Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369

24.34.131.179 has twice inserted "a transgender peace activist" into the Code Pink article, following text already identifying an individual as an activist. Gender identification is not relevant to a political article, but I have reverted it twice and don't want to violate 3RR.

On the Talk: Code Pink page, 24.34.131.179 has overwritten some of my response and is being generally confrontational. Clearly, anything I say will have little effect on someone so intent on having his/her/its way. Might I ask an Admin to review these actions and determine if they qualify as vandalism, and, as such, a 3RR exception?

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have commented at the article talkpage. I suggest you form a consensus that including one aspect of the individuals background, one that appears irrelevant, is inappropriate. While there is just the two of you (plus my opinion, for what it is worth) it is a content dispute. Kudos for standing back from 3RR and requesting outside help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Would another admin or two take a look at the recent block involving User talk:David Shankbone? Specifically, I'm quite confident in my assessment that modifying the section heading another person added to a talk page over their objections is just like having edited one of their comments, and is (1) bad form, and (2) certainly bad to edit-war over. But Shankbone doesn't seem to believe this. Also, Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) offered an opinion on the situation but then hasn't responded to a note I left him. Mangojuice^talk 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked too deeply into the context of what these people were quarreling over, but in general I'd disagree with your assessment of the section heading issue. Changing section headings is not so uncommon, it can be part of legitimate refactoring. Since section headings, as a structuring textual device, are not really part of one particular post, but are designed to be a shared feature structuring all the following thread, they really cease to "belong" to the individual editor who first posted them, and become more like a common property of all the users of the talk page. Especially when a section heading is felt to be offensive or needlessly inflammatory, replacing it with something more neutral seems legitimate to me. At least, I did it myself just the other day.[1] Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I previously concurred with the block at an earlier section (here); DS ought to know by now that simply getting into revert wars is inappropriate, no matter how justified he believes his position to be (and that has also been a bone of contention in the past). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I just noted above, I unblocked David a bit ago. I left a fairly long message on his talk page.

While it's not necessarily wrong to refactor talk page comments, that's not what happened. The first revert cycle can legitimately be seen as that, but then David and Yorkshirian simply see-sawed the contents back and forth several times. It was classic revert war / edit war behavior, though I had apparently miscounted the 3RR check / time period.

I even agree with David that the original section heading was unnecessarily provocative. The problem was David getting down in the dirt and fighting over it, rather than calling for help and having someone uninvolved try to reason with him or bring the fifty-ton mop of civility down on them. That rapidly degenerated into both sides having done wrong. Who started it is slightly relevant (and accounted for a longer initial block), but both sides clearly misbehaved.

More of my comments can be found on User talk:David Shankbone

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I filed this report

Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/68.90.62.244 on 3 Feb 2008 regarding the long term vandal user:Mmbabies. Is there thing the Foundation or Mr. Jimbo can do to speed up the process of getting law enforcement involved to prosecute this joker. He has been harassing people for over a year since Feb 12 2006 ; he has made death threats against VIPS, and wikipedia users. Can someone inform the board of the Foundation or Mike Godwin, the lawyer . I think a admin needs to see the abuse report. Thank for your time Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment

was added at 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone respond Rio de oro (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much we can do, until someone responds to the abuse e-mails. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They started with Katherine Heigl and later went to Category:German-Americans and Category:Americans of German descent. Other odd edits include Leopold Katzenstein and David Letterman. Not really sure if this is vandalism or just a POV or something else. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Their Talk page is a red link. Try talking first. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Second that, maybe just communicating with the user will solve the problem without the need of administrators. Tiptoety ^talk 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I welcomed the IP user, and noted

WP:POV. Bearian (talk

) 01:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

AkiKimura99 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing an unsourced tag from the article they're working on. I gave them four warnings, including a final warning, and they keep removing the warnings from their talk page, which is okay, except that looking through the history of their talk page, they've already had a final warning for the same behavior about a month ago. They never use Talk pages, never use edit summaries, and never address the concerns of other editors. And now they've given themself a whole slew of barnstars, signing them with other editors' names. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. A 31 hour block is in place to get his attention. If he returns with teh same behavior, let me or other admins know, and it will be replaced with a longer one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This user copied a barnstar that I awarded to User:Nlu and placed it on his talk page. For the record, I have no idea who AkiKimura99 is and never awarded him any barnstars. Grandmaster (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed all of the bogus barnstars from the talk page. All taken care of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The one from Nlu was legit. I've restored that one. Corvus cornix_talk 05:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo comments on Mantanmoreland and Gary Weiss.

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland.

For the record, I did not say that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have investigated that claim repeatedly and I have been unable to find any proof of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, immediately after you claim this here you say My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly the same thing, and it is exactly right. I have never said that Mantanmoreland is in fact Gary Weiss. I have said that I believed it at a point in time. There is a huge difference between saying that something is a fact, versus saying that I believed it. Belief, knowledge, not the same thing. I have been completely clear about this on multiple occassions. To this day, I have no proof that it is true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

However, that you believed it would seem to indicate that it was a reasonable thing to suspect, and that people shouldn't have been considered "proxying for a banned user" just for voicing that suspicion. —Random832 14:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency
• see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#is_this_disruptive.3F

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on National Policing Improvement Agency

• 09:11, 12 February 2008 - -17:52, 12 February 2008 - -17:57, 12 February 2008- -18:03, 12 February 2008- -10:53, 14 February 2008 - -14:16, 14 February 2008 - -14:50, 14 February 2008- -15:17, 14 February 2008 - -15:17, 14 February 2008

Maintenance tag vandalism using sock IP's on Serious Organised Crime Agency

• 09:12, 12 February 2008- -17:52, 12 February 2008- -17:55, 12 February 2008- -17:57, 12 February 2008- -17:59, 12 February 2008- -18:03, 12 February 2008 - -18:05, 12 February 2008 - -18:07, 12 February 2008- -10:54, 14 February 2008 - -14:17, 14 February 2008- -14:51, 14 February 2008

Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) works for the NPIA, see [2][3][4][5]. Despite being invited to the discussion on COI/N, The account and IP's continue to edit, and have have persistently removed the maintenance tags (see above), despite the fact that he/she is infact the one with the conflict. Input please.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford does seem most insistent about that tag. I'll drop him a note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we have all tried to communicate but with little result, hopefully you'll have better luck--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If he removes the maintenance tags again, I would endorse a block. After numerous notes from multiple editors, it looks like Bamford just does not "get it." --Kralizec! (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse a block along the same lines.

WP:AGF has its limits and this editor(s) is clearly pushing them. MBisanz ^talk

18:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here, also I left him a note on his talk page. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you are going to extract any change of heart from this editor. They are not interested in community editing because they are certain they are the only source of the truth. I suggest that they are blocked, the socks recorded, and a checkuser run. If it proves that the editor is using the facilities of the establishment that is the subject of the article then a little email to the management might be in order... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Bamford ignored the various warnings, reverted the articles in question back to his preferred version ([6], [7]), and issued a rather scathing reply [8]. As such, I have blocked Bamford for 31 hours for his continuing

) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This series of 25 edits to his talk page have me completely baffled. They appear to consist of adding four {{

rant against the injustice of following Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines (or so I presume - TLDR), I do not understand why even a disgruntled editor would add pointless maintenance tags to their talk page. --Kralizec! (talk

) 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User with multiple IPs keeps deleting the same material

The Illuminati article is having difficulty with a persistant vandal. I reported the situation to ANI-Vandalism, but they have said the situation is not blaitant enough and referred me here. This is the situation... On January 31, an IP user:189.30.110.198 deleted some material from the article without explanation... I reverted and requested discussion on the talk page (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illuminati&diff=next&oldid=181216241 this dif.). The IP responded with a rather strange edit: here, which led to the following chain of edits and reverts: [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13] ... note the change of IP address... same prefix though. At this point the editor (logged in as User:Edictorwikicentral) did respond on the talk page... seehere. To that point, I would not have called these edits vandalism. We had a content dispute, which several editors attempted to resolve in the appropriate way. However, the removal of the content has continued - to the point where it now is vandalism... The editor simply removes the content with no explanation (see: here, here, and most recently here.) In each case we reverted and tagged the user page with a vandalism warning... but because he/she uses a slightly different IP address each time, the vandalism warnings that have been mounting up are defused. Because he/she only reverts occasionally, it isn't a case for ANI-Vandalism or 3rr.

I doubt it would be appropriate to simply block the entire 189.30... IP range, but is there anything that can be done to convince this vandal to stop deleting the content? Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but my suggestion would be to request semi-protection to keep the IPs from editing so you can focus on the content dispute without interference from users who aren't logged in. --clpo13_(talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess it already is semi-protected. Never mind. --clpo13_(talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection helps... but does not solve the problem. The IP editor in question just waits for the protection to be lifted and repeats his/her deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have getting tagged by this out of control editor with delusions of socks on his head. I have warned him four times, and he continues to harass me with is war of tagging my my user space with is sock puppet BS. [14] [15] [16] [17]

If he think I'm a sock then let him file, but just unilaterally placing tags on editors talk pages is just a form of bulling and harassment. I think someone should stop this rude and childish punk. Propol appears [18]to have a long, and uncontrolled reputation of this and needs to be disciplined as to the rules. This child is out of control?Oldschooltool (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this appears to be in bad faith. If the user felt strongly about his/her accusations, then they should have filed a sockpuppet case involving your conduct with a list of diffs as evidence. Since this has not been done, it could be construed as trolling (at the very least). Did you attempt to mediate the situation on his talk page beyond the level 4 warning you gave him/her? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message on the user's talk page regarding the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has somehow been moved/hacked to a page entitled Sri Lanka - hacked by Bleezhulk. This user has been vandalizing a number of pages in a similar way, see [19]. This user needs to be blocked.--Gregalton (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User blocked by Riana, articles moved back and deleted redirects created by the moves. Thanks for the heads up! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we get a block on this IP immediately. User talk:86.134.94.232. See these edits:

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

I tried a level three abuse warning, but this just escalated things. I hope this is the correct place to report such problems. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

New IP!

It seems a broader block may be required. Is this possible?

User talk:86.134.94.204

[25]

Nouse4aname (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Iced him. east.718 at 10:18, February 15, 2008

It's a dynamic IP from a large block owned by a British ISP, so I'm afraid a range block wouldn't be feasible. Please just bring it up on

WP:AIV if it acts up again. (Tell them it's a block-evading repeat offender so they won't be asking you for prior warnings and stuff.) Fut.Perf. ☼

10:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bubbleshum received a last warning about making nonsense pages and he deleted it from his talk page [26], and has now received *another* last warning for making yet another nonsense page with related thematic. First page was John Iliston, and second page is Ilistonitis, and both were speedily deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already blocked --Enric Naval (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has been changing with original research or simply non at all a great number pages.80.78.74.88.Megistias (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) The user continues [27]Despite being warned that what he is doing it against the rules.Megistias (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be handled at Talk:Ioannis Kapodistrias. No need for ANI. (Although another pair of eyes from an uninvolved admin might be useful, now that it's here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't say "see discussion" in the article (see what discussion?). You need to

verified. El_C

11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That was, I think, Mavronjoti's mistake, not Megistias. Anyway, it's reached the stage where we need an uninvolved admin to swing the trout over at that article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since they both have names that start with M, I'm unable to distinguish between theM. El_C 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I cite sources and rules this person doesnt.I am not the offenderMegistias (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol.

• Mavronjoti = Albanian, brings questionable sources, has also been editing as IP, has breached 3RR
• Megistias = Greek, defender of article status quo, did two reverts, is under revert parole.
• Tassoskessaris (D.K.) = Greek, defender of article status quo, has been unnice to Mavronjoti.

Makes it clearer? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

i thought the limit was automatic!.I suck but i did defend the article!Megistias (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Defending" works differently. Defending is done through friendly, relaxed, patient discussion and through

"writing for the enemy". Ever tried that? Writing for the enemy means, you assume an active role taking the opponents cues, actively check how much of their claimed sources may in fact contain a kernel of truth, and then work that into the text, on your own accord. Fut.Perf. ☼

12:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You that they just remove the secondary sources and then incite an edit war.I took the bait last time.Megistias (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please take a look at this strange/suspicious upload of 10 Feb...

• Image:Jaso2.pdf (note the suffix)

The .pdf is not linked to by any article and the upload constitutes the user's only edit.
Paranoid snot that I am, I wouldn't recommend opening the file. I hear it screaming "exploit".

