Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321

Can someone skim a second pair of eyes over this AfD, which (aside from degenerating into a farce of sockpuppetry) is starting to fill up with bizarre BLP violations and vague allegations of interference by the Cabal, all by the (almost)-SPA Farstriker (talk · contribs)? As I've already posted a fair amount to this AfD - and apparently am now part of the Cabal myself - it would probably be less likely to end in a reversion/block cycle if someone who hasn't commented did any necessary snipping.

Also, if I am now a member of the Cabal, I'd like to lodge my extreme displeasure that neither the groupies nor the secret Wikimedia gold bullion have turned up yet. —

01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored the really egregious part and left a friendly message. Your

cabal certificate and pin are in the mail, along with the key card to access the gold bullion stored at your local branch of the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, the groupies have been diverted for an important strategy session at the Pentagon and will not be available for several days. --Haemo

01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... (The annoying thing about that AFD is that all the

iridescent

01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that cabal membership entitles you to access to the

The Truth™. I see your block log qualifies you here. Guy (Help!

) 09:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Discussion I do note that a fair portion content was removed prior to the the edit by Farstriker @ 1900 on the 2/11 it was this diff by Farstriker at 0100 on the 2/11.but was restored two minutes later here and his comment was removed in the reversal process in error. Gnangarra 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

03:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TallMagic that posting the city location is highly improper, as it is clear from other contributions by this IP under what user name this IP used to edit. --Paul Pieniezny 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I've deleted it five times and Rkowalke has added it in six times. He says that I am badgering him and I must produce Wikipedia policy showing that it is inappropriate or this will go on forever. Is there some explicit guideline wording that I can reference? Thanks, TallMagic 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be

WP:PRIVACY, in particular the last sentence. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk

17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both SheffieldSteel and Paul, you both help make Wikipedia a friendly and professional place. Regards, TallMagic 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, it is considered a violation of

WP:NPA policy. The user is singling out an individual(s) and posting personal information which has been proven to be a big no no by the arb committee. --Anon user FNA I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.204.13 (talk

) 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke has responded. While the response was refreshingly delightful because it was civil, I don't consider it positive, otherwise. [10] TallMagic 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to put an end to the problem by deleting the entire 6-kB series of comments (about the IP user's location and whether or not it was OK to post this information) from Talk:Warren National University, on the premise that the comments were not about editing the article. In the edit that TallMagic highlighted in the comment above this one, Rkowalke (this is the same Rkowalke who deletes the welcome messages, warnings, and other comments posted on his User talk page, leaving edit summaries like "Stay off my page Orlady - you're harrassing me and I don't like it") restored the entire block of deleted material with a note saying "Suggest archival - not removal". I find that it is getting increasingly difficult to abide by the admonition WP:NOFEEDING. --Orlady 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I ask that someone look over the contributions for User:AS 001, who does not seem to be here for the purpooses of building the encyclopedia. All of the edits from this account have been either criticizing admins or opposing the nominations for adminbots. Community input requested. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by this diff, I think Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) may be the person to ask. Viridae^Talk 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), right? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah, I screwed that up twice. Viridae^Talk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And based on this diff, he would appear to be a sock of banned user Bill Ayer (talk · contribs). He was also created 47 minutes after Bill's indef block. Someguy1221 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I wondered why there was a banned and sock template. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bill Ayer claimed to be airline CEO Bill Ayer, and as I recall, was told he could create a new account as a privacy issue. However, he created two accounts AS 001 (talk · contribs) and AS 002 (talk · contribs). The first was to avoid a block the the Bill Ayer account, and the second to avoid a block on the AS 001 account. The contribs do make him look a bit sockish. - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reblocked AS 001 indefinitely as a disruptive single-purpose account. On reviewing Bill Ayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s contributions, he doesn't seem new, either. I do not see any reason to think this user is making a good-faith encyclopedia-building effort. Comments welcome. Picaroon (t) 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They're socks of banned user

02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just a bunch of admin who have nothing better to do. Where's the disruption, the reason for blocking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AS 003 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, User:AS 003 has appeared, been blocked and appealed his block. I've reviewed and declined the unblock request. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am being targeted with uncivil behaviour from Cyrus XIII.

I added templates to the

article, as I feel the article needs minor adjustments to meet the Wikipedia guidelines.

Cyrus XIII has continued to vandalise my posts, which were meant to improve the article. The

article has original research, misinterpreted citations, and is becoming a news release for the topic. The lead paragraph in-particular has a misinterpreted citation.

I requested the use of the talk page, and had to give a friendly warning to Cyrus XIII on his/her talk page, after they called my contribution "crap" and made ill-considered accusations.

I warned this user again, because they have since repeatedly made ill-considered accusations; by modifying my signature to make it seem like I am a different editor. I have asked Cyrus XIII to stop their uncivil behaviour, and directed them to various Wikipedia policies. This user has since vandalised the same article, and seems to want to cause an edit war.

I request that an admin please intervene, by imposing minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary, and to investigate my claims to improve the

04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, 122.49.135.245. From

04:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A quick review of the article in question and the edit patterns of the involved parties shows that this anonymous editor is most likely an IP

sock of Jun kaneko (talk · contribs · logs · block log). --Kralizec! (talk

) 04:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

William Pietri, occasionally when I visit the Wikipedia, there will be a new message waiting. Mostly it is about a dispute I have no knowledge about, and in rare cases, I am even blocked from editing. In fact, I remember the first time I went to edit an article, my IP was blocked. That was early last year. Cyrus XIII was politely informed about making ill-considered accusations, as I don't appreciate being called a fraud, nor do I like my contributions being disregarded as "crap"

I also don't appreciate your post Kralizec, as you're making assumptions and assuming bad faith. 122.49.135.245 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

None of my contributions were disruptive, and I tried to improve the article to meet the Wikipedia guidelines, and for people visiting the article. 122.49.135.245 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So just to be sure, you are not Jun kaneko? If you are not, then you should go create an account, so that you are not mistaken for other people. Once you've done that, go to the talk page of the article in question and start fresh by politely suggesting one modest change. Once your fellow editors have reached consensus, then feel free to make the change. I'm sure it's upsetting to be mistaken for someone else, but Cyrus XIII has clearly had to deal with someone who has been very disruptive, so you should treat his very reasonable misunderstanding with sympathy, not with requests for punishment. Thanks, William Pietri 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually did not request for punishment, I requested that an admin look into my claims about the article, and carry out a "minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary"

The section "2007: The Marrow of a Bone" is becoming like a new release section.

The section "Style and subject matter" contains much original research.

The lead paragraph also contains original research, as well as sentences that are Unencyclopedic, as well as misinterpreted citations.

After recent disruptions, I feel the aid of an admin is the only way to correct the article if needed.

Mostly I only view the Wikipedia, I rarely edit articles. Mostly only to make it more encyclopedic, but I guess creating an account is a solid idea. 122.49.135.245 05:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence strongly suports that this is

Dir en gray and Visual kei

today along with his typical harrassing warnings on my page and Cyrus' page today, show his identity.

In addition to the IP listed above, he edited today using: 122.49.156.30 (talk · contribs). This can be seen in the Visual kei revision history for today, here and here.

He also posted today on my talk page, accusing me of Wikistalking for reverting his changes, and he also placed warnings on Cyrus' talk page. These are actions he has done in the past, such as a month ago when he posted approximately 15 messages on my talk page from two of the IPs listed below, after I requested semi-protection of the page he was IP-vandalizing.

With at least two of the other IP's he's used, he signed his user name Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), in IP edits: here and here.

He has edited using these IPs in addition to the two listed above:

• 122.49.157.149 (talk · contribs)
• 172.203.23.174 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.173.58 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.137.70 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.158.81 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.253.69 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.249.86 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.167.206 (talk · contribs)
• 219.90.229.216 (talk · contribs)

Also please note:

• prior 3RR report resulting in blocks for user and IP

• prior block-evasion report an AN/I

• prior request for semi-protection due to IP edit warring

I hope that provides enough information. I understand the need to assume that an IP user from a dynamic IP range may not be the same as another person who has used that IP. But in this case, it would be a huge coincidence and very unlikely, that an unrelated user would immediately take up the same patterns of harassment and edit warring previously shown by another editor known to use the same IP range. This user has caused a lot of hassles for several articles and at least three editors, over a period of months. --Parsifal _Hello 05:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the type of harassment I am committing? My warnings were fare considering your actions, and the refusal to use the talk page.

How trying to improve the article, to be encyclopedic, and remove original research; disruptive?

It seems you have an issue with someone else, and are reverting my posts to be vendictiv, and/or protecting information on the page for personal reasons. 122.49.135.245 06:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain, if you have previously been banned from Wikipedia (which is different from blocking), then you can't edit at all, regardless of how good your edits are. JuJube 06:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I mostly just view articles. If there is something wrong with it, I try to fix it. (such as removing original research)

I have never even been blocked, and I'm quite disappointed in regards to how this simple matter is being handled. After reading the Dir en grey article, there were problems with it. That article linked me to the Visual Kei. Reading that article I found it became very repetitive, so I placed a template up informing people about that.

Parsifal removed the templates from the Dir en grey article, citing "vandalism" and then removed the templates from Visual Kei article, citing "vandalism"

How is that vandalism? read the Visual Kei article, it repeats itself, and the problems in the Dir en grey are evident. It seems these users have other motives for their edits. 122.49.135.245 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to read the

06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am not going to argue with this user. He filed his report here about Cyrus, not about me. He didn't even mention my name in his report. After I provided evidence to help administrators here decide how to handle the situation, now he's complaining about me - what a surprise. And for someone who claims not to edit Wikipedia much, he knows a lot of abbreviations and policy terms, and how to find this noticeboard. I didn't even use the word "vandalism" in my edit summaries, I used the abbreviation: "RVV (IP - SPA))", because I recognized his behavior from the prior incidents. As far as I can see in the revision history, Cyrus also didn't use the word "vandalism" either. So, how did this inexperienced IP user know the meaning of RVV?

Suggestion. It seems to me, semi-protection of

08:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments are directed at the admin's for assistance in cleaning up these articles, because it was obvious that it was the only way to get the situation solved.

I was hardly "complaining" about you, and to be frank, your contributions appear to have a different purpose. A question, how exactly am I inexperienced? Saguy1982 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you were not complaining about me. Now that you have an account, I will view your actions from here on with an open mind. I would be pleased to discover that you are not the same person we've been discussing, who caused so many problems. (Even if you are the same person, if you have now decided to change your ways and start over with an approach respectful of other editors, and without edit warring, that would be OK too, however unlikely that may be.)

Regarding my comment referring to you as an "inexperienced IP user", that was not intended as an insult and was based only on your statement above that you mostly view articles and don't edit them.

I'm willing to start with a clean slate with regard to your new user name and interact with you based on your current actions. Over time, if the old patterns re-emerge, that will be apparent.

Regarding the edits to the articles, I will not be much involved with those. Cyrus is knowledgeable on those topics and has been working on those articles along with a few others. My purpose there has been to help stop edit-warring and to vet references, at the request of some of the article editors who were seeking an uninvolved third party. I will still watch the articles for edit-warring, but I will mostly leave the content discussions to you and the others who are better informed on those topics. --Parsifal _Hello 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(PS. When you respond to comments on talk pages, please use colons : to indent your replies, so we can see the threading of the conversation, as I have done with my reply to you above). --Parsifal _Hello 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. Ok, so now I've reviewed some of your edits, and while this will progress to a content dispute not specifically related to the AN/I report, I am entering this here "for the record". You need to review the Wikipedia policies

WP:Original research. In this diff of your edit to Dir en gray

, you used this edit summary:

(Minor article fixes. Original research and nencyclopedic content removed. Two sections still need work. Note on talk page)

However, your edit removed three completely solid reliable sources that support the content of the text you removed. For example you removed this text from the section about their tour success: "'' Again, all shows sold out within days.", and you removed the Wired magazine news article footnote that clearly stated in detail how fast the shows sold out.

You removed this phrase from the intro of the article:

"As of 2007, they have released six full-length records."

Then, on the talk page you described that as "Unencyclopedic. That statement was directly supported by two reliable source references that you also removed, which is inappropriate. And what exactly is unencyclopedic about stating how many albums they've released?

To say the least, this is not a good start for your new account. You've removed reliable references that directly support content of the article text and then changed the text to remove the information supported by the references.

Your various other talk page complaints about the article are too complex for me to go into here. A few of your edits seem like they may be OK. But the removal of valid, reliable source references and the text they support, is a bad start, so please don't continue down that path.

If you think the references do not support what the text shows, then quote the reference on the talk page and show the editors there how you see the reference being misinterpreted. I've read those references myself and they seem correct. There is no reason to remove them. If you want to debate about that, do so on the talk page; but please do not remove sources without discussion.

