Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive451

Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk · contribs)

Despite the fact that Milhouse will never be a meme, this user's contribs concern me. Forced meme and anti-Scientology are two major red flags. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when was being associated with Anonymous not tolerated on Wikipedia?--Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Milhouse will never be a meme, is a meme. Sorry. Beam 17:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Some person from multiple IPs in the 76.192.0.0/10 range has been inserting "Big Brother"-type ranting into

) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will a couple of weeks semiprotection help? Guy (Help!) 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  user specifically requests the page not to be semi-protected given the good natured edits by other IPs. The only thing that can be done is

  WP:RBI, or a range block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

  ) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• The good faith anons can comment on Tlak ad their suggesitons will be acted on. But feel free to remove semi if you want. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus is that non-free cover images are not permitted in discography articles such as

) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A discography is a kind of list, so calling it a list instead of a discography is mere semantics. The use is definitely in violation of our NFC policy.

Tucky

23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

it wasn't merely because it didn't say discography lol. See my reply on your talk. Grk1011 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I pulled up the page on the Holocaust and found the template to have gone somewhat screwy. It's an edit by someone claiming to be "The Zodiac". From the text he left and a brief search of this page, I'm guessing he's got a history here. Looking over the edit and comparative histories, I can't seem to find what he put on the page, much less fix the problem

68.5.90.236 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a known template vandal. Clear out your cache, and the vandalism should be gone.

talk

) 01:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The User Om-a-bear seems to have an issue with the inclusion of Sinn Fein as an organisation that was involved in

) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

Could another admin who has a few hours available take a look at

project. In my opinion, and I feel in the the opinion of others, there is consensus. However some editors continue to believe that consensus does not apply to several articles including this one. A few diffs will not help, just look at the edit history and some of the other discussions and you should be able to stop the problem.

I think it is time to protect this article again to stop the constant reverts. As I said above this article has too high of a profile for it to be receiving this kind of treatment. To any admin who decides to follow up, I'd request that you try to look through the various previous discussions and then protect the article in a state that reflects the consensus achieved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected and note posted on talk page. Discuss further on relevant talk page. —Kurykh 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A vandal has made a improper move. I don't think I can reverse it, or even if I did, I might mess it up. HELP!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone took care of it. For future reference, how does one reverse a move like that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any user can move a page over top of a redirect. So if they don't edit the redirect that results from the move, you can just go to the new (vandalized) page name and use the move button. If they edit the redirect, then only an admin can move it because the original page needs to be deleted first. If it is an emergency and you can't track down an admin quickly (say, 4:00 AM Eastern or something), you can move the correct title to a temp page to make room for the real page, then move the page back. --B (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Posturewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics

Could someone uninvolved have a glance at this situation? Long-term tendentious editing by SPA, situation escalating with his creation of a user page section that appears in breach of

) 13:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Belay that; I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

08:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Troll

Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is trolling on

) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I warned him. If he does it again, report it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Since yesterday,

]. However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes." Here is his contribution: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates <ref>[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/ro/features/setimes/articles/2006/11/20/reportage-01. However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes. "Roma people" are criminals!]</ref>" [my emphasis, and no, obviously not found in the source, if "quoting" is indeed what Rastronomer pretends s/he is doing]. This is obviously a racist message, which, in addition to his "subtle" vandalism, should warrant a block.

Also, given the surprisingly short time Rastronomer took to familiarize himself with wikipedia, the history of such incidents among my fellow Romanian editors, and the need for "adoption" he states on his front page, it would not surprise me if this guy were a sockpuppet of a known Romanian vandal/troll. Dahn (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not an romanian. If would live in Romania, you would say that i'm right. How can I prove that romanian people think that Roma people are bad, ugly, stincky, they don't learn, they steal (even Romania's identity)? You're a gypsy that knows english...One at a milion...About sockpuppetry, I don't know who really is an...you or me?--Rastronomer (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All I will say is that I would also like admins to take into consideration the above comment when assessing the measures needed. Dahn (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Indef blocked for racism. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

) 23:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

His attitude of "What do you want from me?" as opposed to "I'm willing to do anything asked of me, willing to follow any restriction imposed on me. I want to contribute to this project, and think I can in a civil and calm manner" leads me to lean towards another 30 days, at least. 30 days can't hurt him, and definitely doesn't hurt the project. You were right Gwen to not unblock him. Beam 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He was community banned so any unblock would need to be discussed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with an unblock at the moment, given this comment and this. Fclass should know what is expected and what is wanted, and we shouldn't have to feed the user policies and guidelines whenever a situation arises. 30 days for another review, per Beam, is what I am suggesting. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. His language in the request shows that he'll likely just continue where he left off if unblocked. Wizardman 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Eh. not sure. On the one hand there doesn't seem to be much promise of reform here. On the other hand, Fclass did seem to be a somewhat productive editor and how contrite he is might not be so relevant as long as he does actually not include any further personal attacks. JoshuaZ (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• 30 days seems a reasonable time frame. Oppose unblock for now, and review later as per above. Rudget (logs) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimancer and I are in a dispute about possible violation of

) 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing anything there that is a personal attack, he's rather dryly reporting the differences that you've both had over the content and sharing his concerns that you may be misinterpreting the policies. While it would have been nice if he could have made his points without mentioning another contributor, there's no requirement that he do so, as long as he remains civil. Instead of worrying about his comments, try responding to his points by detailing your concerns about the sources, for example, he says that the blog in question is written by LA Times writers and has editorial oversight - that's something you may want to respond to, if you feel the blog does not meet the standards of reliable sources. In the meantime, let the RfC do its work - having some fresh viewpoints on the issue from uninvolved editors may help you sort out your concerns about the content. Shell ^babelfish 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the suggestions. Ward3001 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He's editing as Bestrace (talk · contribs)...just see the edit histories. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a sock of banned user DavidYork71. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by Mattinbgn.[6] Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And User:Coontrack, already blocked by me but someone else has tagged it as a davidYork71 sock. 09:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Might need to run another checkuser, we flushed three out in addition to these ones in the past two days. Orderinchaos 10:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now editing again as JudischeEndlosuch (talk · contribs)--Ave Caesar (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - added. Orderinchaos 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I go to the page and I see an evil zodiac box blur it. I have no idea what is going on -- it wasn't there before I edited the page, and it was there after, but I didn't add it. Someone the Person (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism, already fixed. Algebraist 14:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How come I couldn't see the edits? Someone the Person (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the vandalism was to a

template. I don't know which one. Algebraist

14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because the article didn't get edited. One of the templates used on the article was edited; those edits don't show up on the articles in which they are used. Horologium (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, {{

web cite}} was vandalized by user:24.120.228.12. Protection and block please. Algebraist

14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That was sneaky; he vandalized a redirect. I have fully protected the redirect, and blocked the IP for a month. There is no contribution history from that IP prior to today, so it's not like we're losing a valuable editor as collateral damage. Horologium (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[7] is a new edit. Maybe move back to unresolved? ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway.