-- Fullstop (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems harmless. It's a text about a location in India that was apparently meant as an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get

) 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - nicely explained. I hard-blocked UntimelyMaroon. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandalism? I'm not sure quite what Staygyro (talk · contribs) is doing. Could somebody block this user and fix the tangled web of moves? Corvus cornix_talk 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its just a misguided attempt to create redirects for possible spelling variations, not anything malicious--Jac16888 (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

that is my intention Staygyro (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

if you want to create a redirect to another page, rather than doing it through page# moves, create the pages with the spelling variations, using #REDIRECT [[Name of the article to redirect to]]. --Jac16888 (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

on the same issue, i have accidentally created a page called Dmitri Hvorostovsk. Can an admin please delete it Staygyro (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Persistent vandal-only IP blocked by [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] —[[User:TravisTX|<font face="Georgia" color="#2F335F">Travis</font>]][[User_talk:TravisTX|<font color="#888888" size="-1"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Someone want to take a look at this user: 66.168.119.50? He just blanked this page and when I went to warn him, I saw all the warnings on that page and thought I should just ask an admin to take care of it. Tex (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(editing conflict) Next time you could be proactive. It's good practice : ) If the IP is still active and continues to blank after a warning (level 3 or final), then you or someone else can report him/her to

WP:AIV. Looks as though they've already been warned. and blocked Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blanking one's own talk page is permissible, unless it's a shared IP. It's practice; a proposal to use punitive measures against blanking one's own talk page failed to gain consensus, and probably won't. (Of course, this is a bit controversial.)

Gracenotes^T

§ 16:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an IP with a long history of sporadic vandalism, including page blanking. They didn't blank their talk page, they blanked this page (AN/I).[28] Vassyana (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, misread. Sorry about that :)

Gracenotes^T

§ 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. IP blocked from anonymous editing. {{anonblock}} noted on talk page. Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. Apparently my original post wasn't clear. I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say. Tex (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? Why has it been blocked for six months? It blanked the incidents noticeboard once - which was of course quickly reverted - and, prior to blanking, had not edited for almost a month. Six months seems, at best, excessive. --Iamunknown 01:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but according to wannabekate, that IP has 165 mainspace edits and every one of them is vandalism. If it were an account, it would definitely be indef blocked as a vandalism only account. Tex (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP has only been used for vandalism and has a long history of vandalism. The sporadic nature of its activity, the length of time between edits and the established history of vandalism all factored into my block. Users on that IP can still edit logged-in, and if they do not have an account they may request one to gain editing access. To my knowledge, this is a standard treatment for heavy vandalism anons. Vassyana (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Seems like a fine solution to a long-term vandal with no constructive edits. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm requesting that someone with admin privileges restore the page now at

) 15:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moved back to original locations. Left a note on the talkpage to open a RM, though I'm not sure why we'd want to move this article now. Black Kite 16:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Having a look, the disambig page isn't a bad idea except it's being used for all things pertaining to the various Inverness's, and not different types of Inverness's themselves. Also the page I think with naming convention it should be Inverness, Scotland not Inverness, Highland. However I see you haven't left a message on the editors talk page prior to bringing it here, and only a message on the disambig page and discussion hasn't been thoroughly explored but will look to move them back. And it was done as I was typing. ^Khukri 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've move-protected it until a discussion takes place, if one does. As a general point, we usually don't use a qualifier for a city if one is by far the most well-known, which I think the Scottish city is. Black Kite 16:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A similar course of actions had been taken on Nairn yesterday I think. Again, the irreversible action was taken first, then a notice was posted on the Scottish wikipedians' noticeboards. The move ... unnecessary and controversial from the responses, involved the cutting and pasting of text, and has left hundreds of wikilinks pointing at a dab page (now at Nairn). In both the cases of Nairn and Inverness, the pre-move page appears to be clear primary usage ... though moves in both took place before this matter had been examined by the community. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've moved the pages and fixed the links, problem is now that the history is at
  Nairn (government and administration boundaries) rather than Nairn after the article was split. I've got to go out now, but I'll fix this when I get back. Black Kite
  18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a nightmare ... took a while to work out what happened! It fairness to

Nairn, Scotland (now thankfully back at Nairn) the successor of (pre-move) Nairn rather than the other one! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• And done. Black Kite 19:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to note that i did before place notices both on the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Also, after the split i made Nairn a disambiguation page so there was no successor to it, as you have put it. Simply south (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am increasingly seeing how this bot works through its invasions of my watchlist and watching the results. What appears to be happening is that images with no rationale and images with an attempted rationale, but no article link, are tagged as being completely the same, i.e. deletabble in 7 days, i.e. here: [29]. I believe this is unnacceptable, as the cases of attempted rationales would clearly pass muster in a court, which is what the policy aims to meet. In order to decrease the stress and anger this bot is causing every time it goes on a 20,000 tag run, it should be reprogrammed to only run a few hundred images at a time, and to dump the resulting tagged images into an expert clearing house, before placing a huge warning and endless spamming of talk pages, only some of which are appropriate, so that images can be screened into the obvious 2 categories here, non-compliance full stop and in need of time and attention, and non-compliance with the bot's specification, but fixable in 10 seconds without stress and alarm by experienced editors, and the consequent uneccessary loss of images/editors. This would also increase the accuracy of the bot process as a whole itself, as the bot can be defeated easily by putting a gibberish rationale, as long as it contains the appropriate number of links. I know time/numbers is a factor, so I suggest images in the clearing house not given any attention in 7 days are then tagged and users warned as usual, irregardless. The clearing house can be accessed by anyone, in a collaborative effort that WP is supposed to be. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC) You do realize we have almost 300,000 non-free images? If it only did 500 per day, it would take about a year and a half to go through all the images we currently have. And that assumes that there are people willing to spend hours per day going through the images and fixing minor errors. Mr.Z-man 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC) And you have assumed every single image present is in error, which they are not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) It would be better if changes were made to the upload process that required the use of the FUR template, which makes it clear when there is anything missing that it must be added. The problem is at the beginning of the process and with the uploaders. The bot is just pointing out the mistakes. Love 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) That is not a reason to not change the bot as described above. Pick a random sample of tagged images, this is not purely a new image problem. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) That actually probably makes the situation worse. Don't know if it still holds true but the license list used to contain licenses which were invalid for use on wikipedia, such images quickly got deleted. Why would we do this? Simply we want people to be honest about the license, not just use something which works. So user uploads image, select FU as a "license" is forced to enter all sorts of stuff they don't understand, ah what the hell PD it is then... --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I did just noticed uploading two images a second ago that (unless it's the advanced wikEd editor that put it there) that the non-free rationale template is automatically inserted into the rationale edit area for image uploading. --MASEM 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) It was inserted a couple of months ago. Remember the Dot did the programming and either I or him suggested it at the Upload talk page and I believe VP-Prop or VP-Tech. MBisanz talk 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) If you are getting spammed messages from BCBot on your talkpage it is because you are doing it wrong. The images are supposed to have a machine-readable rationale template, and the bot tags images that do not. The purpose is not to be sufficient for court, Wikimedia copyright liability for images is not the primary issue. Please do not create new threads for BetaCommandBot when there are already half a dozen on WP:AN and threads from this board have been moved there recently. T 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Roll-up disputed, see actioner's talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Brand-new account, only edits are to blank arbcom pages. Possibly a sockpuppet? —Random832 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, user was blocked within minutes of the blanking edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've got a request - can you remove that fake block template from the top of your page? it's misleading. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that and have changed it to be obvious that I am NOT blocked. Avruch and I worked that out civilly (as opposed to the way SqueakBox operates, and that's the point of the problem there). Fixed. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the joke associated with the use of the fake template? You're a rebel? Or some other message? I agree it is confusing and distracting.

David D. (Talk)

21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

since people are focusing not on the actual question, I started this into a seperate ANI

Lately there have been some very knee-jerk overzealous blocks. I have been somewhat vocal about how they are probably a bit excessive (I support a block in both instances, but indef is clearly excessive). The only reason I haven't been blocked is that I gave up on

WP:NPOV and the like before the fireworks began. There are a couple people that would like me blocked for life because they don't like my NPOV-ishness and demandingness regarding the following of actual policy and precedent. That is why I have the "yeah right...don't you wish" and "well it's about time...not" in those boxes. The humor value of it. I'm careful not to let me emotionality (totally) get the better of me on Wikipedia, in spite of the personal attacks I sometimes have been subjected to (as above). Anyway, it's moot as the page has been thusly changed so as not to be misleading-able or mis-read-able. Thanks for the interest! VigilancePrime (talk

) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting moderately tired of you, too, VP. It seems if you aren't bitching or moaning about something, you're complaining. Have you considered taking up collecting stamps as a hobby instead? HalfShadow (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that a constructive comment? Do you expect him to take your suggestion seriously? I removed it hoping that you would think better of it and either not replace it or replace it with something that isn't inflammatory. Unfortunately, you put it back word for word and threatened to "report me." Feel free.

^T

22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just ignore people rather than waving the red flag?

David D. (Talk)

22:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I also think the block notice is misleading... the text you changed is rather small, and mostly, what you notice is the big red X with its familiar bold indef text. Perhaps you could at least change the background color, or some other code that results in a more visible difference from the actual indef template? Equazcion •✗/C • 22:05, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Who cares?. Honestly. Let him be. If he wants to leave the template on his page, let him... What is the offense we are supposed to deal with here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs

22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended, but I don't think its really appropriate because of the potential for confusion - seeing it without reading it closely (or at all in its previous incarnation) could lead someone to redact his contributions, to refrain from posting on his talkpage or otherwise interfere with communication. I think we should stay away from letting people put blocked templates on their own pages.

^T

22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Initially I thought it was confusing. From what he wrote above it appears to be taunting. It might be his own user page but taunting opponents is exactly the wrong way to go about creating a good editing environment. Hence my don't wave red flags comments above, i really think this is bad judgement.

David D. (Talk)

22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was a joke it was in bad taste. Thanks,

SqueakBox

22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's converted the template into something amusing. Way to go. Thanks,

SqueakBox

23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment, abuse of admin rights

I was blocked for a period of 31 hours on account

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit war on Ante Starčević, using multiple reverts without gaining consensus to do so..

as it can be seen here [30] by Jayron32. Consensus is something completely meaningless here - due to the fact that the existing version was not a result of any consensus. I was motivated to put previous version back - seeing that huge portion of sourced text was baselessly removed. I was supported by other editor (Smerdyakoff) - see here [31] and here [32] . In this edit war participated only two other editors - Spylab and Rjecina - see [33]. Rjecina refused to discuss the removal of sourced text, Spylab claimed that the text was POV and written in poor English - see [34]. As to the truth about POV - the removed text is strictly referenced but Spylab removed valid reference. Moreover, Spylab does not read or speak Serbo-Croatian in which almost all references are written - the fact proving that (s)he has no valid knowledge to justify removal of the text under being POV.

Bottom line - administrator Jayron32 acted baselessly and baselessly called upon Wikipedia's blocking policy. Looks like that consensus is obligatory to only one side - the one picked by Jayron32. Constructive contributions must be based on proven knowledge and impartial and verifiable references - which I supported by putting back the previous version of this article. --Stagalj (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line - you're a troll. Next please. Will ^(talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I respond, or just let this post speak for itself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection... The edit patterns here were both suspicious and vaguely familiar. It appears that Stagalj is a

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). Indef blocked... Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 05:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Assorted harassment part II

Resolved

 – blocked by Antandrus already

There's another ip out there who's really getting to be pretty belligerent, he/she apparently has a fairly solid knowledge of how wikipedia works given references to 3RR and modifying user pages, but there's a lot of personal attacks, disruptive mainspace edits and more. see User: 67.204.1.137. A quick glance at Special:Contributions/67.204.1.137 should be enough to warrant action in my opinion. thanks, CredoFromStart ^talk 05:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

never mind, it's been dealt with. CredoFromStart ^talk 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of: [35]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While looking over the modus operandi section of

). While the user in question has a pretty good net productivity (the redirects themselves are generally considered to be good contributions, I think), is there a protocol for telling someone their edits are similar to that of a sockpuppeteer?

Am I completely misreading this situation, am I being to

) 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No edits to Talk pages, editing

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy/list. Smells like a duck to me. Corvus cornix_talk

07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block him, but I noticed someone got there first. Thanks to Ryulong for taking care of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

Seems to believe there is subsequent reason to delete userboxes he disagrees with or believes are nonsensical. Several users have complained, including myself, about nominating the userboxes for deletion, yet he continues to believe they have no purpose here on Wikipedia.

Examples of userboxes he would like deleted:

[36] [37] [38] [39]

I don't know how one would properly handle this overzealous use of nominating articles for deletion, so here is the incident. Thanks, Milonica (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If he believes a userbox to be nonsensical that's a great reason to nominate it for deletion, even if most would think it funny. There is absolutly no need for admin action here, so don't put it oon an admin noticeboard, take it up with him on his talk page.--Phoenix-wiki 14:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• The first one is a reasonable nomination for deletion because it attacks another user (a bot is obviously run by a user), but the others are obviously jokes and somewhat pointless to nominate, and I see all three have been Speedy Kept. Black Kite 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Jeffmichaud for a long time has used the signature "Jeff", but changed it on Jan 14 to "Baha'i Under the Covenant".[40] The policy on

suggests for users to politely request others to change their signature. If there is consensus that the policy of avoiding 'offensive, confusing, or promotional' user names equally applies to signature, then I also suggest updating WP:sig.

