Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive433

Is three reverts (total, by two people) in 18 days really a 3RR violation? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

By definition, no it isn't. However, its still an edit war that isn't beinfiting the project.

^SPEAK!!

04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Cosprings keeps linking to blatant sources of copyvio on his user page despite being warned. The last time he was advised by an administrator here, he removed a slew of bit torrent links. I just deleted two of the music piracy blogs from his user page, but even his own personal blog ("Silentsprings, the official blog of Sybylys") is nothing but links to torrents containing complete discographies of musical artists. Someone stop this guy from flaunting his user page as a one-stop illegal download hub. Also, his personal music he's linking there is admittedly in violation of copyrights via sampling. 72.66.80.133 (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this user is using Wikipedia as somewhat a webhost, and the history of his userpage is full of torrent links. I'll crosspost this to

WP:AN/I which is probably a better venue. x42bn6 Talk Mess

00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from

WP:VPP#Cosprings user page and piracy x42bn6 Talk Mess

00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was one of those who advised him to ditch the torrents in the first place, but in light of this latest info I believe more aggressive action may be appropriate. I'm tempted to MfD it, but I figure waiting for comments here first is better. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the torrent links and the link to his torrenty blog. If he readds any links, I suggest a short block.

龱

01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems he disagrees. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.

龱

07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone suspect that page is almost like webhosting or advertising, links or no? x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and some hours before your post I deleted the redirect from his userpage to that page for just that reason.[5] The subpage should probably be AfDed or MfDed or whatever. (IP editors can't AfD for technical reasons relating to the article creation "experiment".)

Since his October block for "disruption",[6] this user has a history of incivility, failing to communicate, inserting plagiarism of copyrighted text into articles, making changes without consensus, removing AfD and speedy tags from articles he created, removing "no rationale" tags from his images, and repeatedly misusing CSD G7 in his speedy deletion requests. Have a quick scan of his talk pages since January. [7] [8] Really a problematic editor. 86.44.27.243 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User subpages deleted as advertising (G11). Userpage selectively deleted to remove copyright infringement. — Werdna talk 08:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello,

This user Cardiff123098 is an habitual vandal. If you check his edits on many topics you will see his edits mostly get undone pretty soon. We have tried to help him but he just takes it personal and carries on regardless. Thanks

^SPEAK!!

23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is ok, I would like to work with this editor to see if I can possibly steer him on the right path?

^SPEAK!!

23:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes OK. No problems.

talk

) 09:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Lotte Motz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit war restarted between previously warned editors. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

Another IP Special:Contributions/59.145.142.36 is probably a sock of this user. Administrator Nishkid64 removed the non-RS and SYNTH in this edit. But the IP reverted admin Nishkid64's edit. I said to discuss the issue in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits, but they are not willing in any discussion, blindly reverting others' edits. The user was warned two times - first by administrator Nishkid64 and then I issued a warning for repeated insertion of non-RS. But the warnings are ineffective. This user repeatedly called me "eulogist". I request a block of this SPA. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no admin action needed, taking to talk

Carolyn Purdy-Gordon is listed on Wikipedia in the movies she's been in, so why would my submission of her be considered useless information, she's an actress just like Drew Barrymore or anyone else.

Also, The Initiation is a film listed under list of horror films, I even put an external link proving that it was real, I've seen it, and now I've reviewed it, only to have it be deleted, why?

For one thing, "reviewing" a film on Wikipedia violates WP:No original research. — 151.200.237.53 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the actors or actresses I create a page for, may not be considered big time movie stars to you, but they're still actors, what if there are curious people out there who don't know who Cooper Huckabee, Michelle Joyner, Carolyn Purdy-Gordon, or any of the other people I listed are, and would like to know who they are?

