Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive260

Further to

, I have found the following accounts registered around the same time as the other ones with the same name type:

• Min McGonagall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fil Flitwick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please block? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts indef-blocked by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's strangely appropriate that it was Nearly Headless Nick that blocked them! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to request this, but I am requesting semi-protection on

15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for

requests for page protection. Tony Fox (arf!) review?

15:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

fixes to the article, HeadMouse continuously reverted it back to his preferred 20,291 bytes version and made comments such as:

• "Getting real tired of having to come in here and fix this article everyday because Wikipedia or some joker feels the need to delete something or change stuff around" [2]
• "You are supposedly replacing an article that has already been accepted and meets all Wikipedia guidelines and accepted by the TrainsWiki Project. There is no need to rewrite it" [3]
• "There is no need for a 'clean up'. this article received a B-class because it still lacks certain information. NOT because of the style it was written" [4]
• "Just wante dto make sure you seen that template up top that reads 'This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains,' That has been there a while. Back when this article was cleaned up. SO you see, there is no need for you to come in an '"clean up'" [5]
• "Please stop messing up articles that have already been approved by claiming they need to be fixed" [6].
• "Please do not confuse this article with the imitation page that is out there. This is the original article with accurate information."-I had to develop the article in my sandbox, he found it and put this on the Walt Disney Monorail article.--
  trey
  15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to gently remind [7] HeadMouse about

of the article to test potential fixes, HeadMouse responded by added (in bold) "Please do not confuse this article with the imitation page that is out there. This is the original article with accurate information" to the top of the article in main space.

Looking at User talk:HeadMouse/Archive 1, it appears that during the month of May HeadMouse received at least seven warnings for being disruptive in other articles, ten copyvio warnings, and was blocked by Meegs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for being obstinate.

Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is that-a-way. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

16:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your 3RR block of this user. Hopefully HeadMouse will be more ameniable to discussion and collaboration once his block expires. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Another update. Metros (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had to protect Walt Disney World Monorail System as HeadMouse resumed his edit war on the article immediately after his 24 hour block expired. Not to be thwarted, HeadMouse then created a POV-fork at Walt Disney monorail System. TexasAndroid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved the fork to HeadMouse`s user space, but HeadMouse just recreated the article again in mainspace. Rinse and repeat through three more cycles, and TexasAndroid eventually had to block HeadMouse for another 24 hours for disruption. He now states on his user talk page that once his latest block expires, "I'll be there to fight my side of the battle" [9]. I fear that this will not end well. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[I inadvertantly posted this earlier to An; I'm moving it now to An/I. —SlamDiego_←T 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)]

in a way that would require significant clean-up to proceed intelligibly. (After the first time, I did clean things up, and he promptly fouled things even worse.)

He has been warned (on

00:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now Panache is coming to my User talk page for the simple purpose of personal attack. —SlamDiego_←T 20:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

After earlier making a mess of the discussion by blindly trashing the mark-up, Panache has made a series of edits that counterfeit the discussion. I believe that he was trying to clean-up the mess that he made, but he did so with a sense of entitlement to dramatically restructure my presentation of my own comments. —SlamDiego_←T 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, Panache has also edited from IP number 132.203.44.207. He is thus acting both from a site in France and from one in Quebec. —SlamDiego_←T 01:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Panache has now made edits from IP number 69.156.24.240. He asserts that he is going to continue edits of the previous manner. Since no admin has stepped-in, I have simply told him that I will revert his future inappropriate edits to the technical section, as I have reverted those of the past. (I have not attempted to defend the “Critics” section, which has been a mess for as long as I've been aware of the article.) —SlamDiego_←T 02:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, we seem to be having a bit of a problem on this article with a couple of users who are intent on uploading several images directly from Apple's web site, and trying to claim fair-use.

02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I declined to speedy as there was a detailed fair use rationale that appeared to me to fulfill our requirements. Rather than just say "copyvio", it would really help us admins if, when you nom'ed something like this for speedy, you told us specifically which of the Fair Use criteria the subject image or article fails at. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not use these images? Getting permission is not relevant to a claim of fair use. Since these images were released for information and promotional puroses I think limited use of them can be considered fair use. Besides, this is unreleased software so we can't get screenshots ourselves. the wub "?!" 10:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is also at

WP:AN#Quick_Image_question. -- lucasbfr ^talk

10:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am having a big problem with how things are being handled. The screenshot of OS X has been deleted twice now, and not under normal speedy delete policy, but directly by an admin replying about this subject. I'm not saying that's wrong, but not usual. Anyhow, my question is, why is the image Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg valid for fair-use while the Leopard images were not? It's the same deal really, a screenshot from a website of unreleased software and no other alternative exists. I've read all 10 points regarding images in

talk • contribs

) 21:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gaetano Bedini

Resolved

I would like to draw community’s attention to the situation with Gaetano Bedini article. User:Attilios held hostage this article and RB all new edit. This is hystory and this are diff [13] [14]. He say my edit are "unrelevant" :°( - He removed 2 photo too. Photo are unrelevant? He removed "Preceded by" and "succeded by".. why in Friedrich Wetter, Julius Döpfner, Joseph Wendel and more are nt removed? Tnx -- 87.1.223.176 15:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use the dispute resolution procedure, linked above, to resolve content disputes such as this. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not linked above. It's at

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk

15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked in over there, and cautioned Attilios about Civility (He mocks a good fatih editor's grasp of english, GFeditor is probably italian), and about OWNership, as he's certainly getting there. ThuranX 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already heard back from Attilios, and he seems both glad to be notified about the problem, nd willing to work on it. Perhaps an Admin can review and tag this with a 'resolved'?(Or else step in and fix somethign i've broken?) ThuranX 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to Vintagekits (talk · contribs · logs)' recent block and to this recent discussion, I wish to invite further input into how this editor's behaviour can be improved.

Vintagekits has from his very first edits here consistently pushed the POV that Celtic F.C. are not British. I warned him about it back in August 2006. Being from an Irish background in Scotland myself, I'm readily able to understand the nuances of language by which sectarianism is promoted. I have always tried very hard to interact civilly with Vintagekits, but he often tends to react to criticism with an almost Ali G-like "is it cos I is Irish" response, focusing on the perceived ethnicity or biases of editors he is in dispute with rather than the encyclopedic merits of their edits, policy, or consensus.

He was recently blocked for 24 hours by User:Picaroon for incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring after warning, after edits such as this, this and this.

I said yesterday here that "I really hope he can learn to live with other people here and work better with them. I cherish his zeal and commitment to ridding Wikipedia of pro-British PoV (to be honest, as a Scot I often feel the same way), but some of the recent nastiness has crossed a line. If he can't accept that people are people, Wikipedians are Wikipedians, without bringing ethnicity and allegations of bias into every single argument, he needs a much longer break. I genuinely hope this won't go in that direction."

Unfortunately today he has returned from his block and seems to have gone straight back into ethnic warrior mode. When I removed a fair-use image from an article where it was being used in breach of policy (after discussing why I was doing it in talk), Vintagekits reverted twice without any obvious justification in policy or consensus, and followed this up with another couple of uncivil comments. While these are far from being the worst things he has said or the worst things I have been called, coming so soon after his last block, where edit-warring and incivility were issues, and while he is also currently under investigation for sockpuppetry, it prompted me to seek further input as I think personally I have exhausted my patience with him.

Any thoughts? --John 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• All very interesting - however the diffs you have provided do not back up your narrative. The issue here is the picture of the "Bhoys from Seville" DVD on The Bhoys from Seville article. You took it upon yourself to remove the picture without discussion - I asked you to engage in discussion rather than getting drawn into your edit war. The upshot of this is 1. one editor agreed with you about the fair use (and that was Astrotrain!!!!!) and two editors including me disagreed. 2. the DVD is discussed in the article - thereby satisfying fair use. 3. You have never pointed out why it didn’t satisfy fair use and I believe that you are just try to orchestrate me getting a block. I hope editors will see this for what it is.--Vintagekits 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I wish I could put "fact" tags beside your comments because the picture you are painting is purely nonsense. You encourage editors to wind me up and you also treat different people in different ways despite the same actions being carried out and it is my opinion that you are, along with me, the root cause of most trouble of the past five days on here.--Vintagekits 16:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I started a similar thread at

, but figured we may as well centralise the discussion, so i'm merging my original post there, and the two comments immediately below (Tyrenius' and John's), to here:

Many of you will be familiar with Vintagekits (talk · contribs) an Irish editor who has been embroiled in a long-running and wide-ranging conflict with a number of English editors. Quite frankly, the behaviour of editors on both sides of this dispute have been poor, resulting in blocks being issued for edit-warring, personal attacks and incivility, e.g. [15] [16]. A case in point can be seen within the number of AfD's that have served as battlegrounds (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet). There has been allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from editors on both sides, and a glance at the AfD will reveal plenty of SPA's. A recent AfD inspired the re-appearance of a few SPA friends, resulting in a report being filed on suspected sockpuppets of Vintagkits. Consequent to this an editor provided me with compelling evidence of Vintagekits soliciting support off wiki to help, in his own words, with a bit of voterigging. The evidence is detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. As someone who has been involved in collecting this evidence, I don't believe I'm the right person to judge how to use it in determining what, if any, action should be taken. I'm asking for the opinion of others, especially those familiar with Vintagekit's history. Thanks. Rockpocket 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence on the page is circumstantial. Is there concrete evidence of solicitation, e.g. a post on a message board? Tyrenius 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Just spotted new material that answers the question. Tyrenius 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know both "sides" have behaved badly here, but I don't think one wrong excuses another. In the absence of any commitment to improve from Vintagekits, and in the light of this new evidence of Vintagekits' failure to respect policy, I think we have to be looking at a longish block. --John 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• 1. I can prove 100% that they sock/meatpuppets of mine but I will let checkuser runs its course first. 2. I think that John is purely biased and unfair when dealing with me, he has been like this for quite some time and its getting stupid now. This whole latest episode has been caused, yes by myself, but also by John's handling of me, my actions and the actions of others against me. I more than happy to be polite and co-operate with editors and admin but when there is a lack of balance then I find it difficult to keep the head.--Vintagekits 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point requesting a checkuser now. With the probable exception of Sligobhoy67 (talk · contribs) who has not been involved in the votestacking, its pretty clear that they are meatpuppets, not sockpuppets, so a checkuser wouldn't tell us much. Rockpocket 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In others were wrong about your wide assumptions on socks but are now going to make wide assumption about meatpuppets instead - this is becoming a farce.--Vintagekits 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence this there for all to see. If you dispute the legitimacy of that then say so, and say why it is incorrect. If that is an accurate representation for what happened, but you think it was justified, then say so. However, just ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away, and attacking those that provide it is not going to help your case. How do you explain the fact that someone who twice claimed to be Vintagekits on another forum asked for help with a bit of voterigging, then an editor with the same name of the person who replied to that request appeared to vote, almost exclusively, in a number of your AfDs? I should note that on further investiagtion there is a lot more evidence, for example that Coeur-sang replied done and done in response to the voterigging request, and if you compare the dates and times of that post with his first edit on the AfD, they fit perfectly. Rockpocket 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love to address the evidence but there is none! I am not Sligobhoy67 and he is not me - on this or any other website! I dont think I can be more clear than that - and that is my last post on the issue until, until the checkuser is done and you come up with something that isnt you just leaping from one assumption to another.--Vintagekits 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying there is no evidence is not an answers to charges that are so well-researched. The evidence is convincing that Vintagekits has posted to another forum as Sligobhoy67, and has canvassed for vote rigging. Vintagekits offers no explanation for the comments there that refer to his editing. The evidence of meat puppets or possibly sock puppets is also convincing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying there is no evidence because there is none - what more can I say. As I have said I am not Sligobhoy67 - can I make it any clearer.--Vintagekits 19:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket has presented forum postings by someone with a username of Sligobhoy67 claiming edits that you made. Are you saying that that person was lying? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the checkuser,Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits, it is "likely" that Vintagekits is Sligobhoy67. Yet further indication that be is behind the meatpuppetry. Rockpocket 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• EliasAlucard (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258#User:EliasAlucard 2

User is still engaging in

16:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He was given a "last warning" for that particualar comment by

User:Neil know, since he seems to be on the case. MastCell ^Talk

16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted this to WP:ANB/I and

chi?

16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking over this editor's contribution history, he/she seems to have a couple of POV axes to grind. His/her accusations are a clear violation of

WP:NPA, and I think a general civility reminder would not go amiss. Probably should come from someone other than me, though, since I just nominated one of his/her pages for deletions. -- Merope

18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh he has been repetitively warned and even blocked at which he should have at the very least glanced at the

chi?

22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User [[kinda]] is accusing me of being a sockpuppet. He has not basis for this and no proof. See diff: [[17]]

I would like him sanctioned for these repeated personal attacks. SamDavidson 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that I am the second person he has done this too. The following is a previous filing here regarding another editor. It was titled, "

"

SamDavidson 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just too much. Kinda really has to be stopped. DPeterson^talk 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you see people's IPs? I thought it was secret? How does user:kinda get access? Cornea 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the quotation of the previous incident report - it's still on this page and even if it weren't a link would be sufficient. Kinda0 has been warned about making personal attacks, and also about making inappropriate personal comments on article talk pages. However this latest comment by him, on a user talk page, regarding possible sock puppets, does not appear to violate our

WP:NPA policy. Regarding Cornea's comment, some trusted users have access to IP addresses (using the "checkuser" tool) in order to settle issues like this. Kinda0 hs no such access, but was merely commenting on a previous Checkuser report. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see my report listed anymore...maybe a link to it would be useful for other admins to see. DPeterson^talk 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The previous filing is at: [[18]] DPeterson^talk 01:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

kinda is a pro pedophile activist who has no hesitation in attacking his opponents. I look forward to some serious admin intervention,

SqueakBox

01:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This usr has been blocked because of a report at

18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the specifics of this incident, but it seems like a fairly large violation of

assuming good faith to say that "apparently no one gives a shit about protecting Wikipedia". alphachimp

18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dosen't look the blocking was actually implemented. I amended the AN3 report to reflect the fact it was a banned user (as per tariqabjotu). El_C 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi appears to have blocked 87.122.36.68 in response to [19]. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Evil Spartan, you might want to come up with a more civil way to present your cases. One that, you know, includes good faith.

