Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432

(see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#User:Radiolbx)

) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And, a jerk. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He is indeed being a little incivil, but I think an issue like this could have been better handled at

Wikiquette Alerts. Also, in his [last edit

, he said "You win" and hasn't made any further edits (granted that was only like 20 minutes ago). FWIW, I think Radiolbx was acting in good faith (even though his edits were not particularly encyclopedic) and it's somewhat sad that he was driven away from the project so quickly.

If he continues to make incivil comments, let me know and I will issue a warning. But dollars to doughnuts, I think he's done editing here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, and actually wasn't even aware of

WP:WQA. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk

) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The other person involved here,

editor assistance. Tony Fox (arf!)

20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Nunh-huh Vandalism

Resolved

 – Absolutely, positively nothing to see here -- see my comment

User: Nunh-huh has continuously defied my corrections to the article; Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester. I NEED HELP! PLEASE! He is using his abilities as an Administrator for Vandalism. It is NOT right, and something needs to be done about it! Rbkl (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It's not necessary to bold names as you are doing, nor is it necessary to make numeric lists. I can't speak to the factual details of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content (formatting mostly) dispute, and I can't find any use of admin tools. Am I missing something? --Selket ^Talk 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nunh-huh's last (and only second) revert was at 17:44, 13 June 2008 . Your first attempt to engage him in dialog was at 18:27, 13 June 2008. As of the time I am making this comment, the current revision is your version of the article. What is your complaint again?

In the future, please do not make spurious complaint to the administrators' noticeboard without first attempting to reach a compromise with the user. This is stated clearly at the top of this page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur, after three edit conflicts. Rbk1 is trying to bold names and do other edits in spite of the

Tan | 39

18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin failed consensus

Resolved

We have already had a debate about Kingsford Smith International Airport (KSIA) to Sydney airport (Since it's known as Sydney Airport and no longer KSIA) [3] and the consensus was to move. Now Admin

) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting my move to be reverted, and by the way, I am not an administrator.

 Talk to me 

19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec, possibly moot) And you gave them, what, 9 minutes to reply to your talk page message before running here? Perhaps you need to at least try to resolve the issue before escalating it? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I did and they replied. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I moved the page back to Sydney Airport. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

 Talk to me 

19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

copied from an earlier section to unify discussion

Could someone else step in on this please?

00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a quick note with them, asking them to check out the article's talk page; between your message and the fact they seem to have stopped editing for now, not sure if there's much else to do right at this moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort although they had already been engaging the talk page, the problem was they were posting the possible identity of someone who has purposely kept their identity and location private due to ongoing death threats. I believe that violates

boi

09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack?

WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a statement on their user page "Benjiboi is a ripe fruit that bruises easily. When in doubt ask!"[4]. Could that be classed as a personal attack and/or assuming bad faith with another editor? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually they copied my user page to theirs and I'm unsure how to handle it per thethread

boi

11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I missed it. Thank you for the message. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a single-purpose user that probably won't be around long, so the situation should take care of itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a thread further up about this called 'help please'. Does this mean the stuff is continuing? :( Sticky Parkin 11:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Help!!!! This is continuing and we may need oversight to clean-up this] edit summary and some of their other work.

boi

11:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is continuing, WillyJulia also added a

(Talk)

11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent case at MfD where an editor copied someone else's User page, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tamr007. That one closed with Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

and the editor continues[5] with the other editor then the issues with the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor also told me to stop reverting the blog that they where reverting [6]. The blog in question is about the article rather then the person there for there isn't a problem with the BIO [7]. Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see why they might be confused. The blog link at the top of the talk page mentioning wiki in the news is the exact same link that keeps being removed per BLP at the bottom... --Onorem♠Dil 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I've stated more then once in my edit summarys which the user must be reading for them to reply. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I agree that the link can't be used as a reliable source, but if it's a BLP violation just to include it in a discussion, then it should be a BLP violation to prominently display it at the top of the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

that was i was trying to say BIDGEE said This is very complicated. The link in the This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in section may say where his from however it's not being used to state where he may live rather to say that Wikipedia has been mentioned but your using link and trying to state where he lives (or lived) which is against the WPBIO policy. If you have an issue with the link then take it up first to get a consensus. I hope that makes it easer to understand. This is also the last edit I'm going to make since it's 2am in the morning so I will not be replying until sometime later today or tomorrow. Bidgee (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC) very complicated? you can say that again!--WillyJulia (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. WillyJulia, the article already states he is Tennessee-based and has for some time, this is verifiable. It also states, per the subject's own MySpace site that he is now in Los Angeles. These are in reliable sources by wikipedia's standard. The link on the top of the talk page has nothing in the article that isn't already in the biography we have and, in fact, it refers to us because, I believe, we have the best article on him available. You wanted to include he's from Tennessee? It's already in there. You want to say he was born there or what his identity is? You'll need reliable sources and concensus to include that. I'm very open to reporting those details once we have the sourcing to do so.

00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user about a personal attack against Benjiboi, and observed that they were just edit warring against Bidgee about the removal of a copyrighted image from their User page (which was eventually deleted from commons as <gasp!> a copyvio).

This user is frankly just causing problems. I would endorse a short block to get their attention until they can learn at least one Wikipedia policy. (So far, I count

WP:COPYVIO as all being violated in the space of like 20 minutes) --Jaysweet (talk

) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly: Please block this user as an

) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now in communication with Bidgee (talk · contribs), so maybe he/she can straighten this person out. Perhaps advocating a block was a little premature -- the user is violating policy and generally creating a ruckus, but I think I was mostly just pissed off that I opened their somewhat-NSFW user page while I was at work. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't copying somebody else's User page a violation of GFDL? Corvus cornix_talk 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just issued the user a final warning after his reinsertion of a personal attack against

20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all who helped on this. I'm seeing this editor as only pushing to include chat comments as a source to "out" the concealed identity of a BLP, and not in any civil fashion, and then turning on editors, including myself. I hope they can leave that all behind but in the meanwhile just a thanks for helping deal with it all.

boi

01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

im trying to add a vital piece of information to the article and users are just shouting WP:BLP!! at me i have many reliable sources so there is no reason not to add it!--WillyJulia (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

People are shouting

WP:BLP

at you because you are acting as if you have not clicked on and read that link. Please do so now if you haven't already done so. In a nutshell, it says we have to be extremely careful about disclosing any sensitive and/or damaging information about living persons even if you have a reliable source. Since Crocker has indicated that he intends to conceal his real identity, that makes it sensitive information and we must be extremely careful about what we disclose and what we don't. Even if you have a reliable source.

If you check

personal attack against Benjiboi. This is not how Wikipedia operates, and the community is rapidly losing patience with your unwillingness to learn and abide by our rules. --Jaysweet (talk

) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well nobody has disagreed instead they just delete things i write.--WillyJulia (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If people are simply reverting you, then that is a sign that something is amiss and that you should stop reverting them and talk it out, rather than continue the edit-war. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And actually, people have disagreed. People like me. See the talk page, AND the paragraph immediately preceding your assertion that nobody disagrees. I think including his real name is in violation of

WP:BLP, and even if it weren't I think it is unethical, since he has committed no crimes and a lot of people hate him. --Jaysweet (talk

) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, you got reverted, now is the time for discussion. Bold-revert-revert-revert-etc. isn't helpful. shoy

19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Dispute

Resolved

 – I think for now, I can handle this issue.

Alright, I'm bringing this to ANI, as I'm asking for administrative input. Let me give give you a little background information, for those who aren't aware of it. The Prem Rawat dispute has been quite a long dispute on Wikipedia, from what I've gathered, and includes

01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See

in proposal pages set forth by the mediator be penalized with article protection? User:Francis Schonken should do the right thing by self-reverting and following the process that has been agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, at the moment,
  (talk)(email)
  01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Your suggestion was accepted as a sound proposal by all active editors, as a step in
    dispute resolution, and an orderly debate is currently taking place because of that. Why should the disruption of that process be allowed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
    02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that it should be, however I think that a topic ban here would be extreme, and that's why I'm asking at ANI. I note that no one else has commented here....as I thought, no one wishes to touch a topic such as this...
  (talk)(email)
  02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that the one edit has disrupted the dispute resolution process. There hasn't been any disruption that I've noticed. Jossi hasn't even objected to the substance of the edit, only to the process. This is just informal mediation. If folks want to get caught up in procedure then they should pursue formal mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not about "process" but about fulfilling commitments made. Francis should undo these changes and discuss them as we all are. Wyy should he be exempt of making edits without discussion as agreed? Should other editors simply go ahead and bypass the mediation process, forfeit the agreements made and let hell lose all over again? Is that what you are asking we do? I find this to be completely unacceptable behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just informal mediation - Not a very nice way to describe the good efforts of a MedCab volunteer, which has led for the first time in a long time to an orderly debate, consensus, and true collaboration, is it? I would have hope that such efforts would be more appreciated, rather than be dismissed as it was nothing. Shameful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Will is right. As I stated previously on the Rawat Discussion page, this process is only informal mediation, with no formal requirement to adhere to this process. Let's separate the process from the people. I think we all believe that Steve is doing a fantastic job and that his efforts are much appreciated. It is unhelpful to make personal comments such as shameful, about a stating a fact that the mediation is just informal, when you know that Will (and myself) strongly support what Steve is doing.

• Having said that, I agree that the recent edit to the main article wasn't helpful to the goodwill around the current mediation, but any formal complaint needs to stand on its own feet in respect of the specific editing, and this case hasn't been made yet.Savlonn (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• While I do appreciate your comments about my efforts, I didn't bring this to ANI to be complimented :-). I brought it here to see if any further action needs to be taken regarding the recent edits, and I am still waiting on outside input from a user/administrator that isn't actually involved in the dispute. I'd appreciate outside input.
  (talk)(email)
  07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary - it can be frustrating when parties feel that an editor isn't respecting the mediation or their agreements, but that's a conduct issue as opposed to content and needs to be dealt with in another format. As far as this particular situation goes, since it just came out of arbitration and the committee didn't feel sanctions were necessary, its unlikely that a single act by an editor, regardless of how frustrating, would rise to the level of needing sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for the indicated edits I felt covered by the outcome of these discussions (I participated in all of them):

• User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic A
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Criticism: section content
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat#Secondary source on Collier
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Cagan, again
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36#First Impression (Again)

Probably I should have given clear links to these discussions in the edit summaries.

I don't exclude that I might have misappreciated what looked to me (for all aspects of my edits) enough consensus for proceeding with the updates. The lack of content remarks, however, seems to indicate I didn't misinterpret anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you have participated in the mediation pages, that is not disputed. Just that suddenly, out of the blue and without any discussions you decided to delete material, add new material, and change the article structure. All this without an attempt to explain your edits or make proposals as everybody else is doing. So far four editors have asked you to re-consider and self revert: Rumiton, and myself in article's talk, Will Beback in your talk page, and user Savlonn in this thread. So I would hope that in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building, you do the right thing, by self-reverting and making proposals that can be discussed and assessed alongside all others proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, stop the

harassment --Francis Schonken (talk

) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to self-revert is not harassment. shoy 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to do something once is not harassment. Making the same request over and over in multiple forums may be harassing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< So I take it that [[User:Francis Schonken will not voluntarily self-revert. This is noted for the record. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• That may be so, but what can be done here? This doesn't fall under ArbCom jurisdiction, as far as I know.
  (talk)(email)
  20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I add my voice to those who are asking Francis to self revert. And I would remind Admin WillBeback, who reverted me within the hour for "no consensus" [8], that he should apply the same rules to Francis as he does to me.Momento (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney makes an excellent observation. Here's hoping this particular disagreement dies down, as such things often do. If concerns continue regarding elements outside the current arbitration decision, suggest initiating a formal request for clarification on the case. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bov isn't blocked as far as I can tell. The last block in his block log is dated 16 March 2007.--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His primary IP (152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is blocked for multiple edit warring, and it's noted in the block note that it applies to Bov. If Bov edits, it would clearly be considered bypassing the block of his (static) IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an anonymous editor who seems to like making up characters in films, and changing the actors who played parts in random movies. Thought I should mention it.

) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an obscene image on the Tim Russert page. I imagine it's from a compromised template, but I can't go poking around looking for it at the present time. Somebody please fix it, immediately? Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not there now. Viridae^Talk 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was made to

talk

) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

user:66.229.101.36 keeps posting that Maureen Orth wife of Tim Russert is dead. If he's right i owe an appology, but if not the ip needs a block for repeated vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russrt is deceasedad, and i think that you owe user:66.229.101.36 an apology. heres a source if you need it ^[1] 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I know Tim Russert is deceased, the ip says his wife is dead too, haven't seen that.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like the IP's been blocked, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A two week block was given to the IP.

talk

) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the administrators that a particular user from Pakistan, through a set of anonymous IPs has been indulging in personal abuses, POV pushing and racism against India.

He has violated the following rules:

However, I observe that nothing has been done to this regard. Moreover, this last edit by the same editor clearly indicates that the user is unrelentive and gives the impression that the admninistrators are acting partisan in this regard. This is a very serious issue and may have far-reaching consequences. If this editor is allowed to continue uttering his venomous racist nonsense then I may have to escalate this matter.

Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing.

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From the diffs, it looks like his "racist nonsense" is actually accusing you of racism. Since you accuse him of the same, in the above post, I'm not sure what an admin could do to help - other than ask you both to make more of an effort to discuss things with one another in a civil manner. ETA Accusations of sock-puppetry have also gone both ways. The names of banned users User:NisarKand and/or User:Beh-nam have been mentioned. Something for a CU to look into, in their copious leisure time, perhaps. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pathan

1921.

Dear all, this whole 'race related' incident occurred when User:Ravichandar84 (obviously a

Pashtun people, and the funny thing is most of these are not added to the Pashtun article and instead an image of the 1921 old man with torn clothes is added. In 1921 that's how most people in the world looked and dressed but why do we need such old images to describe what Pashtuns look like in 2008? That's why I was against the useage of that image from the very start. If you look at the Pashtun people article, I've added most of the images there and I think I've done a good job. I help Wikipedia and I respect all the people. Ravichandar84's mission was to put up ugly images of Pathans in the Pashtun people article and when that failed he now wants to file cases against me because he is obviously angry and not satisfied.--119.30.79.195 (talk

) 03:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at

Leather Pride flag

this diff I've since reverted. 71.195.135.161 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48 hours, and will semi-protect the article if they begin IP hopping, but that will also leave you unable to edit the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, this appears to be a work of an editor who has been banned for similar edits, and an inability to understand that people cannot own a page on Wikipedia. See User:HenryWLasterLeatherPride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who is likely the same person as User:HenryLaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); both editors have made statements about not accepting alteration of the page. It's a low-level but chronic problem, and the 48 hour block is probably not going to have an impact on this topic. Horologium (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the same misinformation over at LGBT symbols‎, so you may want to keep an eye out over there as well. ➪HiDrNick! 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting administrative intervention here:

A couple of hours ago,

) 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He just needs to calm down. Tagging it as anything other than what it is right now is not crucial, and it can wait through a discussion. I don't know the point of view attached to the people he notified, but it wasn't exactly a neutrally worded notification. Time to just take a little break and come back with some perspective and distance.

02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• (A) Contacting participants to a talk page about further developments in the context of the ongoing process is not canvassing. (B) I was furious when Sceptre threatened me with banning, and made the unfortunate comment; however, I immediately reverted my comment and posted the following: "Please don't threaten -- that's not called for" in its place. I think that Sceptre is being a bit disingenuous in not giving the entire story and a stretching the tale a bit here. Thanks for looking at thsi and I appoligize for creating an issue that need to come this far. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Page needs to be freeze on Tim Russerts page. Should lock editing till more is found out about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.89.225.180 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected—

semi-protected, meaning unregistered users (such as yourself) or those with new accounts and few edits are unable to make changes to it. Do you mean the Meet the Press page? Fvasconcellos (t·c

) 02:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Murphy Article Redirect Versus Stand-Alone - Assistance Needed

Hello-

The issue at hand is whether the article "Gabriel Murphy" should be a redirect to the article Aplus.net or if the article has enough content outside the scope of Aplus.net to warrant a seperate article. The issue first arose back in February 2008 when the article was proposed for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy). Back in February, the article was very small with only a few references (I cannot figure out how to link to the history of the article back in February of 2008).

The article was re-written in May with 17 sources to newspapers and magazines. Here is a link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Murphy&oldid=219116422

The article was brought-up on deletion review on June 2 regarding whether the new article should be stand-alone or merged into aplus.net. The result of the "voting" was 4-3 in favor of keeping the article seperate from aplus.net. Here is a link to the deletion review discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2

Nontheless, the article continues to be redirected to aplus.net and has had semi-protection placed on the article. Any assistance/guidence on this issue would be appreciated.

ill take care of it. Smith Jones (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your help- let me know your conclusion(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.132.152 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit

, river-by-river, north-to-south, east-to-west which I sort of originated, but someone else did the work to make it real, and I continued.

So: Why am I forbidden to save? Someone with heavy admin privs has fiddled with the article. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a missing </ref> tag. I'm guessing it'll work for you now. --Onorem♠Dil 05:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. So much gets cut for a slight error. I'll keep you in mind when something so silly becomes so frustrating. I do major articles with minimal markup skills; again thank you. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

) This user has returned from a blocked and immediately has resumed the edit war he was blocked for. See his recent edit history for proof of his reticence to do anything but continue warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uther, you kinda forgot to mention how involved you are. And it would have been courteous to notify the user of this thread. This situation is just getting ridiculous now, I'm so bored of it - drama here will solve nothing. It's only a damn redirect you're fighting over. Alex Muller 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drama? The user threatened to game the system, and a couple of IPs popped up to make the same edits as he had been. I'd classify that as

tendentious editing, myself, and have left a sharp warning on Cazique's page suggesting not to do that. I've suggested dispute resolution instead of that course of action. Tony Fox (arf!)

16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I do agree it's a kind of silly thing to be fighting over. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly, I'd go for an insane thing to be fighting over. Other than Cazique getting his own way with the redirects, I can't see a way for this too end. That's not to say I'm not critical of UtherSRG's behaviour, as I am. To engage in a three-day revert war (over a redirect) for an admin, is frankly unbelievable. Is there any implementable form of mediation that could calm this down? Mark t young (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah, I've stepped into a clusterf&$k. This edit suggests that Cazique is encouraging meatpuppets to keep reverting. I've asked for clarification, and will be keeping an eye on the articles in case they need protecting. Can someone else take a look at this situation? The participants seem to think there's nothing that can be done other than the fighting. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we think there's nothing left other than fighting. However, I do believe that no dispute resolution will have any effect. Blocking Cazique further would work, as would blocking his admitted sock/meat puppets. Short of that, protecting the articles in question would limit Cazique's influence to just himself, cutting off his meatpuppetry. As things stands, I've indef blocked the IPs. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, two problems: we don't indef IPs, and you're involved in the dispute here, so using your tools is probably a pretty bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef isn't permanent. It can be undone. Preferably when the conflict is no more. If you think my actions were incorrect, undo it. But perhaps you're right. I'll instead post here what actions I would take instead of doing them. I don't know why someone else hadn't blocked the IPs for whatever period of time when they popped up. *shrugs* - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, semi-protection would be in order here. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

True, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Banning Uther and having his adminship removed would solve this. He quite clearly should not be an admin.

) 17:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My being an admin has nothing to do with your edit warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

O-kay, bad scene all around here. Uther, please undo your indef-blocks and remove the semiprotection on the articles; you are involved, and should not be using your tools in relation to this case. As I said, I *am* monitoring this, and will semiprotect if it's needed - three IP edits does not require protection. Cazique: as I see you've erased my query about whether you're blatantly recruiting meatpuppets, I'll say this here: the majority seems to be against your point of view. If you feel there's a problem with that,

17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to dive into the whole history of this dispute you would see that I have already read that and done everything I feel I could do. But how can I reach a consensus when people wish to be ignorant and not answer points I raise and instead ignore me or sidetrack the issues. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this needs to be done the right way.

talk

) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the talk pages and see that the majority of the people involved feel that the current situation is the best compromise. You are the only one continuing to fight. Take it to mediation if you feel it hasn't worked, but continuing to edit war is not acceptable. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony - done, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No Uther not done and done. You have failed to unblock the IPs. Do I need to take action?!

talk

) 06:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I lifted the blocks on the IPs. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, Tony - it really looks like 3RR evasion, and since IP blocks have been discussed, I would say that semi-protection is in order. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And note that the only edits by both IPs have been edit-warring on these articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. They've made two and one edits on each article respectively; if they continue, an uninvolved admin can semiprotect. Uther is far too involved to be using his tools in this dispute. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction Guettarda, you mean to say have been reverting back to revision without hatnotes which were provided in wrong context.

talk

) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather, they have been undoing hatnotes that Cazique himeslf acknowledges improve the article but doesn't want in solely for his own ulterior motives. From Cazique's response to me on his talk page: "Yes I already aknowledgd the hatnotes were an improvement repeatedly but did not agree to have them in until a concensous was reached as they further strengthen Uther's redirect and make my redirect look less valid." I am pleased that the admins seem to be prepared to protect the integrity of these articles from the recent unproductive silliness.Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said a million times now! I am all for having hatnotes in the articles as they help the average joe, but only when used in the right context. Two sets of hatnotes were provided by both parties and should only be included once a consensus has been reached. The improper use of the strawpoll and your opinions based on an illogical reasoning are yet to do resolve this.

talk

) 06:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IPs aside, upon returning from his block (for edit warring, on this series of articles/redirects) Cazique returned to edit-warring on the same articles (his only post-block mainspace edits have been to these articles). The apparently sock/meatpuppetry aside, I think it would be reasonable to reblock based on his immediate resumption of the edit war that got him blocked. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to block you for disobeying wikipedia policies by not assuming good faith and acting incivilly. Don't become involved in a situation unless you are aware of all the facts.

talk

) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Cazique for 1 week (it's his fourth block in 11 days). Even after repeated attempts by several users to reason with him, he's still reverting to his preferred version of articles and categories, and leaving messages like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here could comment on this edit [21]. Someone keeps adding the word "terrorist" to the

02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Militant" does seem most appropriate, as the term "terrorist" is gone into in great detail just one or two paragraphs later in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, Badagani. However, my concern was with whether using the word terrorist here was vandalism, as per WP policy. Thoughts?

IronDuke

03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin opinion here: In this situation, "Terrorist" is not vandalism, per se, but rather, a possible NPOV violation, and repeated insertion definitely falls under

point-making. umrguy42

05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Umrguy42. It is extremely troubling to me the way people go throwing around the V-word for anything they disagree with. "Terrorist" is definitely not an ideal word to use in that particular sentence, and edit-warring is forbidden regardless of the circumstances. So that's all actionable. But calling it "vandalism" is unnecessarily inflammatory.

However, at the moment I personally would probably not bother to point this out to either side. As you may have noticed, the people who feel passionately about these issues, um, they get pissed off rather easily, and that goes for both sides. (See also, every freaking thing that has happened in that part of the world since 1946) I would just deal with the edit warring as it comes, and if the worst thing that happens is that a bad edit is incorrectly labeled as "vandalism", count yourself lucky. (Heh, although if the worst thing anyone says about Hamas is to use the word "terrorist" instead of "militant".... oh nevermind, I'm just not going to get involved! Anyway: Not vandalism, but is pov, and is edit-warring) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PoV, maybe even disruptive but not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This user has been consistently abusing Wikipedia for over six months, making numerous abusive edits, all of which are destructive in nature. Can we please perma-ban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweekly (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't perma-ban nor indef block IPs. He hasn't given even gotten a block. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i mislike how you instantly come here to try and have a user PERMANENTLY BANNED for an unspecific "abuse" without even bothering to give hi a

WP:ANI to be sumarily executed. That is why I went and gave hi ma welcome and I think we should wait before proceding with any bannings other than what the admins have deemed necesary. Smith Jones (talk

) 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As CWii says, we don't ever permanently ban IP addresses, because tomorrow it could be a different person. However, I'm a little surprised the volume of vandalism yesterday didn't result in a report to

WP:AIV

and a short block. That said, remember that our blocks are preventative, not punitive -- I would have reported the IP sooner, but since the IP stopped vandalizing anyway, the same goal was accomplished (and arguably, the way I would have handled it would have created unnecessary extra work for the admins). If the vandalism stops, the vandalism stops, whether it is via block or user boredom.