• Colors8 —Preceding
  Colors8 (talk • contribs
  ) 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain on the user's talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, what do you think of this

A bit too pedantic rules-conscious, in my opinion. Kevin (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not hurting anybody. — Werdna talk 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit much for me but otherwise looks like nothing to bite over. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Following a checkuser

It looks like the checkuser only uncovered his IP and the user has said he had already acknowledged this and was not trying to pretend he was two people. The account has only been editing since 18 May and this all may have owed to making some posts while not logged-in, then not handling the outcome whilst clued-in to the community's take on

WP:SOCK. I'd AGF for now. Gwen Gale (talk

) 13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

EvilWendyMan (

Normally, I'd hit a user like this with a 24 hour clueban to give them time to respond or read the policies, but in this case, I'm hoping someone more familiar with how to deal with young kids has either a better answer or response. Any ideas? --Golbez (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess taking their toys away and sending them out of the room is the appropriate response... which translates around here as a 24 hour clueblock. I would suggest that they are advised of the block by something other than a templated message, with some friendly pointers toward the help and policy pages but with a clear message that repeated behaviour means they will be told to leave the room for longer next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

After the flock of warnings on his talk page, he seems to have stopped for now. I'd suggest oversighting the deleted edits on his userpage though, they went way too far. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because he is a child doesn't mean he has to be treated any different to anyone else. He should be blocked, yes, 24 hours for the first time as is usual. However, if this user is as we think, 9 years old, then LessHeard vanU has made a good point. Instead of the blocking template, maybe a much friendlier message, and some help. Thats as much as we can do - he may not even read those if he takes no notice of repeated warnings. But a block should be used all the same, for Wikipedia's sake. Lradrama 13:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's really 9 years old, then I'm the Easter Bunny. Which I ain't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, far too many people lie about their age on this website when pretending to be children. I'm sure of it. The amount of vandals who say I'm only a kid is frequent. He is an extremely bright 9 year old if he has developed internal link & other wiki-skills in only a matter of days, I might add... Lradrama 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If we take a look, and this is just an assumption on my part, at his contribs, I don't know of a 9 year old with this form of vocabulary, but maybe I'm just not out there enough.

^SPEAK!!

14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did edit

Spongebob Squarepants, after all. I highly doubt this is another nine-year-old, based upon the contribution history... pretty damn good English skills. seicer | talk | contribs

14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all this could be true. Either way, I wouldn't want to block this user myself, for now, since he's stopped after the final warning on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes OK, well we'll wait. But if he continues.... Lradrama 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

There seems to have been a large amount of vandalism to this article and it has now been semi-protected. Could someone who is familiar with this subject please take a look and correct any errors, as I am definatley sure that there are some. :). Thanks and Happy editing,

In related news, there are definitely errors on the other 2,476,328 pages. Can someone take a peek at those too? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Um....Keeper, I believe your wrong there. 2,576,327 as I'm sure one was just deleted :).

^SPEAK!!

17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you added 100,00 articles, and then took away one? (look at your number again...) :-). My point is really that the article is only semi-protected. Any autoconfirmed editor can edit it/improve it including you. Not really an "ANI" problem, as admin rights aren't needed to edit it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree, not appropriate for ANI -

Tan | 39

17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has been reminded about the disengagement restriction mentioned above and Martinphi has been reminded about his ArbCom restriction. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Enforcement. Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that restrictions be put on Vassyana from discussing anything about MartinPhi or ScienceApologist because Vassyana is being unfair and should leave both Wikipedians alone. Thanks. QuackGuru 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Following events today and arbcom list consensus, The undertow (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 9 months. Because the matter has gained some communal interest, a brief summary of what's gone on in the background follows. A lot will be common knowledge.

A dispute primarily between two administrators (the undertow and Swatjester) boiled over a few weeks ago on the wiki, over discussion and accusations against the undertow. (A few others were swept up in it somewhat, especially two other users (one of whom was at RFA at the time) who also had similar accusations made against them, by others close to the case.) None of the parties was in the right in their conduct. Roughly speaking:

• Undertow had tried to make a point in a contentious area, and wanted others to agree with definitions he felt correct on the topic, which he knew in the real world were often viewed with hostility and would often be rejected. It backfired badly.
• Swatjester (and others) felt the definitions in question were unacceptable, personally, and stated on-wiki (rather than taking note that personal issues should be left off-wiki) that the undertow should be desysopped.
• Undertow responded by parody and such [12]
• Others created
  WP:POINTy
  userboxes and made comments that caused them problems in turn, at least one user reimported comments from an off-wiki blog to build a like case against another user.