I suggest you read and follow

Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. --Parsifal _Hello

22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Parsifal has helped improved the article, and that this situation is pretty much resolved. As discussions are taking place on the articles talk page, which were refused before, apart from Cyrus XIII's rather abruptly rude comment. As I don't have much knowledge on the subject, I think its best for those that do, fix the issues remaining, either by reworking or providing references. Saguy1982 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

administrator attention needed, please

[posting this sub-section here, because it follows on to the comments just above - the next subsection below was posted prior to this subsection --Parsifal _Hello 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ]

Administrators, I know you are overloaded on this page, and this is a complicated report, but this needs your attention. As of now, I am disengaging, other than adding this sub-section to request that someone please review this situation.

The new account Saguy1982 (talk · contribs), has already shown the same disruptive edit-warring and uncivil user-attacking as Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), per the discussion in this report.

• The comment from Saguy1982 immediately above is not what he first wrote. He changed that comment after reading my comments on the talk page, and rethinking the fact that he had shown his true identity by impulsive actions I will explain here.

• His comment above is also simply false. The situation is not resolved. I do not believe he considers that I improved the article. He removed the sources I restored at least twice and has argued about it on the talk page.

• I went out of my way to show good faith when Saguy1982 created his new account. But his first edits were to remove solid reliable sources, that I had personally vetted by reading them. I reported that here, and then I did NOT revert all his changes, I only restored the references he had removed with related text I had personally confirmed was supported by the references. I added a note on the talk page, explaining my actions.

• His response was to post a vandalism warning on my talk page.

• This is exactly the same behavior as Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) has always done.

• He also replied on this page (above) and called my good-faith edit vandalism. He used an IP to post that note, and to place the vandalism warning on my page while logged out. Then he logged in and added his signature to the vandalism warning. Then after he saw my report here, he changed his mind and erased the vandalism warning from my page.

• He then continued his edit war and deleted the same reliable reference from the article a third time. How reliable is that reference? It's a report specifically about the topic, from the association that produces the Grammy awards!

Now, this new account has shown his true colors, he has shown that he is the same user that's been edit warring on this article all along. I really tried to accept his new approach with good faith, but we see the result. I don't listen to this band or this kind of music, and generally, I don't edit this kind of music article. I'm there because I was invited months ago, to help stop the edit-warring with consensus from an outside editor.

Saguy1982 has shown himself as a sockpuppet of Jun kaneko, based on showing identical edit-warring and uncivil user-warning, within his first few edits. It's very unlikely that's not the case, because he knew in advance what the problems were with Jun kaneko, from this report that goes into all of it in detail, yet he couldn't stop himself from doing the same behaviors again, multiple times.

What should be done? What's the usual response to this list of offenses: Extended-multiple-instances of IP- and user-account sockpuppetry, edit-warring, harrassment, and vandalism... ?

In addition to any actions on those accounts,

should be semi-protected for one month as a cool-down period. Other articles may become targets after that, if they do, the same solution should be applied.

As I said in my initial comment here, he is learning to

has replied to my post on the article talk page, pretending politeness (right after posting a vandalism warning on my talk page), he has not addressed the actual concerns and he has specifically avoided my invitations to form consensus or to provide examples of the way in which the sources he removed don't fit. He's dodging the issues and trying to make up for his lapse in posting that vandalism notice and comment.

I can't continue working on this without backup. If there is no admin who is willing to look into this and either take action now, or issue some unambiguous warnings to this user (and follow up later to make sure they are abided), there's nothing more I can do, and I will withdraw from editing the articles or trying to save them from damage.

I should withdraw anyway, because he's harrassed me in the past and I don't want anything further to do with him.

So I guess at this point what I'm saying is - either someone monitoring this board will take this up as a project, or, this disruptive user will continue to disrupt. If an admin here does take up this project and has any questions, I'm happy to help if I can.

Thank you. --Parsifal _Hello 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

repeated request for a reply from an administator

Hello - would someone please reply?

If this report is too complicated, or if it's in the wrong place, please at least offer me the simple courtesy of an explanation.

I'm a long-time productive good-faith editor, and so is Cyrus, who also provided information in this report. I don't go to the trouble of providing detailed evidence without good reason.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I formatted my request in a way that is not helpful for you. Ok, fine, so tell me what the problem is.

But complete silence, on a report where two established editors have alerted you to disruption by a known mutliple-blocked edit-warring vandal, and a likely IP sockpuppet...

what's up with that?

Would you rather that we simply ignore the disruption and move on to other articles?

I did not do this work to benefit myself, I'm trying to help Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia not want my help? Or is this noticeboard too overloaded and the system in need of some new procedures?

At this point, all I'm asking for is for someone to acknowledge this report, please.

--Parsifal _Hello 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

continued... comment/evidence added prior to above thread

I should probably comment here as well: First of all, I have to agree with Kralizec! and Parsifal, that the editing patterns and IP ranges (122.49.*.*/219.90.*.*) match way too closely, to leave any genuine scope for a "wrong guy" scenario. That being said, it is true that I have dismissed the latest edits by

as "crap", owing to the fact, that when it comes to this character, my ability to assume good faith has long since fallen through.

It has been about three months now, since this alleged 40-year-old with "almost 20 years experience within the Japanese music scene" started to edit war his way through several articles (the ones I am aware of being

). His conduct is characterized by a general disregard of consensus, a highly rude and dismissive attitude of anyone who disagrees with his opinions and a penchant for making threats of "reporting" someone or wrongfully claiming to have done so (and by now, as we can all see here, actually doing it). He has violated the 3RR at least six times and was subsequently blocked on several occasions, included aforementioned case of block evasion, were he acknowledged his identity while operating under an IP.

Below, you will find a more extensive IP list, that was compiled by browsing through the histories of several of the aforementioned articles and some related talk pages. It is divided into IPs used before the Jun kaneko account was registered, as well as those used after it was abandoned and contains additional links to illustrate the events I have outlined in the previous paragraph.

It might not be elegant to state the following in a venue where my own conduct was called into question in the first place, but as Parsifal pointed out, Jun kaneko already knows a great deal about our ways, policies and procedures and still shows virtually no inclination to contribute to this project in a respectful and collaborative fashion. Hence I'm going to be as straightforward here as I can and suggest to block the guy for good, before he gets too proficient at gaming the system and evolves from a blunt, edit warring nuisance into a seasoned, opinion-pushing WikiLawyer.

Before 122.49.166.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 219.90.146.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.165.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 219.90.181.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [11] 122.49.167.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 219.90.167.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.172.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [12] 219.90.228.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 219.90.223.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [13] [14] [15] 219.90.223.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [16] 219.90.148.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [17] [18] 122.49.159.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [19] 219.90.146.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [20] [21] Registered Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

After 122.49.163.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [27] [28] 219.90.158.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [29] [30] 219.90.229.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.161.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [31] 219.90.253.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 219.90.167.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.173.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.157.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [32] 219.90.164.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [33] 122.49.149.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 219.90.180.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [34] [35] 122.49.137.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.156.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 122.49.135.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [36]

- Cyrus XIII 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure one of the most used internet providers in South Australia has only a few users! Excuse my sarcasm.

You are ignoring the issue, this report was about cleaning up the articles. None of my contributions were disruptive, and unlike yourself, I have been civil in my discussions.

Your accusations are mind blowing, ignoring the fact that you persist that I am someone else (who appears to still have the right to edit) You seem to be excluding other people from editing, by mentioning the Wikipedia policies as "our ways". The Wikipedia is an open community for everyone. Saguy1982 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fix the article myself, placing reasons in the talk page for each edit. I request an admin have a look, and comment on the changes. Saguy1982 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to User:Jun kaneko and User:Saguy1982, there may be a simple solution to this - request checkuser. Having dealt with a similar case myself I understand that some editors reading this will be baffled by the sheer volume of work that has to be done to show edit patterns across multiple IPs and registered accounts that may belong to one user. In this case go to checkuser and look for a code B or code F - ban/block evasion. And use diffs to illustrate any edit pattern that is found--Cailil ^talk 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

new WP:AN report filed by the same disruptive user

The highly disruptive user who started this report has been continuing to cause trouble, edit-war repeatedly, and post personal attacks. Now, he has filed a new report:

on WP:AN here.

I'm linking that here for reference. --Parsifal _Hello 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS... the report from WP:AN has now been moved to this WP:AN/I page, here. --Parsifal _Hello 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

After a dispute regarding

05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see that as uncivil at all, let alone "highly uncivil". At first glance, she's correct about the MOS issues; if you disagree you should discuss it with her either on the article talk page (which you haven't touched yet) or on your talk page (where she came to sort things out). As to the rest, turning up on one page does not a stalking make, and IMHO, it's a weak start to a claim of sockpuppeting. Note also that right at the top of the page it says that "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department". As it says in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." You should try that first, and then proceed to

dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Thanks, William Pietri

06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Virtually none of what you just said is correct. I did post on the talkpage. I already dealt with the MoS issue. She did not come to my talkpage to "sort things out." Nowhere in the above post do I accuse her of sockpuppeting. Did you not read what I posted? I also already posted on her talkpage, contrary to your statement. Thanks for your... input but I'd like another

Perspicacite

06:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take those in order. You posted on the talk page of Tokelau only after making this complaint, and after my comment above. I'm glad you've dealt with the MoS issue; that suggests we are in agreement: the main thrust of her comment on your talk page was correct. From her behavior, I believe she did contact you on your talk page with the intention of resolving the dispute, but only she can really know that. Earlier on this page, you suggest an RFCU may be in order, which seemed to imply a sock-puppet allegation. Your comment on her talk page was only ten minutes before posting this; I still had your contribution history open from the discussion earlier on this page. Sorry for the error. However, that comment was only to menace her with coming here, so it's hardly the discussion of the disputed edits I was suggesting. As to the other opinion, I'm sure you'll get it, as I'm off to bed. And you're welcome for my... input. Any time. William Pietri 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done except that once again, you're wrong. The MoS issue was taken care of before any of your posts on this issue. The RFCU was clearly directed at the other user, not her, and nowhere is an RFCU mentioned in this post. Again, thanks for the 'input'.

Perspicacite

07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax, Perspicacite. I never suggested that the MOS issue wasn't taken care of, and I'm glad you did the right thing. Next time, feel free to mention that right out rather than hoping people find it in your edits. I brought it up because you were asking for her to be told that she was wrong, when it seemed like the main thrust of her concern was in fact right. That would also make it a concern worth answering politely, and not deleting. To my eyes, the RFCU comment was directed at both of them, coming, as it did, directly after a threat to get the two of them blocked. Sorry if I got that wrong. That it was not in this post is immaterial; admins are supposed to look at the whole issue when getting involved in something.

That out of the way, I'll remind you again that the way to get editorial disputes resolved is through

dispute resolution. This is mainly a place to handle urgent issues requiring admin powers, not small issues of content and behavior. That road begins with civil discussion, something I'd encourage you to try more of. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then feel free to open an [[WP:RFC|RfC]. Hoping that helps, William Pietri

16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On a point of information: (I am very new to WP so please chastise me if this is out of order). Is it permissible for

Perspicacite

to type uncorrected untruths?

He typed: "After a dispute regarding Tokelau Alice.S has followed me onto several other pages, attempting to start edit wars with me."

As far as I know I have not edited any other article page whatever that

until he chose to draw attention to himself there by personalising things again).

Am I entitled to insist that these untruths are withdrawn?

I have no wish to start any war with anyone and my peace offer has already been rejected out of hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlice.S&diff=169113629&oldid=169105522

What exactly is a "RFCU"?

10:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. RFCU is a Request for Check User to see if one user might be a sockpuppet of another. --Kateshortforbob 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice.S's last statement is pretty much a blatant lie. She followed me to Frank Gaffney, here, and

Perspicacite

11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?!

1) I have never edited Frank Gaffney. If you wish to maintain otherwise, please provide the diff.

2) Are you really saying that I am unable to defend myself here? - it was you that rejected my peace offer. If I get e-mails from several users that you have also rubbed up the wrong way (by your

reverts) alerting me to this page, are you really saying that I should not draw editors' and administrators' attention to your habit of blanking questions/ comments/ your page rather than entering into constructive dialogue?

3) My contributions to Economy of Australia were after your untrue statements - not before - just check the timestamps.

4) Unless someone points me to some policy I am aware of, how does it constitute harassment of you to make the corrections I did at Economy of Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Australia&diff=169128603&oldid=169092129 ? (If it was indeed yourself that perpetrated these howlers then I see no need to apologise for correcting them. This is an encyclopedia). —Preceding

) 11:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful explanation,

Alice.S

11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This above post clearly merits a 24 hour block for incivility. A longer block for stalking is also merited based on her stalking me onto the Frank Gaffney page[41][42][43], WP:AN/I,[44][45].

Perspicacite

12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should probably be careful here, Perspicacite. It is YOU that is in the wrong here, not Alice. I would encourage you to file an RfC on this, and see how it goes. You'll see very quickly where you have gone wrong, and that Alice has violated no policies in her actions regarding you. K. Scott Bailey 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The worst thing I can see in Alice's contributions is performing a revert that changed some Commonwealth English spellings to American English on Tokelau. Hardly block-worthy stuff. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If I did do that I am very sorry for my sloppiness. (I thought I had actually changed US spellings to

).

