Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive371

Hi, I started discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images and User:Jmlk17 removed that discussion, claiming it was general which most of muslims would not agree on, when I reverted his edit and placed {{Uw-tpv1}} on my talk page, he issued me a warning that I will be blocked. If I get blocked, It will most definately be misusage of his priveledges. Are my actions eligible to get blocked? Thank you XubayrMA ^Talk 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would probably have been a good idea to read the huge pink box at the top of that page, before starting a new thread which has been said hundreds of times already. Black Kite 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah sure, you complain about censorship on the article page, but are censoring the talk page yourself. There is no reason to stop the discussion. Those huge pink box is illegitimate as it hinders consensus building and violates WP:NBD. --Raphael1 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Dozens of people turning up and starting the same thread over and over again is not furthering the discussion - it just clogs up the page and obscures the useful material. That's why the warning box is at the top of the page. Black Kite 11:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure. And big censors like you decide what is useful material, aren't you? If you are not interested in improving the article go somewhere else, but let those who want to improve that mess discuss their issues.--Raphael1 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the thead was repeat of older discussions. I must have missed the pink box. XubayrMA ^Talk 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a subpage there recently for newcomers to the article to talk about their opinions on that issue. Don't know if it's still there. The thing is the debate was taking up all the space on the talk page so it was hard for it to be used for article changes to be worked out. Merkinsmum 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked in for a couple of days but all mo stuff about the images was being moved to the sub-page intended for that purpose, all general chat that wasn't about the improvement of the article was being removed on sight in accordance with policy (a bit more quickly than on a normal page because of the need to stop it being swamped with crap). --Fredrick day (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is still there. It's still swamped with crap (demands for image removal, censorship, threats, etc.), and I've been trying (often in vain) to keep it organized, as well as trying to avoid a

forum from erupting. Jmlk17

21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary of issue: Betacommand used Betacommandbot to make 46 edits to an editor's page in six minutes, following that user's making of a page questioning BCBot's handling of NFCC 10 c. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this incident report is only a few hours old, and there is disagreement over whether it should have been moved to the subpage. Also, for some reason, the other report below, also about Betacommand and his bot, was not moved. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just about reached the end of my rope.

Please note, I asked him to stop before bringing this here, but he removed the request as "vandalism." He has a gross misconception of vandalism. Apparently even removing a personal attack is vandalism according to him. KellyAna (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kellyana must think that she is an adminstrator.she has gotten in to it with me and

I'm not a gal, but I think his comments to you would be very offensive to women and they are offensive to me. I also agree you removing a personal attack is not vandalism, see [5]. He posted at least three of these. Someone just final warned him. If he makes personal attacks again, please report here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously offensive to a woman [6] and this is harassment [7].-- Ѕandahl 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For about a month now, an IP user who posts from addresses in the range 156.61.xx.xx has been attempting to impose his views on the nature of Roman leap days and leap years in articles related to the Roman calendar: Julian calendar, Roman calendar, Mercedonius and as of today Leap year.

This user absolutely refuses to debate on Talk pages, he just edits the articles. He only communicates his "justifications" via the Edit Summary line. The reason I have listed so many articles is that semi-protecting an article only causes him to find another one, even when the semi-protection notice clearly states that it is being applied to force discussion to the Talk page.

His POV represents outdated scholarship. He does not respond to attempts to point out contrary data or contrary argument, he just reasserts his own views. He also does not respond to proposals to change the text to say "the ancient sources aren't explicit. The current consensus is...", which would change the text to an accurate statement of fact that does not conflict with his views.

He used to insert long rants inside the articles, mostly against me, but final warnings for disruptive editing caused him to stop doing that. He now mostly confines his edits to statements that should keep him below the radar on that. I had hoped that his toning down the edits might mean we were getting somewhere, but this is not the case. His behaviour, though low key, is very persistent and is still disruptive. It's also the kind of activity that seriously undermines any reputation WP might hope for as an authoritative source.

Please follow through on the final warnings and block this user.

Thanks. --

I've blocked a couple of IPs (the only two, as far as I know, he's used more than once). Unfortunately, blocking can only achieve so much here since he changes IP frequently, and a /16 range (156.61.xx.xx) is a bit too large to give a block of significant duration too. Assuming those four pages are the only ones he's interested in, semi-protection should work fine. –

Steel

18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on past behaviour, I wouldn't assume that. I'm sure he'll find another page to carry on with. Also, a week's semi-protection has already been tried on Julian calendar and Roman calendar, and has proven useless. He just waits for it to expire and then circles back. Perhaps a semi-protect duration of 2 months on all of these pages might have an effect.

I understand that asking for a range of addresses to be blocked is a serious step. I think I've been very patient with this guy, and I didn't make the request lightly. I honestly can't see any other way to get him to behave. --

User talk:Thepokeratlas has created a user account and was blocked, presumably for having a corporate name and a user name that was similar.

