Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive356

I'm not sure if this is exactly the right place to put this, so please excuse me if I'm wrong. There appears to be a lot of POV-pushing editing on the Urban sprawl article, including at least two newly created IDs, User:RedAmerica and User:America1st which appear to have been created specifically for that purpose. I'm not involved in the tussle, just came across it by chance. I've reverted to what I believe is the last good version before this particular bout began, but is there anything that can be done about it? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing accusations usually are content-related issues. Has dispute resolution been attempted, such as through

WP:RFPP to stop any ongoing editwars; however be aware that protection preserves the last version, not necessarily the version YOU want.--Jayron32.talk.contribs

20:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Ed Fitzgerald is just an innocent bystander. God knows we don't have too many of those around; there aren't too many bystanders either. east.718 at 20:16, January 17, 2008

Yeah, I was going to say that I am basically an "uninviolved editor." I understand the give and take which (in the best of all possible worlds) winds up with something approaching neutral accuracy, but I thought that the involvement of what looked to be single-purpose IDs might make a difference. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, another newly ID, User:Oceancity has jumped into the fray, and it too appears to be a sinbgle-purpose ID -- one of its edit summaries decried "Commie" behavior, or something like that. I thought perhaps that semi-locking the article might be an option, to keep out the new IDs? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^(talk/cont) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Oceancity registered at 19:50 UTC, here, and edited the article 9 minutes later, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article from a "Third pair of eyes" standpoint, and much of the added material is biased. In some cases, the additions seek to editorialize about the benefits of sprawl, such as changing a section on "Consumer preference for sprawl" to "Smart consumers prefer sprawl". Other edits are similar. I've changed some wording to a compromise version, since some of the existing language could be cleaned a bit - but, generally, the added material doesn't meet the requirements of

WP:NPOV. I would support protection, though I'm not sure if Semi-protection would work on this particular set of registered users. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

21:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh good lord, I forgot the lead. Fixed. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken a look; Ed's right, these are pretty much pure blatantly POV-pushing single-purpose accounts. They denounce anybody who disagrees with them, refuse to source their assertions of opinion, and generally disdain all norms of Wikipedian editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, User:Nlu has labelled my old (User:Sumple) and new (User:PalaceGuard008) accounts as sockpuppets, and indef blocked the old account (which doesn't really matter to me as I can't access it anyway - as explained below). Here's my posting on his talk page:

A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden.

Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternate accounts. An alternate account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits.

Neither User:Sumple nor User:PalaceGuard008 are alternates of each other. One is the successor of the other, mainly because I changed the password to the User:Sumple account to a string of random letters, and not having an email address stored, could not retrieve it. I have never simultaneously operated from both accounts.

The two accounts have not been used deceptively. I do not operate from both accounts, nor have I ever at any point. I have never represented that the two accounts were/are not the same person. When User:Certified.Gangsta and another vandal previously accused me of sockpuppetry, I clearly stated in both cases that they have no evidence of "sockpuppetry" - which they do not, since neither account is an alternate of the other, and they have not been used deceptively. In fact, the two accounts have not been used together at all. They are successor accounts. Never have I denied that both accounts have belonged or currently belong to me.

Having lost access to the previous account, the creation of a new account is clearly justified. The amount of personal information I choose to reveal on either account is a matter entirely up to my own discretion.

This is clearly harassment from Certified.Gangsta as "revenge" for my objection to his racist user page content. Please remove the templates, or file a proper sockpuppetry case so that I can defend myself as per natural justice.

To summarise, there is no sockuppetry here because (1) the two accounts are not alternates because the old account is inaccessible and the new account is a successor account; at no time did I edit from both; (2) I did not use the two accounts improperly; (3) I never denied that I registered both accounts. A clarification from the admin commmunity would be much appreciated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin opinion) If you admitted in the ast that you own both accounts, then I see no problem in the matter. I'm sure many users have started off a new account and left their old one behind. I don't know whether its harassement however. Maybe some diffs needed? D.M.N. (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin opion here... I am ready to unblock the prior account and remove accusations of sockpuppetry, what do others think. I see no evidence of using multiple accounts incorrectly.

WP:SOCK expressly allows the use of multiple accounts as long as no attempt is made to abuse them (such as vote stacking, false consensus building, edit warring, etc.) I can see nothing that has gone wrong here. Any other opinions? --Jayron32.talk.contribs

21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment for ease of use:

• Sumple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• PalaceGuard008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Nlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Hope this helps. Cagey Millipede (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And just to explain the history and context a little: I changed the User:Sumple account password to a random string of letters mainly because of my frustration at the time and decision that I no longer wished to edit Wikipedia. Later, I changed my mind and decided that I needed an account to make an occasional edit, hence creating User:PalaceGuard008, which was meant to be a "single purpose" account for editing the Forbidden City article, a work in progress at the time. Over time, I've found myself editing more and more using this account.

Given the context, you can probably see why I didn't feel the need at the time to label User:Sumple as my old account, since I didn't anticipate much continuity in my activities. That was in hindsight a mistsake. Nevertheless, I made no attempts to hide the fact that I "used to be" Sumple: my personal webpage, which is linked from my user page, clearly states so. My friends on the project are all aware of this. At no time did I deny that the two accounts were both registered by me. However, I do not believe this is sockpuppetry, so when I have been accused of sockpuppetry, I have of course vehemently denied it.

Just to make it clear, I'm not seeking any action against User:Certified.Gangsta. However, I would like to see User:Sumple unblocked. It makes no difference to me since I can't access it anyway, but I have a feeling that account being blocked for sockpuppetry will be used as a weapon by User:Certified.Gangsta in any future conflict along the lines of "User:PalaceGuard008 is a sockpuppet of banned sockpuppet User:Sumple". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, I see no possibility of abusive sockpuppetry as described in

Wikipedia:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny...the last edit by Sumple (talk · contribs) was 12:38, May 27, 2007 & the first by PalaceGuard008‎ (talk · contribs) was 08:25, May 28, 2007--there's clearly no overlap in contributions in which the usual votestacking and such could have occured. But Sumple does have a minor block log, a 3 hr block on the day Sumple "left" the project...and there was certainly a lot of drama 'round then, too. That said, there's nothing really to fight about here, in my opinion. I'd say just unblock User:Sumple, leave the note that's currently there and ask this editor to link back to the old account on User:PalaceGuard008 for full clarity. — Scientizzle

23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I will do that presently. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see conclusive evidence of intentional deception, but the end result is deception. By leaving the Sumple account and starting a new one under PalaceGuard008 at the time that he did -- when he was in a state of dispute, including with Certified.Gangsta -- it created the impression that he is a new user who had no prior history with Certified.Gangsta and anyone else, and the failure to disclose that in the recent dispute with Certified.Gangsta creates a misimpression, even if, arguendo, that was not the intended effect. I do not see any reason to unblock the Sumple account. It should be noted that I did not block PalaceGuard008. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But on what grounds did you block the Sumple account? Not being an alternate account, it can't be a sockpuppet account, and I did not use it deceptively - I have not even used it for the last 7 months, nor could I, as explained above.

There is no obligation for me to actively disclose every time I deal with an issue that I had participated in that I have had a previous account. At no point did I say that the two accounts were not both registered by me, and those users who have worked with me harmoniously often already know the history and status of the two accounts.

How can it be "deception" when the issue didn't even involve me: it involved a part of Certified.Gangsta's user page that others found offensive. Your argument is that because I, in my previous account, had had run-ins with Certified.Gangsta

on other issues, therefore I have an obligation to detail my past dealings with Certified.Gangsta every time I raise an issue about him?

No unfairness was created, unless you are saying that you would judge the merits of "China=Shame" not on its contents but on the identity of the person raising it on AN/I. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sumple and his sock PalaceGuard had so far presented a disgracefully distorted account of the entire episode. Sumple had actively pursued me in the past and launched a harassment campaign through his IP after he announced his departure. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Sumple (note that Sumple already took issue with the content of my userpage during this arbCom case) [1]. He also had a personal attack on his userpage against me calling me crazy people. (see AN/I

[2]) After he announced that he has left the project in May 27th, 2007 on User talk:Sumple after User:Geogre blocked him to cool him down. (and real life friend User:enochlau deleted his userpage)

The very next day, Sumple deceptively got a new account PalaceGuard. This exchange is quite interesting. blueshirt asked "Are you Mr. Sumple?" [3] (diffs doesn't show since this is the 1st edit) Sumple replied "As for your question, hush hush." [4] This show a blatant lack of respect to wikipedia policy and deliberate disruption. On May 29, Sumple's IP continued to harass me in various forums [5] [6] and added persona non grata through his IP in August

[7]. He continued to harass me throughout the months through IP addresses, most recently [[8]] While he tried to appear to be neutral and objective in his latest harassment endeavor, he refused to acknowledge his identity even when pressed by admins [noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=184688458#Racism in user page]. This is certainly not in accordance to the "right to vanish". He claimed he has retired while starting a new account to continue his harassment campaign. All of these add up to sockpuppetry, deception, deliberate disruption, trolling, and overall a lack of respect for wikipedia policies. He deserve to be blocked like all other sockpuppets and puppet master.--

) 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I trust readers can see that Certified.Gangsta is just assembling a bunch of unrelated diffs, mostly by unrelated parties, and infilling them with a bunch of emotive language...

Look C.G, stop stirring up problems. You didn't realise I changed accounts unlike other editors - that's not my fault. Your slow realisation is not a cue for you to come and pin every charge under the sky against me and claim that every one who dislikes your "valuable" contributions is me. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, immediately changing to the sumple account could be construed as a disruptive attempt to channge identities, but that now no longer presents a problem because it is ntoed on the relevnt userpages. There has been no sockpuppetry by the definition of it. Note that Certified Gangsta is now callig for "justice" and threatening to leave and stalk palace guard (not sure wether that was sarcasm) on my talk page. Viridae^Talk 03:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m not making that threat. I’m putting this issue into perspective in the case that if I were Sumple and Sumple were me. It’s strictly hypothetical. Sumple, no doubt, is stalking (wikistalking) and spamming me all over the place while abusing his right to vanish. I’m just pointing out the absurdity in Viridae’s vehement defense for Sumple in a hypothetical situation.I don’t believe in sockpuppetry. That’s why I always request name change through the proper process and persistently hunted puppet master User:PoolGuy, User:Ideogram (a user Viridae patronized in the past), and User:RevolverOcelotX in the past. This, no doubt, doesn’t sit well with Viridae, who is more interested in personal vendetta and wikilawyering than upholding wikipedia policies.--

talk

) 04:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Attacks will get you nowhere CG. Viridae^Talk 04:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m not going to waste my time anymore. I’m just going to point out the fact that, admin Nlu, an experienced sockpuppet hunter, agree with me that Sumple and PalaceGuard are sockpuppets. Sadly, he probably no longer wants to participate after Palace spammed his talkpage. If nobody wants to enforce the most basic policy, then so be it. As usual, the messenger gets shot.--

) 05:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually he didnt agree, per the link i provided to you when you claimed there was cosnensus that palaceguard and sumple were socks. You are repatedly ignoring evidence you disagree with. Viridae^Talk 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read any of my evidence above? As for the thread you point out on Nlu’s talkpage, nowhere did Nlu agree with you. Also, enochlau is Sumple’s real life friend who is his conspirator in this cover-up.--

) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is this CG? "OK, thanks for the information. In which case, I'd say that the sockpuppet tag on his new account can be taken off, but I am honestly unsure how I feel about the tag on his old account; I'll have to think about it further. --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)". Palacaeguard then agreed in this thread to tag his old account with a note notifying anyone interested of his new account. No evidence CG, how about you just drop it? (incidentally that hodge podge of unrelated diffs you supply as evidence above shows nothing). Viridae^Talk 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope anyone reading this thread can see the reason that I'm still pushing to have User:Sumple unblocked, or at least not blocked as a "sockpuppety". It makes no practical difference to me, because I can't access the User:Sumple account. But you can imagine what it'll be like if I run into Certified.Gangsta again, can't you? He's going to try to use this to attack me on any unrelated issue, probably citing some irrelevant diffs filled with a splodge of groundless and paranoid accusations... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the block log ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Sumple ) it happened about 5 hours ago. Viridae^Talk 05:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh oops. Sorry to waste space and time -_-. Thanks for your time all. This is what happens when you are trying to campaign on another account. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s way too premature to think this is over.

) 06:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is sock puppetry, or just coincidential recreation of a deleted page, but something looks a little fishy to me. I came across a User:AmeliaElizabeth and saw on their user contributions that this person has been modifying the userspace article User:Alfred Legrand/Wenocur. User:Alfred Legrand was banned on January 10th, and this AmeliaElizabeth's article edits started on January 11th. I also find it a little interesting that User:Steven J. Anderson created that page on Alfred Legrand's userspace page.

I would note that it appears that the User:Alfred Legrand/Wenocur article is a userspace update of the article R. S. Wenocur which was deleted multiple times , most recently through this AFD discussion.

I do not know if this may be sockpuppetry or not. I did notice, however, that Legrand was banned from using Wikipedia on January 10th, and AmeliaElizabeth's started January 11th. Also, why would Steven Anderson create the subpage on Legrand's userspace and not his own?

Just wanted to point this out in case there is something going on that should not be. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's likely that before he was blocked, Legrand asked for userfication of the deleted article. User:Steven J. Anderson, an admin, probably responded to a request. Horologium (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that a report on this was already filed above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wenocur. Pairadox (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please block users per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could some of the admins have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Filippella? I strongly suspect, based on edit histories, that most of the keep votes (with the exception of the first one) are sock puppets of the subject of the article. However, I'd like to hear some additional opinions before slogging through a formal sock inquiry. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I struck out one that was a duplicate vote - two from Herndon VA same network. Another of the IPs WHOIS resolves to California, so I don't know. It looks like the IP was impersonating

talk

02:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Only edits of User:Standshown is edit warring on Serbia-related articles [9]. Because of that he has been blocked on 24 hours period, but after that nothing has changed. For example of his POV editing I will use article

) 03:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxy IP blocking

I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and I have only just joined. I had to do so because when I went to make a minor edit in wording in an article I was blocked. This was due to the fact that I am connected through iprimus (Primus Telecom), which uses a proxy server. While I agree to blocking a proxy due to consistent vandalism being issued by it's users, I wish to request that the policy on blocking be changed so that members of a proxy can still register on wikipedia. It is completely unfair to prevent them all from registering, when, once registered, they can be individually blocked. I understand that they can then make multiple accounts and undermine the system, but isn't blocking them to prevent that against the whole idea of wikipedia? Besides that, if they know how, they can simply bypass the proxy in their browser. Ultimately I would like to request that the policy be altered to stop the prevention of proxy users creating an account, or that at least the relevant instructions on how to bypass the proxy, and a list of affected ISP's be added to a relevant area. I myself had to navigate to an historical page on the problems with blocking AOL users to determine what I needed to do in order to register...

--KeeperoftheWatch (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it wasn't any trouble for you. Users behind proxies can request accounts in emails to [email protected] Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the message? It was trouble for this user. You can be as flippant as you want, I suppose. Nevertheless let's not pretend that blocking out potentially valuable contributors is solved by requiring them to be aware of Wikipedia arcana and reveal their email addresses to who knows whom.

I look forward to the day when assuming good faith is a prevailing presumption on this site rather than merely a cudgel to be used against those with whom one disagrees. Frongle (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, can you please not jump on people's throats like that? Sorry to hear that, User:KeeperoftheWatch. Unfortunately due to the way our software works, we can't allow account creation on proxies that are known to be used by vandals. The block message should however redirect people to our mailing list, [email protected]. If you give us the IP that was shown as blocked, we will be able to tweak this message. As a more permanent solution, you can contact Primus Telecom and ask them to follow the steps of explained by our m:XFF project, whose aim is to help ISP to configure their proxy servers to reduce collateral damage. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ehud Lesar was blocked, then unblocked, and then reblocked for allegations of being a sock of temporarily banned User:AdilBaguirov. The block was made on arbitrary basis, without a single proof supporting such allegations, just because some admins believe that the 2 users might be related. However checkuser showed no relation between these 2 users: [10] I don't think that permanently blocking people without any reliable evidence is appropriate. I would like to ask for independent investigation of this situation. I believe that before blocking people some sort of an official investigation should be conducted to verify any connections between the two accounts. However this was not done, and this block is highly questionable. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk)

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar. —Random832

That page is a gigantic mess. Who is ever going to read that whole thing to find out what the actual problem is?