I think the basic point I would stress here is one made by User:Jimbo Wales recently: "I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [46]

If I have indeed been guilty of incivility towards

(or anyone else) I most contritely apologise and genuinely promise to strive for higher standards in future.

Thank you everyone for your input.

PS: Will I be alerted automatically to where I can read my "RfC" ?

20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Following an extremely hostile and bitter AfD debate, an Earthlink user with one sockpuppet account has been engaging in a WP:POINT edit/revert war over articles I edit or create. I'm getting tired of having everything I work on being immediately attacked to "remove flowery language" or "cut unnecessary section", having <<citation needed>> stuck into the middle of perfectly well sourced paragraphs, and templates about fiction, original research, and NPOV stuck into every section. User will not negotiate with me, claims that vandalism from his addresses(es) are just "another user" on the same Earthlink IP every time, uses said addresses to avoid 3RR violations, and has shown zero good faith in his editing habits (so far I've been accused of being a "fanboy", illiterate, deliberately using "peacock" terms to upset the NPOV of an article I've created, and intentionally uploading copyvio content. These accusations are plainly garbage.

User edits primarily on the following IP addresses, and also has one registered sockpuppet account: GundamsRus (talk · contribs), which he claims is not actually his (and often attempts to defend his right to edit anonymously from it, ho ho).

• 207.69.137.42 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.7 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.10 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.29 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.27 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.28 (talk · contribs)
• 207.69.137.36 (talk · contribs) note: this account has now been blocked for one year due to vandalism
• 4.158.222.133 (talk · contribs)

Current edit war is ongoing on the article here. Since creating and publishing this page at 13:59 today, the user has made 10 unconstructive and questionable edits without any sort of prior discourse or discussion, then used one of his anonymous addresses to defend them and avoid 3RR violation from his sockpuppet account. This is more or less the gold standard this user participates in (he must be watching my contributions page like a hawk). The article was up for less than an hour before he got to work.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of having to babysit every article I create or work on. This user believes his edits are wholly correct, not open for negotiation, and that I am being disruptive by reverting him. As of now, this user has yet to actually contribute any content or material to any of the articles in question, and that's really starting to get to me. He won't discuss his edits, he fills my talk page with rubbish and accusations of every policy violation under the sun (including vandalism), and at the current rate of things, my edits reverting him are going to eclipse the constructive ones I've made (like actually editing or creating articles, for one...). Is there anything that can be done about this? MalikCarr 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a clash over content style that is threatening to go nuclear. I protected it for 24 hours in the hope that both parties will try to talk reasonably to each other. Review of my act welcomed, & if it appears both parties are beginning to play nice the protection can be shortened. -- llywrch 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I had to protect a bunch of related articles the other day; frankly I wish I could cash in my

rouge points and protect the lot of them indefinitely until the parties figure something out. east.718 at 22:38, 11/5/2007

There is an ongoing RFM here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam but it started before this explosion of a "fourth/fifth" (I'm officially listed as a party, though I have not edited the articles that the RFM lists) party. hbdragon88 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

beh-nam (

01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

reset to indef block, obviously not learned his lesson. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, did you even check the contributions? All but one of the offending links given above are from before the previous block. The only marginally problematic new edit is the one about User:Maria Tahoo ([67]). Is that enough for an indef? (Incidentally, he may actually be right about that accusation). Where he's certainly also right is in saying that this Khan1982 is a banned sock, edits like [68] are his signature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: Fut. Perf. blocked Khan1982 for being a sockpuppet shortly after posting the above. -- llywrch 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I looked at the contribs, but based on the Khan1982 info immediately above, I'm unblocking beh-nam. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check SqlSpec. I have noticed that advertisement for company, product etc is written in such a professional way that it looks like encyclopedia article. If this continue companies will hire wikipedians who has in depth experience of writing wikipedia article and advertise their products. As the article looks encyclopedia article and new page patroller, administrators has constant pressure due to volume of new articles created, such advertisements may go unnoticed. I request all admins to remain alert and not get fooled by professional wikipedians. Thanks. abhih 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will? It's already http://www.mywikibiz.com happened. If you happen to see another professional advert-like article in the future, please do as you've done and either open a case on

WP:COIN or alert an admin. Thanks! east.718 at 07:25, 11/5/2007

Another one Total Recorder. I just wonder how can new user write article in perfectly professional way in his first edit on wikipedia. I am really concerned about this. abhih 08:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting encyclopedic content on a competitor is also a common commercial tactic. Why this deletion but leaving 16 others that have articles, and several more that don't? I suggest that Total Recorder be restored if your only complaint is that it is written too well. Add a sourced encyclopedic problem with the product if NPOV is the issue. We don't delete because articles are not yet perfect. All of wikipedia is unfinished. WAS 4.250 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I got the meaning of your message on my talk page. We need to aply logic to understand what is advertisement. There are companies which are far far bigger than wikipedia. These companies, like my company, do not need wikipedia for publicity. My company will not even care about what is being written on wikipedia about my company. There are millions on internet to write about my comany and revert vandalism. Even small employee of my company will not interfare. But there are some small companies who want to be on first page of google results for publicity of their product. I am talking about such companies who want to use wikipedia for publicity. Same things apply to bio. Stephen Hawking will not attempt to write his own bio on wikipedia. But there are others who want to use wikipedia and google to be famous. I hope you got the meaning. abhih 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia used tags that kept articles from hitting the top on search results under certain circumstances. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft paid a person to edit wikipedia articles on its products. Deleting the competition to large companies' products is an unacceptable POV bias in wikipedia coverage. So long as there exists reliable published unbiased data on a product, we should have an article on it. There exists reliable published unbiased data on Total Recorder. WAS 4.250 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the article. There's nothing in the article which seems to be blatant puffery - in fact it's written in remarkably neutral terms. It does explain clearly what the product does, its shareware limitations and avoids marketingspeak. Improve it, don't delete it.

FCYTravis

21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

this would be a case for

21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User Dbromage, suspected sockpuppetry, voting fraud, COI and self awarding of Barnstar

Resolved

 – Discussion is at

GRBerry

23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed my concerns in both the Administrators and COI notice board as I believe there has been abuse and COI. User:Dbromage behavior warrants an investigation. If my allegations are judged to have basis, it goes a long way in explaining the editing warring, sock/meat puppetry, and general un-civility, which has occurred in Railpage article over the past year.

Having entered into a good faith discussion with a editor who admits a COI with the Railpage article (see 3-4th November 2007) [69], I've finally become sick and tired of this user Dbromage and his sock and meat puppets.

User:Dbromage I suspect is using multiple sock puppets Thin Arthur, The Null Device and possibly two other IP addresses (see end) to edit, vote and discuss changes to the Railpage article and many other articles (refer evidence) here at Wikipedia.

Reading the Railpage article the name Dbromage seems to match as the subjects founder - David Bromage .

I’m particularly disturbed that the user has awarded himself and an Administrator [70] a Barnstar using his Thin Arthur sockpuppet (a first on Wikipedia?). [71]

The user has also given false and misleading information to an Administrator User:Durova in order to conceal his identity. [72] [73]

This user has used the Thin Arthur and Null Device sock puppets and has not disclosed his conflict of interest when discussing Railpage article content. [74] [75] [76]

User:Dbromage would have a difficult case against ignorance of COI guidelines as he has advised others on the issue using the Thin Arthur sock puppet. [77]

And I consider the be the more serious, voting against its deletion and making comments against the articles deletion. Afd #2, Afd #3, #4.

The user has also attempted to take action against myself when there is disputed content on numerous occasions without disclosing his/her conflict of interest in the Railpage article. [78][79] [80]

I also suspect that the user is also responsible for meat puppetry using names such as FailpageMustGo, “DFC free Oz” and “Fundie Busters” using throw away IP addresses in a deliberate attempt to stymie debate and discredit any further nominations for the article’s deletion. Look at the timing of the nomination of Afd #4, user:The Null Device and 59.167.77.190.

If these allegations are proven, how will it affect the status of the Railpage Article? as Dbromage through his sock puppets have heavily edited the article. See 23rd July 2007 [81]

Evidence to support my allegations

Please look at this; [82] I consider Thin Arthur and 150.203.56.19 to be the same. IP 150.203.56.19 seems to be an in adverted error of not logging into Wikipedia by user:Dbromage.

If you agree then, please consider this Revision history of Deborah Lawrie

The article was created by Dbromage and then was amazingly edited on the same day by 150.203.56.19. It would be shear stroke of luck that another user with as much knowledge on a remote subject would stumble over it within a matter of hours, and providing finishing references to Dbromage edits. True, there is a two-hour break between edits. It looks as though the same editor is at work.

Please refer to the following link where one user corrects the other. Again, it looks as though the same editor is at work [83]

If your are still unsure, there is more evidence linking 150.203.56.19 to User:Thin Arthur. These are just a few, there are some more in no particular order which I’ve put on my talk page. If you fancy yourself as a Wikisleuth, you can start here [84]

Edits made within minutes

• Afd Political Change

• Wikiquette alerts

Evidence linking Thin Arthur, 150.203.56.19 to Dbromage

• 20 min gap List_of_notable_rail_transport_modellers - Thin Arthur was rather fortunate having those references on hand!!
• Bilevel_car
• 10 min gap Fred_Smith

Some other examples

• The_Omar_Khayyam_Show
• Son_of_Fred

Thin Arthur supporting Dbromage’s vote in an Afd - there are more on my talk page

• Victorian_general_election

Thin Arthur, edits Dbromage's contribution.

• WikiProject_Australia

Now look at user Thin Arthur’s edits with The Null device

• Scott_McGregor&action

Null Device and Dbromage

• Talk:Hush_%28song

It seems to me the same user editing in the same manner, circumstantial evidence, maybe, but based on the link between Dbromage and Thin Arthur it is surely enough to warrant a check user request against The Null Device.

Based on the above evidence I believe it would be worthwhile the following user names for check user.

• Dbromage
• Thin Arthur
• The Null Device
• 150.203.56.19

And based upon the edit made here [85] & [86], and user who admitted to having these IP addresses, but was reluctant to disclose his user name to Administrator [87]

• 59.167.77.190
• 59.167.89.251

Thank you.Tezza1 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not function very well with long involved investigations, in part because inactive topics are archived in about 24 hours, and also because it is so high-traffick. If you are convinced that there are sockpuppets, I would suggest posting at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets; if you think there are outstanding COI issues, try Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --Iamunknown 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done Tezza1 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked

14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From your description only and not doing any further research, you should immediately unblock CBOrangetrope. That user (according to your description) is editing constructively but is mischevous with his/her own talk page. By blocking, you are damaging the encyclopedia Wikipedia. The talk pages are just support of the encyclopedia, not the reference materials themselves. If you are bothered by the weird behavior, discuss it. As far as Shrinklefarm, you didn't say what is going on. I suggest immediate unblocking of the CBOrgange and discussion.

If CBOranges mainspace edits are good (that's a big IF), I suggest blocking of administrator auburnpilot for a short period because he/she is damaging WP unnecessarily as well as giving CBOrange a talk. Blocking is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not because you think someone's talk page is "weird" (auburnpilot's complaint) Miesbu 16:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no foundation for your suggestion that we should block an administrator because of disagreement with a block he imposed on somebody else. This would serve no useful purpose and we do not engage in such practice, particular when the administrator has voluntarily brought the matter here for review and comments. Newyorkbrad 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

talk · contribs) is a self declared sock and his/her comments thus far are a bit absurd. As stated above, I welcome input on these blocks. - auburnpilot talk

16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a wiki-lynching term to call someone "nigger". Yes, they may be black but you are not AGF and launching personal attacks on me. All my comments make sense. In the US South, a nigger is an excuse to lynch them and hang them. You seem very aggressive calling CBOrange names and calling me names. Stop this!Miesbu 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My favorite is his snarky comment complaining about John Reaves unblocking himself when he blocked himself accidentally. That's the sign of a good-faith contributor to the encyclopedia.  ;) (Oh, and I've reverted the trolling section title back to the original.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a bystander who happened to read this, but it seems to me rather disruptive for a non-admin's user page to state that s/he's an admin and be included in the "Wikipedia administrators" cat (as CBOrangetrope's copypasted page did before it was blanked). Whether that deserves a block, I don't know, but it appears to be more than being "mischevous with his/her own talk page." Deor 16:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a little thrown off by the trolled title - "Why in the world does AuburnPilot think he needs a block on himself?" Anyway, re: CBOrgatrope, could he have just copied bits of talkpages for notetaking or other reasons, and accidentally dumped them on his own talkpage rather than on a sandbox page? Also, why IS Miesbu using 2+ accounts? Should that be investigated?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking a few logs, it seems CBOrgange was created by I.1 (talk · contribs). [88] - auburnpilot talk 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering Miesbu's most recent post on my talk page accuses me of using the word "sock" in the same manner that the word "nigger" is used in the US South, I'm fighting the urge to issue another block. During an edit conflict, he/she has posted the same nonsense above. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What?! I've never heard that before, and I am from the South (North Carolina, born and raised). It's off the current topic, but you're right, AP - Miesbu DOES say that he has a "main" account, making User:Miesbu a sockpuppet, at least in my book.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming on so strong, but the real question is if CBOrange has constructive edits. If so, he/she needs to be part of a discussion that others are bothered by the talk pages, not immediate blockingMiesbu 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser appears to show quite a sock farm in use. I'll be issuing some blocks a bit later (don't have the time right now) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that trolling from one of the now-blocked socks touched off the recent BADSITES drama around

Robert Black (professor), I heartily approve the block. Thanks for taking the time. William Pietri

20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I've gone through and blocked a large number of them. This appears to be some long-standing troublemaker; I'm not familiar with their signature obsessions enough to be sure which one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor edit war has just erupted on

My opinion, Milomedes comments are boarder line PA, but this is par for the course for him during this entire discussion. He has frequently accessed others he disagrees with of bad faith in the past and this accusation is no different. Which is one of the reasons I quite participating in the discussion. --Farix (Talk) 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I could understand it being removed as off-topic, they need to take their petty bickering to their respective talk pages. -- John Reaves 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my single revert has provoked an edit war. If removing doesn't work then the best thing to do with that kind of comment is, I think, to ignore it. --Tony Sidaway 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found this post and want to state my side. In general, I posted a set of behavior comments which are certainly tough criticisms, but behavior criticisms are not personal attacks:

WP:NPA

:"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks..."

