasoning for vandalizing pages. Vandalism is a bad-faith action by definition, and worthy of an only warning. If you disagree, then so be it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is worthy of a warning. A warning would be fine ... even a short block. My concern was that this went immediately to an infinite block - which seemed to be overkill for a new user to Wikipedia, who was at least making some constructive efforts. I'm not sure what you mean by "an only warning" - I'm not familiar with this. The one issue that has caused so much grief on this, is that claims were made, that the account was only being used for vandalism - which were not true. I'm confused on why such untrue statements were, and continue, to be made. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of an "only warning":{{Uw-vandalism4im}}. It's for cases where intent is clear. I do not consider this user to have been making an effort at good-faith edits. Again, if you disagree, that's fine. The action taken was not nearly as damaging as you're making it out to be. "Indefinite" blocking doesn't mean "blocked forever". It means the block has no definite end. All the user needed to do was request an unblock and show some good faith, but he did not communicate whatsoever. If he had, the block could've been overturned. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:13, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The problem remains that when you check the history of the editor in question, that the account wasn't only used for vandalism. Therefore an immediate action of an indefinite block for a one-time only vandalism event was outside Wikipedia policy. Why this seems to be such a hard thing for some to accept confuses me. Nfitz (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility bordering on Wiki-Hate Incident from Randy_Blackamoor

Resolved

 – indefinite ban for gross incivility - see block log

--VS ^talk 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I previously expressed concerned to Randy B that he mis-quoted me (actually, he falsely quoted me), and I asked that he apologize. He did so by adding considerably more uncivility to the dialogue, and I consider his new actions to show wiki-hate. Judge for yourself. He has been warned and warned and warned. [58] DanaUllman^Talk 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have left a strong warning re WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA on user's Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I blocked before I saw your warning, but since you left a final, I'll reverse the block. - Philippe | Talk 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the response on his talk page to your warning... I'm leaving my block in place. - Philippe | Talk 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think a week shows remarkable self-restraint in the circumstances. I would argue his username alone deserves an indef block for its derogatory overtones. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask admins to review Randy's history of uncivility, abuse, and now hatred, despite many many warnings. DanaUllman^Talk 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His record is poor indeed, and he has been blocked on three previous occasions. Personally, I wouldn't object if he were blocked indefinitely as I believe these people on balance do the project more harm than good. I would see what result a one-week block produces but would anyone else here like to review the situation? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone taking it to indef, but since I've already signed my name to "one week", I'd prefer that I not be the one to extend it. - Philippe | Talk 02:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a week block seems the appropriate thing to do here. While there have defiantly been some civility issues with this user, I also see some good contributions. Tiptoety ^talk 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think Randy's behavior is terrible, can we please ask that Dana stay off his talk page after he returns and stop baiting him? Two editors already commented on the page about this behavior. It's been well established that Randy will respond to these things negatively, so barging in and demanding an apoplogy seems disingenuous, at best. Let's not indef yet. Baegis (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Without more research, I'm not inclined to condone the language that Dana is "baiting". It's possible, but I'm not prepared to go there yet. I would think it would be courteous for Dana to stay off the talk page, yes. - Philippe | Talk 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is not Randy_Blackamoor a racist username? See Randy Blackamoor. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are other indications of overt racism, I suggest it is best to make a good faith assumption that it is not intended as such. If you are still suspicious, then you should ask him about it. Ronnotel (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AGF is why i asked a question. I just read thread and the first thing i thought was the name was a bit dodgy, thats all i'm saying. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackamoore returned 141,000 ghits - being a term for jewelery, tropical fish, statues, and also a placename and surname. It may have had origins in a descriptive term for black people from a time when there was less sensitivity, and can still be used pejoratively as such, it seems to be not inappropriate - it may even be the editors real name. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)*I was about to block indef under the following reasoning:

"You have persistently failed to work constructively with other editors, considering it appropriate to insult and attack on numerous occasions, and previous blocks seem not to have brought it home to you that this is unacceptable. In particular, you have been made fully aware of the ArbCom's recent ruling on Homeopathy and related articles and still fail to grasp that however strongly you feel about content of articles, your behaviour towards other editors is expected to be civil. I would say that if I had any doubt about your conduct, your username would have tipped it, being offensive, in my opinion; however, after a deep review of your contributions, there is no balance to tip, and whereas I earlier considered a week's ban lenient, there is nothing in your entrenched attitude to make me think that you are going to change your behaviour as a result of it."