The IP belongs to a hosting company, so it is almost assuredly being used as an anonymizing proxy. IP contributions give the impression that the only intent is to harass a user and disrupt the wiki. Fairly open and shut: IP is anon-blocked for three months. Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Could someone please block

) 00:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably post this at

Discuss

00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

I did. I need some immediate intervention. SSP takes too long and the harassment is happening right now.

talk

) 00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I apologise. I've been having a great deal of trouble viewing Wikipedia recently (still trying to figure out why), and I thought we were at the help desk, and didn't see the first half of your comments until after I submitted my response. Cheers, and thanks for understanding! —

Discuss

00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also subsection below, which I'm moving here since it's the same topic. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

possible wikistalking by User talk:64.86.17.112

I was asked to intervene on behalf of User:ScienceApologist. An anon editor using IP User talk:64.86.17.112 has been giving him difficulty. He has been warned before to stop harassing SA. Today, this editor appears to have left more snide comments in response to discussion that SA is involved in.

I am fully aware that SA is to many a controversial editor, and I will not be an apologist for anything that he has done wrong. However, I think an admin should look into this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that this troublemaker has been duly banished. After all, pointing out that new amendments to the core policies that govern the edits of every single wiki user are meaningless is not the kind of behavior that should be tolerated. Far better to block such users so that the meaningless amendments are allowed to stand unchecked. By doing this the following excellent precedent can also be set: users who have shown themselves quite unable to abide by core policies should feel free to treat those core policies as their plaything and doctor them in any way they see fit if they think it might help them win an argument or two on articles they are struggling with.

Just to let any administrator who is interested know: the policy in question is the "tone" section of NPOV. The main changes involve removing all uses of the word "fair", and turning the majority of the section into a brief restatement of the UNDUE WEIGHT section which precedes it. So, again for anyone who is interested, you now have a section of core policy that consists of a non sequitur, followed by a jumbled mess of a sentence, followed by a paragraph that has nothing to do with the section it forms the majority of. And all of this written for the sole purpose (see talk) of strengthening the hand of an editor who contributes nothing but mayhem to the wiki. Hey ho. 207.210.78.194 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So now Davkal has jumped to this new account. Please block that open proxy too. Thanks.

talk

) 14:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is now a new account

) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done: Indef'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 15:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Davis for Freedom campaign? I can't myself as I've expressed an opinion in the debate. It's quite long, so be warned, it takes some reading. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done NonvocalScream (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is currently fully protected and, according to its talk page header, subject to ArbCom's probation. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding adding some information to the article related to its IMED listing. An RfC was started on July 17 and, as I understand it, is still open. However, about 11 hours ago, an admin who had no previous participation in the talk page discussion, User:DragonflySixtyseven, made a sequence of 4 edits to the article[9][10][11][12].The substance of these edits was to add the disputed info and exactly in a way against which most of the talk page discussion participants had objected (except for User:Bstone). The edits were explained by DS in the edit summary for the first of the 4 edits[13] thus:"okay, I've had some extensive conversations over IRC with BStone and JzG, and I *think* this is satisfactory to both parties". Very quickly several editors objected to these changes and the fact that they were made based on off-wiki discussions with only some of the participants. DS explained that he was trying to help and to be expedicious; it also became clear that DS apparently had not been aware that considerably more than 2 editors had been involved in the dispute. To his credit, DS also then posted a portion of the IRC exchange (the one with Bstone, but not with JzG), at User talk:Shell Kinney#Mar Diop. However, even when it was made clear to him that several users had objections to his changes and that these changes did not reflect have consensus of the dispute participants, DS refused to revert the changes he made. At User talk:Shell Kinney he stated that: "I decline to be the one to revert. However, I would have no problem with someone else doing". And then later, at the same talk page:"D) I'm not touching this mess again, not even to revert." [14]. Now, I appreciate the fact that DS was trying to help, but he went about doing it the wrong way and the current end result is unacceptable. The current version manifestly does not reflect (in fact, in my opinion goes against) the consensus at the talk page of the article. Since the article is fully protected, I cannot revert DS's edits myself and some of the other previously involved admins, such as Shell Kinney, do not want to be the ones to revert either. I therefore request that a previously uninvolved admin take a look at the matter and revert DS's edits, until some real and demonstrable consensus on the changes is achieved at the article's talk page. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not unhappy about this, apart from one sentence which is still hotly disputed so (mea culpa) I removed it for continued discussion on Talk - the fact that it is licensed in Senegal is a preferred edit of the banned users and sockpuppets who inhabit the article, but is of extremely dubious relevance to a school which is located in England and is explicitly not licensed in England, to the point that the GMC changed its policy and expelled one doctor. I know stone is really keen to be fair to the place, which is fine, but until we have a reliable independent source which makes the claim the St. Chris puppeteers make then we really ought not to be making it ourselves. IMED is a perfectly acceptable reference for the locatioon of its licensing but as far as I can see "the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate" is
  WP:NPOV and fairness is good, the article looks a bit nicer now D67 has tweaked it, and there is debate on Talk. Thanks to Nsk92 for the concern, I greatly appreciate more eyes on this long-standing troublespot. Guy (Help!
  ) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The legal charter thing was exactly what I found objectionable. I am perfectly happy with your last edit and I think the current immediate situation should be considered resolved, where the discussion can now resume at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Yasis is using yet another IP, this time Special:Contributions/218.186.67.37, to evade a block and stalk, revert or gainsay my recent edits. Previous examples of his behavior are to be found here:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours)

This all seems to have started when his addition of sources and external links was called into question. Tiring of inserting propaganda, conspiracy theory, and links to people's homepages (coupled with a block for 3rr). He is now just following me around the encyclopedia, randomly reverting my edits and chiming in to gainsay my talk page and AfD comments. I have no desire to tangle with this user and would really appreciate his input if he is willing to contribute constructively but he has to do so. Cheers.

L0b0t (talk

) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look, thanks. Chafford (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are ones that have been nominated today and haven't went through the 5 day period to discuss them. There's no backlog there. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 14 and others, however...) Wizardman 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten into an edit war on this page with an anonymous user who has continuously removed a story I added about human rights abuses taking place at the largest county jail in the United States, the Cook County Jail. The anonymous user argues that the story is not internationally noteworthy. I disagree but I've run up against the three revert rule. A third opinion would help.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't especially an admin matter. If you want a third opinion use the Wikipedia:Third opinion process. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikisebseb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created massive amounts of articles in a very very short period of time. Thought I should bring it up. Dengero (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think its on a script. The articles are very short and you or I could post many of them in a short space of time. Rudget (logs) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Worse than that, they're basically just copy/paste of each other. All unsourced. We have zillions of these unsourced sub-stub non-content town articles - esp. from France. But no one is willing to delete them (except me) so you're going to see bot-like creations like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any incidences where some of these towns don't exist? Rudget (logs) 11:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's...quite hard to tell. The symbols don't even come up when i copy+paste them onto google. And may I ask what EXACTLY ar the chances a user will search that name with all those symbols?Dengero (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The few I have checked with Google (no problems copy-pasting for me) all look legitimate. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello ! Hum, i'm new on wikipédia, and french so i apologie for all the faults i'll do (and i did) :) Indeed i don't use a bot (really dont know how to make a bot...) but I have developed a technique to quickly create articles that are similar, with a copy / paste and some tabs on firefox. But even like that it's boring to do so if somebody knows how to make a bot for this job I'm completely in ! Bye