I did not invoke Tony's character. Indeed, on one occasion I have defended him and said I admired his efforts to improve how he personally interacts with other editors. (diff).

I accept Tony's apology. I read

WP:RPA

after I was personally attacked at WP:TalkSpoiler, and concluded that RPA is reserved for serious PAs such as libels. That's why I chose PA reminder-documentation, mentioned in the post Tony deleted, as an alternative to RPA which Tony stopped me from doing. How self-referentially ironic.

I respectfully disagree with John Reaves that Tony and I are bickering ("a petty quarrel"), because the behavior dispute issues are substantive to the debate itself. The claim of attempted debate suppression has repeatedly arisen in the historic May 2007 mass spoiler removal debate (now over 1,850,000 bytes), and others of the pro-spoiler side concur.

Farix wrote: "He has frequently accessed others he disagrees with of bad faith in the past and this accusation is no different." Farix cannot supply any diffs of my doing this, because it didn't happen. On the contrary, it is Farix who made the first personal attack against me (diff):

Farix (18:56, 23 August 2007) wrote: "Pay no attention to Milo. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not interested in discussing the issue in good faith with his ad hominem attacks."

In partial reply I wrote (diff):

Milo (23:59, 23 August 2007): "Impugning my good faith is a personal attack

WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith

. Unless you are willing to repeat that at AN/I with documentation, please delete that second sentence in your Farix 18:56. I'd also like an apology, but I suppose that's asking too much of you."

So at my invitation, here is Farix finally at AN/I repeating the charge, but, what's this? No documentation, because it didn't happen. Tsk, tsk.

Unlike Tony, to his credit, I never got an apology from Farix. IMHO, Farix quit the debate because it was tiringly long, and because his anti-spoiler side was losing the philosophy debate as summarized in my post. Milo 08:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in the present dispute, but can certainly vouch for the fact that Milomedes not only posts extremely offensive bad faith ad hominem personal attacks on a regular basis, but also engages in trolling, wikilwayering, tendentious editing, filibustering, mischaracterising the actions of other editors, cherry-picking policy, cherry-picking third party sources and playing policies against each other. I have been the subject of incivility and ad hominem attacks by him on an almost weekly basis since March 2007. In fact, in my experience, Milomedes seems to make very few, if any, contributions to WP which do not involve one or other of the above policy abuses. I can also confirm that his above attempt to flippantly dismiss the accusation by claiming that it's something other than what it is, and then blaming the victim for responding to his attacks is also typical of his pattern of behaviour. There are literally dozens of citable instances of this sort of behaviour, which I am happy to point out to any Admin interested in reviewing them. An indefinite block on Milomedes is very much long overdue. --Gene_poole 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gene, I'll introduce you.

Gene was called on the carpet for a seeming legal threat posted three days ago, having previously harassed the same user with a loathsome disease libel. Since this occurred in one of my regular article groups, I (and someone else) both reported Gene, so, his trash talk and wolf cries above are likely to be payback. This kind of thing is a normal monthly event when editing articles with Gene.

For those who don't know Gene, here's a quick credibility overview. This is Gene's block log, here Gene's character is discussed at his failed RfA, and here's where a bureaucrat expresses his doubts about Gene's veracity. There's a lot more, but those of you who do know Gene have heard it all before. Milo 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Brief summary -

• Legal threats by Achidiac, one of three closely connected
  single purpose accounts. [94]
• Apparent intent being to somehow force an "A. Chidiac" article to exist despite 2 AFDs, a DRV, and 3 SPEEDY deletions of recreations of the newly AFD'ed material.
• Apparent spurious accusations of bad conduct, couldn't see evidence to warrant this. (I have requested that if this is wrong, to inform me).

Detailed history, diffs and rationale - User_talk:Achidiac#Recent_disputes.

A

Cleanup of Chidiac-related images and links needed.

It's been a long, long day today. Can someone double-check that everything's fair and proper to best standards, that the deletions done were correct and none overlooked, and so on? It should be ok but I'd like a double-check on it since a block is involved. Thanks :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• After a look through the contributions and related AFD, this looks like a completely correct block.
  ELIMINATORJR
  19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Having seen this one unfold for a while, I also endorse this. Orderinchaos 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary: This user keeps recreating LesTout.com, even after it has been speedied many times for violating copyright, and as an advertisement.

Thanks,

) 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Page is now salted and cannot be re-created. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[relocated from

]

User:123.176.40.195 is repeatedly vandalising the articles.Pls ban the ip adresss from further editing wikipedia. Thanks John Rambo 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. But while you're here, the IP's edits don't appear to be vandalism. -- John Reaves 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is. 123.176.40.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be editing articles related to certain castes in India. Most of what it's doing doesn't look like blatant vandalism, so I'm presuming the IP is either adding subtle disinformation that I and others not familiar with the subject matter are not able to detect, or it is adding information that Rambo4u just doesn't like. Can someone who's familiar with this stuff take a look? This was probably meant for ANI. --Dynaflow babble 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, he needs to try and talk to the other editor first (i.e. something other than "stop vandalizing, you will be banned). -- John Reaves 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's just how some folks say, "Hello." I would like to know why Rambo4u believes the IP's edits to be vandalism. First, though, I'd like to move this thread en masse to ANI, if there are no objections. --Dynaflow babble 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Per an analysis of editing patterns and Checkuser data, I have indefinitely blocked the above user as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. I note this here in case an unblock request claims that I am an involved party, as I have occasionally interacted with this user on

23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[96]. This user has also edited as DetectiveStan (talk · contribs) and 217.169.54.253 (talk · contribs). I'm just letting y'all know. Someguy1221 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious sock. I've blocked the main account indefinitely per

WP:NLT, this will also shut down his IPs for 24 hours. east.718 at 23:29, 11/5/2007

Block and protection review

I'd like some input from other users regarding a block I made of 74.162.173.6. Originally, they made this vandal edit to Stargate, which was reverted. Then, they made this edit to Christina Aguilera, which I rolled back as vandalism, but in that edit, they added a source too. The IP then posted on my talk page about in I liked incorrect information in the Christina Aguilera article, and what my problem with capital letters was. They also trolled their own talk page in this time. [97][98][99] In the end, I semi-protected their talk page for the trolling, and blocked the user to prevent more possible disruption. I think I may have been a little hasty with the block and protection though, hence my request for a review. Opinions on whether my protection and block were appropriate? Acalamari 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While all of this might have been the reaction of a newbie upset over seeing his good faith edit reverted entirely (disregarding the initial vandalism), I don't see any problem blocking someone who responds with the maturity of a 7-year-old. Someguy1221 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're asking if you did right by blocking a vandal who happened to know how to add a ref to his disruptive edit (which another editor would have had to clean up even if the ref was kept), then made the cyber equivalent of scrawling graffiti on a bathroom wall? Yes, Acalamari, you did right, both on the block and protecting the page to stop further disruption. As a quick aside, I thank the IP for alerting me to the breaking Christina Aguilera news. I would have preferred a Britney story, but this will have to do. Jeffpw 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll see if anyone else comments, but I'm relieved to know that my protection and block were justified. Acalamari 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please block Elephante3333 for vandalism. This individual has engaged in vandalism before and has been duly warned on his or her Talk Page about the consequences of continuing such behavior. This editor's latest act of vandalism can be seen here: [100]. ~ Homologeo 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinately [101] (actually a minute before you posted here). You can bring similar reports to

WP:AIV in the future, where the response is generally faster than it is here. Someguy1221

23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The user Malkouri is a vandal, and has been vandalising articles since atleast march and should be blocked, sorry im new to this, someone please format this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboenigmaster (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked indefinitely. In the future please make these reports at

WP:AIV and don't personally attack people in edit summaries ([102]), even if they are vandalizing. Natalie

02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromised account?

In addition to my request for a review above, I have another request for a review. While I was writing my posting above, a user called Inseeisyou vandalized my user page. However, upon looking at the user's userpage and previous edits, they don't appear to be a vandal, and they haven't edited for months, leading me to believe this might be a compromised account. I was tempted to block, but decided not to. Does anyone else think this might be a compromised account? Acalamari 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This was my first impression when reverting the vandalism to your page, I checked the contribution history before I issued a notice about it, to determine the history of the editor. Oddly enough, their efforts in the past seem to be centered around removing vandalism, and I had not found anywhere they'd run in to Acalamari before, so I thought it strange they targeted his userpage. Based on the nature of the edit, I decided to use a template even though they were established, but it did cross my mind if this was somehow an account that was being used by someone other than it had been in the past. Family member, perhaps? Ariel♥Gold 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Raleigh, North Carolina, the same state where User:Inseeisyou claims to be from (or in), so I think family member might be a good bet (or Inseeisyou just fell off his rocker). Someguy1221 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism from the IP mentioned above, and by this user, are very similar. I thought it was odd when I saw that registered user do that type of edit. Acalamari 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is a family member, I'm tempted to block the account, as that's normally the standard procedure for accounts that might be compromised. Also, if it is a family member, shared accounts are against policy anyway. Thoughts? Acalamari 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't prove it was compromised, they were warned, and didn't repeat any other nonconstructive edits, correct? I would probably take a more lenient route, and drop a note on the talk page, asking if there was some sort of mix up, or if perhaps they left a minor unattended (who knows, lol). Maybe I'm too forgiving, but I'm not sure I'd jump to a block as of now. (Feel free to completely discount my non-admin opinion on this, however. ) Ariel♥Gold 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Acalamari, it could be a family member using the account without permission, and thus not a shared account. All it takes is checking that "remember me" box and giving a younger sibling access to your computer. Natalie 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but the account doesn't appear to have been active for several months. I'll leave the block but see what happens. Acalamari 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The page requested for speedy deletion was an attack page, and his edit ("...requesting that he be speedily deleted from the human race") was there to extend the attack. Based on prior contributions, I don't think Baseballfan789 has anything constructive to add here, but instead of blocking him, I'll just give him a final warning. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He archived his talk page. I can't help but wonder why. JuJube 02:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the

00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: Notified users of involvement in

talk

00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This same highly disruptive user previously filed a report on AN/I that is still on this page, here: Uncivil behavior. That report has extensive evidence added by myself and Cyrus XIII of ongoing problems caused by this user who until yesterday was editing through multiple dynamic IPs and strongly appears to be a sockpuppet of Jun kaneko (talk · contribs · logs · block log), who has also used many IP address to evade blocks and harrass established editors with the same kinds of behaviors.

Now that he has posted his report on WP:AN too, and it's been moved here, I hope the additional attention will help to unravel the ongoing and very difficult problems he's caused and is still causing.

Since the last time I posted details on the prior report, he has continually edit-warred contrary to consensus against multiple established productive good faith editors.

