Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive416

IP address 72.44.38.243 is removing useful links, en masse!

Resolved

 – Account is already blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone from 72.44.38.243 is removing all links to pinouts.ru. And the information at pinouts.ru is very useful and straightforward in regards to pinouts. Other useful links has also been removed by this user on some pages. There's lot's of edits, so someone with script-fu needs to take action. IP addresses tend to have the most bad edits to good edits ratio. I have reverted some edits. But I dealing with 100s of edits is worse.

Could someone take care of this ..? Electron9 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have one link to the main page of the site, rather than the 20 or so links throughout the article (referring to Mini-DIN connector)? Kevin (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, no. There are so many different pinouts, some with very similar names, that if someone has done the dirty work to link the right things together that work shouldn't be thrown away. pinouts.ru is an encyclopedia of sorts itself, and just telling people "the information you want is here -- someplace! Go find it!" isn't all that polite if you already know where they can find it. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - sorry if you found it impolite. Kevin (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think my tone came off much harsher than I had intended it. Apologies. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzuuzz has already blocked this IP for using an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to say thanks for putting an end to the wreckless "edits". However someone suggested I can look at the contributions log for the IP to undo, but there's lots of changes!, so some script-magic is still appropiate. Electron9 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All the edits have now been reverted. For Electron9, WP:TWINKLE can be useful for reverts like this Kevin (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The small discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views

The small discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views

There is an on-going systematic effort by User:Nihil_novi and few other extreme nationalist characters to archive the content of the discussion page Talk:Stefan_Banach.

The discussion on this page contains many arguments and references on Ukrainian roots of Stefan Banach and on his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

Polish chauvinists attempted to initiate the discussion of the censorship purge of the article on Banach. To create a semblance of a "vote" supporting their censorship, User:Nihil_novi attempt to hide into the archive the discussions of the Banach Ukrainian roots and his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

The section Stefan Banach#Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important and non-redundant facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of Stefan Banach.

The on-going attempts of Polish extreme nationalist characters to impede the establishment of NPOV on Banach must be stopped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

98.210.14.5 is trying to harass Nihil novi and pushing his POV. Admins should ignore his comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please look into the change logs ("history" tab) of Talk:Stefan_Banach . Apparently, censorship of the discussion by archiving or erasing the previously stated opinions was done by User:Nihil_novi and User:Kotniski. Your intervention on behalf of Wikipedia will be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and then notice that this is nationalistic pro-Ukrainian, anti-Polish edit warring by a bunch of IPs and ignore this complaint. --Haemo (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and is Wikipedia really anti-Ukrainian and pro-Polish? The discussions that User:Nihil_novi and User:Kotniski attempt to censor contain both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Polish views. Discussions help to reach NPOV. People who censor and impede the discussions undermine Wikipedia.

Dry needling: OR and removal of sourced information

121.216.77.150 is removing sourced information and adding unsourced original research to the Dry needling article. The user is not heeding advice or warnings. -- Fyslee / talk 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The user has not made any edits since your last warning. Gary King (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Something curious here

Resolved

 – Blocked indef

I came across Yartamis (talk · contribs) who seems to be a vandalism-only account. She's only made about a dozen edits, mostly in the last day or so, even though the account is a year or so old.

But looking on the talk page, I see lots of notifications about non-free image uploads. Except that NONE of the contributions of this user were image uploads!

Why is it that bots or people think this user has created images, when the account history doesn't show that? Am I looking in the wrong place? Do they not show up in Contributions? Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if the image was deleted, it will not show up in contributions list. -- Avi (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And looking at the contribs, nearly all of them are vandalism of one sort of another. I say they have overstayed their welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't be upset if someone notified them of that fact, having just finished cleaning up the mess. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see any image uploads; the warnings are all regarding making attack pages. There's nothing in the upload logs, but all the attack pages show in deleted contributions. And yes, they've gone on an unusually long tear without getting indefinitely blocked yet. Antandrus (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP talk page blanking policy?

Is there any policy covering an anonymous IP blanking the talk page belonging to that IP? Normally when I see this, it's an attempt to conceal a record of warnings and other infractions.

Recently I saw contributions blank User talk:99.240.27.210, so I automatically restored the page, warnings and all. The anon proceeded to re-blank the page, leaving threatening notes on my talk page to "stop harrassing".

I know established accounts have considerable latitude in editing their own talk pages, but does that also extend to anonymous IPs? =Axlq 04:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It shows that the user has received the warnings. It's a good idea to look at the talk page history when leaving warnings in case of blanking/removal. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In general I think people are permitted to blank their page if they've read a message. Typically with an active vandal I'll roll back blanking so other patrollers can see what is going on, and on the other hand, if there is obviously more than one editor active at the IP, I'd assume good faith and allow the person to blank messages they have read. If the IP is making good edits I'll always allow them to blank messages. I'll also use rollback if they replace the messages with abuse. So I don't think there's one blanket way to handle this. Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in this case the IP is pretty clearly a fixed IP address used by a single user, and thus is to most intents and purposes a normal user. I see a number of warnings he blanked, but I also see a lot of contributions, and they seem to be in somewhat contentious areas, so warnings are not too surprising. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Learn more at WP:BLANKING Gary King (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's nice when these things resolve themselves, isn't it? – ClockworkSoul 05:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay anons! :D --67.186.244.249 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Happyone2

User Happyone2 (talk · contribs) writes incorrect info on various articles and does not give any sources to verify. This is especially true with Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, listing an English cast. In fact, the said title has no official English dub and there are no verifiable reports to back it up. The user has even created an article for a "live action movie" of the said title, but it is completely false was deleted. The user was reminded several times on the talk, but it seems the user doesn't respond to any of them. Some of those edits were reverted, but this doesn't stop his/her misinformation. What do you think can be done with this user? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Diff for reference - he has received a few warnings, but perhaps he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong...so Happyone2, if you read this, verifiability is a key Wikipedia policy that states that when adding information, you really should provide a reliable source backing it up. Not doing so makes it difficult to collaborate effectively, as editors have to try and work out where you got the information from, which can waste their time and efforts. You can learn how to cite sources at WP:CITE - hopefully this helps you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he'll respond to that. But I'll tell you if he has learned or not. Because I'm sure he hasn't read his talk page, hence his continued misinformation. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that if he ignores his talk page and the discussion here that you leave him a more stern warning (and also a note about edit summaries) strongly suggesting he take a look at WP:V. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Blechnic

User Blechnic (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is currently banned from Wikipedia (the ban ends in a few days time IRC) but this user has removed all the warnings and the ban template and has just started adding stuff on the talk page[1]. I've got no idea whether this is against any policy's on Wikipedia which is why I've posted this here. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, its permitted, since we take that to mean he's read them and understands them, if he's removing them. Sort of a remove them at his own peril situation, since he can't claim ignorance in the future. MBisanz ^talk 07:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :) What about the other stuff they adding to the talk page? Bidgee (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is puzzling. Some of it looks like copyvios, other parts look like edits he intends to make when unblocked, and other parts I just can't figure out. More admin eyes on this one please? MBisanz ^talk 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

These look to me like the notes of someone getting ready to do lots of editing once they're unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they're what I would have edited, along with my articles on viruses, plants, and electron microscopy. Someone else definitely should edit this stuff--it's really really bad. Only one's been corrected so far, the embarrassing geological information of the 3-4 billion years old Pliocene epoch. Unfortunately the editor who corrected that left even worse information to sit idly for the unwary reader of the article--although rather an obscure topic. I considered posting notices on the article's talk pages, but I was banned for discussing an article on its talk page. Oh, wait, no, I was banned for putting fact tags in an article, and I've been threatened that if I question inaccurate content in an article again by tagging it I'll be banned again. Very little fact checking will reveal what's really really wrong with all of these. I have a few hundred more. But I won't put any more tags in articles or discuss the tags on talk pages, I learned my lesson there! Oh, and I promise not to edit any more inaccurate or poorly sourced information out of Wikipedia articles, and I understand that four "sorta okay sources" equals one reliable source. I can't find that anywhere under "verifiability," but, again, I learned me lesson. --Blechnic (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I won't be back to discuss this here or there. --Blechnic (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

80.249.52.136

This user is continually vandalising pages, including my talk page. I think its a library beloning to Birmingham City Council... can someone do something about this? Temp Block? Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 09:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone is currently active on that IP, report them to WP:AIV - the helpbot there will make a note that it's a library IP, and an admin will block appropriately (ie. not for too long, I'd say). It's best to ensure they've received the full set of warnings first (see WP:WARN). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked for another 6 months. MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Maybe this will encourage Birmingham City Council to do something about it... Though I seriously doubt it. Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(shout at me)} 09:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer User:Karmaisking (indefinitely blocked): moved from User:Socppt11 (blocked) to User:Socppt12

Resolved

 – Blocked, please use WP:AIV next time. Sandstein (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the long history, he's now just moving through numbered sockpuppets. Grateful admin action.--Gregalton (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats from blocked user

Resolved

After a protracted spat on Talk:Ayn Rand and much rude and uncivil behavior from a certain blocked user by the name of Edward Nilges, I deleted his posts from the page under the rationale that he was, in fact, being a troll, as well as violating WP:FAITH, WP:ATTACK, and goodness only knows what else. He has since posted a legal threat on my talk page. Nilges was indefinitely blocked due to his uncivil and disruptive behavior--see User Talk:Spinoza1111. Any help would be appreciated. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

203.218.232.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for 3 months for legal threats. Sandstein (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile if an admin or two could watchlist Talk:Herbert Schildt as Nilges has been active there, too, using multiple IP addresses to evade his block. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Help fixing cut and paste move, please

Cheerbo (talk · contribs) has performed cut and paste moves on all of the Australian Idol season articles. I've now gone and reverted him, but as the pages he created all have a bit of history now, a fix of the cut and paste move would be useful.

The articles are supposed to be (and are now at);

• Australian Idol 2003
• Australian Idol 2004
• Australian Idol 2005
• Australian Idol 2006
• Australian Idol 2007
• Australian Idol 2008

The pages he copied content to, which I've now redirected back to the above, are (respectively);

• Australian Idol (season 1)
• Australian Idol (season 2)
• Australian Idol (season 3)
• Australian Idol (season 4)
• Australian Idol (season 5)
• Australian Idol (season 6)

Go ahead, work your magic! :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll start at the top - if someone else comes along start at the bottom please. Viridae^Talk 12:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that - splash appears to have reverted. Viridae^Talk 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nightmare, with crossed-over edit histories and things. In future, it's more pleasant for the admin to just do the whole lot - there's not really much reason to go redirecting etc., since the edit histories then begin to develop independently as people fight over the two articles and possibly edit them both. If that hasn't already happened, then an admin can repair the histories much more easily. In this case, I've left deleted (or intended to leave deleted) the edits that deal with the move to/from the title apart from my undoing-move since otherwise the edit histories would have been interleaved. This was slightly trickier with Australian Idol 2008 where exactly that had happened, and I also left deleted the edit by User:Elitehkmodel which was analogous to the same edit they made to the other articles. However, I am given to understand that there is some disagreement over which title is eventually where they will settle down. Splash - tk 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as they do it the right way. Viridae^Talk 12:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gs111

Resolved.

A guy named Gs111 recreated an article which just got deleted. Is that ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.90.185 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He just got another article deleted, too. I've left them a note, let's see if they stop. Thanks for the note. Also see WP:AIV for this sort of thing when it persists. Splash - tk 12:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonk. Splash - tk 12:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Charliecow7

This guy recreated a page which was just deleted. I'm sorry I have to do this again, but, did he really recreate? 122.54.90.185 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see any re-creations in his contributions. Are you sure this tag is warranted? Splash - tk 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! That's why I asked. I'm sorry... Just checkuser him and see what happenns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.54.90.185 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kiltpunker

This user just recreated an article that was just deleted.122.54.90.185 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted immediately. Recreations are usually very easily spotted. No need to report them to this page, just tag the article with {{db-repost}} ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chimmychimp (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – blocked indef by DerHexer -- thanks

Equazcion •✗/C • 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reported this at AIV but there's a backlog, and this user keeps vandalizing Adolf Hitler. Could someone please block? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Harry_the_Hamster - sock of User talk:Argus-Bot, User talk:86.129.31.62, User talk:86.145.219.221, User talk:86.162.213.186

Resolved.

User talk:Harry_the_Hamster has engaged in repeated vandalism and insertion on unsourced information on Video CD, CD Video, Template:Video storage formats. Same systematic edits as blocked User talk:Argus-Bot,User talk:86.129.31.62, User talk:86.145.219.221, User talk:86.162.213.186. First edit for Harry the Hamster appears 3 days after argus bot was blocked. I have issued a level 4 warning, editor is currently active. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. You can use WP:AIV in the future.-Wafulz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Nickwtts

Resolved

 – Vandalism-only account, blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This guy is always spamming.122.54.90.185 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a vandalism-only account; glancing at deleted (and non-deleted) contribs, I've blocked it indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Very heated AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanau is getting very hot, allegations and personal attacks being thrown around. Could an admin please have a look.--Phoenix-wiki 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: It appears a lot of the edits on that AFD according to the page history are being made by Aimulti and it appears he's making attacks towards others. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:70.69.9.186

IP editor 70.69.9.186 has an unfortunately lengthy history of vandalism, insertion of original research, NPOV violation and failure to source assertions. The editor has been blocked previously for this behavior, and warned many, many times by multiple editors on his or her talk page([2]), so I don't think it's possible to claim ignorance of the policies. Examples from the last day or two include [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8], just to note a very few. Several editors have had to go out of their way to track and revert these baseless changes. Even if a longer-term block is not warranted, perhaps a friendly warning from an admin might convince him or her that their editing behavior needs some reconsideration. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[Non-admin comment] Given the constant re-offending after multiple warnings with no signs of reform, I see a 24h block as rather lenient [esp. as it doesn't seem to be a public/institution IP]. If after the block expires they continue to offend unabated, I would think that a much longer block [2wk+?] would be warranted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:06, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

User:Mountainsarehigh

Mountainsarehigh (talk · contribs · count) is skirting the borders of policy with SPA POV edits to Ron Paul. User is attempting to avoid reportability at other boards, but has had a WP:AN3 block and returned.

• Classic old-user new-account marks: upon 5/1 creation, immediate familiarity with how to edit and reinstate reverted edits, and with some policies (while denying knowledge of others). Immediate edit war per WP:AN3. Deleted warnings, and later questions, from user talk (see history). Used edit summaries and well-formatted sourcing in second session. Clear WP:SPA, every last edit has been directed toward discrediting of Ron Paul. Clear alternative account of somebody.
• No admission of being a legitimate alternative account despite the above; legitimate alternative accounts should freely admit having a prior WP history when questioned with evidence to avoid bad faith. However, this tells the whole story of attempts on that front.
• User had been engaging in many suspiciously familiar behaviors since 5/1, but today performed a very strong maneuver, i.e., removing a longstanding footnote from a lead blithely as "need better sources here", without seeking current or past consensus, without considering how it redlines other article locations where that footnote is cited, and without admitting the additional support sources have already long appeared in the subsection and subarticle. IMHO actions of user have served to begin destabilizing an article that has been quiet for recent months and has been a FFAC. User has gone on to other generic disruption, such as pinning the errors of that edit on another editor.[9] Disruption is so obvious (to me) that it appears to be deliberate testing of WP's standards.
• Caveat: I have not succeeded 100% in my reports of suspected socks and am not 100% sure of a puppeteer in this case. However, the extant behavior warrants a report to this board in good faith. I suspect a banned puppeteer who has returned regularly with sophisticated new accounts.

My request is for some admin to provide a second view in this case as to my next step. Should I assemble evidence for SSP or directly for RFCU? Should I ignore the potential destabilization, or just deal with it by ordinary means as well as possible? Is immediate admin response available? RFCU has been proven to be a regular need to remove sock factories in the case I am considering, and it is likely to turn up others in any latest sock drawer. I am not listing all my evidence with this initial report due to the time it takes to assemble, but I will add as needed. JJB 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone delete this junk?

Blocked/banned User:W.GUGLINSKI (or a meatpuppet) is back as User:Dankal.naveen, posting the same crap again, now under Heisenberg's Scientific Method. I don't really think we need another AfD on this, but an admin (User:Tikiwont) declined a speedy and the author removed his prod tag. Previously this was dealt with by indef-blocking his accounts.

See User talk:Tikiwont for the most recent discussion. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just sent it to AfD ... only other course open, as speedy was declined and the prod was contested. Blueboy96 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

e/c. makes some of the below moot. oh well.

After reading this article, and the several now-deleted articles by User:W.GUGLINSKI, I am quite sure this is the same person; subject matter and writing style and talk page behavior matches up exactly. So, I think there are two issues:

1. Since this probably doesn't match any speedy criteria exactly, is an AFD really needed, or should an IAR speedy be done. I definitely think the latter, but would like to hear from Tikiwont first (I notified him of this thread).
2. Is it time to formalize this guy's level of unwelcomness here? Especially if we have to go thru an AfD every time he puts a new piece of OR up under a different account?