wikisebseb (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The user is actually performing a useful function by starting articles on the communes of Romania. Communes are notable; villages usually not. As long as he sticks to communes (and isn't a bot, which doesn't seem to be the case), let's not interfere. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that all real official locations are notable, so villages would be kept if sent to AfD- something I personally support. However, in response to Rudget, off hand, I can think of two AfDs I was involved in discussing villages that turned out not to exist- one in Romania, one in the Netherlands. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an editor clearly edit warring against consensus and in violation of WP policies (i.e., removing sourced data and inserting original research). If I try to bring it up on the ANI boards, I'm told it's an edit war, and an RFC/U would be useless, ArbCom would ignore. So what the fuck am I supposed to do? Or is this website completely useless; is it pointless to even try? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who, what, and where? I'll see if I can help you. Prodego ^talk 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rividian states it below. Unfortunately, I have now reacted badly enough that I've lost any sort of high ground on the issue. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution is not instantaneous. Relax. Beam 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not instantaneous? This has been going on for an entire year! The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And you haven't started mediation or a formal dispute resolution process in all of that time? Beam 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as I said above, there was an RFC on the page. I was too frustrated to participate, but there was consensus that what I am saying is correct. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this refers to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vexorg_in_continual_removal_of_sourced_data. --Rividian (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please look into the legal threats made against Wiki by

) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Account indef blocked. I interpret those as legal threats, and therefore invoked the blocking provision of

WP:NLT. —Kurykh

20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Block or no block, you should really take a look at the "controversy" section of that article, and the sources used therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolution was hit by a repeat of vandalism substituting Genesis for the article.[15] On the basis that this appeared to be another sock, I blocked the vandal, and finding the action repeated made the error of blocking an editor who had repeated the vandalism, evidently while meaning to undo it.[16] I've undone the block, but it still seems to be causing problems;[17] please assist. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have been sorted. The vandal U mene is apparently a sock puppet of Tile join. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking through some of the sports cars on wiki and came across vandalization on the

) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to Template:Convert/N.m, which has since been protected. I don't think the undos had any effect (except maybe to

clear the page cache), they just happened to coincide with the vandalized template itself being reverted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk

) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald

Hello,

I am having an issue with the Ronald McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. There has been an ongoing editing cold war with this article over who created the stupid clown. I have been keeping it neutral but my current problem is on the talk page. There has been POV pushing using sock puppets to establish a consensus for one side or creating general disruption of the page. These socks have editing histories that only deal with this page and only last a couple of days. I do not know how to go about resolving this and require assistance.

The users that I have questions about are:

• Mcdonaldsfreak82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mcmasterofwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Max33well44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randyga7755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rm1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NM76UU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ihjmwt2petwbgwh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ufoundme2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.49.8.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are regular users that have been involved in the waring that I suspect could be involved in the sock puppeting:

• hankzimer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• knimper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• plyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

How can I go about investigating this and stopping the warring once and for all? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, request a check user, would be my advice. Beam 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you do that? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser. Let me look at the page... seicer | talk | contribs 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did initiate a check user request here. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheepnacidadegrande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears destined for an indefinite block but I wanted to bring here because I've already blocked him (her?) twice and thought someone might want to work with him. He has racked up fair use image violations since March 2008, for which I blocked him twice in June. He at least slowed down uploading images but also makes all sorts of unhelpful edits like:

1. Removing AFD tag.
2. Removing CSD tag.
3. Removing a lot of content.
4. Blanking a redirect.
5. Blanking a prodded page.
6. Blanking an established page
7. Re-creating an AFD'ed article.
8. Removing Persondata for no apparent reason.
9. Removing Persondata again for no apparent reason.

User needs an education, sure. Only he is 100% uncommunicative with zero edits to Talk, User talk, or Wikipedia namespaces and zero edit summaries that I can find. Good editors are getting quite tired of this and there is little change in disruptive behavior. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. 108 talk page comments, and 95% are article or image issues. seicer | talk | contribs 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This block is a wikidream coming true. Thanks! Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing deliberate efforts to misrepresent legal status of homosexuals in the Cayman Islands [18], [19], [20], [21], in conflict with information provided by cited sources [22], [23]. No attempts made by other parties to engage in discussion or provide refs for point of view. Administrative aid is requested, so as to avoid edit war. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit warring there resulted in unclosed REF tags. I fixed the REF tags, but many of the references are to bare URLs, so they need proper citations. Added cleanup tag. The content dispute I leave to others. --John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be a need for a sock check there too, looks like JSjnDenver and 24.9.40.52 are the same, the two defend their preferred version in fairly close concert. ThuranX (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Situation: There are two users in particular who are attempting to make edits of a POV-nature.

• Gcrg2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elektraviolette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are moving the entry for "Green Country Roller Girls" FROM Broken Arrow TO Tulsa. The leagues own website states that their home rink is in Broken Arrow. I have spoken with the ONLY rink in Tulsa and they do not have a sponsored Derby League of any sort, but for $150 per practice, they would be willing. Besides editing their own entry, they are removing and vandalising the entry for T-Town Derby Girls. A former rival league. I have notified each user to avoid POV entries and stick to the facts, I copied some posts left me by a mod on my first few entries (which just so happened to be HIGHLY POV, my bad, I learned and don't do that anymore) and there were additional changes made to the page anyways afterwards.

Randomblink (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sanction applied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Revert-warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taiwan&action=history

Have fun. --slashem (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --slashem (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to help someone who suspects that his home computer's IP was blocked, not for any editing or dispute he was involved in, but perhaps by accident, or through the blocking of a range of IP addresses.

He no longer remembers his password and has been unable to get to his home page to request an unblock.

I told him I'd see if I could find an admin that would provide some guidance. What should he do first and is there any information that you, as an admin, need from him to help? Please contact me on my user page. Thanks --Steve (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you know his username, you may be able to do a send new password request on his behalf by going to the login page while not logged in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1. After all what we have been through here here.
2. POV-statement
   }} tags. Which I do.
3. The Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs) comes along with one go REVERTS Papa November's insistance on keeping the article on the stable version without an entry into the talk page.
4. After I re-install the tags, and point him to the to PN's comments, the user again removes the tags. --
   Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?
   ) 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract

is stalking again

Abtract unblocked under agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the closing of this discussion, especially by a non-admin who is heavily involved in the discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed this with both parties, and both sysops, during this ANI report only - I am uninvolved in the dispute, so I think I'm more than qualified to notice when this discussion has outlived its usefulness - no further admin action will be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've undid his closing and archived it myself now. There is no further action warranted. He was unblocked and made an agreement, I highly doubt any admin would reblock without further provocation. However, if he does break this agreement, bring it back here. Beam 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW We edited at the same exact time, with no edit conflict! THAT'S AWESOME! Beam 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that's freaky. It wasn't just a comment you made, you'd also rearchived the whole long discussion - and it showed straight after I hit save page without a problem too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, Beam, for somebody who isn't an admin (and I'm not one either), you sure make a lot of admin-sounding pronouncements. Corvus cornix_talk 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User HAl hs engaged in slander of my good name on his talk page. It is my belief that he has used a ip to start the slander and then reply to himself. I have requested that he remove the slander and he has not. He replied to the request. User hAl regularly removes things from his talk page, leaving this slander in place is clearly a personal attack. I request it be removed and that hAl be warned about replacing the slander. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Slander" is a bit over the top for him simply agreeing with someone else that you may be a sock. And then you turned around here and accuse him of socking. That said, calling you a "git" is way out of line. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only person who pointed out that leaving the slander in place was not a good idea. I have requested it be removed. User hAl regularly deletes the contents of his talk page. The fact that he is leaving the section in place speaks for itself. Is it sop to allow people to discuss other people and bring unfounded accusations against them? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick: slander is verbal, libel is written. Neither of which really apply here.

Second, considering someone a potential sock puppet is not

assuming good faith, but it's not strictly against the rules either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that interpitation of the events is the fact that the account that started the section in question is a single edit account. This is not 2 editors discussing the possibility of someone being a sockpuppet. This is a case of someone posting lies about another editor. It is not a discussion of why they think I am someone else.

Are you saying that any editor can state unfounded accusations about another editor? That they can write whatever they want to, and there is nothing that can be done? AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing the exact same thing you accuse HAl of doing, by assuming the IP is him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In my first post that may the the case, but I posted it on the administrators notice board. This is the correct place to discuss if someone is doing something against the rules. Even if the ip is not him, the section in question is not a discussion of the possibility of another editor being a sockpuppet. That would require proof of some sort. Like pointing out single edit accounts quoting rules. If you think that one instance excuses another , then please remove both. I would like for another admin to post on this subject please. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to

) 12:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg in continual removal of sourced data

I absolutely hate bringing up what may be a content dispute to the administrators' attention, so this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've ever done it (in multiple thousands of edits). But here I must.

) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a great thing about having consensus. He makes an edit against it, you revert him. He reverts you, another editor who agrees with consensus reverts him. He reverts that editor, a 3rd editor reverts him following consensus. He reverts that 3rd editor... you goto

the 3RR noticeboard and the editor is blocked. See how easy that is? That's what is so great about consensus, it's not solely one person's problem. Beam

03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted the

WP:3RR and edit warring rules can apply to editors that are collaborating as well. --neon white talk

17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaborating with consensus? Beam 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam this is a serious issue that we've been dealing with for months. It is not resolved; I wish nonadmins would quit marking my posts resolved when thye're not. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Vexorg's talk suggesting some ideas on how to resolve the issue, but unless he's edit warring or being disruptive, there's not really anything administrator intervention will do. You might want to consider trying some informal mediation or something else in the

dispute resolution process if you're still not able to work things out. Shell ^babelfish

06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you seem to think I'm joking. I'm not. This is a content dispute. When I got my first 3rr break (and only i believe) that's what was told to me by an admin or two that I respect. I pass that advice to you. Beam 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg here. I would like it to be officially noted of the offensive remarks made by The Evil Spartan where he accuses me .... "despite how much you've decided you hate America" in Talk:Christianity_by_country. This not only contravening Assume good faith., is very offensive and I don't expect this from supposedly mature Wikipedia editors.

Now the figures in question from the CIA factbook have no source. For example it says for Norway that 90% of the population are Christians. this is clearly way of mark and there is no source for the figure. No link to or reference to a census or poll. Nothing.

I am certainly NOT being disruptive, I am trying to improve the article.Vexorg (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a further note, that The Evil Spartan seems to be starting an edit war. He has now reverted my edits twice. Could an administrator intervene here please. thanks Vexorg (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems The Evil Spartan is continuing the personal attacks towards me at Talk:Christianity_by_country#CIA_is_NOT_a_reliable_source In response to my noting of his previous comments being a personal attack against me , he remarks Coming from a stated atheist who dislikes organized religion, I believe this would be a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black --- In view of these continued attacks I am not going to communicate with this editor anymore. I am not here to be the subject of personal attacks. I am here to improve wikipedia articles. Vexorg (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit pattern is the same as recently indef-blocked

incident for this user, although I've lost count ages ago. Block log is:

• 03:31, 18 July 2008 Ohnoitsjamie (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: "The CW" --> "CW" again after a block)
• 08:01, 15 July 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Per email discussion and third party representations)
• 12:53, 10 July 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: Editor appears unconcerned with the collaborative & consensual aspect of contributing)
• 22:18, 28 December 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: and violation of WP:3RR on Queens)
• 21:28, 9 March 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (editwarring on Metromedia again)
• 15:32, 27 February 2007 Firsfron (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metromedia&action=history) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Waves (talk · contribs) has made only three edits so far, and none of them has been reverted. Not clear yet if there are any bad edits. I have posted at User talk:66.102.80.212 asking the submitter of this report for more data. So far I don't see enough information for a sockpuppet case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'd watch this closely. Black Waves found the {{

fact}} tag awfully quickly. It's Rollosmokes. —Wknight94 (talk

) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm continually amazed by the number of Wiki0editors who find it so fun, or so terribly important, that they must keep editing against allt he rules after a banning. The psychological implications of such deep rooted need to be right... amazing. Rollo's not the only one, there are a couple other such reports up here now, and there are a few every day, it seems.ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not Rollosmokes -- I'm his cousin! Which of course explains why our interests and agenda are identical, and why we are using the same IP address." Oh dear, oh dear. You're right, ThuranX, disturbing to the extreme. --Jaysweet (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cousins! Identical cousins! They walk alike, they talk alike..." ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. I indefblocked the admitted meatpuppet and will revert all edits. Keep eyes open for more. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I find

) 11:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just been

WP:BOLD and reverted / deleted the lot. This looks suspiciously like trolling to me. -- The Anome (talk

) 12:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support your action, Anome. the category was not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. I've left a note on the user's talk page. Best, Gwernol 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody take a look? I can't see anything in the last few edits so I'm assuming the problem is on one of the transcluded pages. Thanks = ) --Cameron* 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by [43]. Somebody accidentally transcluded the wrong page by writing | instead of / PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was cleaning up after a spam-vandal,

page, I see a gazillion links. I'm reluctant to delete this page since I don't understand the possible implications.