20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some very odd edits going on at Andrea Bocelli. Check the article history, especially re: the edits of the following users:

• Belcanti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Botoxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Legacie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• BotchelliFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Quodella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Sawchek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Something is

04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest, from a quick review, that LogonOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Legacie are related, but that bottichelliFan might be unrelated. Perhaps some more detailed explanation of what sorts of patterns you're seeing could help?ThuranX (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Its all small stuff. The issue is that each user shows up for 1-2 days, makes 3 edits all subtly changing the article in some way that lies just below vandalism, and disappears again. All of the edits are related in some way to Boccelli being a bad singer, such as changing opera to "popera" or entering some personal analysis of his vocal qualities. Several of these seem to understand how to use ref tags and other higher order aspects of wikimarkup, which seems weird for a new user. Some of these may be innocently caught up in this, but something smells funny to me about this. I still want to see what others think... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of all the things to go sock farm over, Andrea Bocelli? Ronnotel (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, weird, right? And yet, something doesn't feel right about this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a farm. I'll put the list at User talk:Jpgordon/Belcanti sock farm; someone should check to see there aren't any false hits in this list of 30 editors on one IP. You'll note that LogonOne and BotchelliFan are indeed there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Were these checkusered? Do we know they are one IP? And is it enough to take action against them??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I checkusered them, and I said they are one IP (actually, I found a couple more on an adjacent IP). And, sure, they might be a class. But the sort of stuff it's full of is like this at 22:40 followed by this two minutes later, then the creation of User:Dysopic at 22:45, and then the creation of User:Gitelmesumodat! at 22:54, then User:Gitelwomaner at 23:07... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent stuff. You may want to check out: User:Gitelmesome.

Prolly more too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there little discussion the content? What if there was a school lesson about the person and the kids then edited. Let's see a list of which users are good and which are bad, then block the bad. I know nothing about the article's subject so I can't tell.

) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK if I just butt in? If this had been a follow on from a school lesson then surely most of the edits would have happened very rapdily over a short space of time. These edits from new users (most of whom as has been said seem to have quite a good understanding of how wikiedia works) just keep "popping up", and don't come across as being edits as a result of a school lesson. On 10 January LogonOne removed one section and then Lefacie later that same day (after it had been re-instated by someone) made an identical edit with virtually the same edit summary. There just appears to be a pattern of editing from all these new users all seemingly trying to change the whole feel of the article, and most of them coming acriss as if they were all being done by the same person. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ftleitner is on the list. The most recent edits that I check seem ok. User:Wasted Time R carries on a decent conversation with the user so that's a sign of not being a vandal (either that or they are both socks carrying on a fake conversation). Felix Leitner is a known CIA agent. He has worked with James Bond including the latest film.

) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but: look at the sequence of edits starting with this one. Three in a row from the same IP. Actually, that makes it seem more likely that it's a class project. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What, some teacher said "OK, class, now I want you all to find a Wikipedia article and go mess it up". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've seen weirder. There probably are a lot more -- I haven't done a comprehensive checkuser yet (that is, I've not checkusered every username on the list yet; I just found these on the first one I checked.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If it's a class, make me a Sherlock Holmes award!
        talk
        ) 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Take a look at the edits starting with here. The three edits within an hour of each other are from the same IP. I really really am inclined to hope that it's innocuous, because there are a ton more than I put on that page, which I'm now deleting. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Maybe run a Whois on the IP? See if its a school or what? I mean, ONE IP address accounting for all of this... This... I don't know what to think. I mean, it could just be some kids at school goofing off... But... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Oh, it's not one address anymore -- there are a handful of them in a small (so far) range, but from 3 of them, I've got over 60 names, and I'm going to stop looking unless there's an actual problem, like talk page collusion (rather than conversation, which is what I've mostly seen.) Maybe it's an Internet cafe? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Or a public library... Still, there MAY be some sockpupetry going on between some of these. It is probably no longer a "grand conspiracy", but we shouldn't let this color our analysis of some possible sockpuppetry from some users using this IP. But I agree, the idea that this single IP means it is a single user is getting harder and harder to believe... Weird stuff... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as long as it's not Sefton Public Libraries... which has already been blocked a lot of times! --Solumeiras ^talk 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• What, some teacher said "OK, class, now I want you all to find a Wikipedia article and go mess it up"

  — User:Jayron32

Reminds me of that incident that incident involving a professor that User:Zoe got into a discussion about on here... --Solumeiras ^talk 13:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a report here a day or two ago about ThuranX denouncing me as a "racist" and a "bigot" - labels that I find deeply offensive. As I did not have much time to respond to user comments at the time, the report was quickly superseded by newer reports, and as I've been reluctant to make an issue of it, I decided perhaps it would be best to just drop the matter.

On reflection however, I've decided that I can't really do that, because it leaves me feeling aggrieved and I couldn't possibly be expected to co-operate in future with a user who maintains that I am a racist and a bigot. I have also found that this matter has considerably soured my interest in Wikipedia, to the point where I no longer feel like contributing. Therefore, I feel this issue requires some sort of resolution.

Before I take the matter further then, I am going to ask once again, if ThuranX is unwilling to withdraw his slurs, that he be sanctioned for it. I'm asking here first because it strikes me as a relatively quick and easy place to resolve a dispute like this. In the event that no-one here is willing to sanction ThuranX for whatever reason, the next step will be to take it to

) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, ThuranX is incorrect to call you a racist, when it's obvious from inspecting your contributions on Holodomor Denial, that you are a communist propagandist and Holodomor denialist. Being a racist is much more respectable. Argyriou (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As with any AN/I post - can you provide diffs, even if you have cited them in a prior thread? Additionally, Argyriou, observe

talk

20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[I changed this section title to match the actual discussion content here. Page title was temporarily at Adult-older teen sex; that was changed during this AN/I report, per discussions that were in progress previously. The prior title is mentioned in the first few paragraphs but is not the main point of this AN/I report as can be seen here in the discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]

Jack-a-Roe was among the set of Wikipedians who supported keeping the article at Adult-older teen sex. I'm not sure why the pagemove which started the current kerfuffle shouldn't be in the section head, as it originally was. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, SSBohio, that is a misrepresentation of my position, and shows a lack of good faith. I never liked the title "Adult-older teen sex". I support either "Adult-teen sex" or "Adult-adolescent sex", or simply deletion. I changed the heading here, for clarity in this report only, in good faith, and not for any undue influence (that would not have accrued anyway). It's also completely untrue that the title of "Adult-older teen sex" is at the core of this issue, that's a sidetrack and discussing it does not help in any way to get to the root of the content dispute. Now, there is an AfD in progress for that page, so we'll find out what the community consensus is about that, and that is a welcome process. I believe the widest possible participation in the AfD process would be beneficial to Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Would an admin (or two or three) review the page move and subsequent creation of a dab page to prevent the move from being undone? A quick look at the relevant talk pages will show that this was done with virtually no discussion and is extremely controversial, with more and more editors weighing in on the inappropriateness of the move. Pairadox (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this plea. Three people "reached a consensus" among each other to move and re-direct within a few minutes after 15 or 20 similar or identical proposals had failed, where several dozens of people had voiced their utter disagreement with such a move. The current supporters of the move link to a "discussion" they themselves have deleted, just as they have deleted the whole history of the article they moved. Compare the current remains of Adult-child sex to my WIP draft of the same article that by now several people have agreed on that it would be better to revert to than to accept this mere disambiguation ruin. A number of newcomers to the talkpage at Adult-older teen sex already voiced how poorly the few materials the moving editors kept corresponds with this new article's theme. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The title "Adult-older teen sex" is utterly ridiculous, not least because it makes no sense in the English language. I have moved it to Adult-adolescent sex for this reason alone, and consensus on the page should determine a correct outcome (whether to go back to the old title or what to change it to if not.) Other admins should not feel they are wheel-warring me if they disagree and can think of a better solution to this mess. Orderinchaos 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To claim 3 people reached consensus is a complete under-exageration and I would argue that consensus has been achieved butt hat a tiny minority of editors refusee to accept it. Then title is now

SqueakBox

16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual SqueakBox, you have the overwhelming majority of people against you and don't even acknowledge that. Just recently, User:Karla_Lindstrom has referred to your persistent disruptive behavior as "dictatorial behaviour with some vague appeal to common sentiment", not to mention the hundreds of accounts where people agreed with her on that and that are now conveniently deleted because you deleted the entire article. --TlatoSMD (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither side has an overwhelming majority on this issue. That's why there's a conflict. What should concern us all are the tactics being used to circumvent the ongoing discussion. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, is this not about deleting subjects which you can't comprehend, rather than making only important information available. The small group of editors that includes yourself seem intent on deleting any historical or anthropological mention of nonwestern adult-child sex that threatens to undermine the dominant theory. It really is quite pathetic and immature. digitalemotion 16:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I broadly agree with some of your points, but I wanted to clarify that this discussion is entirely about whether the article needs admin intervention, not the merits of any side. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Have reviewed the situation carefully. User:Nakon carefully reviewed the situation then move-protected the article a few days ago after some fairly extreme warring. Some constructive editing thereby took place but then some further wholesale changes occurred. Nakon reverted them, and placed a notice on the article that "Your Attention, Please! Anyone coming here to revert changes should read [11] before pressing the "Save Page" button. Editors continuing to revert changes will be blocked from editing for disruption and edit warring." There does not appear to have been consensus to move forward on this.

I note that even in the time since I restored to Nakon's version about 20 minutes ago, Squeakbox has attempted to jump to the thick of the battle from 6 days ago. There is indeed some problem editors and problem edits on both sides, and the article is not ideal, but the way to solve this is pouring water on it, not gasoline. Orderinchaos 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article Orderinchaos. Should we be inclined to understand this as a warning directed at SqueakBox? --TlatoSMD (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that other admins are advised to participate, as I now seem to be involved, due to Squeakbox's two reversions of my edit (strangely, the version being reverted to is way back on 7 January[12], not any recent version). Orderinchaos 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, as you can see, two editors (

SqueakBox and Pol64) are obviously ignoring your admin decision as well as they are violating your user block warning that has been put at the very top of the article. I propose that said warning of user blockage ought to be put to action. --TlatoSMD (talk

) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - a. as an admin I'm basically just a trusted user, I don't run the place and it should be noted one of the other parties,

WP:BLOCK. "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." Orderinchaos

17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed. I've seen admins use their admin tools when they've been involved in a content dispute. I think your way avoids conflict of interest to a greater degree. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. There are two users (Squeakbox and Pol64) who are determinedly and mechanically fighting any attempt to deal with the situation in a rational manner. If another admin could look into this as I'm unable to act against any of the parties given my involvement tonight, that would be great - please note this is urgent and current. Orderinchaos 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, respectfully, there are so many kilobytes of discussion, and so much aggressive activity in this situation that has gone on for months, that perhaps you didn't notice the at least five more editors who support the change of article title. I'm not saying that's enough for consensus, but it is enough that it's not fair to focus only on the two users you mentioned, who happened to be the ones online since you became involved.

In addition to those two, I also support the change in article title, for many reasons; and other editors supporting the change include administrator Herostratus, who you noted above, plus administrator Will Beback, Flyer22, and JLove. That's at least 7 editors who have stated their support of the change in just the last couple weeks. Prior to that during debates over the last few months, there have been many more, though I have not organized that information so I can't present it here.

My point is that this is an ongoing complicated difficult situation and a larger issue, not just a couple people being pushy. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's a lot of people being pushy. Pairadox (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've said things I'm not proud of during the course of this dispute. Others, presumably, have as well. The discussion here is primarily concerned with what admin action needs to be taken, not with who's right about the article's title or content. Right now, I feel that the article may need to go under a (brief) period of full protection, as semi-protection hasn't doused the fire. These issues need talked out, not repeatedly reverted. --SSBohio 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this dispute, but it strikes me that what is going on is largely a content dispute. Whilst admins can deal with the issue of edit-warring and other conduct issues, the actual content dispute should go through paths starting with RFC. At the moment we have a ridiculous situation in which

) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter cohen, I have said from day 1 of my involvement that babies and toddlers ought not be muddled up with pre-pubescents and pre-adolescensts, and none of them should be muddled up with adolescents. Adult-child sex started out as relating to pre-pubescents and pre-adolescents as you can see in my further advanced draft in my own namespace I've linked to above, but then Herostratus moved it to Adult-older teen sex by agreeing with SqueakBox and Pol64 after we had 15 to 20 unsuccessful proposals for delete/merge/redirect already.

Also, as it might interest a few people here to know, the people that have been warned today by admins of getting blocked for more unilateral, "disruptive" redirection have now started another proposal for delete/merge/redirect. --TlatoSMD (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of course is not a disruptive action at all and hopefully will give greater community consensus on this matter. If people feel the need to edit the article to resolve the problem screaming don't until you are blue in the face is not helpful. Some editors appear only to to be here to promote a POV and trhen they go blamingm other editors who are more interested in NPOV. Count the number of SPAs and you will see whaty I mean. Thanks,

SqueakBox

22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On "disruptive", I've only quoted literally those admins that have now warned you. --TlatoSMD (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tlato, are you aware that Hersostratus was an admin and that Orderinchaos was wheelwarring? I am not criticising any admins but I do think Tlato is being a bit presumptive here. Thanks,

SqueakBox

04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROTECT (in summary, don't use one's tools to advance one's own position) are likely to be reverted as would any other user - mine, as I have noted, was not a position taken on issue but a status quo based on the last review (which the paint hadn't even dried on yet). Orderinchaos

11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of these cabals gaming the system. Yes, cabals. real ones. I said it. There's a pattern here. Cause trouble, find an admin willing to jump into this gigantic morass of morons and sort it out. As soon as one does, they're tainted, and cannot resolve it again, because one side or the other tags them as 'involved editors by arguing their actions with reverts. Once an admin action that didn't involve the fancy buttons is reverted, the editors claim the admin is now part of the content dispute, insulating themselves from blocks by that admin. Then another admin must step in, read it all, and issue blocks. Those blocks are contested by the editor's fellow travelers, making the new admin also tainted. Then, there's two less courageous editors who can ever again step in to resolve this stuff. It's a war of attrition, and it's intentional manipulation of the situation. Admins who step in based on AN/I reports ought to be covered by policy to protect their effectiveness. Any admin actions can be appealed through various methods, so why should we give them a 'one shot deal' system? By that logic, our oldest and boldest admins are relegated within a year or two to policy debate and vandalism fights, because all the content and dispute stuff is off limits as 'involved'. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. It puts administrators in a no-win situation and encourages inaction. Orderinchaos 11:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Shouldn't

WP:AGF cover this? After all, an otherwise uninvolved Admin entering a dispute should be assumed to be objective until it is clearly proven otherwise. (Emphasis on "clearly".) -- llywrch (talk

) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't there already an article on ephebophilia? Merkinsmum 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but because one is attracted to a certain group of people does not mean one has sex with that group of people; conversely, just because one has sex with a certain group of people, doesn't mean that you are fixated on that group; it may just be a source of easy sex that's close enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago I asked to hear for feedback on the images of toy/cartoon/comic characters. I asked what was the most accepted source - a comic book scan, box art, the toy, promotional images, assuming I use a proper non-free source tag. Has anyone put any thought into this matter? I was hoping to post one or two more pictures for character articles lacking images tonight or tomorrow. If I don't hear from anyone here, I'll guess it's okay to try two more and then ask for feedback on if I did them properly. Thanks in advance for any input.

) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MCQ is a better place for these kinds of inquiries. —Random832

22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Legrand and the sock puppets

Please block very recently confirmed sockpuppets of

.