I led a WP:AN discussion here. [8] which said this (see below).

I notified the blocking administrator. He did not object or say anything. About 3 days have passed and still no objection.

The user has been advised on what not to edit. They have complied and not caused trouble. Should we be bitey and block the person again like Bellwether BC and Friday seem to suggest?

• I'll thank you to stop opening threads about me without proper notification, and to quit misrepresenting my positions. I think you shouldn't be using your tools at ALL during your mentorship, per the RfC. This also appears to be Friday's position. It's not about this case, it's about your use of tools, AT. Please stop obfuscating. Bellwether ^B_C 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Usernames being blocked, is this according to policy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames#Company.2Fgroup_names

"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended..."

The policy states that use of a company name as a user name is not recommended but it is not prohibited. I used to think that all corporate names are prohibited and are to be blocked but I see this is not the case.

Should we stop blocking people for this reason? Or should we just ask that users certify that they are not a group account.

My personal rule on this is I block only if the user is using Wikipedia for advertising their group, business, what have you. If a user like "KevinsShoeWarehouse" created the article Kevin's Shoe Warehouse or adds the business to an article like List of shoe stores, that deserves a block. And really, unless they're using WP to advertise, it's pretty tough to tell if a username is a business, group, etc. Of course, if a user chooses the name of a very well known business or group, it is my opinion that they should be blocked, as this invites potential lawsuits, e.g. if a user named "Microsoft" vandalizes Steve Jobs. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I come by most company usernames is as faithless says above, they post ana d for their company. More generally, I think we assume that if its a group name, then its a

shared account. Also, for major corps, there is of course the trademark issue. Even if User:Miramax didn't edit movie articles, there would still be the concern of trademark dilution. MBisanz ^talk

17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This came up recently. We assume it's a role account unless we get confirmation (somehow, OTRS I guess) that it's used by only one user. I'm not sure what the relevant policy page is. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that of people believing the account represents the company in some official capacity, either to push a certain view point or to vandalise. The question aside from advertising, is the username likely to be confusing or misleading? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and opinions

• I think this unblock, after discussion, along with counseling to the new user is the correct thing to do. I think that trying to create controversy about this non-controversial action is being disruptive and trolling. Others have been indefinitely blocked for trolling before.
  talk
  ) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Where was your discussion about the specific name with the blocking admin or on AN/I? The post you made was a general statement about company usernames, it was far from a specific block review. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are unhappy, continue the discussion here about why this user should be blocked. Is it to prevent disruption? If so, what disruption has the user done in the past 3 days since unblock (None). What disruption has the user ever done? (None). What punishment should this user get for using a user name similar to his corporate name? (Severe punishment? If so, isn't blocking not supposed to be used as punishment?) Discussion on proposed re-blocking welcomed; that's why I put the topic up for ANI discussion.

talk

) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The implied suggestion to always list the user name in question will be followed in the future. If someone is unhappy, how would the discussion have changed if a specific user name was listed? Is it that someone has an anti-gambling agenda or anti-American agenda so they would act harshly in that case but not harshly in other cases? I hope this is not the case.

talk

) 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Archtransit, on your talk page, Ryan has said that unless you stop using the unblock button, he's going to take the matter to

talk

) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Addhoc! Blocks should follow policy. It would not be following policy if you were blocked on the reason "Addhoc's name is mis-spelt, this is disruptive, he can edit under 'Ad hoc' but the Addhoc name is blocked".

talk

) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to leave mentoring you to Ryan and Riana, however I'm concerned about your lack of understanding.

talk

) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You say above, Archtransit, that Three days have passed and still no objection, yet you unblocked only one hour after your talkpage message to the blocking admin and your ambiguous post to ANI that was not even close to a consensus to unblock (or block, or anything else since you didn't name the user). Curious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are mad, block the user and see what happens (I don't advise this but you seem to be mad that this user was unblocked.

talk

) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not mad. You've misread my post. I don't get mad at Wikipedia, but instead I rather like the place. It's not about the blocking or unblocking. You have to know that Arch. I've been an ardent supporter of you in the past, but everytime I read a post here, or at your RfC, or on your user talk, I continue to be baffled by your responses. Simply baffled. It's not about the tools. It's about your communication style, your wikilawyering.. this isn't the place for this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being quoted. I took that conversation as a broad, hypothetical, "what if"/"why" scenario. It certainly was not a block review/unblock check to me. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – see below