Can someone explain this? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Those links seem to all come from {{

WPAVIATION Navigation}}, which includes redlinks to talkpages. Nothing to worry about that I can see. Algebraist

12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was a redlink on that template and he decided to try and create it. Presumably the WikiProject hasn't gotten around to making the contest page yet. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The project page has been created but the talk page had not been prior to this. I'll go ahead and delete -- thanks for the help. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I got Project: and Project_talk: mixed up! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed unreferenced, challenged content from the article

) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• About time. Well done that Rividian. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to ever help? Am I the only person bothered by the fact that we're providing indefinite hosting to a how-to guide just because there's a {{

) 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a few other users have stepped in now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on edit warring. I object to someone coming into an article that is in progress and removing anything uncited that they disagree with. The common policy is for editors to ask for citations on material they are concerned by, and give time for citations to be found. Usually information that is well known or likely to be true is left alone. I understand the need for good citations. I ask for citations from people on many articles. When an editor, such as is the case with Rividian, walks in and removed information that is well known to be true only because there is no citation yet, I have to object. It does not improve the article, it disrupts the process of gathering good information on the topic, and is generally disruptive within wikipedia. We probably have hundreds of thousands of articles with true, encyclopedic content that do not have citations yet.

Additionally some topics are not popular topics for sociologic research, and although the facts are well known by people within a subculture or community, journal papers, magazine articles and books are sparse. Such is the case with this particular topic, play party.

Although I understand the well meaning intentions of editor Revidian, and indeed, hope that some editor will seek out good citations for the material they put in the article, as an third party observer, I think that removing material that is obviously true is not beneficial to the article. Atom (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been given years to find sources... to say that's not enough time is just absurd. --Rividian (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not originate the article, sorry. From the time you added a fact tag (April 2008) on some of the material until now has only been a few months. I noticed and responded, in July of 2008, this month. It looks like a variety of other editors objected to your approach in the interim, including Simonxag, Prosfilaes , and Mdwh. So, although it does sometimes take years for an article to become well cited, you have hardly given years in this particular case. Atom (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The unreferenced tag had been on the article for 2 years when I got started... still, even 3 months is more than a reasonable amount of time to provide. My "approach" is just applying what a core policy, WP:V says... honestly, if people object so strongly to what is supposed to be one of our founding policies, this might not be such a good project for them. --Rividian (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

)

Yesterday, we decided to ban

) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the negative checkuser, except for the messages in question he's done nothing blockable, and seems to have made a number of minor but useful edits. The language in those messages though is such that a short block seems appropriate, such as time served. DGG (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm inclined to offer him the same deal Tasc0 previously got - agree to not make personal attacks and understand that further personal attacks will result in an extended block ... and if he agrees, any admin can unblock him. --B (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, time served for the appalling comment... plus 3 hours for the spelling mistakes? Nevermind, it is 4 hours past the last comment so I will unblock if it hasn't already happened. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Unblocked just over three hours after B's comments by User:Sandstein. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Audi A8 Enok^talk 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow you can't see it anymore with the most recent edit, but it was this stuff about someone calling themselves "the Zodiac" having an administrator's password and threatening to "post their logo on the main page". I don't know why it's not showing up in the History. Enok^talk 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We have had a rash of IP spammers changing templates that include this Zodiac stuff. It wasn't changing the text of the Audi page, but a transcluded template, which has likely been reverted back, but that's why you can't see it in the article history. If you see such types of problems, report them here but we're pretty quick on reverting such changes. --MASEM 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism was at {{

Infobox Automobile generation}}. Spencer^T♦C

15:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any reason all templates shouldn't be semi-protected by default? I think that anyone, including me when I started, should not be touching templates. --mboverload@ 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You want

WP:VPR#Proposal: Semiprotect the entire Template: namespace. Algebraist

15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynch1000s

Lynch1000s (talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles and changing bold text to bold and italics, and sometimes incorrectly so that random apostrophes show around words. As the convention seems to be that the first instance of the article's title is bolded, this seems to be against convention. The user has already been blocked for vandalism in the past. Is there an admin tool for reverting everything this editor did today? NJGW (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one of those clever contrib history jokes?

• 20:13, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Malignant narcissism‎ (you can't psychollogically penetrate other people) (top) [rollback]
• 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) The Devil's Advocate (film)‎ (→Plot summary) (top) [rollback]
• 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) People‎ (top) [rollback]
• 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Other‎ (top) [rollback]
• 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Penetration‎ (top) [rollback]
• 20:09, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Psychology
• 20:08, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) You

20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through his contribs before coming back here and noticing Avruch's post...I was about to say, individually, his edits aren't uniformly bad...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these edits are incorrect and unconstructive. User is likely up to no good. --- RockMFR 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note I also put a notice on the "usernames for administrator attention" NB because this person's name is "lynch thousands", but as soon as they got blocked for the unconstructive edits, a bot removed the name from that list. Can somebody here look into this? NJGW (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does 3RR cover a situation like this where

Norman Mackenzie (Conductor). – ukexpat (talk

) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You're good to go. I sincerely hope none of our admins is clueless enough to block someone for removing a copyright violation. See

this section which specifically mentions this case. Antandrus (talk)

21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise 3RR doesn't apply to blatant copyright infringements, of course, but I didn't want to keep reverting ad nauseam without some sort of reality check anyway. I was also hoping that someone less close to the end of his patience than me might be able to offer some constructive advice to the editor as well - so thanks for doing that Antandrus. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to this, my own opinion is that the discussion centred a little more than I would have liked on the justification or otherwise of my block, even though that was a question I asked. That said, there seemed to be a reasonable level of agreement with some of my more general concerns. My own thoughts on the discussion:

1. Dunc is concerned that I was "synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative". Would I have to stick to the original narrative in the source? Why is creating a new narrative from a source while sticking to the original context and intent wrong? If it is then wikipeida can create no unique narrative and is simply intended to be a quote farm. That is news to me.
2. ThuranX appears to me to be saying that I haven't done much wrong in this case, but that I should get probation for it. I don't quite understand this.
3. I agree with much of what Angus said, subject to 2.
4. I am yet to see an adequate explanation from Dunc or anyone esle for the contention that I was guilty of synthesis.
5. Dunc @ 21:58. I reverted because I was sure about what the source said (I added them to the article while watching the documentary in May), but needed to wait for the time reference. And I was right. The cites were valid, and their attempts to say they weren't were clearly disingenuous, perhaps malicious.
6. The dispute on Young Unionists Dunc has unearthed. Yes I probably didn't handle that properly. But one must consider that that dispute was with an editor who has subsequently been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. revealing my identity and harassing me.

It seems to me that the best way forward from this situation is that BigDunc and Domer be treated as one user for the purposes of 3RR, either that or they be limited to 1R each, but the former seems to me to treat the specific problem highlighted. Many thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope.

Chillum

00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How are you confused? I said you'd done wrong, but were provoked, and while you shouldn't be blocked, you should be warned and put on notice. That's confusing? Really? ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. What do you think of the rest?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to point 1 above is contained in

WP:SYN. Orderinchaos

22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tagging by TheWatcherREME

User:TheWatcherREME appears to be impersonating an admin (by blocking user pages/accounts in an apparent attempt at a new form of edit warring, tagging user pages with sockpuppet tags, etc., for all users which with he disagrees.) The block log shows the editors are not really blocked, unlike for actual blocks. The edits by this user look suspicious. TheWatcherREME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Yaf (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he incorrectly applied the {{

^T

20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat bizarrely, he's also created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots and added himself to it. --Rodhullandemu 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He also appears to have tagged his own userpage with the same templates ([44]) and populated a "suspected sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots" category, although there doesn't appear to be a checkuser in his history to back up the claim.