 Confirmed - sock puppets of

talk · contribs

)

• AmeliaElizabeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
  )
• MathStatWoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Simon,Jms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JanosGalomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CharlieFeff. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MRKPinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• H Wilf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• RDSW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thanks. CM (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this specifically - doesn't the RFCU clerk typically perform these blocks?

talk

02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No :) We often do since we're obviously watching the page more often, but the procedure is for the requester to ask an admin to perform the blocks based on the evidence. Some clerks are not admins, which shouldn't prevent them from closing and archiving cases. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also to add to what lucas said, sometimes the requester doesn't want a block, or a block is not the best solution, and all that is being requested is the confirmation. Orderinchaos 12:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, we need to seriously discuss an indef community ban at this point. This behavior goes back to at least January 2006. — Satori Son 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

05:18, 10 January 2008

User:Krimpet blocked "User:Alfred Legrand (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite. -- lucasbfr ^talk

10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This situation is so long-term and complex, I'm not sure which account could even be classified as the "puppetmaster" at this point. But I see that East718 has also indef blocked the longest existing account, MathStatWoman (talk · contribs · block log), which I fully support. — Satori Son 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Under a previous username (which is open for anyone to see), I applied some RFU and missing fair use rationale and copyright tags to an image. I have since retired that username and begun using this one after a bit of drama involving a former admin and an alias signature I was using at the time. In any case, I gave up previously. However, I ultimately decided that a rule is a rule and everyone should be required to follow them. So, I retagged the image in question. [13]. Logical Defense once again deleted the tags (even though the RFU tag clearly states that it should not be removed). I was told that if he did this again, I should IFD the image, which I have done [14].

Logical Defense is mistaken regarding a great many things. He continually accuses me of bad faith, claims I'm tagging the image because I'm "pro-Christian" (I'm not). Now he is going around bad mouthing me on other people's talk pages and violating

. At the end of his screed, he claims that if the image is deleted at IFD, he "already knows what to do". Which I assume is to subvert it by uploading the image again.

I've never said the image is needless as he claims. I'm NONE of the things he claims I am (a kid, a teenager, religious, etc.), and instead of following the rules according to our non-free media policy, he deletes tags and makes personal attacks. I would like it very much if someone would explain the replaceable fair use policy and the nonfree media policy in general, and warn this person to stop canvassing and making personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the IFD tag. If it continues to be removed, the image can be protected until the IFD is over. None of the other tags (replaceable, etc) really matter as any of those processes are superseded by an IFD discussion. --B (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I probably should have IFDed in the first place. Oh well, live and learn. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of "personal attacks" are greatly exaggerated, and any investigation into what I've said in edit summaries and so forth will show that nothing I said was intended as "attacks". If you take offense to being called a "teenager" (which according to info on your former account, you at least were when I first met you here), or "Christian" (which again, you named yourself at the time our conflict emerged), then that's your personal misconception. You keep trying to spin my actions in an attempt to hurt my rep, but the truth is, I've done nothing wrong while communicating with you or anyone else.

I stand by my claim that your pursuit to erase the image is personal bias; the image, afterall, provides mood and intrigue to the black metal page. If providing a clear portrait of a historical moment is something you're against, then I can understand this game you're playing. Otherwise, I don't get it. But we'll let review decide. "Reuploading the image" -- by the way -- is another exaggeration you've made without merit. Logical Defense (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stand by your claims all you like. I just hope you're accustomed to being wrong about a great many things. My age and religion/lack thereof are immaterial and constant mention of them is nothing more than an attempt to divert people from the issue at hand, which is a non-free image being used in violation of

WP:NFCC. Sadly, nonfree images can't be used to provide "mood and intrigue." IFD will determine the ultimate outcome and whatever the reviewing admin decides will be fine by me. Nobody of Consequence (talk

) 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates and user pages at CSD

While doing the gardening, I noticed there's a bunch of templates and user pages for consideration at CSD. These make an interesting change from the usual "is gay" moronic stuff, so please pop along if you've a mind to do some mopping. --Dweller (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Before anyone asks, no I don't

do the gardening with a mop. --Dweller (talk

) 13:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I may not be handling this properly so I would like some help if possible.

I suspect that the IP and the username listed above are the same person based on the fact that they are editing some of the same articles and at about the same time. User La'teen created article

regarding this violation. Shortly thereafter, 168.167.93.241 deleted the speedy tag from the article. If 168.167.93.241 was a different user than La'teen this would have been fine but I suspect that they are the same person and are using an account and an anonymous IP address to circumvent policies and rules. Here are some of the articles they have both contributed to:

• S.C.A.R
• Botswana hip hop
• Gabane
• Category:Villages in Botswana

I have placed templates for suspected sock puppets on their user pages but am somewhat unsure how to proceed and whether or not I handled things correctly so far. Please advise. Thanks.

P.S.
The S.C.A.R article has been rewritten since I first tagged it as a copyright violation so it may not qualify for speedy anymore, at least not for that reason.

) 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is a real intention of violating Wikipedia practises even if they were the same person... I don't think La'teen knows enough Wikipedia policies to try to circumvent them. I think he's just a new eager editor from Botswana, who wishes to contribute but is finding the learning curve too steep. This is exactly the situation I was hoping to avoid when I advised him to create articles in a subpage of his user space and asking for comments before going to main space :( Sadalmelik (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Current involved in an edit war at

) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been on the edge of blocking him for re-creating promotional articles - at least, they look like promotion if you squint at the nonsense long enough. I think he's been using too much of his product. He seems to have achieved a critical blocking mass at this point. Acroterion _(talk) 01:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm. Too much "hemp(eror)", perhaps. However, communicating through edit summaries is not helpful. Neither is the provocative format, never mind the content. I'll drop him a note on his talk page and see what that brings up. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I was formulating a 48-hour block for edit-warring/spamming/nasty edit summaries/craziness, but will hold off for the time being. Acroterion _(talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If craziness were a reason for blocking, two-thirds of us wouldn't be here; feel free if my move doesn't work, but we have to realise that editors come here with widely differing value systems. However, this editor has had a wider variety of warnings than I can remember seeing; a 48-hour may allow him to come down from Cloud 8, perhaps. And that's not an insult; I've been there. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he might descend from #9 to #7. I'm not in favor of crazy-blocking either - this place would lose many of its more amusing charms if we did that. Acroterion _(talk) 02:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't even make no sense; he makes anti-sense. If sense and him entered a room at the same time, there'd be a massive explosion and release of energy. HalfShadow (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You say that as if it were a bad thing. Whilst it would be beneficial if he would meet us half-way, I think first we have to be on the same road, and since we hold the keys to the road, I would suggest the ball's in his court right now. It's not quite the same as other users I've seen whose first, or even second, language, is not English; or who have some other communication issues. But this editor had got to be straight sometime, and realise that if he wants to participate, he should accept prevailing cultural values, limited though they may appear to him. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked for 48 hours after starting right back up. Reviews welcome, as always. Acroterion _(talk) 02:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well; I tried to engage here. It's said that failure to hit the target is not the fault of the target. Apparently this is an exception to that proposition, and I can't criticise your judgement here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Their editing behavior on Bourke engine‎ has clearly crossed into disruptive. Hopefully they'll get with the program. — Satori Son 12:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mandloi (talk · contribs) is creating User space articles touting a pyramid scheme. Corvus cornix_talk 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• deleted the user page and user talk page. Left a warning on talk page. If it continues, let us know, and a block may be forthcoming. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not just spamming, this is an illegal pyramid scheme and possibly even a criminal scam. I am blocking the user, and will make a checkuser request since he may well be operating from an open proxy. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like Ryulong has been faster ... - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User keeps on creating nonnotable autobiographical articles (

) 11:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have protected Eddie Vegas; Eddie vegas already is protected. If the user continues to disrupt Wikipedia, I will briefly block him to get his attention. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am aware that wikipedia is not censored (fuck that stupid policy ) :). But is this really needed? I mean what good is it going to do on this project? What article does it relate to? I personally see it as vandalism and think it should be turned into another pretty red link. Thoughts? Tiptoety ^talk 04:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that got someones attention fast! Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 04:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For the curious, it was added to an article in [16] and deleted 3 minutes later (3 minutes before Tiptoety saved the first post here). PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm more appalled by the username and have reported it at UAA. ALLSTAR ^echo 07:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That was unnecessary as the user has been blocked indef for about 3 hours.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well now the user can be deleted for about forever.. and get a non-offensive username. ALLSTAR ^echo 07:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What? The issue was the image, and the user was a vandalism only account. There's no reason to add any more admin actions here. This is not a UAA issue. It never was.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, user is already blocked, what more do you want? Tiptoety ^talk 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock harassment This sockmaster has moved from edit warring on pages (now protected) to pasting his edit into the talk page and demanding people place it in the article. Make them go away. danielcase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

See the vast list of socks on the user page. This sockmaster apparently made dozens of socks months ago specifically to avoid semi-pp. pharmboy (talk)

This admin continues to vandalize West Texas accounts through his army of sockpuppet. He has created over 25 sockpuppet accounts to avoid detection. luna santin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhill45 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I've blocked all sockpuppets blocked involved. east.718 at 05:06, January 19, 2008

(Applause) --B (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As it ends up, I had to protect the sockpuppet's talk page. I consider this an extreme measure that is warranted in this instance, so review is welcome. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, it's about the 20th time this ding-dong has had one of his sock account's talk page protected. List is here. Kuru ^talk 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm... Ding Dongs. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since his first edit at 21:05, 6 December 2006, User:Andy Marchbanks has refused to use edit summaries. As of 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC), Mathbot's edit summary usage for Andy Marchbanks stands at 1% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. The reason it is 1% is due to page moves and article creations which use automatic edit summaries. According to User talk:Andy Marchbanks, at least five users (including myself) have asked him to use edit summaries. It is very difficult to monitor recent changes and watchlists when established users don't use edit summaries to help their fellow editors. Can anyone help resolve this situation? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no unbreakable law that editors have to use edit summaries, Help:Edit summary, it is simply good practice, and although it does help other editors if you use them, no one can force you to do so, some people may simply not what want to bother, and it is an easy thing to forget to do. Also, nowhere on his talk page does Andy refuse to use summaries, he simply does not acknowledge the messages. Sorry all anybodycan do is ask him to use them, we can't force him to. Try talking to him about it on his talk page without using an automated message, it may get a response.--Jac16888 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Edit_summaries. At 11:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC), an administrator, User:Kralizec!, composed what appears to be a non-automated response.[17] It was met with silence. Using edit summaries is part of Wikipedia:Etiquette (although for some reason it is not listed on that page). The edit summary help guide is grouped under related editing guidelines in {{Guideline list}}, but does not have the status of a guideline. Why? The edit summary article even says, "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline." —Viriditas | Talk

12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And i quote "Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits;failing to provide edit summaries....is considered incivil and bad wikiquette", taken from the arbcom precedents page you quoted, which also says it doesn't have a penalty attached. Out of any given recent changes page, very few edits will have summaries, i.e., the ones by established editors. I repeat, you cannot force someone to use summaries, literally, there is no way of doing it. What is it you actually want to happen?--Jac16888 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Andy's just a good old-fashioned WikiGnome? --Merovingian (T, C) 13:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn you. I was planning on saying that in my next response, should i need to :)--Jac16888 (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Anyway, to elaborate, I would venture to guess that as long as his edits are legit, we have little to worry about. --Merovingian (T, C) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This situation is not resolved, so I don't know why it was marked as such. The edits are not all "legit": the user is deleting content from controversial articles without edit summaries, and on his talk page, is claiming that these are minor grammar fixes. The user has been asked not to do this by multiple editors. Please read the user talk page and review the most recent contribs. The user has not "forgotten" to use edit summaries - the user refuses to use them. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Edit summaries should be used for major edits. It takes longer to make a major edit than to write a brief edit summary. Omitting the edit summary saves very little time, and wastes the time of other editors. Does he even bother to mark minor edits as minor? Carcharoth (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish to report the edit of 86.147.3.72 to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. on 19th January.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.&diff=185365879&oldid=185353160

This clearly inappropriate content and I would appreciate investigation by WP with a view to this user being permanently blocked. Tmol42 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You've already given the user an only warning, which is the best option, and they have not edited since, its possible they may have listened to the warning. If they come back and post more attacks, give another warning, see

WP:AIV--Jac16888 (talk

) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, report them directly to me and I'll block them. There's absolutely no place in Wikipedia for racist crap like this. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

) 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an article about a stadium that's been used for pro wrestling. There's no reason not to have that information there; why is college basketball more important than wrestling? In any case, it's a content dispute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To reply, this person had kept on deleting notable information on the page regarding what I belive is a fair enough review of history of wrestling at the Spectrum. I had to revert his edits 4 times, the first time just a normal revert, with a level 1 warning, the next, just a plain revert, the 3rd, I had asked him not to delete the info, and then the 4th time, I had said I would report him if he took off the info again. If anybody needs to talk with me about this incident though, I will be all ears on it. Whammies Were Here 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You are at 3RR and PYLrulz is at 4RR. Take care to avoid an edit war. Personally, I see no good reason why it should be left out if it can be referenced appropriately. AN/I is not for content disputes, so the only action likely to be taken here is going to be based on the edit warring you two have been engaged in.

talk

23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a week due to the edit warring. I suggest you use that time to come to a consensus on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been protected to endorse the inclusion of pointless fancrufty wrestling content. That doesn't seem logical at all. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the tag - "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." The world won't end if an article has a little cruft on it for a week. (Less if you can come up with a consensus before that). Mr.Z-man 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has been doing nothing but stalking me recently. He's called me a troll because I switch "manned" to "human" on

) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Righty I would refuse to be riled by him if I were you. I agree with you to an extent, but feel you could concenntrate on improving your own edits, annd ignore him, . Idon't think Andy's got anything but the best interests of wiki in mind and perhaps a slight prejudice against your work. You could discuss with him perhaps, about what would help him feel happier about your efforts on wiki and make him feel you mean well, or ask another user to mediate. Merkinsmum 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Related: #RightGot x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The link posted above is relevant. The user appeared to be riled by the deletion of pages they had created and started a number of

pointy AfD nominations, which were either closed or reverted by User:Andyjsmith or others. They have been warned. There is nothing that requires admin attention here, so closed. BLACKKITE

01:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See below. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

)

Can I ask for a review of this block of

01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the specifics of the case, but I don't see why a conditional unblock could not be enacted. I think, given his apparent desire to return, we could work with him to avoid the problems that got him blocked in the first place. It seems to mainly be with article ownership and POV pushing on an article about a diploma mill. Perhaps as a condition to his unblock, we could institute a community ban on editing Warren National University and related articles; he could use the talk pages to civilly discuss changes to the articles, but should avoid editing them himself. He could also freely edit other articles, but should he revert to his old behavior, an indefinite block should return. I think a second chance may be in order, but he needs to know there will be NO third chance. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is something of a moot point. His last edit is over a month old; it's unlikely that he will return with the expectation to find that he is unblocked. Additionally, a number of admins have reviewed the block and agreed with the reasoning. Unless there is an exceedingly good reason to bring it up again, it should rest - and if that reason can be brought up, it would probably necessitate an RFC.

The best course for a user in a case like this who has decided to turn over a new leaf is to start a new account quietly and go about editing elsewhere. It's been done before, and so long as they can stay away from the original problem(s), nobody will reblock them. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where was it previously reviewed? Must've missed it.

talk

02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an unblock request on the talk page, and some comments which follow. And I reviewed it as well, just for good measure. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. I have read the page, but it didn't seem like a comprehensive review of the block (Maxim's "You didn't state a reason for unblock" isn't really a material review). I can understand you reviewing it and expressing your opinion that its a good block, but I'm not wholly convinced it warrants a resolved tag unless it was brought here before.

talk

02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

JzG is a well-rounded admins whose opinion I trust. Typically one unblock request is sufficient; so far there's been at least two admins (not including others who dropped by this user's page) who have reviewed and agreed with the decision. However, if you want to solicit a third opinion, you may remove the resolved tag... I won't take it personally. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the contents of Supercheats. Can it be restored and userfied to my userspace? Thanks, Mercury at 05:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Done privately. east.718 at 05:49, January 20, 2008

Now that.... that is confusing (sigs). Viridae^Talk 00:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time following this one. This message showed up on ScienceApologist's page, indirectly pointing here as justification, but when I read that discussion, it seems to have been closed with a decision not to block.Kww (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should try asking the blocking admin first? Since he didn't reference the post you did, perhaps there's another reason. Shell ^babelfish 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I copied the diff of the complaint. The section below is with regards to Martinphi. I blocked him per these diffs in light of his arbcom restrcition. - Revolving Bugbear 15:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, a little attention to

16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, to be fair to Science Apologist, he should try harder, but those diffs are incivility in response to assumptions of bad faith on his part, which somewhat mitigates it. However, the "he should try harder" is still true - perhaps 24 hours or a warning would have been better than 72. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed

here. With regards to the length of the block, see my justification there. - Revolving Bugbear

19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith don't mitigate incivility. There is nothing about other people doing bad things that forces anyone to be uncivil.