--barneca (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked User:Dankal.naveen as an obvious sockpuppet of User:W.GUGLINSKI. The AfD can play out however it will. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Will restore article for Afd if the SSP case turns up as "not a sock" . Clsoing afd in a sec....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Afd closed already by User:TenPoundHammer. Marking resolvedKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thnaks for the note, just coming back from the weekend: As already said to The way, the truth, and the light, i closed one (the first?) Afd related to User:W.GUGLINSKI, so i had some idea regarding his theories and demeanor. As far as i understood, the user was not banned, but blocked indef. If he has used any sockpuppets previously, why is no SSP case mentioned here? Moreover, I had noticed that the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory mentions some person named Dankal.naveen, who may simply have found his way here as one of the few who agree with Guglienski. I explicitly mentioned that on my talkpage to "The way, the truth, and the light" as well as that I assume the two accounts are not the same. I had thus declined deletion per CSD G5 and prodded the article and tried to reason. While I could not convince Dankal.naveen to let the article go (and would thus have brought it to AfD myself), reading trough the now twice denied polite unblock requests and once more through the AfD I see beyond just AGF both in writing and arguing two different persons so would stick to my original assessment and consider this block not valid (and thus us also not the deletion). I really think we need more evidence than common beliefs in such cases. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Any feedbak here? Especially to 1) any previous accounts under which Guglieski would already have edited while being blocked and 2) anything other proof than a perceived similarity in topics, while I do see significant differences in writing, communication. Otherwise I am going to assume that is is indeed someone who knows Guglinski, has his book reviewed on Amazon, posted now his own essay on wikipedia (like thousands before and after) and edits probably from India (according to the first IP edit on the deleted article), nothing of which is blockable. As there is now another unblock request, I am going to unblock unless there are objections. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to an unblock if you really think these accounts aren't the same person; re-blocking is easy if disruption continues. But I will say that I do find enough similarities in the writing style and subject matter of the old and new articles that I, personally, believe they are the same person. Still, if you disagree, I guess the AGF default is unblock, and watch. I think I know what's going to happen, but I've been wrong before. Have you asked Raymond about it on his talk page? (sorry, I'm to lazy to open another window to see for myself). --barneca (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did, no objections either, so I've unblocked. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The hypothesis that Naveen Dankal is a different person is reasonable, so I support his unblock. Dankal does have an Orkut community called 'Grand Unification Theory'. In Orkut he says he is based in India; Guglinski may be in South America. There is no burning need IMHO to allow recreation of Heisenberg's Scientific Method although technically the grounds stated in the deletion log no longer apply (article was not in fact created by a banned user). No reason to lift the indef block on User:W.GUGLINSKI so far as I'm concerned. Check out Guglinski's behavior during the Quantum Ring Theory AfD if you are wondering. I would keep an eye on Dankal to see if he's willing to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actaully I closed that AfD ;). As for Dankal we'll indeed have to see what he now does with the editing privileges.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User Rjecina - playing checkuser and administrator - shall be stopped

Resolved

 – Blocked the IP for 3RR violation. Suggest that Rjecina report this IP as a Velebit sock at WP:SSP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Srbosjek (knife) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is engaged in regular removals of my contributions to the Srbosjek article and the talk page - removal of references and pointless insertion of the tag after each existing and not removed reference. See [10], [11], [12] He was warned already three times by other user and by me - [13], [14], [15]

Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper waning is given. [16], [17]

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([18]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--71.252.101.67 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Rjecina is removing the material (actually reverting to a previous version) with the edit summary "revert of banned user user:Velebit, aka user:Stagalj aka user:Standshown aka User:Pederkovic Ante". Removing material from banned users is allowed. Of course, if this is NOT one of the listed banned users, there might be a problem. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For evidence see User talk:71.252.83.230 and User talk:71.252.101.51 (I am not even asking to see history of Velebit, Standshown and Stagalj). This puppet is using similar multiple IP for editing. From my knowledge his blocking is not possible (because of multiple IP:71.252.102.204, 71.252.101.67, 71.252.52.88, 72.75.18.147). Similar style of editing (writing about Ustaše) is answer if he is puppet or not (see WP:DUCK). This argument has been used by Future Perfect last time.--Rjecina (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• For evidence - I never used the IP adresses listed above. Also, Rjecina attempt to block me was already rejected twice [19], [20]

--71.252.101.67 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Your last argument is 1 of reasons why we can't let user Velebit edit wikipedia ! You are writing again and again false statements. Nobody has asked for your blocking and this is clearly writen in demand for semi-protection.--Rjecina (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Note. In the header I added the name of the article under dispute as well as the user links (for the person complained about) to make this report less puzzling. The comment from Future Perfect is quoted by the IP from somewhere else, since it's dated April 22nd. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 71.252.101.67 (talk · contribs) 72 hours for 3RR on Srbosjek (knife). Rjecina may or may not be justified in assuming this is a sock, so his reverts may or may not be right, but there is no justification at all for the IP's reverts. Rjecina if he wishes may add the IP address to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Purger. The IP does fit the address pattern 71.252.* of at least one previous Velebit sock and he has the same interests. The IP's recounting of Rjecina's previous history (above) is quite unbalanced, as you'll see if you click through to the various sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The two IP socks above look very much like more Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs) socks to me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

EarthBound/Mother Name Controversy

There's been a naming of the series article controversy that's been going on for several months. In case you don't know, the series consists of three role-playing games, Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3. Only Mother 2 was released in the U.S. under the title EarthBound. Personally, I'd prefer Mother (series) instead of EarthBound (series) for these reasons.

1.) EarthBound was the name of only one game.

2.) Though Super Smash Bros. Brawl says EarthBound (Mother) under series when looking at Trophies, when looking at songs, it says Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3.

3.) On the Smash Bros. dojo, never says EarthBound, only Mother.

There are too many reasons. In the discussion page, the main person who's defending this is A Link to the Past. To be honest, I'm not to fond of him and tangled with him over a naming controversy. It was whether the Android/Artificial Human pages should be called either one. I think I contacted you about that. Anywho, again, he was the only one trying to make it Android, dispite Artificial Human being the proper term and more known. I ended it by renaming them #17 and #18 because these are also propers names used after the Cell arc. In this argument, some of the points he's making aren't accurate, and he's becoming very frustrated with the subject, resorting to name calling and such. Read the discussion and you'll see. He even kept reverted more than three times which breaks the 3RR policy. He's also moved the article without Wikipedia:Consensus. Can you please intervene so this discussion can end. I haven't been to the article in months, and it's still going on. I read everything and he's wrong again like he was back then. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that doesn't require admin intervention. As an aside though, the game is significantly more well known as Earthbound. (I'd never heard of it being called Mother before).⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute. I've been watching that page for some reason and although discussion has occasionally been a little too "passionate" at times, the last comment on the talk page by A Link to the Past was left unrebutted on May 8. Perhaps try WP:RfC or WP:3O to get more voices. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WikiSkeptic's extreme incivility and personal attacks

I need admins' attention on WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs)'s incivility and personal attacks against other editors. I first noticed him for his personal attack comment pointing at me[21] at the talk page of the indefinitely banned user's WP:SSP case which I filed.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka I don't know what led he to come across the SSP case, but I took strong offence by him. He also edited Japan-Korean related articles with insulting personal attacks toward Japanese/Korean/Chinese people such as calling Jap Kap, Cap.Jap POV: terrorist group[ balance, all Kaps not crooks[22] So I gave him a warning not to speak the inappropriate comments. But he ignored my advice[23] [24] [25] and then keeps doing that. In the meantime, Ludvikus (talk · contribs) gave him a barnstar[26] which I felt so odd, so went over to the user's page and found more insulting comments towards other editors with whom he had a dispute, especially Flying tiger (talk · contribs).[27] [28] [29] He called the disputed editor doing "terrorims". Also other editors protested to ludvikus for his giving the barnstar because of WikiSkptic's past personal attacks.[30] Ludvikus also disagreed his way of speaking and incivility, so retract the barnstar.

Today, he edited Timeline of Japan-South Korea relations which also I edited several times earlier and has been on my watchlist. I thought his edit with no source does have any merit so reverted.[31]. Then he left an mocking comment at his talk page which implies my English.[32] I said to him for his incivility but accused me of wikistalking him[33] and being paranoid[34]. He was recently warned by an admin[35] but does not admit his wrongdoings. I need your help. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note complaining user has been reprimanded for filing inappropriate AIV reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Appletrees&diff=211709535&oldid=211709323 I can state categorically that I have never examined Appletree's watchlist and still remain ignorant as to which articles are or are not on it. User keeps claiming my edits are "pointed at him" and/or "directed at him" when this is not the case--paranoia anyone?-WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The AIV report has nothing to do with your incivility and personal attacks. That is a clear evidence that you're wikistalking me to the contrary to your false accusation[36] [37], so you lessen my effort to notify this report on you. You came to the admin who took the AIV report and the editor who had a dispute with me. What a hilarious. It does not change the fact that you're warned for your extreme wrongdoings.--Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what's hilarious is that the record clearly shows that you began editing my pages in each and every case after I've edited them. In other words, I started editing, and you've chased me across Wikipedia. THen, when I ask for a "little assistance" from some well-known and respected Wikipedians, you "retaliate" by looking for one of your friends. At each and every case, you are clearly obsessed with me, and I'm hoping you might eventually learn to put Wikipedia first and your bizarre obsessions second. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No way, your appearance at WP:SSP/Azukimonaka is just a coincidence? Your bizarre way of speaking is really not tolerable. You've been warned but you do not cease that. You need a lesson for what you did. --Appletrees (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, both of you knock it off. ANI isn't the place to fight over things. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not come to here to fight with him. This report is all about his abusive verbal attacks. So need an admin's attention like these as well..[38] [39] [40] [41] --Appletrees (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And attention will be given now that it has been brought up. I'm currently looking into both of your recent actions, as are other admins as well, I'm sure. Once we can actually post without getting into any edit conflicts, we'll decide if any administrative action is warranted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But edit conflicts are not a matter for the report. I can't stand his racial/personal attacks.---Appletrees (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article material aside, WikiSkeptic's racist comments are completely unacceptable.-Wafulz (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, he added more insulting personal attacks against me.[42] Regardless of the admin Hersfold's advice, he went over still to assault me behind my back and the admin said to him to stop lobbying.[43]

“ User:AppleTrees has been wiki-stalking me, and I'm starting to realize that he's just looking for the free English lesson. It's creepy, and it's emotional diarrhea... and I've done nothing to perpetuate the situation, just looking to defend myself against a serial attacker. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC) ”

I think the editor should earn a proper lesson for what he has spoken. If he complaint about my notifying Flying tiger, one of the victims of his verbal attacks, I wonder why he notified unrelated people to seek his help.--Appletrees (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well now I've had a short moment to look at things without getting a new messages bar every five seconds, it looks like Appletrees has a legitimate complaint. This discussion started up after User:El C warned WikiSkeptic for this trolling comment. During that discussion, WikiSkeptic manages to drag Appletrees in for no apparent reason other than to set up up as an example. Comments such as these two have no place in the project, particularly when coupled with and made immediately after comments directed to other users [44].

This isn't to say Appletrees is entirely saintly either: this isn't anything that I'd call polite at all, and there are many similar edit summaries (talk history) and posts that indicate to me someone has a slight problem in keeping cool in heated situations.

I feel a block is merited here, for WikiSkeptic certainly for his racist comments, and possibly both parties, but I'd like another admin to look into this to help check over what I've found. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That fact that I had disputes with Badagnani is totally irrelevant to WikiSkeptic's personal attacks at me. If anyone asks me about the dispute with Badaganini, Badagnani should be summoned for his behaviors here. However I only reported WikiSkeptic's assaultive remarks. The disputes between me and Badagnani are his introducing original research on Korean cuisine articles and personal attacks. I only claims that he should bring reliable sources. --Appletrees (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Skeptic for 24 hours. Haven't look at the Appletrees stuff yet.-Wafulz (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked out Appletrees' contributions and I don't think s/he's done anything wrong. I think this is the result of their English skills and not necessarily any incivility.-Wafulz (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani and I've edited Korean cuisine articles and English sources are limited for the subjects but Korean sources are many. The reason I stated that he does not read Korean but Badagnani insisted on creating the non-notable garaetteok article with its unofficial name after his googling the unofficial name in Korea website. This is not the first time. I've talked him many times but my patience hit the bottom. He also said huintteok (garaetteok) maybe be noodles but he has edited tteok articles a lot, so I do not understand about his insistence. Anyway, the disputes on Korean cuisine are no related to WikiSkeptic.--Appletrees (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The irrelevant accusation of my disputes with Badagnani.

• Talk:List_of_museums_in_Seoul#Merge proposal
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Korea/To_do
• User talk:Badagnani

These disputes with Badagani have nothing to do with WikiSkeptic. He dragged me and accused unrelated matters to turn from the main subject. --Appletrees (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought to my attention by messages left on my talk page as mentioned above. I declined the AIV report of Badagnani for a good reason - AIV is not for dealing with anything outside persistent/obvious vandalism and spamming. AN/I or dispute resolution is the correct place. I did however advice Badagnani that users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages generally. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a troll? Second opinion, please

Resolved

 – That's quite enough

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please look at this user's [Beans Backside contribution list] and tell me if I'm right to suspect trolling here. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Any one or two of those questions, taken by themsleves, and I'd say AGF. But good God, 60 questions in 3 days? No. I'd warn them to stop, and block if they continue. I'd be tempted to delete their 60 questions as time wasters, too. --barneca (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a lot of time-wasting to me. Notice there are no mainspace edits. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

His questions all seem reasonable, though. Very much unlike the typical RD trolls. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is reasonable? I dislike the word troll but every question I looked at seemed to have been written to do nothing but nettle (and waste time). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Edits are coming from a range that has been softblocked (schoolblocked), a second range that might also be a school or might not, and the account was one of 6 created at the same time from the same IP.

1. (Logs) . . 22:24 . . Stolen thoughts (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
2. (Logs) . . 22:24 . . Avril's sister (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
3. (Logs) . . 22:23 . . Bliss bois (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
4. (Logs) . . 22:23 . . Sticky end (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
5. (Logs) . . 22:22 . . Swan's swimming song (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
6. (Logs) . . 22:21 . . Mr Beans Backside (Talk | contribs | block) New user account

Thatcher 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • User:Stolen thoughts was blocked for being one of a series of accounts that was creating nasty attack pages directed at a particular user. Avril's sister has no contributions. The only contributions from the rest of them are... inane questions to the Reference Desk. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions are sometimes coming at the rate of 1 per minute. Disagreeing with Someguy1221, most are unreasonable, with a few legit ones thown in occasionally. We are definitely being trolled. I say, block indef as troll, revert all questions that don't have a response yet to minimize wasting time. --barneca (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Let me echo Gwen Gale in pointing out that there are some questions by this editor that can't really be considered reasonable. He/she is here for some fun at Wikipedia's expense. Fairly harmless but potentially fairly annoying. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the remaining unblocked accounts as obvious socks. I advocate an indef block for MBB as well, but if someone wants to give them a final warning, or a shorter block, that's up to them, and IMHO it's NawlinWiki's call anyway. I see NawlinWiki is removing some of the questions. Good. --barneca (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've warned MBB. I'm prepared to block if there are any more inane questions. Thanks, y'all. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to all of these allegations. I am simply asking questions. I'm sorry if I posted too many, but I don't see any reason for threating me with a block. As I said to NawlinWiki on his talk page, I wasn't aware contributing to the encyclopedia was a requirement for asking questions on the Reference Desk. Also, I do not see how they can be considered disruptive. I informed Gwen Gale, another user who reverted some of my questions, that they are not offensive or rude, homework questions, legal or medial, or starting debates. I don't see a problem. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

They are disruptive because they distract Ref Desk editors from answering real questions. Your pointing to the specific list of guidelines that you say you aren't violating is a clue, to me at least, that you are trying to game the system. Give it a rest. --LarryMac | Talk 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to my questions being called inane or fake. They are real and they are not senseless - they are simply things I wanted to know. Look, I'm new here and I've obviously broken some of the rules, so if someone kind would point my in the direction of the guidelines I should read to avoid being blocked, I would be grateful. Thank you. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read that and it does not relate to this situation. I have not committed any "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies", asked any "questions about which reasonable people may disagree", edited an "article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors", "failed to cite sources", "cite unencyclopedic sources", "misrepresents reliable sources", or "manufactures original research", and I have not broken "Wikipedia:Civility" or "Wikipedia:No personal attacks". Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you seem to be rejecting community input. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But the community input in this case is not biased on anything other than speculation and gossip. After reading the guideline pages, I can see that I have broken no rules whatsoever. In fact, I challenge you to provide an example of a rule I have broken. Yes, I am arguing with you now, but only because I feel I am being misrepresented at this trail. And yes, I am going against the majority view of most of the editors of this page. But again, I feel I have a right too because no one has yet shown any indication that my questions are disruptive. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

By now, I think you're on the cusp of straying from WP:GAME. Let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think (some of) your questions would be more appropriate for The Straight Dope. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, by pointing to very specific rules or guidelines and then attempting to find ways to skirt around those, you make it hard to assume good faith. Also, suspicions might be aroused by somebody who knows his way around the editing window and conventions, yet professes to be 'new here'. Answers to many of the questions you peppered the Desks with could be found with a simple Google search, and if you really have such insatiable curiousity, then taking time to read up on the answers to the first several dozen questions should probably keep you busy for awhile. Give it a rest. --LarryMac | Talk 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If your questions were asked in good faith, please explain the encyclopedic notability of this question. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Or was that just one of the many questions you copied and pasted from here? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That question is a valid as Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Finger Gestures or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Cookies or bars, both of which no one is arguing about. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is bored and killing time. Have we seen enough? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Short circuit this feeding frenzy: Indef blocked. I believe Thatcher's CU evidence, combined with the similar editing pattern, proves this person is a sockpuppeteer. One of the deleted edits of one of the socks was grossly uncivil to another admin. They are disruptive (if not per policy, then per the simple English meaning of the word), they are trolling, they are blocked. --barneca (talk) 21:07, 12 May 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.

possible reincarnation of pornography troll blocked yesterday

Resolved

 – longtime sock abuser... checkusered and blocked...