The matter was dropped on-wiki, but off-wiki Undertow stated intent to take action against Swatjester for his words. Most times,

The undertow had also emailed Arbcom that he would probably need up to six months to sort out some personal matters contributing to the situation (he gave considerable detail in private), and that his tools would be given up voluntarily for the good of the community; if in six months he was able to act effectively as an administrator once more, he proposed he could ask for them back.

Over the course of the last few days, a number of developments have taken place that make us feel we are less likely to make headway in resolving it. Separate to this, the undertow has escalated the matter. It was off-wiki; today it was brought back on-wiki specifically to further the dispute. If ignored it may fade; equally it now looks like it may not. There's a difference between ignoring a dispute when it isn't impacting the wiki, and when it is. A large amount of detail was given by all parties in private which I'd as soon not make public unless they wish it, and which would fill in the gaps in the above - please respect their privacy on this - but it may be that dialog cannot do much more. This dispute should not have been brought back on wiki, and that decision to keep it off-wiki -- now gone -- was what was holding off the block last time. An arbitrator consensus therefore now exists, that todays events have led to an extended period of blocking, with regret.

Our hope is that in time he will understand our action as an attempt to balance the needs of the community, the needs of other editors to not have off-wiki disputes imported, and compassion for the undertow himself, that his off-wiki stuff sorts itself out, and understand we have tried our utmost, and strained matters at times, to try and find a resolution that was better for the project and for all even if non-standard. It should be stressed that a number of people acted poorly, all parties recognize things they did wrong, and the situation escalated quickly enough that perhaps no realistic handling could have really prevented it. We hope he will read into this block, that we have not used the normal arbcom ban period of 12 months, nor banned him, and understand we mean it. Private dialog will continue if wished. Should the undertow handle this well, and resolves the personal off-wiki matters he describes in his email (not related to the dispute), and it becomes clear this is all "old stuff" at the time, then he would be welcome back. It's entirely up to him.

Given the privacy and legal issues, this is not an easy one to write up - if it is vague or ambiguous in part, or some stuff is completely missing, that's why (as happens in many cases these days), and hopefully for the same reasons speculation can be avoided where possible.

Finally, be aware that we have had to check a number of purported points and claims made by various parties and users in the course of this case, both in private communications, off-wiki, and on-wiki, and verified a number are/were not reliable when examined in depth (though some might appear to be without careful investigation). No details, more just

As a personal comment on a block and the prior dispute, rather than a formal Arbcom statement.
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting the full rationale here: this is a very complex dispute, and I think it's appreciated that the arbcom have handled it (I for one do). It's an unfortunate set of circumstances, and not the outcome everybody would have hoped for, but it's now apparent that it is a necessary course of action. I am simply disappointed that these are the thoughts of a single arbcom member, rather than a statement from the committee as a whole: one would hope an

Anthøny

19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The block summary or subsequent messages, I can't remember which, state that the block was agreed upon by the unanimous consent of the ArbCom. I think they just leave it up to FT2 to write the long tedious emails.

I'd first like to say thanks for posting this. I'd rather these types of blocks be posted right after though, as ex admin blocks could likely always get communal interest. I'd also, for clarity, like to point out that the events that transpired today were not made with any effort to escalate a dispute (as far as I've seen). But once again, thanks for the post. —

Maggot^Syn

20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The actions of the arbitrators were not made to escalate the dispute, but to defuse it. The actions of The undertow specifically were to escalate it. Please have faith that the arbitration committee has more information about the whole of what his actions were than you do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't imply they didn't know more or that they escalated the matter. I just happen to know exactly why he created an article on you (off wiki communication), and seen the article (as I edited to it). Upon seeing the article, I did not notice one thing that could resemble anything defined as a dispute. I am of the opinion that he should not have created the article, but it was written with neutrality. I don't wish to drag this on any longer than it already has on other talk pages SWAT. :) —