I politely requested on Jan 24 for him to change the signature,[41] and after no response I warned him again on Feb 8,[42]. The first request was immediately archived,[43] and the second request was immediately deleted outright from his talk page.[44]

For more details on why this is both offensive and promotional, glance over

01:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief! What kind of belief or faith is it that cannot withstand critical comment even from within itself? And when it comes down to mere words, whatever their implications, I'd suggest that any belief system should be self-confident and self-consistent in itself to be able to ignore mere words. That words are found offensive doesn't help in the slightest. Throughout history, words have been labelled as offensive, mostly because they represent a difference from orthodoxy; but in the context of an analytical, independently-minded and intellectually balanced source of information, rather than of opinion, taking offence at mere words is jejune, intellectually barren, and time-wasting. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Please feel free to cite any authority whatsoever, religious, legal or otherwise, that supports a right not to be offended. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is completely not the point. We have a Wikipedia policy that says not to use offensive user names, and a guideline that says it equally applies to signatures. Your response is attacking the policy and saying that nobody should be offended by anything. That's nonsense and a total disregard for the official policy that "all users should follow". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, but I personally am offended by any user name containing the letter "c". Therefore, they should all be banned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, completely not the point, and an illogical disregard for WP policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop shaking the straw man, please. Or is that Reductio ad absurdum? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my stupidity, but exactly how is the signature offensive or promotional? —Kurykh 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either; sounds like the debate we had over User:Rama's Arrow a few months ago. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.. neither can I. Has the subject since changed it? Rudget. 14:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a big part of why I don't edit Baha'i articles anymore. :\ JuJube (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should make something clear: I don't think it's offensive that he has certain beliefs and edits wikipedia, but he changed his signature to something that implies divine right. It would be like a user name of "I'm in God's favor and you're not". There is no need to use controversial user names/signatures and I politely requested for him to change it, and I politely requested for an administrator to enforce policy and ask him to change it to something less controversial. And no he hasn't changed it yet. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a deeper look, and ask him to change it based on that reason. I don't see anything unreasonable in asking the subject to change to something that would at least reflect his username. Rudget. 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if someone changed their sig to "I'm in God's favor and you're not", my reaction would be less "offended" and more "hilarity". Even assuming the worst possible faith--that the person is TRYING to honk off the other believers--changing a sig to something self-aggrandizing says less about the truth of his/her beliefs as it says about their response to disagreement. Just my opinion, though, and no offense intended to anyone.

Gladys J Cortez

06:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gladys. It is funny. Sincerely,

talk

) 07:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, is someone here talking about me behind my back? Kidding. Rudget, I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required". I don't believe I've violated any policy, but rather am being "asked" to change it to appease Cunado's will on the matter? After closer look at the actual policies on the matter it is obvious that Cunado is taking generous liberties at interpreting them in his own unique way for reasons not exactly obvious to me or anyone else. I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about.

) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:sig, which is a guideline and not even a policy, see this conversation. Someone please enforce policy. Cuñado ☼ - Talk

17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to view this as not offensive. It is one thing to say "My group is great" and another to say "Your group isn't", so we have lots of users with pro- type names, whether it be sports, nationality, activity, whatever, which seem compliant with the policy; while anti- type names aren't. Quite a difference between User:Boston Red Sox lover and User:New York Yankees hater in my mind. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, would you find a signature such as "Jesus, the true lord and savior" to be offensive? It's proselytism, regardless of the religion involved. We have some Yankees and Red Sox fans who have a fervent devotion to their teams, but it's not the same thing. If the signature would be blocked as a user name, it shouldn't be acceptable as a signature either. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. I'm identifying myself here, and not promoting/proselytising anything. BTW, it hasn't been blocked as a user name. Would it be? I've considered creating it as one. Would it be a problem?

Baha'i Under the Covenant

08:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but it was not considered because the actually user name is not the issue. The spirit of the policy is that user names and signatures should be used for identification and should avoid anything controversial. Religion and politics are the most controversial subjects, so it should be a no-brainer to say that it's inappropriate to boldly promote a religious view in a user name or sig. Even a name like "Jesus is for me" might seem harmless, but there is no reason to stir the pot on something that should be free of controversial subjects. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the signature is intended to be a means of discerning who has placed certain comments. By changing it to something that obscures your username (no where in "Baha'i Under the Covenant" does it tell me who that is), is not within policy. The only problem I see is that there is no reference to "Jeff" or "Jeffmichaud" in your signature. Surely, it would be better to use something that includes the phrase you want, but also includes your actual username in some form.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree,

WP:sig is a guideline, and it says "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." So we're back to offering Jeffmichaud unenforceable advice. The issue is about enforcing the policy about a controversial signature. Cuñado ☼ - Talk

16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also seen that he has not responded to my comment either here or his talk page. I'm really not sure, as an administrator, what should be done here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes. I didn't think further comment was needed.

_{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff

05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly I know essentially nothing about the religion in question, so I can't say for myself whether this signature in and of itself is contentious. But what strikes me as a potential bad faith is the way this came about -- from a content dispute regarding the religion in question.

I'm of the opinion -- and this is an opinion I came to by taking my lumps first -- that anything potentially divisive should be left off the wiki ... this is why I changed my username from something contentious to something just plain silly. The difficulty here is that not all people hold this view. Jeff obviously doesn't, and it would seem, from a policy point of view, that he's entitled to not hold it.

Is Jeff doing something whereby we can make him change his signature? Probably not. But in the spirit of good cooperation he should consider changing it as a measure of good faith. However, Jeff's comments here, such as these:

I will respectfully decline your request to change anything if, as seems clear from the discussion that transpired, I'm not in violation of any policies nor am I being "required".

I appreciate your sentiments to avoid controversy, Rudget, but if it is offensive to Cunado I can only be envious that his life is so blessed to have nothing of greater concern to worry about.

Horologium, your example is in fact proselytism, but I'm not proselytizing per se. (emphasis mine)

Ryulong, you didn't request comment "here or on my talk page". There were no questions in your message. [...] I didn't think further comment was needed.

do not indicate an overwhelming amount of dedication to the cooperative spirit. Sorry to assume mediocre faith here, but I'm not thrilled with the spirit of these responses. - Revolving Bugbear 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Revolving, how strange that you'd decide to cut and paste around the comments which are absolutely agreeable and polite, and display my comments in such a unfavorable way? Why leave out "I understand your concern now, and it makes perfect sense, so I've taken your suggestions and made the appropriate changes."?

I wasn't even notified about this directly, but was sideswiped, so-to-speak, by an email from Rudget (which was very polite and agreeable), so I came into the conversation after two days of discussion had transpired. I didn't change this, as Cunado implied, on the 14th in the middle of a discussion, but on the 12th basically on a whim. I don't feel compelled in any way to bend to Cunado's will as I believe his concerns are unfounded and a bit overly dramatic; but that doesn't automatically mean my actions here are in bad faith? Cunado's stated concern was this violated policy by being "promotional and controvertial", and I disagree. That is within my rights as far as I'm aware. Being made aware of Ryulong's concerns shed a new light on the matter, and I immediately made the changes he requested. If that is all then I'll thank you all for your help in the matter, and if there's anything I can be of further assistance for please notify me directly as I won't be keeping abreast of any further evolution of this discussion. Cheers.

_{Baha'i Under the Covenant}^Jeff

22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You were definitely not "sideswiped". I asked you twice to change it and told you that I would follow up on the Admin notice board.[45] Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Negated fallacy of division -- just because not all of your comments are lacking a spirit of cooperation does not mean that all of your comments are not lacking a spirit of cooperation.

Given the number of people who have approached you in the last week or so (3) vs. the number of them you have directly responded to (0) and your long-standing message that you don't want people to comment on your talk page about anything substantive, I think that a little more effort to reach out to the community would be very helpful in this situation. - Revolving Bugbear 19:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to user name policy

I can sympathize with admins not wanting to make a value-based judgment on what might be offensive in a religion, but this requires such a judgment. Would it be appropriate to update the user name policy to avoid showing religious or political affiliation? That seems to be in the spirit of what to avoid, and would differentiate this from the User:Boston Red Sox lover example mentioned above. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the best place to do that would be at

WP:CENSORED. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between censoring in an article and avoiding controversial subjects in a user name. We already have a policy of not using promotional or offensive user names, and it is supposed to be enforced by a block, but right now it's not specific enough to include religion and politics, which to me seem obvious. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at one time it was specific enough to include (and this is more of a intuitive assessment of the name now) an inflammatory or offensive POV - If the username were to specifically disparage a religious icon or political figure, that would be one thing. However, there is an enormous difference between this and simply mentioning a symbol of your faith or ideology. Would you insist that IlikeAynRand to be a blatant violation of policy? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that there is much ongoing controversy over the username policy, not all administrators can come to an agreement, and in its current form there is nothing that would suggest the username you put forth is overtly offensive. The bottom line is this: virtually any username could potentially insult, aggravate, annoy or inflame somebody based on a personal point of view. This doesn't mean they should be reported to

WP:UAA though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 07:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be archived now. Any further discussion I'll take to

WP:U. Cuñado ☼ - Talk

01:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pelasgians/Chaonians

Repeated tactics

[46] If they dont get it its not my fault.Megistias (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the question - do you have a concern of some sort? D.M.N. (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They refuse to interact and simply keep on reposting rejected material.Again on my ethnicity ,denying ,irony and ignore my postings and of any user or admin rejecting themMegistias (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias is mixing up complaints against two different users:

disruptive editor and forever in danger of earning himself a renewed ban, and a new guy User:PelasgicMoon, who has so far not done anything outrageously disruptive by Balkanic standards. Fut.Perf. ☼

16:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. In which case, can we have some diffs so that we can resolve, or try to resolve the problem. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty frustrated.This is like deja vuMegistias (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dodona is a loooooong story. I've been trying to guard him through a "second chance", that's the only reason I'm not just joining in with Megistias' cry for bans, but I have doubts if it's going anywhere. I somehow don't know where to start with the links :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Still at it.[47]13:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone please remedie this situation in its entirety.Its all wasted time against people that have a dogma [48]Megistias (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling me a propagandist

talk, User:Taulant23 at the bottom of the talk says"his main propaganda agenda" referring to me.Megistias (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really the worst of personal attacks, if it even qualifies as one. What do you want done about it anyway?--Atlan (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

For him to stop doing it.Megistias (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. While it's borderline, comments like this are not helpful to the debate. I have left a note. — Satori Son 14:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User PelasgicMoon is doing the sameMegistias (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please. — Satori Son 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its at the bottom talkMegistias (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User Dodona "that i am what i am called"[49]Megistias (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to apply a few trouts here. Can somebody uninvolved please take over at

WP:ARBMAC I think.) Fut.Perf. ☼

16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I do apologize if I called you a Greek propagandist. But, it started with the Albanian page by putting maps after maps, showing North Epirus (southern Albania) as a Greek region.The maps and the article, sound it like a right-wing Greek nationalists favoring the long-term goal of unification of so-called North Epirus with Greece.If Megistias (talk) doeesn’t like something, he takes it off. or reverted. He deleted my sources (and other users too) and call all my authors pseudo historians (even if some are ancient Greek writers). I don't go on Greek articles and edit their page nor do I claim Greek land or their heroes. We Albanians have our own history (ancient and modern)! I do apologize again, and I am offering to work with you. However, please respect my people, our history and let’s edit in peace.--Taulant23 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My maps are source according to Wiki rules.Involved admins(all of them) approve of my actions and your slander here against me is even more encumbering in your case.Admins all call your sources pseudo historians.Admins at a great number and non Greek ones too.Megistias (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So four different users are wrong when they complain about your acts? Since when all Admins(all of them) approve your actions? and my slander here against you? I did apologize, and offered to work with you. What else do you want? I was sincere of what I think of your actions in Wikipedia.I do believe you promote Greek propaganda.--Taulant23 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your actions and that of those users you speak of is rejected by All the admins involved.Since you believe that i am that thing you say i want swift justice and measures by admins on you.You should also know that here only the violation is disscused not its specifics how you put them because those are resolved by the admins in the given pages.Megistias (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Some things you did and carry on it seems.Also note that i use secondary sources according to Wiki rules whilist you do not.So that makes me corrrect in all thesis support.You realise what that makes you and your likely minded users.

• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]
• [56]
• [57]

Megistias (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you carry on in here is even more unbelievable.Megistias (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you are a lost case,kρίμα Megistias (talk) because we can help each other.I do suggest that you listen to Fut.Perf. ☼ [58] advice.Please do contactDeucalionite (talk),see if he can be your mentor.Enjoy your break.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incident

[59]see talk page[60] admins-User wants an edit war and provokes to this effect ignoring secondary source and pretending he cant read.Most likely sockpuppet .Megistias (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a minor content dispute - I've suggested a compromise, hopefully this will solve things. I suppose both yourslef, Megistias, and the IP (who then created an account,

☎

17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He doestn get it.He wants the edit warMegistias (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a new user for certain.I am tired .Megistias (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that I only protected for two hours as an emergency measure. I've been involved with various related conflicts, so I'd appreciate if somebody else took care of whatever sanctions are appropriate.