New account apparently trolling today: Livni (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Similar account blocked yesterday: Abreactive (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Link to yesterday's AN/I report

In addition to similar editing/vandalism patterns adding pornography links into many articles, both editors marked every edit as minor.

Not every edit is about pornography, but many of them are, in addition to changing the definition of rape to a "successful evolutionary strategy".

I have not warned this user or reverted any of the changes, but because the activity looks so similar to yesterday's incident, I thought it best to report it so an administrator can take a look. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Though some of the edits may be OK, it's pretty obviously a sock of Abreactive, and has been blocked as such. I'd support unblocking the user if they went through the normal unblock route and pledged to discuss controversial changes first rather than acting unilaterally. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Abreactive was later blocked as a sock of User:DavidYork71, and both of these should remain blocked indefinitely on those grounds. I'm going to set up an RFCU to see how many other sleepers are out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. I endorse the initial block and also concur that if the person agrees to collaborate positively, it would be reasonable to unblock for a second chance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is patently a sockpuppet of Abreactive, and likely also both are socks of DavidYork71. Go ahead and file that checkuser request. It should put an end to this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a winner. Sock farm ferreted out and gassed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And that seems about it on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one: Worthy2Bworshipped (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Blocked on duck test. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming to report that--support on duck test. Worthy2Bworshipped hit all the same articles as Abreactive, and added the same porn links.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

William Gaillard

Resolved

 – From the top of this page: "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process." Try WP:DR —Alex.Muller 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute with User:Dead-or-Red. Have tried to reason with another user but they continue to remove cited sources. Have tried to get to contextualize the piece that they keep removing. Basically want to bring the situation to a resolution.Londo06 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Londo06, you could try obtaining a third opinion.--PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will give that a go.Londo06 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

i have never removed cited material, and have always tried to reach a consensus. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not true. There was sourced material that was repeatedly removed.Londo06 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please block 64.5.138.2

Resolved

 – another six months block --Rodhullandemu 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This IP address was blocked for six months for repeated vandalism. It has resumed editing as if nothing ever happened. Its most recent edit to a biography of a living person is especially offensive.

I ask that you block this IP address for another six months at least, or even a year. Since this is not a typical report for WP:AIV, I am posting here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP belongs to Cape Henry Collegiate School.(whois) 68.220.216.108 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor playing administrator, needs to be stopped

I will admit, this is not that important in the grand scheme of life. But then most of Wikipedia is not. If you have a cyclone rip through your country or have a car smash into your home, WP is the last thing on your mind and nothing qualifies for ANI.

User:WilliamH has violated guidelines with speedy keep of a porn star that has no notability other than posing naked. It doesn't matter if she is in a list of other naked models. September 11th victims don't have articles (or they get deleted) even though they are among a list.

Appropriate closures Non-admin closures of XfD's should be limited to the following types of closures:

Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period, absent any contentious debate among participants. speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.

from [45]

Naughty, naughty, WilliamH. An administrator should either block WilliamH for 24 hours OR redo that AFD and tell WilliamH.

If WilliamH's actions are OK, please state so here and I will do the same to other AFDs. State so here ______________ Thank you. JerryVanF (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Might help to link a diff to the afd closure.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume he was talking about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ‎

Just look at User:WilliamH's contribs. It's full of them. I agree this user is playing administrator and needs a good talkin' to (not a block yet though as that would be punitive at this point). I've undone one closure already, looking at some of the others now. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that wasn't meant to be critical just advice, I just have seen that complaints with clear diffs get handled quicker then if you make the admins search for the incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem in principle with a non-admin closure, but one that is closed after less than 3 HOURS! No one even had a chance to comment on that one. Even if an admin had closed it that quickly, I'd have something to say... Indeed, he should stop closing AFDs if his judgement is that poor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

← I looked at a few of the other closings. I'm not going to revert them because I agree with William that they had no chance of succeeding. However, in the future, this user does still need to refrain from performing closures so frequently and so speedily. Closures are generally supposed to wait 5 days and be handled by administrators. Non-admin closures are for extenuating circumstances and aren't supposed to occur often. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimberly_Evenson then happy that someone would take the effort to close it. Just reading the article gives it's notability 'Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month'. SunCreator (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that closure too. The article doesn't actually establish notability. There isn't a single valid ref. I'm not sure that being a playboy playmate establishes notability for a person in and of itself. Let's wait and see what the AfD determines. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Playboy model of the month = notable, but olympic athlete ≠ notable? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Closed as a snow. I can be reverted however. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)*3 The AfD discussion has been open for less than 24 hours. Give it some time - if the subject is truly notable, the AfD will fail anyway. —Travis^talk 03:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... let's please stop with the non-admin closures, especially of this particular AfD. Quite a few people here, including admins, seem to feel the discussion should stay open for now. There's no emergency here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with this. Some editors including some admins get uptight if you even put a notability tag on an article without any WP:RS and less notable(to me at least) then the article in the link above. SunCreator (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought anyone could do a clear "keep" close, with due caution. (It better be clear!) Has someone policy-crept the closure guidelines to say otherwise? - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is in a keep close for an unsourced WP:BLP more than anything else. Anybody with sufficient experience and Clue can perform a keep close as long as the article clearly meets policy, but that cannot be said of unsourced BLPs so I am uneasy seeing such things closed by people who do not demonstrably have long edit histories with evidence of sound knowledge of policy. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the real test is whether the closure is seen as non-controversial. The issue is also compounded because it's not only non-admin but also speedy (very speedy, in some of this user's cases), and combined, that makes for very shakey closures. These should only be done if no one has a problem with it, aside from the nominator perhaps. And they should probably never be done after just one day. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at a few of this editor's closures. I agree that the speedy ones seem to be against the written policy about non-admin closures, but I can't muster up much indignation about any one of these. Can anyone find an example AfD where they believe an experienced admin closer would have taken the opposite result? I see that his closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson was undone, and that reversal seems well-justified since the closure was too fast. I don't see any obvious errors about the results. (This guy seems to have some judgment). I could support a policy where any non-admins who speedy close in under 8 hours could be threatened with blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? — CharlotteWebb 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: at Talk:Sněžka-Śnieżka, back in January though, I had a strange experience when the article name and a possible move was discussed without it being actually listed at WP:RM. People just started voting, a kind of instant democracy. Then, User:Hexagon1 CLOSED the "poll", I objected, only to be reclosed, and then after my removal, again (please do not push move that nobody wants, disruptive only) after which I [46] excluded at least my talk from the greenish box with the "vote". To no avail (rv, your talk is as much a part of the vote process as mine or the others'), and again (rv. sigh. per Talk:Caron/Archive2 and every other talk page vote ever held. your comments are part of the vote discussion, and as such get archived. Start a new section to talk if you want.)-- Matthead  Discuß   19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from WilliamH: Firstly, I am glad to know that my ability to determine opinion is not really the point of contention. However, in terms of allowing opinion to form, I realise I ostensibly prevented it from occurring to the extent that is preferred. Please understand that elsewhere, this is not the case, and please understand that I highly value consensus, and it is something which I would never intentionally impair or disrupt. It is ultimately my belief that a man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package, hence its importance.

"Playing administrator, needs to be stopped" disregards my ethic, and comes across as though my non-admin administrative actions were not for good purposes, but that I was acting, i.e. masquerading as an administrator whose actions needed to be stopped because I intended to subvert the project, which is blatantly not the case. Please consider the effect such words have, as what has been misconstrued comes across as rather ad hominem. No one wants their words to have the potential to imply such a thing, and I would be lying if I said I wasn't extremely disappointed to learn that contributions I have made in good faith have prompted a user to suggest my blocking. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that such misunderstandings could result in sound contributors departing Wikipedia, a wholly undesireable scenario.

To sum up, I understand I have exerted a bit too much boldness. I also appreciate the BLP concerns and would like to make it clear that this is something I take seriously. I agree with the comment on my user page that no matter how sound my judgement may be, I realise I may have applied it too early and will act accordingly. Regards and apology for any inconvenience, WilliamH (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing everyone's concerns here, William. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One other thought: As this is a borderline notability BLP, do the new ideas about no consensus=Delete apply? Did that policy proposal take root well enough? ThuranX (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

I've moved this to the main noticeboard. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stub genocide

Despite the stated "unreferenced stub about a community that can be discussed in its parent municipality until there's enough info about it to justify a separate article", stub article contains an entire referance section. Can we put an end to this stub genocide please? I see a bulk action by the user. -- Cat ^chi? 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you contacted the user?-Wafulz (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the below link this isn't a new issue. -- Cat ^chi? 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What I learn form above history is that there was an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Cobden.2C_Ontario initiated by you on March 9. Are there any successive 'bulk redirects' or discussions beyond that?--Tikiwont (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a single one of the links in question is a proper reference about the community; they're all web pages which happen to mention the community in passing but not in a way that serves as an adequate source for the article's content. Three of the four are just straight lists of communities in the county, with no other content besides that, and the fourth is a list of headstone transcriptions from county cemeteries. That's a directory listing, not a valid reference section. And while it has sparked some discussion and disagreement in the past, redirecting an unreferenced stub article to a larger, properly referenced parent topic is entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy: the presence of genuine reliable sources which properly verify Wikipedia content is a requirement, not just an option.

I'd also like to clarify that the entire "county" is actually a single municipality — despite its name, which was retained for historical reasons, it's actually a single city and not a county in the normal sense. These aren't independent towns, but unincorporated communities within a single incorporated city which only has one mayor and one municipal council. Wikipedia policy already explicitly states that until such time as we can write something substantial and properly referenced about them, individual neighbourhoods should exist only as redirects to the city that they're part of. Unreferenced stubs aren't inherently entitled to stick around Wikipedia if there's a better and more solidly-referenced article in which we can discuss the topic. Having 41 separate unreferenced and badly written five-to-ten-line stubs about a single city is not an improvement over having forty redirects to one good article about the whole city.

And again: the links here are just lists which happen to mention Hemlock. They aren't valid references about the community, because the only statement in the entire article that they properly supported is the basic fact that there's a community called Hemlock within the City of Norfolk County. They didn't support the statement about wind power, they didn't support the stuff about local schools, they didn't support the weird and irrelevant tangent about Socrates (specifically, is there a documentable reference to confirm that the community was named for the ancient poison that killed Socrates, and not for the local presence of tsuga trees?) They didn't support any statement about Hemlock beyond the mere fact that it exists. An article isn't necessarily properly referenced just because one or more external links are present — the actual quality of the links has to be taken into account as well, and these links simply aren't solid references. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I should also note, Cat, that this is the second time you've come straight to AN/I with an issue about this without discussing it with me first, and both times you've misrepresented the situation: in the Cobden discussion, you accused me of deleting content that I did copy into the target article but simply rearranged into a more logical flow, and this time you accused me of ignoring a reference section that I did review carefully enough to know that it didn't actually contain any real references. Could you at least give some consideration in the future to the fact that, having been a Wikipedia administrator since 2005, I just might have an actual clue or three about Wikipedia policy, and maybe talk to me first so I can clarify my reasons for doing this before having to defend myself against charges of vandalism? Thank you kindly. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One more point: the goal of Wikipedia is not to maximize the number of stubs on here. The goal of Wikipedia is to maximize the number of quality articles, and minimize the number of stubs. And yeah, for smaller and less well-documented topics, that sometimes means merging five or six or ten or twenty stubs about interrelated topics into one longer article. In a situation like Norfolk County, a considerable number of the community stubs will never be anything more than stubs, because there simply aren't enough good references out there to produce quality articles about each individual community — so writing one quality article about the city, and then redirecting the individual communities to that one article, is much more consistent with the goals of Wikipedia than keeping 41 separate stubs that have no realistic prospect of ever becoming good articles otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Stnickvillager

Hello. I logged on just now to check that everything was running fine, and to my surprise, I discovered that most of the pages in my watchlist had been edited by this user, with summaries such as remove vandalism. I wondered what vandalism the user was talking about, and then it soon came to my attention he was talking about me! I then checked his/her contributions, and found that they had basically gone through every single page I had edited, undoing basically all the moves I had made, and all in all, just removing pretty much all of my contributions. I then noticed that he had left a comment here about me, in his contributions (which is how I found this link). The user had complained I was "vandalising", but was rightly told by another user that he/she had not done what they should have done - talk to me, and instead, went round telling several other people (you will find them in his contributions) that I am a vandal. To be honest, I am quite appalled with the way this user has acted, and perhaps I am in the wrong here - I don't know, I'm not that experienced, but I am sure that he/she is the one at fault, and I would be greatful if someone could help me with the situation with this user, and perhaps advise me on what to do next? Thanks. Hamletpride (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, as I had another look at it, I noticed this user is perhaps even newer than me. I am going to undo the page move revisions he did. If anyone disagrees with this, please tell me, while I am still working on it. I would also appreciate it if someone could speak to the user about being polite, and about the naming policies. Thanks. Hamletpride (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to the user? Try starting a discussion at his/her talkpage and hopefully you can sort it out between you. Also, for specific articles you could discuss at the article talkpages.--BelovedFreak 17:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure what to do, since the more I check the user's contributions, the more it appears they are possibly a POV troll, not to mention an uncivil one. I have lost count as to the amount of times I have been called "vandal" by the user. I have changed all the relevant pages back to how they were before he went on a big reverting spree. I feel that talking to the user will have little consequence, since the user apparently did not want to talk to me - instead, coming straight here (which is now, in effect, what I have done, but in result of coming to the conclusion that this user is perhaps rather unwelcoming to discussion). I am honestly not sure what to say to the user, as I do not want them to come stalking my edits even more. I shall then, for the moment, leave it in the hands of the community here. Thank you. {¦:-)} Hamletpride (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are both editing in the same area. The other user claims to live in the physical area, and thus have an interest in articles about the local area. And he also has an opinion about what those articles should say. I think you can bet that you will see him again, whether you like it or not.

What you need to do has been mentioned above: pick one (or more) of the articles you want to change, and start a discussion on the talk page. Post a small, short, polite note on his talk page mentioning that you have started a discussion and you want him to participate. Maybe something like: "Hi. I've started a discussion about hamlets on the ... talk page. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop by and offer your comments. Thanks!" Be sure to sign your posting.

After you have done that, give him a couple of days to see if he shows up. If he doesn't, you can make the change you want in that article. If he then shows up and reverts or whatever, point him again to the discussion you started on the talk page. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on policies

Hello. Since I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies, please tell me what happens when:

• Some user proposes a rename/merge and a vote is taken.

• the proposing user threatens to cause havoc thereafter if he loses the vote.

• The user proposing the rename loses the vote, then starts to butcher the page, cause havoc and starts a process of slow merge and slow rename in a gradual manner to achieve the same affect as the vote that he lost.

• Several other users are unhappy about this and have expressed frustration on other pages as well. What can they do? They have asked the havoc causing user for an explanation, but his usual reply is that he does not have time to provide explanations.

This is happening on the Blessed Virgin Mary page and is slow vandalism in my view. What are the Wikepedia remedies here?

This is in some sense a pattern of behavior here for another frustrated person commented on Protestant views of Mary:

"I do not understand, why our fellow traveler Carlaude first contributes actively to this (new) topic, changes its name, and then requests deletion? AFTER his deletion request on May 6, our friend was busy linking Protestant views of Mary to several other mariological pages".

History2007! I have answered this for you just minutes ago-- please read my posts.--Carlaude (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a great deal of effort being wasted here by many people, trying to maintain the quality of Wikepedia articles. Your help will be appreciated.

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SANTA MARIA! That page history is a mess. Honestly. Not sure what to do with that, but it appears as though Carlaude's edits are against consensus, and he is trying everything he can to dodge that consensus... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did, get multiable reverts and accusations of "butchering the page" from History2007.

I did and do make continued efforts discuss content issues... as to what edits he objected to & why.

He has told me very little if anything.