Maggot^Syn

20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I never questioned the neutrality of it. Did you watch his video he made in which he articulated his reasons for the article's creation, punctuated with a remark to the effect of "It would be a shame if someone's kids found out their father died on Wikipedia."? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've seen it (its on facebook for anyone to see I believe). What he meant was, we have set up precautions such as WP:BLP in the event, and in his example, in case a child finds an article on their father and reads it as saying he is dead and its possibly wrong. I'm wondering why you would bring this up, as it doesn't appear pertinent here (if you'd rather discuss it on my talk maybe, you're welcome to it). I'd like to request an outside viewer archive this now. Thanks. —

Maggot^Syn

20:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Riiight, it was unrelated. Just like how for the Mafia its unrelated when they say "It would be a shame if someone were to wake up with cement shoes on the bottom of a river". Implicit threat is implicit. Considering the entire rest of the video was directed at me, what makes you so sure that it wasn't, keeping in mind that he's made implicit threats to me before?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being directed at administrators rather than the editing community at large? I'd like to echo Anthony's suggestion for en banc statements and further suggest a dedicated page for explanations of non-transparent Arbcom actions (i.e. at an

Clarification: the above question is seeking a normative rather than descriptive answer. Skomorokh 21:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be better addressed at

Maggot^Syn

21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly addressed, thank you for the suggestion. Skomorokh 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick answers: 1/ The drafting took a lot longer than I thought (due to privacy/non-escalation/"real-world" concerns balancing with "being useful to the community"). The problems moving back on-wiki needed attention sooner and was addressed as soon as consensus was clear. An "agreed draft" would have taken longer and added little. 2/ The purpose of the article is fairly transparent given recent directions in the dispute. There was no good-faith reason. It was created for no reason whatsoever beyond serving a targetted personal agenda, and using the wiki to do so. 3/ Those interested are likely to be either admins themselves, or aware of ANI and rapidly hear about posts on it. They'll see it wherever it's posted. AN/ANI is fairly usual for arbcom actions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there a link to the facebook video for those who havent seen it? :D

^SPEAK!!

21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this action or maybe I would've said an indef block until he showed signs of recovery at least, as his actions have been a bit random recently to say the least and I found the video disturbing. Dustihowe, I will email you the link, assuming no-one already has- well you can have the pleasure of it twice if so lol:) Sticky Parkin 21:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had made it pretty clear at

My mistake, seems this isn't "arbcom authority", but simply it was those on the arbcom mailing list that were trusted with the personal information. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I take of it, and trying to not say too much, I take it Undertow did do something on-wiki related to the legal actions. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't sure on this at first form the summary above. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There was an escalation of the trouble with posts made on-wiki. And that's when arbcom though it was necessary to issue the block. Samuel Sol (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain, for the benefit of those not clued in to the jargon, what is meant by "off Wiki" in the above comments. IRC channel communications? U.S. mail? E-mail? Postings on a blog somewhere? The court system? Stepping outside and duking it out man to man? Thanks. Edison (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, Off-Wiki refers to any communication that takes place in any venue or form other than the editing of a Wikimedia project such as Wikipedia, including its articles, talk pages, project pages, or any other type of page, and edit summaries associated with same. Off-Wiki communication includes (but is not limited to) personal contact, phone calls, postal mail or e-mail, IRC or other chat communications, Skype, blogs, and most specifically discussions on other websites. I suppose a fistfight would also qualify. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Amacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Allisonmacmunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

more about the timing than the actual blocking. I blocked User:Amacmunn for repeated copyright violations. She requested unblock which Sanstein declined. Then User:Allisonmacmunn popped up, editing the same accounts. I filed a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Amacmunn (although Twinkle hiccuped on the puppet), indef blocked the 2nd account and upped the block time on the primary. I *think* this was what I was supposed to do, but I'm not certain. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA: I'm also headed offline so if anyone wants to keep an eye on the favorite articles for other edits, it would be appreciated. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 20:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious, I was cautioned against biting, however is blocking a sock created to evade a block really a sock? I've also asked [[User:Smith Jones] for his input. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your actions look correct to me, both the indef on the sock and the extended block on the main account for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