WP:ARBMAC applies, if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼

17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a new user.[61]Megistias (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at what he is doing.I have answered a dozen times and provided myriad sources both secondary and primary and he just goes on.[62].Megistias (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He is not a new user he even knows how to switch his name [63] into appearing as another "balkanian".You dont go from nymbered user to that in an hour!Megistias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, User:DragonflySixtyseven made a substantial edit to Chaonians and then protected the page. This seems like a no-no. I've asked him about it on his talk page, but he seems to be away from the computer at the moment. Anyway, I haven't investigated this situation fully yet, but it looks like we've got a handful of POV-pushing disruptive editors who are using a combination of dodgy sources and flat-out original research, with some possible sockpuppetry tossed in. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys impose some sanctions on the whole of the disruptive editors?They dont change or learn .Just do something.Megistias (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys we have wasted endless hours these past few months

with this team of disruptors and they dont change nor will they.They have clones they do they same thing again they ignore users,admins and rules and so on.Megistias (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets too ugly, I want to make sure a few uninvolved admins start keeping an eye on a situation that appears to be developing. Jimbo made a comment on 7 February in which he stated:

I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.

Since that comment was made, a relatively new user, Lightedbulb (talk · contribs), has started an editing campaign to put "GNU" in front of every instance of "Linux" he can find. More so, he is trying to proclaim the rule of Jimbo in his edit comments with statements such as, "GNU/Linux has been confirmed as the correct naming convention for Wikipedia by its founder Jimmy Wales." He is doing this without prior discussion and is not responding well to talk page discussions trying to get him to slow down and discuss the changes. He is taking the stand of "Jimbo said it therefore it is the law".

Since that time, at least two other editors, Gronky (talk · contribs) and Bald Eeagle (talk · contribs), have jumped on the wagon and started using the same sort of edit comments.

Personally, when someone says "my opinion" I take it in a different context than "this is a Wikipedia rule". This editor runs the risk of making it appear that Wikipedia is driven more by the whims of its founder than the consensus developed by the community. Some help in explaining that this is a consensus driving project is appreciated. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that Jimbo could be said to have something of a conflict of interest on this particular topic too. ;-) (look at the page footer, or here) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) OMG! He's fallen into the evil clutches of Saint iGNUcious!

Now they think Lightedbulb is using a sock to get around 3RR Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle. Sarah 13:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And, in fact, the Wikipedia rules do say the opposite; whether "GNU/Linux" is "more correct" than "Linux" (an argument I do not want to enter), "Linux" is by far the most common english name for the group of operating systems driven by a Linux kernel, regardless of the presence of GNU tools— and therefore the one that should be used. — Coren ^(talk) 13:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, we even have an article GNU/Linux naming controversy. —Moondyne 13:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They were edit warring on that page, too, Moondyne. "Because Jimbo said!" :) Sarah 13:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am undoing these edits on sight. The essence of Jimbo's opinion, IMO, was that creating an organized project to expunge the name GNU/Linux was inappropriate. Gronky and the others are engaging in the exact same inappropriate behavior in the opposite direction. But, y'know, we all remember the scene from Life of Brian with the gourd and the shoe. Nandesuka (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am undoing the inappropriate work of the organised project. No more. --Gronky (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That movie completely misrepresented the situation. Those gourdists are nothing but a cult, and should not have been depicted as comparable in any way to the one true Shoe.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is getting very disruptive - see Gronky's edits for some more (many haven't been reverted). --Iamunknown 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One (presumably rainy) weekend, User:Thumperward went through a few hundred articles which mentioned "GNU/Linux" and changed them all to "Linux". A few people objected, but no one had equal time to undo this consensusless spree. I would call it an "edit flood". I've been meaning to undo those edits ever since, and others have also expressed an interest. Jimbo's comment is just the final motivation to actually start. There was never any justification or consensus to strip Wikipedia of "GNU/Linux" in the first place. User:Thumperward's campaign completely ignored and undermined the community process that makes Wikipedia work. So my 15 or so edits today are not a campaign, they're just a partial rollback of an edit flood that should never have been. --Gronky (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well with people like YOU (Prolog, StuffOfInterest, Nandesuka and a couple of others) acting here as the owners of the last word on what stays in wikipedia it's not surprising to see why in many Higher Educational Institutions the use of Wikipedia is discouraged and in some cases even forbidden.

With arguments such as to use the most common or most popular words to name things you are not helping to build an Encyclopedia but a kind of blog that you use to express your personal preferences. I will not get into a lengthy demonstration of this disdain of Wikipedia by the the serious international academic community. But for anyone here who has a doubt about that just go to the nearest University and talk to any professor to see what they think of Wikipedia as it is thanks to you guys, wonderful old seasoned editors.

The image wikipedia is getting is one of an outlet that is even used by corporation executives that pay people to edit anything that concerns them or their interests. By the way I can say I am not affiliated to any organization or company that sells any product or service related to GNU/Linux or as you so passionately prefer just "Linux". I don't get one cent from my efforts. I wanted just to share what I know with people seeking information.

The aim has never been to deny the Linux kernel but rather to add. Now your aim seems to be to hide the fact from many users that to be able to use this OS GNU/Linux there is complete freedom to the user and that he/she does not need the services of any company to supply him with the software as happens with proprietary sotfware. It is clear that as the creators of the "Open Source" initiative declared they wanted that what was until then known as "Free Sotfware" became more acceptable to the business community and to investors. Thus there is a systematic pattern by many people to omit the mention of GNU which has as its main message the idea of freedom. Freedom is not what interests "open source" companies such as O'Reilly which by the way is one of the main publishers of books with the Linux title to refer to the entire OS. In a well known documentary one can even see Linux Torvalds wearing and O'Reilly's T-shirt with the words "Open Source". As one of the editors who deleted my contribution said AdrianTM and to whom Prolog readily seconded the reason for eliminating GNU is that he hates the idea of "Free" Software and Richard Stallman. Just as Linus Torvalds does. Well if that is not POV then what?

It is a pity that this idea of a free Wikipedia Encyclopedia will end up as a failure to become an accurate and reliable source of knowledge and information. For that Microsoft Encarta, a proprietary product, will be a far better choice.

Lightedbulb (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The shoe is his sign! Let us follow his example. Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise." Nandesuka (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am SO tired of arguments that include the phrase or likeness "well, THIS is the reason academics don't like Wikipedia!". I have some great ideas for what to do with the shoe when arguments like that one are made... - Philippe | Talk 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with the common name arguments, maybe you should try and get the

guideline which says to use common names changed instead? --Haemo (talk

) 20:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you meant

WP:COMMON is I think much more appropriate here. 131.111.223.43 (talk

) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

22:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Request edit summary change with less offensive comment

Request that an admin kindly remove these

- 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins cannot edit edit summaries. Sorry! Metros (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An oversight could remove the revisions? --

(Review)

20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They could but I highly doubt that they'd consider this a needed removal. They generally only do this for personal information being revealed; not a bad-faith edit summary. Metros (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if we oversighted mean edit summaries, we'd be at it all day. --Haemo (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I caught an anonymous user adding inappropriate links to contextflexed.com here and here. Now Contextflexed showed up and not only readded the links, but threated me here saying he will be forced to out your identity. Stop headhunting me or else. IrishGuy ^talk 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for a block - possibly indef. Also blacklisting for the external site. Can't very well stand for nonsense like that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMike did a soft usernameblock. I upgraded to a hard block for the threat to reveal a RL identity. Anyone want to add the blacklist line? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive single-purpose account, possible sockpuppet. Edit-warring on Homeopathy, which is under probation. I have deleted the copyrighted image they uploaded but am not sure if they should be blocked at present. Comments? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly new (if precociously tendentious) account. An alternative to a short block for edit-warring (which would appear justified) would be to place them on 1RR and disruption parole, per the terms of the article probation, and give him/her another chance to shape up. MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone impersonating, or a sockpuppet of,

User:Danaullman, who edits the same article. It is too soon to determine which, but it certainly raises a red flag. I'm not saying we need to act now, or indeed if there is anything to act on, but its something to be aware of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

22:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

CSD Deletion of User Conduct RfC

The language on the User conduct RFCs say:

"In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)."

Am I correct in assuming that the person who wrote an filed the RFC obviously does not count as the threshold for two people? This is regards to the talk at

21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, Lawrence, you are mistaken. "Two people" includes the person who files the RFC. If it meant "two additional people" it would say so.

That is clearly the interpretation that was being used during the discussion on the RFC itslf. That discussion centered around whether or not I had certified it. If I, as the second person, was still insufficient to certify, then the conversation would have been completely different. It would have centered around whether a third person was stepping forward. You never once came forward with an opinion that my certification was not sufficient.

Also Lawrence, it is ironic that you say that "as possible partisans in this both your and my opinions are to be immediately devalued here for the community to decide".[64] I am happy that you agree because it proves my point. You, as an involved party, should not have tagged the page for Speedy Deletion.

If you felt the page should be deleted then you should have taken the more up-front approach and listed it at MfC. That would have allowed community discussion.

Also, this proves my point that deletion of the RFC is NOT an uncontroversial matter. A controversial deletion should not be based upon a "speedy tag" placed by one of the partisans.

The RFC page should be allowed to restored and allowed to run its course. If Lawrence disagrees then the appropriate venue would be MFD. It was not appropriate for Lawrence to tag an ongoing RFC wihth a "speedy deletion" tag. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• The RFC as I read it was an uncertified work of pure harassment, and an attack page on a valued editor.
  t/e
  22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have made your opinion clear on that. Again, it points to your personal involvement with this why it was improper for you to tag with speedy deletion. Numerous other people did not agree and have already commented on the RFP. Many of them had criticisms of CC's actions. You are doing CC no favors by trying to sweep this under the rug with a speedy deletion. The deletion needs to be overturned and the RFC allowed to continue. Johntex\^talk 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm with Johntex on this one - the plain language of the header says "two people" -- not two people "other than the filer." Lawrence's intentions are good here - but there's a dispute between BQZ and CC that needs to be resolved. An RFC is a fair-enough place to do so, and they seemed to be moving in that direction, so let's just let them resolve things if they can -- and if they can't then, ok, we tried. Arguing about whether or not the RFC was properly certified just seems drama-inducing, rather than helpful. --TheOtherBob 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here are recent sample RfCs that were certified by a total of 2 people, including the original filer.

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Angie_Y._2
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Threeafterthree
3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_2
4. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COGDEN
5. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4

This mistaken deletion of an in-process RFC is a grave error and this improper deletion should be un-done forthwith. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh - what possible reading of the RfC guidelines tells you that the filer isn't a certifier? It says two people must be in the dispute. If the filer is in the dispute - thats one person. The filer of an RfC is routinely a certifier. Additionally, what would cause you to tag an RfC for deletion? RfC's serve a purpose beyond whatever technical satisfaction of the page guidelines you are looking for - clearly there is a dispute there that hadn't been resolved by other means and required community input so that the editors could appropriately weigh the correctness of their actions. By getting the RfC deleted (which, if its restored, you can see I specifically argued against without taking a position on the dispute) you have short-circuited the process here. Additionally, the CSD category that was used to delete the RfC was cited improperly. The deleting admin should have noticed that there were a sufficient number of certifiers and refrained from deleting the pages.

23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Pegasus, for restoring the RfC pages.
  ^T
  00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you Pegasus! Johntex\^talk 00:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Davidbinder14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From the editing pattern, and particularly the comment on

21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but from my end all I really see is a

WP:COI with the account. It may very well be David Binder, or an associate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article was mentioned on

) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Assorted harassment

I'm having a problem with an IP user (69.157.51.121). I believe that it's the same one who has repeatedly vandalized my userpage (and others) over the last couple of months, related to Trenton, Ontario. Now it seems that s/he has started on a page I started last spring. There were some issues and they were resolved, but this person is vandalizing the article (Whitby Public Library) and calling my reverts COI. I'm not sure how to deal with this - he just made a comment on WP:Long Term Abuse. Any help appreciated. Blotto adrift (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blotto adrift please see the history regarding conflict of interest. He was ruled that he was in conflict on interest last year regarding the Whitby Public Library, however he now edits the page after it has left the minds of people. Take a look at his history, many users have noticed a problem with him and his editing style. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.51.121 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the IP address for trolling. I find the claims unsubstatiated, and his spamming every admin noticeboard around as disruptive and harrassing of the user. Feel free to comment on the block, or recind it if you feel it is out of line. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. This is the same editor that has been trolling and harassing various editors related to the Trenton, Ontario article. Multiple IPs have been blocked. His targets have been Blotto adrift, myself, and several others admins that have blocked him from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blotto adrift please see the history regarding conflict of interest. He was ruled that he was in conflict on interest last year regarding the Whitby Public Library, however he now edits the page after it has left the minds of people. Take a look at his history, many users have noticed a problem with him and his editing style. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.51.121 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The above IP has been trolling every admin notice board, and his claims are unsubstatiated. I have blocked them for harrassment and disruption. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. This is the same editor that has been trolling and harassing various editors related to the Trenton, Ontario article. Multiple IPs have been blocked. His targets have been Blotto adrift, myself, and several others admins that have blocked him from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my day for ANIs I guess. User:Edito*Magica was brought to my attention by another editor, User:UpDown who knows I am well versed in creating episode lists and requested my assistance on List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes. Edito*MagicaJ kept changing for format of the list to one that removes the lead, and does not follow proper episode list format, going against the consensus for proper episode list formatting. (see good version versus his version). I reverted his edits, and tried to explain to him why his edits are incorrect. He refuses to listen, however, and appears to feel that he knows better than the main Wikipedia MOS, the TV project, and existing consensus and standards for episode lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collectonian&diff=next&oldid=190484465 talk page discussions). UpDown also tried talking to him. I warned him that if continued his attempts to mess up the list, his edits would be considered vandalism, but he continues to revert, now calling the undoing of his edits to be acts of "sneaky vandalism." (his talk page with warnings that he has since blanked)

He is also removing content from various articles under the claim that information shouldn't be repeated in an article (examples: [65], [66]), despite it being appropriate information and my explaining to him that information can and should appear both in the lead and within the article proper.