19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anybody was doing any discussing other than just reverting each other. Corvus cornix 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• The report was by
  WP:3RR exception for block enforcement. I briefly rangeblocked but I'm hesitant to do a more lengthy block at this time until it can be assured that no collateral damage is done. Looking back, I probably shouldn't have used rollback and should have left some clear edit summaries so it was clear exactly why I was continuing to revert. I was in a bit of a hurry. I'll be clearer when I revert him because until a rangeblock is done I suspect he is going to be a problem. Nobody blocked me and I realize this is resolved, but I just thought I'd chime in with an explanation.--Isotope23
  00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)‎

Possible role account

Resolved

Mideca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be operating a role account shared by several members of the same office. See this diff where someone basically admitted to such. The account has been used to put their state's website within the main DECA (organization) article and to add "Michigan DECA" as a "source" to the article. Apparently I had a discussion with one user about the link at Talk:DECA (organization) where we reached a compromise about the link (I added the national directory link in place of individual state links). Later the link was added again. I warned the user about this at their talk page and then got the response above (labeled as "this diff"). So it appears I was communicating with one user about the link earlier in the day and then another user was operating it later in the day to add the link back. What should happen from here? Metros 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Role account, most likely. Contains the name of an organization and is thus a violation of username policy, yep. Blocked the account with instructions on NPOV, COI, and creating a personal account. -- Merope 19:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up on that one. I probably could have taken those actions myself but since I was involved in a bit of an edit war with it, I decided to ask someone else. Plus, for awhile I just assumed it was some kid who happened to be an over-enthusiastic member of the organization for awhile. Metros 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not proficient enough at Wikipedia to revert this vandalism myself, but I would like to report it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocratic

In particular see the "Comparison with other government terms" section. Also, there appear to be some random vandalizations throughout the article.

--205.158.232.66 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out Help:Reverting to learn how to revert. It's really easy once you get it. Evilclown93_(talk) 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

04:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems the IP changes often for this editor, so I doubt a block would do much good. Although all threats must be taken seriously, have we really reached the point where not worshipping a particular pokemon is grounds for homicide? What about hating ALL pokemon, and the merch, and the zoombifying effect it has on people (as evidenced by the murderous inclinations of mudkip fans?) ThuranX 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The death threat doesn't faze me. I'm wondering if this is the same editor who is trying to force

v^_^v

) 03:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[20] - way beyond 3RR between these two. Corvus cornix 04:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Any block would be punitive, as the "meat" of the edit war is already stale. I have protected the page and will be giving stern warnings to all 3 IPs to stop edit warring, or they will be blocked. Sean William @ 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of a mess going on with White Dragon (England) that could use someone with some admin tools to sort out. It looks like earlier that it got locked with the statement "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it." I see a User:White43 and User:White46 in the history objecting to content and being removed by other editors. Earlier today User:White46 moved the page to White43 (yes, a new article under the name of a previous editor) and then tried to create a whole new fork article at the old location. As I was trying to file a move request back, it looks like someone undid that (perhaps flipped the two articles? Because the page history that used to be on White Dragon (England) had been on White43 but is now back and the White43 article looks totally new), but now User:White46 is trying to modify the contents of the real page and is removing the speedy delete notice off the new Fork page. I suspect he's the guy the page lock was supposed to prevent from making changes, and his page move shows he was up to no good. Between not knowing how to sort it out and not having admin tools to deal with it once it is sorted out, I am handing it off to someone here. DreamGuy 23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I sorted it out. White46 created an article called White Dragon (England), with some sort of invisible character at the end, moved that to

masterka

00:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good god, and he moved my speedy delete notice off the fork article to the main article... glad to see you sorted that part out. DreamGuy 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't figure out how he created that duplicate article; copying and pasting it here points to the original article. See my deletion log.

masterka

00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the same editor created some sort of script thing at User:White46/monobook.js that has a warning up top that says (automatically added by software once it detected it?) it could be used to try to steal accounts... This looks like some sort of hardcore nogoodnik, and any IPs he's getting in through should probably be salted. DreamGuy 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that monobook. Also, this is an attempt to get the wrong account blocked.

masterka

00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

...And that magical fork article was recreated again just now. I blocked the sockpuppet and deleted the page. Any other, more technically-savvy admins than me wanna tell us what's different in the title of that article? (Again, look at my deletion log, and copying-and-pasting it doesn't work.) I can't list it at

masterka

00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting vandalism. Looks like the editor inserted a unicode nonbreaking space  :

%C2%A0

at the end of the article title. I was able to reproduce it by editing the main article, then inserting the unicode before the edit. Put

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Dragon_%28England%29%C2%A0

into your browser and you should get the deleted page. Don't know what to do with this info though. — ERcheck (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the protected titles page. — ERcheck (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's probably related that User:80.43.6.87 showed up after the above user was blocked to try to redirect pages that used to go to White Dragon (England) to the same name but with an extra space at the end. There have been link changes to the space version on various pages in the past... in fact it was seeing one on the Dragon (disambiguation) that got me curious about that the article in question even was and saw the shenanigans. DreamGuy 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:PeterJames2 is doing the same thing again. The space thing seems a major flaw with the Wiki system. The loophole means you can swap out articles you don't like, and most editors won't notice. I didn't the first few times it happened. I don't know who you tell when there's an exploit with the Wiki system, but it needs to be passed on somewhere. Polenth 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit here by a username trying to pass themselves off as User:DreamGuy. I'd have left the comment, but I didn't want to miss where he's changed around the numbers in the usernames to the wrong ones. The diff for the edit is here: [21] Polenth 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

For some time myself and others have been trying to deal with User: Entre-Nos and his/her unconstructive edits and repeated vandalism. He (let's assume he is a male to reduce the use of pronouns) has been extremely uncooperative with others who manage the article List of Puerto Ricans. By adding many non-notable names, changing the names of articles (for example, changing the article name for David Zayas to Dean Zayas (an unknown) and also adding the name of a West Virginian actress called Dagmar who has nothing to do with Puerto Rico, he has not stopped vandalizing the list and taking the time of many contributors who have to delete his entries or revert the article. He has broken the 3RR several times and he has been extremely angry with me since I caught him plagiarizing articles from the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture website [22]. I literally compared his original articles on unknowns Awilda Carbia and Marta Romero and noticed that word by word, they were the exact same biographies found on the website, only translated in Spanish.

Please take a look at the discussion page of the article for more details [23].

Here is a list of his unconstructive edits to illustrate my case:

[24],

Furthermore, he has created multiple sock puppet accounts User:Aquipr, User:66.82.9.92, User:69.89.38.116 to make numerous unconstructive edits and change the names of articles.

Examples include:

Change the article name for Millie Corretjer (singer; wife of boxer Oscar de la Hoya) to Millie Corretjer de la Hoya which is incorrect as she has always used her maiden name as her stage name. Other editors found this sexist (please see section titled "Unconstructive Edits" on article discussion page). Many editors including ad admin tried in vain to tell him to stop and cooperate to no success. He has worn my patience thin and me and the others are going this route per the suggestion of the admin. This person has made baseless claims that I am racist and rants babble on the discussion page which is getting so long other editors are complaining. I really need help here. Again the case against User:Entre-Nos is simple:

(1) Violation of 3RR (User:Jbmurray blocked him for 48 hours)
(2) Plagiarism of articles found on other websites (please see discussion page)
(3) Creation of multiple sock puppet accounts (User:Entre-Nos, User:Aquipr, User:66.82.9.92, User:69.89.38.116.
(4) Refusal to cooperate with others in determining notability of his weak articles (Many of them are tagged for deletion).
(5) E-mailing me harassing emails that attack me. (I can forward these to you).

Thank you for your assistance with this important request. --XLR8TION 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, and though I agree with much of the gist of what XLR8TION states in that it has indeed been tough to get Entre-Nos to cooperate and he has often tried my patience, I reported Entre-Nos for 3RR, rather than blocking him, plus in fact the outcome of that report was a warning rather than a block. I'm therefore striking that aspect of XLR8TION's account, above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

These are the messages, the offensive messages were made by !Darkfire!6'28'14

He3- 0e

He3- 0e 5 c35c2ed 6n the Ha36 3 web c605c and 0y C60-4ter's ty-5ng 5s 0essed he3-Marioman12 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What exctly are you trying to tell us here?

that the Ha]0 3 web s5te's c0n/c has 0essed 4- ny c0n-4ter /'n s0rry ab04t the s-e335ng /'n d05ng the best / can Marioman12 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop with the 1337 sh17 s0 w c4n t311 wh47 ur fµ**¡ng saying you /d/07.= Stop with leet s**t so we can tell what ur fu**ing saying you idiot.

Hey don't yell at me and thats a personal attack by the way, I was asking for help because when I clicked on the Halo 3 Webcomic half of spelling turned into numbers that was messed up and you can be a little civil from now on and Cite your name. Marioman12 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Marioman12 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the offending comment.[25]

Note, incivility is not necessarily a personal attack. This is an isolated incident, and I don't see any need for action against Dark. You might want to talk to him about it on his talk page, however.

On a related note, I've removed the entire thread from the talk page. Please refer to

WP:TALK. Besides your completely illegible text (even for people familiar with Leet), I see no way that this will help improve the Halo 3 article. Uninteresting trivia on an auxiliary product. –Gunslinger47

03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on the Halo 3 web Comic and somehow it turned my numlock on I was asking for help to fix the problemMarioman12 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned, please read

WP:TALK. Article talk pages are to be exclusively to help improve the article. Personal queries should not be placed there. Instead, you should take your question to another site, or visit the Wikipedia:Reference desk if appropriate. –Gunslinger47

18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see [26]. User:Vintagekits, currently under investigation for sockpuppetry, and User:One Night In Hackney have inserted/maintained (respectively) massive POV and vanity on this page relating to a member of the Irish Republican Army. Violation of IRA member vs. IRA volunteer compromise.

10:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is clear sockpuppet of [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay Jay the Jet Plane has until recently been thankfully clear of vandalism.

• At 21:29, 15 June 2007 User:Oscarchrist vandalized it by inserting a self-drawn image showing two of the story's characters in a pornographic pose.
• At 02:31, 16 June 2007 User:66.151.22.168 vandalized it by adding a sexual remark to a description of one of the characters.

Are these two users the same IP address? Are they sockpuppets of anyone?

Their contribution list addresses are:-

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oscarchrist
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.151.22.168

Anthony Appleyard 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't determine the IP, you want WP:RFCU. Viridae^Talk 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See this edit section: [27] and now see the actual talk page User talk:Tigeroo. The sections at the bottom are just not appearing, despite a forced reload of the page. I reverted to that version because the user had replaced other peoples sig with their own and was about to deny the unblock request, but it just isn't visible and the sigs haven't transcluded (possibly indicating that the user didnt intentionally take over other peoples sigs, but actually managed to transclude them, essentially claiming them as his own). Viridae^Talk 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this required admin attention but I've closed the open ref tag that caused this problem. --ElKevbo 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, only needed admin attention because I wanted a quick response and I was delaing with an unblokc. Viridae^Talk 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, I was trolled by two socks of community-banned user Panairjdde (

13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, this shared IP address vandalised the page Assistant, 62.253.227.225/Talk. Looks like it's happened a few other times as well :) - ChrisWar666 14:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in future you can report vandals that have received a final warning (one that mentions the possobility of being blocked if they continue to vandalise) to

WP:UTM. Viridae^Talk

14:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

In the article for singer Clay Aiken I have entered (and cited) information regarding several controversies he was indirectly involved with. One topic was Rosie O'Donnell's tirade against Kelly Ripa when Clay tried to cover her mouth. Ripa as everyone knows remove his hand and O' Donnell labeled this homophobic (in reference to the lingering question on his unpublicized sexuality). [28] There are several other controversies that are not listed in this article, and it is apparent that his die-hard fans called Claymates are deleting this information, which is censorship. User:Triage stated his/her reasons for deletion as having to deal with " "rv to version agreed on due to Bio of Living Persons concerns," but this information has been well publicized and should be included in this article. I see it as a Conflict of Interest that his fans are committing acts on censorship to protect him, and to me that is simply wrong. The information I've entered does not slander nor reveal personal information that can be used by someone to harm him. Simply it should be included in the article as the article already contains citations mentioning the incident, but simply no text relating to the incident. Is there anyway someone can help here? --XLR8TION 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a discussion on the "Talk" page of the article a good first step when there is a disagreement among editors? Instead you go straight for ANI? I see you have left a notice on the BLP noticeboard as well. If you look at the history of the article, you will see that the controversies you think should be there were not deleted by the so-called Claymate (barf) editors, but by other Wikipedia editors who have rarely or never edited the entry before or since, following an AfD. See [29], [30], [31], [32], and especially [33]. See this comment on Ken Arromdee's page by me following the deletions: [34]. -Jmh123

yeah, total over-reaction. Discuss first. It looks like there was a lengthy debate about this very topic months ago, when it occurred. Although the section might need a review to edit out any accidental 'recentisms' (though I saw nothing egregious at a glance), adding Rosie O'Donnell's big mouthed demands for more attention hardly seems encyclopedic. She says something about everythign in the hopes for air-time and headlines. Big deal. Move on. ThuranX 18:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I vonH (talk · contribs), along with a number of IP addresses, is proven to be a sockpuppet of Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) and is blanking all of the pages and removing the links proving it to be so. He is also claiming that he is his own wife, that is, I vonH is saying that Tfoxworth is "her" husband. If that is true, they are engaging in disrupting Wikipedia.