it just sems harsh to indefinitely block someone without even talking to them to try and ifnd out if they are a sock or not. thats why i gave the welcome so the user if she is not a sockpuppet wouldnt be compeltely discouraged from editing consturcitvely in the future. Smith Jones (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed Johnston. SmithJones, did you look at the master account and second one? I don't think there's any question about it not being a sock, the last name is the same and it's just a question of first initial or full first name. As far as editing constructively, neither account has so far done anything other than copy paste from their own website and has not shown that she's understood the related copyvio issues. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have another one

Resolved

Currently unblocked but a whois of 38.104.69.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows it to be the Titan offices. Continued to edit Titan Worldwide after I blocked Titan 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated spam. I'm not sure about protocol of blocking what appears to be a static IP in this case if it's enough for block evasion. Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted Titan Worldwide. seicer | talk | contribs 22:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was leaning toward. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the protection will expire next month. If you're going to lock an article into deletion, it's best to put an expiry so that someone else can write Titan Worldwide (according to the guidelines, of course) after the protection time is up. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm a bit short, but the last three times I have posted to ANI, I have been wholly ignored. It concerns Dr.enh (talk · contribs) - see the post here. I have repasted the contents below:

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., [13] [14] [15]).

The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User has NOT edited past the "final warning". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I gave a final warning, though I forgot to put in the word "final" (the editor has been warned several times already). I've removed the resolved put up by a non-admin tag because in my experience a "final warning" from a non-administrator is not a final warning at all because it's impossible to ever get an administrator on this damned board to look at one of these cases unless it's been looked at before. (I near guarantee any successive postings would result in another warning or be ignored). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User has been

^SPEAK!!

04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Since this editor is clearly edit-warring against consensus with a side order of snide personal attacks in response to attempts at engagement ([16], [17]), I think the last warning has been given. If he continues edit-warring or attacking people on the talk page, you can let me know directly for a potentially faster response. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On

• Well, the usernames seem similar, and possible meat puppetry or sock puppetry, both users only edits are to that AFD, however, the arguments given for keeping the article are rather different. I'd say a checkuser would be needed here, but what do you admins think about this?
  Steve Crossin (contact)
  05:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like definite meatpuppetry, realtives of some sort. I assume barabata is their last name. No sockpuppeteer would be so stupid to create usernames so similar. - Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that Michael Barbata is the CEO of the company, meatpuppetry seems likely. Kevin (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to point that she replied and admited a bit of COI. Article wrote by her brother and CEO of the company. If the claim about findinding the seconday sources is valid it could work. Although with major rewrite due to the intense [[WP:COI}}. [18] Samuel Sol (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, this community is pretty sharp! Like Icewedge said, if I was trying to create a sockpuppet, then why would I use names that are identical in syntax and differ in only one letter? The truth is, we are brothers and share the same last name. Jbarbata and Bbarbata are unique users and were not created to deceive the wikipedia community in any way. Bbarbata (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• We appreciate your ringing endorsement, but the edits between the two of you still violate the policy on
  meatpuppets. Cumulus Clouds (talk
  ) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just page protected User talk:Keysoft‎ after its 5th unblock request. I feel like this is such a dramatic step that it should be reviewed automatically. --Selket ^Talk 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I wikilinked Res judicata, since I had no idea what the hell it meant... but other than that, I concur with your decision, if only due to the username. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that they probably should have been directed to Template:Autoblock after the second unblock request. Protecting the page was a good idea though. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I replied to their email, confirming mostly all that has subsequently been said (I commented that COI didn't mean they couldn't write about themselves - but they needed to be very careful about NPOV) but emphasised that notability and verification were at the core of the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Thread has been dead for two days. Adding timestamp here to let the bot archive this section. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I had requested Adoministrator's comment for Appletrees, the previous name of