^T

20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And also to: User talk:195.18.164.66‎, User talk:24.224.153.255, User talk:24.229.253.142,User:Jedediah42, and User:Variablebinary. Looks like more activity that is impersonating an admin to me. ‎Yaf (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All the accounts edit primarily gun-related articles - perhaps he's tagging the accounts and IP addresses that belong to him? Doesn't explain the talkpage edits by Nukes4Tots to WatcherREME's page, though.

20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

??Well, I'm not sure why my single edit on his talk page means anything. He copied an article directly to the text in his new article. That's copyvio, plain and simple, and I tagged his talk page and the article as should be done. As I said earlier (below) this is the standard MO for JetWaveDave if you look at his edit history. He's trying to trash me like he did to Parsecboy. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he just has a personality disorder. Beam 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet account for Jetwave Dave. Yes, there is some sort of mental disorder going on. He creates wildly obscure articles through CopyVio and then personally attack those who try to enforce standards on his articles, links, and pictures. Same MO if you look at Jetwave Dave's history. Needs a perm block just like his previous persona, User:WatcherREME.--Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed a ton of seemingly random IP's replacing articles with this diff [45] So far the following IP's have made similar edits:

• 76.252.168.122
• 83.233.183.104
• 79.185.244.114
• 96.232.181.247
• 209.216.179.12
• 69.205.185.242
  Talk, My master
  21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus User:Poohea and some others apparently. Probably some 4chan gangup or something similar. Suva Чего? 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I didn't open that diff at work. Looks to be sort of the same vandalism that's been hitting some of the templates recently.

talk

) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile pirates aren't allowed at work? Beam 21:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's usually something frowned upon...

talk

) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this too.... I've never seen vandalism like this before. --

talk

) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A functionality could be implemented to disable IP edits involving large numbers of <br>s. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Someone w experience & tact might want to glance at this page. Does the organization really exist? Is is wiki notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC) That bot is fast. Blocked me as I tried to go back and sign.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this is not the best place for questions on articles' notability, I agree with you that this is either a hoax or a very non-notable organization. As such, you might want to

AfD it. If you need help with that, just let me know on my talk page. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Although AfD'd, this ought to be G3 Speedied. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's me again bringing up

06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can submit an WP:RFCU. I recommend starting there; if a match is made, the researching admin can, and probably will, block as needed. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good you traced my signature.but i did not steal it.I took it by asking.see User_talk:tinucherian.User_talk:rraunakI also grabbed it by asking about the church in medak.But how am i related..

(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪

06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I.E Same edits, same mistakes, lots of edits and copyedits on userpage/talk page design mostly copied from others users. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that their the same users. What cream brought up, same userspages, signatures, ect. --

talk

) 06:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, close usernames also. RRaunak has "R" on the front, and ElementR has an "R" at the end. --

talk

) 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My name is Rahul.and not rraunak understand ? I copied bits (not all) from his userpage.but see cream.he has also taken the border from rraunak

(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪

06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain the same edits to your user pages? Both of you edit your user page quite often, not to mention the same related topics. --

talk

) 06:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it myself for a better design but u RyRy is a designer i see !

(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪

06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the sock allegations but there's nothing wrong with stealing code for userpage design or signatures. Lots of people do it. In fact, I was just looking at another admin's userpage and it had a note saying he had stolen the code from someone else who stole it from someone else again. This is Wikipedia, you don't own anything. Sarah 11:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that you have a sock here, open a
  suspected sock case or as ThuranX said, file a request for checkuser. There's really nothing admin's can do here. Shell ^babelfish
  07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok now tell me can i keep up my present userpage and signature or modify it ?

(♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪

07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can keep it if you want to. Sarah 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• It would be better off filing an RFCU, but, ahem, I'v never done one before... I suppose this is a good day to start. Thanks,
  talk
  ) 07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell! I came here to check on the RRaunak thread and also to report on ElementR. Well its seems I dont have to. Isnt it so obvious that ElementR is a sock of RaunakRoy. Enven Infraud was probably a sock of Raunakroy. ElementR clearly fails the ducktest. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you all are doing here. So what if it is an alternate account? Let's assume that the two accounts belong to one person, what's he doing wrong? Someone might want to post diffs showing what the problem is because so far the only complaint I'm seeing is that they copied some code for their userpage and signature and that they make lots of edits. Neither account is blocked or banned and I'm just not seeing the problem or the reason for an ANI report. If you want to post some diffs showing that they've violated

WP:SOCK by using an alternate account then I am willing to look into it but at this stage this looks like another waste of time. Sarah

08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RRaunak made some rather disruptive edits and repeated them even after multiple warnings. Thjis time he is denying that ElementR is his sock. I don't think it is a good idea to wait until he repeats his disruptive patterns. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone needs to present some evidence showing that he is doing something blockable under policy, otherwise this may as well just be archived because no one is going to block him on the basis of what has been said here so far. Sarah 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a matter that I need a bureaucrat to resolve, that involves personal information. Could a bureaucrat please

)

Better off at

WP:BN, IMO. Enigma ^message

03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, if it involves personal information an email is probably better. Nwwaew, you could just email any bureaucrat of your choice rather than waiting for a 'crat to happen along. Sarah 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me where I can edit the entries in this list, because I want to pull one of the stories out to make them line up with the Did You Know entries on the other side of the front page. Or can someone do it for me please? Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 22 Moondyne 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I figured it out, what I really needed was some advice on whether I should pull a story from that section, as that would leave the section with only three stories and I'm not sure if that would be considered an insufficient number. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold: [63] [64]
• Japanese war crimes: [65]

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried

dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs

03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed,

WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C}

) 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[69]]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached

wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk

03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why its being discussed here again. Moondyne 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Moondyne.

You made mention of the “numerous warnings given” and then referred to my talk page. I would like to point out that all of those warnings are from the same person, Grant65 (starter of this complaint).

I would also like to point out, that the material I removed, and was warned for numerous times by Grant65 is still vacant from the article. Reason being is that novels (fiction) and books that do not contain reference to the article at all make for poor references. Yes, you read that correctly. The frivolous warnings were for removing false references. Hence, that is why I titled them “frivolous warnings” on my user talk page.

This is also noteworthy on the opening of this complaint, where Grant65 states: “This user has been warned before…”. What Grant65 fails to mention, is that he is the one who has done all of the warnings. Dubious in anyone’s book.

In closing, the creditable/reliable reference given for the Japanese war crimes article (the reason for this complaint) notes this about the source being used, the Seagraves novel (I will copy/paste my text from that talk page):

I would also like to point out, that the reference cited for the Looting sub-section makes note that the Seagraves (the sole source for the Looting sub-section) states that the Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate, are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese.