Does anyone think this is an unreasonable assessment of the situation? Yes, some of the contributions are good, but I balance those against the long-term history, and find they are insufficient to outweigh the disruption and lack of respect for other editors. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not defend RB's "go fuck yourself" sentiment, but arbcom has made no ruling whatsoever on homeopathy, recently or otherwise. I would urge an in-depth review of the situation on Talk:Homeopathy and elsewhere before deciding to indef him. There has been baiting and extremely bad faith from both sides in the dispute. Skinwalker (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was referring to this community decision which is of comparable weight, in my view. As to who's baiting whom, it matters not a whit to me. Any editor brought here in breach of policy is at risk of the consequences of their actions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've listed some of Randy's diffs here.[59] They may be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've grabbed this bull by the horns and extended it to one month--and also left a "next time it's gonna be indef" message. Blueboy96 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy has a serious civility problem, but is unfortunately baited and poked constantly by a pack of tendentious editors. I'll speak to him privately and see if I can help with the former. A week-long block seems quite appropriate, but a month is just too much. Will you drop it back down to a week if I keep an eye on him and provide a guiding hand? east.718 at 03:10, March 9, 2008

Done ... though looking at the history, I'm not too optimistic. Blueboy96 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Thank you for looking at this openly, Blueboy96. It's worth noting that of the two people pushing hardest here for Randy's exit, one has the worst conflict of interest possible for an editor in this area, while the other is a proven edit warrior and sockpuppeteer. east.718 at 03:17, March 9, 2008

I support that if you would be guiding him. It is a suggestion that I have made in the past, as he doesn't seem to understand. Anthon01 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think baiting is the main issue. Randy believe that homeopathy is bunk, and that that POV allows him to trash anyone who believes differently because homeopaths are murderers. Anthon01 (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

East: Sockpuppeteer? Are you talking about me? Anthon01 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I would support an even more lenient block or no block if an admin takes the responsibility of guiding him. And of course you too East.718 have been blocked for Edit-warring. Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't keep half a dozen accounts around for a rainy day. east.718 at 05:59, March 9, 2008

I believe that FT2 determined in that case that Anthon01 made some experimental edits with a non-logged-in account on one day and stopped. There was nothing that indicated that Anthon01 had any additional accounts, though I could be mistaken about that, in any case Anthon01 apologized and FT2 didn't think it was such a big deal. —Whig (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One other account used on one day for 1.5 hours and never used again, as an experiment. I didn't understand the need for it. So I tried it out and decided it didn't fit me.

East718: You linked to FT2's original suspicions, but not to his final determination. From FT2's final determination

“ Use for a day followed by cessation does not indicate the editor was engaging in willful puppetry. More (as he states and I'm inclined to agree) a day's experimentation. ”

Here is the link to his full final determination.[60] Now East.718, do you intent to continue to mis-characterize the situation? --Anthon01 (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One more point. FT2 noted multiple IPs, however he was able to find all those IPs because I always log in as Anthon01. IOW, One account using Multiple IPs. I post from home, work and the library under Anthon01. I occasionally post if I'm on the road. Anthon01 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure if that would work. He's been blocked three times prior for persistent incivility and personal attacks to those who disagree with his viewpoints. He's made that quite clear before. I could care less if you fall into the "anti-science" or "pro-science" camp, incivility and personal attacks is incivility and personal attacks regardless, and telling others to "fuck off" and etc. is only asking for trouble. He's been warned many times of this; a week's block (as it currently stands) is sufficient and should open up a line of discussion regarding his behavior. If it resorts to trolling further, then I support a longer block of a month (as it was earlier). seicer | talk | contribs 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That illustrates what I feel is a major problem: admins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary. east.718 at 05:59, March 9, 2008

It looks like only some of those are admin stuff. TE, SOCK, DE. The others are content disputes. Are you really saying that admins should decide matters of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE? That looks like a major re-arrangement of WP.