The above statement is offensive.I vonH

Here are the IP addresses and user names that are populating Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth unless I vonH has gone and blanked the IP pages again:

• 12.146.101.146 (talk · contribs)
• 12.146.102.46 (talk · contribs)
• 68.3.32.53 (talk · contribs)
• 68.3.34.152 (talk · contribs)
• I vonH (talk · contribs)

Please note the category page and note that the above five users are supposed to be listed in it. I vonH has blanked a number of the pages and I and at least one other person so far have reverted them. Therefore I have provided a version link to the category page, which itself contains version links to examples of vandalism, versions of the IP pages to preserve them, etc. I vonH/Tfoxworth has also engaged in starting frivolous mediation requests, etc.

Hardly frivolous all things considered. One needs only to look at the page history to see why it was requested.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can probably post more if needed. Charles 23:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is offensive.I vonH

Hardly frivolous all things considered. One needs only to look at the page history to see why it was requested.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said Charles- Tfoxworth is my husband. You are just angry I reported you for 3RR. I vonH 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You have? That's news to me. I am not angry about any 3RR write-up, I am concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia when we have sockpuppets removing warranted notifications on the pages of IP addresses where the connections have been established. If I was touchy, I would consider you calling me angry for something I didn't know about a personal attack, but I will blame it on the established pattern of behaviour. Charles 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny that- all this came about after I reported you. You should be worried about the lack of integrity you have shown thus far.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're his wife, then you're a

not a popularity contest. --Haemo

00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the IP addresses there are entries that are not ours. We have two computers, not five. However, since you are not in the least way involved in this issue your interest is...? Perhaps you are a

04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that his interest is in maintaining Wikipedia. Any responsible editor can see the evidence and has the right to comment on the matter at hand. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets are not members of the Wikipedia community. If you are accusing me of having a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, I invite you to prove it. It is not true. It is, however, true for "you and your husband" and it is in Wikipedia's best interest that a consistent vandal who engages in harassment be dealt with. Charles 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a

meatpuppet. Anyone can see that. --Haemo

05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of this public noticeboard is to solicit the advice or help of uninvolved administrators, and the advice and help of other editors who also post here. That you would accuse someone providing that exact thing of being a meatpuppet is preposterous. Natalie 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins, is there anything that can be done about this person to prevent the constant disruption, harassment, etc? Charles 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Any further blanking of said pages by involved persons will be met by reversion & protection of the pages, and a block on the person doing it. - Nunh-huh 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tfoxworth has returned to editing, adding the same citations to Russian imperial related articles. Charles 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Diluvien has been severely eluding his ban on the recent range of 87.122.x.x. Please see the histories [35] [36], [37], and [38]. He's used IP's: 87.122.38.6, 87.122.58.60, 87.122.44.84, 87.122.54.178, 87.122.56.113, 87.122.28.40, and 87.122.21.58 (still unblocked and edit warring at AN/3RR) over the past few days. The Evil Spartan 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The addresses you quote span a 15 bit space, so the rangeblock you suggest would cover 32768 addresses. That's a pretty big chunk - it would be one thing to briefly block that if we were being attacked by a vandalbot or a determined tubgirl-type vandal, but neither the rate nor the severity of this guy's vandalism seems to call for such an extensive block, particularly for a multi-day duration. As Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Range blocks notes, rangeblocks "should be reserved as an absolute last resort." -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I've seen range blocks per into place for much smaller occurrences. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. Have you ever used a range block before? It doesn't appear much else is coming from that address, and we can always do AO or let someone appeal the block. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And now, after repeatedly undoing other administrator's edits, he managed to get Isotope23 blocked for 24 hours. Thanks a lot, guys, way to be on the eight ball. The Evil Spartan 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick, please. HalfShadow 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Where the fuck did that comment come from? The Evil Spartan 00:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And I reiterate... HalfShadow 01:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[From the article:] "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones."

What is being said is that your request, which is tantamount to blocking most of the IP addresses for a medium-sized city, would not be a reasonable penalty to inflict on other legitimate editors who just happen to live in the same region and use the same ISP as this particluar object of annoyance. --Dynaflow babble 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was more referring to him slagging off the admins for blocking someone who never had been, but that's an equally valid point. HalfShadow 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The following is from the Mediation Cabal case page of Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida): —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.16.179 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida)

I find this situation hard to sort out. All I can say regarding the article is that the

WP:OR

and unacceptable.

While I'm here, I'd like to quote an earlier statement of yours:[39]

"If you continue with your Belgian crusade of ruining the articles of other countries I will do whatever is in my means to have you permenantly banned from this site. Consider this a warning."

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You will be indefinitely blocked long before Fram if you attempt to do so. Consider that a warning. :) –Gunslinger47 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fram's totalitarian and counter-productive attitude. By the way, when have I ever suggested "disrupting Wikipedia"? As I have said before I will go through the proper channels and protocol for resolving this issue - get your facts straight son. --DaDrought3

04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of facts, you've yet to present evidence of any significant misconduct by Fram. At face value, the protection seems to have been put in place to prevent repeated addition of unsourced and dubious information. If you want the protection lifted, you'll need to resolve the ongoing dispute first. See

WP:RPP. –Gunslinger47

05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read everything in the discussion page, I have already taken steps to resolve the dispute which eventually led to a request for mediation cabal, except that they referred me to this joke of a page and basically ignored the dispute as you and

Fram has done over time is significantly disruptive, but evidently the effects are too spread out over time for you to comprehend the significance. --DaDrought3

15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are ignoring the details of your dispute. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of this page? Please read the details at the top. A single protection of a page is not a significant abuse of administative power, and this is not the place to review page protection. If his alleged misconduct goes beyond just a single protection of a turbulent page, then please provide diffs as the top of the page asks. –Gunslinger47 18:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An admin locks a page that is subject to incessant, if not persistent, vandalism, and little else, and there's a complaint? No surprise, but also, nothing to see here. Go play more four-square. ThuranX 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that I don't play four square, and as soon as the lock expires

Fram will lock it again preventing the article from ever advancing. Go bother someone else. --DaDrought3

04:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. The kis at that school are vandalizing the page. Fram is stopping it. What's the PROBLEM? ThuranX 06:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then why doesn't he just block these kids instead locking the whole damn article... That's the PROBLEM. --DaDrought3 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, that's the SOLUTION. Multiple editors vandalizing one page over and over, and using IPs to do so, are handled by locking up the page in question. Everythign was handled properly. ThuranX 17:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I refused mediation concerning these ridiculous complaints. A bunch of sock- and meatpuppets is only out to cause trouble and isn't worth wasting our time. The page in question, by the way, was and is only semi-protected, which so far did its job perfectly.

Fram

20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked

) 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your blocking her and don't quite understand your reasoning and its relationship to COI. Is this a community policy, blocking people who create articles with which they have COIs? Did you try communicating with her? I see the comments on her talk page, but don't really understand the status of the AfD on the Jessie Penn-Lewis article, either. Oh, I see, it's a speedy. I'll just remove the tag.

There is another editor who is writing equally dreadful, well, that would be hard, but rather extremely bad articles, who chased away offers of help to

Virtual synchrony

, which he also created, but hopefully it isn't as bad as the Wikipedia crap).

Still, I'd just like to know what the issue is behind blocking her, simply the multiple COI articles? I don't think they were written in bad faith, and I didn't think that COI was cause for deletion (as the policy explicitly states it is not). KP Botany 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The block was instituted to stop her creating more spam links and articles copied and pasted from her own company's book blurbs, while we clean up. Spamming is a problem, we have pretty solid consensus that spammers can be shown the door. The question here is whether it's a clueless newbie or a spammer. I don't really know. Her defence of the article on her own firm was pretty vigorous. As to Birman, "virtual synchrony" (in quotes) gets 50k google hits, so there's a reasonable prospect of independent sources. Or you could AfD it. Up to you, really. Either way it's

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!

) 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, plenty of other crap. So the issue is spamming, not COI, then? I would appreciate if you clear that up on her talk page, and here, then, that the issue is whether or not she's spamming (she is, but sadly ineffectively because of her poor writing skills), not whether there is a COI. I would like her to be unblocked and given one more chance--with some understanding to prevent future spamming. I suspect she will not honor the agreement, but then you've clarified that spamming is the issue to her and to Wikipedia editors, and the subsequent block as a spammer will be pretty straight-forward.

I only raise the issue with Birman, because it seems to me that unlike the Franklin case where the issue is spamming, not COI, the issue in the Birman case is most definately COI--both with ultimately one sad result for Wikipedia: crappy articles due to the COI. In Birman's case the articles do belong, but not in his shitty writing style, refusal to write for a general audience, and ownership of the articles--he actually edited back in my edits which he pissed all over, because the edits clarified the topic for a general audience. But he's made it clear he owns his articles. In Franklin's case some of the articles belong, maybe most don't, but I can't tell because the subject matter is obscure enough that there is not much on the Internet, and it doesn't appeal to me much.

So, please consider giving Franklin a straight-forward spamming warning and one more chance after the articles are dealt with--I'm not overly invested in this, but I would appreciate it being done this way. KP Botany 20:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

At the article:

has been a theme from multiple SPA's.

I started watching the article when it came up on AN3RR.

The following users have been involved in the reverting: User talk:Puttputtdude, Texastechfan, and User talk:Bobknight880

I'm not sure what the correct course of action is, but these accounts do seem to be connected.

(I'm also not familar with the policies for TV station articles.)

Could someone look into this? Thanks. Lsi john 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone check those accounts/IPs for socks? Or tell me the correct place to post this problem? Thanks. Lsi john 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Tuskjet (previously 166.121.37.12 and perhaps others too) can't wait for his block to finish, and so has reinvented himself as Fortress of the universe. I haven't prolonged the block on Tuskjet (which he used to plonk a lengthy copyvio on his own user page and to redirect his user talk page to Jesus), but I permabanned Fortress. Tuskjet's block will soon end, and I will soon go to bed. Experience suggests that while I'm asleep Tuskjet will have more "fun". (Or do I here fail to "AGF"?) Any time you see User:Dismas being redirected to Satan, or overwritten with some very <big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big> text, you're probably seeing this person at work. -- Hoary 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-blocked Tuskjet for a week.

masterka

17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Permablocked "Pocket tissue paper". -- Hoary 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. x42bn6 Talk Mess

21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User Arkalsi5 creating hoax pages

Immediately after coming off a temporary block,

22:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

People like this need to be blocked indefinitely the first time. I've done the honors.

masterka

22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbanning

(post by banned user removed)

Hi Light Current. Perhaps if you would promise to stop trolling all the time we might really decide to unban you. The Evil Spartan 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See Image:Man masturbates.jpg - which has countless links here vandalism. Someone please help! The Evil Spartan 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, the vandalism was at {{

Infobox Boxer}}. Maybe we could get this semi-protected? The Evil Spartan

23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er, I did the rollback as requested. Is it okay now? (I'm not seeing any difference).LessHeard vanU 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

All is good now. The Evil Spartan 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did it. Sorry. Was very childish of me. Won't happen again. 87.112.87.193 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. Thank God I didn't pull this page up like I normally do in the library. The Evil Spartan 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've issued the user a level 4 warning just in case. -N 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I reported this to AIV, but was informed to bring it here.

*JJH1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive user; continues to change infobox and section formats without discussion and against consensus. User has been blocked multiple times in the past for doing this. Other users and I have tried talking user but he refuses to discuss and ignores messages on his talk page. Acalamari 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

*:this is not an obvious vandal, and therefore this should be taken to

) 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I know that AN/I is not for content disputes, but this isn't a content dispute; it's about disruption. If you see his most of his recent contributions, he has continually been changing infobox and section formats without consensus. I, and other users, have tried to talk to this user but he ignores us. From his block log, he has been blocked five times. What should be done about him? Even administrators, including ShadowHalo and Mel Etitis, have tried to talk to this user but he continues to disrupt. Should he be blocked again? As I said, I've tried talking, and I've given him links to follow, but nothing works. Acalamari 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours, the user has had plenty of warnings and 4 previous blocks for exactly the same thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since this report, so I don't see an imminent need to block. Maybe you can pursue dispute resolution of some sort? — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's been going on for days, coupled with blocks for exactly the same reason previously, hence the block this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your block came while I was writing my comment, and I have no objection to it. It was a toss up. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've repeatedly warned this user about this, so I'm going to up the block to a month - he has a bad habit of coming back from a block, and immediately edit-warring on infoboxes again, on the exact same pages. I would have caught him this time if I hadn't made the mistake of thinking he had stopped and so had removed the pages from my watchlist. If he does this once more, I move for permanent ban. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

According to

00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked as a vandal only account, plus they have rather a questionable username. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

His talk page was confusing though, took a while to figure it out. For a while I thought it was a compromised account. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Light current (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Look at the histories, interests, and account creation times of SadMinge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and PotStirrer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was Light current based on the pages attacked, and his previous block log. KOS | talk 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Just blocked BulkEraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a light current sock. KOS | talk 00:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the presence of this user. It looks like he's only here to vandalize and mock me based on his contributions. The user page is a carbon copy of mine, still linking to my talk page and sandbox. I'm loath to just storm right in there and remove those links, but if I must, I must. DarkAudit 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've indefblocked.Do you want me to delete-protect his user page?

If you would be so kind, please and thank you. DarkAudit 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created the sock account

for use when not at home - I don't trust internet cafés to be all that secure, and if I get hacked, I'd rather not give them an administrator account.