Chalmers Johnston’s book review (reference given) also points out that the book is full of errors and one of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity. Johnston goes on to point out that, the Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have taken the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book. Buy the book, and then buy the documentation afterwards? Jim (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make a brief exception to my rule about dealing directly with User:JimBobUSA to make three key points: (1) I believe that he is wrong about the CDs supporting Gold Warriors. My information is that they were never sold separately and were an "extra" with a limited number of copies of the book. (2) He misrepresents Johnson's view of the Seagraves, by citing the only passages of Johnson's very long article that are critical of the Seagraves. Johnson is not generally critical of Gold Warriors — far from it. (3) For the benefit of JimBobUSA and others who may be under similar misapprehensions, the main "incident" in question here is his attempt to delete citation of Johnson's article from Japanese war crimes, with edit summaries describing it as a "novel"(!) It plainly is not. Neither is the book it is reviewing. User:JimBobUSA either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (i) novels, (ii) scholarly books and (iii) book reviews. Grant | Talk 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For once more, impoliteness, incivility and difficult communications with

) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You aren't being reasonable with your dealings with BalkanFever. Perhaps you should try to work with others in disagreement. Beam 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I've notified him of this on his talk page, which you should have done. I did just see your notification on the talk page of the article in question, I'd prefer it on his talk page. But I guess that's just a fine point and not important.Beam 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the context of these comments at Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute I see no action necessary and would warn you not to edit war or pov push. Beam 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, are you an admin? Or his lawyer perhaps?? Or just his good friend?

talk

) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm his sworn enemy. Also, anyone else will probably make similar statements if they read that talk page. And Fut.Per is an admin, and I'm pretty sure he agrees with me. Beam 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that BalkanFever was blocked repeatedly for incivility or similar problems is wrong. He has only one block in his log (I should now, because I was the blocker), and it was for a revert-warring spree he succumbed to half a year ago when he was rather new. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, FPS you were the second blocker, see here.

talk

) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Only one block. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Prior to "BalkanFever" he was User:202.10.89.28.

talk

) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there was something in his early IP days, and he was honest enough to include the IP talk page in his later archive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that, only he hasn't changed his overall behaviour.

talk

) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I've had a couple of issues with the user as well. The most recent of those was this "probably cause you suck" to an annon and the response I got from BF I'm pretty sure he does suck. I don't have the time to get to the links right now, but I'd appreciate it if he didn't call Philipp Kirkorov gay and so on. It just looks like a habit of his to use such words, but it's not nice reading them, really. I don't think it's something worth a block, but a formal warning or something? --Laveol ^T 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it's because I myself am sometimes guilty of such statements (once at least), but I really don't think that "I'm pretty sure he does suck." is blockable. I haveto admit when I read that I chuckled. No, I'm not an uncivil jerk, but it suprised me. Plus BalkanFever is a good user. If ever does slip on civilitty, similar to me, it's only because he's fighting the good fight for NPOV, Consensus, and RS. The lightest of uncivil comments should not be put ahead of the Encyclopedia. Beam 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there won't be a third block even if those comments were uncivil. Beam 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I said it was not worth a block. --Laveol ^T 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

really? And why is that? Corvus cornix_talk 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were uncivil, which they weren't, blocks aren't punitive. You should try, and this may seem strange, speaking with the user whom you disagree with. Beam 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But you make it sound as if you have the final say in the matter. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever occasionally over-eggs the pudding with some of his comments but usually he's quite rational and sensible. I wish I could say the same for some his adversaries in this thread. We don't need to lynch him on ANI for a few misplaced words, thank you very much. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me please make it clear that I am not taking any side in this discussion, my only concern is the authoritarianism and finality with which Beam makes his pronouncements. Corvus cornix_talk 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for concern. Beam 22:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good people, lets get back to the point: someone has to do something with BF's repeated comments of such "quality".

talk

) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request some comment on my indefinite block of

17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. Look for an ip or what not to try to recreate "his" articles. Seems the type to not let go. Beam 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the block and the talk page protection were more than called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. Editor's got some issues with working collaboratively, from the looks of it, and the personal attacks were uncalled for. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me as well. The username could've probably been blocked long before the incivility as a USERNAME vio as a blatant spam username. Combine that with the obvious SPA/COI intentions of the account, and the belligerence/attitude when Wikipedia actually follows through on its intentions to keep spam out, and what you have here is a perfectly legitimate (and welcome) indef block + protection. Nice work, on to the next! Bye bye, ebfilms, come back when you're notable. Better yet, let someone else write about you when you're notable. Keeper ǀ 76 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block per Keeper76 EyeSerene^talk 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Another vanity spammer bites the dust. Good riddance. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, spamming isn't the way to be FILLED with vanity on Wikipedia, you just have to get 25 FA. Beam 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block Tan. Synergy 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block per the reasons above. Yet another spammer, this should really have been caught at UAA though. Rudget (logs) 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if this is quite the right place to bring this up, but I noticed the page for the computer game

) 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheres the vandalism? As far as I can tell, June (30th?) was the last edit. Synergy 09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no June 20th. In any event, if any article is subject to massive amounts of vandalism by multiples users/ips, it goes to

WP:AIV (this is because blocking one editor is preferred over protecting the article in question). Synergy

09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Grawp transclusion vandalism, someone has reverted the template so it's gone now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No wonder I couldn't see it... Synergy 09:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the flurry of protections, WP:ANI does not show on my watchlist anymore? Is it just me, or are others having the same problem? If it,s just me, what can be done?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem spontaneously went away the moment I posted something on the page. Blame it on gremlins. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably related to the recent protection. For some reason, when a page is protected, it vanishes from a watchlist until the next time an actual edit is made. --Elonka 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. I reported this as a bug; it was closed as "not a bug". --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, now someone tell me why I nearly checked to see if I was suffering the same problem, even though I was alterted to this thread by my watchlist...Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the system counts protection changes as an edit, and since watchlists only count the most recent edit to page, you are only seeing the many protection changes? At least that's what's happening to me. L'Aquatique[review] 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I observed the same phenomenon as originally reported. It's a quirk in the system. Similar to, though not maybe the same cause, as when you upload a photo and it doesn't show in your watch list until you edit it once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've been talking with another user for some time about articles disappearing from watchlists. 2/3 of Perth suburbs (which I'd meticulously watchlisted as soon as the "raw watchlist" feature became available) disappeared from mine and in his case, many Australian politicians disappeared. Orderinchaos 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

System shows protection changes by administrators (not the automated unprotection) in the revision history and when you upload a photo, its page is a redlink and its revision history doesn't exist. I'm not talking about the changes to the image itself, but to changes of the description text. These revision quirks are the reason why does this happen to watchlists. And, BTW, you will find the protected page if you look for an entry named "(Protection log)" on your watchlist. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that

) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that, as Allemandtando, he did very positive work and found him easy to deal with. Why does he feel the need to be a socking dick the rest of the time? I just don't get it... :( --Jaysweet (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he killerofcruft? If so, then good riddance. The last thing we need is more

WP:POINTy deletionists. --Dragon695 (talk

) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He was Killerofcruft, first. Fredrick day, if you look back, was essentially an SPA devoted to article deletion. I'd say Fd was a bad hand account taking on this work, and he's claimed he has other accounts that he keeps clean. He may be telling the truth.