At this point, its down to just undoing everything he is doing in these areas, and I'm hoping perhaps he will be more willing to listen to an admin since he is completely discounting the comments of other editors. I'm not entirely sure his edits are fully vandalism, but they are becoming very disruptive.

) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an update, he is now leaving false warnings on the pages of those undoing his actions [67], and is selectively canvassing relatively new, inexperienced editors to try to get them to agree with him [68] in an attempt to "form a new consensus" [69]. He is also continuing to edit war over his changes, blanking out content of infoboxes [70] or outright reverting the undos of his bad formatting and calling it vandalism [71]. He is showing that he has absolutely no desire to actual improve or work with the community, and is ignoring more notes from experienced editors telling him that his format idea is wrong.

talk

) 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason why I persist in making the alterations on the Keeping Up Appearances episode page is to improve it for other users. I have the good of the community in mind and for that reason I want to help improve Wikipedia. Secondly, it is true I contacted two other users for a second opinion, both are not inexperienced and both agree with my minor adjustments to the layout. Collectonian does not like the fact that other users agree with me, and to report me for making changes he does not agree with is folly. It is he who is reverting constructive alterations that I have made, which still follow the Wikipedia policy on the “lead”, which isn’t even compulsory to follow anyway. I will stand up to the likes of Collectonian; if he can get people banned for undoing his edits and get them banned for making improvements, then how unjust the Wiki system actually is. I would report him, but i don't thing it is a constructive method in solving deputes. Edito*Magica (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have either of you considered

dispute resolution? Someguy1221 (talk

) 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith or not, the policies have been show to EditoMagica, who ignores them. That is vandalism whether he thinks he's improving the pages or not. --UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I AGFed at first, and tried to explain in detail why his edits were wrong, but EditoMagica has made it clear that he doesn't care. He removes content from articles because he thinks it shouldn't be "repeated" in the infobox (despite being told the infobox is a summary, not a standalone) and he is refactoring episode lists articles to remove the

talk

) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This really is getting out of hand now; EditoMagica is being hugely disruptive and seems to think that his way of writing an episode list is the best way, and the fact one or two editors apparently back him up he thinks means he has "popular support". These things are backed up policy, guidelines and by looking at relevant FA. All these go against EditoMagica but he ignores this. In addition, he fails to understand that what is in the infobox is always repeated in the article proper (like the LEAD). If he won't listen to advise and guidelines he will need to be blocked for the sake of Wikipedia.--UpDown (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And he continues leaving fake warnings on people's use pages[77] and again trying to mess up the KUA episode article[78]. I really wish an admin would look at this. Edito*Magica is trying to harass other users to get his way, insulting other editors, and being disruptive. He is not going to listen to warnings from "regular" editors as he thinks he knows better than all of us, and his actions will only discourage people from working on those articles to give them the final polish they need to be potential FL candidates.

) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So today,

talk

) 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Create an RfC and if that fails to generate a resolution move on down

Crossmr (talk

) 02:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Can an RfC cross multiple articles though? While he's concentrating on the KUA episode list at the moment, he's been trying with others as well.

talk

) 03:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes because you're requesting comment on a certain formatting style.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the formatting style is already established. Edito*Magica is the one going against established consensus, and continuously attacking people in the process (mostly me, when I wasn't even the one who started the issue). *sigh*

talk

) 14:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly it is Collectonian that is being abusive, calling me and others “inexperienced” and “trumps”. I have not said one bad word about her, only referring to the user as a “nightmare”. Secondly there is no consensus for altering an entire tabular layout on the K.U.A episode page, Collectonian changed the page drastically without discussion on the talk page or considering any other user than herself. The previous table layout of Keeping Up Appearances, which Collectonian changed, had been established after consensus and disputes that had been resolved.

Furthermore, my edits are following the rules of the “lead” and other sections of the manual of style, which is not even compulsory to follow, but I do so anyway. I will persist in reverting Collectonian’s edits until she sees sense. Edito*Magica (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone inexperienced is not abusive, its a fact. Please provide evidence that I called you or anyone else "trumps." You have said a lot of bad words about me, insulting me on multiple user talk pages and in your edit summaries, and who continues to do things you've been warned by no less than FOUR editors not to do. The KUA episode page was changed to bring it line with the MOS, the biggest consensus there is. You are the one who has decided that you know better than three different large projects on Wikipedia and the general Wikipedia MOS. Manuals of styles are not compulsory to follow to the letter, however articles that completely disregard them will never reach good or featured status (or in the case of lists, featured list). Thank you, though, for illustrating why I didn't bother with an RfC or the like. If you won't listen the whole projects, why would you listen to an RfC or anything else. You have stated very plainly you will continue to be a disruptive editor and have no intention of actually working to improve the encyclopedia within its definition of improve, but only based on your own agenda.

talk

) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for completenesses sake can you provide links to all the discussions from the projects where they decided on style? Thanks.--

Crossmr (talk

) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is reflected in the featured episode lists and in peer reviews of episode lists. For examples from current FLs:

talk

) 15:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another attack, in the form of a retalitory ANI filing[80] without OUT the courtesy notice to tell me he filed it and making false accusations about me attacking other users and without mentioning any of the earlier stuff before I got involved when he edit warred with other editors over this and I came in as a project representative to try to stop it.

) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edito*Magica is continuing his crusade, now creating a whole new

) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As expected, he is now violently edit warring over this second list and has now violated 3RR.

talk

) 00:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure who these numerous editors who I am ignoring are, I suspect they are products of Collectonian’s imagination. As for the editors I have spoken to, well I have taken on board what they have said, regarding the “lead” on the Keeping Up Appearances Episode Page and decided it was better in paragraphs; that is hardly ignoring other editors. Secondly, I have not attacked any editor, in fact it is Collectonian who called me and another user: “inexperienced” and “trumps”, if anyone is being attacking it is Collectonian. Furthermore, Collectonian is also violently edit warring and has also broken the 3RR by constantly reverting the improvements I am TRYING to make. Edito*Magica (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You've again made an accusation without providing evidence while others have already warned you for your personal attacks. You have also now blatantly ignored an administrator who warned you NOT to revert the

talk

) 02:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I’ve provided two pieces of evidence of YOUR attacks above. And no I did not ignore an administrator, I replies on his/her talk page. I have been wrongly accused.Edito*Magica (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing is not evidence. You need to provide actual diffs showing that I called anyone a trump. You, meanwhile, have insulted me on multiple user talk pages and article talk pages, as shown by the diffs above. And yes, you did ignore him. He told you very clearly NOT to revert, but you did anyway, resulting in the page being locked.

talk

) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think you both need to

) 09:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Both articles have been lost, but its hard to remember why I enjoy editing when Edito is running around attacking me on multiple user talk pages for doing what I do well, getting an episode list in good format and on the road to FL status. :(

talk

) 09:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is why I hope you both take my advice :-) (Remember, last editor to move on looks worse...race!) Someguy1221 (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I'm working on other stuff (I have too much on my plate as is). I honestly hope Edito will yield to consensus and not start up again when the lists are unprotected.

talk

) 09:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are closing an AfD which was created on 10 February or 11 February, you will see a "(delete)" link. Please do not click on it! Due to my egregrous screw-up it will delete the AfD page or whatever page you viewed the AfD from. I have just fixed the mistake (passed wrong parameter to the delete link). AfDs created on 12 February onwards will not have this problem.

01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would this be all AfDs for 11 Feb, or just the ones in the first hour or so before the error was caught (per your timestamp above)? Thanks for the heads up. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, those AfDs created after the timestamp of my previous comment will be okay (I fixed the template a few minutes before that.) But I'm mentioning dates only, to be on the safe side.

T»

17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Zenwhat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continued trolling after Jimbo explicitly asked him to stop. He continued here and was reverted by User:Crum375. As a result, I've blocked him for a week. Since this editor's conduct is currently being discussed in an above section that may be archived soon, I have started a new section for further discussion. Nakon 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the first of this user's blocks that I actually endorse. Which is a shame, since I think that were it not for the previous ill-advised blocks, he might never have stooped to the level of deserving blocks. But he's responsible for his own conduct, and today his conduct hasn't been good.

talk

) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from Zenwhat. He has been posting tripe like this at the Village Pump for some time, and its been getting tiresome. This is not new behavior since the last blocking above, and I do not expect this to stop when the block expires. I would really love Zenwhat to prove me wrong, but his past behavior has not led me to believe that that will happen. I endorse this block, and pray that he returns from it with a better attitude. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gotta endorse Nakon's actions. When Jimbo says "stop trolling" you stop trolling. A week (as opposed to a longer, perma block/ban) is being generous. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being snarky, but if all he wants to do is discuss meta issues, perhaps someone should point him to an offsite area to do this, like the mailing list, forums, blogs, or whatever. I'm just saying the guy really likes talking about Wikipedia, maybe he can blow off steam elsewhere. daveh4h 08:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If he put that energy into article editing-- wow. I think he has problems not necessarily related to Wikipedia, and that he should better spend his energy elsewhere. The one week block is fine for the sake of reducing the disruption level. I don't foresee any change in his editing patterns after the block expires. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 08:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dave, he seems to have done just that and moved some of his efforts to Meta (m:Special:Contributions/Zenwhat), but aside from some possibly license-breaking copy-and-paste moves, his contributions there seem to be on the up-and-up. --jonny-mt 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I cannot bring myself to see his posts as anything else than a bit distressed and eccentric, but also rather interesting meta comment. That someone who adores Ayn Rand has considerable difficulties sharing that perspective doesn't come as a big surprise. User:

If I were a meta admin, I'd probably be inclined to do something about [81]. --B (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dorftrottel, for the most part. My only concern is that repeatedly banning this user will make him back come more outrageous than the last time and eventually turn him against the project entirely. Some may say that he is already against the project-but I disagree. If he were, he wouldn't spend so much time commenting on it. That said, I don't see any of this ending well, unfortunately. :-( If he is doing this for attention, then the offsite alternatives like meta, mailing lists, and message boards won't provide him enough. I find it easy enough to avoid his commentary if I find it annoying. Violating the sanctity of Jimbo's talk page seems to be the latest offense. If he said it elsewhere it probably would have gone unnoticed. This user either has other problems or he just hasn't understood the subtleties of how to interact here yet, which is something to consider. I still think he should be encouraged to read and interact at other meta sites, maybe he can find something positive to do. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree, particularly with the word encourage. That's the key, imo. Discouraging him is definitely counterproductive. Maybe his energies can be gently directed into more appropriate channels, so why not give it a shot instead of jumping the gun on him (npi)? User:

Dorftrottel 17:50, February 12, 2008

Much as I apperciate Jimbo, "the sanctity of his Talk page" seems a bit excessive. Regardless, I do think Zenwhat is a tragic case of what happens when a Wikipedian is brought low by what we call Wikistress, and a downward spiral of incivility between editors. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I've seen a lot of discussions come up about Zenwhat in the past few days. To keep all discussions centralized and in one place, I think it would make sense to have discussions located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Zenwhat. Opinions (note, I will move this discussion if users below agree). Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. daveh4h 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it will be necessary, especially with the most recent block. - auburnpilot talk 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. (In general, I dislike moving discussions to sub pages, as the discussion is then fractured and the audience narrowed.) --Iamunknown 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I can only think of one other instance where it was done, and in that case there were issues with th user inquestion being able to edit pages >32K and extreme formatting difficulties. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protected

Per a request at

, Zenwhat was continuing on the same sort of trolling that got him blocked in the first place. Just a long monologue about who-knows-what - conspiracies against him, etc. No discussion about wanting to be unblocked, no discussion about anything related to writing an encyclopedia, etc. Just a blog. Sorry, but to me, a week-long block is a week-long block. It doesn't mean a week of blogging. He can go about blogging when it expires.

Not particularly surprising, I've been called out on it so here I am for community review. If consensus here is to unprotect and let Zenwhat continue his blogging and pondering now instead of a week from now, then I welcome someone to unprotect it. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block, good protection. Wikipedia isn't a place for conspiracy-theory soapboxing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. He was blocked, in part, for disseminating these pointless dull ramblings. Providing airtime for him to continue to use our bandwidth to witter on is pointless. Extended-

RBI correctly employed. ➔ REDVEЯS

has changed his plea to guilty 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't act against consensus, but I see the talk page protection as pointless. Ranting privately on his talk page seems harmless, and protecting pages like that is what gives complainers fodder. Do we wish to make Zenwhat into a hero for WR and the like? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating an account to do nothing but chat with your friends is even more harmless - but try it and see how fast you're permablocked (after you're caught anyway).