Can the editors involved in this incident please be more clear in their description of what the problems are? It's almost impossible to tell what the issues are from the above comments. Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was preated by admin for because of not familiarity with terms, I wasn't preated for gamings. And you, Appretree (Caspian blue) was preated for gamings. And I deleted your gaming conducts on my talk page, and write edit summary. Your gamings are already recorded as this[[21]]. It's a fact. You should read the page again. I can't understand your writings on my page.

talk

) 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_15#User:Jazz81089.27s_inflammatory_personal_attack According to this admin The fact that he is himself gaming the system and his filing at ANI shows he knows better, almost. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) --Caspian blue (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can the editors involved in this incident kindly be clearer in their description of what the problems are? The above still makes little to no sense to the general English reader. Badagnani (talk) 05:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

>User:Badagnani. In short, I am personal attacked that I did personarl attack. But as it was, what I did is to write a summary of edits on my talk page that was already recorded as this [[22]].

talk) —Preceding comment

was added at 06:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. That editor frequently does that, yet for whatever reason has never been disciplined for it (most likely that for admins, there are always "bigger" issues to attend to). But, as our project is collaborative in nature, it really is important that we try to keep our rhetoric moderated and not incendiary, as I've often seen with certain editors. Badagnani (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm the one who heard his personal attacks, and you came to retaliate me for Korean cuisine artilce. You frequently attack me per your history. And then this is clear evidence you've been stalking me as usual--Caspian blue (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can know that I am not only one done by him like this. I try to keep them. Thanks!

talk) —Preceding comment

was added at 06:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Summary Some Japanese
  OCN ISP anon has vandalized manhwa article over a year, and also appeared at the same article about one weeks ago. After that, the anon went to Blade of the Phantom Master and removed the mention of artists' nationality and manhwa. The work was actually created by Korean manhwa artists and published in a Japanese magazine in Japanese first. Shortly after or almost simultaneous, it was also published in South Korea. The adapted animation was jointly created by a Korean and Japanese company as well. However, the anon replaced the manhwa related mention with manga
  and emphasized it.

Admin User:Moonriddengirl intervened the case, and everything seemed okay and going to be settle down peacefully. However, the usr kept making personal attacks on me and reverted to his preferred version with no consensus, so I let the admin know of his personal attacks. The admin gave him a warning for his disruptive behaviors and edit warring. Jazz complaint that the article is not removing manhwa mention and emphasizing manga-centered. I was busy dealing with other things, and Jazz and I actually did not contribute to rewrite the article much since the dispute occurred. As Jazz deleted his sockpuppetry case and warnings on his talk page given by me, he wrote the insulting comment against me at the summary field regardless of his previous warnings. So I gave him a NPA warning, and left notes about his behaviors, then he reported here. What a good gesture.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You apparently gaming the system again to report here. Since the dispute is between you and I, I titled as such. (This is not fair to use only my name, since I was attacked by you. You intentionally wrote to mock me at the edit summary over and over and the administrator at that time said you're the one gaming the rule. Besides, it is a courtesy to notify me, and you did not. If you think reporting first is to justify your POV, that is not good approach. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 2008-06-17T04:50:57 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (Your gaming conduct was already recorded, read it again.)
2. 2008-06-17T04:41:50 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete Caspian blue's gamings)
3. 2008-06-17T04:40:32 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jazz81089‎ (delete. Appletrees gamings)

The editor did not edit the disputed article but complaint or attacked me at the summary field, so I gave him waring and left notes. I feel very absurd this disruptive behaviros of

Your gaming conduct was already recorded as this [[23]]. And I only wrote edit summery on my talk page for the reason already reported above. You looks you don't feel apologetic for your conducts. It's repugnant of you.