I've added a clear note saying what I'm doing to both user pages. Is there anything else I need to do? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably the wrong forum to discuss this, but your sockpuppet isn't a doppelganger account (these are used to stop impersonation - I could register User:x42bn7 which would be a doppelganger account). Just saying it is a legitimate sockpuppet for security issues is good enough, in my opinion. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll lose that template and just link. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What you have done seems adequate. I'm sure everyone appreciates the notice here. Accounts of that sort are explicitly acceptable per

CBM · talk

) 03:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear! Just, while it says it's allowed, it's not very explicit about how to declare the connection, so thought I'd best check. Should throw together a template or something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fight the urge to templatize – a simple user page notice will be clear to anyone who gives even a shallow look. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish rant

started pestering Dbachmann on his talk page:

• We think you are a Jew (and no its not Just Wikipedia that you think im referring to Jews propaganda), dont waste our time here
• By the way you are disguised as German. You're obviously the worse of the Jewish type.
• You are probably the worse of that type with your race, I dont know your race, but does it matter if I do??
• Dbachmann, I guess I was right, you're not serious about this, you are full of it.
• And yes, the Jewish were involved in a hidden way of the Armenian Genocide

How long will this last? I request someone to investigate the situation. Why should Wikipedia tolerate such editors? I believe anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks only drive serious wikipedians away from the project. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He was warned by Alison at 17:14 on the 11th, and all of those diffs are from before then - unless there's been more comments since then, the warning may have done its job.

╦

12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is disappointing. Could you refer me to a useful edit from this account? How much time you suppose people should spend arguing with him on talk pages and reverting his eyebrow-raising edits in mainspace? Thanks, Ghirla^-трёп- 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Has he made any incivil comments or personal attacks since being warned? If not, then there is no administrative action required at present. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If he has stopped, then there is nothing to prevent.

╦

12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great if you and Nick added Armenia and Armenian language to your watchlist and, next time Alex mond attempts to edit them, discussed with him the harmfulness of fringecruft, especially that motivated by nationalist mythology. Thanks, Ghirla^-трёп- 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Neil. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas, I don't give a hoot whether the account is blocked or not. I'm well aware that some people, especially those who don't have to deal with extremist editors on a day-to-day basis, are willing to assume good faith ad infinitum and keep the project full of "potentially reformable bad guys", as long as they don't have to reason with them themselves. My request was to investigate whether the guy has really been helpful. I have yet to see a non-disruptive edit from this one-purpose account. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps start a Sockpuppetry case and back it up with evidence? Or contact a checkuser? :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's User:Artaxiad again? It does not appear to be plausible. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can investigate this on your own - contribution logs are public. At this time no Admin will do the investigation for you because it isn't an interesting question. If someone's been warned and then continues to be disruptive, blocks may be in order to get their attention, or force them to knock it off. If they've stopped being disruptive, then there's nothing left to see.

I'm afraid we have different ideas of "disruption". --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Ghirla here. I've been watching this user's contributions on Armenian topics over the past few days and he is clearly an extremist crank (and an anti-Semite to boot) with no scholarly knowledge of the subject at hand who is causing disruption with his editing. He contributes nothing to this project. I'm amazed there is no mechanism for the speedy removal of editors like this who cause far more disruption than drive-by vandals and who waste large amounts of bona fide users' time. This is exactly the kind of POV pusher who is wrecking large areas of Wikipedia and ruining its reputation in the wider world. --

Folantin

17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've only taken a cursory look at this, but what I've seen makes me agree with Ghirla and Folantin. This guy is an obvious crank, and unlikely to contribute anything valuable to the encyclopedia. It's really a shame we can't show such users the door immediately, because even when they are civil and limit themselves to the talk pages, they still chew up an enormous amount of time and patience. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think an indef-block for serious

WP:NPA violations and bigotry is in order.Bakaman

23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bakasuprman. We can't have racism destroy Wikipeida.--Epeefleche 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. However, Neil brings up a valid restraining point, in that the warning from Alison was after the racism. If it happens again, I will block the user.

02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, blocking for 24 hours for this personal attack here and this one here, after the warning from Alison.

^{Denny Crane.}

02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

from my nigh three-year experience with this sort of situation, it is very, very unlikely that we'll ever get anything useful out of this editor that would even remotely make the bother of putting up with him worthwhile. But I am really agnostic about permabanning him, since, well, he'll just be back under another account anyway. Btw, I am neither Jewish nor German, but I do not consider it a "personal attack" to be called either. If you're going to permaban this account, let it be in some way on grounds that this user seems to consider 'Jewish type' a withering insult, not on grounds of him actually attacking me (I have been known to take much worse trolling without any rise in blood pressure).

08:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty four hours? That's it? El_C 08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to observe who here seems to be tolerating the hate speech with disgraceful word lawyering. El_C 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Not worth it. El_C 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-four hours really doesn't seem nearly long enough. I'd argue for a perma-ban. This user's anti-Semitic rants are part of a far wider problem than incivility (though we shouldn't be tolerating racial harrassment like this at all). These comments show he is a crackpot and his contributions are cut from the same cloth: he is simply adding lunatic fringe content to Wikipedia. This is a major problem for us as an encylopaedia as far as our credibility goes. Plus, I don't see why bona fide editors with knowledge of the subject should have to waste endless time on article talk pages arguing with tendentious ignoramuses. Wikipedia should have more robust and swifter methods for dealing with such cranks. We now have the opportunity to get rid of one of them, let's take it.--

Folantin

11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that instead of being immediately blocked for his anti-Semitic attacks, he was warned, and he seems to have stopped. We can all see he's a crackpot, but for some reason obvious crackpottery isn't grounds for a block, even though it's a more serious threat to the quality of the encyclopedia than personal attacks. Now we have to follow the tedious processes outlined in

WP:TE, or argue for a community ban. --Akhilleus (talk

) 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A week ago, I proposed on

WP:VPR to set up a project or a noticeboard that would deal with the most glaring cases of fringecruft-pushing. There has been no feedback so far. IRC chatting is much more interesting than actually making some cleanup in mainspace. --Ghirla^-трёп-

12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, this is possibly the biggest problem with Wikipedia. We're not talking about good faith editors making honest mistakes by adding bad content and we're not talking about overheated but valid intellectual controversies, we're talking about out-and-out crankery. Yet there seems to be no efficient way of removing such editors and their "contributions". It appears we'd have to go through some long drawn out process involving plenty of Wikilawyering to deal with this problem. In the mean time, this kind of thing drives away plenty of knowledgeable editors who can't be bothered with the hassle. Admonitions to show "Wikilove" to the trolls and extremists really don't cut it. I know several potentially brilliant contributors who wouldn't go near WP because of this kind of thing. Ultimately, we get judged by our mainspace content, not how lovey-dovey we are behind the scenes. --

Folantin

16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, I can't agree with you more. Unfortunately, people who run the project seem to be inclined to treat it as a sort of surrogate Friendster. Long-standing admins have developed adminitis; new admins normally get their instructions from IRC; ArbCom claims that content arbitration is not in their purview. Since we still don't have a procedure of content arbitration, he that has more time to spend arguing on talk pages and a bigger mouth for shouting, usually wins a content dispute, even if his point is utterly devoid of merit. An added benefit is one's ability to ask his friends to register a wikipedia account and to support him whenever possible. It is assumed that, once a person is interested in mainspace, he should be arguing over some point ad nauseum. This is fallacious, since I know scores of pages which contain patent lies, but I'm too busy to even discuss it with people who "own" them. It is easier for me to walk away. This is the case of Alex mond. I don't care about Armenia and I don't want to spend my time on arguing with a person whose point is apriori false and whose opinion will not be changed a bit by all my efforts. This is a problem that the community needs to address if it wants to keep Wikipedia more or less creditable. Unfortunately nobody seems to be interested, except you and me. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction notice board to suggest a community ban instead of a block? Personally, I'm glad that people with admin bits are slow to give long blocks to people not currently engaged in disruptive behaviour.

Dan Beale

16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of those blocks should have been indef, but never mind. If he continues pushing his nutcasery, I'll block for out-and-out disruption. We just don't need talkpage warriors like this who do nothing but shove their

10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note User:Alex mond's recent edits to Armenian hypothesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If he does it again, escalate further. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with block. The next one is indef. Ghirla and Folantin are saying something very valuable here; we cannot allow cranks to win simply by shouting most, and this fellow is definite POV/OR-pushing crank. Moreschi ^Talk 10:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He edited again, as User:65.148.132.167--see this diff. I lengthened his block to two weeks for block evasion, but probably should have made it indef--I guess I'm going soft. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to get some uninvolved administrators looking at this quickly, please. There's been a dispute going on on

00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User has just been warned; if it continues after the warning I will block. DGG 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to mention that the discussion had just been started at Wikipedia talk:External links#Wikifur as well, but DreamGuy started removing links less than ten minutes later so there wasn't much there anyway. Bryan Derksen 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, and then removed 1 hour later as a trial to see if similar editing resumes. DGG 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, my reply is in this diff but I hope to add more soon. Please be patient and thank you. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ExtraDry has placed a serious of AfDs and now speedy tags against an increasingly eminent series of Australian vice-Chancellors. [41] ,[42], and now a speedy A7 on the most eminent of them Gavin Brown [43]. with obviously major awards and honours They are all being increasingly quickly closed at AfD. this is disruptive editing, but I do not want to take action because I have been involved in defending these articles. DGG 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the new account of User:DXRAW, who made several disruptive AfD nominations in the past such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimania (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote (also included Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikijunior, Wikibooks and Wiktionary). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The name ExtraDry indicates he is probobly Asutralian, refering to

Tooheys Extra Dry. Viridae^Talk

01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He is. The account was created on the same day as DXRAW was temporarily blocked back in January, yet the first contrib wasn't until 06:21, 28 May 2007 conveniently just after DXRAW left around 10:15, 27 May 2007. There's frequent contribs to Newington College, just as DXRAW used to to, and it's also been mentioned by an IP editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about his or her other activities, but I've had Newington College watchlisted for long enough to know DXRAW's editing pattern. And ExtraDry's editing pattern on the Newington article is identical to DXRAW's. --ElKevbo 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why am i being told that i will be blocked for disruptive editing? The 3 articles that i tagged were unsourced how do we know that the major awards and honours are true, Anybody can edit that why is why they need sources, Anyway if the purpose of this page is to attack and upset me then it has worked. I have used another account before but i am not dxraw. ExtraDry 09:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

**Comment. ExtraDry summed up the policies excellently. Under WP:PROF he doesn't meet 1) isn't an expert in any field 2) isn't regarded as important by others in his field 3) no significant works published 4) no significant body of work 5) hasn't originated a new concept, and 6) the only award received is the centenary medal. Under WP:BIO, has no independent non-trivial secondary sources. As I said above, the only independent source is an interview given by him to the ABC. Apart from those problems, I agree that this should be closed as a keep, as I reckon it would be a nice article to have in Wikipedia even though it doesn't comply with the guidelines. Assize 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This was taken from [44] ExtraDry 13:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, to show I brought it here not primarily based on

Nicholas Saunders

but the 2 subsequent noms of stronger VC's

for

Nicholas Saunders, the one discussed above by Assize

, comments from other eds. "Keep. VC is an important position which almost always follows a distinguished academic career." (Bduke) "Keep. Notable for being dean of two med.schools and then a VC of a major university. Notable for receiving the Centenary Medal which,.. when awarded to those in the academic field was awarded on the basis of their national or internat. impact in the field: (David Newton) & about 8 or 10 others-Random Humanoid just suggested a Snoball close. But of course I didn't & wouldn't have mentioned it to ED at this point, because keep opinion not unanimous, & nom by itself not disruptive until

AfD nom of Glynn Davis, VC Univ. Melbourne. closed by User:The Winchester as "Keep Per WP:SNOWBALL," [45] (I didnt comment myself on this Afdl)

and finally, Gavin Brown was Speedied by ExtraDry as db-bio [46]--"does not assert the importance...of the subject" but Gavin Brown... Vice-Chanc. Univ. of Sydney...Chair of Pure Math. Univ. of New South Wales...Sir Edmund Whittaker Memorial Prize & Australian Math. Soc. Medal...more than 100 research papers...on board of international journals...PhD Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, honorary LLD Univ. of St Andrews, honorary LLD Univ. of Dundee...Officer,Order of Australia. There is no way this can be seen as "not assert importance" Vice-Chancellor is equiv. of [US] Univ. President, & ExtraDry knew this.

At that point, I stopped AGF or ignorance. But at this point, no admin action is in my opinion needed unless stuff like this continues.DGG 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in suspicion that IP anons (

) 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would block for the death threat [47] if I was an admin. — Moe ε 06:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first line in that page advises Ved036 to **** some of his relatives. It will definitely get a block if it was in English and the language should not be used as an excuse for not blocking him here. Tintin 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are so many strange characters editing Ezhava and Talk:Ezhava that it is probably time to run a CHU and indef some of them. Tintin 18:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest that

11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP may be better. FunPika

12:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's been speedied thrice, by the way. Did the same user create it, however? I'd recommend blocking the user (if it's the same) for 3 days, and if he persists, indef-block him. Why I don't recommend salting is because there might be a notable Joel Hayward out there, so it might be inconvinient for another user to salt it. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article's now on

deletion review. Basically, it perhaps can be rewritten - just cite your sources properly, damnit! Moreschi ^Talk

12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Extending the ArbCom ban on Beckjord to indef

While looking at

), both under his main account and via sockpuppets. He has since had his block reset across two full calendar years for sockpuppetry.

I propose that his ban be extended to indefinite on the following grounds:

• Beckjord's whole career was focused on inserting pseudoscience into Wikipedia. This sort of junk is not tolerated in serious academic circles. If we're to have any credibility as an encyclopedia, he must not be allowed back.
• He has openly called for his supporters to help him insert said garbage into the Bigfoot article (and even has a page on his site telling them how to revert it to his preferred version).
• Despite knowing about our policies on
  96
  17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Try

SqueakBox

18:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Article in question:

Users in question:

• User:Iipmalum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Sunilalagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the past few months, the page

).