I recall that Randy once stated he wasn't going to knuckle under to calls for civility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think if his POV were otherwise he would be indef blocked. He has accused me and other editors of bad faith and has not supported that claim. He has said he will not assume good faith in the future. I can supply these diffs. —Whig (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to comment on Randy's page, but when he showed bad faith for misquoting me, I simply asked him to reference his quote from me or to acknowledge his error. I take great offense when some people above said that I "baited" Randy B. I simply expressed concern that he made up out of thin air a quote from me. Two editors (one of whom again made this "allegation" of baiting above) deleted my comment from Randy's page because they worried about Randy's reaction to my legitimate concern (Randy's comment to me actually acknowledged his error, but then, he went into his tirade). Ironically, one of the editors who deleted my comment of concern was an admin, Jehochman, with whom I have had content disputes. It is my understanding that homeopathy articles are under probation and that all parties have been warned about this, and yet, these community concerns have not diminished Randy's uncivility and even hatred. I wish Randy well (I really do), though I wonder if he can be rehabilitated. DanaUllman^Talk 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the rules as I understand them, allow editors to blank comments to their own user talk page. Edit warring to reintroduce a message that was blanked is often considered disruptive. Addhoc (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It's worth noting that clever people can turn Wikipedia's own rules against it. The process is something like this: choose your victim, preferably someone who already has been blocked for incivility and thus is susceptible to the tactic; persistently needle them while being careful not to display obvious incivility yourself; persist until they reach the end of their rope; when they finally snap, shed crocodile tears over the resulting block for incivility; repeat ad infinitum. The neatest thing about the tactic is that there's almost zero risk for the person (or team) doing it. Quite impressive really. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuuuuuuuuuse me...but I wish that Addhoc and Raymound Arritt would avoid re-writing history. Randy B did NOT delete my comments on his user-page (Jehochman did so and so did you, Addhoc!). Randy B admitted his error AND apologized for it, but then, he became venomous enough that he actually wrote that he hoped that I would die. If editors feel that it is OK to wish death on other editors, then we have a serious problem here, Houston...serious. Ironically, while Randy B is given a silly week's vacation, the anti-homeopathy editors are trying ban (!) Whig (primarily due to content disputes), despite his extraordinary civility.[>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Sock_puppet_accusations_on_Homeopathy_article_probation_page] The anti-homeopathy forces may be a tad out of control. DanaUllman^Talk 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy's comments in this instance were plainly unacceptable. No one has said Randy's comments in this instance were acceptable, so it is disingenuous (at the least) for you to imply that they did. Some of us are pointing out that there are further aspects to the problem. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try and avoiding re-writing the present as well. Whig is NOT facing a ban over content issues. East718 summarised the problem exrtemely well: admins will enforce civility with blocks, which is good - however they hit and run: they take no action with regards to the violations of NPOV, RS, V, UNDUE, FRINGE, TE, DE, SOCK, etc. that led to the incivil outburst. I am guilty of this too. It would be more helpful if we struck the root of the problem, squashing the civility issue as ancillary. Whig is extremely good at the sort of gaming to which Raymond refers, and whilst he is scrupulous in following WP:CIVIL, he is also incredibly disruptive, shows no signs of improving, and has thoroughly earned the sanctions he faces following his repeated violations of his editing restrictions. Dana, you might consider what it means that only two editors (including you) have voiced support for Whig. Hint: it isn't that you are all being victimised by the big bad anti-homeopathy boogeyman. Jay*Jay (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I support the block of Randy, and hope that upon his return he will endeavor to comport himself. I think it's reasonable to consider this a "last chance", however, and further inappropriate behavior may merit and indefinite block. Relatedly, however, I expect those with whom RB has consistently feuded to drop the gasoline and matches, and quit the subtle and not-so-subtle baiting that has been painfully obvious. — Scientizzle 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle and others, I'm a tad confused. I am not at all clear why you think that I have baited Randy by asking him to acknowledge that the quote that he attributed to me was not true. We all make mistakes. A simply apology would have put this all behind us. It could have been so simple. In this case, however, Randy went way way over the line (again), and I am shocked, even very shocked, that his desire for my death would warrant a simple week's vacation from wikipedia. To whom can I register this real concern because I do not feel safe, nor do I feel that Randy's repeated offenses and his unrepetent tendencies are adequately acknowledged or dealt with. DanaUllman^Talk 00:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I was already familiar with the entire situation, including the thread you reference immediately below. My statement was, however, not referring solely to this instance. There's quite a long and obvious history of RB behaving questionably, and others (several editors) poking RB to seemingly exacerbate the situation rather than defuse. At this point, every interaction between RB & his antagonists has a chicken-or-the-egg feel to it, and rarely does a participant in these flame wars have a monopoly on the proverbial "high road". I hope that is clear. — Scientizzle 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor who is normally antagonistic to homeopathy has alerted me that he didn't see the original posting by Randy B about which this Incident was reported. Here is that seriously offensive statement that Randy wrote: "I find it absolutely ridiculous to be lectured on proper behavior by someone who scams money out of dying people. I admitted my mistake, we have nothing else to talk about. If you have anything else to say to me, it had better be an apology for all the people you have killed. You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)" [61] I cannot help but sense that other admins and editors didn't see this posting. Being called a "monster" and wanting my imminent death has NO place on wikipedia. Does this deserve a simple week's punishment? DanaUllman^Talk 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely unacceptable, and if I read the above thread correctly, the block has already been extended to a month. In the meantime, you are expected to stay off his talk page for any reason. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

yes. it is very easy to lose ones comprotment, especially ona controversial subject such as homeopathic technology. Randy_Blackmor does have a temper and it is definitely bad that he chose to take it out on you like that, but there is no need to get more draconian on him. one weeks ban and a timme to cool off should be enough to give him a chance to cool off, get his bearings back, and return to continue his productive work on wikiepdia. I say this as someone who has clashed with him many times in the past on Homeopathy and elsehwere that while he can be abrasive he is a decent person who sometimes makes mistakes.