Until

02:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – user blocked

An editor came to my user talk to complain about a legal threat.[18] I agree this is an explicit legal threat. Would someone who has the tools step in please? Durova^Charge! 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indef. Nakon 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this user's page. It's not clear to me the user is experienced enough to understand the policy on legal threats and, per policy, the block should only stand as long as the threat is pending. We'll see what he says, of course. - Revolving Bugbear 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please block User:Ngoogs? I'd do it myself, but since I'm one of the people he insulted I figure I should as someone else to do it.

As you can see from his talk page, all I did to "provoke" this was try to give him some advice on how he should approach writing an article in order to demonstrate notability, and to give him a quite politely worded warning about exactly this sort of incivility. - Jmabel | Talk 01:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I already told user on talk page that a block can not go through until the other user has committed two more acts of vandalism/attacks/etc. But I do see a need to do something about Ngoogs. The user has shown a lack of interest in helping the project. Rgoodermote  01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Since when do we give four civility warnings, one of which must be a final warning, before blocking? Any admin should be willing to block somebody who continues to be incivil, no matter how many "warnings" they're given. Corvus cornix_talk 01:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no mandatory minimum number of warnings in cases of grossly offensive name-calling and disruption. As best I can tell, this user came back from three weeks of inactivity and his first edit was to post a vandalistic insult on another user's talkpage. At most, one more like that and I'd say out he goes—and I don't think a lot of discussion would be needed, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. If he is not interested in contributing productively after polite offers of help, then I'm sure we can muddle on without him.

☎

01:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Agreed, lets just block and move on, i don't see anyway to

WP:AGF.Tiptoety ^talk

01:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is just recommended, but as I have conflicted like six times I have been unable to say the user has gone past last warning. Rgoodermote  01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to head to sleep and I just wanted to ask for a few opinions on a block I made with regards to Dexryu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

I felt the block was very much a borderline case, as it sort of compares to DerHexer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). One could argue that it is pure coincidence, and it very well may be. Anyhow since I'm about to go to sleep and would not receive a complaint or request for unblocking until later I'm asking that other admins review the block and/or watch the talk page of the account to see if an unblock request pops up. Please don't hesitate to unblock if you feel it is warranted. Thanks in advance. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there a reason for the block beyond a conincidental sequence of letters in the username? Cuz the user didn't even edit once? Just curious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gawd thats stretching it a bit. I will unblock. Viridae^Talk 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Viridae. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No quarrel here with that. Thanks Viridae. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If that level of similarity is grounds for blocking, then we should probably stop letting people register accounts. --Carnildo (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lets try to

assume good faith here, he was just trying to protect some admins, and openly requested for a review of it. Tiptoety ^talk

05:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm like I said it was a borderline block, hence my request for a review. Obviously you missed that bit in your haste to bestow us with your brand of sarcasm. Bravo well done! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

renamed, because User:Ryulong doesn't like being singled out in a section title. —Random832 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that Ryulong is a very respected administrator on Wikipedia, and I respect him a lot myself, but last month (December of 2007), he was very unfriendly to my personal friends,

05:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's important to

not bite the newbies. This would probably have been better to post to the village pump or something. —Random832

05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since it does seem to involve adminsitrator actions,(deleting userpages and the like) it should probably be reviewed here. Ryulong is a good admin, and dealing with disruptive behavior such as excessive chatter without encyclopedio edits is likely to generate some controversy among those one is reprimanding. Looking over this, Ryulong probably dealt with it a bit harhly. I would have left more tactful warnings, and probably asked the users themselves to voluntarily clean up their user space. However, his motivation was fine, and personally I feel, that aside from some hurt feelings, this is probably a "no harm-no foul" situation. However, other admins should be given the chance to comment. This is surely an admin issue and should be dealt with here, and not VPP... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be the right place, but I don't see any particular foul, and no particular course of action beyond Ryulong being made aware of the situation, and moving on with that experience in mind. This happened a month ago. Had you spoken up right away, perhaps more could've been done. Luckily,. we lost no editors to blocks or bans, so overall, it seems to fall under 'no harm done'. ThuranX (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The controversial "China=shame" section of

22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No point in MfDing a page for one small section. Viridae^Talk 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see people edit warring to put back such questionable content. Friday (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could say the same. In any case, Lysol x (talk · contribs) has already been blocked indefinitely. Up to the checkusers if they want to pursue it further. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I permablocked Lysol x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being a clear harassment-only SPA. Review, of course, is welcome. This whole business is - and those who would seek to turn it to wikidrama are - very dull. On all sides. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, user pages should be dull, certainly. This one is way too exciting for my taste. Maybe MFD is reasonable here- there's more than just one section that shouldn't be here. Friday (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, that userpage may as well say: "This user is a 13-year-old upper-middle-class kid from the muthaphukkin' suburbs." As to whether it warrants an MfD... no comment. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's a Ferrari driving lawyer who is also a professional DJ and a muthaphukkin gangsta from the 'hood. (Who supports John McCain).

talk

23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Riiighhht. If he had a Romney userbox, now, I might have bought the rest of the gangsta bit... MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I agree. Clearly, people are finding this "China = Shame" thing offensive and inappropriate. In any case, that phase can be interpreted as policy violation, in the sense that 1. the phrase is directed to China and therefore the Chinese people, which would make it a racial remark or 2. it is directed at the Chinese Government in Beijing, which would mean that he is using his userpage, in part, as a soapbox, which is a violation of

WP:SOAP. Thats my 2₵. nat.utoronto

22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the second reason. There was a large movement recently to have people put banners on their user pages criticizing the Chinese government for a recent rights controversy. It was advocated by Jimbo himself. - Revolving Bugbear 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pretty much the same issue as if he had a China=Shame userbox, and the approach should be the same. Political userboxes survive at least in part because they are self-descriptive, not on a content page or talk page, and you can simply ignore them if you wish. What is more disruptive - a userbox some don't like, or thread after thread about whether it should stay?
  talk
  23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Completely lame edit war, but I wonder, per
  WP:CSB, how long a userpage with "USA=shame" would last? BLACKKITE
  00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking when I suggested that they

WP:MFD if he/others insist on readding it. At that point, let consensus there determine the overall appropriateness of the user's user page. --slakr^\ talk

 / 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The other solution, dare I say it, is that we ignore him. How much offense can possibly be taken from someone who writes "China=shame", in between describing his exploits as a member of the

Rollin' 60's and listing depressingly predictable celebrity crushes (then crossing them out because they got pregnant, "nuff said")? We're talking about a dozen characters or so, from someone with a block log a mile long and clearly not to be taken seriously. Can't we go back to arguing about really important stuff, like whether Michaelmoore.com is an attack site? MastCell ^Talk

00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the "mile-long" block log carefully, a lot of them are actually 1 second blocks to apologize for previous bad blocks. Sure, I am controversial, but admins who know me well enough know I do make valuable contribution to the project. Also

talk

) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm yes. That's why I was posting on this account at the same time that Lysol x was editing and subsequently blocked. Can't you accept that not everyone who dislikes youyour "contributions" is from a vast right-winganti-you conspiracy? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You should back that with a SSP or RFCU report or both.

talk

02:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not enough edit count for the sock can be used as evidence, but given the time stamps and the viciousness of the attack and his past history in “Sumple” of userpage harassment. I seriously couldn’t think of anyone else. He also has a habit of abusive sockpuppetry given that Sumple and PalaceGuard are in fact, the same person. (issue currently discussed in another thread on AN/I)--

) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've kept continually removing
  WP:USER. Is this OK?? --Solumeiras ^talk
  11:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Of course not! This is already an issue generating pages of discussion and some minor drama. We don't need any petrol thrown on the fire by someone else starting to edit war over something else on the same page. Please desist. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for that one, I wasn't trying to edit-war about it though. --Solumeiras ^talk 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I've kept continually removing..." == edit warring. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I actually didn't continually remove it, I just removed information twice, but stopped further edits to the page. I'm not editing that page anymore now. --Solumeiras ^talk 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The case of Certified.Gangsta is very puzzling. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram, in April/May of last year, he and another editor were found to have "engaged in extensive edit-warring" and both were put on standard revert parole for one year. Just a few weeks later, a review of the case was opened after the other editor presented prima facie evidence that the remedy had not worked in Certified.Gangsta's case. That other editor was banned by the community in August for his own disruption. In the review of the case, more evidence of tendentious editing was turned up, but the committee closed the case when it became apparent that Certified.Gangsta had left, the case to be shelved "pending his return". Although he has returned to editing, he has made few article edits since the arbitration case [19].

In late November, Certified.Gangsta appeared to have made up his mind to leave permanently, leaving this message in his edit history (read the page names out loud in descending order) by way of farewell. This was apparently due to "constant harassment from another user", whom he named as

.

A couple of weeks later, Kirill Lokshin, an arbitrator, announced that Certified.Gangsta's edit restriction had been lifted (presumably after private consideration of new evidence or possibly because they had reviewed and decided the remedy was not commensurate with the facts of the case). [21].

Now Certified.Gangsta's userpage is of course a completely unacceptable abuse of Wikipedia resources, and his conduct in editing has often been questionable. However it does look to me as if there may have been considerable provocation in the background. At the very least, I'd say it would be best to consult the arbitration committee in private before proposing action on this matter. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the problems at hand, and not endorsing it in any way, but that sequence of edits spelling out a message like this has got to be one of the most creative and amusing way of making a subtle personal attacks ever. — Coren ^(talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Offs, the practical joke on his userpage is funny and someone only passing their cursor over it can see what it is, so no-one is misled for long and it's in a way that most people with a sense of humour will enjoy. I don't know about the china = shame, he needs to spell out on his page what he means by it. Merkinsmum 22:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Administrators' incidents noticeboard,

I'm becoming increasingly concerned with User:Bpeps. I have been recieving unusual messages from him/her for a few weeks now. I had not had any contact with this user at all until he/she began leaving crypic messages on my talk page, beginning with this. I did not respond as I knew it was purely disruptive. He was also virtually or seemingly new to the project. However, the nonsense has continued with this to which I began leaving messages about how I could help this user (see the polite and engaging messages I left at User talk:Bpeps/archive1#Have_we_met.3F - I also make it clear that our paths have never passed before).

The user has continued to e-mail me off site with simillar cryptic nonsense, to which I ignored with the hope that this user would leave me alone (he has singled me out from millions of other users, which I'm concerned with)... though knew this was going to continue.

Bpeps has continued to bring me into his world as with his recent attempts to obtain Rollback status (see the conversation thread at User talk:Bpeps/archive1#RfR). I made it clear that I was uncomfortable with his remarks, attitude and harrassment and I did not wish to discuss any matter with him/her any further.

Just now, I have recieved a message from him where he has gone through perhaps a few thousand or more edits of mine to undercover (what he thinks) is accurate information about me (see here please). I'm now very concerned with how Bpeps is trying to uncover personal information about me. I'm putting

) and believe he wants me to respond to his offline messages to he can obtain my real name. What also strikes me as un-nerving is the edits (to me) evidence discrepencies within his work - he dumbs down with me, leaving incoherent, provocative and cryptic messages, yet with other users and features, he writes with perfect diction and seems rapidly aware of advanced features of Wikipedia (monobook, obscure guidelines etc).

I believe this user to be one of two users who I've faced conflict with before. The user began this work around the same time that a content issue surfaced and I believe it none-other than to be a single purpose sock-puppet. I would like some admin input about how best to tackle this now. I believe this to be harrassment. Is it also possible that an administrator could delete User:Jza with the utmost urgency? (It was an account I set up in error a long time back). -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this case deserves some attention as I do believe it violates

Scarian^{Call me Pat}

03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have said that he did threaten to stalk me here. I advised him (the user claims this gender) that this was not the way forwards. But it seems to have continued regardless. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I trolled a little but is it wrong that I bring attention to a user some differences in his accounts? Especially when he points them out as being special. I use Wikia as a sysop so am aware of features in wikimedia and stealing ideas from wikipedia. Dunno why the guy can't be reasonable. Bpeps (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have synop status you should definately know better than to troll. And why the cryptic messages, accusations of bullying, asking how to archive talk pages, obcene language? Something is totally suspect here and I find it most distressful that I'm the target. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If Jza84 has concerns that I may be one of two users he's faced conflict from take it up with WP:SOCK or just request a checkuser - the stalking thing was tongue in cheek and certainly nobody can take it as a threat when it clearly outlines a WP: of not what to do. Bpeps (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the principle concern is the continued harrassment, both on and off Wikipedia. Foul language, oddball comments, talk about your family, going through several thousand edits to catch a glimpse of personal infomation ONLY to then post it on my talk page. I do not think these are tongue in cheek at all no. I find them abusive and threatening as I've already made clear on your talk page. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No wikimedia has a redirect lookup it takes a few glances to check. Look you are not an indiscriminate editor - you have five stars and I would rank you as pretty above average. My approach was bad. Not sure about the email or emails I will definately have copies and don't mind you adding them to this dispute. This is getting silly on AN/I please take it to RfC. Sure somebody else will help you work out how to post to my user page if you are already minded to go this far. Bpeps (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdenting) I do not think this is silly or suitable for RfC - I think this is disgusting, threatening and abusive behaviour and there are serious discrepencies with how this user is contributing. As I've said, I've had nothing but harrassment and nonsense from this editor. He's admitted being a trolling synop(!?), there are diffs of nonsense, threats, insults, and strange tactics when it comes to dealing with me, when I've been nothing but polite. Why on earth would a person come to Wikipedia and single one person out to do this? Why would they then go through thousands of edits to find personal information? Why, even when they have it would they post it on my talk page? I've never dealt with this person (under this name) and he doesn't do this to anybody else. An admin agrees this is a case of stalking. I would urge this be addressed please. -- Jza84 · (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Redent) Dunno this can be taken out of AN/I - I seriously don't think this is appropriate here. If you take it to SOCK or CHECKUSER or something I can have a say without wasting space here. There are no threats - you apparantly have my email address to make an anonymous one and reply. I certainly have no record of flying emails and my Wikipedia account sends a copy. I didn't choose you from a million, I chose you because you were good at articles. I phrased my question to you wrongly. With regard to my trolling ok I found out last night that the editor has had three accounts (some changed because of abuse, but I didn't know that) and his personal details went from degree to degree and being born in 84 to 58. Thats not wholesome surely (and Jza84 you cant say that those accounts weren't yours)? Trolling sucks, but so do people who we trust trying to be something else. Bpeps (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've looked over this a little -- and here's what I'd strongly recommend.

• Jza84 -- I understand how this can get frustrating. It's probably best, to disengage at this point. There are nearly 1,500 admins, and 5 million+ users, and noticeboard upon noticeboard if User:Bpeps needs help. I'll keep your talkpage on my watchlist, and redirect questions to the appropriate places if you'd like.
• Bpeps -- You're making Jza84 very uncomfortable, whether you see it (and, when you admit to trolling, I think you do) or not. Please, disengage. Just leave Jza84 alone, please? There are almost 1,500 admins, and 5 million+ users, as well as dozens of noticeboards, if you need anything. I hate to be blunt like this, but, some of your messages come across to me, as... well, plain creepy, threatening, and, trollish. I'm asking you very nicely, please, leave Jza84 alone, OK?