WP:NOT#MYSPACE. In this case, he was ranting about particular users conspiring against him - mentioning them by name - all while already blocked. He should thank me for protecting him from himself while he cools off for a week. As far as making him a hero for WR, sorry but I couldn't possibly care less. —Wknight94 (talk

) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not caring what WR says is a healthy attitude, sure. I just think it's foolish to encourage people's unwarranted feelings of persecution, and that's what a protection like this does. If he wants to think that we wish to "silence" him, we're now encouraging that. I think it's better to just let him go off on his talk page (it's not as if he's got any credibility). Like I said though, I won't act against consensus. I just think we could handle such a situation better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider Zenwhat's comments on his talk page to be trolling (posting rambling comments to one's own talk page - which people can readily unwatchlist and ignore - hardly seems to qualify as deliberate attempts at disruption) and I don't think his use of his talk page was particularly abusive (as mentioned in the protection log). I would support unprotecting his talk page. --Iamunknown 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So would I. Not my call though. User:

Dorftrottel 23:07, February 12, 2008

Protecting the talk-page (it is only for a week) is a good call. Otherwise ZW can continue to post rubbish as has been happening for weeks, and this rubbish includes attacking insulting, misrepresenting, other users egregiously,(to no purpose whatsoever, except to gain attention). If I have to watch the page, to see myself slanderered, I would have to revert such rubbish off the page. I think I have the right to repair such damage on a WPpage put up by a blocked User. Why should I or others be forced to such troubles by a nuisance editor, and then run the risk of being blocked oneself? Wish I didn't have to say this, but

Do not feed the trolls applies, as ZW has said so themself. ZW may in time learn to contribute without all the aggro and self-importance, (in time, but not at this time, so its preventative, not punitive.) Newbyguesses - Talk

00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. First of all, you don't have to watch the page. Several others of us are on it. Second, if I see myself being "slandered" there, I would consider it my job to either ignore it or to politely correct any inaccuracies, per dispute resolution. I don't know why you think you would run the risk of being blocked yourself. Edit warring with anyone over their own talk page is the height of folly, when there are literally hundreds of people standing around who would be happy to revert it for you. If you truly know how not to feed trolls, then you can simply ignore them, without having to protect their talk page, and justify their paranoia in their own minds. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let him use his talk page for ranting. If he insults or attacks other editors (not Wikipedia in general - railing against Wikipedia in general is fine), we can extend his block. If he doesn't, then there's no problem.

☎

09:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Neil on this one. If he was abusing unblock templates I'd think differently, but if he's just ranting and it's hurting nobody, let him. Orderinchaos 15:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but (and I understand this isn't policy, but a guideline) isn't personal opinion and ranting about conspiracy ad nauseum a breach of

WP:TALK? I mean, it's almost literally the first line in the heading for proper use of a talk page. If he/she slanders, makes threats (physical or legal) etc.., then it is completely unacceptable. It may result in a block. However, what is the overall consensus regarding disruptive talk page usage as displayed here? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW is editing, but the protected page says "Retired"

I am mystified as to how ZW can make this edit, whilst "retired", and under discussion at AN/I for the (third time). Newbyguesses - Talk 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That edit is almost a week old: February 7. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

ZW is blocked until the 19th.

talk

) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the edit history at WP:IAR. The edit which confused me was [82] and it is not done by User:Zenwhat at all. It is done by 18:02, 13 February 2008 192.235.8.2 (Talk). Newbyguesses - Talk 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Socking?

ZW, and blocked User Karmaisking. (Separate AN/I thread below}See ...You and I both know the game. People want us to shut up. They threaten. They harrass. They hate the truth. Why do we keep going? I don't have the patience, or the time. I welcome and encourage you, a like-minded fellow traveller on this dangerous journey of life, to got into my talk page history and check out the old correspondence...User:Karmaisking 11:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) This sounds a little familiar to me, though it is very slim as evidence goes. See also here and similar questions in ZW's previous threads at AN/I. (I hope I am not coming across as obsessing over these matters, but merely trying to discover the evidence - perhaps there is no black and white, and it all belongs in the grey zone;) Newbyguesses - Talk 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[83] Um, where did this thread go? Newbyguesses - Talk 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It was archived by

†

23:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Socks are always losing threads. You know how it is. HalfShadow (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To all those of you who said Zenwhat wasn't helpful

He's now filed a bug report complaining that he can still edit while blocked. He tries to be helpful, you know. (It was marked as invalid, mind you.) • Anakin ^(talk) 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Four similar reverts have occured in a timespan of less than an hour on Prem Rawat:

• 24.176.193.149 (talk · contribs):
  • 22:13, 15 February 2008
  • 22:23, 15 February 2008
• 32.155.57.53 (talk · contribs):
  • 23:01, 15 February 2008
• 32.156.154.10 (talk · contribs):
  • 23:11, 15 February 2008

1) Don't know whether these are linked, nor how very well to check that.

2) when reading intro of

, that page does not seem an appropriate place to have this checked (or am I wrong?)

3) I'm an "involved party" by now, so I'd like someone else to look into this (if this is anything that should be looked into).

Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback seems to think the IPs might be Momento (talk · contribs) [84] - file a WP:RCU now? Don't know, might be premature, and I've been harsh on Momento just a few days ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who they are, but the intent appears to be to circumvent 3RR. While there is a claim that removing BLP violations doesn't violate 3RR, the claim of BLP violations is disputed and it isn't an excuse to violate all other policies or to edit war without seeking consensus. The external links have been a point of contention throughout the history of the article. It would be helpful if all parties would seek a resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This was going to be my response essentially - Instead of edit warring, attempt a lightweight mediation. On the talk page of the article implement a

WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RCU will exonerate me and I apply for one. Thanks.Momento (talk

) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that a RCU can not be initiated without mentioning names (i.e. user accounts), it seems not possible to submit such a request mentioning IP's only. That's why I wrote above: "when reading [the] intro of

WP:RCU, that page does not seem an appropriate place to have this checked (or am I wrong?)" --Francis Schonken (talk

) 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RCU cannot exonerate a user of mischief, it can only confirm it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A

WP:RCU will exonerate me from your suggestion that I have used the IPs in question and that is what we are discussing.Momento (talk

) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never suggested that you used IPs - I asked you if you did. You denied and I accept your denial. What we are discussing is disruption to the article by an editor using IPs. We still don't know who did it. It doesn't matter so long as it stops. If it continues we'll need to deal with it somehow. Meanwhile let's work towards resolving the external links dispute on the article talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I requested a checkuser on Triberocker, concerning some inappropriate anonymous edits to “Phi Kappa Psi”. The outcome was “likely”. But I've seen no indication from his blocklog or from his talk page that action has been taken. I read on RfC that “In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, you will have to do this yourself.” but I'm not an admin.

As noted in request for checkuser, the edits are not in good faith; for example one anonymous edit summary falsely claimed to have moved the material elsewhere. The over-all objective of the edits is to erase some notable history concerning a gang-rape. (The issue of appropriateness of this history to the article was the subject of a prior mediation, albeït not one to which Triberocker was a party.)

Before I requested the checkuser, I told Triberocker that he could be shown to be the responsible party and that the edit summary mentioned above could be shown to be false (with the implication being that the edits are not in good faith); I advised him to stop editting the article. His response was to challenge me to prove that the edits were his. —SlamDiego_←T 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Was this sock-puppetry

talk

) 03:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on more than one count. For example, the summary of the last of these edits declared “Everyone else is right...”, and the edits jointly violate

WP:3RR

.

Reasonable people might have different ideas about what administrative action is necessary, but at present there has been no administrative action upon the results of the checkuser.

And he appears to look at this situation as a feud. For example, after the checkuser result, I gave myself a temporary link to his block log, so that I could see what (if anything) followed. He responded as if this were a tit-for-tat thing. —SlamDiego_←T 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that he declared that he had decided to stay away from this article before the -puppets began editting (which claim was falsified by the checkuser), and I am not aware of him making a subsequent pledge to absent himself. —SlamDiego_←T 05:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a fairly clear case of, at best, meatpuppetry. I've blocked the /18 subnet covering the range from which the anons have been coming— but it's a large chunk of Valparaiso University's network so I've kept the block short and anon-only. This should dissuade "drive-by" vandalism from random frat boys. — Coren ^(talk) 18:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I found this page blank then restored it. I just want youo to check if I fixed it correctly. I re-added User:Phanto282's Afd, problem is Mt Eliza Cricket Club isn't even up for deletion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[85] Looks okay to me. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Griot (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• talk · contribs · logs · block log
  )

Hi. I've only tangentially become involved with one or two sock puppetry cases in the past and would appreciate assistance from someone more experienced in dealing with them. Revisiting Incivility...Griot above, an editor to whom I'd given feedback on a BLP concern asked my advice on my talk page how to proceed in the case of suspected sock puppetry. He (pardon if I'm using the wrong pronoun) followed up at checkuser and confirmed that User:Sedlam evidently is a sock puppet being used to thwart policy by User:Griot. I know that per policy User:Sedlam is blocked as a matter of course as an inappropriately used alternative account. (Please correct me if I've left the wrong templates.) I'm not sure what's to be done about User:Griot. A warning? A label? He is a long-standing editor who has as far as I know has never had a problem of this sort in the past, although it seems he was blocked on the 31st of January, 2008 for edit warring, I presume on Matt Gonzalez based on this note. My only experiences with Griot prior to this were in relation to the article Cabretta, and though we haven't always agreed he seemed like a constructive contributor. Perhaps some political topics are too emotionally engaging? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If he was using a bad-hand sockpuppet to edit abusively, then both the primary and bad hand account should probably be blocked (based on a review of the edits in question). This is something the checkusers or checkuser clerks typically take care of, have they weighed in?

00:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than confirming the check-user and the policy thwarting use of the account, no. I'm not sure they're going to. I notice that the matter was completed at 20:50 on February 8, and at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, it says "In most cases, any block or other action based on the outcome will not be taken by the checkuser-people or the clerks. Instead, uyou will have to do this yourself." I'm not sure which cases constitute most. This is as close to check user as I've personally ever come. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And so they did. :) Thanks for weighing in,

Avruch. If I ever wind up in this situation again, I'll just wait a day to see if this falls into one of those "action to be taken" or "action not to be taken" situations. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot indef blocked?

Though we punish people who abusively sockpuppet, Griot is a longtime user in generally good standing prior to this incident.

However, the current block levied is indef against his main account.

This appears to be excessive and uncalled for. I agree that his sockpuppetry was abusive, but not indef-blocked abusive. A week, maybe?

Comments sought. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this assessment. I have no data relevant to this specific situ, but I do have years of positive experience with User:Griot. If indeed Griot is guilty, then he has some serious explaining to do and perhaps penance of some kind. But indef block seems way extreme unless the sockpuppetry is repeated and sustained. BusterD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no input on the proper length of a block for this situation, obviously, or I wouldn't have brought this here to begin with. :) I did not block the primary account myself because of his history, but as I said above, I have no experience with sock puppetry to speak of. I would like to note that the editor who initially requested the checkuser believes that Griot may have abused other accounts as well, as he indicated

above). I don't know on what evidence or if these allegations are correct, but other suspicions seem to have been confirmed by checkuser. Is this the sort of thing that should be investigated prior to making final calls or only if Griot returns and concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

02:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the editor who requested the checkuser on User:Griot. I have no opinion on any action to take. I would like to add the following, though. User:Griot didn't simply switch back and forth and revert and be done with it. He made a self conscious planned out effort to deceive, and presented not just reverts, but purposively deceptive talk page commentary. For instance, on the talk page, to portray some sort of "compromise" having been reached, he writes "Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:" and then lists himself and his confirmed sock puppet (and one other editor of unknown relationship to this). Then, he logs out as Griot, logs in as User:Sedlam, and writes ":You can add me to this list of compromisers." On the BLP noticeboard , Both Griot and another likely sock User:Feedler, both gave input. As Moonriddengirl mentioned, I have reason to believe the sock puppetry by Griot goes back a ways on Nader-related articles, but wasn;t caught (although the issue seems to have been raised, but the complainant seems to have gotten blocked). Griot seems to have been vigourously edit warring on Nader article for a year or so. Elsewhere, he has confessed to have a serious personal grudge against Nader. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The indef block is abnormal in this situation and unwarranted, in my opinion. Has the blocking admin commented? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidently,

Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. Perhaps this is evidence that the user is too emotionally invested in these articles to contribute to them as he does elsewhere? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Looking at the history of those articles, it looks like there's a lot of editing by drive-by IPs, SPAs, possible socks, etc. We know that one of the editors on the "other side" from Griot is a persistent sockpuppeteer. So my question is, has Griot been editing abusively for a long period (in which case I'd support a topic ban), or did he only turn to sockpuppetry recently after getting frustrated by the editing environment? (Either way, the use of socks is not good, and if he does it again, the block should be much longer...) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it might be worth asking Boodlesthecat the proceed with investigating his other suspicions to find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjust the block to be slightly less than that used against the person who opposed the user via the same tactics. Lambton ^T/_C 21:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean slightly less than the IP editor recently blocked for 6 months here as a sock of User:Telogen, who was indef blocked here, or are there yet more Nader-fighting socks that I don't know about? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Reduced block

The handling of this matter was over the top IMO. As an uninvolved editor/admin, and after reading the above, I have reset the duration to one week (it says 6 days, but note a day had elapsed since the block was enacted). Consensus here should determine whether further reduction or an unblock is warranted. I am particularly surprised at the treatment of the user's user and talk pages, which I have reverted to their pre-9 Feb state, and the ignoring of the blatant incivility of Boodlesthecat by those handling the case. I will be placing a warning on his talk page shortly - ([86] done). Orderinchaos 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to the inference of incivility is here.. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with

WP:SSP, the standard practice has been to block named abusive socks indefinitely, but to block the master account for a finite period if it appears to have at least some constructive potential. I typically block for 72 hours (see User:Lucy-marie, for example), though others use anything from 24 hours to a week. In any case, the master account (Griot) should definitely be blocked, but for a finite period (72 hours to 1 week). Further confirmed sockpuppetry should result in a lengthy or indefinite block, but an indefinite block for a first offense by a somewhat-constructive account is excessive. MastCell ^Talk

22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding sock puppetry by Griot

I filed another Checkuser showing the very extended sock puppetry of Griot over here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

Article in San Francisco Weekly

here is the San Francisco Weekly article that BillyTFried refers to above. I don't think I would be exaggerating too much if I said that it attempts to out an anonymous Wikipedia editor, contains numerous insults that would, if they appeared on Wikipedia, be a violation of

) 04:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Crude hatchet-job. I'm surprised she got it past her editors. I've already dashed off a quick Letter to the Editor pointing out a conflict of interest or two that the reporter neglected to mention, including quoting a banned sockpuppet of her own sister without mentioning that fact: seems a wee lapse of journalistic ethics, there. --Calton | Talk 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it this paragraph that makes you feel that way?

“

That's when Jeanne, who is also a writer, told me of a debate over the entry about her in Wikipedia — and of one particular user, Griot, who seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page (which she denies). One Griot note on the talk page of a user called Calton, dated Aug. 27, 2007, reads, "Is there anything we can do about Jean [sic]? It's tiresome. Maybe we should give her back her personal page on Wikpedia so she isn't so lonely." He also accused her of creating several online identities to make a flurry of changes to the Nader entries. "Spicuzza is on the warpath again," Griot wrote to Calton, and made a snarky offer to Calton about my sister: "If you ever need help fending off this multiple personality disorder, don't hesitate to ask."

”

Is what the reporter said about you a lie? What she said about me is certainly hard to believe... ;-)

“

Fried actually struck me as a well-meaning and earnest editor — one of the few willing to use his real name (and even agreeing to meet in person) to talk about his devotion to Wikipedia.

”

BillyTFried (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the ENTIRE article is a crude hatchet-job, an attempt at character assassination by a reporter on behalf of her sister, misusing the resources and name of a bonafide media outlet. And the lie would be, as I've already pointed out, using a sockpuppet of her own sister as a source, without mentioning either fact, and implying the sockpuppet was blocked because it was about to Reveal the Truth About The Evil Griot when it was actually blocked for -- wait for it -- being a sockpuppet of her own sister. And you're PROUD of her? --Calton | Talk 16:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When did I ever say I was proud of her Calton? For the record, I am not pleased with the article myself. Besides a free lunch and a small compliment about me in it all I got out of this was being connected with firearms by my real name in a San Francisco newspaper for all to see, including prospective friends, dates, and employers. Exactly what I DIDN'T want to happen. And did you notice in her blurb about me she says I spoke of my devotion to Wikipedia? Well I did. An hour and a half's worth and she didn't print a word of it. And all my co-workers who I had told about my big Wikipedia/SFweekly interview had a ball calling me a Wikipidiot the rest of the week. BillyTFried (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow this is one of the most creepy cases of ciber and real stalking that I have seen, what is keeping us from indef blocking the user trying to "out" another user's annonimity? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the account will be used ever again. BillyTFried (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She did post this awkward message today [88] so how can't we guarantee that she won't continue stalking? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the question in my mind is whether we should block BillyTFried for harassment. He's been edit warring at User talk:Griot--[89] [90] are recent diffs; he continues to post to this thread when it would be much better for him to lay off; his user talk page is essentially an attack page against Griot; and there's this super-creepy thread on User talk:Marynega (that's the journalist who wrote the hit piece in SF Weekly) that I've having a difficult time interpreting as anything other than a "joking" threat of violence. I don't see why we should allow this behavior. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a novel idea.

Also, I like how you refer my REVERTS back to the original conversation as it happened months ago as "Recent Diffs" and try to make them seem as if they were new and were justification for blocking me. Jeez! My "attack" of a user page is simply the original unedited conversation as it original occurred months ago that I am asking be restore. The closest thing to harassment I've done is probably my response to his "Letter to the editor" this morning, defending his actions and blaming the article's author for his being banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=190675197&oldid=190673998 BillyTFried (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have been victimized in one way or another in this series of events. Please stand in line over there to join the crowd... Although at least my appearance in the article was fairly positive.

I think a lot of people think that your response to that, and your interactions with Griot, have gone beyond the bounds of civil discourse and Wikipedia policy into counter-harrassment. And our policy is that two wrongs equals two warned users, or two blocks. If you break policy or abuse people here in response to legitimate or perceived baiting or abuse by them, you're still breaking policy and will still be held accountable.

Please tone it down some. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And as for Calton's behavior you have what to say? BillyTFried (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the constant, unending escalation of tit-for-tat in this AN/I report alone, much less all the links around it, can we just block Calton AND BillyTFried for a while? Griot is already blocked, or I'd list him too. This is ridiculous. ThuranX (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ridiculous is the right term, all right -- though not in the way you think it is, or for that matter, about what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Block me for what offense? Reporting in this ANI Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page and then weathering the onslaught of attacks and false accusations from those defending the confirmed and banned sock puppeteer while the admins stand by and do NOTHING about Griot's or Calton's abuses? BillyTFried (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably your near constant violations of

WP:NPA in this venue. Orderinchaos

16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is YOU who has violated

) 00:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read what I actually said and what it was in context to, you'll find it was quite different. I said your actions were making you look absurd - I did not call you absurd. I did not say you were affiliated with a user, I merely highlighted the irony of you attacking someone for sockpuppetry using comments by a proven sockpuppeteer to back up your argument. I think you need to become a lot less aggressive and a lot more introspective. Orderinchaos 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in San Francisco Weekly (II)

But seriously, folks, it was just a fine article. Very interesting and informative. Nicely edited, too. Sincerely,

) 06:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And a very creative way to post libelous material in name of a banned user... - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, George, you've forgotten that if you want to pull off the disinterested innocent bystander act, it helps if you say something even remotely believable, otherwise you blow the gaff. So, are you another of Jeannie Marie's relatives here to do her dirty work for her now that her dozen or so sockpuppets have been blocked? --Calton | Talk 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am a relative, but anything is possible because we both live in California. Does she have red hair and blue eyes? I do. Sincerely,

) 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing a fellow editor of trying to pull off an act of some sort doesn't seem very

civil to me. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or is it just another in your ever growing pile of false accusations dished out to anyone who does not agree with you? BillyTFried (talk

) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a person whose sister is a checkuser-confirmed sock, and her mates accusing Griot of sockpuppetry. It's beginning to look to me like a well-planned, long-running case of harassment on and off wiki, and when someone fights back inappropriately, an attempt to hang them for it. To GeorgeLouis's defence I would note he has been a continuous and fairly hard working editor for almost as long as I have been, although I am genuinely curious as to his role/involvement in the situation. Orderinchaos 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor point: Griot is guilty of [sockpuppetry. Pardon this no doubt novel insertion of a fact into this discussion. On a side note, is anybody on this board in an admin position ever going to say something to Calton about the endless number of accusations, including false ones, and mean spirited diatribes he levels against other editors? Does he have incriminating tapes of you all, like J Edgar Hoover? Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of ACCUSING Griot of sock puppetry because he has been CONFIRMED to have been doing it fervently for a long time. That seems to be a meaningless footnote to you. Do you feel he was innocent and was unjustly banned? Obviously he does! And nobody involved in this discussion is my "mate". Again another false accusation from you. I have not had any correspondence with anyone here prior to this event, unlike you and Griot, Calton. BillyTFried (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive365#Mortgage_Guaranty_Insurance_Corporation, where I recently reported this. User:Justjihad continues to add slanderous information on the above company, and I believe he should be blocked for a day, if not more. This appears to be a SPA to add his own POV in an off-wiki dispute. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Justjihad has been blocked for 1 day for repeatedly adding poorly referenced personal commentary to the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Douglasfgrego has attacked other users, including me, just because one of his pages is at AfD (see here and here). He has been warned on his talk page about his actions. Because this user is known for not assuming good faith, and because he has a history of attacking other users (he was nearly blocked about a year ago), I feel that he is definitely not here to improve the project, and may warrant an indef block. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Another insult was just placed here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Final warned, will give this one last chance for reform. Malinaccier (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• What we have here is an editor who seems to be trying to create an article in good faith but whose efforts are being attacked within minutes. It is no surprise that he is annoyed and aggrieved. Please see
  WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk
  ) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a new user. I interacted with him over a year ago, and his actions today are consistent with his actions back then. AniMate 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • He has been extremely disruptive and has been continuously attacking other editors. I indefinitely blocked the user for personal attacks, threats, and disruption. He went way too far. Malinaccier (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• I went through the user's contributions, and also noticed a dramatic change in attitude. Hijacked account? Malinaccier (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • I disagree with your action. A quick search on the matter in question indicates that it is quite notable, being reporetd by the BBC, for example. Since the attempts to block creation of this article were not well founded, Mr Grego's complaints seem justified by undue provocation. He was not especially uncivil, mainly just asking to be left alone so the article could be created. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Quote from talk page:

"to all you anal-retentive assholes out there, who think you are the end-all, be-all of Wikipedia, and that your are privy to some higher understanding of Wikipedia rules, you are not the boss of Wikipedia. You do not have some special authority here. All you have is a computer and an internet connection and too much time on your hands.

This here is my discussion page. See that up there, it says User Talk: Douglasfgrego. That's me. And I'll say whatever the fuck I want to here on my page. If you don't like it, don't come in here."

That seemed especially uncivil to me. Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Furthermore, I just recieved an email from him beginning with "Dude, you are such a dick. Unblock my account..." Yet another personal attack. Malinaccier (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree 100% with the rationale to delete this article, though I don't think that each and every news story of the week needs its own entry. However, this user has a history of extreme incivility. On the other article he created (

23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• My impression is that you _are_ biased against him and that this is unduly influencing the action taken which still seems excessive. The article should have been allowed to be created and just tagged for cleanup as needed. Then all of this could have been avoided. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I'd suggest you read up on

no personal attacks. Nothing on his talk page is remotely acceptable, regardless of what happens with the article. Just because someone nominates an article for deletion, doesn't mean that someone is given free reign to make the kind of remarks he made on his page. AniMate

23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I left exactly two messages on this editors page in May of last yearthat can be seen here. I was not only the height of civility, I gave him advice on how to work through the steps of dispute resolution so he could avoid incivility in the future. AniMate 23:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen anything that I don't consider fair comment yet. For example, on Ten Pound Hammer's talk page we have:

Dude. Go away and leave the Brian Sterner entry alone. You seem to be determined to destroy this entry as quickly as possible. Go outside. Go for a walk. Go read a book. Go do something else, and leave the entry alone. Let other people visit and expand the entry. God, you wannabe administrators are so goddamn annoying.--Douglasfgrego (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The only point that isn't obvious is the wannabe admin bit. But Ten Pound Hammer has a userbox on his page to exactly this effect and so that's accurate. The rest is just the guy's way of saying to leave the article alone for a while so it can be edited. And that Ten Pound Hammer is being annoying, which again seems accurate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's this gem:

What's the matter Nancy, did I hurt your widdle (sniff, sniff), feewings? Awww, poor bay-bee!

And this:

Please. Fuck off. Statements made on my own discussion page are not disruptive nor are they personal attacks. This is Douglasfgrego's discussion page, not Tenpoundhammer's lecture room. I'll say whatever I want here. You can kiss my ass. Look! I made that exclamation point too!

If you want to argue about the merits of the article, be my guest, but defending what is clearly inappropriate behavior... I just don't see the point. While civility is subjective, clearly this user is uncivil in the extreme. He was last year and he is today. After being blocked he left this little nugget of wisdom:

I'll tell ya something folks, y'all are a bunch of thin-skinned, hyper-sensitive Nancies on here.