One thing that we can do to minimize the concerns that have led him to lash out the way he did at Dana Ullman is for people who have content disputes with him to try to not go on his talk page and bother him there since even though they mean well he might not take it htat way and might get upset.

of course something should be done about what he said to Dana and once he gets back he can apologize and we should put this behind us for the good of the Wikipeida Project. Smith Jones (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be confusion regarding the block, it was refactored to one week. seicer | talk | contribs 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has followed Randy's edits for even a small amount of time will realise that his normal behaviour is to shock and brow beat. No one is baiting him. That's just what he does. True he does not edit war to a great extent but he is vey disruptive on the talk pages making no effort to be contructive. In my opinion he should get a minimum of two weeks off. David D. (Talk) 05:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this diff shows that the user needs to be indefinitely blocked for harassment. Since they appear to be blocked at the moment, I will leave this for discussion. I would also ask the usual homeopathy partisans to refrain from commenting, and let uninvolved administrators discuss this. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it your diff is linked to [62] and [63]? seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From the link posted by Jehochman above:

I find it absolutely ridiculous to be lectured on proper behavior by someone who scams money out of dying people. I admitted my mistake, we have nothing else to talk about. If you have anything else to say to me, it had better be an apology for all the people you have killed. You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. This is my talk page, it's not the homeopathy article. If he wants to come here and complain, I can respond. Furthermore, if Wikipedia now has a "please be polite to murderers" policy, link me to it, and shame on Wikipedia if so. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remind me again, why are we not extending this to an indefinite ban block? Just how productive does an editor have to be to excuse such behaviour. I'd suggest quite a bit more than Randy currently contributes to this project. David D. (Talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

When we deal with similar editors who make veiled threats and make consistently poor behaviour, we usually endorse an indef block. I don't see a reason why we shouldn't, especially based upon the DIFFs given above. seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the question I asked. Since we are here on the noticeboard, if an indefinite block is agreed, it will be a community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be absolutely thrilled to extend my block to indefinite. I'll give it a couple of hours and then check back, and if there's not significant opposition, I'll do the block myself. I used a week because it looked like it was a heated argument, I didn't know the back-story, and I was trying to follow an escalated block procedure. If my block was too conservative, I'll gladly extend it. - Philippe | Talk 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am mostly anti homeopathy and dislike the stance of some of its proponents on wikipedia, but we can't have an editor calling those he disagrees with "murderers". Would we allow it on other articles? That is worth an indef block, IMHO. On the other hand, it seems wrong to keep changing our minds about his block.:)The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his Talk. I'm sympathetic with the idea "quacks selling fake medicine to sick, gullible people are murderers" but that all homeopaths are such quacks is plainly wrong, and we certainly can't endure such a standard for murder here. It would be akin to calling all the people who voted for FDR "murderers" because he led us into WWII. That's just too far afield from the actionable felony. Pete St.John (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block and/or ban, or whatever we're calling them these days. There's enough trouble on homeopathy without this editor's continual flame-fanning, and the two quoted comments above are completely unacceptable. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't see that when I went over to block him on Saturday. Ban indeed. Blueboy96 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

!vote for ban. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset) ... so anyone willing to do this? I would, but a few editors would look at it as me being in the bed of "anti-science" editors as I am currently a mediator at Cold Fusion. seicer | talk | contribs 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit to see if there's enough consensus ... I'm certainly willing to pull the trigger. Blueboy96 21:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing, too - I'm avowedly pro-science, but we need to distinguish between pro-science editors who are defending NPOV and those, like Randy Blackamoor, who are only around to insult the anti-science types. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• No further discussion needed from my perspective - I am not involved in any way with this area. Having read through all of this thread I have blocked for gross incivility as detailed above.--VS ^talk 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

Can administrators please interfere — User:Kuban kazak is advertising on the message board an AfD with an attempt to influence the vote, which is contrary to WP:CANVASS. I tried to modify the entry and of course with this user it evolved into a revert war.[64] An outside intervention is very welcome. Thank you. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a gentle notice. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how putting up a notice and a personal thought about the deletion request on a public portal is an act of WP:CANVASSing. Is that what the portals are there for, so that you can inform the community about such developemnts? On the other hand by altering someone's talk page entry, that is certainly bordering on WP:VANDalism? --Kuban Cossack 18:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled too by Bearian's "gentle note". I see the allegedly offending diff and I fail to see anything at all even remotely resembling canvassing. This thread seems more like an intimidation attempt and should be noted as such. ---Irpen 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilock posted saying only "*This article Donbas secessionism has been listed for deletion here. " But then Kuban added to it: "I think we can certainly use an article that would describe the east-west relations in Ukraine, but this particular example is scarcely fit for the job." I consider that canvassing for a particular opinion. Much better to just say where it is, and make the argument at the Afd. I think the very mild note Berian left, which was essentially just telling him of this discussion, was appropriate. DGG (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillock posted nothing. See below. --Irpen 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has clearly crossed the line by adding his biased opinion to the original neutral note. Bearian acted correctly. Irpen's accusations of intimidation seems to be an assumption of bad faith, and should be noted as such. Martintg (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who wants to add a comment to an issue get the facts straight first.