I sincerely believe that these people are being highly disruptive, and are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. I know that the admins are already loaded with tons of work, but I would really appreciate it if someone could help out in dealing with this problem. Thank you, Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a little bit of what appears to be disruption over at WP:CN regarding a preferred style of indention versus bullets. Regards, Navou 02:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your comment, did you have a question? Navou 03:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, is there something you'd like done by an administrator? I'm assuming there's a reason you posted to AN/I... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the issue has died down. Had it continued, perhaps. But with it no longer an issue, no. Your response in the way it appeared, came across as if I were wasting your time. Regards, Navou 22:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a delicate way to put it, but... without some direction as to what you'd like, it kinda was, at least based on the state of the conversation in question at the time you "reported" it. There was one or two comments that had anything to do with indentation/formatting when you posted here, and unless there was some sort of long history of redacted text or multiple erasures/reinserts/etc, based on your report there was no clear problem. In the future, please provide some details, specifically with some idea as to what you'd like done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I apologize then. At the time if the report, there appeared to be about 4 reversions. I probably should have examined to diffs more properly and popped over to 3RR or warned the editors if they were exact reverts. Navou 03:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• "that s not encyclopedic"
• "re u terrorist? this is a propanda. wikipedia refuse it."
• "yes u r!! that news are not approved! and thats a propagada. not belong here"
• "rv"
• "rv"

A user,

14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have dropped a 3RR warning template on the editors talkpage. Any other infractions, please come back. If you want the personal attacks reviewed, please provide diffs. LessHeard vanU 16:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have. "re u terrorist? this is a propanda. wikipedia refuse it" and "yes u r!! that news are not approved! and thats a propagada. not belong here" are directed at me/my reverts he disagrees with. Although I do not care much about personal attacks, I feel they should be discouraged on every opportunity. --

chi?

16:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I had not realised that those edit summaries were personal attacks. I thought they referred to the disputed content only. If this editor recommences reverting again (although technically outside the 24hours) he may be blocked if he uses a similar edit summary as a

WP:NPA violation anyway. LessHeard vanU

19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User is continuing to revert war and remove sourced material. --

chi?

20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Haelstrom

CBM · talk

) 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒

) 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that as this editor contacted by e-mail about the above (randomly as far as I can see) that I have simply

assumed good faith in my dealings with them, and would ask the community they understand that. User Talk:Haelstrom and User Talk:RandomHumanoid refer. Pedro |  Chat 

20:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Springbob Squirepants

Heads up:

talk · contribs · logs · block log

) is autoblocked as a consequence of a checkuser block by dmcdevit that expires 2007-09-08T03:23:17. He started putting edit requests on his talk page because he can't edit while blocked. Of course blocked users don't have the privilege of a dedicated editing force of admins. I have protected his user talk page for two days. I do not believe an unblock or unprotection would be appropriate. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As the user was unblocked, the page should now be unprotected as a matter of course. --Random832 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The block log isn't accurate because the user is autoblocked. I don't think the user is unblocked. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose spam account

Resolved

 – —Ryūlóng (竜龍)

Crossmr

14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No edits since being warned. I warned the user that a block will result from any more of these. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He was warned in april about placing the links and added more in June, how is that no edits since warning? He hasn't edited since I warned him again.--

Crossmr

20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blacklisted gamerflicks\.com on Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

and yet he's done it again. After being asked twice not to, he simply continues. [53].--

Crossmr

01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sosomk

Upon returning from his last block (block log) this user modified the economy section of the Georgia (country) article. When other editors asked him to bring sources supporting some questionable info there he responded with statements like these - [54] (to User:Tamokk and [55] (to me). Then I had placed two tags in the article which were then removed by User:Sosomk ([56] and [57], with remove the nonesense in edit summary). His next revert was accompanied by 1st revert of POV pushing and vandalism edit summary. Alæxis_¿question? 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User has been notified. Alæxis_¿question? 18:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Returning from the previous block like two weeks ago, I initiated voting on the talk page and most of the users supported my version of the economy section, except of Alæxis and this is just a content dispute rather than anything else. Thanks, SosoMK 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just not true. I didn't support any version of the economy section as could be seen here. The version that User:Sosomk doesn't like was proposed by Tamokk and supported by User:Corticopia. Alæxis_¿question? 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry: User:Corticopia is the only one who actually voted against my economy section :) SosoMK 19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ShreddermanHides a User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet?

List of main characters in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends along with the image created by User:Sugarranapanunas (an indef blocked sock of Danny Daniel). Jibbert Michart Macoy is a hoax page that was created several times by Danny Daniel sockpuppets. Note that some of this user's contributions could be constuctive. Pants^(T)

20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Banhammered to wikideath. Now I'll clean up the mess he created. MaxSem 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, I hope. Please revise his contributions to valid articles - maybe, something is not reverted. Also, please inspect closely the contributions of UBracter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who earlier created one of Shredderman's pages. MaxSem 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to un-move article

A well-intentioned but brand new editor (17 edits to date) moved

Twin (Biological). As over 500 articles link to twin and the vast majority of them are pointing to the correct article, the principle of least astonishment would have this move reverted. Unfortunately I cannot un-move the article because it took the editor five tries to get the redirect parlance correct at Twin. Can an administrator undo this move? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk

) 20:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got it, though ideally you should ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

anon IP 82.27.27.31

Resolved

The anon 82.27.27.31 is inserting a "notice" regarding the pedophilia of a named individual (address included) along with some rather extreme accusations of cannibalism and so forth, in articles ranging from pedophilia to moist to refrigerator. I went straight for a final warning on his talk page, and haven't seen a new edit in a few minutes. Bears watching at the very least. -Jmh123 21:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah...that IP is adding some stuff that needs to be oversighted quickly. IrishGuy ^talk 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted all of his edits so far. He's been blocked. Thanks for the quick action. -Jmh123 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I blocked the user and requested oversight; all the edits have been oversighted. --

desat

21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Resolved

The above-referenced user has been harrassing me today and deleting my edits claiming I am a sockpuppet. Can someone pls. help?Accuracy in Reporting 21:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is probably the latest sockpuppet of banned userUser:[email protected], who's already lost a couple socks today. Seeking confirmation from the person who's had to deal with him the most. SirFozzie 22:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it is - I have done this checkuser but not sure if its right because I've never done one before.--Vintagekits 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. AfD's closed as bad faith speedy keeps. IrishGuy ^talk 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd editor Jokenda

Jokenda has been editing since 6 May 2007 but he/she only edits the userpage. Now he/she has created Bezaroh and based on this edit that second account will continue to edit the userpage. Any ideas what is going on here? IrishGuy ^talk 23:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, it appears that this user is using the userpage as a blog. Perhaps a nice little notice would help? x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod. MFD if the user removes it. WP:NOT free webhosting. hbdragon88 00:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on

WP:NOT a blog. — ERcheck (talk

) 03:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA Wikihermit

Resolved

 – Does not require urgent administrative action;

WT:RFA

may be a more appropriate venue for concerns raised.

Link : Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikihermit

I'm concerned about how User:N asked irrelevant questions while trying to prove a point. {See question 4,6,7,8,9)

I am also concerned about the fact that, in the discussions, some users did not remain

civil example

The RFA turned fast into a riot, and Wikihermit closed the RFA.

I seriously don't know what to do with this. -Flubeca (t) 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The right venue for this discussion is

CBM · talk

) 01:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, questions asked at RfA are optional; if a question is irrelevant, the candidate is free to ignore it or point out its irrelevancy. The example diff you provide, while strongly worded, doesn't reach a level of incivility requiring admin action. I agree that if you have concerns, starting a thread at

WT:RFA is the best approach. MastCell ^Talk

03:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

homophobia and vandalism

unresolved He's back (16 June 2007)

(hi user DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left a request for the user to civilly discuse issues of articles. If the user continues such POV pushing, please bring it up here and remove the resolved tag. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some folks may remember this guy from last year when he used AOL IPs User:195.93.21.74 and user:195.93.21.69. He was dubbed the "John Wayne vandal", and blocked several times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a good chance he also goes by Chunda18 (talk · contribs), as the topics and approach to submissions is identical, and Chunda18 stopped "contributing" at almost the same time that DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) started. It's always similar: certain major stars (primarily John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart) are right-wing Republicans and therefore any positive thing about them should be removed or so qualified as to eliminate the positive aspect, or they are homosexuals and should be exposed to the world. This morning someone on his talk space politely suggested some help for him if he needed it on the matter of proper citing. DaveyJones1968 replied "Fuck you." Doesn't seem resolved to me.

I've blocked

WP:BLP.--Isotope23

19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) responded to his being blocked by taking on a new identity and immediately reinstating -- verbatim -- the POV material I had reverted from the John Wayne article yesterday. His new name is InLikeErrol (talk · contribs).

I endorse the block of DJ and have blocked the new account. This guy is clearly trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He's back again, a day later, as BreckColeman (talk · contribs). He put back all his trash again. Monkeyzpop 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And again, June 17, 2007, as LinkJones (talk · contribs). Monkeyzpop 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future you can just alert me or another admin directly about future socks that need blocking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started out a RFCU case, and could use help- User:Nwwaew/Sandbox. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to take issue with JzG's recent indefinite block of Killer Poet for having "single-purpose disruptive account." Poet had registered back in last December and made a few minor tweaks, then returned this July, when he restored spoiler warnings to a couple of dozen articles. He was promptly blocked. I believe that there are several factors that, if they do not justify his behavior, at least go toward explaining it. This is proof of edit warring, not of inability to act constructively.

There's been a continuous debate about the use of spoiler warnings on Wikipedia for nigh on a month now, and the topic is the poster child of inciting edit wars. A total of maybe half a dozen anti-spoiler editors have declared the matter closed and removed all 45'000 spoiler warnings on the encyclopedia, most using semi-automated editing tools that would be impossible to match even if efforts to the contrary weren't promptly also removed. There's no small amount of resentment about this in an already inflamed topic, especially since this started before the now rewritten

) sanctioned it and used tools that are forbidden to be used for "controversial edits." He was not the first, second or third editor that this goaded into trying to fix things the way removers do, and those who were, myself included, were punished lightly.

Moreover, Tony Sidaway, anti-spoiler hardliner and the most visible member of that position has stated repeatedly that he considers the lack of reversions proof of the removals' validity; that anything less than a large-scale revolt constitutes the implicit agreement of the quiet majority. A member of this majority could feel that he'd have to act in order to show his dissent.

Poet had no warning from an admin, only one from his opposing number in that edit war. We don't ban vandals for long periods that easily, or if we do, please tell me so that I can join in.

Also note that this was done during a time when the guideline used as the reason for the tags' removal was under heavy dispute.

In the name of full disclosure I'm very definitely an involved party. I've been arguing against denying our users an option which polls definitely say they use ever since this whole mess started. I do not know Killer Poet, and have had no contact with him beyond leaving a message where I offered a new userbox and asked for constructive suggestions.

The block wasn't exactly by an uninvolved party, either. Killer Poet's user page, along with perhaps eight other ones, displays said recently created (by me, yes) userbox:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

This inspired JzG to create his own:

This user believes that spoiler tags are a waste of space, a waste of the community's time and the foundation's server resources, and that their use generally varies between the redundant and the absurd.

("Server resources", minimalistic blocks of at most eight words, presently five? Never mind.)

In the circumstances, I believe that an indefinite block is much too harsh and should be changed to one of a few days, at most, with credit for time already served. He should be clearly cautioned on unblocking to avoid future undoing sprees. If he ignores that, then consider longer-term measures. --Kizor 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This whole Spoiler mess is boiling faster and faster. The whole 'no one reverts so we must be right' gets enforced by blocking those who revert, so that the 'no one reverts' meme can expand? Come on. That's like 1984 logic. Intimidation moves like these have been implied in this mess since the anti-spoiler side started their mass removals, and it's part of why there are so few reversions. If you revert, you will be punished, because there's consensus and the policies we edited to say so now say so, so no reverts. A bad block. ThuranX 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• A dormant account which reactivates solely to participate in a battle which had pretty much ended? And we need that in what way, precisely? I woudl say that we need spoiler tag warriors about as much as we need spoiler tags in A Clockwork Orange - i.e. not at all. The point is not the sppoiler tags, it's what looks like a sleeper account reactivated solely to restart the war. And I only creatd the humorous userbox after the block and seeing the foolish "we lost the debate but we still think we are right" userbox on the user's page. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on guy, a little bit of good faith and some proof of your assertions would be good before you indefblocked someone for something as menial as disagreeing with you. This is hardly an indef blockable offence without checkuser evidence that this account is a sockpuppet being used by someone involved in the debate. Just because someone doesn't edit for a few months doesn't mean they haven't noticed the changes and disagree with them, compelling them to revert a few. (nothing near the scale of potential disruption that the mass removal caused). Unless your provide good evidence that this is actually a sock account and not just conjecture, I am inclined to shorten the block to 24 hours from time imposed (if that hasn't already been reached). In doing so I am waiting for the Wikipedia version of

Godwin's Law to be called upon, with the winner being the first person to accuse me of wheel warring. Viridae^Talk

11:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block them for disagreeing, I blocked them for pitching in and restarting a battle which was over, something which was clearly disruptive. I don't care if they are unblocked as long as they don't resume the disruption, the block was to stop the disruption. I storngly suspect that this is someone's alternate account anyway. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. Viridae^Talk 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were to start restoring spoiler tags, would I get blocked as well? If so, why is the 'there's a consensus because hardly anyone is restoring them' argument being used?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd had no edits since December then suddenly piled into reinserting spoiler tags a couple of weeks after the brief battle had died down, as this person did, then yes. Like I said, the account had been dormant for some time and then resurfaced solely to make contentious edits in a war that had otherwise pretty much died out. They did not discuss any of these reversions, merely piled in and reverted the removals using the Undo tool, which suggests a degree of familiarity with Wikipedia not entirely consistent with a user with so very few edits. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But anyone that tries to restore spoiler warnings gets threatened or banned, regardless of their edit history.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps because all the examples thus far have been blind reversions based on philosophical objection to the pretty solid consensus that most of the spoilers we had were either redundant or downright absurd; has anybody been threatened with a block after giving a sound rationale on the talk page and achieving consensus for inserting a spoiler tag in a specific article? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus you are talking about does not exist in any way, shape or form. We've been over this repeatedly with Tony. All your arguments revolve around you insisting that a consensus exists by using phrases of the form 'there wasn't any substantial/significant/meaningful opposition'. I have given an example where one of you overruled about twenty different people in just eighteen hours. From that, we can infer that hundreds, if not thousands, of individual editors have attempted to replace spoiler tags, only to be reverted unthinkingly. The 'debate' was totally irregular, with the TfD and MfD closed for arbitary reasons at arbitary times, straw polls starting and stopping at random, the mass removals and guideline rewrites two days into the debate, and the threats and bannings that followed.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• And since the onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify it and if disputed to seek consensus, the spoiler tags stay out. But actually I think you may be missing something: the deafening silence from the wider community may well be interpreted as consensus. It took some bold actions to remove the thousands of often ludicrous spoiler tags (nursery rhymes, ffs!) but in the end there is very very little opposition to their removal. A tiny number of holdouts still arguing long after the argument ended, whatever floats your boat really. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, these are just rehashes of the beliefs expressed earlier by Tony. You view the consensus as self-evident, despite the improper debate, the threats and the mass overriding of ordinary editors. The 'tiny number of holdouts' greatly outnumber the miniscule number of admins who implemented this policy and continue to argue that it was justified.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nydas, you would. When the removals started, there were some reverts. I can recall seeing (but not where, or by who) Re-reverts by the removing editors declaring wide consensus had been reached, and that going against consensus was to go against policy. Going against policy, of course, means getting blocked. It's why I never reverted. It was clear to me that the anti-spoiler folks, who include a number of admins, were enforcing their cabal consensus at the end of Teddy Roosevelt's big stick. You would've been blocked. that's why there's no widespread reversions going on. ThuranX 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alternative hypothesis: nobody cares. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And any further debate will result in a block, right guy? ThuranX 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Debate? Of course not. Edit-warring, yes, but not debate. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And of course, and reversions woul have been seen as edit warring, and blocked. game, set, match. Reverting to demonstrate lack of consensus would've been called edit warring, and blocked for. Thus, no opposition can be voiced. ThuranX 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was probably an unacceptable risk to unblock this single purpose account that had been blocked for disruption. As it happens the owner has not chosen to go back to the account yet, but it was clearly bent on mischief and there's no reason to believe that unblocking will do anything but encourage his misbehavior. . --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do quiet down, Tony. He has been repeatedly cautioned not to do it again, and your 'unacceptable risk' would be undone in moments. --Kizor 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked

). From an email I received today:

The account has made over 2,000 edits so far, and there's plenty that make it pretty clear it's him. However there's two cast-iron examples.

http://www.socaluncensored.com/board/showpost.php3?p=99228&postcount=48

Read that forum post where he admits adding fake championships to articles, which he did with many previous throwaway socks. Now look at these edits from his current sock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hero&diff=136450086&oldid=136277261

They won no such title.

• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/c/chris-hero.html
  
• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/c/claudio-castagnoli.html
  
• http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/k/kings-of-wrestling.html
  
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Eastern+Wrestling+Federation%22+%22chris+hero%22+%22Claudio+Castagnoli%22&btnG=Search&meta=
  

Ditto for this edit.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Evans&diff=136458105&oldid=135506953
  
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22jack+evans%22+%22Canadian+Wrestling+Alliance%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= }}

I believe this. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to check all his contributions to make sure things like this are taken out? Because if you need someone to check out subtle vandalism in professional wrestling articles, look no furthur :) — Moe ε 13:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a much more iron clad example:

Kevin Steen

Sequence of events:

• JB196 sock Madman Entertaiment adds fake titles
• La Parka Your Car adds a CWA history
• I remove both as even after looking up Kevin Steen I can find no evidence of either
• La Parka reverts me
• I reverted back again followed by this edit

I left the situation after that but this, along with early edits to Kevin Kleinrock, a major part of JB196's playing ground XPW pretty much confirmed this to me. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone may want to get ahold of his publisher (if he has one). I believe the phrase "moral turpitude" applies here. No book, no reason to vandalize.

14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly his vanity is that bad that he doesn't get that nobody will want to read a book written by a wrestling fan about a promotion that very few people even watched when it was going. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's even sadder as long before he got here the internet hated him. He just doesn't get it. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through all his contributions now and reverting any of the blanking or vanity he inserted. I suggest another CheckUser be run to see if more established accounts are being created. His game seems to be adding the reference tag and later with another account removing the information stating it has been "unreferenced for such and such period, cite it", thus blanking the article. I already caught a few articles that had extensive histories, maybe 16,000 kb worth of article (reduced down to a single sentence by a first sock) that were being proded by this account. Luckly I caught that. — Moe ε 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What accounts were adding the reference tags? –– Lid^(Talk) 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't remember the exact page, give me a few minutes. But I saw a few examples where either a ref tag was added (this was rare, mostly this account was adding the tag) or various polices were added in edit summaries (mostly this from older accounts) decieving whoever came to the article into thinking this was a normal activity. He would then repeat the action with multiple accounts stating policies in the edit summaries removing more and more information until an article about a professional wrestler read nothing but "Whomever is a professional wrestler", and then he proded them hoping they would be deleted (I just removed a couple now). — Moe ε 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A first checkuser only found one account, User:Guidejo, whose only action was to db-bio a wrestler's entry (after a BLP-related blanking), and no signs of proxyitude. I'm going to slap a block on that account, it's pretty obvious that it's another JB sock (first and only edit being a speedy delete?) SirFozzie 16:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can that article be restored with all revisions? –– Lid^(Talk) 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can swing that, since banned users should be reverted. Just the article should be cleaned up asap. SirFozzie 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I spent a long time yesterday checking through the contribs of La Parka Your Car, and I must say I did find many similarities in editing, a checkuser has previously been inconclusive, but I believe the user is a sock. It's sad, but it seems the user was trying to rack up the edits to run for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the same feeling and was thinking up drafts for an oppose essay. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just given both Venkat47 and Jordan brice 24 hour vandalism blocks for altering information in wrestling articles. Do you think they are connected to the above situation? IrishGuy ^talk 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a look at them. SirFozzie 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to fit the mold of JB196, but I would be honestly shocked if the two are not the same person. SirFozzie 22:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

News flash

It seems that La Parka Your Car is Burntsauce part two. Already, JB196 is gloating at Wikipedia Review ([removed url to attack site]). He really loves me now, doesn't he? Anyway, I've unprotected La Parka Your Car's user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since Barber is by now dedicated to causing trouble here, and apparently proud of the trouble he causes, there is no particular reason why we should believe a word he says in any context about anything to do with Wikipedia. And in any case it is not relevant: La Parka inserted misinformation into articles quite deliberately and over a period of time, so he can get lost. Let Barber crow about the fact that we banned the "wrong" vandal, the list of people who care is probably fairly small. And let's not forget the reason JB196 started his vandalism spree in the first place: we removed his blatant self-promotion. Seems to me he bears us malice simply for refusing to allow him to abuse the project for his own personal vanity - there is a limit to how much I care about his opinion. Some people on WR make thougthful and insightful comments. JB196 is not one of them, he's just a frustrated
  vanispamcruftisement merchant. Hey, maybe we should send Gastrich an invite to WR! Guy (Help!
  ) 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone might want to look into That Dude 07's contributions and roll them back. He or she has come off of a 24 hour block for trolling and has upped the ante. Just check his or her contribs - it's blatant. --ElKevbo 19:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked for page move vandalism. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm [58] [59] and [60]. ---

18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hey, I need a bit of assitance here. What is Wikipedia's policy on rude users? A few days ago I had removed irrelevant information from the Gerard Way article, and requested fullprotection due to a edit war, and irrelevant vandalism from other users. The edit war was performed between Abrant01 and myself about a irrelevant 'Interviews' section. It had been voted that this information should be removed in the talk page, therefore, it was removed. Abrant01 had replaced the removed information. I issued him a warning (to which I recieved a rude reply), and then I had removed the information again. He had kept adding it back, and I kept removing it, to which point I requested a lock on the article.

Following the warnings on his talk page, he appears to be getting quite rude and uncooperative. What would be the best course of action?

I think I might have been a bit too harsh with the warning, however. Unconscious 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've written on Abrant01's talkpage. If you and him are able to work together that would be great, but I have made clear that we only put in stuff that is verifiable. I hope this suffices. LessHeard vanU 23:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Unconscious 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism, and I was asked as a fellow admin by

to help to defend it.

We have both found that when we attempt to access the history of this page, we experience browser-failure with the standard Microsoft message "this page has to close. Sorry for the inconvenience" or words to that effect. If it were just me. or just him, we might think it a problem with a particular PC. But as it is both of us, it would appear that there is some malicious coding in the article text. The problem is a consistent one. Neither

22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the page using Firefox and IE6 (Win2000, work computer). Worked fine, I did catch that IP address changing the capacity again and reverted it. SirFozzie 22:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. As I say, it is not just me. Check out

^"talk"

22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just tried it again...it still crashed my browser. I'm using IE7 maybe that is the difference. IrishGuy ^talk 23:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using IE7 and it also crashes for me. --Fredrick day 23:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am using explorer. But I would like a sensible answer as to why this page, like no other, crashes IE, while accepting that it does not crash Firefox (which I have not got).--

^"talk"

23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be an IE7 problem? There might be more information if you search the exact build of your Internet Explorer (like my IE6 is 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_qfe.070227-2300). Works for me on Internet Explorer 6 and Mozilla Firefox (the most recent one), and the history page is fully XHTML 1.0 transitional compliant, so it's not a XHTML bug - more like a Microsoft one (where have we heard that before?). x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup - crashes IE7, works fine with Firefox and Opera.

^Talk

23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: For the "crashers", does [61] crash your browser? If so, it's not a Wikipedia problem ([62]), but you can try the idea given to copy it into Firefox and then paste it into Internet Explorer 7. Bizarre. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That link didn't crash my browser. IrishGuy ^talk 23:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We can probably narrow it down to edit summaries by doing this: Go to [63] and keep going to newer and newer diffs. If any crash, it's probably an edit summary or something. But I wouldn't be surprised if it is some stupid bug in Internet Explorer that causes crashes for trivial reasons. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems viewing all of the diffs in that manner. I can even view the older 50 edits in the history, just not the current 50 (or 100 or 250). --ElKevbo 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you just looking at the edit history, or a particular diff? I use IE7 and it isn't crashing my browser. Corvus cornix 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit history crashes IE for me. Version 7.0.5730.11. No problem in Firefox, though. Puzzling. --ElKevbo 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using the exact same version. Very puzzling. Corvus cornix 03:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I'm using IE 6.0.x and it's not crashing on the last 50 or last 100 version of the history page. 64.126.24.11 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

edit history also crashes on my IE7 - same version as above... curious!? - Purples 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If it generates such an error it should be logged in the Event Viewer. Log in as an Administrator and then show the Administrative Tools on the Start Menu ([64]). Then go to the Event Viewer. Generate the crash again and then go to the newest System Error event in the Event Viewer. Might reveal a bit more. Though I am more inclined to think it's some freak Internet Explorer bug that crashes because of something stupid like too many consecutive vowels. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

App log does have an entry logging the crash as an Event ID 1000 stating "Faulting application iexplore.exe, version 7.0.6000.16414, faulting module urlmon.dll, version 7.0.6000.16414, fault address 0x00003d85." Next step to troubleshoot this? File bug report with the devs? --ElKevbo 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As per

13:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a more specific recommendation? Who would one e-mail with this sort of problem? --ElKevbo 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Each other, for trouble-shooting it. Bugzilla when you figure it out. I just don't like the thought of vandals having the ability to deliberately crash other user's browsers at will if the other users happen to be using a particular flavor of browser. - TexasAndroid 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more of an Internet Explorer problem rather than a Mediawiki one. Anyway, I found this, not tested, not verified, or whatever. Give it a shot - if it doesn't work, then revert the change. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Something really needs to be sorted out about Drake2u (talk) as he/she insists on constantly deleting parts of the "Make-up and costumes" section. Alientraveller 08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You want

intervention against vandalism. Just keep giving him warning tags for content removal, then report him. --Haemo

08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ripoff and re-copyright of a WP article

CAIS, the epitome of rotten copyrights and false representation, has done it again. This time, they've taken my article on

Aredvi Sura Anahita

), stuck it onto their own webpage, and given it their own copyright.
The mirror is at www.*.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/anahita.htm (Replace '*' with "cais-soas"). It is a word-for-word copy except for minor changes to the lede and the integration of endnotes into the text itself.

Now, I don't really care what someone might do with my WP contributions, but I don't want the WP article (which took me weeks!) to be tossed because someone erroneously concludes that the CAIS page is prior-art. What can I do to ensure that this doesn't happen? -- Fullstop 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea... give me a bit to poke around and I'll get back to you.--Isotope23 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm back to working on the Patriot Act after about 6 months leave due to marriage, life etc. As the Patriot Act is such a controversial article, I created a draft subpage

. Obviously it was a work-in-progress.

Anyway, more than a touch annoyed, I spouted off to the one who moved it, User:Mkdw. Probably my bad, I'll have to apologise (I lost about 20 minutes worth of research and work - stupid me for not press submit). Then I moved it back to the old subpage.