If you think I am "trying everything he can to dodge that consensus," please tell me how.--Carlaude (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! (pun fully intended) That page, as edited by Carlaude fails NPOV by a long shot. Instead of discussing the dogmas, he edits the page to be a litany about the holiness of the subject. He's clearly interested in continuing to push his religiously motivated version of the page against consensus, and should be blocked and/or topic banned for it. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IP using flagicons inappropriately (2nd time)

The IP 71.187.44.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously adding flagicons to film and television articles, in addition to stuffing any and every possible worldwide release he can into them. Attempts to communicate with this user have failed, and the last block seems to have taught him nothing. This was already reported once here. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

gaming the system and edit warring against the recommendations of WP:RSN

Levine2112 continues to ignore that there was discussion that the source is reliable from an external observer at the RSN. Slp1 wrote it qualifies under SPS. Levine2112 continues to remove[47][48] well sourced WP:NPOV text against the informative recommendations at the RSN. Levine2112, has refused to abide by his personal agreement. The relevant discussions are here and here. QuackGuru 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring against the recommendation of the RSN has continued.[49] I notified the editor about his personal agreement[50] and I was attacked in his edit summary. Levine2112 wrote in his edit summary: remove false allegations from known harrassers. QuackGuru 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112 Here is a bit of background info. QuackGuru 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cooper University Hospital‎

Hi, I hope you can help me - I would really appreciate some advice about what path to take. There is an anon editor who keeps posting controversial material about Cooper University Hospital‎ in its article. The anon's edits have been reverted by other editors who say the info is untrue, and me because it's unsourced and has been challenged before. The anon edits from several IPs, making warning messages pointless, has not entered into dialogue on the talk page, and uses misleading edit summaries. The anon edits from 198.202.202.165, 150.131.73.89, 68.236.0.92, 69.250.190.109, 216.9.250.44, 216.9.250.40, 74.186.185.22, 68.143.37.18 and 216.9.250.106, and previously 68.236.36.160 where they were blocked for harassment and personal attacks. Is semi-protection of the article an option here? Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Above and beyond issues with the IP edits, the article is atrocious. It reads like an advertisement or press release. I've tagged it accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is terrible. Bad writing, no sources. The rest of the content seems to be non-controversial (the content, not the writing style), so it's just the info the anon is adding about gang violence that's contentious. Somno (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Happyone2 again

I think this user did not learn. He just continued putting false info. This needs to be stopped as several other editors aside from myself are also peeved by his edits. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Happyone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can you provide any references or DIFFs? seicer | talk | contribs 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here: this and these on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, and the following edits on Rina Tōin, Hanon Hōshō, and Lucia Nanami respectively: [51] [52] [53]. The said anime has currently no official English version and there's no confirmed announcement that there will be one (it has a license, but it is soon dropped). You can examine these edits as well, some reverted by Pitstain (talk · contribs): [54][55][56][57][58]

Also, this and this on Engine Sentai Go-onger. Arrowned (talk · contribs) reverted those edits due to doubt and asked Happyone2's sources for those edits, but it seems the latter never responded.

What kind of action do you have in mind in this matter? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

North Queensland Cowboys vandalism

The users from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.187.85.212 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.220.202.31 have been vandalising the North Queensland Cowboys. This page has copped quite a bit of vandalism lately Ssiww (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll get a faster response at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous atmosphere at John Howard

Could I ask for an admin to review recent conflicts at John Howard, please? The atmosphere has become quite poisonous, to the extent that constructive edits and discussion are impossible. There seems to be no consensus for inclusion of certain newly-added material and the personal attacks, incivilities and downright falsehoods are piling up. I suspect that I'm being deliberately goaded through the above tactics, and I'd like to see some outside eyes on the article. It may be necessary to protect the article - either way, I don't mind, the material in question is trivial - until we can work out a consensus. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, to underscore my remarks about atmosphere, there is edit-warring on the discussion page. --Pete (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article protected; ad hominem sections of talk page {{hat}}/{{hab}} enclosed; notice and warning left on talk page. CIreland (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Annett Legal threat

I want to get the eyes of a more experienced admin on this situation as soon as possible. An acount and an IP have both claimed to be Annett himself and are now asking that the article be removed. I blocked the acount for disruptive editing a couple of days ago and advised them to contact the Wikipedia offices through email, but it looks like he wants to handle this on the site itself. Let me know if I can help at all. Thanks in advance. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I can be honest, email communication with Wikimedia is really the only way I can see for us to confirm that the accounts do belong to this person. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Meatpuppetry on Bryan Pisano

This thread was archived without us receiving any admin assistance. --Smashville^BONK! 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, given the creeping admissions of guilt (from 'not at all' to 'maybe' to 'well we do know each other, except for that guy', to 'oh wait, that guy i said i don't know is my brother'. It's a MeatPuppet parade, and Admins are needed. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Would either of you care to open up a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and put all the necessary diffs in? Since there seems to have been collusion in both a DRV and an AfD, that increases the case for taking some action. If you then want to file a checkuser request, you greatly increase the chances that an admin will act on the case. Don't worry too much that the closer of the AfD will overlook the socking; other editors have pointed it out several times. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually already did here last Tuesday. But so far it's just been the accused and the AfD participants. I didn't put any diffs in, but I did include the three discussions that were most pertinent... --Smashville^BONK! 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender. The case is not quite dire enough to justify a checkuser, since code 'D' of checkuser requires that the socks have affected the result of a closed vote, like an AfD or a DRV. So far the two AfDs and the DRV have both closed *against* the wishes of the possible meats, so they haven't done much more than waste people's time so far. Any admin who wants to take action on the data already gathered is welcome to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that irrelevant? Meatpuppetry's a flat out no-no, and giving them a free pass on it now invites more of it later. Why not give lengthy blocks all around? ThuranX (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because blocks are preventative and we're probably never going to see them again. --Random832 (contribs) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, free pass to do it again, drop out again, then again and again and on and on. Ok. I thought somewhere inthere we'd adopted rules about Meatpuppets, but I guess those only apply when admins want it to. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There's been a lengthy and reasonable discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender where two of the named editors participated. The second of these guys has started creating articles. If you see any joint participation by two or more of these editors in any future AfDs, ask them to withdraw. If there is no response, post again at ANI, and a block should be considered. I think our patience is running out, but the two people who seem to be continuing as editors look OK. During the times they are not colluding on AfDs they are doing some useful work. EdJohnston (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did just open another AfD on one of their articles while I was looking at their past edits... --Smashville^BONK! 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

More evidence againsts Dust1235

User creation 06:58, 26 April 2008 Dust1235 (Talk | contribs)

BTW, They successfully deleted the SFD Template, in bad faith. All new users (and all Wikipedians) must assume good faith, and Dust disobeyed, by creating a SPA just to nominate for deletion. 122.54.90.185 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you’re indeed User:Togepi 987 ([59]), you shouldn’t be editing. --Van helsing (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Dust1235 did not delete anything, since they are not an admin. They nominated a template for deletion, and the template was deleted after a consensus derived discussion with a large number of participants. Corvus cornix_talk 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for deleted revisions and history.

May I have the latest good version of International Task Force on Preventive Diplomacy and the history to my email ref otrs:1543555. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It was verbatim from here so probably easier to re-cut-and-paste it. I can mail it on if you want but there's nothing different that I can see. — iridescent 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, would you be able to send me the editors username, if the article is usable or can be made into a neutral verifiable article, I want to attribute the initial edit to whomever made it. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably a better idea to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:DRV#Temporary review for requests like this in the future - AN/I is intended for incident reports. krimpet✽ 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

With all my time on wiki, and I never noticed that.  :) Seems easy enough, thanks. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible interwiki vandalism going on

I've come across some hard-to-spot interwiki vandalism, with people replacing links to other-language wiki articles by inappropriate links such as this (in this specific case, someone replaced the link to the "Negro" article in Dutch (presumably) with a link to "Ape"). This link may also be suspect, but I can't read the language at all (but the single illustration being of a banknote makes it look suspicious). Is there a way someone can check this kind of vandalism? I'm familiar enough with a number of European languages to be able to tell in most cases, but I'm wondering if anyone has ever reported this kind of thing before?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I know a week or two back, someone was putting in fake Russian ones. It is hard to spot, though, as most editors just presume its right and never check. Not sure how we could go about doing a full check though. I think there is a bot running that checks and removes outright fake links, but probably can't catch the kind of vandalism you found. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The Russian article (second link above) is on "Negro". DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The single banknote image looked strange.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a Confederate States of America note shewing Black people working on a plantation, I assume used to illustrate historical representations and attitudes to Black people. (My Russian ain't that good!) DuncanHill (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:PRengine

Resolved

 – no issue Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PRengine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I may not be giving this account the benefit of doubt; given their chosen name, I feel like nothing good will come from this. Any thoughts? ju66l3r (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the name?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The name is an attention grabber to say the least but the edits seem fairly benign. Other than apparent lack of notability of the only subject he writes about, I see nothing wrong. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see I wasn't very clear as to what I was concerned about. I am not concerned with the name per the naming policy. I am concerned that the user is self-professing to be a "PR Engine" (Public Relations Engine) which suggests the user's intention is going to be to boost the public profile of clients, via Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor advertising for enhancing search engine results for people's names/careers. I expect quite a few db-bio speedily-deleted pages in this user's future. As I said, I may be overly critical and should judge by actions rather than assumptions. However, at the very least, I guess I just want to make sure I'm not the only one keeping an eye on a user who's very name choice (and initial edits) indicates a desire to shirk the policies of the website. ju66l3r (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your initial message was quite clear, actually, I knew what you were talking about right away since, let's face it, the name is blatantly obvious. I understood what you were afraid of with the user name being what it is but I think that the editor, despite his bold username, is quite harmless. I would venture a guess that he is Javier Verdura himself and he decided to add his name to 2 articles and then to write one about himself. I totally see where you're coming from and I might have had the same initial reaction that you did when you first noticed the name but I just think there's nothing to worry about.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Chrisjnelson

This user has repeatedly been uncivil and rude and I am sick and tired of it. I ask that his pattern of behavior be reviewed. He's been blocked at least a half-dozen tiems before and still there is no improvement. Diagreements can be worked out if people are reasonable, but when they are not, what to do? nelson has ised profanity directed to me and has also insulted my good-faith edits. Both of those are specific, clear-cut rule violations. I know I am not a registered user, I chose that because of privicy concerns. I still hope that my views on this will be takne seriously. Clearly the past punishment of Nelson has no affect on his behavior, in some ways it is worse than before.

• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football)

• User talk:72.0.36.36#Chris Long

72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but you should provide specific diffs here to highlight uncivil comments that were made. Grsz^talk 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is already mediation going on, shouldn't we wait until it is completed before acting? Either way, notifying Chris and the mediator in case this just belongs there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments have been made, but I'd wait on this. Right now, the mediation (at medcab) is rather behavioral, and I'm trying to switch that over to content. This is a predicated affair, at the moment. Or should be, I think :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting, I just started this because the other mediation was only going to look at the use of "originally". Therefore, I was advised tha this is the incident place. I can make the case anytime, whenever it is deemed appropriate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Chrisjnelson has been the subject of a (recently expired) arbitration ruling. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Durova^Charge! 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Drafted or Originally Drafted contains more examples of his incivil tone and attempts to bully a conversation. This looks exactly like the kind of behavior that led to the prior ArbCom ruling. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears Chrisjnelsen won't participate in the mediation, as a result the mediator is closing the case. You can't mediate if one side refuses to participate. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Really, is that the rule? So by not participating (even though he made plenty of comments) he can keep doing things his way, in the face of what others desire? What about Wikipedia:Consensus? Kind of like running out the clock, nelson can now claim there is no consensus or mediation ruling he has to follow? Hmm.72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My thought exactly when I saw this. Does this mean someone can get a mediation case closed simply by boycotting it? Be very careful about opening that can of worms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is supposed to be a voluntary way of resolving differences so that ArbCom doesn't need to become involved; walking out should be an option that all parties have. If behavior is still a problem then an involuntary ruling can be made, but not as a result of mediation or lack thereof. I haven't checked the mediation link to see why he chose to leave, but I would hope that this choice isn't used against him.

FWIW, I've had both good and bad editing experiences with the user in question. He seems to work hard at trying to improve the coverage of sports on the encyclopedia, but when he doesn't get his way or finds opposition, he is quick to resort to personal attacks (which I've generally just reverted on my talk page). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By reverting aren't you kind of encouraging poor manners? If there was a consistent effort for the rules to be uphelp it seems like that miight be the best way to discourage uncivility, etc., No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

←Back up, folks. I closed the case because he said he would not pursue his objective any longer, not because he refused mediation. There was no boycott. Now, if he had said "I'll stop doing this, so why bother with (informal) mediation" and still continued (regarding "originally drafted", which was what the case was about when it got to me) then there would be evidence of obviously disruptive behavior aside from NPA. I was pressing whether he was indeed going to continue, just so I had a content angle and thereby work on the civility issues, which was the main locus of dispute for both the editor in question and the other parties. He said he was not going to continue, so I closed. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My question is, why does it always have to get to mediation, arbitration, ANI, or blocking with this particular user if there is a disagreement with him? If he's reached Durova's radar then the problem must be significant. And he did refuse to sign on for mediation. Then just said he'd stop adding the word "originally" to "save [himself] the needless annoyance." 67.137.0.28 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that question. Everything always has to go "to the mats". Even then there is a log of uncivility along the way. My view is that the rules ought to apply to him and if he's been uncivil in this episode then he must face the music. There needs to be a chrisjnelson "persecution-free" NFL project. It seems he just cannot play nice with others, no matter what everyone else does, he has to be uncivil. I think Admins need to act this time, with a meaty punishment to send a message that rules apply to him.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that there's never any real constructive discussion and/or compromise on issues. It's always just "I'm right and your wrong" or "your opinion doesn't make any sense". 192.31.106.35 (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Except the way you put it is mild. He often peppers those "your opinion doesn't make any sense" comments with profanity and accuasations that other's opinions are stupid.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific Diffs

Someone asked from some specific diffs. Well, here are some of Chrisjnelsons greatest hits, from this "originally" argument 192.91.171.42 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"No one thinks you're smart and well-read because you know one quote. Your endless stupid edits far outweigh being able to recite one line of someone else's work as if it means anything here. Hate to break it to you, but the consistency I've been implementing is completely a good thing, and I can be certain RWE would agree given that I know he wasn't mentally retarded" [60]

"Considered for what? The fuck I cuss more than some is irrelevant in the "originally" discussion" [61]

"Well they apply to everyone. But I disagree in large part about what is considered "uncivil" here, so I'm not going to blindly adhere to the rules on it. I'm going to do what I believe should be acceptable, and deal with the consequences later" [62]

"I am always objective. I don't give a shit about Chris Long, his mother or the Rams. I have nothing against them and no allegiance too them. But I know what's notable and I know his mom isn't at all, so I'm going to remove it until the end of time because it's irrelevant crap and makes the article amateurish and worse overall" [63]

"I'm not trying to bully anyone by using profanity. If you could be bullied by profanity you'd be pretty lame anyway. I use profanity to express how I'm feeling at the moment. Like if I'm fucking pissed, I'm not going to say I'm pissed. I'm going to say I'm fucking pissed. There's a difference. And dude, I can't help it if your good-faith edits are horrible. Chris Long's and Matt Slater's moms in the leads? Give me a freaking break. That is without logic." [64]

"And Blackngold - I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense without the word - it would. But I feel this is better writing so I'm going to add it until forced to do otherwise." [65] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.0.28 (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on WT:BOT

I've having issues with Betacommand on WT:BOT being generally insulting and incivil; I'd try to discuss this with him directly, but seeing as he's been through ArbCom twice I'm more than sure he's aware that how he's behaving is just counter productive. Specifically, these two edits: "grow a brain" - "Like I said you dont know what your talking about so shut up" "stop spewing ideas that my dog even knows wont work". Help? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Betacommand was approached by three editors on his talk page before your post here. Maybe that will help and we can avoid a protracted thread here? --67.186.244.249 (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; a discussion about this issue already exists on his Talk page at User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Warning. I suggest this discussion be taken there so that it is centralized and he can be aware of it. Gary King (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually looking for input from people outside his normal circle of talk page watchers. Besides, if two ArbCom cases and a handful of blocks later he's still making personal attacks, shouldn't we be looking for something else to try to get him to stop? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose happen? I've never interacted with him and would rather not get too involved in this, but if this is his personality and he does not want to take any action to change it, then there isn't much that can be done besides the many blocks he has already received. He was blocked just a few weeks ago due to personal attacks for over a week. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions are unlikely in this case. Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable, and does lots of underappreciated work for Wikipedia. Most of the regulars have learned to shrug off these inevitable outbursts from him. I can't speak for all, but I can only say that all are well aware of these concerns with Betacommand, and given that he has not been sanctioned for this yet, it is unlikely that one more report of him saying something like this is not likely to result in any action. I am not excusing or condoning this sort of incivility, only noting my observations of how these regular reports usually go down. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The value of his contributions are irrelevant if he's personally attacking other editors and being incivil. No one should ever have to put up with a disruptive and insulting attitude due to the supposed "value" of the attackers contributions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May I point to yet more POV pushing disruptive editing where Locke attempts to force his opinion on others, when the consensus is clearly against him. so he bring the facts I point out in an attempt to force his opponents into silence. its just his standard disruptive POV pushing method of operation. Im sorry if you dont like the fact that you cannot force your obvious anti-bot mentality on others, by attempting to re-write a policy that you have no understanding of. β^_command 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jayron's comment is, in your opinion, incorrect. Not in everyone's opinion. Some people - such as myself - actually subscribe to a different opinion: Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. --67.186.244.249 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the community already has an opinion at this policy page. You'll note that the policy does not carve out exceptions for personal attacks by editors who are "invaluable", nor does it have any kind of point system where X number of valuable edits allows you to make Y number of personal attacks. The mistake here would be to continue to tolerate these "outbursts" and let it slide because of his value to the project: no single editor should ever be invaluable to the project (and as far as I know the community has never backed such a solution). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything said here, but I do agree that no one should rise above rules applied to everyone, including the fact that no one contributor is invaluable enough to the project to have their less constructive actions disregarded. With that said, again, what do you want done in this case? Gary King (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm involved obviously, but since 24 hour blocks don't seem to work (or are cut short for dubious reasons), perhaps escalating the length of the blocks would help enforce the idea for him that it's not okay to make personal attacks like this? And considering a community ban wouldn't be such a bad idea either. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert-warring on the administrators' noticeboard is not either of your brightest moments, and I'll block the both of you if you're silly enough to continue. east.718 at 04:30, May 12, 2008