1. This was Kuban's "original note".
2. This was Hillock’s editing of the Kuban's note, not the other way around.
3. This was Kuban's restoring his original comment.

I've seen enough of Hillock to not have to resort to "assumptions" of what he is doing. You, Martin, may note what you like. --Irpen 00:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillock et al., it is not the purpose of this board to try to stir up trouble for those who disagree with you on content matters. Kuban, it is better that you keep your own opinion to yourself when posting poll information on noticeboards ... gives those guys ammunition against you. Bearian ... my commiserations! Marting ... Irpen's not speaking from bad faith born of bad faith; the persecution of Kuban by certain users on wikipedia is something that is well-established.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I just witness this: Irpen doesn't consider this comment: "I think we can certainly use an article that would describe the east-west relations in Ukraine, but this particular example is scarcely fit for the job." even remotely resembles canvassing, then proceeds to attack Hillock's motives and questions Bearian's judgement. Amazing. Martintg (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, don't put words in my mouth and don't distort facts, especially since they are in plain view. This is all I am saying. I posted the diffs above. They speak for themselves. --Irpen 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I've seen enough of the cabal's circling of the wagons ... How about dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? --Hillock65 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think many have again acted first and failed to question. Kuban kazak is a well established editor and does not need this "attack". I think caution should be taken in the future when reporting things to this board. Please read ALL relevant pages before posting "based on half the knowledge." I will apologize for everyone, sorry Kuban Thright (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Thright, precisely because Kuban kazak is a well established experienced editor, there is absolutely no excuse for canvassing on a notice board. Since you are a new editor who joined on March 8th with less than 300 edits to your credit, you may not be familiar with WP:CANVAS Martintg (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Martintg since you seem to be so much of an expert please point out in whichever policy it says where on a public announcement board one is forbidden to make a suggestion and propose a vector in which that particular topic can be developed? I will only accept a direct quote from a policy, that answers to all of the criteria I laid out.

Incidentally there have been numerous cases on discussion boards when someone puts a note and/or a suggestion on it and someone else answers to it. Never before has that been reported. What I see is but a sad and pathetic attempt by the likes of Hillock and you to intimidate me. (BTW what is your play in this matter?) If you want violations to end tell your newly found freind (who canvassed you I presume? ;) to stop WP:STALKing me. For the record I do not involve myself in your conflicts with the Baltic-related articles, and anytime someone reports you here and frankly don't care about any of that, so why do you feel the urge to grind your WP:AX against me?

Thright, no need to apologise, if everyone was forced to apologise to me for all their wrong-doing and putting sticks between the spikes of my wheels, the wikipedian server would collapse from the traffic my talk page would recieve. Anyhow nice meeting you. --Kuban Cossack 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that this issue would go away on its own ... The likes of Hillock ?! What the HELL is that? Where is the intimidation, where is harassing?! Reminding a user not to canvass for an AfD on Portal message board didn't have to degrade to personal attacks of this kind. I wish administrators would finally intervene! --Hillock65 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record can someone tell Hillock not to stop tattling about any comment directed at and about him as a personal attack. (Considering he makes personal accusations at me non-stop yet I don't go around bitching about him attacking me).

Like I said again, no quote from a policy on a violation by my part means there has been no violation!. For the record the defendant is inoccent until PROVEN guilty, no proof, no canvassing. Anything else is an offspur of Hillock's imagination. Even Martintg below seems to agree, and no there was no meat there.

Incidentally the original dispute (even though there really has been none) was about the suitability of that article. I supported its deletion request (which Hillock brought up) and the personal comment both on the AfD and the Portal was nothing but a vector in which that topic can be developed. Usually when a deletion request is put up on a public announcement board it is often included with a personal comment about it, so that other memebers of the community can go to the AfD and instead of only voting also bring up suggestions on further improvements of the topic.

So if admins do want to get involved, then please investigate User:Hillock65s previous attempts at intimidating me at articles that are not even on his watchlist. For example the dispute, medcab and later medcom at Podilsko-Voskresenska Line where after the original user has long lost interest in continuing it, Hillock, having made no input in improving the article, for nearly a month or more attempted to stay someone else's course, only on the lines enemy of my enemy is my freind. If admins are interested in seeing more future FA articles like Ukrainian architecture that I have just published, wall me off from this annoyance.