The I got a warning saying I'd violated policy from Mkdw. I informed him that OK, I'll move it to a subpage and work on it there, then add it to

10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to this quickly. I think this was easily a misunderstanding that most likely does not require the attention of this board. Initially I was responding to

assume good faith. I looked at the user's contributions to see if any other stylistic errors had been introduced to other articles and to see if this was a one time event or a recurring one. I notcied the article USA PATRIOT Act/History and refering to Wikipedia:Namespace I assumed he had made a naming error and mean 'History of USA PATRIOT Act' or 'USA PATRIOT Act history'. So I went ahead and moved the article. I then received the message: Yeah, thanks for moving USA PATRIOT Act/History. I just lost an amazing amount of work. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC). See User_talk:Mkdw#Great.. The user moved the page back to USA PATRIOT Act/History

with the following edit summaries.

(cur) (last) 01:40, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) (11,849 bytes) (→September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks - try to add back the massive amount of work that I lost when the page move was done. Bloody hell that was annoying!!!!)

(cur) (last) 01:30, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) m (moved USA PATRIOT Act history to USA PATRIOT Act/History over redirect: moving back - this is not an article in its own right)

(cur) (last) 01:28, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) m (moved User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act history to USA PATRIOT Act history over redirect)

(cur) (last) 01:25, June 18, 2007 Ta bu shi da yu (Talk | contribs) m (moved USA PATRIOT Act history to User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act history: bloody hell.)

(cur) (last) 01:11, June 18, 2007 Mkdw (Talk | contribs) m (moved USA PATRIOT Act/History to USA PATRIOT Act history: Wikipedia Naming Convention)

Originally when looking at the article I was worried about it being

original research

as many of the statements such as:

COINTELPRO was a program of the FBI aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States, and the operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen); non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. The Church Committee found that most of the surveillance was illegal.

Considering the page only had four quotes and was in the article namespace, rather than adding {{

WP:POINT

. Considering where the article was at the time I can probably point out many cases where in my own opinion would have justified having those tags. Afterall, it was a draft of an article; the problem being it was in the article namespace and not labeled a draft.

I then received the message: "No probs. I'm going to move to User:Ta bu shi da yu/USA PATRIOT Act/History (as I am the sole editor) then I'll make a copy of that article to History of the USA PATRIOT Act. Then I'll stop working on that article and work on the one in my user page, which you aren't allowed to touch. Given that I'm pretty much the only person who works on articles about this topic, I hope you'll understand my frustration with this sort of response. Happy? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)". You can see how it escalates from here on both my talk page and his. Thanks for your time and patience. Mkdw^talk 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed boilerplate warning template used on Ta bu's talk page. You don't warn established users and administrators with such templates. It is humiliating and demeaning. Pursue

dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C}

10:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sir Nick. I made a mistake in the edit of Wikipedia, but I had absolutely no idea what was being referred to! I thought he was talking about the above mentioned article. What happened at Wikipedia was completely inadvertent: I was trying to fix a ref tag, so I copied all the wikitext to notepad, used the search function of notepad to find the ref tag (ever tried to do this in Firefox or Internet Explorer? ew!) then copied it all back.

However, I must admit that I got pretty annoyed about the Patriot Act article move. I have to fully and freely admin I'm totally in the wrong here, and I shouldn't have been so aggressive to User:Mkdw. I publicly apologise to him/her about this. My bad, I don't particularly feel very proud of that. As I think I've said more than a dozen times (well, maybe not that much), but I'm going to half to calm down. I don't know why, but I'm getting very emotional about stuff too quickly.

That said, does anyone have any objections to moving it back to USA PATRIOT Act/History? That's a better spot for draft editing. I'd prefer not to have the article in my namespace. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu, I think it was necessary to move it from USA PATRIOT Act/History because you can't create subpages in the mainspace per Wikipedia:Subpages"Except in "main" namespace (="article namespace"), where the subpage feature has been disabled in English Wikipedia..." If you try to create a subpage in the mainspace, it acts as an independent article and will show up on searches and special:randompage. But as a draft page, it should have been moved to Talk:USA PATRIOT Act/History, rather than to another mainspace location at History of the USA PATRIOT Act. I agree that adding maintenance tags to a work in progress is unnecessary and provocative but this seems to be resolved now the page is in your userspace and I don't think stirring it up on ANI would be good for anyone. I also agree completely with Nick's comments about using boilerpates on established editors. But what was with that edit to the Wikipedia article?[66] Sarah 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An accident. I was trying to fix a ref tag. See above. I'm going to move the article to the Talk namespace, you make a good point. Darn it, all I'm trying to do is get

USA PATRIOT Act up to speed, and I swore off participating in the Wikipedia: namespace because it was causing me too much stress! Some days I don't feel I can win :-( - Ta bu shi da yu

11:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to draw the attention to this user. This user has been uploading many, many files without any copyright tags. The warnings have been posted, but this user has not responded to them, and no one is quite able to communicate with this user. To get to the bottom line, this user has a lot of copyright violation notices (35 at last count) in the entire month of June in eight days, which is becoming quite distruptive. Evilclown93_(talk) 11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that's too many copyvios for any one editor. Blocked for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of editors are removing RS sources such as

• BBC
• Daily Mirror

and even to a degraded version of

• Reuters Alertnet

from the above article. The concerted action are making this article to go from this version to this version. Thanks Taprobanus 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is over here. Corvus cornix

15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be a bit premature to bring this up, but Cverlo (talk · contribs) has been adding a "notice" to the top of AnimeIowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that the convention's website is down.[67] The announcement was removed by MikeWazowski (talk · contribs), but the removal was reverted[68] by Cverlo with a threat to edit war over the notice[69]. MikeWazowski removed the notice again[70] and Cverlo restored the notice [71] with an additional threat to edit war.

See also Talk:AnimeIowa#Emergency Domain Announcement.

--Farix (Talk) 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's should be removed - we are not a newssite and the article is not an extension of the conference or a site to be used for the runners of the conference to use as part of PR/Management efforts on behalf of the conference. --Fredrick day 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reported

14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've undone all of it, I think. --Deskana (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The blocking admin Rettetast started work on the task whilst I was posting here, by the look of it.

Bencherlite

14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fredguy III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has labelled various users as sockpuppets, including the user him/herself. This edit suggests that another editor (former admin?) recognises the sockpuppetry. Could someone please check this out? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. That's what I get from checking in from work. I forgot to bypass the cache. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed on this issue by this user is:

• Pressing his newly created map onto several articles, knowing that the last consensus took months to establish and was hotly debated. He participated in that discussion.
• Delaying more input on the issue, citing lack of time, while responding to each and every argument.
• Not adhering to
  WP:BRD
  , which are guidelines for a good discussion, by insisting to keep the disputed version, instead of discussing his change before implementing it.

Myself, I have just violated

) 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this editor even commenting here? This is a smokescreen, and I gather one intended to support

my first attempt to update these maps; Krator is the only editor who has stridently and so vocally expressed opinions opposing this map on Netherlands. Elsewhere, little feedback has been offered or is being addressed. Throughout, since Krator asked if he can revert me, I have been discussing this on the Talk:Netherlands page, and I will initiate wider discussions elsewhere when time permits (I can't respond to this editor and initiate deliberations elsewhere simultaneously; I will also enhance the maps as needed. However, this doesn't justify edit warring, particularly reversions which pre-empt my responses to them and behaviour which seems to ignore good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. After all, it's just a locator map (though better than its predecessor). Quizimodo

17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Krator: the purpose of 3RR is to prevent edit warring. Period. Talk pages exist for a reason; use them. Whether or not you think your participating in a revert war is justifiable, it is not, except in the case of vandalism. If a disputed edit is so bad it needs to be immediately removed, and yet is not vandalism, then it will be easy enough to get another pair of eyes to help discuss the issue on the talk page. Just don't edit war. Period. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Salted for time being SirFozzie 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Julian Dobrowolski article has just been recreated for the fifth time in a row. See also the AfD. Jogers (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it. SirFozzie 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I bring to the attention of administrators, 2 edit-warring ideological trolls -

by conveniently spacing out their reverting over 24 hours. As a result, they have converted the following articles into battlefields:

• Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]
• The Goa Inquisition (book): [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]
• Image:Goa Inquisition.jpg: history is filled with blanket reverts without any reasoning; just personal attacks
• Idolatry: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]
• Persecution of Christians: [96], [97], [98], [99]

I request administrators to take definitive action, as both Anwar saadat and Bakasuprman have a long history of disruptive edit-warring. The latter is an involved party in the on-going Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 with me, which is why I can't take action myself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I already warned both of them last time this was on ANI two weeks ago (see

t

01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested page protection on a couple of the articles. Perhaps this will encourage use of the article talk page. Regards, Navou 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(lol) I have already protected

Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham, Idolatry and Persecution of Christians. The result on the latter two has been the immediate resumption of hostilities after protection expired. No, I agree with Dmcdevit that a strong block needs to be imposed - both these editors are experienced, disruptive trolls. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)

02:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You and I are in agreement also, however, I lack the technical ability. Navou 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of problems, and given Dmcdevit's warning, I'm going to block both for a week. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I just did. Circeus 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well. Still, problem resolved! Let's hope they calm down a bit on return. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. For heavens' sakes Baka made the same reverts that Rama's Arrow made on one of those articles! How convenient of Rama to incite admins here with gratuitous use of labels to brand these users! If we cut out the motivated high pitch that Rama uses to present the case and examine the issue, this is what we find with regards to reverting...

• TNMMK - 5 in 20 days
• Idolatry - one revert by Baka in a week.. Anwar keeps going against consensus of three other editors..
• Persecution of Christians - 3 reverts in three days

This is nothing!

Compare this to RA's three per day on Iqbal in January and then goes on to block his opponent! With regards to civility, this is nothing. The incivility that RA has displayed on arbcom and elsewhere is far far far worse than this. And RA is an admin!! Shameful. If Baka can be blocked for a week for this, by that same yardstick, RA ought to be blocked for a month atleast! Sarvagnya 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RA noted that they didn't break 3RR. They just reverted each other a number of times on various pages without discussion their revert on talk or user-talk pages over a long period of time. Don't you think it would have been better if they had at least notified each other about their ongoing reverts? They are both experience Wiki-users and should have known what they were doing was futile. And apart from some of the parties involved, I don't see this isn't really to the arbcom case. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You also rolled back Anwar on those pages without saying anything. You have solicited others to revert what you are unwilling to do. Are you going to block RA or any other admin for reverting? Are you going to block anyone. You know full well that you would never have done those indefinite blocks in April (since you have only ever blocked vandals and seem unwilling to do any nontrivial blocks)...Why did you incite RA to do so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Four of those six reverts were a different matter. Anwar was adding false speedy tags on various India-related pages. Instead of reverting, I could have said "Rm speedy tag, doesn't qualify for CSD A3 criteria." But yes two of those reverts were on the "controversial" pages and I did blindly forget to notify Anwar, Baka et al. I admit I'm a hypocrite and deserve to be punished for being an admin but stooping to the level of trolls. You can block me if you like (I going to take a break anyway).

As for never blocking them but endorsing, I had known their cabal for a long time. Hkelkar (post-block) had sent me emails about setting up RFARBs on "Anti-Hindus" Zora and Dbachmann, telling me to revert various Hindutva/Islamist organisations that I've never heard of in my life. I told him to bugger off but he didn't so I quickly listed his email address as junk/spam. Alongside with me, guys like Baka, Ambroodey, D-Boy and a few others were sent the emails. The problem was that though I knew these guys had their links but didn't know of how to successfully explain the problem to Wiki. So I deleted those emails. Once Nirav discovered it, I naively thought that he would have ability to expose their activities but I was in that part. Having witnessed it myself, of course I would endorse the blocks. The problem is proving it. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the blocks. One revert every four days is hardly anything, and if we blocked people for that, heaps and heaps of people would be blocked, including many admins like RA and many many other people including some arbitrators I would bet. As for the "troll" edit summary, what is happening here? See what has gone on the arb case by RA calling other people criminals etc etc. This block is useless and inflammatory. The Persecution article where Baka does three reverts in three days, he discussed them on the talk page. RA himself did three reverts per day back in January without discussing and with a machine revert on Iqbal for consecutive days and went on to block his opponent. Here is a clear case where admins are subject to different rules than ordinary users. RA took umbrage when Nearly Headless Nick noted that admins are subject to different rules.....well here is RA getting a benefit which Baka and Anwar did not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can remove blocks if you want to Blnguyen but the edit-warring will start again sooner or later. January was a quite a long time ago and while that doesn't justify his reverts at all, it is very likely that many users here have edit-warred since then. Can you please clarify your exact reason for unblocking them. The main reason seems to be that RA has also been involved in edit-warring. From that reasoning, it appears that if the person who notified the war on ANI was uninvolved, "neutral" etc. your opinion may be different. The other reason is that their reverts were spaced out over long period of time. May I ask, wouldn't it have been embarrassing if in a couple of months time the Goa Inquisition History page had "rvv"s and "Undo"s from Anwar and Baka, but of course not on the same day. There was a good chance they were not going to stop because neither of them has posted a message on a talk page even once. If I misunderstood anything, please tell me. Thank you Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satyam Vada. DaGizza has once again made us privy to his duplicitous nature by choosing to forget that I had discussed my edits on TMMK, on Talk:Idolatry#Hinduism, and that I started the discussion on Talk:Hinduism#Idolatry.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you can read. I said that two reverts per week is hardly anything.....I just pointed out if this was going to be applied to everyone, then a lot of people would be blocked. We're supposed to be even handed aren't we? The edit-warring is always going to be there. It's a fact of life on religious and ethnic articles. If you are going to be strict, then be strict to everyone. There'll be nobody left. And everybody knows what you have been doing Gizza. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Does your sentence refer to my reverts. If it does, I replied to that above. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the unblock by Blnguyen. It is also interesting to note that Rama's Arrow is referring to them as "trolls", and vilifies them for doing the same thing which he has done in the past – "edit warring". In any case, there are only two reverts in a week, the block was not justifiable, and heavy handed in any case. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read most of the above thread. But this is my opinion. I suspect Rama's Arrow is still sulking over my oppose vote on his RfA. I noticed him regularly adding fake charges on edit summary in the event of a block. Anyway, it is not my concern if this is the quality of admins Wikipedia is forced to put up with.