Indeed, there does exist such a community policy - note that I did not speak for the community when I noted the existence of Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. Also note that the editors who have commented on Betacommand's talk page are not excusing his comments - one admin wrote in no unclear terms that he would block Betacommand if Betacommand wrote a further comment similar to the ones that you cited above. Having this thread does indeed draw wider attention to your concerns - but the thread on Betacommand's talk page already seems to me to address them (if I understand your concerns correctly). --67.186.244.249 (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand has had multiple 24-hour blocks and many warnings on this issue, including a recent "final warning" from Ryan Postelthwaite. I'd suggest that the response to Betacommand's next personal attack, if it happens, should be a one-week block. Being "irreplaceable" shouldn't get you a free pass. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Going along with the "irreplaceable" idea, is there any progress on splitting BCBot's tasks up so BC is less irreplaceable (that sounds so crude, but you get my drift, and nothing ill intentioned is meant) then currently? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to figure out what BetacommandBot is doing, but I think the only tasks it does that aren't duplicated by at least one bot are moving images to commons and producing linkspam reports. Neither of those is something that can't be stopped for a week or two. --Carnildo (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, useful information in the event this becomes an issue again. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found Beta to be a user very hard to work with; unapproachable, and refuses to see any fault with his/her bots when there clearly is. Rudeness is rife, and I agree that doing something vaguely (very vaguely) helpful should excuse bad behaviour. Support a 1-2 week block on the next instance of incivility. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that programmers usually find it galling to have their work criticised by those who don't understand it; I know I do. Isn't 72 hours the next logical block extension after 24h? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it depends on what an editor is being blocked for. Obviously posting personal information about another editor would be dealt with more harshly than calling someone a name or some other milder form of abuse. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think BC has posted personal information anywhere (correct me if wrong) so I doubt the insinuations here are helping anything. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reading things I didn't write: I'm not insinuating anything about Betacommand, merely discussing how blocks are generally issued (dependent upon the severity of the action taken). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Could someone please block this vandalism only account Special:Contributions/RedHeffer- they also just edited under Special:Contributions/91.104.206.183. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV. Nakon 22:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not appropriate in this case since the account last edited 3 days ago. All edits on this account since September, 2007 have been vandalism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, like said above, pile em' up over there ---> Tiptoety ^talk 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I know about that page, but it requires that the "vandal must be active now". It isn't since it stopped 3 days ago. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

According to current Admin thinking, there is nothing that can be done, as the editors isn't currently active, and blocks are not punative. ThuranX (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some admins will take action against slow-motion vandals that you can never quite catch right in the act per the AIV now requirement. A couple of times I have successfully requested admin action against slo-mo vandals by pointing out periodic vandalism from an editor with multiple level-3 or level-4 warnings, even if all warnings are over a day old. Under those circumstances, escalating blocks can be justified by the admin as preventive enforcement following multiple ignored block warnings, rather than as a prohibited punitive measure. I have also seen indef blocks on (non-IP) slo-mo vandals after a burst of particularly egregious vandalism, or by admins who have exhausted their patience with the behavior, so time may be on your side. But this editor's history doesn't appear sufficiently extensive or regular to yet qualify them as a slow-motion vandal. However, it is a reason to keep the warnings current if that's what you suspect. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that a user does not have to be active "right now" to be a vandalism only account, if they have received a final vandalism warning (sometimes that is not even required), has vandalized past it, and there only clear intention is vandalism you can report them to WP:AIV and have them blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a very good point, but vandal enforcement at AIV is not consistent when one steps outside the now. I have read reports rejected from AIV simply because they were stale, even when the vandal has had two or more last warnings on their talk page for the current month. There are also Jekyll and Hyde editors who occasionally make a good edit along with a bunch of vandalism. Each good edit tends to reset everything to neutral status. I almost think some vandals know this, and game the system by vandalizing, making a few minor good edits, vandalizing, rinse and repeat. The situation can frustrate non-RCP vandal-fighters when they see registered user talk pages with three or more last warnings, and no blocks in the log. It makes the "last warning" ring rather hollow. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this user's edits were vandalism so it's a "vandalism only account"- I often see accounts blocked as such. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:86.42.90.145

I'm a bit concerned about 86.42.90.145 (talk · contribs) who is leaving personal discriminatorary Anti-British sentiments on a number of talk pages. A warning was given on his/her talk page ([66]). It has been suggested this is an IP of a banned user ([67]). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the dates of the contribs. This account was a "sleeper" for a long time and suddenly woke up on May 9th to begin replacing "British Isles" with "British Isles and Ireland" (and similar changes). Sound familiar? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How can an IP be a sleeper? --barneca (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, only because the first two edits came over 6 months before these and were rather alike. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If an IP can be a sock, can't it be a sleeper? Doesn't matter. Don't worry about who's using the IP and concentrate on what they're doing with it. This thread was started on May 9th. That might be a coincidence, but it looks to me like a connection. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"sleeper" means an account that is created and sits silently until the four days to become "autoconfirmed" passes, before doing page move vandalism, edit warring on semi-protected pages, etc. An IP does not become autoconfirmed, so it can't be a sleeper. --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This IP is continuing to troll the British Isles related articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley abusing administrative authority yet again

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.

---

Consensus sez: Nothing to see here. Raul654 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley is protecting a page he is edit warring on, again.[68]

We brought this to the attention of WP:ANI before and even created a RfC about the abuse of Connolley blocking users he was in edit wars with at least 30 times, and has been chastized by at least three admins. The last block, he announced he was going to do break the rules before he blocked another user in an edit war. We reported it, and no one did a damn thing.

Connolley's acts as if he is above wikipedia rules, and based on the way everyone ignores his behavior he is. Can another admin get up enough spine to tell Connolley that the rules apply to admins too?

There are clearly two sets of rules on Wikipedia: one for admins, and one for everyone else. Such a fucking joke. Inclusionist (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the history of the page in question does clearly show this admin protecting a page in which he is actively involved in a content dispute. Bstone (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deep breath. Now exhale. He semi-protected the page, in response to an edit war involving IP's. The page was shortly thereafter full-protected by another admin ([69]). It's not the call I would have made, but semi-protecting a page in the midst of an all-out edit war to which apparent IP socks are unhelpfully contributing is a bit less dramatic than the above two comments would lead one to believe. Complaints at WP:AN/I are ideally presented accurately and without breathless hyperbole. When people have to check into the complaint and find that the facts don't quite match up to the rhetoric, it makes the complaint less likely to be taken seriously. MastCell ^Talk 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is accurate. William is in fact protecting a page he is edit warring on. He has a history of threatening and blocking new editors he is edit warring with. The page protections edit warring rules have no exceptions. Admins are not supposed to protect pages they are edit warring on, period. Admins are not supposed to block other users they are editing on, period.

Can I ask you a favor MastCell? Are you an Admin? Inclusionist (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. MastCell ^Talk 05:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Another frivolous posting and another attempt to harrass WMC. You'd think you would have learned the first time when your attempted arbcom fell flat on it's face, Travb. Jtrainor (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A horse and a stick and all that. ArbCom found no fault with WMC's previous actions on this page (see [70]),,so I highly doubt they would find fault with this (completely necessary) action. - Merzbow (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Per above, placing a grossly uncivil complaint here doesn't endear you to the people you want to resolve this, especially when you're sensationalizing the issue. Anyhow, I find no problems with WMC's editing, and while I would not have done it, semi-protecting the page when IP sockpuppetry was clearly evident is fine. He isn't stopping any other users from editing, and is simply removing a venue for people to abuse the process, which was the case. The situation is fine as is - the page is protected, resolve your dispute without the overblown hyperbole that typified your initial post here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Complainant seems to be in denial about the atrocious state of the article and the long-term problems caused by Giovanni33 and his hosiery drawer. According to the arbitration case in process, this problem looks set be resolved shortly with Giovanni, his invisible friends and the nameless horde of single-purpose accounts given the long-overdue bum's rush. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article and its title are magnets for PoV warring and it looks to me as though WMC has done a fit implementation of WP:IAR. Any admin should tread so lightly and think hard before doing such a thing but he is familiar with the article (along with the editors warring over it) and widely trusted in the community. It's ok to ask about his actions but I see no consensus at all that his protection has been untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

To me this is very basic. It's about accountability for admins. They are not above the rules, and should not abuse their tools, as WMC has done on several occasions with impunity, in my view. I understand being a trusted member of the community but a close look at all his admin actions with respect to core WP rules over not using ones tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute one is involved in, will show he has betrayed the communities trust of him with using the tools in an appropriate manner. As far as POV warring is concerned WMC is one of the worst offenders on that article.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as YOUR PoV warring is concerned, maybe. Again, the consensus is that WMC has used his powers appropriately, SirFozzie (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no such consensus, esp. in his prior Rfc pages about this very type of conduct. The rules are good ones and should be followed. And, why is an admin edit-warring anyway? This is not conduct becoming an admin.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is somewhat understandable that you might be put out by a page being semied to prevent IP address users from "randomly" showing up to revert to your preferred version. I advise you to grin and bear it-- the editprotected thing exists for a reason. Jtrainor (talk) 00:52, 14 May 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:Robinepowell Yet Again

This user just came off a two week block for distruptive editing, and is already back to her old habits of edit warring and ignoring attempts to discuss things. She is making bad edits to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), and has ignored my requests that she stop removing the commas from the dates, and the she provide a source for her claims of completely different airdates she's claiming. As with all other issues with her, she continues to just say "she knows what's right" and refusing to actually provide a real source to back up her claim. She continues to ignore my request that she discuss, and my request that given her contentious history on these articles that she post her proposed changes to the talk page and allow discussion rather than continuing to revert. She has been blocked seven times for edit warring and her disruptive behavior. I feel stronger action is needed at this point, as she seems completely unwilling to learn, to adjust her behavior, and to work cooperatively. She's already violated 3RR on the page again, and continues to ignore the requests that she stop and that she provide a real source beyond "saw it in a forum." AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, she was reported here on April 29th, which was the result of her two week block by admin User:Pigman. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal block escalation would go to one month this time around. (After that, an indef block in my opinion). The editor has been notified of this ANI thread. No apparent interest in the slightest compromise; scornful edit summaries suggesting that others don't know English. This editor is already over 3RR on the above-named article today. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Multiple editors have tried to discuss/compromise, but her responses have always been scornful and/or blatantly ignoring them. I got involved when another editor asked for a third opinion and help explaining stuff to her, but the responses are still the same. Its rather tiring and frustrating that she so completely refuses to really discuss anything. The few times she did respond to talk page messages, she basically said "I'm right cause I'm Canadian" while continuing to edit war. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone would like to do the month block, it would be appreciated. She just came back online and got right back to doing the same stuff again. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked her for two weeks, having not seen Ed's suggestion. If there's consensus, I have no objection to it being revised to a month given the history. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Extended the block duration to one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, both of you. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

MathPeople

I am being harrassed by several members of WP:MATH.

Context: I am a contributor in the area of philosophy and logic specifically. The prevailing culture in the math department is very intellectually hostile to the inclusion of any content which provides any philosophical or logical foundations of mathematics (the idea that a set or a theorem is an abstract object, for instance). Recently I made some organizational and content contributions which several editors objected to. Specifically :interpretation (logic), formal interpretation, and descriptive interpretation

Since this recent issue, I have been repeatedly insulted by several members. This is noted on my talk page and the talk pages of those articles. A least one of them has been threatening to request a comment on user conduct for me.

In the final analysis, I have done absolutely nothing wrong. These people are upset, and getting people upset itself is not against any policy. It's wiki-political. I would like for someone to investigate fully, myself and these editors. Some administrator outside of the math department needs to tell these people explicitly that harrassment is unacceptable. The culture of support in WP:MATH has emboldened certain editors in attacking me. The sharks smell blood. The most recent development was the creation of a sockpuppet named TheMathPeople as a response to myself.

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of harassment? So far all we have to go on is that a new editor made one comment about you and that you're involved in a content dispute.-Wafulz (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jok2000 on Template talk:Logic, User:Cokaban on Talk:Interpretation (logic), User:Hans Adler with his several threats on my talk page, User:Marc van Leeuwen being overly harsh and demanding that I be stopped from editting. It's a barrage. A note to the talk page of WP:MATH from the right people will really help by way of some leadership, even if no policy has been violated. I am all by my self in these issues due to their numbers. The sockpuppet was the last straw:User:TheMathPeople

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, people disagree with you in a content dispute and are going to use dispute resolution to solve it? I don't see any harassment here so far. --Haemo (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"In the final analysis, I have done absolutely nothing wrong."

I respectfully disagree; Greg is frequently abrasive, argumentative,condescending, and incivil in his dealings with many other editors when there is any dispute about content, particularly along the Math/Philosophy axis. To be sure, it's an area that has a long, long history of conflict (long before Wikipedia ever existed). This is however no excuse for incivility.

I hasten to add: This goes for both sides of the disputes; other editors involved could certainly have conducted themselves better (and I include myself in this as well, for the very few times I've had occasion to interact with Greg. A (very small) selection of examples that I could find:

• 7 May 2008 *Talk:Interpretation(Logic) - "Gunking It up"- Greg's characterization of his content dispute with other editors. [71](Line 598 in the diff)

I am perfectly entitled and in this case justified in characterizing the article as gunked up. I invite all interested parties to take a look at the version of the article at that time. Gunked up itself is hardly cause for the barrage I have received.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs)

• 21 January 2008 - Comment from CBM on Gregbard's talk page, now located at [User_talk:Gregbard/Archive_3] [72]

• July 2007 - User Jitse Niesen attempts to ameliorate conflict, Gregbard responds with his 'Math Cabal' theory: [73]

That Greg is choosing to characterize this as 'Harassment' and that he believes there is some kind of organized effort in "The Math Department" (?!) to discredit or harass him is of course his opinion. But please, let's tell both sides of the story, and is this _really_ the right forum for what is, as Haemo quite aptly puts it, merely a content dispute? Zero sharp(talk) 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never had any discussion with you zero sharp over anything content related. Your communication with me consists entirely of warnings, etc. If you could limit your communication with me to content issues, I would prefer that. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gregbard. When I agree with you I say so, when I do not I say so too. I have also criticised you and others for being rude to each other. I have also criticised you, politely, for not being a team-player and moving material about etc. without following a consensus. I am trying to be helpful when I suggest that although you like to think you are open to criticsm, in fact you take it personally. In addition you unintentionally I think antagonise people unnecessarily, and create divisions instead of meetings of minds. Its unproductive: FIFTY PAGES , FIFTY, of discussion to agree the definition of a basic term like "intepretation" which you will find in any Elemantary text book. Thats fifty ages of many peoples time. + :::"In the final analysis, I have done absolutely nothing wrong."

- Ask your friends whether it is likely you will influence people if you put them in a bag like "mathpeople" and treat them with contempt. - its just rude. Would you like to be bagged like that? And have you forgotten the words written over the door of the Academy. --Philogo 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Philogo, I would not characterize you as a problem. Unfortunately you have at times chosen to join in the feeding frenzy, and that is unfortunate. Please do not call me rude, or join in any further ganging up on me. Rudeness means something. If you would like to bring in some analysis based on the polite virtues, I would encourage that. In the absence of some meaningful account of rudeness, I am going to interpret it as forthrightness, which others are too sensitive to take. Not a policy violation. These threats to report me need to be put in their place. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping a large number of editors who actually have a background in various fields of logic occupied with ever new attempts to push your unique opinions is rude. It may in the end be beneficial to Wikipedia, because it glues everyone else together, but it's incredibly rude. When we have the choice between accepting a deterioration of Wikipedia's logic articles and spending hours on fighting your misdirected efforts, then not "taking" this is not a sign of sensitivity but a normal reaction for people who can think of better things to do with their time. Of course, hiding behind a sockpuppet to attack you is rude as well, and in very bad taste. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncalled for block by User:EdJohnston

User:EdJohnston, an Admin, blocked my talk page for absolutley no good reason, but before I get into that, let me explain what happened. I was blocked for 3rr and then sent in an unblock request, not reallying expecting to get unblocked by trying to prove my point that the one who reported me had done it as well. So, after it was declined I cleared it off my talk page, and then he blocked my talkpage, claim that I had "abused" it, which I clearly had not. I don't see editing your talk page as abuse. And even after my block was up, he did not remove it and I had to get another admin to lift it. I think this is unneeded and he should be given a warning or something, by no means am I trying to defend what I did, but I don't think this block was called for.

Here is the old version of my page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red4tribe&oldid=210421082 (Red4tribe (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Here is some text from that version of your page. Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked. This is to prevent people from abusing the unblock request, which is something admins really don't like. Hope this clears things up. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did not see that. I saw someone else remove it, so I figured it was ok. My mistake. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

The page still should not have been protected. Removing an unblock request once doesn't warrant protection. 68.220.216.108 (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? Thanks. So I guess I'm back to where I began now. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

IP sockpuppet?