It's 6am, and, I'm tired. If I've been overly blunt, I'm sorry. That's how I see it, however. SQL^{Query me!} 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to stay far away from Jza84 Bpeps (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this stand, I consider this issue to be resolved. I appreciate the input here. Thank you. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an attempt at blackmail and should be repudiated regardless of any other activities. Corvus cornix_talk 06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Talk:Las Vegas (TV series) there is attempting to be a discussion about the infobox. It has broken down a number of times because of two new editors, one of which claims to be a former admin. Tonight when replying to an admin, the editor who claims to be an admin threatened/warned me when I had done nothing but comment. Since last weekend, User:DJS24 had blamed me for a 48 hour block. Last night CarsGm5 (talk · contribs) showed up claiming to be a former admin and immediately took DJS24's side. Tonight he threatened me over a comment I made regarding a previous discussion about infoboxes. He also reported another editor that didn't agree with them as uncivil but brought no evidence of the incivility. The similarities of comments and user names makes me wonder but I don't know what to do. CarsGM5 and DJS24 can be related and I would be more than happy to connect the dots. In NASCAR (a noted interest by DJS24) the 5 and the 24 are GM cars owned by the same team owner. Both have essentially only edited Las Vegas (TV series) (DJS has a couple of minor edits to other pages) and nothing else except a report about a user that disagreed with them but remained civil. The claims of "dispute" verses "discussion", regularly incorrectly spelled words, it makes one wonder. The "warnings" however do seem to cross the line. I admit, I've been no saint through all of this, but these two new editors really make me wonder what is going on. The incident, and why this is here, is there's considerable question as to the behavior of those involved and "warnings" issued that are questionable. I will willingly take any warning necessary just to get this resolved. KellyAna (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, "they" just tripped "themselves" up. [22] One commented, I replied to essentially leave me alone, on the other account, meaning to be the first, replied and then tried to cover. Please, address the situation I figured out 36 hours ago. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, you have been itching' for the beginning to find a flaw between DJS24 and myself, because that’s the type of person you are. Any admin. who looks into this issue will see that and how difficult you have been during this whole discussion. I was trying to leave you a comment regarding the discussion about the trivia section on the Las Vegas page as you address it in the Las Vegas Discussions. I put in into the wrong section, as I've been leaving comments in that area regarding our main discussion for days. Of course, KellyAna being who she is, was waiting right by that computer and sent out notices before I could even replace my comments. The admins will see that when they look into the issue. Let me finally point out that our main discussion was almost resolved until, KellyAna took this last approach to make sure her point stays on the site. This is unfair actions and they need to be looked into right away. Also, I hate nascar, who can watch cars go around and around and around it's boring. I prefer football myself. So any relation between a 5 in my name and a 24 in DJS's name in farfetched. In best regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Without examining the content issue, IMHO if a user is a former admin, they really ought to follow the model set in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive116#Death_threats.2C_privacy.2C_telephone_numbers and have a crat confirm it without revealing their old user name. Even if its not possible to regain the mop (thats a crat discretion call), no situation should be too embarassing as to evade the normal channels. MBisanz ^talk 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the comment "being who she is, was waiting right by that computer" could be taken as a personal attack, but since I was working last night at home on the computer, it's actually a fact. I was working on the computer as I generally am when I'm not cleaning or sleeping. My reasons for the report are simple, I believe you to be a meatpuppeteer and I didn't know if I could report a meatpuppet on the sockpuppet page. It has nothing to do with the Las Vegas article other than you are backing yourselved up even misspelling the same words and using the wrong words grammatically incorrectly. The issue is, as CarsGm5 calls it "out of hand" because of the tactics used by the two users. Claims of former adminship, misspellings/misuse of the same words, related user names, same (unfounded)accusations, and a tucktail and run by one when the meatpuppetry was exposed. I was asked my opinion last night by Mangojuice, as soon as I offered it I was accused of causing problems. What I wrote can't be deleted or changed when looking at history. You're welcome to see what happened and that any changes I made were to keep the article as it was before this mess happened waiting for it to get straightened out. KellyAna (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like, to have KellyAna and Irlishlass looked into as well. I don't want to continue to add flames, but now that I've been accused of a meatpuppet, makes me start to wonder. Please let me plead my case here. Not ONCE has either KellyAna or Irishlass been on at the same time. Irlishlass is on during the day, while KellyAna comes on at night. KellyAna is on during the weekends, while Irishlass isn't. Makes me believe that she uses, KellyAna as her home account and Irishlass as her work account. That would get rid of posiible same IPs, and she won't dare use one user on the same computer as the other user. Just looking at all the times in both their history seems too convincing. They both work on the same pages, in same groups, support each other like crap, and contact the same admins when they need help. Now farfetched, yeah, but not as fafetched as her nascar/# theory above this. In Best Regards CARS!--CarsGm5 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please block 83.70.165.171 because he added TV channels on

12:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless they keep reverting you and re-adding the deleted content there is no valid reason to block, instead i suggest you talk to them, explaining clearly, in a civil, non-accusatory tone, why you removed the sections. And by the way, the ip you have given only has one edit, 83.70.165.17 (talk · contribs), back in december 06 the Ip is 83.70.165.171 (talk · contribs), --Jac16888 (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would have been more approriate to tell me i'd got the Ip wrong rather than simply changing, it was only luck that meant i noticed it. Anyway, i will look into the edits, but at a glance it doesn't seem particularly troublesome, and definately not blockworthy. Again, try just talking to the user--Jac16888 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(I will advise editor LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC))
I have just reverted vandalism to the Selected Article on the Science Portal. I did this by clicking "edit" on the Selected Article box and then reverting in the normal way. Featured Article/19 is now definitely showing to me with the vandalism gone. However, the vandalism is still showing on the Science portal. Can someone take a look at this as I don't know how to fix. SpinningSpark 14:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Have you tried purging the cache? Caknuck (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had cleared the cache and that did not clear the vandalism. Clicking "Show New Selections" has got it gone, but of course, I now have a different article in the box. SpinningSpark 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• When I finally got #19 to display in the portal, it looked fine (ie. no "teflon" or dog poo). You may want to go directly to Portal:Science/Featured article/19 and use the "?action=purge" from that page. Caknuck (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it you got to it by repeatedly doing 'Show New Selections'. I did the same thing and it now looks fine to me also. Sorry to cause you trouble. SpinningSpark 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's how I accessed it. No trouble at all. Caknuck (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this user is at least one of the IPs used by User:Grawp. See [23], and compare the contributions between User:Centaurioid and this user. They show a very similar style: reversion of some vandalism, some helpful contributions, but mostly vandalism. I was entirely expecting to find out Centaurioid is a sock of someone else, which he is. I ask that someone place a long term hard block on this address, which is still editing of late (Jan 10), has consistent contributions over its life, and appears to be used by no one else (it is only one address). The Evil Spartan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note the page history is deleted. And I would appreciate if someone would respond. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Despite several warnings, and a very clear final warning that I gave, this user continues to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia (see this reversion). Obviously the user does not care about warnings, and needs a block. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not editing now, and haven't since your last warning, so I don't see how a block may be preventative at the moment. If they start over report it again then, either here or at AIV. It appears that they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, but aren't too bothered in abiding by the rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I gave a warning on the 18th and they created a new page, with copy and pasted items on the 19th. Of course blocks are preventitive, and this user has been warned over and over again to stop. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So you did. My bad, I looked at times and not dates. Hang on a sec. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) We should have no tolerance for repeated copyright violations, and that editor has had ample warnings. Blocked for 55 hours with an explanatory notice that, hopefully, will wake them up. — Coren ^(talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, bless those admins that use a calender... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't think I was completely crazy ;). Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Endlessdan (talk · contribs) [ started] a thread enquiring about the age of Missy Hyatt, however for reasons known only to himself, he refers to her as "skeletor" in the title and makes reference to her being a 'shrew'. I alter the title to her correct name which he then reverts] and tells me not be to a such a nerd. I alter it back and leave him a message to remove the disparaging comment about this living person, so his response is to change it back and leave this message on my talkpage - check out the linkage between "shrew" and the article between Missy Hyatt

Is this a major thing? no, but wikipedia should not be a place when people feel they can take potshots at living figures unchallenged - we don't allow it in the article, so why would we allow it on the talk pages? I'd rather not get into an edit war to uphold what should be the most basis standards that we expect from editors in regards to supporting our BLP policies. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a polite request that they remain civil, and only include referenced content in BLP articles, at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this is ridiculous. I make a comment on a talk page and this spaz cries about it? I understand that making disparaging comments is not permitted on article pages, but the comments I made were on a talk page. So I stand by my comments... don't be such a nerd.--EndlessDan 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a

WP:DICK. BLP covers article talkpages too -I am dropping the link at your talkpage. Any admin want to deal with the spaz/nerd comments? LessHeard vanU (talk

) 20:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Love

20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

) 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call that a rampage, but I did leave a message on the users talk page inviting him to look over the adoption program and to avoid posting such messages on others talk pages. We'll see where it goes from here.

Love

20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is only the latest in a series of ongoing personal attacks that date back from the creation of the account. He's left screeds on Alison's talk page, IFD and on the talk page of another user calling me a liar and a fool. I'm fine with just warning him for now, but I may file a request in the future if it continues. Thank you for your help. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is a "screed"? A lengthy response from someone not versed in the ways of Wiki? From someone trying his best to be understood? From someone under repeated attack at a professional and very personal level? (specific event removed by Oversite at my request) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've adopted the user. How about you two just not talk to each other anymore, k?

Love

21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be User:JackQPR
  trying (for the third time) to evade a block by opening a new account and using an IP address to edit whilst blocked.

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log
  ) was blocked temporily for edit warring. They tried to get round that block by opening a new account here -
• QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which was then blocked indefinitly for being a sockpuppet of JackQPR. And JackQPRs block was then extended to one month.

QPRsteve has today made exactly the same edit on the same article, List of hooligan firms as JackQPR and QPRben and is clearly the same person trying to evade a block.

In addition the same user seems to have have again used an IP address to try and evade the block, something which they also did before and for which the IP user was temporarily blocked here -

• 82.45.213.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could someone have a look into this please, both the IP user and QPRsteve? thank you♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the majority of edits to the article are by registered accounts, would semi-protecting the article deter new accounts and ip's continuing the above vandalism? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly help yes, in addition of course to dealing with the above user evading their block. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reblocked JackQPR to 3 months for block evasion/socking. I will sprotect the article now, and then indef block the above socks.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this process, and have been dragged into one, so I would apologise if I am a little incoherent!

The RFC was set up statements made, certified and responded to, as I would have expeced. The initiator has now altered their statement diff, following this alteration I now believe that it appears that the certification and the responses were to the new remit/statements, and not to the original statement as they were intended.

Is an alteration of this type normal practice? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, yes (although it gets a bit sticky if you have already responded to the original comments). However, this is not a ANI matter - it is something to be bought up on the RfC talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put a note on the talk page Fasach Nua (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Tillich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saul Tillich (talk · contribs)

Could someone have a glance? Problems with newish editor who doesn't seem to grasp Wikipedia formats and etiquette. Given username, maybe COI too. 86.141.82.38 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been around since April 2007. Is there any particular diff you feel warrants attention, since admins don't always have time to review histories? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a content dispute, and is fairly well natured despite being almost entirely in edit summaries. No need for admin input. ps. People who share the same surname with notable people are often interested in the subject without falling foul of COI. AGF requires us to believe the same for the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

admins don't always have time to review histories

Isn't it your job to investigate? Or do you only deal with things handed on a plate? Read Talk:Paul Tillich, if it isn't too much trouble. It doesn't look well natured to me. 86.141.82.38 (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we want things handed on a plate; we act upon interpretations of policy, not about content disputes, so we need to know what it is that someone thinks violates policy. Okay, so there is more discussion on the talkpage, but it is about content and not regarding the editors - that counts as civil. Is there any comment that you are particularly concerned about? I would also comment that I don't see your ip (although I also don't know much about the relationship between ip addys, as well as my other faults) editing the article or talkpage recently... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe this to be a violation of your terms of use. If I knew how to forward the letter using this page, I'd do so. Instead, here is a copy of the header and text -- please contact me with an email address to send to and I will be happy to forward the email to prove authenticity, should you desire.

Thank you for your attention to this matter! (Spammers suck!)

Spam emails content removed

--209.247.5.99 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no user by the name of User:M[5-14]. Its likely that its just some junk mailer which uses the wikipedia suffix to get people to open the emails, i can assure you it was not sent by anyone representative of wikipedia or the wikipedia foundation. Its just junk, delete it and forget it.--Jac16888 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if this happens again you ask some one at AOL to help you out so that the person or persons can be tracked down. By the way, should that URL still be there?Rgoodermote  22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I've removed the contents of the email. -- JLaTondre 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail spoofing is not uncommon from spammers. An online game I admin at has a mail system built in and we often get external spam apparently sent to us by our own update mailbot. HalfShadow (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

68.78.2.6 made two vandalism edits to Lists of association football players today. In the most recent one, he increased the article's size to ~358K, putting it on top of Special:Longpages and hanging my system for a while (I know, Windows XP sucks). The guy should be blocked. --Catrope (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As you said it two vandal edits, your best bet is to just report to

WP:AIV because you will get a faster response there. But because the user has not been warned you will not get a block. I have added a note to talk page Rgoodermote

  23:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous user received a one week block for edit warring this page. However, now that the block is lifted, this user has recommenced the edit war. S/he continually inserts this essay into the article without any citations, third party references, or discussion.Serendi^podous 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked for a month, as a resumption of previous behaviour that lead to earlier blocks. I invite review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse this. Editor comes straight back off a block continuing the same behaviour = Righteous block. BLACKKITE 00:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done some radical reformatting of this page. One participant is a little upset, but otherwise it doesn't seem to be garnering much significant objection. Still, I would appreciate it if an admin would review the steps I've taken to keep the discussion on task (and beneath 100kb) and revert if I've gone too far.

00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, but this page is pretty much destined to remain a mess, even with refactoring. The best thing to do right now is to let the AfD run its course, take pity upon the poor admin who decides to close it, and be done with it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused that

talk

) 01:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a personal attack and unrelated to the subject of the AfD. It should be removed, and stay removed.

01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it isn't consistant, as the entire AFD is full of similar comments. I just couldn't figure out why this ONE was singled out. It would seem appropriate if an admin wants to make some changes, but not you, or I, or Brass, since we are actually involved in the discussion. The potential for abuse is too high when editors involved in the discussion start playing cowboy and removing each others comments.

talk

) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I am requesting an ADMIN not !voting in the topic offer an opinion.

talk

) 01:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, is why I am posting here. I did in fact advocate for deletion, since then I've mostly been involved in cleaning things up. Still, since I did participate in the substance, its appropriate for someone else to take a look to make sure I haven't unintentionally screwed up ;-)

talk

01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not voting in this AfD. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly, he's now
  violated 3RR. —Dark•Shikari^[T]
  06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. —Kurykh 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

) 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning on the user's talk page. However, I'm not sure why you are not welcoming the edits. Granted, I know nothing much about the name, but they seem like

good faith edits to me. x42bn6 Talk Mess

02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Farsi-interwiki saboteur?

(Note: this thread and the first two messages are copied over from User talk:Nlu.)

The user Lawrence S C Tam, whom you blocked in January 2007[24] for committing mass deletions of links to the Farsi Wikipedia, apparently returned under the name Lawrence H K in the following month, to continue the same behavior ever since. Before I became familiar with his "contributions", I thought that he might have just inadvertently pressed the wrong key when he deleted a Farsi interwiki, since in the particular edits that I noticed, he was also adding valid interwikis to other languages such as Chinese and Japanese at the same time. For instance, see History of Microsoft [25] and The Merchant of Venice [26]. However, it is now almost certain that he is deliberately targeting Farsi interwikis for removal. For just a few examples of other articles which have had their Farsi interwikis inexplicably removed, please see Student [27], Japan [28], and Yehudi Menuhin [29].