I reported User:Prester John at Wikiquette alerts (take a look). For his removal of legitimate warnings, his discreetly racist edits and other things. He has since edited my report on several occasions to misrepresent my comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 - He then threatens a Checkuser request against me without suggesting which user he believes I am and why. I believe that PJ is attacking me in order to divert attention from the report I have filed against him and am now of the opinion that PJ's threats warrant harder action than a mere discussion at Wikiquette. It is grossly innapropriate for a user to threaten another just because they have asked for comment on the user's conduct! Help me out here! (Also per WP:RFCU "checkuser is not for fishing") --Capitana (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping; so far, it's made its rounds at WQA and at two user talk pages. You made one complaint which contains a lot of 2006 and 2007 vios. which Prester John was blocked for in 2007. You were unsatisfied with the reply I gave at WQA, which you removed and I have restored, given that it is material of your current possible bad faith nominations and possible wikistalking. As a side note, Capitana user also has a current CheckUser request open. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You were correct to take this to

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

) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked into it, and it appears that the

WP:RCU was done in bad faith (none of the requirements or criteria for it have been met) after the filed report to wikiquiette alerts. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. Where are the admins to help here! PJ is going to get away with this corrupt request! --Capitana (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the

I believe it will be closed (if not already) because many of the users you claim are Capitana are just so old. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note is this diff here. which seemed to confirm that Capitana is Lancastria.

talk

) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also,

talk

) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By a checkuser, no less. I think we can mark this one resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

caveat - This is a copy and paste from

I've closed the AN thread an pasted a couple of add'l comments that were there to this thread. --

barneca (talk

) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A dumb, quick question: It seems templates Template:X1 thru Template:X9 are for people to experiment with. However, some editors (including me, and embarrassingly, including a block) are reverting edits to these templates, and warning the users doing so. The template itself says these templates are for experiementation. So,

• Am I correct in my newfound understanding that people can do whatever they want to these templates?
• Is there a way to make this fact more clear to clueless individuals like myself?
• Wouldn't it make sense for a bot to periodically restore them to their original state, as is done with the sandbox itself?
• An editor with multiple IP's has recently gone thru and blanked all 9 templates and their respective talk pages (my talk page too, but that's probably because I mistakenly blocked him). In spite of the templates' experimental nature, this seems vaguely disruptive to me. But semiprotecting would kind of defeat the purpose. Any ideas (beyond the bot I suggest above)?

Thanks. --

barneca (talk

) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I became involved in this, I myself reverted the continuous blanking of these templates X1 - X9. It seems user's with a similar string of IPs (e.g [11] have a propensity for blanking the entire template purposefully, and then turning on the users who warn or undo their blanking. [12] What is the appropriate action here? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk page contains two conversations about the disruption of these templates [13] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{x1}} is like Wikipedia:Sandbox, but designed for testing templates. The templates used to have headers that were reset automatically by bots, but the bots seem to have gone missing. The standard practice would have been to revert the template to the version with the headers, but I can't even find it in the history so the bots must have been missing for a while. --ais523 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the bot that is supposed to reset those templates every 12 hours? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Update This is kind of getting out of hand, several editors are now involved in reverting almost continuous blanking vandalism from multiple IP's on these templates and their talk pages. Does anyone think a rangeblock is needed, and if so, does anyone know how to do one? --

Blocked 151.49.0.0/16 for 3 hours. Let me know if IPs from that range continue vandalizing the templates after the rangeblock expires. Nakon 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have done the trick, thanks Nakon. --

barneca (talk

) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Nakon - Every IP involved has had that string. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is engaged largely in trolling or baiting. [14] His contributions to the NIU incident consist mostly of comments designed to confront, and not to further the article. Also, when he's warned about that, he deletes the warning, and goes to the user page to further his baiting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your initial characterization of the seige at Waco could possibly have been better worded, true - but I agree, the IP is not justified in editing anyone's remarks as he/she has. I've warned the editor, and further reverting should result in a block of 31 hours or more. I am leaving shortly, and won't have a chance to monitor. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, blocked for 31 hours due to disruption and personal attacks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to point out that I balanced the media-based flippant comment by characterizing the siege as a disaster. It was bad news all around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got either a buddy or a sockpuppet removing the warnings on his page. This one (71.229.80.58) has a similar attitude to the blocked one, in his very short list of edits. [15] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note on 71.229.80.58's talk page advising him that deleting stuff from "other peoples" user pages was against the rules. As expected, he deleted it without comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

talk User:Taulant23 saying "It's on his blood" referring to meMegistias (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NOw we know who wrote these on my page and many more [16],

[17], [18] [19] [20] Megistias (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong with my blood and why i am an inferior race person or whatever.Should i kill myself now? jump of the window?Megistias (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask

civility in that post on FP's talkpage. Note however that all the anonymous edits you quote are from an ISP in Sweden, whereas Taulant23 claims to be in LA, California. Tonywalton ^Talk

22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye.Megistias (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Um ... take a look at the (Main page featured) article, the penises aren't going away, I have no idea what to do, or where else to get the problem fixed. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still there... AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also on Ronald Koeman, Jan Wouters, Guus Hiddink, Eric Gerets, George Hardwick, Franz Binder, Sef Vergoossen, Aad de Mos, Bram Appel, Hans Kraay, Kees Rijvers, Thijs Libregts, and it shows up in old versions of the pages. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what happened? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Something about the PSV Eindhoven manager's template I think ...