Does an IP count as a sockpuppet? I forgot to log in and now, posted something,and I am being reported for it...because I made the mistake of using them in the past. What is going to happen to me? Am I going to be blocked? (Red4tribe (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

As long as you don't log out solely to behave badly, there's nothing that mandates that you stay logged in to your account. east.718 at 00:55, May 14, 2008

All I did was add a map onto a page, and now they(well, he) are/is trying to block me. The map was a map of the American Empire which had been previously removed, and I felt, should be there. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Red4tribe knows full well the rules about sockpuppetry, having already had one account permanently blocked and having just come off a week long block on his main account. The last time he at first claimed it was his brother doing the editing [74] though he later admitted it was actually himself [75], writing that he "thought it would be an easier way to get information in wihtout (me) breathing down (his) neck" So please be under no illusions as to his innocence of the rules. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That really has nothing to do with this. As said above, I made a mistake, and "As long as you don't log out solely to behave badly, there's nothing that mandates that you stay logged in to your account". I did not vanislize anything, I only added in a map which should be there in the first place. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

If you're under editing restrictions, then editing as an IP should probably only take place more or less accidentally, and it should be obvious to uninvolved people that the editing was accidental+uncontroversial. This is my own personal take on "how to participate gainfully in a community." Antelan^talk 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetting vandal

Could an administrator please do something about this vandal. He created numerous socks to vandalize pages. See the history of Wikipedia:UAL [76] and on the talk page [77] thanks -- penubag  (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Nothing's jumping out at me.-Wafulz (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No one edits Wp:UAL as their first edit and there is normally never so much vandalism to a Wikipedia:prefix page. Also judging by half of the user names relating to anime characters, this is definatly the same person. Can some one ip block this guy. Thanks -- penubag  (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to some redlinked usernames in the recent history of Wikipedia:User access levels. I think an IP block would be overkill at this point. However, semi-protecting that page would be wise, and I will request it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already semi'd, and as soon as it was, he started vandalizing the talk page. Why would it be an over kill to just ip block him? -- penubag  (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Case of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry

I came across a nest of socks while doing a CheckUser investigation. There seem to be several obviously related trolls, but I found that these accounts are all operated by a couple good hand accounts (the last two). The CheckUser connection is strong and confirmed by another CU I checked with, so I leave it to the community to sort it out. Accounts:

• I Come From the Future (talk · contribs)
• Average Citizen (talk · contribs)
• Smokey Mountain George (talk · contribs)
• Electoral Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• Leftward shifting (talk · contribs)
• Mad mad mad mad world (talk · contribs)
• End the Madness (talk · contribs)
• Rlrcstr100 (talk · contribs)
• Elastic broomstick (talk · contribs)
• Uga Man (talk · contribs)
• Southern Texas (talk · contribs)

Dmcdevit·t 19:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that East718 has indef blocked all accounts not already indef blocked for various reasons by various admins, except Southern Texas who has the longest contrib history and generally good edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this guy's a repeat sockmaster - one of the accounts was indefinitely blocked last May for socking and was unblocked only after feigning contrition. Since it's the oldest, I've tagged Uga Man as the master account and blocked all the sockpuppets indefinitely. east.718 at 20:20, May 13, 2008

Are any of the following also related? I found this in the history of User talk:William Henry Harrison. Copied directly from his own words:

Just thought I'd mention the possibility of the connection. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All are self-admitted (and are now blocked). east.718 at 20:48, May 13, 2008

political censorship in wikipedia?

The infinite blocking of Southern Texas may be political censorship. Even LesserVanU notes that the editor has generally good edits. Other places on the internet (not anti-wikipedia message boards) have mentioned censorship in Wikipedia, not as an official policy but by some administrators.

I am on a research projects to see if editors who edit with their real name edit better. Mr. Texas' name is certainly not his real name (or I must have a serious talk with his parents). JerryVanF (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose that someone (or me) have a talk with the person and then unblock him next week. This will prove that there is no political censorship in Wikipedia.

I see no checkuser request so someone could say that someone is looking to roast someone and kept running checkusers until they found someone to censor. By having a talk with Southern Texas and not blocking him infinitely, we show that Wikipedia is fair. JerryVanF (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm slightly confused. How is blocking a user who has run at least ten other sockpuppets "political censorship"? Should we give a free pass to anyone with identifiable political views? Black Kite 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser says the link is only strong and is not proof. We can't examine the data ourselves and don't know if the CU is just mad at the guy's edits. The hint is that there was no checkuser request so we don't know if the CU was fishing or not.

Since LessHeardVanU stated that Southern Texas had good edits (he determined this, not me), then we could be infinitely blocking a person that improves WP.

What caught my eye is that Southern Texas' edits are in political articles, which can cause others to attack the editor. I haven't studied his edits but I trust Mr. Van U.

Given that Southern Texas has good edits and not conclusive proof of sockpuppetry, I favor a block of a fixed duration, not infinite. Also clouding the issue is that it's not certain if ST is being attacked and fishing occuring because of some political views. I don't even know what ST's political views are. JerryVanF (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that another editor (a checkuser in this case) is a liar, and may have blocked someone because their political views conflict with his own, is a very bad idea indeed. I would strongly advise that you withdraw it. I would also point out that he said the CU was "confirmed". Black Kite 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments only said that someone could conceivably claim such an opinion. I did not claim such an opinion but am wary of the appearance of possible wrongdoing. In a democracy, you can question authority, but not in a dictatorship. WP is not a dictatorship, I hope.

The did NOT say confirmed. It said "strong". This is why I favor blocking for a specific term of 1 week. This would also avoid the appearance of political censorship. It would also build a case if Southern Texas did not edit properly in the future. I see no warning. We are here to build an encyclopedia and Southern Texas (according to an administrator) was making good edits. JerryVanF (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unless you have actual evidence, throwing around wild accusations about a person in a position of trust is totally irresponsible. --Haemo (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is already out there. There was no checkuser request which opens up the real possibility of fishing. All checkuser requests should be out in the open. That's why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation outside of Wikipedia. They claim WP is secretive. Keeping everything in the open helps everyone and hurts nobody. This is why I have verified my identity. I believe in openness. JerryVanF (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You claimed that a checkuser has lied about the evidence to censor political opinions they don't like. You have not produced any evidence to this effect, and checkusers do not have to request checkusers because that's what they do on Wikipedia. Claiming that the latter is evidence of the former is ridiculous in the extreme and you should retract your allegations of wrong-doing immediately. --Haemo (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that two checkusers were performed, by different people, and came to the same conclusion - as it says above "The CheckUser connection is strong and confirmed by another CU I checked with". I can point you towards the other checkuser for verification if you wish. Black Kite 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I know political censorship when I see it and this is not it. The blocks are good ones, including against SouthernTexas. His editing behavior has not always been good either from my first hand encounters with him.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

George Reeves Person blocked again

I have blocked the Chicago Public Library yet again (66.99.0.0/22, 64.107.0.0/22), this time for a week, in an attempt to stop this banned user (most recently at 66.99.3.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If anyone has ideas on how to deal with this extremely obsessive and persistent purveyor of abuse, off-wiki harassment, and general disruption, I'm all ears. CPL is only one of many places he edits from (most are public locations in Chicago -- Circuit City, Best Buy, Triton College, and some others I haven't identified). Caution: anyone who gets involved in this is putting themselves at risk for harassment, for this guy has a long and rich legacy of doing exactly that. If you receive an e-mail from him do NOT ever e-mail him back from a service that includes your IP in the header. This block is of course open to review and comment. I'd like to hear ideas on how to deal with this. Here is the link to his deleted long-term abuse page which gives some of the history. Antandrus (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

have we gottenin touch with the internet admin there? DGG (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cary, North Carolina

This article seems to be popular this evening with the vandals. I reported Jak Se Mǎs Land Rover (talk · contribs) and he/she was blocked indef. I also reported Sigara içmek öldürür (talk · contribs) who had redirected the page on the 12th and made another vandalism edit today after the block was removed (sock?) A look at their block log shows the user was blocked on the 12th, but it was apparently removed. The admin at AIV did not reinstate the block, so if someone could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. 24.211.162.217 (talk · contribs) redirected as well tonight, but I don't know if it's a sock or just some random vandalism edit. APK ^{yada yada} 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

another admin has already protected it. DGG (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. He blocked the 2nd user as well. I think the article is now fully protected until May 28. Is there a way to reduce the length? I appreciate Seicer doing that and blocking the vandal, but maybe a few days of protection is better? APK ^{yada yada}

Hey APK, if Seicer is the protecting admin, I'd ask him directly about changing the duration of it. Aleta ^Sing 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant for a semi, and corrected as such, and reduced the duration to 2 days to see if that clears it up. Let me know if there are other issues. seicer | talk | contribs 03:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was an oopsy. ;-) Thanks for fixing it. Cheers. APK ^{yada yada} 03:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

This revert came with the edit comment "rv disruptive edits that are starting to look suspiciously like racism". I demanded an expanation or apology,[78] but none has been forthcoming. Neither side is too happy with the other at this point, but I think that comment goes over a line. What say you? Andyvphil (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The particular edits reverted in the given diff do not appear to me to be racist in tone or intent. I would, however, suggest that you take my view as vindication of those edits and then move on - the best way to diffuse the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The reverted content, as written, may not have been meant to hint at such an agenda, but it could for some readers. I see no need for apologies but this looks like a heated content dispute to me and I hope everyone might think about calming down. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil continuously adds needless detail about Black Liberation Theology, Trinity United Church of Christ, and Jeremiah Wright to Barack Obama despite an overwhelming consensus that these are inappropriate. The reversion I made was a response to him re-adding that same material with the addition of previously reverted material concerning another African-American politician. Many editors could see these edits as having an unpleasant, racist whiff about them. I shall be making no apologies to disruptive, bombastic and tendentious editors who seek only to push their personal points of view, particularly those who may appear to have racist motivation. I notice that this particular editor has re-added this Trinity/Wright material yet again, which only reinforces my original thinking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the degree to which Mr. Obama shares the views and doctrines of his church and minister (I have, btw, never added any detail about black liberation theology to Barack Obama) is central to his political viability, a legitimate and necessary subject for his biography, and a controversial question which by policy must be addressed in an NPOV fashion. Which is pretty hard to do if we can only describe his religion as "Christian(denomination: United Church if Christ)"(which the article does) and any mention of the fact that it is also Afrocentric and subscribes to a black variant of Liberation Theology that is far from the mainstream of the denomination is met with accusations of "racism", even expressed in the weaseling way that Gwen Gale ("it could for some readers...hint at such an agenda") and Scjessey ("Many editors could see these edits as having an unpleasant, racist whiff about them. I shall be making no apologies to...editors who...may appear to have racist motivation") do here. I have never encountered Ms. Gale before and I think so little of Scjessey's judgement that I am not at all distressed by his ill opinion of me, but I have to ask: You can think what you want, but if NPA means anything doesn't it mean that there will be sanctions against editors expressing such dark suspicions on such inadequate grounds? Andyvphil (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand how you took the edit summary, but I took it as referring to an impression of the edit, not you. I rarely if ever use the word "race" at all, since it can be so deeply mistaken. When I see this word in a comment or edit summary, I tend to think someone is getting very worried (and perhaps emotionally invested) about an edit and respond accordingly. You might think about that. Anyway please understand I wasn't weaseling, I was saying some readers wouldn't think twice about that edit, others would likely be upset, much the same as you two disagree about it. I don't see a personal attack, but a heated content dispute and hence, nothing for an admin to do here. Please let that edit summary be and try to find some way to agree on how to handle your disagreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is hard for me to see the difference between "these edits look like racism" and "this editor appears to be a racist", and I think Scjessey's comment above indicates, in a weaseling way, that the latter was precisely his meaning. I had thought you meant there was "no need for apologies" because you felt Scjessey was merely calling a spade a spade. If instead you somehow thought that there was no personal attack, what say you now that Scjessy has repeated and amplified on it? Andyvphil (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil has been edit warring on Bill Moyers. This is, of course, a BLP and the issue currently under RfC is undue weight, plus the use of possibly biased or marginal sources. The issue is complex, and I made one edit restoring the version of another editor, which Andyvphil simply reverted, as he has many times (but not crossing 3RR as far as I know). His latest revert: [79]. I have also warned this user[80] for incivility for this edit (last sentence):[81]. (I have only made one edit to the article, Andyvphil has restored this material many times. He has been warned, also, many times, for incivility.) He has been blocked three times for edit warring, and seems to be quite willing to risk more. Last one was 72 hours, 2 December, 2007. --Abd (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I read the block log backwards, encouraged by the rather unusual circumstance that this user's blocks have been getting shorter, not longer. Last block was April 21. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And your point is that if you think someone is an edit warrior, or uncivil, it's ok to call them a racist? Andyvphil (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Users Josh Sulkers/Rianon Burnet

While doing some routine cleanup of free images, I ran across the userpages for Josh Sulkers (talk · contribs) and Rianon Burnet (talk · contribs). Neither has edited for several months, but their experience here seems to have primarily been MySpace-type activity, and their talk pages contain a lot of extremely personal messages from each other. I'm wondering if the pages and photos should be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. HalfShadow 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere on WP:NOT you'll find that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. That seems to be all they're using it for. Pretty harmless, but if you let people get by with it, there will be hundreds doing the same thing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more direct. :) I know they shouldn't have been doing it, would an admin please delete those pages? Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOO anyone with a mop? Can we get a cleanup in aisle 3? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, an admin could just unilaterally delete these pages, but I think a more tactful, less BITEy route is to first leave a polite note for each editor, which I just did. Perhaps someone else can follow those up with nice welcome notes.

If someone has time, they may wish to check some of the other user talk pages listed in these two editors' edit histories to see if there are any other social networking-only user accounts involved.

Thanks for catching this.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Or you can MFD the pages if you think they're that unuseful. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bert Schlossberg

Bert Schlossberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been strewing non-neutral, OR, and off-topic material throughout the encyclopedia related to Korean Air Lines Flight 007‎. His user page makes plain the nature of his focus.

While Mr. Schlossberg is not necessarily unreformable, he shows little grasp so far of the principles of sound encyclopedia-writing. One way or another, his actions on Wikipedia will be requiring a great deal of attention.--Father Goose (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcomed him with a notice to read our ruleshere. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Xgmx

• Xgmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4.245.79.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP address posted to Talk:Main page requesting an unblock on his main account. I am inclined to refuse and to suggest protecting his talk page. He says he is sorry, but his actions don't support his words. Calling Daniel Case a "rogue admin" whose bans are meaningless does not signify remorse. Unless I'm missing something, I suggest an admin block the IP address and protect Xgmx's talk page, and suggest that he may start out under a new account if he promises not to make trouble anymore and not to reveal the connection to his old account (per WP:SOCK). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a rangeblock here in the 4.244-4.245 range (all Level 3 accounts). He isn't taking the hint despite multiple IPs being blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The same guy got blocked for being a nuisance as 4.244.36.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), also 4.244.42.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Nushwander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ugabuga22222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and two impersonators of me - Hut 8.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hut 8.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He kept recreating a page on a non-notable forum where one of the admins is listed as xgmx so this might be coordinated from within the forum. Hut 8.5 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That might explain this puzzling message I got on my talk page this morning. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I got it too. It seems like he's stopped for now. But let's keep an eye on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This old ANI thread indicates that the user is quite young, which would explain his immature behaviour. His recent actions, with recreation of an article for his forum and the discussion here, don't really show that he is willing to edit constructively just yet, though. --Bonadea (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary: Xgmx's spam and misbehaviour on Wikipedia

This user is not your typical spammer and while some of his behaviour might be considered trolling, if you look at it closely, there's a certain loopy oddness to Xgmx's style that I can't put my finger on. In any event, we don't need it here.