talk) —Preceding comment

was added at 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nay, the admin said you're the one gaming the rule and then you're the one who received the formal warning from her. You just prove that as you keep making personal attacks against me, and then victimize yourself. That is too pathetic. Nope, everyone at the talk page of the article said that you're always complaining and not helpful for the article. The previous ANI is the evidence of your gaming Wiki rules, not me.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand your saying. I editted my page, then why it was my gamings? It's edit summrery of deleted of your conduct which was already reported. It is impossible of being my gamings, and the editing summry was already reported as your gamings. You don't feel apologetic for them?

talk

) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Who are them? You do not make any sense. Personal attacks do not justify anywhere within Wikipedia. After your highly inappropriate personal attacks, you do know that I will see your talk page for a while as you checking my contributions. Somebody who wrote very inflammatory and personal attacks on his own page was indefinitely blocked because of his user page. Your excuse "Oh, I only wrote so on my talk page" is not plausible rationale. You intentionally wrote the personal attacks (not even true) at the summary field. It is so possible you're gaming again as the admin said so and gave you a warning. I sense that you're deeply related to 2channel again per your weird usage of "apologeitc" and disruptive personal attacks. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You did gamings as this [[24]][[25]] that was reported in here [[26]], and the editing summery is short comment of the reason. If this is a personal attack, your writings is a personal attacks too. You say I did gamings, so it's personal attack as you said. You shoud apply same rule on you and others. It's contrariety of yours.

talk) —Preceding comment

was added at 07:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the admin who looked into the case said, you're the one who gaming the rule. As the result of your blatant disregard of consensus and the previous attack, you received the final warning from her[27][28]. Beside, the admin warned about your edit summary as such[29] "The thing to do at this point is to civilly discuss your differences at the article's talk page. I'd recommend keeping your edit summaries related to the nature of your edits and avoid discussing another editor's behavior at all in them." --Caspian blue (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly sense that you're one of banned users by checkuser, or Furf, or Rlevs per your very unique usages of English, and the implausible rationale. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Request for checkuser on Opoona (talk · contribs)

I don't know why you seem like Opoona (talk · contribs) or Princesunta (talk · contribs),Limited200802th (talk · contribs), all of which are related to Japanese 2channel and indefinitely blocked, especially Opoona. Your 9 edits in 3 years and your return after 8 months break do not still make any sense. --Caspian blue (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep it Short and Simple

Fellas... if you keep sniping at each other back and forth on the Administrators' noticeboard, you are not going to get anyone to actually look at your concerns. I suggest each of you summarize your problem in 100 words or less, providing the

I'll second Jaysweet here, even though I do know the context of much of this. :) The first thing you might do, Jazz, in response to your first question here is stop antagonizing Caspian blue. I advised you in the continuation of the last ANI thread at my talk page,

assume bad faith. Caspian blue, please try to ignore his edit summaries. If he expands the behavior, including it in edit summaries at the article or talk page, then you have a clear case of harassment. In the meantime, if you did not respond to them, they would probably go away. The article in dispute here, Blade of the Phantom Master, is now being addressed by additional editors who are helping to find a consensual version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel like Jazz's reporting appears to be deliberate and looks like my name have repeatedly exposed to ANI regardless of his absurd behaviors (I'm the one who got his mockeries again) Besides, Jazz looks like one of Japanese disruptive offenders who harassed me for while and then banned for the reason or meat/sockpuppetry, I think filing sockpuppetry on him is really needed.

• Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets--Caspian blue (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

>

talk

) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, a malicious filing (I'm the one who should report Jazz's gaming the system and his possible sockpuppetry). Per the admin's advice, I will try to ignore the person who tries to produce bad dramas. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous ANI discussion
I'm starting to think he doesn't get it...
I know absolutely nothing about Formula 1, but I'm having a hard time believing that the few contributions this user has made on the topic make the rest of their contributions worthwhile. --Onorem♠Dil 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Block is in order per this personal attack. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's what we'd normally consider a personal attack... I'm assuming that it's his recently blocked friend, User:Flyhead's, new account. Either way, he's been warned about that type of edit. --Onorem♠Dil 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh... maybe you are right. Within context, maybe it is a compliment? Block is in order anyways. This is disruptive editing, previously strictly warned. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)