Another practice which commonly accompanies his deletions, which is illustrated in the cases of Japan and Yehudi Menuhin, is to purport to "protect" or "semi-protect" the article in order to preserve it in its Farsi-interwiki-free version. He has never explained in any of his edit summaries why he removes the Farsi interwikis (it should be further noted that his edit summaries are, as a rule, almost always marked minor, even when they involve wholesale changes to the content of articles). More importantly, he has never responded to messages on his talk page about the deletions, which have been posted by Graham87 [30] and Andy M. Wang [31]. Although it is his edits on the English Wikipedia which should concern us here, a look at his edits on other versions of Wikipedia only confirms the recognition of his behavioral patterns on English Wikipedia. He has been mass-deleting Farsi interwikis as well on the Chinese (e.g., [32] [33] [34] [35]), Italian [36], and Japanese (e.g., [37] [38] [39] [40]) versions. On the Japanese Wikipedia, he goes to the trouble of reverting edits by other users who have restored the interwikis he has wrongly deleted (see 13 July 2007 [41]). From what I can gather, warnings about these "rampages" have been left on his Chinese [42] and Japanese [43] talk pages, again without eliciting any explanation from him.

I hope you can assist in halting the bizarre and damaging editing practices of this user. Perhaps he does not understand some of the policies of Wikipedia due to a language barrier, as a result of which he also adds incoherent machine-translated text to articles (e.g., [44]) and plagiarizes extensively (e.g., [45] [46]).

Thank you.--Defrosted (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am not sure, based on the what I've seen, that there is malice behind this, since the end result is disruptive, I'm going to block the account and wait for explanation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to copy this issue over here to see what the feeling is on this. For now, I have indefinitely blocked Lawrence H K (talk · contribs) and put a {{sockpuppet}} tag in, although based on the actual content of the edits, I have a nagging suspicion that it's some kind of automation issue, but the user's repeated failure to explain what's going on or to remedy the situation makes it a disruptive account even if the intent was not disruptive or vandalistic. I'd love to hear other people's input on this. --Nlu (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This user looks like they will be blocked anyways since almost all of their edits are vandalism, but they have posted their password on their userpage (I tried it out and it is indeed their password). This is in violation of the blocking policy if I understand it correctly. TJ Spyke 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed old diffs with the password from the history.   jj137 ^♠ 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That user is either a sock or an impersonator of Hornetman16 (talk · contribs). I don't suppose it matters too much since his socks will be blocked on site. --B (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again? *shakes head* -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock. Highly likely - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the ability to check to see if he used the same password on his other accounts? It wouldn't matter for here, but I know he is active on other Wikimedia projects and if he uses the same password everywhere, those accounts could possibly be compromised. --B (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This User claims to be awaiting admin advice but has violated 3RR on two pages See [47] and [48] Also note the users rationale in his edit summery on his last edit. He talks about his edit being him getting even. BKLisenbee (Talk | contribs) (3,458 bytes) "Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not."

This user refused mediation call by User:FayssalF on his talk page. For mediation page see User:FayssalF/JK. A severe block is needed. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also asked this at AN3, could you clarify what the BLP issue is? It isn't obvious for those of us not familiar with the subject. --B (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

He puts an external link on Frank Rynne which alleges illegal activity by the subject of the page. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We need User:FayssalF to look over this . He is familiar. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I should note that both users have been into this dispute for almost 2 years now. Back on 2007, i decided to deal with this issue and everybody has gone into informal dispute resolution (User:FayssalF/JK). It worked for a while but since i was the only admin left with the case, things started to get out of hand and the old behavior surfaced again. I then blocked both users (see here) for a week each. I believe those blocks had little effect. At the end i asked both parties to engange in a formal mediation process. So far, Opiumjones accepted while BKLisenbee has still had some concerns and never came back to respond to my querry for a formal mediation. I'd hope other admins take care of this alongside me. All details are found at User:FayssalF/JK.

Anyway, my usual message to both parties... A total respect of

18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And again I agree to formal mediation. How should Arb com be approached? Note Google friendly violations of BLP in above cited BKlisenbee some concerns[49]. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the dispute resolution process is a prerequisite to an ArbCom case. Please give it a last chance and see if BKLisenbee would accept the mediation. If not try an

RfC

.

The ArbCom expects that other avenues will be attempted first:

• For requests regarding the conduct of another editor, it is expected that the requests for comment (RFC) process will be followed. The Committee considers community input from the RFC process both in determining whether to accept a case and also in formulating its decisions.
• For requests involving groups of editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that
  mediation will be attempted. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}
  16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

well we have seen that User:BKLisenbee has refused to mediate so what now? Opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this dispute reflects well the real life events. A problem which has been unsettled offline for years now. I am afraid it is time for an ArbCom case to sort out the mess here brought from offline disputes. Wikipedia cannot tolerate this. We've tried informal mediation and it didn't work. One party is refusing formal mediation believing it just a waste of time and would lead to nothing since they argue that you are supported here by another one's lawyer. We've tried our best and it is time for some forced peace over here. Anyone (you or BKLisenbee) can file an ArbCom case. See you there. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

good . I think as a proposed tour by Bachir Attar is now cancelled that the abuse will lessen. I will also seek arb com intercession. Thank you for the advice. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Opiumjones, if you are linking this dispute to real life events (tour cancellation) then i am afraid you'd be accused of a violation of

WP:SOAP). Please do not talk about such things except to arbitrators. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in a post on the mediation page many of User:BKLisenbee's edits are related to and designed for their Google searchability. Indeed I posted his own comments re. Google.E.g. here [50] and the last sentence of his comment here[51]. The ref to current real life situation re tour was an expression of hope that his behaviour would temper as he was not currently conducting business. However he still edits.... I accept your point and will refrain in future from that course. However, it seems that by refusing to mediate or engage the user is under virtually no control or censure. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

arb com diffs added for arb com

1. 16:06, 18 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (You removed the Sub Rosa category. The link is to a verifiable letter to you, which explains facts about your involvement. What about your BLP smear against Bachir Attar?)
2. 15:48, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (User Frankrynne does not own the copyright on this recording, or its cover art work. This article is about the recording by Bachir Attar and the Pipes of Pan.)
3. 15:44, 16 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:BKLisenbee‎ (Usernames only. Since you don't know me, you may not act as if you do. We've met, briefly, but that's it. Wikipedia rules say usernames only.)
4. 02:53, 15 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (I am awaiting word from Administration; meantime this stays as is. Period. It's about Jajouka, not your world of "Joujouka".)
5. 02:51, 15 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (Get real. You have done nothing but smear Bachir Attar (see your own 'letter of protest'; this is just evening the score with another letter to you. And that is not POV; it's a fact, like it or not.)
6. 21:48, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (Reverted POV by user who repeatedly makes this a JOUJOUKA article when it is about the MMofJajouka)
7. 21:47, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (Added new category which indicates this user has recorded Joujouka music. Nothing POV about that.)
8. 14:49, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Brian Jones Presents The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka‎ (The Rolling Stones granted rights to Bachir Attar to re-issue this music and the album cover issue is not the main point.)
9. 14:47, 14 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (User Frankrynne has POV as he produces CDs for an offshoot Joujouka band. What's wrong with putting these facts in Wikipedia?This is NOT vandalism. I don't want to be threatened again with la awsuit.)
10. 19:28, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Frank Rynne‎ (Readded references which show that user Frankrynne manages/produces a "Joujouka" band, and lWilliam S. Burroughs and James Grauerholz regard this as misguided and not the real group of MMoJajouka)

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

where should this be added for arb com Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To post a request for arbitration, please see

) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad and understood. I will attempt to go through process later today after some sleep. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To anyone unfamiliar with Rokus01: he is spending time trying to smear me not because he cares about Wikipedia. He is simply feeling vindictive because I prevented him spreading his crackpot views of Dutch crypto-nationalism, which basically holds that the Dutch people are descended from Neanderthals, and are hence a racially superior breed, the original Aryans and the wellspring of all human civilization.

There might be system in this madness, though I have the strong feeling this pattern does not reflect anything I stand for or deserve, and basically reflects the bias of someone that urgently needs temporal seclusion or a block. [52] Rokus01 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann was reminded not to use rollback. The arbitration case didn't say anything about personal attacks (at least I presume that is what you meant, and not WP:PSA). I see Dbachmann's statement that you have quoted as something that could be true, and should be seen in the context of Dbachmann needing to make clear his views on the editors he finds himself dealing with. Rather than complain about any personal attack, why not consider trying to refute his claims? First, ask him to provide diffs to back up his claims, and then take matters from there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The pattern of personal attacks Dbachmann has been accused of was certainly mentioned in the final decision to his case: [53]

This whole thing is nothing but harassment by Rokus01 himself. "Someone that urgently needs temporal seclusion or a block"? Yes, very likely, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but accusations on both sides are unhelpful without diffs to back up those accusations. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus's ultra-Netherlandishness has been noted by many editors. One anonymous individual parodied him in the following edits [54]. [55]. The real Rokus added this promoting the Netherlands as the

Cradle of Civilization and then edit warred over it. He created an article on the Nordic race which attempts to prove the real existence of this "race". Numerous other articles are edited to promote his claim that the Nordic race has primeval paleolothic continuities and is the source of the IE languages (ie. The Aryans). Rokus will not engage in meningful debate. 'Debates' are endless reassertions of his line by argument and OR synthesising of sources. See Talk:Kurgan hypothesis, Talk:Neanderthal, Talk:Frisians etc. Paul B (talk

) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Looks like Wikipedia has got its own modern version of

Folantin (talk

) 14:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01 forum-shopping and harassing people as usual. Unless somebody wants to look into Rokus' history of disruption (he is basically reporting himself by quoting me above), there is nothing to see here. The diffs that back up my characterization of Rokus02 are to be found

06:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive are editors like you that are on probation for being disruptive: [56] Moreover, your fanatism on military Kurgan antiques is famous, since your disruptive edits have been denounced on this subject as well. Still, your practice of retorting arguments with bias seems to work out for you, even here on the incident page. You are still on the loose. Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rokus is the problem here. Dbachmann's characterisation of his antics and ideology is perhaps a little exaggerated, but is essentially accurate, as anyone familiar with Rokus's editing history will be only too aware. Rokus is also extremely disingenuous and this very entry in the noticeboard is clear evidence of his vindictiveness. It is nothing more than the pursuit of a vendetta and part of a campaign to get dbachmann to back away from dealing with Rokus's extreme nationalism and preoccupation with the glorious "Nordic race". Paul B (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think your use of "glorious" is as unwarranted and suggestive as the quote of your overlord. Weren't you the one negating [57] Fascism to be involved in Nazism, even after being refuted with the reliable sourced reference you asked for yourself [58]? Clearly

WP:OR, I don't think Paul can be taken very seriously. Moreover, the mystery of your friend Dbachmann NOT investigating my suggestion that some obnoxious sockpuppetry trolling might have been yours [59] while being so diligent in other occasions, has never been solved.Rokus01 (talk

) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Rockus01's statements on DBachmann's talk page were clearly made to taunt him over the recent ArbCom "reminder", and provoke a response that he could take to AN/I. Quoting from

talk

) 15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not "taunt", I politely advised him to take heart and not engage in soapboxing against the arbcom decision on his talkpage: [60]. I honestly think this is a bad attitude not worthy [61] of an admin that repeatedly pretends to speak in name of Wikipedia.Rokus01 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"A little exaggerated"? Epecially "racially superior breed, the original Aryans" is highly suggestive and insulting. As far as I know this unwarranted claim is a personal attack, and a personal attack is a violation of wikipedia policy, and a violation of wikipedia policy of this accumulating degree (since as all of us know this behaviour is systematic and symptomatic to Dbachmann) is an incident. I would say, an issue. Rokus01 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• my observation on this situation is that Rokus01 has an agenda, and dab (primarily) stands in his way. I think Paul B's diffs show that while dab could be more polite, he's not the encyclopedia's problem in this case. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I worry about dab for "standing in my way", as he has already difficulties in upholding his own edits? You can't blame me for improving on articles that interest me, persuing encyclopedic compliance to multiple significant views, or else you would have seen me fighting like a crazed bull against the bias of

, of course).

By the way, please don't miss my observation above concerning this incident: "The pattern of personal attacks Dbachmann has been accused of was certainly mentioned in the final decision to his case:" [62] Rokus01 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The AN should be aware that ArbCom intended for the principle of Decorum to apply to all parties involved in the dispute, including two editors that were added as parties based on personal attacks and incivility against DBachmann. There was never a finding of fact against DBachmann for editorial misconduct. The findings concerned the use of rollback and semi-protection in Dab's capacity as an admin. Alleging otherwise amounts to fraudulent testimony and is a violation of

talk

) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ovadyah, your same argument "Axe to grind" was applied by you before to criticize

) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary Rokus01, I am a "neutral bypasser" when it comes to these various content disputes. I could care less about Afrocentricity, Indian nationalism, or your Nordic pretentions to greatness. I am not, however, neutral when it comes to the abuse of processfor that has the potential to affect all Wikipedians. My vexation with your remarks stems from your faux-nobility in pretending to uphold the principle of Decorum while violating its spirit. This is also evidenced by a seemingly inordinate amount of time spent on trolling the talk pages and contribution logs of other editors.

talk

) 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Nordic pretentions to greatness", such a statement is rather part of some deliberate attempt to discredit. What greatness? You should know this wrongly suggests some alliance with nazism or fascism. Where did I make such a suggestion? It is all the contrary, I think fascism is related to bad intentions and deliberate lies. This is the kind of attacks I intend to denounce. Like other unwarranted statements above from your party, this suggestion is completely outrageous and at best a personal interpretation (or cabal subgroup policy) that you could try to evidence at an arbcom dispute BASED OF FACTS, NOT PARROTING. Be sure that poor, unverifiable accusations with bad intentions of a group won't be any match to the honest arguments from my side, that vouch for a completely different reality. To such an arbcom case I would agree, under the one condition that this will lead to a clear WP policy to have parties like this expelled indefinitely from Wikipedia, for smearing the reputation of honest editors, and for deliberately trying to quell honorable edits (by way of last resort!) that can't be refuted by way of reason, facts or acceptable standards of moral. Since this result was not my original ambition, I just continue to denounce here, I repeat, the abuse of one editor, Dbachmann, for obviously giving a wrong example in contesting the arbcom settlement by

) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also for royals we sometimes don't even translate what is used for their surnames. For instance, the

Prince of Prussia's legal name, and the one allowed on his birth certificate, is Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen. We don't say his legal name in English is Georg Friedrich Prince of Prussia, although he may be styled as such in social situations. In English his legal name is still Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen (or Preussen, allowing for transliteration of non-available letters). Charles

15:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not "keep" on deleting tags: I only did so once per article, asking Charles to prove with a reference his POV that surnames cannot be translated into English for non-aristocrats, without which proof the tags appear as unwarranted and aggresive POV-pushing. Because I do have two references for my claim re: Carol Mircea's surname, I will delete the OR tag as unwarranted and leave the Neutrality one as long as there is no consensus, awaiting Charles' reference on his POV. Have a good day everybody! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lil' Mouse does not have proof of a surname because the context of cited passages does not support it. Sources referring to someone as "prince of Romania" does not make their surname "of Romania". Carol Mircea's birth certificate says "al României", not "of Romania". A literal translation of a surname is erroneous. Yes, his surname means "of Romania", but that does not change it to "of Romania". Note, for example, the lead articles on the Habsburgs. We don't give them as "of Habsburg-Lorraine", we use "von Habsburg-Lothringen". Charles 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no

WP:OR, hence the OR tag was removed and will continue to be removed as unwarranted. For it to be warranted, either of the two conditions are necessary to be true: "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.". The definition of the former says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." There is a verifiable, published, credible source proving Carol Mircea's "of Romania" surname --the Evenimentul Zilei daily, one of the main Romanian dailies: "Carol Mircea Grigore of Romania, the first born son of Romanian King Carol II, died on Friday night in London. (...) Mircea Grigore of Romania as mentioned in his birth certificate issued in 2004 by the Bucharest City Hall following long trials, was the first born of Carol II and his wife Ioana Valentina "Zizi" Lambrino." (Source) As to the second part of the OR tag, "unverified claims," its definition is given by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Clearly, the above source fulfils the verifiability requirement as it is published and reliable. Therefore, neither of the two reasons for the OR tag are warranted. Hence, this tag will continue to be deleted. Lil' mouse 2 (talk