Extended content

References Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335#User:Xgmx Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive109#help! Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vigilante Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Xgmx Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclosearch Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Revolutionary War (video game) Accounts 4.244.33.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.244.33.18 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.244.33.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.244.36.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.244.36.52 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.244.36.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.244.42.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.244.42.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.72.213 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.73.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.73.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.74.157 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.75.131 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.75.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.78.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.78.249 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 4.245.79.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) Dashippingyard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Hut 8.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Hut 8.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Nushwander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Ssfreefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Ugabuga22222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Xgmx2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Xgmx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Deleted pages An odd admixture of spam, disruption and seemingly earnest but quixotic attempts to produce genuine content: Category talk:Category templates - talk page for a non-existent page Category:AfD debates (SS Free) Category:American Revolutionary War (video game) -- spammy category page Category:Companies based in High Ridge, Missouri -- empty category Category:High Ridge, Missouri -- empty category Category:Motion pictures Category:Reenactor Entertainment -- spammy category page Category:Saint Louis, Missouri -- empty category (correct category is Category:St. Louis, Missouri Category:SS free advocates -- spammish user category Category:SS Free advocates Category:Video game distributors-- empty category Category:Video game liscensors-- empty category Image talk:Tassadar-final-moment.png - talk page for a non-existent page Template:Powerful Nations -- some nonsense netries Template:SSFreeWiki -- spam template American Revolutionary War (video game) -- spam Battleships.x.am -- only content was two red-linked categories Behemoth (StarCraft) -- very short article providing little or no context Blowing a shitter -- deleted as a nonsense stub; describes a submarine sewage disposal accident Bovine Scat -- redirect to Bullshit Chewbacca 2.0 -- nonsense stub deleted 3 times Crack is gay -- nonsense Dune:Editor review/Xgmx -- content: "One of the best contributers on the Dune wiki" Encyclosearch -- spam article ETPB -- nonsense page; opens with "'ETPB', is short for Eric's Toe Popping Business." Fandom Comics -- redirect to New Sim Universe spam article FishNet Node One -- stub about a small, non-notable 1980s BBS in St. Louis GameSpy 3D -- only content was Category:Online gaming services GameSpy Comrade -- only content was Category:Online gaming services HAWCs -- spam redirect Halo War Omega - deleted twice; spam article Heavy Armored Weapon Chassis -- spam James "Alfred" Bond -- redirects to James Bond Jango Fett1 -- nonsense Kevin Andrew McDonald -- content: "Owner and founder of Reenactor Entertainment." List of RTS games-- very short article providing little or no context Main Page&action=edit New Sim Universe -- spam article Northwest High School (House Springs, Missouri) -- "NHS is a high school." -- contained multiple Reenactor spam links Online Gaming Service Wars -- speedy deleted per A7 Q-Wing -- only content: "More information will be available shortly, please check back at a later date." Reenactor Entertainment Corporation -- spam page; only content was a {{hangon}} tag and a spam link Reenactor Entertainment -- spam; deleted 5 times SATNET -- nonsense page Sammy Suicide -- nonsense SS Free -- deleted 6 times SS Free TV -- spam article. Lists programming for an as-yet-unlaunched (and possibly imaginary) TV network Talk:American Revolutionary War: The French Conversion (video game)- talk page for a non-existent page. Content: "When will this article be created?" Talk:Fc railway - talk page for a non-existent article Talk:SS Free (backup article) - talk page for a non-existent page Talk:SS Free TV - talk page for a then non-existent article Talk:SS Free/Comments - talk page for a non-existent page Talk:SS Free/to do - talk page for a non-existent page Template:Don'tdelete -- deleting admin's comment: "It is a blatant misrepresentation of established policy, this includes "speedy deletion" templates for issues that are not speedy deletion criteria, and disclaimer templates intended for use in articles." To shit ones pants -- lengthy nonsense page Undead Armament -- spam User talk:Toofy - talk page for a non-existent user User:Phaedriel/Today/11 4, 1992 - user subpage not made by User:Phaedriel Wikipedia talk:Admin xgmx -- "Sign here if you think xgmx should be a Wikipedia administrator" Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Halo War Omega -- Talk page of non-existant MfD; content: "BRING IT BACK" Wikipedia:Admin xgmx -- Xgmx for admin page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Free - trollish versions of AfD deleted twice Wikipedia:Editor review/Xgmx -- limited to positive comments from 2 sockpuppets Wikipedia:Vigilante Wikipedia:WikiProject Code Lyoko -- redirect to Code Lyoko Www.reenactor.net.tc/ -- spam Www.reenactorentertainment.websitewizard.com -- spam Spam domains 175799.aceboard.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com americanrevolutionarywar.zoomshare.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com cbox.ws/?reforum: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com createforum.com/phpbb/?mforum=reenactor fandomcomics.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Reenactor: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com forums.delphiforums.com/reenactor1: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com forums.delphiforums.com/reenactor2: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com forums.zoomshare.com/viewtopic.php?id=15507&Reenactor%20Entertainment%20Tech%20Support forums.zoomshare.com/viewtopic.php?pid=113522#p113522 freeforum101.com/forum/xgmx.html: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com freewebs.com/beyondcomputing: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com halo-forum.net.tf: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com irc.freenode.net/#reenactor: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com maxpages.com/ackuron: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com maxpages.com/planetgnome: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com maxpages.com/reenactor: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com maxpages.com/tache: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com newsimuniverse.net.tc: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com planetgnome.net.tc/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com reenactor.forumer.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com reenactor.net.tc: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com reenactor.zoomshare.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com reenactorentertainment.websitewizard.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com s6.invisionfree.com/Reenactor/index.php: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com serenityonline.websitewizard.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ssfree.net.tc: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ssfree.wikia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com stardestroyer.net.tc: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com swnsu.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ufda.net.tc: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com us.undernet.org/#reenactor: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com xeboards.com/reenactor: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com z10.invisionfree.com/Civilization_At_War: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com z13.invisionfree.com/international_poker: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com z7.invisionfree.com/Beyond_Computing/index.php?: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com z9.invisionfree.com/Trollz/index.php?: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Google Adsense ID: 2404175891811072

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now placed all of the URLs above on our spam blacklist. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Applause. Durova^Charge! 08:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of the users that reported him many moons ago, and while I don't support a straight unblock, it's a shame that we can't find a way to include him in this project. Google xgmx and you'll find that his young gentleman has literally spent hundreds of hours on creating companies, wikia's and forums. If, and that's a big "if", he could be "shown the light" everyone would win. Any chance that there are particularly talented individuals over at WP:ADOPT that would be willing to take him under their wing? Burzmali (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I know I really shouldn't be here, but I am not Dashippingyard, please do not ban him/her for my actions, I take responsability for what I did, and that person had nothing to do with it, so please don't take action against that user, thank you.--xgmx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.36.137 (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP as a sockpuppet. I think it is very likely that Dashippingyeard is a sock, as they happened to recreate an AfDed article written by xgmx with almost exactly the same content. Perhaps a range block on the IP address (unless it's sensitive) would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

SSP case now open at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xgmx. Hut 8.5 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was unaware of this thread and made a suspected sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xgmx. Xgmx_dontworry_imgoodnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created several afds, like [82] and [83]. Cenarium (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block or other Remedial Action Requested

Yesterday, I filed a review of a 2-week block issued in conjunction with the Episode and ACharacter arbcom case, in which I noted that the initiator of that discussion User:Pixelface has a history of disruptive and pointy edits. In response, User:Pixelface initiated a request for arbitration enforcement against me, despite the facts that I was not named in the arbcom case he references and that the "dispute" he points to has been long and well-resolved. After Pixelface's last outburst , in which he tagged every single Haydn symphony with a merge notice, (since I have authored a number of Haydn symphony articles) which prompted me to file this AN/I report in March, I feel enough is enough. This is a form of passive aggressive wikistalking, a disruptive gaming of the system that needlessly takes up people's time with frivolous issues every other month, all because User:Pixelface is mad at me. What remedies are available here? Eusebeus (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Dispute resolution. Catchpole (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to visit WP:NOT#Battleground Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

::This sagacity from two motivated editors up to their eyeballs in the same dispute. Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

please don't think that editors who support some of his views on some of the article issues approve of all the ways he is going about it. Far from it. DGG (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus, I'm not mad at you. We even agree occasionally. And I believe you *were* named as an involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. I don't know why you felt the need to continue to edit-war [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] over Scrubs episode articles even after a previous AE thread regarding your edit-warring on Scrubs episode articles. That's why I started this AE thread. And that merge proposal of mine you refer to was on March 7, over two months ago. And the ANI thread you started concerning it was found to be without merit. --Pixelface (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism report

User IP 12.147.59.132 (Republican Party of Illinois State House IP Address) keeps deleting content ( portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia,Bill Mitchell (politician), and should be blocked from editing for numerous occurrences of deleting information relevant to State Rep. Mitchell's public DUI arrest and conviction in 2003.

I see only one from that ip on the article. Others have been from 98.222.34.212 (Comcast). I was thinking of semi-protecting, but the vandalism does not seem to be very frequent. DGG (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest that if the IP is blocked the Foundation are notified asap as this surely qualifies as a sensitive IP address. — iridescent 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hkelkar sock

Possible Hkelkar sock. Special:Contributions/Zarina3. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-Warring/Repeatedly deleting text with deliberately misleading edit summaries

User User:TharkunColl repeatedly deleted text from the British Isles article, each time very loudly insisting that the text was not supported by the reference cited and that he was defending the truth in a rearguard action against POV pushers. The text was in fact verbatim supported in the references cited. User User:TharkunColl reverted two other editors who replaced the text, each time using CAPITAL LETTERS in the edit summary to state that the text was not supported by reference. The diffs are [93], [94], [95].
The accompanying talk page comments include [96], [97], where TharkunColl repeats the assertion that the deleted text was not in the reference. The page was then partially protected, resulting in the following comments [98], and [99], with User:TharkunColl accusing the original editor of lying, and the reverting editors of being POV, a politicised minority, etc. The deleted text, which can be very easily seen in the diffs from the article, appears in the reference given, i.e. the words "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism" appear in the article from the Canadian Journal of history at [[100] (look on page 2).
I pointed out on the talk page that the references did exist and that I believed the repeated deletions and misleading edit summaries qualified as vandalism. It has been pointed out that vandalism is generally considered to refer to more dramatic actions and that I should come to the general incidents board if I wanted to raise this issue. Once challenged with the detail from the reference, User:TharkunColl began defending his actions by claiming instead that he felt that the text he had deleted wasn't immediately relevant to the article and later by saying that he hadn't actually read the reference at all. I belive this is a post-hoc defense.
Given the LONG term issues around the British Isles article, I feel that such repeated deletion of supported text, such misleading edit summaries and the (incorrect) accusations of lying and POV are serious and that behaviour like this represents a major problem on a page with the problems of that one. Note, I don't have strong feelings about the content deleted. I think it probably belongs, but it hasn't been discussed and I don't believe it's the point. (I also feel - perhaps incorrectly - that two admins who frequent the page, John and Deacon of Pndapetzim, have strong views on the article content and perhaps ought to recuse themselves from any discussion on this incident.) Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that part of my edit included rephrasing the bit that said that British trade in the North Atlantic dated to Saxon times. If that appears in the article then I certainly never saw it - and even if it does say it, it's demonstrably wrong. Incidentally, I have since added the whole quote, not just the half that was originally there. In any case, it is referring to the British Empire, not the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't this matter brought up a couple of days ago on this or the other admin noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes on this very one and it was decided it was a content dispute involving User:Bardcom with no admin action required. Merkin's mum 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikistalking case, was moved back to Tharky's page (at Bardcom's choosing). But, so far that discussion hasn't continued there. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any possible sanctions against those who repeatedly make malicious and/or frivolous complaints? TharkunColl (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate complaint that has nothing to do with the wikistalking incident. And yes, the wikistalking conversation has not continued on any Talk page that I am aware of. Interesting that Merkinsmum interprets the previous incident as "no admin action required".....is that an assumption.... ??? --Bardcom (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a fact that that is pretty much how the last thread here ended- it was to be continued on Thark's talk, i.e. not on the administrators noticeboard. As far as I know, everyone who commented in the previous thread you started the day before this one saw it as a content dispute, and some referred to the RfC about Bardcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom (which, in my opinion, is pretty much a content dispute, but that's by the by.) Please reread my words above- I'm not assuming anything about this thread if people really consider it a separate matter, I was commenting on the previous thread, hence my use of the past tense. However- as it is so soon-about a day after the last thread, people might wonder if it is actually the same matter, as LessHeardvanU did above, and as I am yet to be convinced that it's not.:) Merkin's mum 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkin, there is no conspiracy theory. This is a separate thread, and a separate complain. I steered well clear of the British Isles Talk page when this row broke out. The last thread ended because the admins weren't going to actually do anything about Tharky's behaviour (which appears true - nothing has yet been done). The admins have blessed Tharky's behaviour as justified, because they have interpreted it as a content dispute. Same thing appears to be happening here, only more so, as you are now attempting to connect (while trying to make it appear that you are merely wondering) two separate issues into a single issue and then absolving Tharky's behaviour, again, under "Content Dispute".

Question Does Content Dispute grant editors a special license under which they can evade warnings (still nothing on Tharky's Talk page), blindly revert edits without justification (then or since) or discussion(my separate complaint), and continually remove references (this complaint, different editor, although similar themes (Tharky, British Isles))??? One of the hallmarks of good adminship is an even-handed approach, low tolerence of ad hominen attacks, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF at all times. Equally, when editors deliberately breach these fundamental policies, a warning must be issued pointing out the problems. After warnings come blocks, etc. This incident, and the one before involving my complaint, appears to teach editors how to edit war, how to breach policies on civility and assuming good faith, all without warnings or sanctions. Many editors will learn these lessons. --Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins can use common sense when dealing with edit wars, block are a last resort. If it can be resolved without them it should. No editor of this article is deliberately trying to disrupt the article. --neonwhite user page talk 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Howabout we let Watapalaver continue his complaints againt Tharky. Let's not get his report & Bardcom's (archived) report interwined. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, aren't any edits related to "The Troubles" under Arbcom thingies? I'd urge all editors to step back and go through dispute resolution. Also, that huge chunk of text: tl;dr. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - The Troubles - this absolutely is a "related article" and I'm suprised, and disappointed, to see admins brushing it off as a content dispute. It is a content dispute, but the editors involved clearly need stern advice about dispute resolution, and to be reminded of the sanctions available against any disruptive editor on those articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's stretching it to link "The Troubles" with this complaint. If I squint up my eyes and peer through my eyelashes with my hands over my eyes and my head moving back and forth really quickly ... then yes! I see the link! Otherwise no. --Bardcom (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where have I said anything about a "conspiracy theory"? It just seems like the same subject matter. I do agree something perhaps should be done about it, but I don't know what except maybe a ban on these behaviors from one or either side. I'm not an expert but don't think that would be dealt with on AN/I, it's a matter for mediation (has there been one?) or if ArbCom want to spend the time on it, eventually ArbCom. But it would be depressing to see it come to that, IMHO. Merkin's mum 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Troubles, nor with Bardcom's earlier complaint. It is also (again) highly misleading of TharkunColl to suggest that his deletion of the text was somehow because of subtleties about phrasing about trading in Saxon times. (it's all in the cited documents). This is about behaviour, not about content. This is about deleting supported text while simultaneously accusing the original inserting editor 18 months ago of putting in "lies", accusing the reverting editors of being POV, political, claiming to be "defending the truth", loudly claiming in all the edit summaries that the text was not supported by reference, WHILE IT WAS COMPLETELY SUPPORTED BY THE REFERENCED DOCUMENT. If it is legitimate to do what TharkunColl did then Wikipedia policies have a great big hole in them. Read the diffs and the referenced document, or just search for the key deleted words on google, that'll bring you right to the referenced document. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't shout. (joke).:) One part of this is a content dispute in so much as the part where people would have to read the sources to know who's right or wrong. Have you said to Thark that you object to his edit summaries, before you posted here? AN/I is sort of the last resort, first you're supposed to talk to the editor themselves. No, I see you personally haven't mentioned anything in the last fortnight, at least on Thark's talk page, before you informed him you'd made a thread on AN/I. Before that, around the 20th April, you wrote to his page a section with the title "erroneous" User talk:TharkunColl#Erroneous which probably wasn't the best start. You need to be systematic about following WP:DR- if you object to for instance an edit summary, leave a message for the editor concerned. New ones. If it was a fortnight ago you could try asking them again before taking it to AN/I. In the case of an edit summary, that does not involve the article itself but the editor, so could be on his rather than the article's talk page. I know you have discussed the content recently on the article's talk, I still suggest an editor's talk page as the next step if you feel you have an issue with a specific editor's behaviour (as opposed to content of edit) in future. Ask them for the change you wish to see. Just My Humble Opinion.:) Merkin's mum 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute at all. The issue is edit warring while deleting text that is supported, all the time loudly claiming it's not supported by reference and claiming other editors are lying, pushing POV, etc. It's about deleting text while giving deliberately misleading edit summaries that totally misrepresent the reason for the edit, and then getting away with it. You might have a content dispute about whether or not the deleted text ought to be there or not, that´s entirely beside the point. The issue is edit warring with deliberately misleading edit summaries, claiming that the text was not supported by reference, when it clearly is. That's not a content dispute, it's a behaviour dispute. If - as it seems - admins allow worse behaviour on controversial articles then editors will quickly learn this, or have apparently already learned this. Since this isn't a content issue it doesn't seem that dispute resolution is actually appropriate. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is here. The edit summaries seem clearly explained to me (though i'm recommend avoiding the caps lock) they don't seem to be hiding an edit. Calling them 'deliberately misleading' is not assuming good faith. The behaviour of User:Wotapalaver and User:TharkunColl fails to impress in terms of civility and edit waring. The proper way to discuss sources is on the talk page not by reverting edits. --neonwhite user page talk 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit summaries are clear. They say that the text deleted was not supported by the reference. The edit summaries actually said that several times. It's just that it's blatantly not true.

The complaint isn't about content, and good faith is hard to assume when an editor repeatedly deletes text saying that it's not supported by reference, accuses the reverting editors (I was not one, so I was not involved in the edit war) of POV, political editing, etc., when the text the editor deleted is verbatim from a highly reputable reference. So, 100% clear and 100% untrue edit summaries. They're not hiding the edit, they're describing the edit in a way that is 100% untrue. Does that count as misleading? It would seem so. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether sources are adequate is a content dispute and nothing else. Assuming good faith is what you should be doing and what you are not doing. The edit summaries describe the edit perfectly and there is no misleading. I repeat that talk pages are for discussing these things. --neonwhite user page talk 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, this isn't a case of discussion about "whether the source is adequate". The edit summaries said the text wasn't supported by the source and the accompanying talk page entries said it represented "lies" and "pushing a POV". The text was almost a verbatim copy of the source. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the name used for Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the Brtish Isles has no connection with The Troubles? Are you honestly saying that it would not attract any troublesome edits from anyone with an interest in the troubles? Dan Beale-Cocks 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it might. I don't know if it has. I don't have any reason to think that ongoing battles around the Troubles have got anything to do with this case. I only raise a specific incident of edit-warring and use of misleading edit summaries where an editor edit-warred, deleted supported text, and used deliberately misleading edit summaries to hide the facts of his (or her) edits. _{(and please note, I was NOT involved in the edit war. I also really doubt that my views on Northern Ireland will fit neatly or happily with any of the sides that seem to be established around WP. They'd probably all regard my views as blasphemy.)}. My experience so far on the specific page leads me to suspect that disregard of reference is rife, which I see as a problem. My only issue is truth and verifiability. In my view, this case is about edit-warring, using deliberately misleading and abusive edit summaries and talk page entries. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied to one of the 3 or more other threads started on this subject in various venues, to say that in most of these threads, most uninvolved people don't see Thark's edit summaries at misleading at all. If he thinks the source doesn't back up what is being said, that's his opinion in a content dispute. And edit warring is what a lot of other people have been doing over these articles, to the extent that there's already an RfC about User:Bardcom. Merkin's mum 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference that states that the RfC refers to edit warring or retract your statement. --Bardcom (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)Merkin, Neon, as I said already, this isn't about content and it has no relationship with Bardcom or his issues in any other forums. Let's review some facts.