As I explained earlier in my unblock request on my talk page, the reverts in TMMK and the Goa Inquisition image pages were spaced out over several days to avoid a ugly exchange. I appreciate Baka's patience in this regard. The only reason I did not engage with him was I was busy with mapping resources on other pages. I believe Baka will be made a scapegoat and his past history may be used as an excuse to implicate him in the ongoing ArbCom case. Rama's Arrow has once again proved that he does not understand Wikipedia policies and quite able and willing to game them for his ends. This is a encyclopaedia first and foremost. Anwar 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(LOL) it is infinitely amusing how the "defenders of Baka" were absent for almost 2 days; the issue was resolved by un-involved admins; and then comes the joint tirade attacking me, DaGizza and un-blocked 2 trolls with a known track record and undeniable evidence. Excuse? Some alleged offense I supposedly committed went un-punished. Above all - arbitrator Blnguyen directly involved himself by attacking me and un-blocking the 2 trolls without any respect for the admins who had taken the decision. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satyam Vada. I had discussed my edits on TMMK, on Talk:Idolatry#Hinduism, and that I started the discussion on Talk:Hinduism#Idolatry. You set yourself up to be attacked by acting like a puissant super-admin, a person misusing knowledge and power, a Ravana if you will.Bakaman 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What Rama did was notify it on ANI. The blocks was endorsed by three uninvolved admins. The most I guess you could say was that Rama was twisting the facts, but admins of high integrity should be able to see through the fact-twisting if there was any. I'm suprised that User:Circeus, the admin who blocked them, hasn't even been told of their unblockings, nor have the other involved admins that participated in the earlier part of this discussion. Gizza^{Chat ©} 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins of high integrity are of course needed to make up for the integrity Rama and DaGizza lack. I'm surprised that Gizza justifies a block made by ignoring the discussions present. However, I suppose that being a yes-man for Rama's Arrow entails this sort of blatant sycophancy. And yes, I will not

turn the other cheek when insults come my way.Bakaman

16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not discussed anything - especially on TMMK. Plus, you ignored

WP:CIV. Your "monkey see, monkey do" is not a recognized policy here. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)

17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source on the page. Here's the quote,

“

Several Islamist fundamentalist organisations in India are allegedly controlled by former SIMI cadres. Prominent among them are the Kerala-based National Democratic Front and Islamic Youth Centre (IYC), and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) in Tamil Nadu.

”

Thank you for again displaying hilarious obstinacy and blatant ignorance. Rama is again displaying his hypocrisy by telling me to abide by

22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What else can you expect from this shameless troll on Arbcom who is cosying up to his payers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.215.3.44 (talk • contribs).

If I'm understanding what went on correctly, Blnguyen unilaterally overturned blocks that had the support of two impartial admins (three if you count Dmcdevit), without discussion with the blocking admin, and in spite of the fact that he seems to have some prior involvement with at least one of the blocked editors. This doesn't seem like the ideal way to do things. In any case I think the 1-week blocks were perfectly justifiable: both editors have been chronically edit warring, were already warned not to do so by Dmcdeit, and kept on doing it anyway. In addition, both editors were uncivil to each other and to other editors (some examples can be found in this very thread). This kind of behavior isn't conducive to building an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it's Routesteep (

13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just asked him to avoid writing lies about me. Is writing false statements a good thing here? The fact thath he calls me "troll" and "vandal" means he is showing no good faith.--Routesteep 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you filed a checkuser? -N 13:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, this fellow is boring. Yes, get a checkuser to find and block the IP, anything to end this silliness. Moreschi ^Talk 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. *sigh* Here's another one: SouthernStock (

96

14:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Working on the IP block. Moreschi ^Talk 14:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you simply answer my questions? You said I was banned for "POV pushing and incivility", but there is no reference to such allegation in my banning. Are you extempted by writing the truth?--Poetry is legal 14:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you're blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Repression wins over truth, right?--Drama of range 14:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, what do you expect? Yes, you're blocked as well. Moreschi ^Talk 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, this is your Wikipedia. Mine had good faith an trusted truth.--GrarTrees 14:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and a whopping amount of revert-warring, 3RR blocks, and incivility. Moreschi ^Talk 14:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

ACB, anyone? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"ACB", what is it?--GrarTrees 14:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Account creation blocked. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Somebody's persistent. Marskell 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent, but at least they're polite enough to announce their sockpuppetry. Natalie 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=138800335 Is this good faith vandalism to my talk page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=prev&oldid=124685002 Cool Cosmos sent me the welcome message.

The real question. Is there such a thing as good faith vandalism? Any thoughts. I have a right to remove old discussions from my talk page or what I feel is harrassment or what I believe is vandalism. My talk page should not be turned into a battleground. Other editors should not undo my edits or change the name of who welcomed me on my talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you talked to Fyslee about this? Metros 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

He has not responded to my e-mail. Nevertheless, I want my talk page properly restored to the correct name of Cool Cosmos. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm back. I see the problem. Sorry about that. It was an honest mistake and an AGF would not call it vandalism. My apologies. --

talk

19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• The applicable guideline can be found at
  WP:TALK
  . Everything removed from User:talk is archived in the page history.

• As far as the first diff, it would at first glance appear that you have signed a post as [[User:Cool Cosmos|Cool Cosmos]] here and that the other editor corrected it here. More investigation is required.

• As I read more, and review the page history in depth, I realize that you did not post the original welcome message and was only restoring it to the original poster, which is why I had originally assumed good faith, while I investigated it. Seems like a misunderstanding to me. I have none the less restored your user page to its original welcome message according to your wishes, and the fact the Cool Cat had originally posted this message. I'll also direct
  User:Fyslee to this discussion. Navou
  19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my mistaken edit. I misunderstood things, all the deleting of warnings and such. I made a false assumption. Good to see it's fixed and that the current comments and warnings on the talk page have not been removed. Collaboration here is based on openness and communication and talk pages are there for a purpose. I would gladly have fixed it myself if I had gotten a message on my talk page, which I would have noticed before getting an email. Sometimes an email gets me first, sometimes my talk page....;-) --

talk

19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the so-called warnings on my talk page (not by one but two editors jumping all over me). As per guidelines, I will remove the warnings and take a deep breath (and possibly a wikibreak too). The wikidrama is getting tiresome. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you would be permitted to remove the warnings. Removals are taken as you have read them. Navou 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Reading" and "heeding" are two different things. Regardless of the current (it has been different in the past) guideline, your current pattern of editing and dealing with criticism will cause involved editors to see your deletions as devious attempts to avoid discussion and bad faith attempts to ignore warnings and to hide them from others. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors is forbidden here (that's another guideline), and refusal to discuss problems violates our obligation to edit collaboratively. Ownership of articles is not allowed, hence cooperation is a must. --

talk

20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no authority to enforce Mr.Gurü carrying a

scarlet letter just because it makes your life easier. The page history exists as a record of actions; if you feel a stronger record needs to exist, make sure your edit summaries reference the behavior in question. Persisting in the replacement of warnings on a user's talk page is incivil at best and disruptive at worst. -- nae'blis

20:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. This user needs all the allies he can get, and he isn't making life easier for himself by being uncooperative with his own allies, of which I have been one. Not very smart, but that's his problem now. He's already been (and currently is) the subject of several RFCs and this is going to end badly for him, which I'd like to prevent. I have never seen a user start so many articles and lists that have been successfully AFDed (I'm sure there are others, but this is the user I'm familiar with), and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. --

talk

20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. --

^discuss

23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee went against policy with his warning (because editors are permitted to delete warnings)

[100] [101] He undid my edit on my talk page and gave me a warning: You will be reported if you continue. Actually, I allowed to remove warnings from my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: Not very smart, but that's his problem now. I did not do anything for you to call me not very smart. No, it is not my problem now. I have no idea what you are talking about. It is your responsibility to comply with policy and stop breaking policy with strange warnings against policy on my talk page. The comment by Fyslee: If a try doesn't work, then I abandon the user and leave them to their fate, one ally less. ...and he's been trying the patience of the community for a long time. After Fyslee broke policy he is now saying he will leave me to my own fate. No, I have not tried the patience of the community for a long time. Fyslee, please try to remain civil. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This complaint involves old actions, not new ones. I immediately stopped interactions with QuackGuru when I was informed of the new way of doing things (as I have mentioned below). --

talk

19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he did not break policy, he went against a guideline, which is entirely different. He still shouldn't have readded the warning, though. — Moe ε 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

.... and I didn't re-add anything after the explanations above. At the time I wasn't aware that things had been changed. There was a time when deletions of warnings on personal talk pages was strongly frowned upon and such deletions could call down the wrath of multiple admins. Apparently things have changed and non-cooperative editors can whitewash their talk pages, hiding the evidence of their run-ins with other editors. I'm not getting involved in this matter anymore. --

talk

19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by Ned Scott

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=138908108&oldid=138829593 This editor reverted my edits on my talk page. Also read the edit summary. Very disruptive. This is blockworthy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not blockworthy QuackGuru. But it is your talk page, so I have reverted to your last revision. Removal of warnings is acceptable, and an indication that the editor has read it. It's when the editor is still engaging in the activity that is when they need the warning. Plus, it's always going to be in the history that you were warned. — Moe ε 07:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Ned Scott wasn't aware of this discussion and was reacting the way many editors would, by following earlier procedure. Even though removal of warnings is possibly an indication that the editor has read them, it is just as likely (when it's a contentious editor who is the subject of multiple RFCs) that they have read them but may not heed them. There is a difference, and whitewashing the talk page to make it look like they have been behaving themselves can be a part of the contentious behavior. It's all in the eyes of the beholder, and editors who are involved in the editing of that person will look at matters differently than outside persons who don't know the context and get involved here at the noticeboard. They may still be right and I'm abiding by the advice I have received here.

I hope that those here who advise QuackGuru will also advise him to archive things instead of deleting them. What he has a right to do, and what is wise to do, are two different things. --

talk

19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat

This article has been arbitrarily full-protected, cleared, and redirected by

original research and "crap." However, the article had numerous reliable sources to back up the information and notability of the article - and I believe the admin's actions were unjustified. Ali ^(t)_(c)

22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the sources to the article were Wired blogs and the like. I agree that the lolcat phenomenon would be better covered under Image macro SirFozzie 22:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there were also references to the Houston Chronicle, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Austin American-Statesman. What's more, the article had survived an AfD already. I suppose DRV is the correct place to handle this? JavaTenor 22:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this has been somewhat corrected already by Viridae (see below), but since I already typed this out: Sources from the reference section include

New York Times, and two links to Wired blog. The AFD discussion (with overwhelming number of 'keeps' btw) is here. Comments by JzG on talk page prior to using admin tools = 0. Seems like if this article is to be deleted and redirected, it should be deleted after at least a discussion and probably another AFD. Why does this need to go to DRV? This deletion and redirect should be reverted, it goes against the consensus result of the AFD on April 23, 2007. R. Baley

23:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect and protection. Protection policy explicitly forbids the use of protection to support your actions in an editing dispute. Guy is well within his rights to redirect it (and merge if he wants) but stopping anyone reversing his decision is a misuse of his admin tools. Viridae^Talk 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse, more like abuse. --MichaelLinnear 23:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But when one acts consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living felines the rules simply don't apply... Joe 02:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perish the thought that we should redirect a festering heap of shit to an actual encyclopaedia article. The thing that has been studiously ignored throughout is that the cited content exists at the merge target,
  single purpose account with no edit summary. I diagnose process wonkery but I am in a bad mood so who cares what I think. Guy (Help!
  ) 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And once again you are abusing your admin tools to enforce your opinion? Must be nice to be able to lock other editors out when you don't like that consensus is running against you. Resolute 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's not so much the redirection to which I am opposed but (a) the manner in which it was performed and (b) the incivility and rudeness with which JzG has interacted with fellow editors in this discussion. Neither the use of admin tools to prevent other editors from undoing an editorial decision nor the hostility that followed when that action was challenged are becoming of an admin. --ElKevbo 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect all you like, but the use of protection to force your argument is extremely bad form. If your definition of process wonkery includes abusing your admin privelages in such a manner, then you had better hand back your bit now. I would be very interested to see if you could pass a recall given your recent spate of misuse of your tools. Viridae^Talk 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The topic needs covering but I agree that image macro would be a better place. However, Guy's actions and comments are simply not appropriate. "Be bold" does not allow you to totally go against an overwhelming AfD result which was keep and not merge, and then to protect it - that's bad. violet/riga (t) 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, the action needed doing, doing things boldly is fine -- but Guy shouldn't be doing the action? Sounds like you skip a logical step along the way. --Calton | Talk 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing things boldly is fine, and undoubtably Guy believes he is acting in the better interest of the project. However, attempts to redirect it have been reverted by three or four different editors now, indicating that there is no consensus to merge/redirect at this point. Rather than dicuss the issue to reach consensus, Guy simply protected the article at the state he preferred. Resolute 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy is quite welcome to attempt the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. He is not welcome to enforce the Bold part by protecting it - the use of protection to enforce editorial decisions is specifically forbidden by the protection policy and well Guy knows it. Viridae^Talk 14:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Controversial content changes should not be done without discussion first; this is no exception. I don't care how bad the content is, as long as it doesn't violate
  BLP or a similarly strict policy, discussion and debate is more important than speed of action. And using admin tools in a content dispute is very, very bad form. —Dark•Shikari^[T]
  14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bold, revert, discuss is fine, but if you get reverted, is shows a lack of respect to other editors to go on redirecting, especially when the page has previously survived an AfD. Whatever JzG's problems with the page, since there is clearly not consensus at present to merge. He should discuss it before redirecting again. —dgies^t_c 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)