I will be offline for a while, but if anyone needs any information beyond what's already provided in the previous report, I will try to help. --Parsifal _Hello 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. I should add a bit more context to assist with reviewing the very long report above. Here is the sequence of recent events (not including his past blocks and IP-block evasion):

• He edit-warred using dynamic IPs
• His vandalism was reverted by various editors
• He posted his report above, accusing Cyrus of incivility due to the vandalism reversions
• I and Cyrus posted evidence to the above report
• He was convinced to make a new user name and did so, to "prove" he's not the same guy
• I wrote that I would assume good faith and would respond only to edits under his new user name, to see if he does not continue the past disruptions
• His first edit with the new user name was vandalism that removed valid references
• I reverted, and he posted a vandalism warning on my talk page
• He escalated his edit-warring with multiple editors and it became more and more clear that he is a sockpuppet as suspected
• After various talk page discussions, his vandalism was reverted by three editors on
  Dir en grey
• I'm pretty sure he violated 3RR, though I have not had time to count in detail
• When he saw that he was outnumbered by the consensus good-faith editors, he posted his
  WP:POINT
  report on WP:AN

That's the short story. The long story is quite long. I'm offline for a while now, and will be around later if there are questions. Full details are in the original report above, other than the new edit-warring he's been doing today, that's in the article history and talk page.

Thanks for your help with this. --Parsifal _Hello 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is shame that none of those claims hold any ground, Parsifal. I have already stated I have no desire to edit this article again, but I ask an admin please look into that articles talk page. The bully tactics of these users is quite evident, and it is an affront to the English version of the Wikipedia. I have already been contacted with support by another user about the situation (who I assume is an admin) and welcomed their suggestion, although decided upon it before their input. As stated, they have a history of bully tactics, and refusing to consent with other users, which is evident in the history logs and talk page. Parsifal also seems to contradict himself, by stating before he has no knowledge on this article, yet he seems to know much about it. I'm not wasting my time any further with such childish behaviour. That article needs minor adjustments to be encyclopedic, but it can not be done with childish bully tactics by certain users. Thats all there is to it. Saguy1982 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please cite my "bullying tactics". I have only cited policies and given warnings. The facts I present may be difficult to interpret or accept, but please do not misconstrue them as bullying. We have accepted a large amount of input on the article in question, however, you will see most updates and major work on the page done by Cyrus or myself, as I believe we both keep closely up to date with Dir en grey-related news and updates. Despite what you may believe an encyclopedia is, that is for the policies that are years in development to decide. If you were to ever achieve an actual consensus, productivity could run rampant on that article. Instead, it is almost a weekly that we engage in new conflicts with users thought to be multiple sockpuppets of you (Saguy1982) which always end with a ban on your part, or an extremely nonconstructive, but tragically necessary page protection.

In short, I politely ask that you do all that you can to avoid conflict, that you thoroughly read the Wikipedia policies, and that you contribute in a constructive, friendly, and noncontroversial manner. --Jacob ^Talk 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:I already forgot

I_already_forgot (

08:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the block. The comment is completely out of step of the user's other contributions. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 08:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To Catch a Predator? Block was justified. the_undertow ^talk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I received email regarding the comment after I reverted it, but even then, while the intentions of the comment were explained, they were out of line. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that the edits have been explained (you may or may not disagree, but you know that the user hasn't gone batshit insane, and they haven't lost control of their account), can xe be unblocked? WODUP 08:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The user was likely responding (oddly and inappropriately) to this edit, in which I did say that I had no problems with pornography. However, in *this* case, my response would be akin to this, which is to say that an RfA is a completely inappropriate place to put something like that, as no one expects to see adult content in the middle of it. I support this block not because it was 'defending' me, but because there are places on Wikipedia where content of an adult nature is reasonable and to be expected (if, say, I searched for either of the terms he mentioned), and there are places where it is not. An RfA was not the place to pose the question so explicitly. --Thespian 08:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse the block wholeheartedly. There should be no place for trolls like him in Wikipedia. MaxSem 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• A pound says this is also Forgetaboutit4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Endorse, anyway. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you exhibit poor judgment as you are not even close. I'm sure a check user has been performed many times and has shown I only use my bot account and the I already forgot account. What makes you come up with such nonsense? Just because the other user has "forgot" in his/her name? Thats some pretty shallow detective work. Sorry for being pointed but the personal attacks are not warranted.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• You guys really do not have a clue do you? Not only do you have a misunderstanding of what trolling is, you now accuse me of having sock accounts? I could insert a load of diffs to clue you in on to what is going on, but it's rather comical as I know most user cant or will not read past the first sentence. Also, please do not make completely and totally false accusation of me having sock accounts or being related to porn at all. It only makes you look more clueless as to what happen and to the other existing policies that would allow a person to ask for help with such articles. I could call up the anti censor crowed and cite
  WP:CENSOR(hello policy) to back me on this, but I'm neither pro or con censorship and would personally like to the image removed from the list of sex position article and the title "fist fuck" removed from the fisting article as well. Blocking me is fine, but don't make totally false slanderous accusations with out proof of such. I slandered no one, made no threats, and used wikipedia policy to ask a very controversial question whether you like it or not. Again, actually do some reading before speculating and try to make yourself informed and not so clueless. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk
  ) 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, when is the last time a troll sent a message to an admin informing them of their intentions? I suggest a few read up on trolling so they know exactly what it is and when to turn the mop into a billyclub. I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to mention this, but wouldn't it also be a good idea to block my bot and remove it's bot flag? I know how the system works better than any troll or vandal and could get away with a lot of damage as I can pretty much program anything you need done on wikipedia. If I am indeed a troll or even suspected, this should have been the first thing blocked. Just giving a heads up on how such issues should be handle by the blocking admins as I have no plan to abuse wikipedia but the bot should be blocked anyway to prevent potential abuse by a disgruntled user.I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't endorse an indef block on this account. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, etc, and it's highly unlikely that there will be an further disruption as a result. Having said that, his comment was disturbing in the extreme and totally uncalled-for regardless of the rationale. Like, seriously - Alison ^❤ 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the disturbing nature of the image but be aware that it is in one of our top 100 articles! The "fist ****" is in one of our articles as well! Disturbing or not, we have many user pushing for these type of pages and images and it has caused many grief in my vandal fighting. These things cannot be ignored and we need to know how admins will handle similar situations. --Anon user formely known as I already forgot70.6.66.144 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but messing around[104] on the same RfA that you posted the comment on, block evasion by socking, etc, etc is a deal-breaker for me. You've been blocked. Stand up address the root cause instead of fooling around. You've no regard for the rules you seem so concerned about - Alison ^❤ 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the length of the block. I was shocked by the inappropriate RfA comment too; both because it was replaced by the user when removed, and for the breathtaking inappropriateness of what was said. I think I understand what the user's intentions were, and those too are deeply inappropriate. RfA is not meant to be a trial by ordeal. I should note that I was just having a relatively civilised discussion with the user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#Keep or remove (part 2). In my opinion, I already forgot needs to learn better how we work here; if he shows any sign of appreciating what he has done wrong and undertakes not to repeat the offensive behaviour, I would support reducing the block to a week. So far I have not really seen any evidence of this, and the propensity to threaten, wikilawyer and bluster seen in the posts above make me think we would not be losing much by leaving the block in place. --John 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked

User talk:I already forgot, and, Thespian's RFA. I only blocked for 24 hours, as I assume we'll have this worked out by then. SQL^{Query me!}

19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You can block my account but you cant keep me from ever editing again (Hello account indef blocked). I had a feeling you where not completely ready for adminship... At least it must feel good for you to get some payback for me opposing your RFA right? No one has yet to provide a policy I violated (other than editing style), so my statements of admin abusing their powers are ringing through here. --anon user formerly known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.66.144 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So instead of fessing up to the fact that you made a mistake & apologizing, you'd rather play a game of whack-a-mole with the rest of us? Everyone has a momentary lapse of judgement, & does something wrong. If you understand why what you did was wrong, admit to having made a mistake, then this will all be over & we all can move forward & continue to improve this encyclopedia. However, if your pride is so important that you want to compound a moment's mistake with countless more -- such as this sockpuppetting foolishness -- it will only lead to the rest of us (who I bet are like me, who until now had no opinion about you good or bad) deciding to pitch in & making an indef block into a permanent community ban from Wikipedia. -- llywrch 20:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"...understand why what you did was wrong, admit to having made a mistake, then this will all be over"... Kind of reminds me of a movie where a rebel tells the dictator to F-off and then the rebel is tortured until he swears allegiance to the dictator. All the while the rebel could just apologize and bow down to the dictator and it would all be over. I will never apologize for asking (during an RFA or any other discussion) if the user would promote a controversial image and article named after a bad word to featured status. I did apologize for truncating the word "article", but that is the only mistake I made.--Anon user FNA I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.204.13 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this when I made my previous comment. I did notice a certain

pointiness in my previous dealings with him, and a willingness to argue for argument's sake, rather than be guided by consensus. Although this user has made some good contributions and is clearly intelligent and knowledgeable, unless he is willing to abide by our core values (including consensus and civility), there is nothing here for him, and nothing lost in leaving the block in place. Continuing attempts to game the system just make that more inevitable. At this point the ball is firmly in I already forgot's court. I suggest they think seriously about the choices they make from here on, if they wish to continue to contribute here. --John

20:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that this has blown up into such an issue is rather ridiculous. Of course

Ethiopia

22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Yom that this user could have shown much more tact in the original question. And before I encountered a browser crash, my comment to this thread was along the lines of "You did something worse than harassing someone -- you were wrong." (And this response to his misbehavior didn't help the situation.) However, he came back with a couple of sockpuppets, claiming that we can't block him; that doesn't convince anyone he's been misunderstood, & is still a valuable contributor. Then again, I haven't seen any more posts from him, so maybe he understood what I was trying to say & took a break from Wikipedia to calm down, collect his thoughts, & will engage in some constructive dialogue. That would end the block pronto, & if he had done this in the first place, it would have been over in a few hours or less. I have no problem with letting him come back; as I wrote above, I don't have an opinion about him, good or bad. My comment above was more along the lines of advice, rather than a threat from some power-hungry Admin. -- llywrch 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something we have a good 'pedia builder who said one really inappropriate comment and is indefinitely blocked. I am not sure how this is consistent with the way some other cases are handled with destructive edit wars, reverts and ample swearing in edit summaries. Why is this not a 1 or 3 day block and be done with it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block was justified before the block evasion, and now is somewhat obvious.

Addhoc

22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First I'm accused of being a vandal and a troll even though...

• I use
  POLICY to keep it in the article even though the style was completely different from the other images. Not some of my best edits but I learned and grew tremendously over the issue and to work with different social standards [105]
  .
• trolling
  does not include giving notice via email of ones intention.
• the questions are totally relevant to a topic (Pornography addiction) the potential admin had minor edit conflicts with [106]?
• ***A bad word***
  has been a wikipedia article for some time now and asking "what is your opinion about" the article and if they would help make it a featured article (which I have no interest in doing) is a perfectly valid question.
• the question sounded a bit strange but a large portion of our user base are learning english or use english as a second language and nothing uncivil or threating was added in the question but was worded in a way that was less eloquent like a person using ESL. A potential admin should know that users are often accused of trolling or vandalism just for the simple fact they have a hard time with english. This was a valid way to ask a question during an RFA as nothing was uncivil or a violation of policy but would indicate how they handle poorly worded questions.

Then I'm accused of having a sockpuppet account [107] and being a child predator [108]. Which is totally uncivil and is slanderous given the fact that my identity is know by a few here on wikipedia. If any one of you was falsely accused of being a predator or creating a sock account, you would feel the same way... trust me. I did not make any threats about the slander and only gave notice that it's not right to make such accusations. Is this trolling or making threats, why am I accused of "the propensity to threaten, wikilawyer and bluster seen in the posts"? Another fire from the hip statement in my opinion.

So now I'm

because the indef block is not a ban but being interpreted as such and because the block is being used as punishment for using bad-words in an RFA which the policy is clear blocks are not to be used as punishment.

Then, since the account is indef blocked, I make the statement that I cannot be kept from ever editing again (and yes, I expect admins to know the difference from

) since the block is potentially forever, that I can still contribute constructively using an IP account. So with that statement I'm now taunting the block? No, I'm saying that since the account is blocked indefinitely and I'm not trying to get it back, that I can still contribute constructively without and account.