☎

23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only way so many articles were hit so quickly. Luckily, the template's been fixed and the user who did it has been blocked. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - see [21]. Fixed and the miscreant blocked by KurtShapedBox. I've protected the template. I thought someone was supposed to protect all the templates on main page articles. This was there for almost 30 minutes.

☎

23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have figured something like that. Thanks. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the text of the article to my userspace and have protected with cascading enabled. This should stop any more vandalism to the article today. Also, you may want to check out the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Nakon 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article protected for two weeks to give everyone a chance to resolve the issues

collaboratively. Kralizec! (talk

) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt I protected the

WP:RFPP for these sorts of requests. --Kralizec! (talk

) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Omg... I'm not pro Christian! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of questionable images located at Cemal Gürsel. However, there is a particularly mean and nasty user (different IP addresses but it's one guy) who refuses to discuss in any sensible manner what exactly they are doing. We just need more eyes there. I pointed out some images to User:Rettetast, which may have issues. He listed some at WP:PUI. So far, we'd had 81.131.50.14, 213.122.42.250, and 71.184.9.231 go after them (and then the user pages in response). Attempts to communicate have been less than fruitful, to be nice. More eyes would be helpful, as the last one decided to respond by tagging legitimate images for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A recent AfD discussion on

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed link--Jac16888 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP 70.185.238.178's sole contributions are slow motion vandalism. The IP has targeted Josh Cobb 2nd and 3rd over the last two days. ClueBot got his Legacy Five vandalism and then he moved to my own user page as I'd been the one to create the original re-directs. Have had no contact with this IP but am trying to avoid 3R and don't want to spent a week reverting clear nonsense. Apparently AIV is not the place as it's slow-mo vandalism. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped now but have left a warning & will monitor this IP's activity. Reverting clear vandalism does not invoke

WP:3RR, so you're OK on that one.--Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP is at it again. My personal favorite, Jossi and ClueBot have been busy reverting it this evening. Just another heads up. Travellingcari (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New IP, same fascination with Josh Cobb. I requested semi-protection since there's nothing constructive. Thanks all for your help so far. Travellingcari (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is reverting material at

I've given him a 3RR warning. Its a content dispute. Use

Crossmr (talk

) 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some background: I re-wrote the text in that paragraph [24] in accordance with long-standing concerns raised on the talk page here and here. The text I added contains the quotation from Needham that he likes but provides an online source and gives it context (per discussion on the talk page referenced above). My addition is a paraphrase of an article, which I cited. Mccready reverted me here, [25], but kept my citation, calling my addition "original research" (it is not, as I and another editor have explained to him on the talk page [26]. He reverted a second time [27], as did I [28]. I make that two reverts.

In addition, I reverted his insertion of a neutrality tag [29]. I did that because Mccready failed to give policy-based reasons for placement of the tag. I make that three reverts. However, following further discussion, I restored the tag [30]. Thus, no 3RR violation by my count. [But maybe I've lost my mind.] Sunray (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply because you performed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on the same article. [31], [32], [33]. As for McCready I didn't notice that his first edit was to restore a tag that had been removed a few days prior so I didn't realize it was a revert.--

Crossmr (talk

) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said: three reverts. And, since in five years of editing, I've never broken the

WP:3RR and Mccready has many times, I am still unsure why you gave only me a warning. Sunray (talk

) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't realize at the time that his first edit was a revert. Nor did I delve in to both of your extensive editing histories. For completenesses sake I've gone and left one on his talk page as well.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[34]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I seldom edit en.wiki just to add interwiki to my local wiki .
Starting from some weeks ago, in most cases, I'm unable to edit en.wiki because my IP is blocked. The page says User:Ryulong blocked the entire range 79.6.0.0/16 for a very long time (a month or even more). I don't know if this is the standard procedure in en.wiki, but seems to me that blocking thousands people just to stop a single vandal it's not the best choice... the vandal probably changed his IP the same day you blocked him, and instead I'm a good (blocked) guy ;) Regards. --87.13.52.49 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(relevant block log) Thanks for your message. I can understand the frustration.

creating an account! ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk

17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Lucasbfr. Well, I've seen the log, so the range is blocked since January 4! 65000 IPs for two month to stop a vandal who can change IP, and probably he can get also an unblocked IP (like I can). ::You're right, I should create an account, but it's not just my problem... in 2 months, how many people gets one of those 65000 IPs? --62.211.134.26 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The range described is of an abusive user who I had been attempting to reconcile with until he continually exhausted my patience and the patience of other administrators from which I sought assistance. The user in question is Tenkasei Ryo (talk · contribs). I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience, but I have not been able to narrow down that block (a semi-full list of his activities is here), and as soon as the first range block expired, the user in question came back. As I stated in the block log, you can seek assistance from the Unblock Mailing list. And if you would like to prevent this from happening on March 4 (which may very well happen as this user is persistent, despite my attempts), any assistance you could provide me in stemming this abuse and helping me file an abuse report with your ISP concerning this individual's actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Over the past few minutes, myself and others have been reverting similar and somewhat disgusting vandalism from a variety of IPs to User talk:Jack Merridew and User:Doctorfluffy Here are the diffs:

• 00:58, 19 February 2008
• 01:04, 19 February 2008
• 01:51, 19 February 2008
• 01:53, 19 February 2008
• 01:58, 19 February 2008
• 02:09, 19 February 2008
• 02:11, 19 February 2008
• 02:13, 19 February 2008
• 02:13, 19 February 2008

Some of these contain threats. I think protections of the pages and blocks of the IPs may be helpful.

Sincerely, --

Looks like others took care of it. What is it with these new mean and nasty vandals? I remember when the worst a vandal would do is write like "poop" on your page. Ah, for the good old days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've been here since October 2004 you must remember Mr. Treason (that's one of the few surviving archives). Always good for a chuckle, if you're easily amused. See you in Trenton.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another 4chan sweep. Seriously guys: suicide. Consider it. HalfShadow (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is more on this at

Resolved

 – no action required

There are some facts about this user.

1. He/she is continuously removing non English sources from from the article
   International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence
   despite opposition from other editors.
2. He/she is blanking his/her talk page after anyone posts a message with a edit summary "welcomes". When he/she was told not to blank non-English sources in his/her talk page, he/she blankes talk page[35], then I undid his/her edit[36], he/she again blanked the page[37]. I again reverted[38], this time he used the edit summary "Kun üstünlüğü ile evrensel insan haklar"[39]. At present he/she is blocked by User:Nick for edit-warring. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's absolutely nothing wrong with blanking warning messages off a talk page - it is assumed that the user has therefore read them. It is how they act upon the warnings that is important. No admin action is required here. Black Kite 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

71.254.249.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removed what appears to be sourced negative information about Kosovo's prime minister here. The edit summary included a legal threat that implied that the IP is associated with Thaçi's office. I checked the sources, reverted, and left a talk page warning. Thought I should report it here since this is a contentious topic. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. The IP has not re-asserted the legal threat since the warning, so a block MAY not be necessary at this point, but please keep an eye on it. If the problematic behavior continues after the warning has been given, let us know and we will escalate to the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All involved have been blocked.

Payne2thamaxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Payne2thamax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

)

Tasc0 has been in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx going back at least to October 2007 [43].

It seems at least possible that Payne2thamaxx and Same As It Ever Was are one in the same. Payne2thamaxx admits at [44] that he follows the edits of SAIEW. At [45], 12 days after registering, SAIEW is familiar with a dispute between Kemor (talk · contribs) and Payne2thamax from some time before.

Payne2thamax (of whom Payne2thamaxx is an admitted reincarnation) was indefblocked for making a death threat. Payne2thamaxx was indefblocked for harassment, then later (September 2007) unblocked after he promised to reform. I see no evidence whatsoever of reform and have therefore reinstated that block.

I have filed a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Payne2thamaxx to confirm whether Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs) is related.

For now, pending the results of that check, I would like to ask for a review my block of Payne2thamaxx. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx, he just wanted to make false accusations of me attacking another user, which I clearly did not do it. It was a NY IP address, that can be seen here.

I also would like to ask my e-mail feature back, I can't e-mail nobody. I don't think that's very fare.

I sent an e-mail to my blocking admin apologizing for the threats and seconds after, he blocked my e-mail feature. I did not harass him over the message and I didn't get any response.

I have to admint that I don't even knew who Payne2thamaxx was before this situation. Now that I see, it's clear he's a sock of

Same As It Ever Was. B

's proves this with the diffs.

Note, yes: this is my IP address. It's the only way I have to comunicate. Tasc0 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just check my edits and you people will see how vandal am I. I enjoy vandalazing Wikipedia so much. Tasc0 07:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.186.126 (talk)

Tasc0, I've responded to your remark at my talk page, too, but I'm going to make a couple of the same points here:

• I don't think anybody's saying that you were a vandal. In fact, User:B says the opposite, calling you "a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor". I would agree that I never saw any evidence of bad faith or vandalism from you; in fact, you did some good work fighting vandals.
• That said, if any editor - you, me, B, Jimbo, anybody - posts the kind of thing you did directed at User:Ronnotel, that user should expect to be blocked. That sort of comment is - and this shouldn't even need to be said - totally unacceptable, no matter what the circumstance.
• You should be aware that what you're doing here is technically
  talk
  ) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results are now in - Alison ^❤ 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember thinking there was something fishy with Payne2thamaxx. His most recent contribs against Tasc0 came after long inactivity. I think 166.109.97.107, 166.109.0.247, and 166.109.97.168 (IPs which pretended to be Tasc0 on User talk:Real Compton G) could've been used by Payne2thamaxx. The IPs lead to New York, where he says he lives. And Tasc0, it's unfortunate this happened considering you're a productive editor. No matter what personal attacks you get, you have to keep your cool. I'd support an unblock, but first you really owe an apology to User:Ronnotel. SAIEW was also productive, but it's unfortunate he used abusive socks. I guess personal vendettas bring out the worst in people. Spellcast (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose an unblock. Maybe a lift on the e-mail block, so he can plead his case, but death / rape threats (directed at children!) do not warrant a drop of consideration from me, and they shouldn't from anyone else either. - Revolving Bugbear 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm willing to apologize, but how I'm supposed to do it when my talk page is salted and the e-mail feature it's disabled? I'm not asking for an immediately unblock. 190.172.139.246 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be an unblock if there's consensus for it. Considering most admins who've commented endorse the block, there's no consensus to unblock yet. Although you were productive for a year, those attacks put a permanent stain on your image. I mean, who would want to continue editing and be known as "the guy who made threats to a family" (even if it wasn't a literal threat)? If the comments were less severe, you'd probably be unblocked. Like B suggested on your talk page, you could appeal to arbcom. Spellcast (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can also email the unblock mailing list - email blocks only affect the on-wiki email feature. They do not prevent you from emailing addresses directly. Natalie (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point; his talk page has been unprotected, though, so this shouldn't be an issue in this case.

talk

) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No administrative action necessary.

I had a problem with the Khazars article. Although reliably sourced material, I believed a section to be irrelevant to the article as it had almost nothing to do with Khazars which I explained in Talk. I had agreement from several editors with one of them (User:Slrubinstein) deleting the section. It then became a very minor edit war reverting the sections deletion without comments. Instead of continuing the revert war I added a cited qualifier sentence to the section which started another revert war to get rid of that. I again gave up and took it to Talk which was suddenly flooded by editors supporting the revert, however none of these editors would explain relevance instead arguing the section had to stay for NPOV without any explanation of why despite my asking.

User:Jayjg, who had not taken part in this discussion then posted and in effect accused me of anti-Semitism despite the “debate” being up to this point relatively civil and gave "examples" of my edits that proved it. This accusation was extremely upsetting to me. The edits he gave as examples actually not only did not support his claim but several were even favourable to Israel so I asked for an apology, instead Jayjg replied and told me to accept the consensus that it was relevant (without any reason required for relevance).

I started a WP:ANI here to get an apology for the accusation but it was archived without resolution. I resubmitted the ANI but was told that as an Israel/Palestine article dispute was already being worked out in Arbcom the admins had put my case on hold pending a resolution to that Arbcom so that the result could give a guideline on how to handle my case. That Arbcom was resolved I believe but I let the apology go and hoped to get on with editing.

Then this edit was made (diff) on the Khazar page. Distortion of history is a particular pet peeve of mine so I admit it annoyed me so I reverted (diff) the edit and was in turn reverted by User:Briangotts (diff) with the comment that the sources given backed the new version. This started a minor edit war with myself, User: Schlcoh who also backed the old version and Briangotts. After Schlcoh also checked the sources (which were not online) he also found they actually supported the original version not the new one. The talk history for this is here and here.In the interests of peace (Briangotts would not accept his own sources wording) we let his version stand and I added a note to the sentence (diff) to qualify it which was apparently accepted by all involved.

Now Jayjg came along and deleted the note (diff) claiming in the summary it was OR and my own personal commentary. In fact the note was copy/pasted complete with cites from a section in another Wikipedia article History of the Jews in Turkey which I explained in my summary when adding the note. This has led to another edit war with Briangotts now trying to modify the note so it confirms more with his view. Obviously I’m not getting any respect as an editor and along with Jayjg’s previous accusation not being withdrawn and now with another vieled personal attack on my credibility in a summary he made, I fear I could end up permanently labelled as an anti semite.

I request this issue be resolved and Jayjg be made to apologise for his original accusation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a misuse of this board. How many times are you going to demand an apology (longwindedly)? El_C 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he demand an apology? Relata refero (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with requesting an apology, so long as he does so civilly - which he has. However, I have to concur that this is not the proper forum. If discussion with the editor directly has been unfruitful, then a user conduct