PS: Just before Hillock makes anew accusations of Personal Attacks, none of the above is meant to be offensive to him her ;) --Kuban Cossack 15:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to make a suggestion and propose a vector on a public announcement board in which that particular topic can be developed, this is perfectly acceptable. But it's quite another matter when it is in regard to an AfD vote, as there are potential issues of WP:MEAT involved. I've been in enough deletion debates to know how the issues can become quickly muddled when there is a sudden influx of participants arriving to support the "cause" due to somebody's canvassing. For the record I have no association with either Kuban or Hillock, I have no idea what prior personal history is involved with these two editors. Both have no dount made excellent contributions to Wikipedia. It's clear that there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes canvassing, so I shrug my shoulders. This whole thing seems like a dead horse as far as I am concerned and this discussion should be archived before it spins out of control. Martintg (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikzilla warning - long term vandal threatening escalation

Wikzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making some interesting vandalism threats (see for example threat to disruptively edit ). User is using widely separated IP ranges (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikzilla and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikzilla ). They have been very predictable to date but are now threatening to vandalize widely and more anonymously. I will also add to long-term abuse cases when I get a chance, but if you see him hanging around, block away. We've escalated to indef on sight on accounts and six months on the IP addresses (after much gentler warnings and shorter blocks were tried). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an updated advisory, I have rangeblocked Wikzilla's favorite IP netblocks. Hopefully this works and isn't overkill. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lulz at juxtaposition on this user page Orderinchaos 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP Policy page MFD'd

Resolved

 – Discussion ongoing at the Village Pump. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SilkTork (talk · contribs) has nom'd part of the BLP policy at MFD. While I think silktork has some very relevant points, MFD is not the venue to change or modify policy, indeed the MFD guidelines state that Nominating a Wikipedia policy or guideline page, or one of the deletion discussion areas (or their sub-pages), for deletion will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy.. Looking into the history, I don't think this is a POINT nomination just a good faith editor looking for further input - just in the wrong place. I'd ask for a speedy close on this matter. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the debate on a procedural basis, both due to the importance of the policy in question and the fact that the proposed deletion only included a section of the page, not the entire page - by definition, an editing debate, not a deletion debate. No comment on the merits, except that there are other forums for this concern. I will so notify Silktork momentarily. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for this action, though I would have appreciated a wider discussion on allowing the MfD to stand as putting the section up for discussion on MfD was intended to end a slow moving but potentially disruptive dispute about that section's place in BLP. The guideline quoted above would be for a nom that was in itself disruptive, rather than for one that was intended to reduce or avoid disruption. The nom was discussed in advance, and was only put in place after another editor agreed with that action. I don't think that the procedural basis for closing the MfD was appropriate given the situation. Sometimes we have to apply good sense. This matter has been under discussion in the appropriate place since October 2007 and the situation has not yet been resolved to satisfaction, as the consensus to move the section was reverted by a single individual. A second merge discussion was then also bypassed without consensus. The potential for disruption is already taking place. A move to end potential disruption by using a formal procedure cannot surely be disruptive in itself? I would welcome a discussion and rethink on letting this MfD take place. The current discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Shortcut_WP:BLP1E_should_not_link_here, previous Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#One_Event_merge, prior to that: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_7#Suggested_merge_from_WP:BLP1E_to_here_-_Redux, and the original: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_7#Suggested_merge_from_WP:BLP1E_to_here. There is no wide consensus either way in the actions so far - the need for a wider discussion is pressing. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost always a mistake to interpret agreement among a smal group of like-minded editors in some project space as consensus. WP:BLP is an important policy following multiple serious and very public problems with articles, and deleting it was not going to happen. The fact that some people like to have faux biographies for people notable for a single event is well known, and has been a long-standing cause of friction, but WP:BLP is a good policy which reinforces the long-standing consensus that Wikipedia should not be seen to be evil. The correct place to debate WP:BLP1E is the talk page of the policy itself, or perhaps the Village Pump. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been listed for discussion at the policy page and guideline page on and off since Oct last year, and all that has happened is that half-completed reverts have created a misdirected shortcut and some confusion. So correct or not, what is important is - has that discussion made progress? No, that discussion has not made progress. Where we all appear to be in agreement is that this matter does need wider discussion - where we are now stalling, is that I have brought the matter out for that wider discussion, but it has been stopped as a procedural error - I question that it is an error for the reasons I have given above. However, I will now try the Village Pump. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I closed the debate is that you filed a request to delete a portion of the page, but did not signal any desire to actually have that section deleted. You proposed moving the section elsewhere, which I can't disagree with - but MfD is not the proper forum for such a request. I'm aware that discussion has been ongoing for a while, and maybe the Village Pump will be a good place to centralize it. I would recommend that you note that such discussion is ongoing by posting a (neutral!) notice at the BLP talk page, WP:AN, and WP:BLPN, so that more interested editors and admins can weigh in on the topic. A summary of previous discussion would be in order, as well, to avoid duplicating previous efforts. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's also why I very specifically closed as a Procedural Close rather than a Speedy Close, as the nom was not itself disruptive - quite the opposite, Silktork has some very well-reasoned concerns. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this issue is now taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. Further discussion is encouraged at that page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Power plant pages in Argentina

I have indefinetely semi protected 5 pages pertaining power plant pages in Argentina edited by the 200.45/200.43 ranges (Atucha II nuclear power plant, José Antonio Balseiro, Huemul Project, National Atomic Energy Commission, INVAP). The user also edits 2006 Argentine nuclear reactivation plan but that one is still clean (sorry for the beans). A user in this range (using, sometimes rapidly, shifting IPs) continues to show their POV and trying to get some negative information in the pages (e.g. diff). My reasoning:

• The vandalism edits continue after the previous protection was lifted (as happened a couple of times)
• IP Edits since the last protection was lifted are only by this IP range, these IPs only edit these 5 pages, performing only the POV edits, and perform no other edits to these pages than the same edits they have performed for the last .. years.
• The IP has shown in the past to not want to discuss at all. When confronted with a question of why they thinks a certain edit should be performed, they clearly show that they don't care (diff).
• During protection they also vandalise other pages which have been edited by involved editors (see e.g. Special:Contributions/200.45.150.227).
• I did not see any requests by editors for edits on these pages (except for editors out of the same range during the protection).

I know it would be better to block the editors, or to discuss, but that all seems impossible (for the first the ranges are too wide, for the latter, it gets refused). Could someone please review my protections and adapt if necessery. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The page protection has been noticed: Special:Contributions/200.43.201.20. I am trying to apply WP:RBI, but may need some help, because this is not easy to detect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot trouble?

I'm not encountering anti-V bot edits today. Maybe it's just my luck, or maybe something happened to some helpful bots. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is still active. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, User:ClueBot (special:contributions/ClueBot), User:VoABot II (special:contributions/VoABot II) and user:XLinkBot (special:contributions/XLinkBot) all three have reverts until a couple of minutes ago. But which bot do you mean? --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't encountered any of them today. Just my luck apparently. But at least I haven't been trying to revert stuff they fixed 10 seconds earlier. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty weird when you don't see them for a while on the articles you watch. I've noticed this myself from time to time. Just one of those weird things, I guess. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Giant heap of oddball sockpuppet vandals

I'm here to report that this weird person is back, vandalizing pages by adding false sock accusations, false "blocked" templates (to his own sock pages!) and sort of carrying on a weird dialogue with himself amongst his various IPs and socks. The account is The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs), IPs are 86.29.253.211 (talk · contribs), 167.128.202.93 (talk · contribs). etc. etc. I've tried reporting this before only to be told it's too stale, or "what is the problem?" The problem here is that someone is out there playing games on talk pages with socks and IPs, vandalizing, using Wikipedia for personal amusement/deranged therapy. I don't know what this person's problem is but I really wish someone would look into it and block the socks, run a checkuser, whatever it takes. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another sock is Handy wall link (talk · contribs) who had an {{indefblock}} added by 86.29.244.214 (talk · contribs) but has not been blocked. I've removed the tag but the user still probably needs to be blocked. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Further input needed on behavior of Ahoalton and socks

See [65] and [66] and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ahoalton. The user in question not only is trying to dodge a block by creating new accounts and using multiple IP addresses, but he continues to assert that ANY admin that has dealt with his behavior troubles is somehow involved with this Order of the Arrow and that any attempt to correct his behavior by an admin is necessarily some act of a sort of grand conspiracy by this "Order" to protect its article. This is patently rediculous, and needs to be stopped. Any comments? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow? That would be; sharp bit, stick, feathers, wouldn't it? I'll take a look... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon review I note the editor has been indef blocked under this name, although they do edit via hopping ip's. I can't suggest much more than WP:DENY. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a message at the top of Talk:Order of the Arrow that explains the general consensus on the issue at question. Because "safeguarded" materials are not published outside of the organization, they do not meet Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability. There is nothing "secret" about the OA and local lodges make any and all materials available on demand to parents, church leaders, or other adults with a legitimate interest. But it is gratuitous to post passwords or exact texts from the ceremony here. --B (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other AN/I discussions with regards to this one? Another editor (Padillah) asked me to look at this case... while Ahoalton's IP activities and block evasion are certainly problematic, there are some aspects of the proceedings that might need review.

• Why was the user ID User:Ahoalton blocked based on the username policy? It doesn't seem to be offensive, and there certainly didn't seem to be consensus on the report page for a name-based block. (The "a-hole" note isn't relevant, as the username seems to be a term used in the "Arrow" ceremony.) While the user has sock issues, I've yet to see anything "abusive"; the sockpuppeteer "EverybodyHatesChris", who continues to be truly abusive to me and countless others, was given way more latitude (and opportunity to repent) than what I've seen so far here.
• Why have the talk pages for Ahoalton and the sock Ahoalton1 been semi-protected? More importantly, why was the talk page for Ahoalton1 blanked with a note on the protection log as "abusive"? There's nothing "abusive" in terms of language on the talk page as far as I can tell, plus the discussion there is now hidden.
• Furthermore, some of the concerns raised about what is and is not being permitted in the Order of the Arrow article should be examined as it doesn't - to an outsider - look quite right.