Well I guess thats another strike against me, because now I'm accused of creating sock accounts (which by

) 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've considered responding to this a few times, but I'm not sure quite what to say; I don't actually think that I almost forgot's issues are actually with me, or they weren't until they decided to start in on my RfA because the options here are 'admit you were wrong,' and 'stay the course, regardless.' Despite the block evasion and trolling, this has very little to do with me, but because it does involve my RfA, I feel like I should say something. I truly appreciate the work several admins have been doing to try and keep my RfA focused on the actual RfA, and not this. This has been tricky, because there've been a number of things that if this were over anyone else, I would be right there to help. I just wanted people to know that I've been hanging back because in this case, it is inappropriate for me to do otherwise. Ironically, I don't want my RfA to get bogged down in this drama. Really, I prefer my dramas to remain on the stage. --Thespian 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with you and is simply the luck of the draw. It is in fact %100 about your RFA as I've never crossed any of your edits (or if I did, I didn't take notice) and based my questions off your statements in the pornography addiction article and the statement that you are a wikignome. The comments in the pornography addiction article didn't come off as much of a content dispute but I could see how the discussion got you a tad bit irritated(for the lack of a better word) as you had to try and convince people of your stance and personal experience with the subject. I could totally relate to your situation so I decided to ask questions that I personally had conflicts with knowing that being a wikignome (I consider myself one as well so again I can relate... Well, actually more of a wikinomad), it's only a matter of time before you come across the same situation as I did. Personally, giving that you said you worked as a phone sex operator, I thought you would have said something along the lines of not having an issue with the image and article but would not personally help to make the articles (

****) to featured status. Referencing a couple of featured articles that had sexual content and talking about how it caused a stir with community would have added extra points to my support. Obviously the alternative is what we are seing here... Poor administration actions, violation of policy, enforcing policy that doesn't exist, no understanding of trolling, incivility by administrators, and turning the mop into a billyclub for punishment. Right now I would give you a few support points for reading and tring to understand the issue, however I would still avoid full support being that you are not familiar with trolling and the policy surrounding this issue. Also, hanging back and letting other people answer a question asked on your RFA makes me sway more towards oppose. You need to be ready to answer your own questions even if the question may contain a bad word or two. You can take this as an attack or you can respect it as building consensus or giving an unpopular opinion on your RFA for the sake of preparation for the battle (trolling and vandalism). Anyway, its not about you personally and early congratulations on your RFA. Hopefully you can look at every situation from both sides and not follow the trend of making knee jerk decisions and firing from the hip. Follow policy the best you can and try to remain pro or con nothing and work with just the facts. --Anon user formely known as I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.90.254 (talk

) 17:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After mentioning this to my mother, the long way around ("So this user tried to provoke me by..."), my 65-year-old mom said, "He tried to troll you with pornography? The poor dear." (my mother rocks, btw. I have a mom who knows the proper use of the word '

WP:DENY *is* the best response. --Thespian

03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you completely misunderstand. Good luck to you and again congratulations on your RFA.--Anon user FNA I already forgot 70.6.208.243 18:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"it doesnt't belong on wikipedia because it looks like it came from a 70s book..." Good grief, I just realized that was said by an admin with speedy powers! Good thing you said that after your RFA... Looks like my question worked but only came to fruition after the AFD. :) (honest smile) -- Anon user FNA I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.208.243 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that User:I already forgot thought it would be a good idea to perform a behavioural research experiment by making a certain post in User:Thespian's RfA. This experiment was a success for all concerned, in that it enabled the wider community to learn a good deal about how Thespian deals with a crisis. So much for the good news. I'm sure User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson did not intend to perform an ironic counter-experiment, but the block sadly did produce a lot of data.(withdrawn as unhelpful; just read the post above) Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• All I'll add to this is that last time I checked, a
  ban. As such, the contributions of the individual behind the blocked account can be reverted on sight and the accounts/IPs used blocked. Other than that, I'd say it is time to close this thread and end the dramady; unless someone thinks User:I already forgot should be unblocked...--Isotope23 ^talk
  18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Only after "no administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned". Which at that point, you would list my blocked account User:I already forgot and related bot accounts (User:JabbaTheBot and User:Alpha beta) at Wikipedia:List of banned users. --Anon user FNA I already forgot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.204.13 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that given the fact that after this thread, nobody has seen fit to unblock your account, the criteria has been met.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

( sound of snare drum roll... shaky last cigarette in mouth... blind fold on ) Ok, I'm ready. Fire away. --Anon user FNA now executed I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.6.208.243 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

John - please. This discussion is turning into a pointless exercise. The substantive issue (VK's unblock request) has been resolved and it's time to move on here. If we're back here soon, well and good. In the meantime, I'll work on finding some mentor that everyone can agree on - Alison ^❤ 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

}} from Family Guy articles. As usual, no Talk page discussion; while I only commented about this incident on the user's Talk page only minutes ago, this editor has never replied to anything and is unlikely to be talked into reverting their changes.

I think this could use a rollback. / edg ☺ ★ 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - final warning given. - KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! / edg ☺ ★ 07:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the rollback was appropriate. This is not an incident but rather a content issue that is a normal part of the consensus process. Administrative tools should not be used to favor one content position over another. The articles were all tagged at the same time for the same reason, which is arguably incorrect. It therefore makes sense and is a consensus matter for someone to remove them all at the same time. Those who support the tag make the obvious assertion that the material is a form of trivia. However, the party that removed them argues that popular culture references are the very subject of the cartoon series. Covering the references made in an episode is akin to summarizing the plot, or the notable features of a product. A tag having to do with sourcing might be more appropriate - some of the claims ought to be sourced, clearly a tedious project. Whatever the outcome, deciding which tag to use if any is not an issue to settle on a case-by-case basis in each article, and I don't think it should be settled by administrative intervention.Wikidemo 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It was mass editing without discussion, rollback is completely appropriate. Admins need to address disruptive editing, and the rollback button exists for a reason. It is not a content dispute if the person will not discuss it, it is just stubborn editing. The tag simply calls for more investigation and attention, it is not a condemnation of an article.

1 != 2

23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two positions, one to add the tags and one to delete the tags. Deleting them is no more disruptive than adding them. If added in a batch they can just as easily be deleted in a batch. Those particular tags do not simply invite people to review; they condemn the content as deletable and ask people to remove it. Both the proponent of the tags and the one who removed the tags made brief comments in the edit summary. Is there any real indication of a refusal to discuss? They can't be discussed on a case by case basis so the discussion would have to be at a central place. Again, fodder for consensus discussion, not administrators taking sides.Wikidemo 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that the triva tag is the wrong tag there. The problem with those sections is much of the content is

WP:OR is a non-controversial policy that isn't being adhered to in the vast majority of the articles tagged.--Isotope23 ^talk

17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

During a current DRV T3Smile (talk · contribs) made what I consider a personal attack against Smashville (talk · contribs) here. User:T3smile has now approach another editor and listed a number of article on Swerdnaneb (talk · contribs) talk page here. These are all articles that Smashville has either edited recently or created. I feel that independent admins should appraise themselves of the situation and comment as they see appropriate.

For the record I have also commented on the DRV and instigated

07:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gnagarra, in my travels I found these articles. It is perfectly OK to ask an admin as my opinion on notability has changed and some other articles should not make the cut either as the quality is Lo-Fi (noting one or more of these articles have been previously marked for deletion) - thanking you as inspiration to such. Are you of aboriginal origin? Or do you have a lot of time on your hands? cheers T --T3Smile 07:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would my ancestory be of any importance to this discussion execpt as an

implied racial attack Gnangarra

07:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gnagarra, I wasnt flashing a race card I was asking if you were, because you act as if you are not, and you have an aboriginal name here. Its just like assuming a guy named Yacob is of Jewish origin. Too Much Time methinks T.--T3Smile 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Thanking (Gnangarra) as inspiration" for finding articles created by an editor who opposed your views, then making a veiled threat to send them to AFD? That sounds very

disruptive. Now you have an admin's opinion. - KrakatoaKatie

08:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow...um...hmm...I never expected that much attention...those are about as bad faith noms as it comes...two Breeders Cup Champs, a European Champ, two Triple Crown winners...I stand by my comment in the DRV. Mr. Chidiac admitted in one edit that he had supplied someone with a shoebox of info so that he may have an article written about himself. - Smashville 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They havent been nominated yet, user Swerdnaneb acting in good faith has just given T3Smile instructions on how to do it diff. Gnangarra 15:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware...no issue whatsoever with Swerdnaneb. It's good info to have if someone decides to be a productive editor. Smashville 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• User-multi error: "T3Smile" is not a valid project or language code (help). - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do anything more here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would probably have let off with a warning as there do seem to be some constructive edits elsewhere. IMHO, the block seems borderline punitive but it's only for 24 hours so it's not a big deal either way. Ronnotel 16:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This section needs the hand of an uninvolved admin for Nobel Prize and Fred Thompson. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I've been beating up

WP:RPP all day and avoided these on purpose. Can you sandbox the Fred Thompson edit, I've got no idea where to put it. east.718 at 07:04, 11/6/2007

I can't; the nature of what's been going on at the talkpages of both the article and the admin protecting it means that anyone there will seize on the opportunity to paint me as biased. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

, however, he fails to address the underlying issue that all CSS properties will need to be included inline into the template. It should be noted that the template uses fontcolor to set the colors of v-d-e.

His implementation of the style parameter represents an unacceptable use of resources as every CSS property will have to be set and for all 7 times instances each time. —Dispenser 07:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already moved the fontstyling out of the style parameter. Problem solved. — Edokter • Talk • 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Per

)(public computer) 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Eyrian has already admitted publicly that that is his sock. User:Veesicle 13:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your 'prevent vandalism' rationale on the RFCU seems a bit odd as Eyrian has not committed any acts of vandalism. User:Veesicle 13:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm seems my recollection was correct, see here. As the ArbCom is no doubt already aware of the issue I'm pretty sure your RFARB is more than a little pointless. User:Veesicle 13:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this perhaps be tacked on to the Alkivar case? The case is already blocking one editor as a sockpuppet of this JB196 guy. --W.marsh 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It already was brought up at that case. Personally I think the Eyrian thing should be split out into a separate case (not an emergency desysop, but looking at the allegations), but it really up to Arbcom if they are going to consider this as part of the Alkivar arbitration... maybe they will since Alkivar appears to have left the building.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the case, it appears that the resolution was narrowly focused on Alkivar and JB196. I have to believe that since the Eyrian stuff was brought up a while back, Arbcom simply chose not to tack this on at that end.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But both User:JohnEMcClure and User:Varlak were blocked as socks of User:JB196. Now they're mentioned in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure so, in my simple mind, that means User:Eyrian = User:JB196. Why wouldn't Eyrian therefore fall under the umbrella of an Alkivar/JB196 RFAR? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in the phrase "emergency ArbCom case?" Mr.Z-man 14:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess the pertinent question would be, Did Durova block User:JohnEMcClure per

WP:DUCK, then I'd be uncomfortable with a speedy block/desysop in this case and personally I'd rather see a arbcom case looking into the sockpuppetry allegations and Morven's checkuser findings.--Isotope23 ^talk

14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait... I see the connection now. User:Varlak = User:JB196 and blocked by Morven. User:Eyrian = User:Varlak per the User:JohnEMcClure RFCU. That is rather damning eh? I'd like to get Morven's confirmation or comment on this.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is all very confusing to keep track of who might be whom. Is anyone suggesting that Alkivar is a sock or was running any of these socks? He was very forthcoming about his real life identity[120] so, assuming his profile describes a real person and the account is really run by that person, it is not a fake account.Wikidemo 15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying JB196 and Alkivar are the same person... I've added a statement requesting ArbCom clarify what the relationship is. I think "people who agree with eachother online" is probably the most likely explanation... but it's not good for stuff like this to be ambiguous. --W.marsh 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen no evidence that Alkivar is in any way related to editing via these accounts.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Yes, JohnEMcClure was a

16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And to W.marsh, the Committee is filled with intelligent people who exercise good judgement. The conclusion they're reaching looks like

WP:AGF concerns were well satisfied. I freely declare that the bulk of my evidence was submitted privately, and with good reason: JB196 is a very determined, destructive, and persistent vandal who has created over 500 sockpuppets. I don't intend to tip him off about my methods and teach him how to get better not only at manipulating this site, but at manipulating people. Durova^Charge!

17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments re case

I don't see what the "emergency" is, but in light of ArbCom apparently declining to consider anyone but Alkivar and Burntsauce we'll have to ask separately whether they will undertake a case against

15:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admins can unblock themselves. Except for ongoing vandalism (for which a Steward can issue an emergency desysop) only ArbCom can decide whether to desysop Eyrian. How they choose to consider the case is up to them.

Thatcher131

15:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Can meaning "have the technical ability to," admins are not allowed to undo valid blocks on themselves. If Eyrian is blocked and unblocks himself, then there may be a case for asking a steward. Mr.Z-man 15:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In clarification

There is absolutely no doubt that Eyrian == JohnEMcClure == Varlak. Both of the latter were blocked as JB196; however, the identification there is less certain. JohnEMcClure was blocked as JB196 based on behavior; I blocked Varlak based on a different checkuser that showed disruptive editing that looked like JB196 but I did not dig far enough on that occasion to tie to Eyrian. I can't conclude with certainty that JB196 is involved here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Morven!--Isotope23 ^talk 17:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This guy should be blocked for making Hateful comments.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28terminology%29 "I'm sorry, but Skopjan nationalist websites hardly constitute reliable sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC) " The fact that he uses the work "Skopjan" is offensive and hateful! If he were to say that to a Macedonian in person he would get in a lot of trouble!

He has been harrasing me for the past two weeks with racist comments!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstatik (talk • contribs)

Other than the choice of word, that is not a statement we can sanction him over. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. Skopjan is the term most commonly used by Greeks to refer to a member of the

·ΚέκρωΨ·

15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put in links supporting this. There is a long standing dispuite between Greeks and Macedonians. That is a fact. However, his insistent use of the term Skopjan is plain offensive and hateful. Skopjan refers to inhabitants of the Capital Skopje, not an entire nation. Macedonians have always been refered to as Macedonians in the Former Yugoslavia and in Greece prior to 1991. There are many souce links in the Talk pages that support this. Macedonians do regard the term as offensive and hateful. I for one, am deeply offended.