• TharkunColl repeatedly deleted the words 'Current scholarly opinion is generally that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism"' from the article.
• TharkunColl's edit summaries said things like "PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT"
• The source says "Most writers accept that Dee created the phrase "British Empire," but otherwise argue that his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism,...".
• TharkunColl accused the original and the reverting editors of lying, pushing a POV, etc.
• TharkunColl later claimed (although I'm not sure I believe it) that he had not actually read the reference at all.

So, how can the edit summaries possibly be seen as not misleading? TharkunColl didn't say the text was unsupported or delete it just once, he said it was unsupported and deleted it three times in quick succession and matched this with clear (and incorrect) accusations on the talk page. This isn't a content dispute. This is a case of pure edit-warring, use of misleading edit summaries, and similar misleading statements on the talk page. Also, please remember, I'm only reporting the incident, I wasn't involved in the edit war. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No admins as far as I can tell feel this is a matter for administrator action. ? Am I right admins, could this be marked as resolved? If you look at TharkunColls most recent edit summaries, they have been very explanatory and could not be construed as you claimed. So maybe he has changed in response to your quibbles. Maybe he just missed the one line you mention in the source (please WP:AGF- or maybe in context he feels the rest of the source says the opposite. Most uninvolved people as I understand it see this as a matter for Arbcom or RfC if they see it as anything other than an edit war/content dispute. An admin, User:John, on your own talk page, says your own behaviour about this issue and towards TharkunColl is questionable too, and you yourself may risk a block eventually over this- User talk:Wotapalaver#WP:CIVIL and User talk:Wotapalaver#vandalism. There is already an RfC about Bardcom, and I see you are editing articles about the British Isles, Special:Contributions/Wotapalaver which is exactly the same subject matter as that warred over by Bardcom. These issues, the rightness or wrongness of the conduct of the people involved, will be hopefully resolved by that RfC.Merkin's mum 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The RfC you continue to refer to has long fizzled out, and I would have prefered if some admins had commented. What's more, contrary to the opinion epoused, it found nothing wrong with my edits and my behaviour. The original editors that brought the RfC have since stated that they now believe I was acting in good faith, and that there was no systematic removal of the term from wikipedia. Your user page states "This User believes that posting on WP:AN/I makes you stupid.", and " also read WP:ANI a lot because I have to join in lol :)". I think that says a lot about the value of your contributions to date. --Bardcom (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkinsum, TharkunColl's edit summaries in other places may not have been deliberately misleading. I can't comment. In this case they were. As for AGF, TharkunColl's own statement is that he didn't read the reference before he started edit-warring, repeatedly deleting the text with edit summaries claiming that the text was not supported by the reference and accusing other editors of lying. That means his edit summaries were deliberately misleading or that he's lying about not having read the source. Either way, AGF is difficult. As for John's view of my behaviour, I've been consistently perfectly plain. I regarded what TharkunColl did as sneaky vandalism, as per the wikipedia definition of such, and I said so. John disagrees and feels that use of the word vandalism constitutes incivility per se. I disagree. Either way, I wasn't involved in the edit war. IIRC neither was Bardcom so he's not relevant. As for other things, I only go by what verifiable sources say. I regard what's been going on around the British Isles page as bizarre in the extreme and various admins tolerance of demonstrably anti-verifiable edits as highly regrettable. Your description of my complaints about such edit-warring as a "quibble" is a perfect illustration of this. If my complaint about what happened is a quibble and not a complaint worthy of action, can I assume that the administrator's noticeboard accepts that it is OK to edit-war by repeatedly deleting supported text, to use deliberately misleading edit summaries while doing so, and to incorrectly accuse other editors of lying about sources? Yes or no? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And where are the admins when a straight question is asked? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:John celona

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

Can someone help me deal with this: [101], [102], [103], [104]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously. I have given this editor 24 hours to file a request, absent which I reserve the right to block for harassment. --Rodhullandemu 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to Rodhullandemu, I note that you and John celona were involved in discussion over this matter several months ago, and if Rod had not intervened I was considering issuing a warning of harassment regarding those claims. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, if you think that this renewed aggravation is worthy of a block right now, I wouldn't be critical. --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of either filing a SSP or dropping the matter is the most appropriate in this instance. Further similar accusations without merit might be a blockable offense, now that there is a warning in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had some concerns about John for a few days now, especially after looking over this which is most probably him by his style. We need to have a look through his contributions and make sure there isn't a serious pattern of harassment and canvassing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that link is painful. In the case in point, we are talking about the early 1970s, when rock stars screwing 14-year olds while maybe wasn't the norm, certainly didn't attract accusations of pedophilia as it would now. It's all very easy to apply morality retrospectively, isn't it? </irony> The problem here is that these people want to rewrite history in their own terms, and that should be resisted at all costs. --Rodhullandemu 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at the contrib and block history of this editor... not great reading. Perhaps a more general community discussion of the benefits of allowing this editor to continue is required? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the only reason you are "looking into" a year plus old blog post by a third party is because you were "canvassed" by David in DC/Jpk212 [talk:Ryan Postlethwaite&diff=prev&oldid=210733294] who have continually harassed and stalked me for months and REPEATEDLY made false and disproven claims of sockpuppuetry against me, even though the alleged sockpuppets have never posted on the same page as me. I think this [talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow&diff=prev&oldid=211209927] quote by a neutral observer regarding the harassment these user/s begins to describe their actions-":::: This behavior coming from David and Jkp212 is reprehensible. Those 2 have been harassing John since he first dared disagree with them. They have been trying to get John blocked for months now. I for one find their behavior to be as appalling as Johns attitude toward Yarrow. I think that this matter needs to resolved in arbitration." : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)" If one looks at the edit pages of these allegedly seperate users they repeatedly post on the same pages in support of the same positions, often with very similar language. Where one goes in a dispute, another is sure to follow-hundreds of times over. John celona (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that in this case the disruption and harrassment is a 3 way street. The only reason I am defending John is because he has been being harassed by so many for so long. I deplore his politics and his attitude toward Peter Yarrow but I defend his right to speak his mind in a discussion space. I do not think that Peter Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort but I do know that he was convicted of a sexual offense and that He was granted clemency by President Carter. I still back Johns right to speak his mind about this in a discussion space. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, get it right -- NO ONE has questioned any editor's right to speak their mind. It is Celona's harassment, and near delusional edits that have caused disruption here. There is no reason to defend that, and it is NOT harassment to demand for it to stop. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Come off of it man the diffs are there to prove that both you and David have been harassing John from the onset of his refusal to respect an Rfc that you 2 found to be a consensus. John did not take part in that original Rfc . Your and Davids subsequent fight with John has continued on to other articles. I am not saying that John is in the right but I am saying that all 3 of you are guilty of making wikipedia a battlefield. The arbitration committee will read all of the diffs in the order that they took place and realize that what I am saying is factual. All John needs to do now is wait until he is blocked indefinitely and appeal that block to arb com. I hope to hell this happens soon so you and David will be told in no uncertain terms that your behavior is unacceptable. I do not care about John. I care about wikipedia and the rare opportunity it attempts to afford people from all walks of life regardless of their political beliefs. You and David need to own up to your own bad behavior instead of denying it. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you say something is true does not make it true. Show EVIDENCE or your accusations are tantamount to your own harassment. By the way, if you "don't believe that Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort" as you say above, then why don't you share that opinion in the discussions... It is ok to share your opinion , rather than repeatedly saying "i don't care... but be nice.." --Jkp212 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would characterise John Celona's edits as spiteful, ans this is something we certainly don't need on WP:BLP articles. He is taking a very absolutist stance in cases where a more nuanced approach is clearly appropriate. Some kind of restriction is clearly not far away unless he moderates his behaviour very considerably. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As to sock puppetry, I think a look at this exchange might suggest to an objective reader that we are not the same editor. Period. [105]David in DC (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another [106]. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had multiple false sockpuppet claims filed against me by Jpk212/David in DC on alleged sockpuppets which never posted on a single page I have. These 2 user accounts have filed literally hundreds of posts on the same pages, invariably on the same side of any dispute. All I am asking for is an IP check of these accounts posts. The IP check will have its own impartial tale to tell. John celona (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What Celona is referring to is that another user, and several admins, have suspected him of being a sock of ratishka: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=195596873&oldid=135135655 -- while the evidence was compelling, the checkuser was unable to prove it conclusively because the IP had timed out...--Jkp212 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"evidence was compelling'. LOL. That Rastishka did not post on a single page I have posted on. some sockpuppet! someday someone is going to take the time to review all your edits (like the false Toronto Star quote you manufactured) from day one and see exactly what you have been up to. John celona (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For more on my answer to JC's false allegation of my making false sockpuppet allegations, please see this diff: [107]. David in DC (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Even in this discussion above Celona is breaking the rules on personal attacks. He says "like the false Toronto Star quote you manufactured" -- he has no right or evidence with which to make such a statement. He is an attack machine. If you look at his edits, over 90% of them are personal attacks on others. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The above post is false. It is itself a "personal attack". As regards the Toronto Star newspaper,[talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Mention of the conviction&diff=prev&oldid=210032529] you made it up. The "direct quote" is a direct fabrication. A hoax and a fraud on the Wikipedia community The judge said no such thing; Yarrow's far left, corrupt political hack lawyer said it-not the judge. You know it. I know it. I INVITE- I BEG an editor in the Toronto area to go to a library, look up the article on microfilm, and post a copy of that article online-then permanently ban Jpk212 for not only falsely posting a quote to buttress his views, but his continued intansigence in maintaining his boldfaced lie. John celona (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I said that the judge agreed with the defense, and yes, that is what the defense argued, and it is a direct quote from the Toronto Star article. I did not "make it up", and you should stop with the personal attacks. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You falsely wrote that "the judge agreed with the defense that the girl in question was a groupie, "whom he defined as young women and girls who deliberately provoke sexual relationships with music stars." [talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Mention of the conviction&diff=prev&oldid=210032529]. The judge did NOT say the child Yarrow molested was a "groupie" Yarrow's corrupt lawyer said it. The judge did NOT agree with the lawyer-he sent Yarrow to prison over the lawyer's objection. The reliable sources clearly state that the little girl "resisted his advances". [[108]] [Peter.html] Not exactly the behavior of a groupie but of a frightened child molested by a rich and powerfull creep. John celona (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me, John; what happened to your allegation of sockpuppetry against these two editors? Are we to now take it that it's withdrawn and you are apologising to them? The ball was very firmly in your court, and as far as I can see, you've dropped it. Hmmmm? --Rodhullandemu 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for assistance on this [talk:Rodhullandemu&diff=prev&oldid=211643537] on your talk page. I await your response. Certainly you have reviewed the 2 accounts and found the hundreds upon hundreds of similar edits virtually all expressing the exact same view that well-sourced criminal convictions should be censored or minimized? I don't think an IP checkuser is unreasonable. It has been used against me by these 2 users on alleged puppets who never even posted on a single page I have! Here is the result of that allegation-[celona&diff=prev&oldid=196192829] I am sure you will now pursue those who filed and egged on that false claim against me. Right????? John celona (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that you file a sockpuppet resport, not a checkuser, which is less likely to be accepted. WP:SSP should not be a minefield for an experienced editor such as yourself. --Rodhullandemu 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You greatly overestimate my knowledge of Wikipedia minutiae. I have never filed an ANI, checkuser, SSP or anything else. I believe you have me confused with Jpk212/David in DC who have filed personal attack after personal attack against me, always in tandem and always using similar language and tactics. Since you are someone who [noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=211552042] thinks "Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously", now that you are aware that this/these user/users have been involved in proven fale sockpuppet accusations against me [celona&diff=prev&oldid=196192829] (where the alleged puppet and I never even posted on the same page!) we can safely assume you will now act "to block for harassment." since your actions on this ANI have been in a spirit of impartiality. Right????? John celona (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take look at that same page, from one year ago, where an editor asked Celona to stop making personal attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=196192829&oldid=132031064 -- looks like 1 year later, numerous editors are still telling Celona exactly the same thing. Someone needs to stop Celona and these personal attacks. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to forget, but we started here: "Can someone help me deal with this: [109], [110], [111], [112]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"

Nothing above really solves that. Indeed the accusations seem to continue and expand. One improvement, I guess, is that they now seem limited, mostly, to this page.

A question for folks with more tenure around here than me, then. Is that about the best I can hope for?

One solution proposed above came from Albion Moonlight: "All John needs to do now is wait until he is blocked indefinitely and appeal that block to arb com. I hope to hell this happens soon so you and David will be told in no uncertain terms that your behavior is unacceptable." That seems a bizarre way to proceed.

I wouldn't really mind if another part of AM's proposed solution were applied right now: "The arbitration committee will read all of the diffs in the order that they took place and realize that what I am saying is factual."

Would someone care to subject my edits to the level of scrutiny AM suggests right now, without JC needing to be blocked and without him having to appeal to the arbitration committee? Such scrutiny, in my view, will establish for sure that I am not anyone's sockpuppet, nor any account's puppet-master, the original unfounded harrassment accusations I came here to notify admins about.

This particular incident report was not about whether Edward Bennett Williams was a hack (he wasn't) or whether JkP invented an article in the 1970 Toronto Star out of the whole cloth (I'd bet against it). It was about JC leveling a grave accusation (in the world of WP, anyway) against me, one I deny and resent. David in DC (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is about more than this 1 ridiculous accusation that Celona has made. It is about his unrelenting pattern of attacks, despite more than a year's worth of warnings, and he should be indef blocked for it. I agree with the question posed above, that "perhaps a more general community discussion of the benefits of allowing this editor to continue is required? " --Jkp212 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to be Clintonian about it, but it depends on what the definition of "this" is. By "this", I mean the four accusations of sock puppetry JC littered the project with a few days ago. While there's enough fodder above for almost any right-thinking editor to file other reports or requests, here and elsewhere (hereinafter "that" or "those"), they are not "this" incident report. I'm looking for a resolution to "this" incident report. I'm looking for a determination that I'm not a puppet or a puppetmaster, and that JC is violating the rules by saying that I am.

If "that" RfC is filed or "those" complaints about the rest of his behavior are lodged, I hope they will be addressed, too. But, respectfully, JkP, I disagree with you about what "this" is about. David in DC (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a latecomer to the party, having been out of town until this morning, but I thought I should chime in since I've been active at Peter Yarrow along with Jkp, David, and John. First of all, based on my experience I think it's extremely unlikely that Jkp and David are sockpuppets. I don't have time to dig up diffs at the moment, but for now suffice it to say that my impression has been very much of two different editors; this "duck" makes a distinct mooing sound. Second, I think John seriously needs to learn to moderate his language if he's going to stick around here. I also think that he needs to make it easier for people to assume that he's acting in good faith. That said, he's so far been quite willing to engage in our dispute resolute resolution channels, and he seems to be doing so in good faith. I also think that Jkp in particular has been a little bit overeager to get celona banned as an easy solution to their content disputes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this but chose not to respond until now. I endorse Sarcasticidealist's view of the situation. I think it is extremely unlikely that David and Jkp are sockpuppets; some of their views coincide, but not all, and their styles are different. John, Jkp, and David have been disputing contents in a variety of articles, and the nature of the debate sometimes leaves something to be desired on all accounts. Aleta ^Sing 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, let us step up and ask the mediator to intervene without the threat of sanction when John goes over the top with his language or style. We can do this along with the mediator but we should also ask John and David to cool it with trying to get John sanctioned, at least until the mediation process is over. Can we agree on this ?? : Please ?? : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the dispute resolution process should resume. You will note I have NEVER filed an ANI on ANYBODY, including jpk212/David in DC. Contrast that with the systematic persecution which he/they have engaged with towards me. John celona (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After all that discussion, and the good faith shown the above user by the other editors above, he once more makes the accusation of us being a sock: "he/they have engaged" ... I give up. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I highly suggest that you immediately either file a suspected sock-puppetry case or cease allegations of sock-puppetry. My own patience is getting frayed, and I think I've been one of the editors more sympathetic to you through this dispute. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to file the report. I am not able to figure out how to do it. All I want is IP checks of the posts made by the 2 accounts. If none of them match-so be it. I think you will agree that there is a long, long, long, long list of pages where the 2 accounts have become involved in disputes with other users; invariably these 2 accounts have espoused identical or nearly so positions. When I was falsely accused of sockpuppetry bt them my response was "run an IP check immediately I will be cleared". I was cleared. You will note that has not been the response from David in DC/Jpk212. You will note I have tried to reach out and work towards definining an evenhanded approach to these issues [[113]]. You will also note the lack of response. John celona (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At this moment, JC is policing every edit I've made in the past few days. Please see his list of contributions. I won't revert. But this has gotta stop.David in DC (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make further edits to the category while it is in dispute resolution. Hopefully this can be compromised. You just can't impose your unilateral definition when the matter is in dispute resolution! I think an end to edits while the dispute resolution is pending is proper. I have an open compromise offer on your talk page. Let's have a ceasfire PLEASE. John celona (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page[114].David in DC (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is now moved to the archives I guess I never get a retraction of or apology for the numerous false sockpuppet allegations. Sadly, par for the course. David in DC (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)