I've more questions, but I would like to see if there is a way to centralize this whole matter first. Right now, it seems to be scattered across too many pages to be coherent. If I'm missing some truly obnoxious ban-worthy behaviour, please let me know. It's just not very apparent right now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the sock behaviour is starting to explain itself. I'd still like to see this discussed somewhere central, though. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be out in left field on this, but I don't think anyone would have an issue with this user being a non-disruptive contributor. Going out and making a user name based on a content dispute to make a WP:POINT is inherently disruptive. If he wants to contribute non-disruptively from an unrelated username, I don't think that would be an issue. (This is my opinion only - I don't claim this to be a policy statement or an assertion of whether or not he is "banned".) --B (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsection (to dissociate Ckatz's request from Ahaulton's sock

• • Thank You! Finally, an admin who sees the point! The only reason I have been sockpuppeting is because I could not even access my own TALK page to defend myself! If someone will please unblock my original Ahoalton talk page and give me a reasonable block time then I swear I will limit myself to it. In the meantime, and in my own defense may I say that just because a book is not available in every corner bookstore does not mean it is invalid or unverifiable. If a book goes out of print is it useable as sourse material. That these "safeguarded" books exist is irrefutable--they pop up on ebay, they get sold at garage sales, they wind up in private collections and at research libraries. And if they are available for the asking by parents and other interested parties then what is the problem? These books are available! Wikipedia users should at least have the choice to use that information. --VivaAhoalton (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already told you at Talk:Order of the Arrow how to do what you want to do (edit under a new account after a reasonable block). Starting more accounts like the one above only decreases the chance of another admin agreeing to that. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you'd waited out your initial block instead of creating socks repeatedly, you would not be in the situation you got yourself into. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, the block is entirely unrelated to the username at this point. The user has been blocked; they have continued to create accounts ad-nauseum, or to edit via IP, and have largely ignored the block. The initial block was placed on an IP, and the accounts were created in RESPONSE to the IP block in order to dodge it. That one of them got tagged with the username-block tag, instead of the perhaps more approrpriate sock-block tag, is largely a red herring. Forget the username issue entirely, it has NO BEARING on the issue at hand. The first block was against an IP for edit warring. He first dodged that block by editing from additional IPs, and then started to create accounts to dodge the further blocks. If he had only waited out the initial edit-war block, we would not be having this conversation right now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, based on subsequent events, and I'd add that I'm certainly not endorsing Ahoalton's actions, just trying to get a handle on what has happened since it is quite messy. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point I have to agree with (and apologize to) Ckatz. I had counseled this user to sit tight and wait for me to try and help. Apparently the user is simply too impatient (or too foolhearty) to wait for the proper channels and, as such, I can no longer support their actions. My deepest apologies, Ckatz. Padillah (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the link to the full sock list an the WP:SSP case, this has gotten way out of hand an range block is needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of events

1. 69.127.11.135 (talk · contribs) blocked
2. 69.127.1.53 (talk · contribs) blocked
3. 69.127.11.176 (talk · contribs) blocked
4. Ahoalton (talk · contribs) created, then blocked, with confusing username-block tag
5. Various other Ahoalton socks created.

Since the initial block on this person was done to the IP 69.127.11.135 before the confusing username-block, that is the "Master account" for sockpuppet organization purposes. All IPs used or accounts created after 23:07, March 9 should be treated as inappropriate alternate accounts of this first block. The first four "socks" I listed above ALL edited during the initial 24 hour block on 69.127.11.135. The block was then extended to 30 days for the sockpuppetry abuse. I hope that clears up the timetable for you, Ckatz... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For sock purposes, you can use the oldest or most prominent username. Here, I think Ahoalton should be the "master" account, as listed at SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a cause for concern: (from User talk:69.127.11.135) [...] I'd also suggest creating an account per Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Dreadstar † 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ... I've also increased the block on this IP to 30 days for evading the block. Dreadstar † 02:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) ... Suggesting creating an account and then blocking for doing so? (actually, it looks like it was for changing IPs - which makes it even more odd... if he's changed IPs, shouldn't the extended block be on the new IP, since the old IP isn't his IP anymore?) —Random832 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was originally blocked for edit warring, but then evaded the block and continued disruptively editing from other IP addresses - that's why the block was extended. The user then continued using other IP addresses and started creating usernames that were obvious attempts to poke the other editors in the eye. He was not blocked for merely "creating an account as was suggested." The multiple unblock requests were all denied by uninvolved administrators, the user was also abusing the unblock template. Multiple infractions. Dreadstar †

User talk:204.129.175.106

Resolved

I think the user has been warned enough times in one day? Yes? Here is a link to the user's contributions. Every single one of them is a vandlism. I'm asking for a ban to this vandalism only account. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reported the IP to WP:AIV. For future reference, that's the best place to report straight-forward vandalism that just requires a block. --clpo13_(talk) 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, WP:AIV is the place for this, either way I blocked for 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like "Arbuthbott-Bumley-Smythe" - nice nod towards on of our Wikipedia-as-Burkes editors :o) Guy (Help!) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)