On top of this, he consistenly is censoring me in updating various articles and it's borderline harrassment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstatik (talk • contribs) 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At Talk:Whirlpool (website) an anonymous IP address (124.168.196.117) is continually deleting comments made 6 months ago by a different anonymous IP (202.161.15.143).[121][122][123][124] After the last deletion the new IP address claimed in his/her edit summary that the May comments were made by him/her but the two IP addresses are different so I'm not sure what the correct thing to do is. While the comments are not significant it doesn't seem right to me that one editor is deleting the comments of another without some way of verifying that they are allowed to do so. They may well be the same person but I have no way of determining that. --AussieLegend 14:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WHOIS shows that both IPs are owned by the same ISP in the same area. Mr.Z-man 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was a problem I saw. As I understand it those address pools are used Australia wide so it really doesn't help to narrow the user down. It could be any user of that ISP. --AussieLegend 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

They should not be removing comments, even if they made them. Its borderline disruptive and it can mess up a discussion, even if it is old. They don't own their contributions here. Mr.Z-man 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I request semi-protection of the article Northport High School. If I understand correctly, this should prevent anonymous IP address edits, right? Not that this article hasn't had plenty of other past vandalism too, but the specific reason for my current request is the fifth time an anonymous IP address has added the non-notable vanity spam of "Dennis Oddsen, Class of 1967" to the list of notable alumni. Each of the previous reverts have been ignored and reversed. Below is a list of the five incidents in questions:

1. First edit from Special:Contributions/155.33.156.175
2. Second edit from Special:Contributions/155.33.93.32
3. Third edit from Special:Contributions/155.33.156.130
4. Fourth edit from Special:Contributions/155.33.156.190
5. Fifth edit from Special:Contributions/155.33.156.190

--Fife Club 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we really need a higher rate of vandalism to justify semi-protection... usually at least 2-3 reverted IP edits a day. It might seem harsh to say "You just have to keep reverting", but consensus seems to be it's worth it to allow IP editing when vandal edits are relatively low. 5 in 10 days is higher than on many articles, but still lower than the threshold for semi-protection. Another admin may disagree. By the way, protection requests are best made at

WP:RPP. --W.marsh

15:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Grave vandalism

User User:Whodoesthis does the following trick: He moves page to a different name, then creates a second page with the same name as the first, with an empty history. Anybody wanting to revert this has to find out first where he moved it... Then finds out that to keep the history, the new page has to be removed first :( I suggest an immediate block of this guy. Ratfox 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked --W.marsh 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could some admin remove this edit from history? Corvus cornix 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done east.718 at 19:00, 11/6/2007

Dans1120 frequently engages in both subtle and overt vandalism of this encyclopedia. I've included a short list of his most recent exercise in maintaining an attack page

15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism. You wouldn't happen to also have stairs in your house, would you? east.718 at 20:23, 11/6/2007

is being vandalised. I cannot revert / fix them. Please semi-protect three months. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to try
  WP:RFP. Cumulus Clouds
  17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - all should be well now. east.718 at 17:52, 11/6/2007

{{resolved|Indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. TigerShark 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)}}Struck out pending new addition below. Powers ^T 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about XusSatyrtn (talk · contribs). His/her editing pattern consists of adding phrases using nonsense words beginning with "ba-" to articles. For example, he/she describes the fictional characters of Barney Fife (from The Andy Griffith Show), Jon Arbuckle (Garfield), and Bert (Sesame Street) as "doing ba-limp", with no explanation of what that means and insistent reversions when the information is removed ("leave it here and quit wasting my time").

(For the record, even Urban Dictionary has no idea what "ba-limp" means, so it apparently isn't even a protologism.)

I left a message on his/her talk page but then I discovered the editing pattern was similar to that of blocked user Tip Ipp Ipp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 63.164.47.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also has similar edits. I have no conclusive proof, but if XusSatyrtn is Tip Ipp Ipp, he's circumventing his/her block and probably vandalizing to boot.

-- Powers ^T 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the evidence, it seems very likely that the user is a sockpuppet of User:Tip Ipp Ipp. I have idefinitely blocked the account. TigerShark 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: 71.49.175.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is taking up where XusSatyrtn left off. Powers ^T 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked User:Snakese indef for this edit, which consisted of stalking and harrassment of another wikipedian. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable; I don't think it should be permanent, but that was inappropriate. "It's not stalking/trolling/vandalism when I do it. Just when they do." Has someone written an essay/guideline on this? In light of the past few days, especially in RfAs on female candidates, I think it's time to make this much clearer that this sort of thing should not be tolerated.--Thespian 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Last two sentences seem like a threat. Concerns that a person might be vulnerable to stalking should be communicated privately. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 04:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How nasty. And .. well, generally WTF. Totally unneeded. We don't need people who are going to say things like that around here. I wouldn't want go too far on calling it a threat, or making this into an issue with respect to female candidates on rfa. ... but I don't see why this user should not remain blocked until there is some reason to believe that there will be no further behavior of that sort. --Gmaxwell —Preceding comment was added at 04:17, 6 November 2007

(UTC)

I can understand that; but the attempt to rattle me started out with an oily comment that my name was pretty, and this issue with LaraLove is starts out bringing up that she should spend more time with her children. I just spent some time looking over RfAs for editors whose gender is unknown, or who are known to be male, and this sort of thing isn't happening in them. Perhaps it has in the past, but right now, it's happened twice in a couple days in the RfAs of known females, and it should be watched for. --Thespian 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Appears to be a sock of

desat

04:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the sockmaster User:The_Negotiator as well, per a private checkuser with Raul. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME. It's not a sock, though that has nothing to do with other sock issues that might surround the account. --Thespian

04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody think it is a reincarnation of that vandal whose name I won't mention, the one that's so bad he got banned from Wikipedia and WR? east.;718 at 05:12, 11/6/2007

No, it's not him. Snakese's comments were stupid, not evil.

☎

10:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, myself, when I read those comments and Thespian's, remember that He Who Shall Not Be Named has also been known to make inappropriate comments to female editors. Corvus cornix 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Yes, I restored his vote on Thespian's RfA (for technnical reasons), but even then I had my suspicions about this user. Sad to see they were accurate. -- llywrch 07:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. This kind of disruption cannot be tolerated continually. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(Not an admin but) I think it's a good idea to stamp pretty hard on any kind of harassment of female RfA candidates. RfA is not supposed to be a trial by ordeal, and these two recent cases are worrying. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Blackamoor used, what I interpreted, to be a slur in response to an edit that I was involved in on the National Academic Championship article (Talk: National Academic Championship). I deleted the statement, and issued a warning on his talk page (User Talk: Randy Blackamoor). Mr. Blackamoor responded on my talk page (User Talk: LonelyBeacon) with a personal attack, a questioning of my sexual orientation, and finally vulgar language. LonelyBeacon 05:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty messed up, especially after a polite personal message to cease incivility. 24 hour timeout. east.718 at 07:08, 11/6/2007

I don't know if folks are aware, but "blackamore" is also an old-fashioned term for black person as well as a name. So if this is the case here...? ---- WebHamster 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note also, for those in the USA, that in much of the English speaking world "Randy" is an adjective meaning "horny" [125]. Reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Pete.Hurd 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, HBC AIV helperbot4 removed the posting to UAA (presumably because the user is blocked for editing offences) and so there seems no way to complain about the offensive username until the block has expired. Pete.Hurd 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has made a habit of deleting large blocks of test or removing cited statements or adding untrue information to articles such as Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia and Anna Anderson and has continued to do so despite receiving three warnings. I think this address should be blocked. --Bookworm857158367 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User blocked. I see you've given them 3 last warnings in less than an hour. In the future you can report a user to

WP:AIV if they vandalize after only one last warning. AIV is a better place for reports like this and will get a faster result. Natalie

19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP issue on the main page - immediate attention required

Resolved

 – related discussion continues at

GRBerry

21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking someone to remove immediately from DYK:

..that when Icelandic pop singer and D.J. Paul Oscar was in college he played Frank-N-Furter in a production of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and appeared in drag shows at a Reykjavík nightclub?

The sourcing in the article is clearly inadequate for the mainpage to carry it. Please take this off pending discussion. I've already removed BLP violations from the article Paul Oscar.

I really think we need to ban controversial statements about individuals from DKY.--

^g 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this type of thing might be adequately sourced for an article, the mainpage needs even higher criteria. Are DYK updaters thoroughly checking for BLP?--

^g 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed for now. I will readd it if A) someone can suggest a better sourced factoid from the article or B) someone can improve the sourcing for this one. As Doc glasgow says, the sourcing right now seems to be 2 random webpages. By the way it's DYK, not DKY... and this is the second time there's been a BLP issue in a week. --W.marsh 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that NO factoids about living people should ever be on DYK, especially ones that might be controversial unless at a minimum they've been passed by more than one senior editor. An outright ban might be better. By its nature we have here a recent article, which may not have been subject to proper scrutiny, nominated by one user (often its creator) and then listed by another - and suddenly it becomes VERY prominent. It is just an open goal for bad things to happen. Now, it may turn out that this allegation will check out, but let's not wait until real shit happens to put a safeguard in place.--

Doc

^g 15:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The place for this proposal is

T:TDYK already... a reasonable objection, including one on BLP grounds, will almost always keep a nom from appearing on the main page. --W.marsh

15:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the third one that's had to be removed in a number of days. Whilst I think generally speaking the process runs well, and I trust the admins that do the work and comment on the hooks, I think it's time to make it clear that when putting a DYK nom on the main page, it should never portray a person in a negative manner. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The current screening is obviously insufficient. It isn't enough to say "no one objected" we need to be able to say "checked thoroughly, and we have no doubts here". This issue is of concern to more than the DYK crowd.--

Doc

^g 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but this conversation should be moved to

WT:DYK to try to reach a longer-term solution... the immediate problem needing admin attention is resolved, no? I'll start a thread on that talk page. --W.marsh

15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) " when putting a DYK nom on the main page, it should portray a person in a negative manner" I know that's just a wording goof, but that's a really funny proposal you're making there, Mr. Postlewaite. --W.marsh 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

hehe, I think it's best if I just go back to bed! Ryan Postlethwaite 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) We should definitely be careful about BLP concerns in DYK, since it's one of the most-seen aspects of the site. But this particular discussion is bothering me a little -- everyone's acting like this statement says something inherently negative about its subject, which seems a bit judgmental! Pinball22 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But BLP has assume that we don't say things that are potentially negative or embarrassing if they turn out to be not true. To give an example - many people are out and proud to be gay. Wikipedia would certainly not wish to reflect a POV that said gay is negative. But the fact is that many people would find it insulting, or indeed damaging or even culturally life-threatening, to be called gay. Thus we require cast-iron sourcing before including any such allegation - without prejudice to the views of the subject. --

Doc

^g 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This issue is now being debated at:

^g 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:ForeignerFromTheEast

First of all, I apologize for not knowing how to link to the user's contributions or the (diff) list. However, this user's editing consists overwhelmingly of adding Bulgarian to articles related to Macedonia as well as adding Bulgarian and Albanian names to those articles and removing foreign language names from Bulgarian articles. He is very antagonistic and his edits and reverts are often criticised heavily on article talk pages and his own talk page (he deletes most criticism left on his talk page, however). He has a history of being involved in edit and revert warring for which he was blocked in September. Would it be possible to issue a stern warning or block him for a couple of days just to get him to calm down? Thanks.SWik78 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read

Wikipedia:NPA. ForeignerFromTheEast

18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. I'm criticizing the content of your edits and your persistance in adhering to a practice of antagonizing other editors. I'm not criticizing you personally, if that's what you're implying.SWik78 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I delete comments from my talk which I find offensive, and this is perfectly fine. About the rest of the mud-smearing, I am clueless. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Any appearence of "mud-smearing" is completely unintentional, I promise. I'm referring to your recent edits on articles such as:

Taga za Jug etc. So far, I've been under the impression that these kinds of edits do not sit well with certain editors, mostly ones of Macedonian origin, and yet you keep editing them in such a manner that can be seen by another editor as disrespectful. User:Dzole explained this to you in a tone that was somewhat aggravated but still respectful on your talk page but you deleted it. SWik78

18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I try to motivate my edits, and I really do not understand what you are insinuating. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything, I am explicitly stating a fact that most of your edits consist of nothing more than changes to or addition of nationally identifying pieces of information that have been historically proven to be not welcome by many of your fellow editors. In other words, if you look at the history pages and talk pages of the articles I mentioned above, you will notice that most of your changes contributed only in the form of identifying someone nationally, or adding the name of a place in one language or deleting the name of a place in another language. My issue is that you should be able to clearly see that there are people who are not OK with these changes you make and, as a responsible Wikipedia editor, you should not ignore someone else's frustration when they are not able to contribute to an article like