) 18:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The validity of "of Romania" exactly in English as a surname is compromised by the use of "prince". A territorial designation is different from a surname. Lil Mouse, cease your campaign of vandalism and original research. It is you who is pushing original research by saying "of Romania" is the surname on his birth certificate, taken from a literal translation of the Romanian when the Romanian form is his surname. Your behaviour and admitted point of view, which you have not addressed here, is not suitable for Wikipedia. Carol's surname is "al României", not "of Romania". Charles 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the English of Lil Mouse's source is absolutely atrocious, slightly above that of a machine translation. Perhaps this source would be reliable in Romanian, but it is not a reliable English source for individual names in English as much as it might be for facts about his death, etc. Charles 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim Carol Mircea is a "prince." My edit is not OR, as there is a verifiable, published source proving his last name is "of Romania." Read again what

WP:AGF). As to your aggressive POV-pushing with the repeated insertion of the OR tag, please, provide a reliable source for your POV that only the aristocrats' surnames can be translated into English, but not the non-aristocrats'. If you do that, I'll accept then that Evenimentul Zilei was not so reliable when it translated Carol Mircea's surname into English. Have a good day everybody! Lil' mouse 2 (talk

) 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said only aristocratic "surnames" are translated. I said that "of Hohenzollern", which you compared "of Romania", is not just a surname, it exists as a surname and a territorial designation, whereas Carol Mircea's does not, because he is not titled "Prince" on his birth certificate. The OR is the lack of proof on your part that the English language translates surnames. An awful translation literally from Romanian does not cut it, it is not reliable in determining English usage. Answer for your claim of ownership on behalf of Romanians, why don't you. Either Evenimentul Zilei is reliable or it isn't, it doesn't rely on me proving something that I never claimed (that aristocrats have translatable surnames). I will say it again, for the record, that using "of Hohenzollern" for the Romanian royals is not translating a surname because it exists separately as a house name and as a princely title. Even for royals, "surnames" (to use your terminology, although these were house names) are not translated. Take a look at the leading lines of this article, for instance: Charles I of Austria (von Habsburg-Lothringen, not of Habsburg-Lorraine). An identifiable "surname" (again, house name, really) which is presented as such, not translated. Charles 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I recall the French revolutionaries addressing Queen Marie Antoinette during her trial with a translated French version of her Austrian surname, stripped of any princely title. So the translation of a commoner's surname (she was a commoner at that time) into a foreign language can be done; whether it can be done in English also is a matter of debate. Until you prove with a reliable reference your POV (thank you for all the above details on your POV, by the way), I have a reliable source for my edit and you don't for yours. Your opinion as to why my source is not reliable on this matter relies solely on your unproven POV. Still awaiting your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you comparing present day English conventions to revolutionary France?! You are also referring to French conventions, not English ones. Your source is compromised and your comparison is faulty. You are not the arbiter of what is correct in English, indeed you have indicated that you are concerned with what Romanians think. The practice is evident in English. Think of all of the nobles with "de" and "von" in their names. We don't translate those unless there are titles. English isn't a language with an academy so conventions are governed by what is the predominant practise. All you have shown is what a Romanian would do, not a general (especially native) speaker of English. Are you going to tell everyone how the English language is supposed to be used? You took what is known to be fact, that Carol's surname on his birth certificate is "al României", and extended it with unreliable and compromised sources (do you expect an English translation mentioning "Prince al României"? "Prince" compromises the already sloppy translation) and are pushing to say that his surname IS "of Romania" when his surname is "al României" and only means "of Romania". My surname means "of X", but that is not my surname. My surname is "von X". If you think surnames are a matter of debate, you obviously have no proof on your side that surnames are always translated into English. English practice backs me up, and I hate saying "me" when what I really mean is you vs the English language. Charles 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once more for offering all of us yet again your POV, but without a reference to back it up, it remains just that: a mere POV. One that is contradicted by solid evidence: King Michael's heiress, Princess Margareta, has her first name translated into English (Margarita) according to the 2007 royal Statute. If a first name can, why can't the last name be translated also?! Moreover, if a proper noun ("Margareta") can be translated, why not even more so then a non-proper common word such as the genitive particle "al" ("of") (as in "al Romaniei" - "of Romania")?! But this is all pure speculation, on your part as well as on mine, mere POV's. The difference between them is that my POV has a reference to back it up, yours doesn't. Still waiting for your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article Romanian court recognizes Briton as Carol II's grandson uses the surname “of Romania” when mentioning Carol Mircea's name and not with any title just his surname as a result of the court ruling, so that’s two English language sources translating this particular individual’s surname. Lil' mouse 2 only seems to be going by what English languages do with regards to this individual. - dwc lr (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times article uses "of Romania" in terms of a territorial designation as far as the summary shows (from the use of the title prince). Has anyone seen the full article and if so can it be quoted that the birth certificate says "of Romania" and not "al României"? Charles 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people translate not just their surnames, but also their first names into English - they translate everything! See

Princess Margareta/Margarita de Hohenzollern/of Hohenzollern (in Romanian vs. English spellings). Bottom line: there is no hard and fast rule as to what sort of name is or is not translatable into English. It's up to the individual. Lil' mouse 2 (talk

) 23:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you Carol al României? Margarita can say her name is whatever she wants to say it is. The difference is when a newspaper without context says something or a newspaper with an awful translation says something. Also, Margarita is a Princess of Hohenzollern. That is a bona fide territorial designation of a former principality whose princely family she is a dynastic member of. It's also a house name and it is different from a surname, although Hohenzollern may exist separately as a surname if it is registered.. Surnames registered in different languages are different from literal translations of surnames which do not exist in the language to which they were translated. Charles 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More of the same POV... It's getting really, really old to see you repeat yourself. I'm waiting for a reference on the English rules for name translations. Without it, your own translation rules will remain a mere unproven POV of a non-English speaker, which doesn't change the reality that foreigners translate part or all of their names into English in whichever way they want. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to prove a convention which exists through practice. Look around you. I gave you the examples to support the English convention. Look up people like da Vinci, van Gogh, Vanderbilt, von Mises, etc. We simply don't translate those things. You, on the other hand, have no prove that it is always appropriate to translate names. You also have not provided the full context for your "references" (compromised by the title of prince and also by a sloppy translation). The convention is "what is". You, however, have not provided the written rule for translating names. Also, I am not a "non-English speaker". I am fluent in English, it is my native language. Also, the Washington Times and that Romanian paper you quoted are not foreigners, they are newspapers. Carol never had a birth certificate with "of Romania" filled in. We certainly don't say that the Italian Royal Family is surnamed "of Savoy" although they have the titles prince and princess of Savoy, their surname (they need one now) is "di Savoia". Same for Carol, he was "al României". Again, are you Carol and are you translating your name? Carol has not spoken on the matter, has he? How can you speak for him and what he wants? Again, the proof you want exists as a convention, specifically the lack of "translating" names literally into English. If someone surnamed Le Blanc wants to register their surname as White, that's fine. Until it's on the paper though it remains Le Blanc, does it not? Charles 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been shown that the surname is translated in the English Language sources cited none have been presented which uses al României for his surname. What doubt is there to the reliability? - dwc lr (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

His birth certificate, a primary source, has "al României" as his surname. The doubt as to reliability is the use of Prince... Not even the dimmest of people would say Prince Carol al României... "Prince" compromises it. Also, the summary of the Washington Times article does not provide context and no one has been able to provide the context which says that Carol's legal surname was "of Romania" and not "al României". "Of Romania" should only be used to explain the significance of the surname, it doesn't exist separately and should not be substituted for the surname. Charles 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To Charles: You claimed above that such a naming convention is "governed by what is the predominant practise." This is consistent with my proof and claim that there is no hard and fast rule for name translations. I hope you understand what "predominant" means (I say "hope" because you had invented an English word, which prompted my earlier concerns about your non-native speaker status): it allows room for minority practises. One cannot impose the majority rules on the minority, unless there is an Academia regulating the language like in France. Both majority and minority uses coexist. Thus, you have absolutely no right of imposing your (claimed) majority views banning the "of Romania" form of Carol's last name. If you, however, produce a reference with evidence to the contrary, I'll drop my case. Still waiting for your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, Lil Mouse, and I am only so sorry that my spell checker for Firefox marked that word as an error. I know what "predominant" means and thank you for your uncivil gesture. I am, you know, a native speaker of English, I tend to know what words mean. The majority rules outweigh the minority. That is why we don't have more parenthetical forms than we already have here. I am not banning "of Romania", it already shows up in the claimed name of "Prince Carol of Romania", which has always been there. When discussing Hohenzollern and Lambrino though why do we have to repeat "of Romania" as a surname when that never was his legal surname? Like I told you though and as you seemingly admit, there is a "majority" practice which opposes translation of surnames. This isn't the case of a man who registered himself as "al României" in Romania and then "de Roumanie" in France and then "von Rumänien" in German, etc, etc, including "of Romania". Any of those then could exist as surnames. Carol, however, had at various times in his life the surnames of Lambrino, Hohenzollern and al României. The "of Romania" exists as his princely style in English, not a bona fide surname. Sure, it's the meaning of the surname but it isn't his name as much as my surname isn't "of X" but rather "von X" (X used for privacy). My reference exists as the overwhelming English practise, it exists in the form of not translating. Not doing something in English has stood as an argument on Wikipedia for as long as Wikipedia has existed because it reflects natural English usage. Charles 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, your mistake of creating a new English word when editing the correct prior term proves that you do not tend to use references (e.g. a dictionary in this case) when in doubt, as any quality Wikipedia editor should. I hope you will learn from this mistake and use references at least now so as to enlighten all of us as to what the rule for name translations (if any -- I strongly doubt that there is any) is, not what your POV is. I know your POV fully well, so, please, do not reply anylonger quoting yourself unless you can quote a source. Still waiting for your reference... Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The source Lil' Mouse claims supports "of Romania" as a surname, the Washington Times article, does not do that. It speaks of what "should" and combines a dynastic name with a territorial designation, a construction not used by the Romanian royals as a surname. The "of Romania" Lil' Mouse refers to in the article is the territorial designation the writer of the article says Carol "should" have borne. The other source is Romanian in origin and is a literal translation from Romanian to English, and a sloppy one at that, and as such it is not a reliable source to describe English usage for surnames. Furthermore, Carol's birth certificate gives "al României" as a surname and doesn't give a surname for his father (as a royal, he didn't have a true surname). The comparison Lil' Mouse makes to "von/de/of Hohenzollern" does not hold because there are differences between house names, surnames and territorial designations. King Carol's "al României" is a territorial designation, those are translated. On Carol Mircea's birth certificate, "al României" is only a surname, not a house name or territorial designation. Carol described himself as HRH Prince Carol of Romania. That doesn't mention nor does it need a surname, his surname is separate from that because this is a territorial designation. It doesn't change his legal surname from anything other that "al României". The articles in question gives all of Carol's legal surnames plus his claimed style as a prince. That's standard and proper. Inventing surnames isn't. Charles 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

English sources translate it, and “of Romania” is supported by citations. I don’t think any administers are interested in this. - dwc lr (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

English sources do not translate it. Maybe when using the princely title, in which case they are using a territorial designation and not a surname. "Of Romania" is not supported by citations. The Washington Times article does not support it and the Romanian newspaper is not a reliable English source. Carol's own birth certificate doesn't use "of Romania" and doesn't even give that surname to his father (Carol didn't inherit "of Romania" from his father as a surname). Charles 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources use the Princely title when saying his surname is “of Romania” because they are talking about his name. Carol was a long British resident/citizen that’s probably why the sources translate his surname. I as far as I can see there are sources supporting “of Romania” and none for Romanian version in English sources. - dwc lr (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources say his name was "of Romania". We aren't talking about "probably" here. We aren't talking about what English sources alone say. We are talking about FACT. The FACT is that Carol's surname was "al României". Primary sources support "al României", not "of Romania". The Washington Times article predates the time when Carol was given the surname, therefore it cannot determine his surname and how it should be used. On that note, are you going to argue for "Hohenzollern of Romania"? That's what the article says, isn't it? You are making original research. Charles 17:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been waiting for DWC LR and Lil' Mouse to comment on the quality of the sources, the context and what they say but both of them have ignored my requests and continue to revert my edits. They have provided no evidence whatsoever that Carol's surname is "of Romania". That's what it means, not what it is. We don't translate someone's surname from LeBlanc to White. Both users have not separated princely territorial designations from actual surnames, like the one on Carol Mircea's birth certificate. Both users are blindly following pieces of text without reading the whole thing. Also, neither users are arguing for "Hohenzollern of Romania" which appears in the WT article which predates the time when Carol was given the surname "al României" by many, many years. The "source" they are using originates from before the time any form of "of Romania" existed as a surname. Charles 17:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is English sources use “of Romania”. You are questioning the quality of sources presumably you would accept a cite from a newsgroup like Alt Talk Royalty but you don’t accept sources which meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. People may not translate LeBlanc to White but from the English language sources translate “al României” to “of Romania”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DWC LR (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph states "In 2003, after a long court case, a Romanian court recognised Prince Carol's legitimacy and his birth certificate was altered accordingly."[65]. The Washington Times article is from 1995, 8 years before Carol had that surname. It cannot be used as a source for a surname which did not exist and which is not even presented as a surname in the article. Would you argue for "Hohenzollern of Romania"? No, I don't think you would, but answer anyway. If you don't, it's to your discredit. Charles 17:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide some English sources that use al României for his surname. Court case has dragged due to appeals so it’s no surprise it took many years to finally get his new birth certificate issued. I have no problem adding "Hohenzollern of Romania" as well to the article the issue is whether English sources use “of Romania or “al României” and they use “of Romania“ if they don’t show some sources otherwise it looks like original research on your part. - dwc lr (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The only source giving a verifiable, standalone surname is the birth certificate. No English sources give a surname, just invented stylings such as "Hohenzollern of Romania" before the man even had the surname and also articles started with "Prince Carol Mircea..." which kills any proof of "of Romania" alone being a surname on its own.

WP:RSUE states: "Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." Errors arise in literal translations. Like I mentioned before, it's a good source for determining court dates, etc, but does not account for English usage. Convention is to not translate surnames. Charles

19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The surname of his father on Carol Mircea's birth certificate is "al Romaniei." As there is no legal Royal House in the Republic of Romania where this birthcertificate is issued, the "al Romaniei" is not a Royal House surname, but a family name, which Carol Mircea inherited. Without a hard and fast rule for name translations, regardless of Charles' unreferenced POV on this matter, the family name is fully translatable into English, as the two English-language references prove it. Washington Times is reliable when quoting "Hohenzollern of Romania" as his surname, combining Carol's surname "Hohenzollern" valid in the EU countries since the Portuguese and French court decisions, with his translated surname "of Romania" valid in Romania. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Carol was not given a combined surname and the WT article doesn't state existing fact. Note the word "should". Won't comment further on the shabby sources here, etc, etc. Discussion is now at

WT:ROYALTY, I will no longer be replying here. Fair warning. An administrator told me this is better suited for a WikiProject than the notice board. Charles

20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied a last time on this matter here. Consider yourself warned: any further unreferenced edits from you on this matter will be reverted per

WP:V policies. Lil' mouse 2 (talk

) 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider yourself warned. Every policy you have quoted is working against you. Charles 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since his recent rejection in RfA , user continues negative input to the project. Edit summaries such a[talk:HalfShadow&diff=prev&oldid=185364705 this] and [for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=185364315 this] are quite uncivil.68.245.183.155 (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't sooper-civil, but if anything needs to be evaluated which can be found beneath those links it is the behavior of

14:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First point: how I summarize my edits to my own page is my business. Second point: he was having a tantrum, and I don't mince words. Never have, never will. Third point, you're the second or third random IP with no edits attached to directly comment on my talk page concerning my editing practices as their first edits, which I find awfully damn curious, especially seeing as all the IPs involved are so close to each other. This stinks of stalking. HalfShadow (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

wrong. Incivility is incivility whether it's on a Talk page, an article page, or an edit summary. Please be civil in all cases. Corvus cornix_talk 06:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that this looks like someone IP socking to

avoid scrutiny. Plus, this 'complaint' was made 'several hours after the incident in question, which means he's apparently following my edits around, and that's technically stalking. HalfShadow (talk

) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I left a 3RR warning for VP on his talk page (which has the most complex design I think I've ever seen...). There is also some other warnings apparently, and a block notice, tucked beneath the dozen or so collapse boxes.
  talk
  14:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

New editor Gabby the kitty (talk · contribs) made multiple edits to List of Star Trek: Voyager cast members, then added a bogus movie article. Flagged the bogus movie article, but need to have a Trekkie review the Star Trek related edits; I can't tell if they're valid. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the bogus movie article. The list of cast members looks accurate, but it serves no purpose IMO. — Edokter • Talk • 19:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a first warning on the editor's talk page. It now looks like a new user learning Wikipedia, not a vandalism-only account. Unless something else happens, we're done here, I think. --John Nagle (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about some edits from this user, such as this edit [66], where it is stated that a living person despises one living person, and thinks another living person is the "worst human being who ever lived", and another edit [67] which adds a large quote to a television show character that I am sure never happened in the show.

) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's starting to look like a vandalism only account, but it's a newbie. Q0 should put the appropriate notices on the user's talk page; maybe this new editor can be salvaged rather than blocked. --John Nagle (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do I go to report a threat? Anthon01 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the best place for threats and attacks. Give the users name, and perhaps some

diffs of the attacks to make it easier for admins to take action if necessary.--Jac16888 (talk

) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am relatively new to wikipedia. This incident follows an editor who was moving the location of my comments into a new section on the Bleep talk page. I reverted his edit several times, and left a warning for him, on his talk page, that he was edit warring. I have no idea what he means by this edit summary,[68] but I take it as a threat. Anthon01 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI for anyone interested, this appears to be related to the Rlevse thread above. --B (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this is a separate incident. If you consider them related, that's fine, but Rlevse was not involved when this happened. Anthon01 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously not a threat. For Zeus's sake, can everybody involved just lay off all this "threats" stuff? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not obvious to me. I'm sorry but "If you ... again ... I'm going to take it personally," I have no way to know what his meaning or intent is. Anthon01 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. Lots of people take things personally. In fact that's one of the major failings of Wikipedia -- people all too often take it personally when someone disagrees with their edits. It's not a threat until someone follows "taking it personally" with "...and I'm going to do (bad thing) to you." By the way, someone who has been around for several months and has a couple thousand edits isn't usually considered "new to wikipedia." Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. Regarding new, I wasn't sure where to post this or whether it should be taken as a threat. In that regard, I am new. Anthon01 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The359 has repeatedly vandalized Saleen S7 despite warnings to stop. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism and you were giving templated warnings to established users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake, I had thought he was adding a piece of vandalism, but he was instead removing it. My reverts of his edits were therefore wrong and it is understandable that he thought I was vandalizing. My warnings to him were therefore incorrect as well. The359 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think one of you two have broken

3RR on the article. D.M.N. (talk

) 10:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably so, but I'm disinclined to enforce it in this case -- 359 earnestly believed he was reverting a bad line out, I think. This diff in particular draws my attention (both the text being taken out and the response from the anon). An unfortunate misunderstanding, but one we can probably walk away from without too much trouble, I hope. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the page that you linked. 3RR does not necessarily apply to "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism." 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If repeatedly adding "Fastest car in the world this year in 2008." in the middle of an article is not vandalism, then what is it? 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He mistakenly believed you were adding it, which is why he was reverting you to begin with. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He should have looked at the diff before blindly reverting, and then making threats against me. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but then so should have you -- we can spend all night arguing, or we can admit a few mistakes were made, make up, and move on with lessons for the future. Which would you prefer? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the second myself - I do not wish to see a third user walk away from Wikipedia in the space of 24 hours. D.M.N. (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Screw this. If you all are going to gang up on the newcomer who tried to help, I'm leaving. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You already got an apology. Shame you removed it claiming it was vandalism. For what it's worth, this is far from the ideal treatment, but I don't see what more there is to explore, here. Isn't it best to just move on? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryūlóng

He or she removed legitimate warnings from User talk:The359 but added illegitimate ones to my talk page. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...and now your trying to disrupt the encyclopedia. Why start a new topic instead of carrying on from the last one. Its on the same subject matter. Just drop it. D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the IP had removed every single edit to its talk page, restored everything, which were legitimate, and gave a warning of my own. I've semiprotected the IP's talk page for this reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of an issue with the user removing legitimate warnings from the past under the false claim that they are vandalism. The359 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[69] [70] Yep, your right. D.M.N. (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it is generally seen as OK for people with usernames to remove their own warnings, as we know they are one person, and the act of removing them indicates that they have seen them. With IP addresses, there is no indication that a single IP address = a single person. Thus, many believe it is important that warnings remain on IP address pages to, for example, show if the level and types of vandalism from an IP address indicates that it may be from a school or from a dynamically assigned system. Warnings on IP address pages are for all to see, not just the recepient. There is a legitimate reason to leave warnings at IP address talk pages.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, IP userpages are not associated with a person like user userpages are. Tomorrow it could be someone elses IP, it would be like letting a guest move all the furniture in a hotel room.

Until

02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved editor or admin please look at this edit? It reverted a change made by me and east718. Details and links to discussions are here. This needs to be reverted quickly before someone uses it as an excuse to start deleting the images again before there has been time to work on them (there was an agreement to wait until midnight tonight). Again, it is purely the volume. If the thousands of images had been spread out over the 30 days in the month, no problem. But I can't scan thousands of pictures in seven days for the ones that I think can be kept and fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the backlog tag that the IP added. For the record, I support the compromise that has been worked out. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Game review spammer

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

Has been adding external links to game reviews on an unreliable website, which I believe was made by him. All the content is hosted on gooforum.com and mysite.orange.co.uk, both are services that allow you to create free websites. Besides that, the links don't belong in any external link sections, much of the content on the site had poor grammar and were very short, and the website seemed a mess.--Seriousspender (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If he is spamming, as you suggest, then he should be blocked for a short period of time. D.M.N. (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cautioned by

WP:AIV. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩

13:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by Peter morrell

At My RFC Talk page, Peter has just said the following. I quote the whole below, but lines like "In truth, you belong back in the days of the Inquisition. Is that a little clearer?" can't be appropriate.

What, you still don't get it, Adam? You think it is an OK use of your admin powers to silence your critics with blocks, often on the flimsiest of evidence (e.g. Whig, Debbe, Lee Hunter, Homeopathic, Homy, et al);

I've never blocked Lee Hunter], I've never blocked [[71]], nor Homeopathic, nor [72]. Of the people listed, I have only ever blocked Whig (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive317#User:Whig)

to engage in a relentless purge of WP of homeopathy related content, usually by stealth in the dead of night;

By nominations for AfD, for the record. Peter viciously attacks me for AfDs elsewhere on that RfC.

to lend support and succour to other zealots who wish to do the same as you but who lack the admin powers to do it; to tinker with and revert, as per your whim, the good faith edits of others; to find nit-picky ways to invalidate perfectly reasonable points and sources in articles just because you don't agree with them; to pursue with your drones a hardline, Dawkins-esque pro-science jihad against subjects like homeopathy which are not sciences in the modern sense anyway; then yes I do think you have abused your admin powers across a range of articles. However, I think to be fair you probably acquired your purging zeal in editing Intelligent design and Creationism during 2006 while also editing Evolution related articles. As a fellow biologist I would probably have supported your views there but never the missionary zeal with which you attacked good folks on the basis of your misguided views on science. And you did all this knowing full well that the American continent is packed with your allies who also wish to repel the 'vile Creationist invader' in their midst. You should take your battle into the southern states like Dawkins is about to do; WP is not really the place for such a strong whiff of brimstone. In truth, you belong back in the days of the Inquisition. Is that a little clearer? And you then transferred those attitudes and that sense of mission to subjects like Homeopathy probably as a direct result of my own short-lived edit to Natural selection in late Feb 2007 when I said NS is only a theory and it is just that. I even emailed you about this at the time very cordially but was rebuffed. All the diffs are there in our user pages. Surely you can see the bigger picture.Peter morrell 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's the meat of the Incivility. Peter's belief that everything is an attack on him is a major problem. (I think I first edited Homeopathy on February 2nd, [73] for the record, well before whatever edit in "late 2007" Peter thinks drew me over there.) And this isn't the first time - he's been up on RfC about it before Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell and promised to reform. How many times do I have to be attacked by him before someone does something? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is a tenacious proponent of fringe/pseudoscience views. As the perceived underdog, he's allowed to be uncivil. The rest of us have to follow Wikipedia policy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect/hope that you were being sarcastic there, Raymond. — Coren ^(talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Peter for 48 hours. See [74]. Please review. –

Steel

16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, i've never edited the pages in the content dispute, and i'm only involved because i've endorsed a couple of statements in the RFC. But ARBCom demanded the RFC. They wanted to hear the opinions of the community. And the statement (unless there's more then what was quoted) Seems like something that should be rebutted in the rfc talk, not a block. Just my opinion for what it's worth.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The post quoted above is the latest in a series of attacks from Peter morrell against Adam Cuerden going back several months. It was made as part of general chatter on the RfC talk page and was not anybody's official 'outside view' for the RfC, assuming that distinction is even relevant. –

Steel

17:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it somewhat difficult to read a comment littered with words and phrases like "relentless purge...by stealth in the dead of night", "zealots", "drones", "jihad", "you belong back in the days of the Inquisition" as anything other than an abusive screed. While raising concerns about the conduct of other editors is a legitimate practice on Wikipedia – and doubly so in the context of an RfC – we do not and should not take that as license to couch that 'criticism' in the nastiest, most inflammatory way possible. Recall that an RfC is intended to be a step towards dispute resolution. It is vehemently not to be treated as just another battleground, nor is it a soapbox.

What sort of rebuttal, Cube lurker, would you contemplate to such comments? How does one provide diffs to prove that one is not a zealot or Inquisitor; that one is not part of a jihad engaged in relentless nighttime purges? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that by it's nature an RFC on admin conduct called by ArbCom is by it's nature an area of controversy. Both sides will make and have made strong comments, and in the end ArbCom will sort through. There was no profanity, no threats leagal or physical, just a heated dispute in an area designed for such heat.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that RfCs often deal with contentious and controversial issues; if there were no issues in dispute, then there would be no need for a dispute resolution process. Nor is there any question that 'strong' comments may be made. There is an unfortunate tendency, sometimes, to confuse and conflate 'honesty and directness' with 'rudeness and aggressiveness'. The former are both useful and productive, while the latter are unhelpful and inflammatory. It is possible – as demonstrated clearly by Peter morrell here – for an editor to be extremely incivil and to launch personal attacks without employing profanity or legal or physical threats. A constructive and useful criticism is of the form

I believe JoeAdmin has misused/abused his admin privileges when he deleted article [foo] and protected article [bar], and when he blocked User:JohnEditor. Joe and John had an extensive history of prior interpersonal conflict ([diff], [diff], [diff]) that made it inappropriate for Joe to block John. As well, Joe has identified himself as an employee of [bar] ([diff]), a competitor of [foo] in the widget marketplace. This strikes me as a conflict of interest, and Joe shouldn't have taken admin actions with respect to those two articles.

is clear and direct and pulls no punches. It concisely and efficiently points a reader to the relevant evidence, and identifies explicitly the problematic conduct. In contrast, a criticism of the following form

I believe JoeAdmin abuses his adminship because he's a zealot on a jihad. He comes stealthily in the dark of night to purge relentlessly those who do not cleave to the one true faith. He acts like a member of the Spanish Inquisition, and he must be stopped!

would be needlessly inflammatory and vitriolic namecalling, and is useless for the purposes of the RfC because it provides no evidence or specific criticism. An RfC does not suspect Wikipedia's rules for conduct. Cube lurker, do you now understand how one can criticize another editor's conduct without resorting to incivility and personal attacks? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned for that kind of thing time and time again. Here's one where he was blocked: [75] for comments very similar to the above: [76]

He had been warned on the RfC talk page once already today. [77]

And he's been warned repeatedly before over the last few months: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] (I believe there are also several others; I remember Cool Hand Luke cautioned him a few times, for instance)

He has also had an RfC where he promised to reform: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter morrell

This is a pattern of behaviour and warning, not a one off. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've said my peace. It doesn't pass the smell test with me, but it's not my call.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem here, inasmuch as Adam Cuerden is held to a double standard as an admin and is not blocked for his own ongoing gross incivility to editors with a different POV than his own particularly regarding the subject of homeopathy. I have given recent evidence of this in his RfC.[83] Because he treats other editors with disrespect, he may be expected occasionally to receive some negative criticism. —Whig (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Have a look at the diffs Whig provides. They basically amount to me saying that he still has problems as an editor, particularly with only reading part of what people say to him, and... basically, all the problems from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, though at a slightly lower level. Whig may not like hearing it, but my position is easily defensible by diffs, (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Adam_Cuerden#Criticism_of_Whig.27s_behaviour_is_justified_.28Adam_Cuerden.2C_response_to_Whig.27s_comment_below.29) Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to look at Adam's response, then you might read the follow-up conversation in the talk, but I'm not going to bother digging up diffs for this noticeboard, since this really is an ArbCom matter. For the record, his comment here is incivil, because he presumes some reading deficiency on my part. —Whig (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, his comment above is not uncivil, unless you're trying really hard to be offended. You criticized his behavior; he criticized yours. Even in the surreal atmosphere currently prevailing on Wikipedia, this is not proscribed by

WP:CIVIL. If it were, it would be impossible to meaningfully discuss... well... anything. To go back to the intial part of the thread: a reasonable block, and an unacceptable screed on Peter's part. Just because Adam is currently embattled does not mean that everyone who dislikes him gets free license to poke him with a stick. MastCell ^Talk

21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is usually a constructive and civil editor, but this unfortunate outburst is unacceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of both Peter and Adam. Both of them contribute a lot to Wikipedia, and I am more willing to cut productive editors some slack on the civility front than I am unproductive trolls and POV pushers. And some of those on the homeopathy pages really are not as productive and cooperative as Peter, although they hold his same viewpoint. I find it regrettable that Peter stepped over the line, but I would still vouch for him since in the net, he contributes in a positive way to Wikipedia, contrary to many others. Adam I have never seen be particularly uncivil, although there is some argument that he might not have interpreted the admin rules correctly. On the other hand, Adam has been tremendously productive and valuable for Wikipedia. --Filll (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Two households, both alike in dignity,

In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

) 13:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to contact the closing admin first and hear the response. In any case, you can always file a report at

WP:DRV. - PeaceNT (talk

) 13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The closing admin is correct in that AfD is not the place to settle content disputes. However, he was probably not familiar with the relentless lame "Cardiff v Swansea" edit war that this article appears to be part of. If you believe the AfD result was wrong, try
  WP:DRV, or simply be bold - if this article has incorrect content, explain on the talk page that you are considering redirecting the article to a suitable target (Cardiff Bus or Transport in Cardiff) and merging the useful information there - and explain why. Then discuss it to achieve some sort of consensus. Edit warring is always A Bad Thing, even if you are sure you are in the right. BLACKKITE
  13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I originally placed a request for explanantion on his talk page, questioning his comment about no valid arguments were made on either side, but when I realised it has been called no consensus when the result is 3-1 I felt it was an ANI matter. Being bold won't work because Welshleprechaun will simply revert using this Afd result as justification for his POV, as he has already done in subsequent edits. Discussion of content has been unproductive so far. MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think allowing the closing admin more than 11 minutes to respond to your query would have been more courteous than to rush this problem to AN/I. As per the other two editors here, I suggest you take this to

WP:DRV. The Rambling Man (talk

) 13:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to comment is irrelevant in my opinion as I don't think he is going to change his mind on the basis of asking him to on his talk page is he? MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really the point is it? It would have been courteous to have waited for a response, there's no rush on this is there? He may be prepared to expand on his closing comments at the AFD. I'd take this to DRV. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a time factor when you see that Welshleprechaun is using this result as the basis for further edits. I'm listing it on DRV anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing done here that can't be undone... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in my experience sadly. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Such as? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plenty. This is definitely not the place though. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just point out that

User:Welshleprechaun should not be using the result of that AfD for anything at all, as all the closing admin said was "this isn't the place for this discussion". It certainly wasn't closed as "Keep". BLACKKITE

15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)