Request for Comment would be in order. There is no relevant admin action to be requested here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, if you've seen RFC/U recently, you'll see why I think its broken. And why is there no relevant admin action? Are blocks for incivility no longer handed out? (Not that I'm saying I support one in this case, but why is discussing incivility considered irrelevant?) Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I note, there is nothing wrong with requesting an apology, particularly when it is done as clearly and civilly as WLRoss has done here. However, I'm looking at the diff that generated this report, (here). Jayjg looks to have made what amounts to a good faith removal of material that he thought constituted personal commentary (which is, by definition, OR). Sure, he probably could have noted "Source doesn't support assertion" or "Synthesis" or some similar term, but he did not. The proper course would be for WLRoss to leave a note on Jayjg's talk saying "Hey, you reverted this, it isn't actually OR, I cite this source that says this, this source that says that, etc." If the edit summary was indeed a personal attack, then a note saying "Please refrain from personal attacks, as that is how I interpreted your edit summary at this diff" would be sufficient to convey WLRoss's displeasure. My concern was that the first impulse in this event was to run to ANI, which is unresonable. Jayjg was also not notified about this thread to defend himself, so I'm posting a note to his talk so informing him. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but see below. I am growing impatient with a growing culture that marks stuff like this "resolved" on sight and says things "nobody cares". Relata refero (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can just basically say "nobody cares". Seriously, ANI has had so many troll complaints about him it isn't funny any more. Will ^(talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving. That being said, if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits." Until that happens, the complaints will continue, and if you, Will, don't like it, try and fix the problem instead of complaining that it isn't funny. Relata refero (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to fix the problem is for more people to help damping down the trolls and fewer to spend time enabling them. In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is now the number one most important place to get your conspiracy theory or fringe view promoted. Look at the vitriol Judd Bagley unleashed when he was prevented from promoting his holy jihad against naked shorting. Look at freepers like Bryan from Palatine. Look at the level of disruption from JB196 because we wouldn't let him promote his book. And these people set up shop off-wiki and recruit allies, and undermine the people who protected Wikipedia against their flagrant and unambiguous abuse, because it is really really really important to them to get their POV on Wikipedia. Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Troubles. Israel-Palestine. This is not the good-natured laughter at the silly and inept wars over Gdanzig any more, there are genuine concerted campaigns to make Wikipedia not neutral on important subjects. So please OPEN YOUR EYES, people. We need to find a much much better and quicker way of dealing with obvious POV-pushers, because the old way does not work with the aggressive high-stakes POV-pushing we now get. Frankly I don't care who deals with it, but if nobody else is going to then it falls to the same burned-out surly old bastards every time. All hands to the pumps, lads, the ship's taking on water fast. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And you have no idea how strongly I agree with that. But the problem is that when rudeness becomes a weapon being used all round, it becomes very hard to figure out who's doing the right thing, and it becomes totally bloody impossible to get anyone else to weigh in. I disagree with you completely about Bagley/Weiss, though the problem was that if it hadn't been such a cesspool of incivility, other people might have waded in there and fixed it by now. I don't want to touch half the things Jay or IZak or Humus or Nishidani edit because they can be a little free with the insinuations. Somewhere on this page right now is

part

of an interminable war about issues which nobody outside certain parts of India would understand at the first go and nobody's touching that either because of the snappiness on display. Do you see the connection?

So yes, ArbCom needs to take a tougher line, no more blasted lets-all-get-along amnesties, and someone had better start handing out blocks to POV-pushers. And as for the rest of us who plug along in low-attention high-intensity warzones, it tends to undermine requests for civilized editing when the defenders of the blasted pedia are misbehaving in their own way.

Which is why I'll back Guy in particular, because at least he's an equal opportunity offender. What's Jay's excuse? Or Mikka's? Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a weapon, not in any sense. It's a natural human response to frustration. I have the ability to assume good faith of the most unlikely candidate given the slightest glimmer of light; a lot of people right now seem intent on a Blitz-grade blackout in that respect. I suggest that every single question be brought back to the same question: what will improve the encyclopaedia. In many case,s the encyclopaedia will be best served by someone with patience and tact explaining to the problem editor what they need to do to satisfy the community that they can be a net positive - and not arguing for an unblock until the user has demonstrated that they understand the problem. I know I am out of step here, but I don't see blocking as that big a deal, it's just one of many ways we protect the project. Maybe the block messages need to be more explanatory. Sorry, we had to block you this is not a big deal, we just need to get your attention and be sure you're here for the right reasons. And, you know, a lot of people aren't. That's not to say they are evil, but they are in the wrong place. We'd do better if people from specific wikis - alt medicine, paranormal and so on - picked up these folks who are here to spread the word and helped them to learn their craft on another site where advocacy is OK, and in the mean time teach them that on WP it isn't. Hell, I think people know what I mean, and if they don't them I'm likely wasting my time explaining. Bottom line: if Mantanmoreland is Weiss, I want him gone (but I don't see it being proven right now). We don't need crusaders. Experts, yes, but not crusaders after

WP:TRUTH

. And we get far too bloody many of them. Oh, plus there's an inevitable tension between teenagers, and people who are parents of teenagers. I guess everyone knows which group I'm in.