In any case, the proper thing to do if this resumes is issue a "final warning" to the talk page, and if the vandalism continues, report it to

WP:AIV. This is simple vandalism, and not even all that frequent, so there's no need for a report here. (P.S. Kudos on the welcome message, Smith Jones, all too often we are lax about that. Good show!) --Jaysweet (talk

) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

blacklist request

Resolved

based on this edit and a few others adding 'joehulk.com' to the page, i'm requesting that the site be blacklisted. there's nothing that will ever be useful at that site. It's a fan-made parody of a trailer for hulk, which involves defecation as a main theme. It's a copyright infringement, i'm sure, which we shouldn't be linking to. thanks. ThuranX (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 10:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We really need help at some place. On the Russians page. A long time ago after a long discussion it was decided that a one-piece collage will be created. You can see it here. It had no problems, and it was agreed. Then User:Melesse for a not understood and not explaned reason for her did this. She was explaned on her talk page that she hurts a concensus and that we prefer it as a one piece collage, and you can see it here. Yet she ignored it and without explanation insisted on this. I dont want an edit was to continue so please explane her that even thought she's an administrator Wikipedia is not her private property, and that she can't go against a concensus and she must have a discussion before doing something.

Note that i'm not the first complaning on her one-sided ignorant towards the editors actions.[22] [23] [24] [25]. Please get into this. MaIl89 (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't ignore acne, no matter how hard you try. You just have to outgrow it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP address

) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that they are editing in good faith, but don't understand the ground rules sufficiently. I also agree that their edits have been disruptive, and detrimental to the quality of several articles. Accordingly, I have now reverted several of the articles they have edited to earlier versions, warned them about copyright problems, asked them to read the other comments on their talk page, and called their attention to your comments here. I think they can now be regarded as having had their attention drawn to this behavior; if we don't see any improvements, and they don't follow policies from now on, policy enforcement will probably be necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a final warning on the user's page for continued page blanking after the last warning. If they continue their disruptive behavior after this, report them to

WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The similarity between their editing pattern and that of User:Johnny Spasm is also interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Seems likely to be User:Johnny Spasm, due to removal of copyright notices from images uploaded by that user and re-addition of them to articles. TigerShark (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The ref desks keep getting hit by what I presume to be spam bots. Semi-protection is the only effective thing we can do, but this method stops the many good faith IPs who ask and answer questions. Can we blacklist the site please? (AnonTalk dot com)

Also, here's the IPs (all blocked 24 hours for now but are probably open proxies):

• 193.194.89.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 212.77.215.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 200.201.8.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 87.249.59.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• 163.19.131.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Seraphim♥Whipp 11:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, having the Reference Desk semi-protected is really not good. As the IPs that have been used so far are blocked, can I suggest that we unprotect and watch? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The IP addresses change so rapidly that blocking has absolutely no effect. As you can see, 4 IP adresses were used in the space of under two minutes. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should try. 3 of the edits were actually from the same IP (193.194...) Having it semi-protected means that it is almost unused, because the vast majority of questions posted are from IPs or brand new accounts. TigerShark (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly against unprotecting for the now because the few hours of semi-protection have been successful in the past and was the only effective tool, but that's just my opinion. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus warrants. Hmm...better still, I'll temporarily add the url to the blacklist and then make a case for it to stay there. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, well you'll have my backing for that. Shall we try an unprotect and see what happens? TigerShark (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We can try... There's more eyes on it now anyway :). Seraphim♥Whipp 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) That's odd. Seems three versions of the link are already black listed o_0. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure is! OK, I unprotected it. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the URL blacklist has any effect on body-text-only versions of those URLs. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been running an adminbot since December or so that detects and deletes XRumer spam, then blocks the proxies that it's coming from. It should be pretty trivial for me to add a heuristic for this anontalk stuff, which I've been seeing for several weeks now. east.718 at 20:55, June 14, 2008

Any folks/admins doing new page patrol—please be on the lookout for newly-created articles on albums and singles with suspiciously far-off release dates and titles in the format Album(album) and Single(song) (no space). I've just deleted a proverbial metric shitload of articles clearly following the pattern of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer), with a few names changed in the body text; see Special:DeletedContributions/LLOVEU12345. The original hoax party, complete with navbox for all the articles, may be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move Your Body(song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thats How I do(song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Loose(album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waist Line(song), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The HITZ:Remix 09(album). Somebody has waaay too much time on their hands. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Arcayne (talk · contribs)

As reported at

) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So ask him about it. What administrative intervention is required here? I can see none. Bstone (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My asking, and indeed any communication I make with him, has led to me being fobbed off with accusations and patronism, as seen mostly on my talk page and

U-Mos (talk

) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... Arcayne has requested U-Mos not to post on his talkpage. Can U-Mos provide any diffs that indicate violation of WP policy? Otherwise, it is just a dispute that both parties should withdraw from or else seek resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with policies, so could not definitely say if he has specifically violated any. But I'd hazard a guess at ownership (refusing to take into account other people's PoV in

U-Mos (talk

) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see much evidence that dispute resolution has been tried here... you might want to look at
  keep cool! Cheers, --Ryan Delaney ^talk
  23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess one of the more frustrating parts of interacting with U-Mos (for me) is the fact that he likes arguing (and has admitted such in his talk page); however, when I disagree with him on policy, he charges OWNership and incivility, which is odd, since that is what I pointed out on his talk page that he runs the risk of having his edits perceived as.
I don't think I've broken any rules or guidelines in either my edits in Wikipedia or my interaction with U-Mos. I have been particularly careful in remaining polite, as this user seems to think that AN/I is his personal complaints department filing reports left and right. And I find myself concerned that someone might eventually think I am doing something wrong. Towards that end, I first asked, then reiterated and finally banned him from my talk page, cutting my interaction with him to a minimum. Some people you can work with, and U-Mos isn't one of those, when it comes to Doctor Who episodic articles. It's done his way, or the voice of dissent is "being disruptive" or trying to own the article. As repeatedly noted by a previous admin, it's mostly a matter of a 'large mouth and a thin skin'.
Perhaps he finds me adamant because the matters we disagree on are content issues, and some of the content centers around the addition of fan trivia and synthesis. U-Mos' largest edit-wars himself and complains that there is no consensus for keeping our synthesis policy intact for articles within the Doctor Who wikiproject. When I discuss the matter there, his sole complaint is that he 'doesn't like it.'. I have found that the best method to interact with this editor is to ban him from my user-talk page and then ignore him in article discussion. This means I don't respond to his repeated snipes in article discussion and elsewhere. I would prefer if the user would find someone else to bother, because I am quite frankly getting a bit tired of his abuse. When I explain my point of view, he dismisses them with 'i don't like it'-style comments that fail to address the meat of the explanation asked for, sort of a 'refusing to get the point' thing.
I am not sure that DR would be helpful. My attempts to generate an RfC were perceived by the user as disruptive and trollishness. Again, while I do not mind trying DR, I think the user perceives it as something other than what it is, and won't even try. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely ignoring the above post, which is almost entirely untrue, I had (as shown above) sought editor assistance for this matter. But as some ground is finally being made in the article, I felt that was the wrong place to put this. Basically, in the general spirit of improving experiences on Wikipedia, I would like Arcayne to realise that his manner in editing is unnaccepatble, and I'm sure he'd find people much more civil towards him if he treated them with respect (and starting comments with "with respect" doesn't count), maybe even as equals. I wasn't completely sure where to go with this issue, so if there is a better place please point me in its direction. Thanks.

U-Mos (talk

) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I would imagine that in the "general spirit of improving experiences on Wikipedia", perhaps saying that you are ignoring what people say while characterizing their words as "completely untrue" would be one of the first things to avoid. You get good faith and respect, and if you squander it by being rude and/or dismissive, you have to work that much harder to get it back, but that isn't the first time you have been told this. Perhaps my posts lack diplomacy in responding to your behavior, but not one whit of anything I have said is incorrect or uncivil. Perhaps looking at your own posting tone would help lead you to a better understanding of interacting with others. Until then, i would prefer if you would simply avoid my edits, please.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the disputes centres around one subject (

third opinion may be the first dispute resolution process to try. I suggest that you read the page and decide if it is suitable for both of you - that is, both parties need to agree to it. Having just one party review and comment upon the dispute is a far less drama generating process than the alternatives. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 12:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind tring that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone to

) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

- - :I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this guy blank the main page. And he only got a level 1? But he did self-revert it. Am I in the right place? Shapiros10 ^{Say "Hi"}_{My work} 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipediaclouds the brain". Hmmmm. Not good. Bstone (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops. He was already blocked and unblocked over it. This thread is useless now. Shapiros10 ^{Say "Hi"}_{My work} 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he claims his account was compromised. Eeps! Anyway, marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that [this] is considered vandalism rather than content dispute. All of the bands being removed included pop punk in their infobox. I requested that the user refrain from removing these bands, and have now begun issuing warnings as they have ignored my request. However, I just want to be sure that this unjustified removal of content is vandalism rather than content dispute, as I do not want to be blocked if I have to continue reverting this. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a content dispute, but it should be easily sorted out providing you can get consensus from other editors for the inclusive listing. Once you have consensus and the editor continues removing bands, then it is vandalism. As for the Blondie comment.... Eh? Not punk pop? Yeah, right! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I must admit, I am surprised at that. Surely as all these bands have been labeled as pop punk in their infobox (something that is decided upon by consensus itself), then they should be part of a list of pop punk bands. The user has since removed these bands again, and provided no reason, but just the edit summary "Stop tampering with something you know very little about". I have not reverted this, but I have restored the disambiguation links they removed. I am confused as to why consensus is required as to the inclusion of these bands when their genres are already agreed upon....? Nouse4aname (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Any good faith edit that is contested is a content dispute, even if the dispute is farcical (that New York is the capital of France, for example). It only becomes vandalism if the edits are made in bad faith (still claiming New York is the capital of France after being given appropriate references). The editor may well believe that Blondie was never punk pop, which is understandable if they are only aware of the US singles success, but wrong in context of their early gigs, first two albums and early UK singles hits or the mistaken belief that "punk" was only about a three chord thrash preceded by a call of "onetwothreefour!" (I presume the same misunderstanding relates to other disputed bands, but haven't checked). If, as I suggested, you can point the editor toward some references or discussion about what may or may not be considered punk, or pop punk, and they still persevere in removing bands without consensus then you have a claim for vandalism. I suggest finding those references and/or consensus, and discussing it with the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have taken the opportunity to tidy the list up somewhat, checking each and every link, and if there is no mention of pop punk, then I have removed them (I have however left bands that do not necessarily have pop punk, but have pop rock, power pop etc, which are similar). I have also disambiguated a large number of links, and invited the user to discuss any changes they think should be made. New York isn't the capital of France...? Well you learn something new everyday... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The

) 15:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it seems to be one of the templates or images on the page (I used my URL bar to get into it and try to figure it out) that is messing it up, but I'm not sure which one. MrPrada (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The image seems to be rotating, now its been replaced by a giant "Avril Lavine Rockz" drawing. MrPrada (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whoever fixed that, thanks. MrPrada (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • For future reference, it was this edit to
    Ɣ ɸ
    15:57, June 14, 2008 (UTC)

Strange goings-on

Resolved

 – Users Flyhead, Babba12 and Brandblusser indef blocked. Motofan blocked for 15 minutes and given a "this is your last chance" warning.