Tose Proeski, as well as repetitive adding of Albanian language as an official language in Skopje is not seen welcome by some of the other editors on these articles. In an explicit conclusion, these kinds of edits are fueling nationallistically motivated edit and revert warring incidents. I hope this explains things a little better. SWik78

20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are still insinuating, as you are using terms such as someone being OK and not OK. Whatever. I have sources and/or relevant policies and guidelines to support my contributions and I will discuss whenever possible. Everything else is speculation. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing you don't understand what I'm trying to say and you're not fooling anyone by just using the word insinuate, as though I'm not explaining myself properly. Either way, keep doing the things that I insinuate you're doing and I will keep informing the proper authorities of any future disruptions by you. By the way, if you have anything else to say, you're welcome say it on my talk page so we don't disrupt this noticeboard. SWik78 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad this is sorted out. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with

meatpuppeteering. Also, they try to sneak-in questionable sources such as private blogs or personal nationalist websites (kroraina.com), thus damaging the reliability of Wikipedia. Several times such behaviour led to protests from the editors from Republic of Macedonia, and in some cases also third party editors became involved. All that led to high tensions followed by admin interventions, vandal retaliations and finally page protections. I already publicized this issue with a detailed explanation on one of the appropriate pages for solving such problems. I will follow the steps suggested by Wikipedia guidelines and as part of that maybe I'll move the problem to this page too (if its not solved before that elsewhere). --Dzole

04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User:24.62.241.203

This seems to be a vandalism account only. There have been several hundred unconstructive edits (several today) from this user and he's been handed out 9 blocks so far.SWik78 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Handled, please consider reporting these things to

WP:AIV in the future. east.718 at 17:51, 11/6/2007

Will do. Thank you.SWik78 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved. How does a 24 hour block help in circumstances where this same IP has been blocked multiple times, for up to 2 months and 5 fortnights? Corvus cornix 18:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comcast uses swiftly rotating IPs... chances are that a new person will have this within a couple days. If you want to go ahead and slap a lengthy softblock on it, that's up to you. east.718 at 18:58, 11/6/2007

No, since I'm not an admin, I can't slap a lengthy block on anybody. But it's obvious from the edit and block histories of this account, that there is a serial vandal here, 24 hours is like a slap on the wrist. Why even bother blocking? Corvus cornix 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Corvus cornix. Vandalism from that particular IP goes back to January 2005 without a single positive contribution that I could find. I think that the risks of banning a potential new user at this IP is worth the benefit of relief of an immense amount of vandalism. We're talking literally hundreds of instances of vandalism over almost 3 years. Just look at all the warnings on User talk:24.62.241.203. SWik78 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this IP is assigned to different people in rapid succession... if we're going go down this route, we should be discussing the merits of a rangeblock on Comcast, because it will have the same effect. east.718 at 20:19, 11/6/2007

Something seems wrong here; either (a) this IP is not rapidly reassigned to different people, or (b) all the contributions are not vandalism, or (c) every WP editor ever assigned that IP by Comcast is a vandal. Is everyone sure of their facts? Because (c) is the only possibility if Corvus and East718 are both correct, and it just seems the most unlikely of the three possibilities. --

barneca (talk

) 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(d) only one user that was ever assigned that IP has decided to edit Wikipedia SWik78 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) When I had Comcast as my ISP (up till about five months ago), my IP was very stable, and I could treat it as a de facto static IP. I was in one of their not-yet-modernized areas, so the fast-switching may be only happening in areas covered by their newer infrastructure. I agree that this IP is problematic and probably should be presumed stable for the purposes of preventative blocking. --Dynaflow babble 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

East is correct here. If you actually look at the contributions, you'll see that each "vandalism session" lasts a day or two; any further vandalism comes on completely dissimilar articles, and in most cases, months apart. That's the model of a dynamic IP that should not have a lengthy block applied. Just because the few customers that have been assigned that IP that have edited WP have done so to vandalize does not mean that future IP holders will do the same. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So then in between those day or two long sessions of vandalism, have there been any positive contributions from anyone else that was ever assigned that IP? SWik78 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but that doesn't mean there couldn't possibly be... I do however agree with your sentiments about persistent vandalism. If anybody doesn't object, I'm going to put a long softblock on it. east.718 at 21:05, 11/6/2007

The "months apart" was because this IP was blocked months at a time. east.718 at 21:05, 11/6/2007

(e.c., again) I actually believe East is incorrect on this count. The IP's vandalism binges seem to start at random times, but their ends are always coincident with the block. What I'm seeing is a user who occasionally gets bored and decides to stir shit up on Wikipedia, "edits" via the Random Article button until he or she gets blocked, and then ... I dunno ... goes out and throws rocks at cars or something. When boredom strikes again x period of time later, the pattern repeats. Comcast IPs can be stable. For example, this is me before I got a username (and occasionally afterwards); there are months of edits from my one IP, which even survived multiple modem restarts. My WHOIS page reads exactly the same way as this IP's. --Dynaflow babble 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I also was initially fooled by the long breaks in between vandalism, and the wide variety of articles. I also did a little research and found out that Comcast does in fact assign IP addresses for a long period of time. I've extended the block on this account, thank you all for the help provided. east.718 at 21:09, 11/6/2007

You're welcome. --Dynaflow babble 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From the contributions I would say that this is undoubtedly a static school IP. The mentions of billy, katie, tyler, kyle, and adam, and the fixation with sex is unmistakeable. (Billy appears in April and October). These crop up frequently at AIV. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks East. SWik78 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, east. Corvus cornix 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only IP

Resolved

 – schoolblocked for 1 month - Alison ^❤ 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The following is vandalising again after a long history of warnings and a block. It's not current, so reporting on AIV is inappropriate. The vandalism is increasingly taking the course of subtle factual inaccuracies that are difficult to disprove and hence, are being left in articles. [126] -- John 18:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick snoop shows that it belongs to the University of Plymouth, which explains the mix of edits. Given the block history and their current run, I've blocked the address, anon only, for one month - Alison ^❤ 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:MellowVoltorb

Resolved

 – User blocked by admin

I've given this user a vandalism warning for their antics at Chelsea F.C. today. However, looking at the abusive language on the user page User:MellowVoltorb, the fact that the edit history [127] contains no good faith edits and how this user has abused another editor on their talk page [128], I wonder whether administrative action should be considered.--Peter cohen 18:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinitely by an admin. For future reference, the place where this will get the most and quickest attention is

WP:AIV. Cheers, Qst

19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

210.54.245.44/Rabidly Placid: edit warring

WP:3RR.) --Pleasantville

19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you file a report on

WP:AN3, just note that s/he's the IP address too. --Haemo

19:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone else please step in here?

Benjiboi

19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the attack on their talk page with an npa warning. We'll see what happens. Natalie 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Benjiboi

19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

talk

20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's probably someone who doesn't like the subject. It's going to be

snowing today. --Haemo

20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What a waste of time, I've

gone ahead and closed it. east.718 at 20:16, 11/6/2007

David Vitter edit warring

User:Anothersliceofhistory edited the David Vitter article with statements that are POV and unsourced. [129] After I reverted, User:Araphel then made the identical change [130]. Then, after reverting a second time, Anothersliceofhistory blanked out the entire section.[131] After reverting that, User Araphel blanked out the section a second time.[132] I've run out of reverts and the section stands deleted. This is a solidly sourced section that was noteworthy. So, if I could get another editor to revert it back, I'd appreciate it. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

KoshVorlon reverted it. I thought about applying a semi-protect, but both users have been around a while with occcasional edits but no user pages. -- llywrch 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-empting the inevitable complaint

I've semi-protected the spam & OR magnet that is

iridescent

20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone feels the urge to clean up some of the ever-expanding linkfarm on this page, do feel free... I long ago gave up on my increasingly desultory attempt to keep

iridescent

20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say unprotect and give the user his last warning, if he does it again, block--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, 2 days of semi-protection is no big deal and probably the way to go. It looks like the vast majority, if not all, IP edits going back 6 months or so were non-constructive and/or vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On a closer look at the contribs I agree - what I thought were valid contribs which made me reluctant to block were in fact made in June. The 1-2-3-4 warnings have already been given (you need to look in the history as the IP's blanked the talk page); I'll leave it semi'd for 48 hours unless anyone feels otherwise. Can someone watchlist the page so I don't break 3RR (although given the amount of spammy links already there, not sure it matters — www.douchebag.com, anyone?) —

iridescent

21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am so glad you finished that. I had no clue where you were going with that last part... :)

talk

21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Should have left it, really... —

iridescent

21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this permitted?

Just stumbled across this - [133] while googling for a copyvio on the recently created Mark Pharis article. While he acknowledges the source as wikipedia there's no sign of a GFDL license and we have "Copyright 2006 Mark W. Savoca" at the bottom of the page. Can we/should we block this use? Exxolon 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, isn't it just syndicating this feed? east.718 at 21:37, 11/6/2007

Okay, I'll ask, who do you want to block? The info on the site you linked says: What is Feedage? Feedage is a free fully categorized and searchable RSS directory. More... MyFeedage allows users to create and manage groups of RSS feeds. Join or login to Myfeedage today and start your social feeding. Who exactly are you going to block and what did they violate? RSS feeds are everywhere.

IrishLass0128

21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is definitely NOT a copyvio (at least not one stealing from feedage.com). That page is as stated above simply showing an RSS feed of special:newpages. The copyright information page on that site also states that feedage does not claim copyright to material on preview pages such as the one you linked to. FunPika 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I was worried that the site might be attempting to claim copyright on our content. If they disclaim it, fine. A GFDL notice on the feed might be an idea tho. Exxolon 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Clicking on that led me to Seanblashe.  :) Corvus cornix 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional Admin Help Please - Copyright violations

I was patrolling

CAT:G12 when I noticed several copyright violating pages created by a single user. I've User talk:Soulofrock#Blocked

the user for an hour - should it be a longer block?

All are coming from the Marvel Wiki. While the Marvel Wiki is a wiki, it is not a GFDL wiki; Marvel's contributions remain under Marvel's copyright and anybody else's are not releases under a suitable license, see paragraphs 1 and 6 of their terms.

I don't have time to clean them all up. They are all in his contribution history of today. I've noticed that just prior to each article, he has uploaded an image that is a copyright violation of the same source. Can I get some administrator help in cleaning up the copyright violations. I suspect this user's contributions from prior days also need to be reviewed.

GRBerry

22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I slightly overreacted on the scope of work. I've gotten the blatant ones from today done. The situation does need a more full investigation as to whether any of the older edits are also copyright problems. I'm off for a while.

GRBerry

22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/edit war on George Mason University

Resolved

 – Problem user blocked

User:Gmu1987, a single purpose, borderline vandal editor has been consistently adding content to George Mason University which simply demeans the school, or indicates most people confuse it with James Madison University. The content was originally added to the article by an anon editor who specializes in tending to the JMU article. As a frequent contributor to the GMU article, and as a graduate of GMU, I believe my hands are pretty tied in dealing with this. Rather than simply block Gmu1987, I took to the matter to the article's talk page, and with the help of three other editors gained consensus on what content should remain or be removed. Gmu1987 has ignored the consensus, and regularly accused myself and others of vandalism while reverting in bad faith. Because I am involved in the edit conflict itself (which has progressed very slowly all the way back to August), I just wanted someone else to take a look at this, and decide on how to deal with this editor. Personally, I think a block is in order. Likewise, if this is an instance where I can make the block on my own, just let me know. Thanks! Hiberniantears 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. As I found out fairly early in my Wikipedia career, "enforcing" consensus is not a legitimate excuse for edit warring, so I will pass this advice along to you: If you have a consensus on the page, then let the others with whom you've built consensus do their share of reverting this user's problematic edits. Have you gone through the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution fully yet? [EDIT:] I just realized who you are; I actually thought I was addressing Bvjrm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for some reason, probably because I was looking through the page history when I was writing my reply. I see that you have already warned the user, though he or she has since removed the warning from his or her Talk page. Since the user has continued to edit war despite being warned, I would support a block for 3RR under the clause that allows blocks for persistent edit warring even if the 3RR electric fence isn't technically touched. --Dynaflow babble

01:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong has issued the block. --Dynaflow babble 02:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the third party assistance! Hiberniantears 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, without knowing that any warnings had been issued to User:Gmu1987, I just added content to the Talk:George Mason University page on this issue, supporting User:Bvjrm's efforts. I then went to User:Gmu1987's talk page to request he engage in the discussion rather than keep reverting. Only after I saved my comment to his talk page did I realize that someone had already started a noticeboard/incident report on it. FWIW, I have not, to my knowledge, been involved in any of the reverts of the recurring information; but I have weighed in on the GMU talk page with my opinion. Hope that clarifies my (limited) involvement. N2e 03:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)