Incidentally, Mikka's excuse is probably User:Bonaparte, or at least in part. Mikka is a surly old bastard like me, but fundamentally sound and a decent fellow. Try talking to him some time. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that's fair enough, though I maintain you'd get a lot more done if you could keep your temper in check about 25% more. And to refocus this thread ever so slightly, I will make excuses for you or for Dab or even for Squeakbox, because all of you are indeed trying to keep the cruft out. Unfortunately, however, when they ask us all to make a list of those whose agenda is keeping WP clean of that stuff, Jay, inspite of the laurels with which this community in its wisdom has covered him, will not be on most people's top 100 list. (To put it as mildly and unexcitingly as possible.) So he doesn't get cut the same slack, even if some deserve it. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know

– on the grounds that the source, Electronicintifada, does not meet the BLP clause for sources of negative commentary. Jay goes on to delete a better-written (and more temperate) version of the same material from Ilan Pappé, where its context was clearer: it's a response to Morris's own vociferous attack on Pappé, which begins, '"Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication."' Jay leaves the Morris attack and deletes the Pappé attack, citing BLP. Now look at Jay's edit over on Israel Shahak, where he restores the following paragraph, which had been removed citing the same BLP clause:

According to Paul Bogdanor, Shahak "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention."

– which is cited to FrontPageMagazine (!). On the talk page, Jay explains that this attack on Shahak – which is unprovoked (i.e. not a rebuttal to a Shahak attack on Bogdanor) and considerably more incendiary and potentially libelous – "seems well and reliably enough sourced." Front Page F'ing Magazine, are you kidding me? Jay's edit also restores the following sentence – "Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among

All due respect, G-Dett, but... Electronicintifada calls itself "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction". Can we really take that as a neutral sources of information? As to Front Page Magazine, It hardly seems little better than a Right Wing political opinion blog, and thus probably no better. Both sections should be removed per BLP and the RS writings on the uses of Blogs. I would like to see Jayjg explain why one source is so much better than the other. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I do not personally think ElectronicIntifada, CAMERA, or WorldNetDaily should be used as sources for potentially defamatory material. Removal of information cited to EI citing BLP is absolutely justifiable. In the present context – where the quote is one scholar's rebuttal to criticism from another, and both criticisms are comparably heated/negative, and the initial criticism is included in the article – then you could also make a case for its retention. Removal would be justified by a very firm, strict application of BLP, and one could reasonably expect the removing editor to apply an equally firm hand elsewhere. In this case, Jay's firm hand is waving its middle finger at his interlocutors, as is clear from his adjacent edits to the other articles.

What in the world does

WP:BLP have to do with Israel Shahak, who is dead? Nandesuka (talk

) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, where do you find EI describing itself as "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction"? I can find only reference to EI in those terms, by an obscure blogger unaffiliated with EI. Is this what you're referring to? At any rate, here is what EI's site mission statement says: "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media."--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's how the site lists itself on Google. Check it out. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Instruction, Thuranx.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm, so it is. Still not much better, really. It's still just as clearly a biased site and source, and the play on words doesn't do much to distance it from the more violent biases of its readership. I still say both should go. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty offensive statement, ThuranX, but at least we are agreed that both should go.--G-Dett (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving." This type of comment is exactly why I ask for an apology. Although I accept that writers GF opinion I'm still automatically labelled by the original accusation. Why am I not a reliable complainant? I've never been blocked for my actions, this is the first time I've lodged a complaint and I've never had problems with any other users or on any other articles despite averaging far more than 100 edits a month. And why does edit warring David Irving justify a personal attack? Has anyone even looked to see what was edit warred there? Although it was a year ago I think it was about his credibility on subjects not involving Jews which had nothing to do with Irvings anti semitism. Before this I have had (as far as I can recall) only one dispute with Jayjg. When I first started editing WP I deleted a dead reference in the Hamas article which he reverted. I asked him why and he told me policy allows dead links because they worked when first used. This led to me being ridiculed by other editors when I used that same explanation later for replacing a dead link in another article (one was MONGO so if you know him you know he doesn't beat around the bush when giving an opinion on someone). This incident is why I did't deal with Jayjg again after his first refusal to apologise. To address other points brought up that this ANI is not appropriate I would also point out that I was originally told to lodge the complaint here. It was archived twice on the basis that it would be dealt with later. I never informed Jayjg of this ANI as I posted it at 3am and forgot so i apologise for that (I did however inform him of the previous ANI and he chose not to take part). I also apologise for being "longwinded". Not being experienced with complaining I have no idea how much detail is required. It was Jayjg's comment that reminded me to bring it up again and the ANI is not actually for that comment, it's for the original unjustified personal attack. I believe this ANI is more important than me, too many editors are getting away with too much because they have a high profile or a large group of friends. Unless they are made to be responsible for their actions everyone suffers. Wayne (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. Relata refero (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, because it is not at all clear why this is an issue for AN/I. As near as I can tell, this is a dispute over content and a series of unfortunate user interactions. I suggest that you and JayJg try to work things out civilly on a talk page or, failing that, seek dispute resolution via mediation or an RFC. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)