Hi. Last night, I got a friendly note from a new user,

talk

) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Flyhead indefinitely. He has received final warnings before and then made a recent edit to the Zulu article this morning. That sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Requesting review of block. Rudget (Help?) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would advise someone to check Motofan (talk · contribs) talk page too, that should deserve him a block, IMO. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In line with their focus of attention; I think the language they were communicating in was Afrikaans not Swedish. Rudget (Help?) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and thanks for the correction of the language. I thought Swedish or Dutch, but Afrikaans is based on Dutch, so there you have it. In the meantime, I think it's wise to let Brandblusser know what's up. --

talk

) 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's time to block Motofan as well. I just removed that damned Nazi symbol from his talk page; the edit stated that he's a "proud member of the
  talk
  ) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind for now. He just left nice word on my talk page regarding the use of English. I've advised him against the use of the symbol. His edits to F1 articles seem to be in good faith. --

talk

) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Flyhead has already reincarnated as Babba12 (talk · contribs) (blocked). Motofan has a number of minor sockpuppets including Brandblusser (talk · contribs) and needs a trout slap if he is going to be a productive editor. Thatcher 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. He's apologized for the AWB symbol on my talk pge - twice, in fact - and in reviewing his edits to F1-related articles, they all seem to be sincere and I'd like to assume good faith. I agree that some advice directly from an admin is in order. I'll go get the trout.  :) --

) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can be persuaded to overlook that twisted symbol in the spirit of "assume good faith", but am I the only one to be disturbed by his comment on his last revision of his user page? To wit: "I hate

kaffers!!!" The link & exclamation points are original -- he knows that kaffir is the South African version of "nigger". -- llywrch (talk

) 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Motofan for 1 minute: no need for a punitive block but I want to make sure that if he causes any more trouble, other admins will be aware of the history. He's been given multiple warnings for various problems and although he has indeed been a productive editor, there's no reason to tolerate this kind of thing. As far as I know, all other accounts mentioned in this thread are now indef blocked and I wholeheartedly endorse them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Thamarih has opened a new account to avoid a block. This is more than mere sockpuppetry.

On Talk:Juan Cole Thamarih was, probably, editing without logging in leaving his IP address open. This IP address is from Brisbane, NSW, Australia. The IP's edits and the logged-in edits were within a minute of each other.

This user has been blocked for a month for personal attacks, etc., on Talk:Ayahuasca. This is the fifth escalating block on this user.

Now, a brand new user User:Sunchief is editing on that talk page, and it's IP address is also from Australia. (Also, he was editing a few minutes before creating the account.)

This account, Sunchief, was created within 24 hours after the block on User:Thamarih went in, picked up the discussion right where it left off and went right back to reverting Ayahuasca:

Thamarih:

• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]

Sunchief:

• [32]

The IP addresses are different, but that's covered as easily as going to the next internet cafe. The coincidence seems too perfect, and the user has a demonstrated pattern of learning from their blocks.

MARussellPESE (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

is there a reason why you mentioned that they were both from australia? IP adresses are not necessarily allcoated by continent. i agree with you that Sunchief is probabl ya sock puppet or even a meat puppet. i recommend getting a WP:CHECKUSER to cover everything. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know Australia's a big place, but the DNS lookup on the second IP only said "Australia". If it had said "Sydney" or "Alice Springs" then a sockpuppet accusation would have been weakened. I've not used CHECKUSER, but the procedure seems quite involved and time-consuming. A real advantage regarding privacy, but a difficult tool to use in a timely fashion. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit alone is sufficient evidence. I have indefinitely blocked the sock account and will leave a warning on User talk:Thamarih. Further socking will result in an indefinite block of the master account. --jonny-mt 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahid Azal (2007-04-28) and compare the IP addresses in the deleted history? There's also SecretChiefs3 (talk · contribs). The main account appears to be Mr. Azal. For more backstory, see:[33]. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Almost certain. These various sockpuppets have been edit warring on Subh-i-Azal and Azali. (Not surprising considering he's claimed to be this obscure and defunct group's leader.) The Ayahuasca stuff has been relatively minor in comparison. His accusations of Baha'is stalking him notwithstanding, he certainly has no difficulty tracking down Baha'i editors on unrelated pages and launching unprovoked PAs. [34] [35] MARussellPESE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the anontalk spammer seems to be back, and has hit this page among others: [36] Can anything be done about this, for example by applying the spam blacklist to article content in order to catch text-only URLs, or by having a bot watch for this kind of vandalism? -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See section directly above. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now removed all the anontalk spam I can find using both the local search tool and Google. This is probably the best way to stop this spammer: if all their additions disappear shortly after being added, their efforts will be unproductive, and there's no incentive to continue them. Perhaps the rollback bots should be programmed to remove these edits on sight? -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That would work if it were a human spamming but I'm pretty sure those are bots. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If we required a captcha confirmation for adding certain blacklisted strings to Wikipedia, in the same way that we currently do for non-autoconfirmed users adding URLs, the spammer would need to expend a tiny bit of human effort for each edit. That, combined with zero economic advantage, should stop them. If we did this for not only the article content, but also the edit comments, that would also prevent several other kinds of bulk vandalism. -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

First part sounds good; it would definitely have an impact on bulk spam. Sounds like a proposal for

the village pump :). Seraphim♥Whipp

13:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now suggested this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems likely to be a real need soon, if not already. Seconded. —

talk

) 20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Come to that, the rollback bots should look at the URL blacklist in general, and attempt to spot textual versions of any of those URLs added to articles under suspicious circumstances... --- The Anome (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination), two users keep removing comments from users arguing in favor of keeping the article.[37][38][39][40][41] Can someone please keep an eye on it? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comments that seem to be removed are best suited for the talk page of the AfD as they stray off-topic. They were moved to the talk page and linked to. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

They were not in fact linked to, and I don't think the comments all strayed entirely. I wouldn't expect other editors or the closing admin to generally give the talk page much scrutiny, so I really think this was bad form. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Went ahead and closed discussion with a no consensus. Given that it was nominated for

04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with your assessment and decision to close, though I don't disagree that the outcome was headed for "no consensus". Your "Many voices for keep, a few for delete" comment is the exact opposite conclusion reached by the admin who closed the first AfD as they noted "18 delete, 5 delete and/or merge, 3 merge and 10 keep opinion". That's 26 to 10 in favour of delete or merge. Certainly that was within the parameters of no consensus, but are you sure you paid it enough due diligence in your closure? By closing it early and for reasons not related to the discussion, seems to invite a 3rd AfD and not squelch it as you may have intended. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I !voted for "merge", but I support the closure by Seicer. Remember, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion regarding whether the article should be deleted. There was no clear consensus in the discussion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I told you not to stop messing around with the consensus process.[42] Karma, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what karma is? You need to overcome avidya before you can recognize karma. I support the result of the close but an early closure will only accelerate the next AfD as those that nominate it will see AfD #2 as not being valid. If anything, Karma would be AfD #3 starting because AfD #2 was closed out-of-process because |of constructive, consensus building comments such as this which you refused to take to the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the closure by Seicer, as well. No doubt they will do another Afd in the next few weeks, after another review upholds it again. It follows the pattern to blank the section when it was in the Allegations article. Btw, the removal of my comments was just another form of desperation to suppress and bait, but to no avail. Sadly, we even see an admin, WMC, doing do: "G33 chatters endlessly. Its no surprise that people remove his comments. Feel free to report me William M. Connolley 21:24, 13 June 2008."[43] He then proceeds to remove my comment, supporting DHeywards edit-warring to remove my comments (and others):[44]

Notice my comment did not stray off topic in any way but dealt with the arguments for why deletion was not valid. It's the power of the argument, not the power of numbers that is paramount, so they felt a need to remove my argument. I did not report this, even though WMC told me to "report him." Better not to feed such negative attention seeking. But since this ANI thread was started by someone else, I thought comment here about it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I took into account the needless edit warring over valid and supportive comments -- per Speedy Keep. I've seen numerous AfD's where comments in favour or disfavour have been removed and moved to the never-visited talk page under the guise of off-topic, which seriously undermines the entire process. There was no overwhelming consensus on this AfD -- or any consensus, for that matter. If another AfD is filed within a brief period of time, then there is precedent to simply kill the recurring AfD as a bad faith nomination. seicer | talk | contribs 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

something we should perhaps be doing more often.DGG (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the historical revisionists would have preferred the war to drag out another year or so, instead of ending it immediately as the A-bomb did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=219134914

by this wonderful character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JJGD

they have already been blocked for 3 months on 2 occasions, perhaps 12 months or indef would be nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:JJGD

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked JJGD for one monthyear. I believe that any recurrence of similar behavior by JJGD should result in an indefinite block. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one? At this point I think a year or more is quite reasonable. Metros (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That user rolled a die, and came up empty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that a couple (related) users on the

15:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to talk to one of these people. As far as Commons goes, though, they're generally pretty good at weeding out copyvios. --jonny-mt 01:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Haereticorum (talk · contribs) has gone through a massive program of moving/redirecting Roman Catholic diocese and bishop articles to "Diocese of X" from "Roman Catholic Diocese of X". There has been much objection to this, especially since in many cities there are Anglican, Old Catholic, and various other bishoprics and dioceses (e.g. Diocese of Calgary, which I have made into a disambig over his redirection). It appears that he may be using some sort of bot, considering how quickly he is churning these out. Attempts to communicate with him have been rebuffed. I would request at least a temporary block, as we already have a massive project ahead of us to undo the damage he has already done. See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Roman Catholic Diocese of 'Foo' VS Diocese of 'Foo' Redirects. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The actions you describe happened more than three days ago; blocks are intended to prevent ongoing bad behaviour, and as no behaviour is happening, no block is warranted. Revert the moves if you feel it necessary. -- 87.114.23.84 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note that he needs to seek consensus if he wants to continue. These moves are obviously controversial so there should be discussion. KnightLago (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

happenning with GENIUS(4th power) (talk · contribs). Just malformed an RFA. Has been post somewhat abrupt warnings. Talks about deleting and blocking and maybe presenting self as an admin. Afraid I'm at work and haven't the time to present a thorough list of diff's. If someone could check and see. Cheers Dlohcierekim 22:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GENIUS(4th power). Yawn. -- 87.114.23.84 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say, this user does seem to be trying to pass himself off as an admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That along with this and this when users remain unblocked, and then there's this. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, im not trying to pass as an admin (trust me, i wouldnt even dare). Im just employing what power i have to help Wikipedia by doing what i can to stop vandalisers. ( Even if it means a fake block, just to warn them). Im sorry if i broke a couple of guidelines along the way, but i am doing my best to make sure harmful users cannopt harm Wikipedia any more. Again, me no Admin. Me Standard User who knows alot. Thanks for your time, though. Oh, and all this further demonstrates that as a simple user i can stop people from vandalising pages, imagine what i could do as an Admin! Wikipedia would forget the words "trouble","problems", and "vandalising". Please vouch for me, as you can see i want the best for Wikipedia. sincerely, ((Unknown) (User) —Preceding comment was added at 23:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Has already been blocked twice for disruption (last time was for a week). Blocked 31 hours, again for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Also, the RfA should probably be closed. GlassCobra 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To quote another administrator, "my Chris19910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) senses are tingling". Daniel (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very amazed by the unique way of this sockpuppeter. Two days ago, 60.42.252.111 (talk · contribs) was blocked for his violation on 5RR at Comfort women. Actually I don't have any content issue with him, but his massive deletion continued on several articles without any discussion or consensus such as Slavery in Japan, Japanese war crimes, very sensitive issues. Anyway, due to his massive deletion, I once restored his blanking at Comfort women and Slavery in Japan just like many other editors did do the same after the anon's blanking. Everybody told him to use "talk page if he has to address his concerns on the articles, and I also gave him a couple of warnings.

Today, after his block duration was expired, 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs) did the same thing on the same articles. Then, Blueshirts (talk · contribs) restored the deleted material. Their edit warring (both users claim that the other side is doing vandalism), And the anon filed 3RR report, but that means the anon violated more reversion, so I filed his 8RR violation at first. However, regardless other editors' interventions, the anon's reverting did not stop, so he reverted Comfort women page 11 times. However, the anon began accusing me and others doing meatpuppetry because everyone, except the anon are against the mass deletion. Anyway, the anon was blocked for 24 hours along with Blueshirt, but I think the block duration of the anon is too short, given that the he or she just got off from the previous block, then did the same disruptive behaviors.

After the anon blocked, another IP user with the same ISP,

. :D It is so funny that the four listed people seem to have no connection but accused by him because all object his unilateral deletion? I don't think sock can't edit any of articles during his block. His intention of filing SSP is not only a malicious, but also disruptive and blatant disregard toward wikirules. He insists that his unique "openness" does not meet the sockpuppetry and 3RR violation and block evasion. Well, I think the false SSP reported by the sockpuppeter during his block should be deleted, and the anon should be blocked longer due to his/her repeated disruptions. Given that the anon's weird behaviors, the deletion by him is not mere content dispute, so I think it would be suitable that Blueshirts's block be lifted from now. The sockpuppeter admitted his sockpuppetry, and you can see further info below.

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Caspian blue filed by the sockpuppeter
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse filed by me.

Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the SSP filing by User:Documentingabuse to be in bad faith. Per comments here and at the SSP case. Also, his user page redirected to IP 207.112.75.189, who earlier today made a death threat in a summary on the footnotes RFAR case. I blocked Documentingabuse indef and 207.112.75.189 three months and closed the SSP case. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

01:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place for this request, though. --Selket ^Talk 01:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This user is disruptive to the point that I'm not sure where to start with this report. Myself and others have been very patient with him and tried our best to continue to assume good faith regarding his edits. If you will take a quick look at his block log you will see he was first blocked indefinitely as a 'vandalism only' account, but then unblocked. Following the initial block he has been blocked multiple other times for edit warring mainly. The user refuses to heed warnings, and has been warned dozens of times by numerous editors including admins. His behavior is becoming increasingly worse on nearly a daily basis. I am going to list some diffs below of his most recent behavior to give an idea of what I am referring to. The user frequents only a handful of articles, but it is getting increasingly difficult for us to clean up after him. See his contributions, he has made almost no constructive edits to the mainspace. Here are a few examples of his disruptive behavior: [47] [48] [49] his response when asked to view policies [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Ok, to give you an idea of how bad this is, these edits are all in one day. These do not include the edit warring diffs since his last block, I also left out many personal attacks, etc. since the expiration of the last block. I hope I didn't make this too long. Anyone that doesn't want to pursue all these diffs should just take a look at

) 05:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the listed diffs as well as the general behavior of this editor, I have reinstated the indefinite block placed in the past. USEDfan has not improved or learned from past incidents, and I see no evidence s/he will ever learn. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I endorse a block. The user basically fits the definition of a disruptive editor. He seems to be completely unable to work on a collaborative project or work within our policies. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He has requested to be unblocked. I would appreciate another admin reviewing his request and responding as appropriate. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like your block has been reviewed and upheld.

Landon1980 (talk

) 07:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking administrator for two of his blocks, I am endorsing the indefinite block. One of the biggest pain in the asses to deal with, and his poor communication styles makes it near impossible to have discourse effectively with him. His "I do no wrong" interpretations of core policies, such as

11:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Make sure that this is not

04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

202.27.219.186

Resolved

Can someone investigate this user for their edits to the article on Sue Bradford? All three of them appear to be vandalism. Bactoid (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked on June 12 for a week. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Some input: Does the above user warrant a block? The user has edit warred a lot on John McCain against several other users, including past a final warning on the bottom of his talk page. This is ignoring a bit of POV pushing that went on too with all the edits the user wished to put in: (e.g., [58] [59] [60]). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Long thread over 50k moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Kelly block review. D.M.N. (talk)

Marked as resolved. See User talk:Kylu#Olive branch. Other specific or general or secondary aspects can be resolved elsewhere. Adding date stamp to allow archiving. Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing drive to insert poorly sourced, negatively oriented material over on Zakir Naik, which is a BLP.

The main disruptive behaviour is coming from Agnistus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has been edit warring to reinsert the contentious and poorly sourced material in question (sourced to video sharing websites, wordpress blogs, and so on).[61][62] [63][64] He was warned about 3RR, after which he solicited meatpuppets to game the rule and ensure that the unencyclopedic material remained ("I will ask my friend to revert your edit as soon as he can"). This was in the form of a newly created single purpose account, GajendraAgarwal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who reverted to restore the material without explanation or discussion.[65][66][67]

Now that sufficient time has elapsed, Agnistus has returned to restoring the dubious material. He has repeatedly refused to provide any form of secondary reliable sourcing, and has rejected requests to stop reinserting the material. I believe a block is warranted for this unyielding disruption - not to mention the attempts to ensure the poorly sourced content remains on a BLP through solicitation.

20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:GajendraAgarwal as a blatant sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agnistus has now been properly warned. If the behaviour continues then take it to WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look and comment on this discussion regarding ANI subpages. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

On the article Gender of God, user Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · logs) is disruptively editing the lead text [68] and introducing grammatical clumsiness and discord with the title (and therefore implied subject) of the article. Specifically: He is changing "God is a central figure of many religions" to " God or gods are a central feature of many religions", ignoring the fact that the article is specific to God. While I believe he has good intentions, I also believe he has shown enormous stubbornness and refusal to entertain alternate views, and that this is harming the article. Rather than discuss the matter with me, he persistently accuses me of trolling [69], or simply reverts my edits without comment [70][71].

Additionally, the editor is using the talk page as a forum [72]. Since the content in question - part of a personal conversation with another editor - is so long and so clearly unrelated to improving the article, I removed it and urged Alastair to take the conversation to the user's talk page [73]. He immediately reverted this, and shortly started a WQA against me [74], which ended with another editor agreeing that the material is in violation of WP:TALK [75]. Despite this, Alastair has continued to revert its removal [76], insisting that he will do so until he is convinced of his being wrong and until somebody asks him politely to remove it [77]. Ilkali (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there are two issues:

• Gender of God edits, which seem to be in good faith and probably legitimate.
• Talk page discussion which should be moved to user talk per WQA. I will leave a message on the talk page to this effect.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good summary Toddst1.

Two comments.

1. Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits. Ilkali is the most assertive editor I've ever encountered in two years at Wiki. It was his persistence in reverting stable text, and refusal to accept criticism of his arguments that lead to me raising a WQA for the first time in two years. He has stopped both now, so I'm satisfied.
2. Regarding the talk page discussion, I disagree with moving it, until the edit history and talk page archives of the article are restored from God and gender, and hence the matter can be considered properly. Specifically, discussion of "transcendence" and "imminence" are relevant to God and gender in Christian theology, not simply to Andowney and myself. Discussion of a feminine Holy Spirit is extremely marginal in reliable sources regarding Christian theology, however, at this page it has been the focus of both nearly all article volatility and talk page discussion for two years. Since it often ends up being me and all reliable sources against a random number of editors seeking higher prominence for a feminine Holy Spirit, I claim any text I provide on the subject is important to documenting issues and addressing concerns critical to the reliability of the page. If you wish to pursue the matter, by all means involve as many people as you like and, when you're ready, present both a rationale and a proposal at my talk page, and I will consider it. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally find a talk page comment that purports to help people to find "a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love" to be not only completely irrelevant to the process of building an encyclopedia based on the principles of

WP:NOR

; but also somewhat personally offensive and irritating.

I have no comment about the content dispute, but the talk page comment has got to stay gone. It is not helpful in the slightest. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ilkali misrepresents facts that can be reconstructed by painstaking checking of times of edits". Where are the diffs? Where is the evidence?

You are stubbornly insisting on a version of the article that is blatantly at odds with its title. Your claim is that "This article has always been about the way people view the gender of the deities of their religions". No it isn't. It is about the gender of God. That's why it's called 'Gender of God'. Entities that are not God are patently irrelevant. If you want the article to be about deities in general - and I'm not opposed to that - then what's needed is a change of title. Are you willing to consider changing the title? Ilkali (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I attempted to solve the gender of god problem by a new neutral lead that avoided the god/gods question and concentrated on the
  Abtract (talk
  ) 09:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to others: Alastair's new lead is being discussed here, where Alastair has pledged to edit war over it until somebody convinces him that something else is better ("If I think something I post is relevant, I will revert back to it, unless a polite and good case is made for something else"). Ilkali (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has serious issues, and the ongoing arguments with this one user are a distraction from the observation that this article should not even exist. It began as a narrow discussion of the Abrahamist religions, focusing on the idea of a single God. As soon as Hinduism was brought into it [78] two years ago the shape of the article changed dramatically, and led to this current conflict. Once the door was open to polytheism, the whole point of the article crumbled, and the controversial user, aside from his methods, was perfectly fair to bring in "god or gods" in the lead. In fact, the article's original purpose appears to be some kind of POV push about the maleness or femaleness of the Abrahamist God in reference to feminism. With polytheism, you have gods and goddesses, hence no gender issues at all, so why is that stuff even in the article? As I see it, this article is nothing more than a POV fork from the main article of the monotheistic concept of God, and should be scrapped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note people. You're falling for the oldest trick in the book. Ilkali is not a contributor at Wiki yet. We only know of him because he has been rude to me, edit warred, and is continuing to make trouble, by slandering me here. I expect apologies. Take your time, get it right, and the next you'll hear from me is an acceptance of Ilkali's apology.

Please note, this topic is about my character as an editor at Wiki, not about the article. I have no responsibility in this thread, I have nothing to defend. It is the responsibility of anyone commenting here to take very seriously any accusation against an editor. Stay on topic, and get it cleared up quick smart. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that the original intent of the article was one thing, and the introduction of polytheism to the article muddied it considerably, and that changing the lead paragraph to "god or gods" is perfectly acceptable within the blurry parameters of the article as it currently stnads. In short, this is really a content dispute disguised as a complaint about a user. How about if someone were to remove every reference to polytheism? Would that be considered edit-warring? Or would it return the article to its original purpose and put an end to all this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The situation is getting ridiculous. See Alastair's two recent edits to Talk:Gender of God, in which he 'warns' Abtract for labelling Alastair's text as unreferenced [79], and demands that both of us remove our comments on his version of the article [80]. We are dealing here with an impossible editor who views any criticism as a personal attack and considers himself the sole arbiter of what content can be included in the page, explicitly rejecting other editors' opinions ("Sources and content are welcome, opinions, at this stage are not") [81]. Ilkali (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think we are dealing with an unstable man here who needs to be banned forthwith. His comments are increasingly aggressive and nasty ... see
  Abtract (talk
  ) 16:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you're right, I don't know. Meanwhile, I'm thinking of posting an AFD on that article or else scaling it back to strictly the Abrahamist God, which is what its focus was intended to be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lets start this over again

Can you two put one, short paragraph explaining what exactly the problem is? Include diffs so that we can verify your account of events and see if anything needs to be done. Be aware that if you are primarily experiencing a content dispute, there won't be much that can be done via this board. Disputes don't get resolved here, and this is not the place to continue your arguments.

02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I was succinct regarding the nature of the incident in my first report; all subsequent posts were in response to User:Caspian blue's rebuttals. It is by no means a content dispute as the text was already sourced; the essence of the incident report (and attention requested from skilled admins) is that User:Caspian blue nearly always resorts to blanking of text rather than the addition of "fact" tags or the use of Discussion pages. Reversion of such blanking simply leads to blocks for "edit warring" but it is unclear why the editor reverting the blanking receives blocks, whereas the editor who is known particularly for such blanking does not, as a rule. I do think it would be helpful if the admins attending to this incident would read the above text and look at the article in question. The blanking is clearly visible in the history. Badagnani (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This matter is very simple. Badagnani (talk · contribs) who just got off from his 48 days block sanction after his 3RR violation and falsely accusing others vandals at Korean cuisine, returned to initiate an edit war to back up his original research at Seolleongtang. I've put up with his habitual hostile comments "blanking" for a long time because his claim has no reliable source on an incorrect usage of Chinese character referring to the dish, but just has google bare results (which he claims that it is proper citation. you can see what they are above, the longest google links) without any confirmation. However, he maliciously reported here. I think the user has not be allowed to edit any of Korean cuisine related articles due to his habitually introducing original research. His recent block was in the same line. "1) The edits you reverted were not blanking, they were deletions of comments you added to the article and are not covered by the exception for simple vandalism." commented by two admins. Besides, I used discussion page, and he lied about my editing. That is nothing but personal attack. He did not even confirm that his google result links are actually relevant and reliable until I said him to search. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - Good enough. Wait for some review based on that, please.