We don't need editors who behave like that, and I think you know it. AniMate 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, thin-skinned seems to be the mot juste. If people don't want to hear stuff like this then they shouldn't be so confrontational. Volenti non fit injuria. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's calm down. I think that this case is over. You absolutely cannot ignore the continued disruptions, personal attacks, and poor behavior on the the case of Douglasfgrego. I'm placing "resolved" at the top of the discussion. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly vandalized the

article, over 8 times now. The information he continues to add is that a member in the band is an Atheist, which is uncited, and clearly untrue. I've asked him to stop but he still reverts my removal of his addition daily. Also, he has clearly had a problem vandalizing other profiles. --~*LiSaSuArEz*~ 00:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC on the talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, this is a band with only one member. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Of relevance, I have nominated the article for deletion. It's been apparently speedy deleted six times. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since then it's been nominated for

WP:BLP. Warn the IP about adding controversial material of a living person. Start with level 1 and work up. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 05:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Block on Tasc0

Need tag team vandals blocked

Resolved

 – both have been blocked for 31 hours, Bobdole215 indef blocked

192.195.234.120 (talk · contribs) and 216.162.51.189 (talk · contribs) are tag-team vandalizing. I've reported them at AIV, but I don't want to spend all evening reverting these guys. Corvus cornix_talk 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Both have been blocked for 31 hours by ERcheck (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) SQL^{Query me!} 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 06:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These IPs have come back as User:Bobdole215. Corvus cornix_talk 07:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is almost certainly going to be declaring independence from Serbia today. This is very likely to lead to a spate of edit wars, POV edits, vandalism and inflammatory commentary on talk pages from editors on both sides of the conflict; we're already starting to see some incidents with new editors and anonymous IPs (see e.g. [93], [94]). Assistance would be appreciated in watching Kosovo and related articles on the Kosovo public watchlist.

I should add that all Kosovo-related articles are covered by the general sanction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which states that "Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." -- ChrisO (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rudget already fully protected the page, making Wikipedia looks paranoid and behind the times, so don't worry about the page being vandalized, editors can't even add the nation's flag. I went over there from this AN/I section, and was surprised, and a bit shocked to see that Rudget locked it down. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My rationale is on the talk page. Flag has been added. Rudget. 17:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only locked down but 6 admins have since edited it. This is damaging to wikipedia's reputation. IMHO it is plain wrong to protect this article at this time and each admin that has since edited endangers our reputation as admin privileges are not to be used to edit as if somehow admins have extra editing privileges. Thanks,

SqueakBox

17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The decision to protect was taken with the utmost care. After the downgrade protection by Moreschi earlier on today, edit wars and "revisions of vandalism" prevailed afterwards. Wouldn't that in itself damage Wikipedia's reputation to deliver information to an audience? - surely endless revisions and continuing unhealthy relationships between editors is not conducive to an atmosphere where consensus and corrent information can be displayed. The protection also has an expiry of 19:00 (UTC0, so just over 1 hour left. In this time, discussions have taken place on the talk page and the edits on the page have slowed dramatically to allow for not only corrections but also the appropriate conduct of each administrator which has been active there. Rudget. 17:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How about blocking for 24 hours all admins who have edited the proteced article then for flagrant disregard of our policies, admins are expetected to act to a higher standard than most but oare currently bringing the page and hence the project into disrepute. Thanks,

SqueakBox

17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand your exaggerated attempts at a resolution, so I will refrain from making any further comment. Rudget. 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale is that you get to control the page, so we don't RISK troubles with editors who don't agree with Rudget. Unprotect the page, and work with all the new editors we COULD be getting instead of alienating people. This decision makes Wikipedia look bad. ThuranX (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest posting at arbcom enforcement, admins are continuing to edit the article in flagrant disregard of policy while not allowing anyone else to. Thanks,

SqueakBox

17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Will anyone see what this user User:The nightmare hunter doing? Special:Contributions/The_nightmare_hunter. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs admin attention to undo some moves – the one about the college should be done quickly —αlεx•mullεr 11:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. I'll sort out the moves. Thanks for the notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got most of the moves taken care of.

talk

) 11:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. :-) Guess I'm slowing down... -- ChrisO (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have reason to believe that
  Sol Badguy, Ryu (Street Fighter) and Guile (Street Fighter) and has been attempting to harass me. (See [95], [96], [97] (Sol Badguy), [98], [99], [100] (Ryu), [101], [102] (Guile), [103], [104] [105] (his vandalism to my talk page). He has a long history as an anonymous user and I don't think he should get a pass now that he has an account. JuJube (talk
  ) 22:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And he's revert warring again. JuJube (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Warbringer47 has dropped the issue of alternate storylines and is now insisting on trying to get height/weight added to these articles. He knows very well that this was a contentious issue a few years ago that led to the items being removed. Considering he's told me that if I'm sick, I should stay at home and not edit, I believe this account was made only to harass me. JuJube (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• User has been blocked, so this should be marked as resolved. JuJube (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsman following a RfA is under indefinite Probation. "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing"[106]. He has recently repeatedly deleted commentry on his involvement on vaccine related topics at Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics (1, 2 and 3 in the last 2 days). Edit summary claim of moving to to talk page are not borne out by this where material and Ombudsman name not included.

I find this disruptive editing and accordingly have notified Ombudsman of a ban on further editing.[107] Could other admins please review my action under the RfA probation. David Ruben ^Talk 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked to see if this is connected with Whaleto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? Guy (Help!) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They are almost certainly not the same person, though they share an agenda. I'm not neutral here, having run into Ombudsman before. Still, the "longstanding history of tendentious editing of medical articles" identified by ArbCom has hardly abated. He was indefinitely blocked by Jimbo in October '07 and unblocked out of a desire to show forgiveness ([108]). Based on his lack of engagement and deletions of appropriate commentary from the noticeboard, I think a ban from that particular page under the terms of his ongoing ArbCom probation is reasonable. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ombudsman may not be the ideal editor but I really can't see him being whaleto.Geni 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that IP 74.202.131.118 is going to each one of

) 05:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but since the IP stopped over an hour ago, I don't know that a block would be either necessary nor effective at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That, and it's likely V-Dash has moved on to a different IP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Godcthulha (talk · contribs) is adding the Category:Soap opera actors to a bunch of articles, much in the vein of Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs) and his numerous socks. Others, including the newly admined Doczilla, have expressed the belief that this is yet another sockpuppet of CC. Pairadox (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been adding that to a bunch of articles...? What's wrong with that? Is he adding them to articles about people who aren't soap opera actors?--Phoenix-wiki 16:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears he's mainly adding it to a lot of people who are already in Category:American soap opera actors or another by country category. They should not be duplicated in Category:Soap opera actors. He has not edited since Doczilla asked him at 09:53 to stop populating Category:Soap opera actors. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

) 08:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation, since your requests have gone unanswered and the edit warring has continued, take a breather for yourself and observe what's happening. If the user continues to edit war, warn them about

WP:3RR. If behavior continues unabated, then report them for the violation. That would certainly get community eyes on the situation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN

TTN (talk · contribs) is continuing to mass tag articles for merger (examples: [114], [115], [116], [117]) and is not complying with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities:

“

For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

”

An arbitrator while posting the above injunction stated:

“

[...] Favoring a broad interpretation by administrators, geared to the spirit of this, which is to quell the disputed actions whilst the case is in progress.

”

I am not posting this to "arbitration enforcement" as that noticeboard isn't functioning. --

16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I would say that the injunction is unclear here - adding merger tags is obviously not "apply(ing) .. a tag related to notability" - this obviously means {{notability}} or similar. Yes, one could argue that tagging for merger is effectively the same as tagging for notability, but I can think of many examples where it is not. I think you'd probably need to raise this at the RfAR page. I have, however, left a note on TTN's talkpage suggesting that he holds off on doing this too, even for obvious examples. Black Kite 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  The injunction is indeed very unclear - it should apply to notability, but ends up

  applying to speculation, we don't know if it applies to only TV characters, we don't know if applies to groups or just singular entities, etc etc. Will ^(talk

  ) 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, everybody was very specific on being literal with the wording of the injunction, meaning that video game characters are not subject to it. I won't be edit warring at any point during the injunction, so I'll hardly be violating the spirit of it either. TTN (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm again - does "TV episodes and characters" mean "TV episode articles and TV character articles", or does it mean "TV episode articles, and character articles in general"? Don't ask me. Just shows how daft and confusing this injunction is - see also this. Black Kite 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

While I and many other people always thought it was the latter, most people seemed to have started reading it literally. If the members of arbcom actually want to clarify it, I'll obviously stop, but I'm going with the literal interpretation until then. TTN (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The injunction is not clear to prevent gaming around it. Common sense suggests if arbitration committee asks you to stop a certain kind of "disputed edits" on a specific topic, you do NOT continue it on a different topic. What is the difference in TTN's previous edits and these? TTN is making the same "disputed actions" on a similar topic. Alas it isn't TV and instead Video Games (which may very well be also TV characters as most video characters are these days). --

chi?

19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In which case the injunction should've been worded so it was completely clear to avoid end-running round it, ironically enough a favourite tactic of those wishing to keep such articles. Otherwise, it shouldn't have been made at all. Black Kite 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the link you site is about your complaint on an AfD about a TV episode which has nothing to do with what this section is about (and falls directly under the ArbCom injunction). JuJube (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom injunction does not need to be christal clear.

chi?

19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but you voted "Keep per ArbCom". What does this mean? What ArbCom resolution? Black Kite 19:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I voted what? I don't remember at all and it is completely irrelevant to this case. Stop nominating pages for deletion (afd, cfd, tfd or any other cfd), stop blanking/redirectifying pages, stop tagging them, stop removing existing tags, stop restoring redirectified content. To put it in a single word: "STOP". You should not need an injunction to stop when a matter is brought to the arbitration committee...
TTN has been told to STOP many times, and was shown more tolerance than anybody else. To date he has pushed that tolerance to its absolute limit gaming around it as much as he can. So there you have it. TTN is the untouchable. --

chi?

20:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that voted "Keep per ArbCom" and I already explained why. A number of AfD's that fell under the ArbCom injunction cropped up, and I simply got tired of typing the whole reason so I just put that. JuJube (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I really suggest to TTN that repeated attempts to evade the clear intentions here are not going to help him. It might even add some ammunition to those who want to ban him altogether, that he seems to try to evade any limit. DGG (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn An editing dispute between myself and

Template:refimprove tag on the article Old Earth creationism - the tag was at the top of the page, and I moved it to the bottom, near the references, as suggested by the template page. After some back and forth, there was a call for a discussion about where the tag should be placed. Both Hrafn and I posted comments at about the same time on the talk page. The discussion was ongoing, when Hrafn decided it was "off topic" and put the discussion under a "hat" with an "archived, do not modify" tag on it. Obviously, doing this cuts off all possibility of continued discussion on the topic and prevents any local consensus from forming about where the tag would best be placed. I undid the action and asked Hrafn not to do it again, but that has happened.

Can someone please look into this? I'm not sure what action is appropriate here - I am not seeking anyone to be blocked, I simply would like the discussion to be able to continue.

As I was preparing this complaint, Hrafn has done something else, "userfied" the discussion? I don't quite know what that means, but I've undone it. [Apparently, that meant moving the entire discussion to my talk page.] I'd really like this to stop, if it can, so discussion can continue on the pertinent topic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont}

) 17:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put a notice on Hrafn's talk page concerning this complaint. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The "suggestion" in the template page also notes that there is no consensus on placement (and there is no consistency among the guidelines for similar templates).
2. I initially complained about his unilateral behaviour on User talk:Ed Fitzgerald
3. Ed Fitzgerald requested that we take the discussion to ‎Talk:Old Earth creationism, so I did so.
4. It quickly became apparent that this was an issue that could not be decided in isolation, and that it had little to do specifically with
   Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles
   which are the more appropriate fora for such discussions. When he refused, I first archived ({ {hat}}/{{hab}} ) the thread and then (when he repeatedly reverted the former) userfied it to his talkpage.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not appropriate that we continue the dispute here -- and my complaint has nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of the dispute, it's about your actions in attempting to shut down the discussion. I only wish to say that the initial disagreement was about where the clean-up tag should be placed on that particular page, and since that disagreement continues, it's only right that the discussion continue. It doesn't seem to me that you get to decide which of my reasons are appropriate to be part of the discussion (as opposed to your deciding which one of them is convincing or not, which is certainly your privilege). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really such a big deal to have a dispute about, and I'd suggest to both of you to relax and have a cup of tea. Or whatever. Hrafn's been doing an immense job in keeping the whole range of articles in reasonable order, Ed Fitzgerald's made some edits which seem to me to be improvements, and either way this article does need improvement, not least to the inline references. I don't much mind where the template goes, if an article desperately needs references it's reasonable to have it at the top to encourage readers to become editors, if it's a question of improvement needed to a reasonably referenced article my own preference is to put it in the references section. Either way the article's categorised as needing that attention, which hasn't had quick results. A good outcome will be cooperation on making some improvements. .. dave souza, talk 19:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive369&oldid=1147944347"