02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As with this incident, I had been reverting simple disruptive,

WP:POINT blanking of text, and did not exceed three reverts. Badagnani (talk

) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s problem is always circulating as below

1. He created or edited an article relating Korean cuisine with no reference
2. Then he put hidden comments onto the article which would be only shown to people who're willing to edit the article in future, but generally the hidden remarks do not get any attention or cause an irritation. Several people told him to write his question at talk page, and he keeps refusing.
3. Somebody edits one of his interested articles. Even if the edit was with reliable citations, the edit is against Badagnani's firm belief, and then Badagani restored the deleted false information
4. Naturally, the new person who fixed the article aske why Badagnani reverted to the previous wrong version with incorrect info.
5. I usually intervene and check newly added citations and search for more info from Korean cites (English information on Korean cuisine is limited), so implement the disputed contents with citations
6. Regardless, in many cases, Badaganani insists on including his original research, but I or others request him to provide reliable sources. But he added bare google results claiming as "reliabe source" (see also yukgaejang article)
7. If I or other removed the unconfirmed links and unsourced claim, he calls me or others "blanking highly important info", "disruptive" and gives absurd vandalism/blanking warnings.
8. Or he urges me or others to find more info and to confirm links from the google results to back up his claim, because he CAN NOT read Korean, nor has EATen the related dishes.
9. I tended to implemented per his request but begin to refuse because he can easily find needed sources or created articles he needs, but he always defers to me or others.
10. Revert warring with him is totally wasting of my time per my experience with him, so generally I or others just give up and let him do as he's satisfied with.
11. Finally, he filed this false and bad-faith report to justify his original research. I think he is the one who gets a proper saction because his recent two blocks are all related to his insistence of "blanking". --Caspian blue (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin above had asked that we be succinct. The incident report is about User:Caspian blue's choice to repeatedly blank sourced text rather than edit in a thoughtful, collegial manner, first using "fact" tags and Discussion before engaging in such repeated blanking. Badagnani (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not an incident, but Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s malicious false report to justify his unconfirmed claim. His recent two blocks are all related to his false accusations to editors of "blanking information" which are all original research or his hidden comments. Even Badagnani's problem is actively shown at Talk:Korean cuisine#Use of pedigree dogs as well. Whenever I edit, I use reliable sources, unlike Badagnani. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, or political forum. I use discussion pages more than enough whenever {User|Badagnani}} introduces false information or inquisitively asks questions on info that he could easily find sources from even English sources. Badagnani (talk · contribs)'s blatant disregard against consensus and personal attacks worry a lot of people as well. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually tend to not get involved with controversial conversations about editors, but I believe that the accusations toward

) 04:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin had asked that we be succinct. It would be best if you would from now on edit in a collegial manner rather than attack other contributors. I did introduce editing comments into articles, always in the sense of asking questions regarding wording, grammar, or content that needed to be clarified by editors with more expertise than I, and I don't believe it was proper to remove all of them summarily in a

WP:POINT action, as was done repeatedly. However, the subject of this incident is the repeated blanking of sourced text, at Seolleongtang, by User:Caspian blue. Badagnani (talk

) 04:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment of User:Tanner-Christopher, he became involved here due following a solicitation from User:Caspian blue. This user apparently does not like my editing, as he has frequently made negative comments about me on various pages over a period of months. Regarding civility, in reviewing User:Caspian blue's comments and edit summaries, do you believe them to be more civil than mine? If so, by what criteria? Regarding the bias I am accused of having, what might that presumed bias be? Badagnani (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, zh.wikipeida.org/article name becomes a properly sourced material? Badagnani should read

WP:TROLL which ironically you referred to the above.--Caspian blue (talk

) 05:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin above had asked that we be succinct in our comments here. This incident report is about User:Caspian blue's choice to repeatedly blank sourced text before (or instead of) using "fact" tags or discussion pages, as well as his failure to edit in a collegial manner. It appears that from such inflammatory comments as appear above that he believes "the best defense is a good offense." Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, who said

WP:TROLL first? Who reported this with false and insulting title? (edit war was initiated by you, not me), You've stalked me, that is too clear. When I asked PC78 about marmite, you followed me even though I said that I would not talk with you again after your perosnal attacks on me. Whenever I edit or created articles, you followed me, even though you did not edit one single time to the articles. I'm saying fact about your behaviors. --Caspian blue (talk

) 05:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents from my dealings with Bdagnani on the Korean cuisine article::

1. Badagnani often violates the policies of WP, including
   WP:3R
   , this can be seen in his edit history and postings on various talk pages
2. He has numerously violated the tennants of
   WP:NPOV
   by including information that uses cites that are inherently biased, eg PETA, without providing a couter point as required.
3. When another contributor makes a good faith edit and removes/changes or corrects his edits, he will undo those edits while leaving a incindiary comment like Reverting blanking or vandalism from disruptive editor.
4. He will abuse the warning tags on the contributors page, which I believe is his attempt to compile "evidence" of the other editor "wrong doings"
5. He will often disregard consensus for his own opinions as t what is right and ingor the contributions of others.

This is from my personal dealings with him as well as looking into other articles in which he has had dealing with. He has been blocked six times for edit warring on several articles and was one of the primary parties involved in a full fledged nuclear exchange edit war that had the korean cusine article locked down for 28 days last year. It is my personal belief that he is retaliating against Caspian Blue for a comment left on the Korean cuisine talk page asking other editors to please respect the consensus that has recently developed.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This comment would be fine were the subject of this incident report not the editing behavior of User:Caspian blue. Please provide diffs and discuss the actual, carefully specified behavior of that editor, as regards the article under discussion. Badagnani (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Returning to this per a comment elsewhere by Caspian blue - I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was, personally, going to make a judgment of some sort about this case. My opinion based on a review of your short statements is that what you have is, at base, a content dispute with a minor behavior element. You're both aware that claims in an article, particularly if they are disputed, need to be supported by reliable references (that is, a specific reference and not a search result). Additionally it appears you both realize that edit warring (even slowly, without breaching 3RR) is disruptive to the collaborative editing process. If you can't settle this dispute between you (and you should be able to come to a compromise, if you have a discussion about the issue committed to the idea that no one will solve your dispute for you) then your next steps are within the

17:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thirusivaperur

19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, dba is trying to kill an enemy. He is not able to accept certain references claiming Tamil related things. Instead he tries to push the Indo-Aryan languages! --Thirusivaperur (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider starting an

IronDuke

23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Soon after dab posted this, he exceeded 3RR and earned himself a 24 hour block. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the Wordhawk warning that names Robert Knilands. I did not create this account, and your failure to ascertain this fact before posting a name is simple ignorance.

Please take care of this problem immediately. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.179.82 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm User:Wordhawk was warned for creating an article about the person you mentioned above. It does not assert that it is the person mentioned above. I'm a little confused by the reasoning...care to explain a little more?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The deleted article was an attack page but I too am befuddled by this request. The IP has been warned about unhelpful edits to another article, Billy Idol. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, both Wordhawk and the IP had vandalized (may not have been the current user of the address) over a year ago. So any reason why administrator intervention is required now :S?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to do something that is maybe mildly out of process here, so anyone feel free to revert me if you think this is inappropriate.

The IP is basically implying he is the person about whom the attack page was created, and although his complaint is confusing, he just seems to have a problem with the warning including his real name. I think I can understand that... It might be upsetting to the person to see their real name used in a negative context, even if it is not critical of them.

Since Wordhawk is apparently an inactive account (with no non-deleted contribs even!), and since User talk:Wordhawk is nothing but stale warnings, I don't see a problem with a courtesy blanking of the talk page. I am doing so now. If anybody feels this is too far out of process, feel free to revert me. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, good idea. Marked as resolved.

龱

16:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now you've removed the relevant part, but then you've added all of this, still with no proof of anything, other than an IP address linked to pages I've never seen. "13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo?" Could not care less.

You guys really need to set up a better system. Right now, you're archiving baseless accusations for issues I have no knowledge of. Somehow this needs to be cleaned up, fast.

I recently have had my attention directed to this article, where there is an edit war going on this article and a rather heated discussion on the talk page, regarding Scotland's status as a "Country" or a "Constituent Country". With the abnomrmally high amount of heat and edit warring being done by IP's here, we may have one or more people using IP's to inflate their opinion. I've protected the page for a couple of days, but if anyone has any suggestions on individuals who may have broken Wikipedia Policies, or a way to go forward on this, I would appreciate it. SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend at least a 1-week protection. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They all seem to have come out of the woodwork, and I have my suspicions as I mentioned on SirFozzies talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could I point out this diff. It makes me suspect that

) 22:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, I've succesfully edited England, Wales and Northern Ireland to what I think is a neutral, accurate and consistent version, of "W/E/NI is part of the United Kingdom, as a country within a country". It has held for a few minutes, so I claim consensus, and request Scotland be unprotected so I can go 4 for 4. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mick, your changes have been reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue is a complete joke. It's laughable it realy is. I fail to see what is wrong with my version, but apparently "stability" (i.e. no arguing for the last few hours) is what justifies having England as a country, Wales and NI as constituent countries, and Scotland as we see here, as god knows what. No one will ever be able to argue against the above version because it is factually correct, leaving 'ner ner ner you don't have consensus' as the only get out for reverting. Some people just weren't born with the sense they were given realy, responses of the sort 'seek consensus on the talk page first', given the history of these articles, is patently a complete piss take in the face of anyone who proposes a solution. You might as well say to someone, solve the middle east problem. I was 100% confident that I would be reverted, I would have bet my life savings on it, but sometimes you just have to show stupidity for what it is. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And apparently I am 'bothering' the user that mass reverted the version above that people had 10 minutes to comment on, by asking him what is wrong with that version. Anyway, all four countries are now dutifully back to the status quo, a contradictory and permanently disputed mess. MickMacNee (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

See here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome 'Mick' to the articles England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland. There you'll find, consistancy is a dirty motive. Trust me, I know. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This new user is adding perjoritive labels to several BLP articles, and reverting back almost immediately. I have warned but to no avail.

A quick look at his history tells the tale. A short block may be in order. Anonymous history, seems like they are the same person. Arzel (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you consider it "perjoritive" to call someone right-leaning or right-wing? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly consider it pejorative if someone called me "right-wing", and some of the subjects of these BLPs might feel the same way (I haven't checked through them so can't comment on whether they would). It certainly isn't worthy of inclusion unless that person clearly falls under that description. Black Kite 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most people would, left or right. Conservative/Republican or Liberal/Democrat (Progressive if you will), are generally considered the proper way to label those that classify themselves as such. My experience has been that it best not to label someone along these lines unless they self-identify as such. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to and didn't. Arzel (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this really how we deal with new users? Is this really require a thread in AN/I? Perhaps one of you might take the time to explain the problem to this new user instead of immediately threatening him/her with a block. The edits are inappropriate, but hardly ones that require administrative intervention, just a gentle bit of explaining about how we do things. Please read

) 06:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of additions Nick326 should work on: (1) instead of "left-wing" or "right-wing" as standalone words, write it as left-wing or right-wing, i.e. with the links to the discussions of those terms; and (2) find valid sources that actually affirm that they are what he says they are - either their own words, or someone else's. It is not wikipedia editors' place to pass that judgment, especially as judgments can be slippery. I consider myself a liberal, yet I agree with Pat Buchanan on some issues. And how would they classify John McCain? Most liberals likely think of him as a conservative. Many conservatives think of him as liberal. Labels are slippery and misleading. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

At the

) 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist. If it continues then semi-protection should be considered. Kevin (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the external link a reliable source? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this blog and the individual responsible for it, has had some press coverage:

• Reuters
• Asia Times Online
• IPS News

Just raising this fact for information to assist with a decision here. TigerShark (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Those links seem reliable, should someone wish to add something on the arrest, but the blog is not a reliable source in an article about the judge, and should not be there as a bare link without any commentary. Kevin (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My concern is that the complainer is raising the wrong issue. He's claiming it's defamatory and "contempt of court agenda", whatever that means. That stuff doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is whether the source is a valid wikipedia source. The wording of the complaint sounds more like something smacking of "censorship". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. I considered adding the accusations of bias based on the press coverage above, but I have concerns about

undue weight given that even 2 sentences would overwhelm the rest of the article. Kevin (talk

) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not censorship. Saying that a court is a "kangaroo court" is a very serious allegation. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked if the source is usable in wikipedia. It's not wikipedia editors' place to worry about whether some judge might be offended by having his proceedings called a "kangaroo court". What matters is whether the charge has been leveled by a reliable source and could have some legitimacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment from my talk page follows. Let's try to keep this all in one place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not censorship -- I understand the distinction between censorship and countering defamation, thank you. Impugning the integrity of a state's judiciary without any basis is a very serious offence in all countries. It is called contempt of court, and there is nothing I can find in Wikipedia policies that states that no censorship = let all allegations fly. Of course, you are right to say that there is an issue of reliability of sources, but I have already stated so in my complaint that RS was an issue. Chensiyuan (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "the user is perpetrating a defamatory and contempt of court agenda" doesn't necessarily argue that it's an unreliable source. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As TigerShark points out, the link by itself [91] might not be a valid wikipedia source normally, but the fact that this is a citable news story elevates the blog to a usable reference, so that the reader can see what he actually said, in addition to what the commentators in those news sources are saying. The news sources themselves obviously should also be used, not just the blog. I would think all of those links belong in a separate section about this particular case, rather than as a standalone external link. Wikipedia need not be concerned about what the judge thinks of the case or the blogger. Wikipedia should follow its standards in reporting stories like these. Then, I think, this issue goes away. P.S. There's an old American adage that the Singaporean plaintiffs might want to bear in mind - "Never sue - they might prove it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a blog. Prima facie, some doubt is cast. Upon a perusal of the blog it's apparent there are problems citing it as an appropriate link. Chief amongst which, in my view, is that the contents are highly problematic. Laws pertaining to defamation and contempt of court exist not to censor opinion, but exist to protect the rights of individuals' whose integrity are impugned. What I've been saying all along is that the adding of the link is a backdoor attempt to promote opinions that would violate laws in any country that has the rule of law. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just read your last entry. But there is a difference between citing the blog entry as a "commentary" (as the anon is doing) and citing the entry as the reason why the blogger was charged in court (which was why the blog and blogger received news coverage). Chensiyuan (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. The link by itself is not a normal wikipedia source, and sticking it in there with a seemingly-neutral title is obvious POV-pushing. The news stories talk about this guy's arrest (which I assume he had expected to happen, unless he's an idiot), so if the story is notable enough to be discussed in the article in question (or in some other article, such as Singaporean politics), then the original blog should be linked also, so that the reader can see it unfiltered. Whether it's a notable story or not is a wikipedian editorial decision. And don't confuse Singapore with America. Considering the kind of stuff that's said about our leaders all day every day, a blog like that in the USA would go practically unnoticed. Criticism of leaders and other public figures is an established American tradition, and defamation is nearly impossible to prove in court. Not so in Singapore, apparently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything you said before "And don't confuse" I can accept. But we should not be discussing the merits of either jurisdiction's defamation laws here as they are irrelevant (don't worry, I'm not confused. I know some American law; spent years reading them qua law student). That would be our own private conversation. What is established and relevant is that

WP:BLP is very clear that one has to err on the side of conservativeness -- the very language of the policy itself. Chensiyuan (talk

) 12:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I can discuss anything I want to here. Better you should see what my views on things are, than not. But that does not prevent fair and balanced presentation in an article. I say again, if this is a legitimate news story, all the facts should be out there and not censored. If the guy was arrested for defamation, then the reader has the right to see exactly what he said that is alleged to be defamation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I rest my case. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So you have no objection to listing the link, as long as the news-story links are there also? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would probably say it this way. Someone with a better gift of gab could elaborate: "An American blogger has been arrested in Singapore (Reuters, Asia Times Online, IPS News) for alleged defamation of character against the judge, due to comments [92] accusing the judge of conducting a 'kangaroo court' in a recent case." That states the facts and let's the reader form an opinion, if he wants to, as to the merits of the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would especially be inclined to post it that way if the original poster tries it again. If he reverts it, then you've got him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, he was held in contempt of court, and accordingly was jailed for contempt, not defamation. But the fact that an anon has persisted in trying to divert readers to the blog's comments (which were potentially defamatory) was where the rub was. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If it gets posted again, and if I catch it, I'll counter with my version above. Or you could. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Has the user at the IP address 69.19.14.18 been discussed on these boards before? Apparently he/she has a long history of adding false information on biographies of living persons and television shows. Among his/her most recent acts is to claim that actress

) 13:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We typically don't put long-term blocks on IP addresses, because they might be shared by multiple users and there's no way of knowing if it's the same person doing the vandalism. Tomorrow, a very productive good faith editor could get assigned that IP address.

However, in this particular case, therei s recognition that a range of IP addresses assigned to

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/69.19.14.xx

.

Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please protect this guy's user page from vandalism? I've made a request at

17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel Pepys is currently cleaning up a category which lists broken refs (Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting). Unfortunately, this category lists many people's sandboxes, which Samuel "fixes" as well. Samuel has been told by several people to stop this behavior because it is messing with their work, but Samuel ignores this advice, claiming that userspace belongs to wikipedia and not individual users. If admins consider his behavior right, I'll immediately drop this issue, but I really do not want to cleanup after cleanup-ers because my work-in-progress temporarily shows up in a hidden cleanup cat. Not to mention that his edits spam edit histories and watchlists (see e.g. this). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have complied with individual users wishes not to edit their particular user space, which according to

WP:USER is a community page and not user owned. These pages were listed in a cleanup category Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting --Samuel Pepys (talk

) 09:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that it is polite for people whose userspace pages appear in such categories to do the edits needed to remove the pages from those categories. If the user is inactive, just fix the pages. If they are around, leave them a message. If it is very minor, fix anyway, rather than annoy them with a message. Unless you think they will be more annoyed by the fixing! Either way, no-one should get too upset about this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

... or developers can change <ref> so that the cleanup cat only gets added when the article is in mainspace. I don't know whom to approach though. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Carcharoth, your position does make some sense, but I suggest having a short look at Samuel Pepys' conversations with those who complained. (They are here, not where you'd expect them.) There are often valid reasons why the pages are the way they are, so they don't need any "fixing". (If anything, the automatic category should be fixed so it ignores user pages.) And I must say that several things about this user ring alarm bells with me. I suggest not to delete the subpage to which he redirected his talk page, should he request it, to preserve at least some transparency about this "new" user's first clashes with the community. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is something inflammatory or other rule violation in a user's "sandbox" or their talk page or user page, other editors shouldn't be messing with them. That sort of work should be confined to actual articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that many editors are leaving their ref tags in error so that they can find what they cited as they go, opening references to check things, or to use as crib notes for working on a mainspace article. I see no valid reason for Samuel Pepys' actions in the name of depopulating the category. he should instead continue to focus on the mainsapce, which clearly has a large number of candidates for fixing. ThuranX (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel, you need to stop editing works in progress found in userspace. Focus your efforts on problems in mainspace, there are plenty. Many, many users have asked you to stop and provided you with more than sufficient rationales. Whether userspace belongs to them or to the community is really irrelevant - its set aside for their use, they are using it and you should leave them to it. Not to mention - who cares about broken refs in userspace?

12:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He's factually correct in that all pages belong to the community, which is why rules against personal attacks and such can be enforced there. He's also in gross violation of wiki-etiquette, and should cease and desist, immediately. I could see a place for his work though, as someone might actually like some help with formatting. Maybe he could make himself available for voluntary help in fixing formatting. That's something *I* could use sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As many others say on the talkpage, I strongly suspect this is an unauthorised bot; I can't imagine any human editor making this edit for example. – 

iridescent

20:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Per his contrib list, it looks like he's not stopping nor responding. block time? ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a brief (few minutes) block until he comes here to discuss this, since aside from the post at the top he appears to be ignoring this. – 

iridescent

22:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He redirected his talk page to User talk:Samuel Pepys/talk, meaning he doesn't see new messages. I'm not sure why or what the details are, since both pages have recent history. --NE2 21:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly if he's using AWB, which (intentionally) freezes whenever you get the yellow bar? – 

iridescent

21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He was "infinitely" (if not longer) blocked at 20:46 UTC. So far, not a Pepys from him in protest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that his talk page redirect be reverted, as it clearly is a dodge of the numerous notifications about his actions. ThuranX (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a likely sockpuppet of

talk · contribs) / 68.209.2.187 (talk · contribs) / 207.235.64.30 (talk · contribs) / 70.11.244.78 (talk · contribs) (started editing right after Lemmey got blocked and is running a fork of their bot). I'm going hunt down a checkuser just to be safe though... east.718 at 22:26, June 15, 2008

Terrorism threat

Hi all. I hesitated to post this, because it's probably a steaming pile of BS- but on the off chance that there might be some plausibility to it, I figured I'd bring this edit by 124.188.250.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to people's attention. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it could be someone after attention since the IP is from an Australian ISP. Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm sure terrorists would post their intentions on wikipedia. At least this is a little more creative than the "I'm gonna kill u dude" stuff that appears from time to time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Report it to the authorities. They may have even read our 'secret' documents that went missing on the train(s).... Rudget (logs) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll doubt the Aussie police would have seen the 'secret' documents. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, how often do the Aussie police request the 'secret documents'? How come I haven't seen them ;). I do think it would be wise to go ahead and report this, just FYI.

^SPEAK!!

13:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Best to report it to how though? Australian Federal Police (Since it's an Aussie IP) or UK police? Bidgee (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt a bomb would hurt the city much, due to the tons of padding. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubber or Foam? Bidgee (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever was popular in 1056. Although, come to think of it, it didn't deter the Normans, did it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the Metropolitan Police. Rudget (logs) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<ec>I would say that it should be reported to the UK authorities, since that's where the threat's directed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. I would have gone with the AFP above. I think that they are equal to our FBI?

^SPEAK!!

13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yep the AFP is the equal to the FBI in the US. Bidgee (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) And now that Rudget's reported it to the appropriate UK authorities (the London Metropolitan Police), presumably giving them a permalink to the diff, I'd say it's time for

WP:RBI to come into play and someone to mark this as Resolved. Rdfox 76 (talk

) 13:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to report it, maybe report it to both, and let them work it out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO it should go to the AFP as well.

^SPEAK!!

13:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AFP don't treat bomb threats lightly! Just ask those who have said the word 'bomb' on Aircraft in Australia (and no I'm not that stupid to say it!)! Bidgee (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like the poor guy who walked onto a plane, recognized a friend and yelled, "Hi, Jack!" He's currently awaiting trial. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the AFP be contacted by the Met if there was anything further needed doing? Rudget (logs) 13:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rather be safe and report to both.

^SPEAK!!

13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Don't make assumptions. If I make a 911 call, and someone else has already done so, they might tell me that, but they don't complain about getting the call. Better safe than sorry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for 000 in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

so, who is going to make the call/send the e-mail?

^SPEAK!!

13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent an email. We don't need to do anything else, nor should we. Now it's time to deny recognition and get back to doing something constructive. Daniel (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone contact Interpol since this possibly a International Teroristic ThreatRio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The AFP can if they want. Let it go, everyone. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone remove the line "They are all actually giant robots made by aliens in preparation to take over the world" from the geology section of

20:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming someone has provided a good reference to the effect that the Mt Rushmore statues are not, in fact, giant robots posed for global domination? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please look at this and make a few blocks? There seems to be a sockpuppeteer on the loose making all kinds of trouble on Kilmarnock. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked once this week for 3RR; seems to be angling for another block based on his harassment of 97.113.55.174 and rather uncivil vandalism (which is occurring, somewhat randomly, on my talk page). Cheers! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a further two weeks.

龱

08:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Posted something on Thursday on the above which does not seem to be showing at the moment. It was a question entitled "Content Dispute or Behaviour Problem" (I believe). Would someone kindly point me in the direction of where it may be so I can check for responses. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Right here. Algebraist 09:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I think I got lost somewhere as I found it again just by clicking on it in my watchlist. Must just be one of those days. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE addmitted that I am

) 10:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to report yourself at

Suspected sock puppets - even then, you'll only be blocked if you've misused the accounts. Are you complaining about your own behaviour, or are you in two minds about it? Kbthompson (talk

) 10:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, they've previously been blocked, for sockpuppetry. You can report yourself, or continue to make positive contributions. Maybe an admin you've previously had contact with might consider a block for your prior behaviour - but this account seems clean so far. Difficult to see what you expect this board to do. Kbthompson (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Prom3th3an) Hello; I just happened to be passing and noticed this strange-looking thread. Is it possible User:WillIreland's account has been compromised? The above looks rather out-of-place compared to his usual demeanour, as far as I can see. This and this diff of his talk-page are a bit strange too. His contribution history seems pretty constructive and normal up until yesterday. I've left a note for his adopter, User:Prom3th3an, but the latter is on a short break for exams at the minute so might not be around. I think it might be worth a closer look, to be on the safe side. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As the adopter of Willreland I wish to propose that he be blocked temporily whilst a check user is carried out to find out if he is a sockpuppet or if his account has been compromised (and by who). I have reason to suspect his account has been compromised as this is extremly out of charactor.

(talk)

14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's nipped in and blocked it indefinitely for sockpuppetry. You'll have to post a checkuser and the real WillIreland will have to contact you by e-mail should they wish to retrieve their account. I did not see any prior inappropriate use of the account - so, you may be right that it has been compromised. Kbthompson (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ive put the request for check user in, and yes i am on a wikibreak so im "slightly innactve" :-) sorry to make a liar out of you Grey Knight (wikibreak thing) and thanks for bringing it to my attention

(talk)

14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is one of the weirdest things I have seen! Kbthompson (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

..........Got nothing to say (enlight of check user)

(talk)

00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the whole idea of telling someone who's confessing to being a block avoiding sock to go and file an SSP on themselves a tad bizarre and bureaucratic. They've confessed to being a sock avoiding their block and asked to be blocked but it seems it would be quicker and easier for them to get the account blocked by going and vandalising a few pages! That just strikes me as wacky. I think in such a case it is best to block the account, request a CU and leave a note on their talk page explaining what has happened in the even the account has been compromised. Just a thought. Sarah 05:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• This was entirely in character for Tom/Will, my experience was he gets adopted and makes constructive edits and then either gets noticed but it's dismissed as coincidence - supported by his adopter - or doesn't get noticed at all, so he starts shooting off "F**K you I'm the Tom/Will but you couldn't see it because you're so blind," etc. Very unstable. The response by Kbthompson was serendipitously appropriate for this user.--
  talk • contribs
  ) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do take Sarah's comments on board - I reviewed the editor's contributions - and they were constructive edits - I also alerted the closer of the previous sockpuppet case to this thread. Another admin blocked him almost immediately - so, that was probably the right thing to do. I personally think that blocks are a last resort and should be evidence based. If you don't get people to think about their disruptive behaviour then we're probably all condemned to continue trapped in their particular cycle. There have been other cases of self-admitted socks claiming redemption, and long discussions of behavioural restrictions to allow them to continue - on restriction.

There's no encouragement for them to vandalise - and there's no 'stroking' of their behaviour. The bizarre aspect is the sheer amount of time spent cultivating the trust of an adopter and then throwing it all up in the air - a troubled individual and troubling behaviour. Kbthompson (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm relisting this as it got archived before the discussion was complete. I would appreciate some input here: Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and Harassment from Nwwaew (mistitled)

Discussion of proposal to broaden the topic ban for 8bitJake

Given that 8bitJake is already on probation, I propose that we broaden the topic ban to include the American political system. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At

Talk:WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity he deleted huge chunks of other people's comments (including mine) and has been peppering several sections with his whining about Nwwaew - same thing I believe you already reverted. Fletcher (talk

) 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a flawed decision from years ago since it included false accusations. --8bitJake (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the ANI started Nwwaew has continued to make disparaging insults directed at me [99]--8bitJake (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

‎8bitJake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked for 1 week for Disruptive editing: 3RR not AGF, persistent vilification of editors that have a disagreement, etc. Can we please discuss broadening the ban? I think this is important as the editor clearly isn't taking responsibilty for previous mistakes and decisions. The editor has now been blocked 6 times for very similar behaviour. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But will a topic ban help, since he's been blocked six times for the same type of misbehavior? At this point, I think we should be asking if we still want him here. If we do, then I think he should placed on 1RR, since he's been blocked several times for violating 3RR, and had other content disputes that he wasn't blocked for. Additionally, due to the situation that's happened, perhaps a ban on attacking editors, to be enforced by blocking would be appropriate? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (Note: I am one of the subjects of this dispute, and may be biased here)

I don't know about bias, but there is already a ban on attacking editors - called

WP:NPA. Whatever the discussion regarding topic ban or long/indef block, any violation of NPA should be reported to AIV. If there are a number of reports made over a short period the question of discussing a long block may be taken away from this place. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 15:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if a guy like Jake should be using Wiki, as when I was editing the DLC page, he reverted it because it was a "longstanding" part of the page, even tho I was removing a line that was misleading. The annoying thing is how he kept reverting it, despite that I made a case on the talk pages using sources and stats against having the disputed line of the article in there.

talk

) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have a problem on articles related to politics. He also has a problem with 3RR. If we come up with a solution, it should involve both of those issues. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he does need a long time ban. I mean he clearly doesn't get it, on how one has to not inject opinion into an article like he does. He'll remember it too if he gets a 2 month ban or something like that. I mean, is it possible for him to get banned on JUST political articles?

talk

) 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He's under probation from a previous Arbitration case, and under that ruling, he can be banned from any articles he disrupts. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to post my opinion here, and so I will. (first bit is copy pasted from what I wrote on his talk page)

recently, your editing has been a case of putting opinion ahead of fact and against the spirit of Wikipedia's 'anyone can edit' policy. you need to go by sources not opinion, you know that. The block is right. Use your week off to calm down and look at things in a different light. Its only a website after all, not as if you will be getting harmed by things you dont like.

and I know its a petty thing to point out, but he was the only one who disagreed with my resolution on Wageslave's ban. out of the 8 or so people involved in the problem he saw himself being punished even though my reso had nothing to do with sanctions against him. i sometimes wonder if he reads edits fully before making his own. which is disruptive

plus, theres this little part of me that wonders if he gets controversial at times to pump up his visitor numbers to his personal website. which he should use for opinions, not here.

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

8bitJake has some decent expertise in video game topics, and i think it would be a mistake to keep him out of those areas. It seems to be apparent that he cannot edit political articles in any sort of reasonable manner, though. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears we have consensus to extend the ban to political articles. Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy this has been resolved. However something on his RfA page says about if he's banned 6 times the ban will be extended to a year. While I don't want him banned I feel it needs explaining as to why this has not been carried through, especially as it needs to be decided if that threat is still active. If its inactive it needs removing as someone will end up pushing for it to happen.

chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID

23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Toddst1 said that violating the ban would get an indefinite block, so I think he's taken care of that issue as well. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't carry the 1-year block through because I didn't know about it. Toddst1 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think someone beat you to it. Kevin (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Cough All dem articles had a little accident. I left the user a note drawing their attention to BLP, V and RS.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  10:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Lolla lola appears to be a sock of User:Jon-sw, who has been blocked previously. -- The Anome (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Concur - shall we indef them both??
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    10:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. Also see User:Rico-rico1982. And there may be others... -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Such as User:Erik-2006. -- The Anome (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks like we need a checkuser to block the underlying ip. They clearly haven't learned. I'm about to stop out for an hour but I can protect all the pages from recreation and file the check-user when I get back if no-one does it in the meantime. Shall we indef the whole lot of them??
        Spartaz ^Humbug!
        11:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Also User:Lisa-1982 and User:213.100.20.76 -- The Anome (talk)

Indef'ed Lolla lola. seicer | talk | contribs 11:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • And also see previous discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#3RR and removing AfD tags -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need a new branch called "wikifiction", where users could indulge in creative writing about nonexistent rock bands, public figures, sporting events, crime families, etc. Then turn the bots loose too fix there spelin and grammer - assuming that doesn't hog all the servers' memories. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've now salted most of the article titles. Could someone please follow up on the checkuser request? -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've filed a CU request on all the users and the IP. Kevin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also added the following other socks of the same vandal to the CU request: Gary-xxxx (talk · contribs), Yallo-yallo (talk · contribs), George-hans (talk · contribs) -- The Anome (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered major problems with

. I call him a "Tighinaphobe" because he will do whatever he can to suppress the one of the alternative names (Tighina) of the town Bendery. Why? Presumably because Romanians use the name and Russians don't. I can't see any other reason. This just starts tensions online - not something Moldovans need. I am happy to use both names in articles (just as Moldovans and English speakers use both names), however he currently continues to edit out reference to the name Tighina on the Battle of Cahul page, despite the fact that all the other towns in the paragraph have "now called..." after their names.

He has also added me to requests for checkuser suspecting that I might be the same as "Bonaparte"; however I suspect that Xasha might actually be materialising the whole Bonaparte thing in order to stir up ethnic tensions. However Alex Bakharev keeps reverting my addition to check Xasha - the only reason I see is that they are both Russian, and I am obviously a "troll" as I don't have the privilege to have any Russian background! Rapido (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason your edits at

WP:BEANS

-- I would strongly discourage you from pursuing this path)

Regarding the content dispute at

Battle of Cahul, I am going to wait for the RFCU to come back and exonerate you of sockpuppetry before I spend any time looking at this. Please be patient. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway

.

User Paige p3

Resolved

Paige p3 (talk · contribs) Clever vandal has Arvil Lavigne picture hidden on their talk page [100] and has sneakily transcluded it into Template:Collapsible option plastering a huge image over any page using this template. I undid the edit. Can someone delete their talk page and block the user for blatant vandalism. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked, as yet another Avril Lavigne template vandal. Horologium (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Could people keep an eye on

) 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of personal information

Resolved

Courtesy blanking per Filll's request. Durova^Charge! 16:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I request full oversight and courtesy blanking. Thank you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed how this is resolved. The discussion seemed to be continuing. Has the editor in question been restored to previous status? I'm fine with redacting what needs redacting, but I'm not seeing why the entire thing has been blanked. I may have missed a nuance here but I read this as Filll requesting that the relevant things in the subject pages be deleted and or oversighted, not that this thread be removed.... does everyone else except me see this as "resolved"??? If so then never mind. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The thread already contained queries from third parties about a potential courtesy blanking. Honoring Filll's wishes in this regard promptly looked like the most sensible action. I'd do this for anybody. Regarding the side discussions that spawned, please restart (if necessary) in a separate thread. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We might as well take it to the Moulton subpage, Lar. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Shawn flory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user isn't active now, but has nearly a dozen edits, all vandalism. Revelian (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I'll report to AIV. Yechiel (Shalom) 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that usually work? AIV stated the user had to be active now, and the history says an admin removed the user from the list for that reason. Hence, I figured this might be the appropriate place to mention it. Is 11 (or 10 if you discount the first one) obvious vandal edits by a non-IP sufficient to be considered a vandal account? Revelian (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin was wrong to remove the name from the page. Named vandals should be blocked, regardless of when they're reported. IPs are are a different matter, since we can't guarantee they're always the same person. Corvus cornix_talk 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Hut 8.5 06:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, and thank you. Revelian (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Will an administrator check out the activities of all the new users at

) 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Following up at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SUVx. Jehochman ^Talk 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A fairly obvious swarm of sock/meatpuppets created to influence a specific debate, and clearly not new users by the contribs. The checkuser revealed that they had all used open proxies at some point, and that one account was a likely technical match for

talk · contribs), a prolific sockpuppeteer who focuses on the paranormal. I've blocked all of the accounts as sock/meatpuppets, likely of Davkal. MastCell ^Talk

16:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

combination socks/recreation of deleted material/NPOV

Not sure whether this is the best pl;ace to report this, but it seems to be a combination of several different pages' problems. Over the past few days I've had to speedily delete the same template (with minor variations of name) several times, and remove it from a couple of dozen articles. Worryingly, two of the users who created the article are User:Lila2020 and User:Lila2021, about as clear a case of sockpuppeteering as you are likely to get. Talk page entries of one of these users - and one or two edit summaries and page edits from them - seem to indicate POV-pushing as well (the user is clearly strongly pro-Turkish North Cyprus, or - more specifically - anti-Greek Cyprus). Banning one or both of these user names may well simplyb see the creation of UserLila2020+n. It may be a mere coincidence, but there seem to be a lot of usernames of the form Lila+number, almost all of which have been created but are as yet unused. I could be imagining things, but this could be connected. What to do? Grutness...wha? 01:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree with you that the 1st two are almost definitely sockpoppets but i dont think that everyone on wikipedia with the word 'Lila' in their name is part of some massive anti-Grek conspiracy. Smith Jones (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting they were - there are certainly a lot of fine users with lila as part of their username. I am a little concerned that one or two of the others may be Lila2020/1 though. And even if they;'re not, there's definitely the possibility that if Lila2020 and lila2021 are blocked, well simply need to block a brand new Lila2022 next week. I'm just getting fed up with removing multiple-times-deleted templates from articles, is all. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is that most of the LilaNNNN ones were created over a year ago. If there are other LilaNNNN accounts created in the month of June 2008, I would recommend an RFCU to nip this in the bud as you recommend. But I didn't find any. (Lila101 (talk · contribs) was created in April of this year, that's the most recent I could find...}} --Jaysweet (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)