I have a theory. People who get heavily involved in cleanup, including vandalism and article deletion, can start to get a very cynical attitude about people. I think we got it wrong, early on. The encyclopedic project shouldn't be about inclusion/deletion, it should be about categorization, and what we currently delete falls into a number of different categories that we should be treating differently. I've discussed this elsewhere, but my opinion is that the status quo isn't sustainable. There are broad solutions that will need to be considered, but to look at it in a more narrow way, when an editor adds some non-notable, self-promoting, unverifiable text to an article, we don't scrub it from the database, we don't delete the revision so that only admins can read it. We just wiki-delete it, it's an ordinary editorial decision. There have been proposals for this, see

talk

) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to include such stuff on your own "junkpedia" wiki or something.:) I miss Crufty, I thought what he was doing with his editing and proposed changes to articles was excellent. I think he knew his life span would not be as long as other's. Sorry if you are getting hastle from IPs, Abd, and hope it gets sorted. While I like Crufty's work I don't know all the history and if it's him doing the harassment I of course don't condone it. It's not that deletionism makes people lose the plot, but if someone gets blocked, sometimes they blame someone for that block and lose it a bit. This has nothing to do with deletionism and can happen regardless of why someone got blocked. Sticky Parkin 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in starting a new project. I like this one. And I'm trying to keep it from crashing, and it will if the situation I've been pointing to isn't faced. Might take a couple of years, but damage is being done and accumulating. Yes, it's him. Nobody who knows the history is likely to doubt it. By the way, one way of implementing the solution I'm suggesting is indeed a separate wiki, with interwiki transfer made easier than it is. Essentially, I'm trying to set it up so that, in effect, deletionists get their encyclopedia, inclusionists get their encyclopedia, each benefits from the other, and users choose what they want to see. And it's efficient. Got a problem with that? --

talk

) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Crufty/Fred has just posted here User_talk:Sticky_Parkin#ip_vandalism. He says the IP vandalism isn't him. Is he posting from the same IP range as them? Abd says Fred has a history of changing his IP, the IPs were said to be unrelated to Crufty/Fred in a checkuser. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fredrick_day. Of course, we can't even prove the bloke posting to my page is Fred.:/ Sticky Parkin 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

on the general matter of people developing a bias for acting in a certain way, I find that after a longish while of new page patrol I tend to over-delete enough to get some complaints. I've seen the same same thing tend to happen with others there, and also at afds, in both directions,and in spam fighting. I usually advise people to diversify. As for a separate wiki, the easy way is to set up one that will screen out articles from an inclusive one. Veropedia is something of that idea. If anyone wants to set up a non-pop culture version, and can think of an algorithm, the rest is easy enough. The difficulty, of course, is the extent to which the Wikipedia brand is known, which will make whatever is called by our current name the major resource. DGG (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in e-mail correspondence with Fredrick day/Allemandto. He admits that those accounts are related, and also provided me with the identity of a long-inactive account that he doesn't want to reveal publicly for real life identity reasons (if the account starts up again I will block it, but I see no reason to expect that it will, and inactive is as good as blocked for our purposes). He denies that most of the I.P. activity attributed to him is him, and also denies having access to the range of I.P.s that Abd claims he has (I express no opinion about the veracity of these claims). He denies being an SPA dedicated to deletion, and, with all due respect to Abd (which is a fair bit), this seems to contradict his impression that that's what Fd was.

talk

) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, SI. I'm glad you added the disclaimer about veracity, but I'd have assumed the same without it, you simply told us what he told you. As to SPA dedicated to deletion, the more important part would be "bad hand account." But I'm not pushing that claim at this point, it's unnecessary; however the activity analysis that SI pointed to would not tell us, for example, how many AfDs he filed or voted in. Perhaps I'll compile that, I have the data. I see in the analysis cited, nevertheless, an extremely high involvement with AN/I. And to prove "bad hand" would require ID of the master account. But Fd has acknowledged having other accounts, with a strong implication they were still active. None of these have been found. One was possibly ID'd, but checkuser was inconclusive. (Good hand account! And I dropped it because, by definition, that account was not doing damage. And if it was merely a coincidence, well, sad and tragic for a user to be harassed for mere IP range coincidence -- though this was specific IP, it was shared IP.) The old account he points to would probably not be that major good-hand account, it would be an account he abandoned, as he states; I'm skeptical he would reveal his real identity to SI, but it's not impossible. Given that he has lied over and over, and was continuing to lie or argue deceptively elsewhere as he communicated with SI, nothing he says can be trusted without verification. And as to his use of IP ranges, it is possible that some IDs on the SSP Talk page I've referenced are not him; however, the ones specifically given here were clearly him, and the IP range used yesterday was one such Range he has used before, and not in any uncertain way. To AGF, I'll presume that he forgot he's used that range, and didn't check my references to verify. The very first edit made by him when he was identified as the "Section 31" harassing IP editor, admitting it, before there had been any notice of it by anyone except me, was from the 88.105 range [70]. If this ID was an error, it's been mentioned many times, and he could have protested long ago. But for a long time he was "nyah, nyah, can't catch me" and didn't care about identification. Has he changed? I don't know. I just know that he lies and harasses and provokes and the rest. --

talk

) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As to the post to SP's Talk, that is Fd most common IP range, no reason at all to doubt that this was him. (Checkuser won't say, but I think it reasonably likely that this range was used for Allemandtando.) Sure, it could be someone else from his narrow range pretending to be him. How likely is that? Maybe it's me, maybe I flew to London, set up a Windows 2000 Server with his ISP, for remote access from the comfort of my office, and, heh, heh, can now do whatever I want and he'll get blamed for it. Until he complains to the ISP, and I'd presume he'd be savvy enough to do that if I were so insane as to do such a thing. As to what he says, though, remember that just a few days ago he was lying to all of you, and his modus operandi would suggest that he'd do anything to make it seem that those who notice him are idiots. There is a reason I consider it reasonably proven that the IP edits yesterday -- they weren't exactly vandalism, they were harassment -- were Fredrick day. The IP range is one that he has shown he can use, see Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, and, in particular, Special:Contributions/88.105.40.220 (explicitly Fd and shows what we are up against) and Special:Contributions/88.105.96.11, which is actually what he edited from when he acknowledged it was over for Fredrick day, and which also implies that Fd was merely one account of his.

Now, just looking at each of these edits, there wouldn't be any reason to think they were Fd, and, in fact, I didn't see it at first. I reverted one of them, thinking it was simply one more editor trying to impeach

, common. But then I happened to check the contributions for another IP which reverted in another article I watch, and, bingo! Three edits to articles I recently edited, nothing else. It's conclusive that this is an editor harassing me, and that is very, very characteristic of Fredrick day. Practically nobody else has done it. Now, another editor harassing me, from one of Fd's known access options? No that's it, million to one it isn't Fredrick day. Someday, somebody may decide to imitate Fd, and then Fd will get blamed for what they do. That's the breaks, that's what you get when you establish that you are capable of behaving as Fd behaved.

Now, deletionist editors, listen up! I'm not against you. You do valuable work, necessary work. But it is essential that major article and unsourced text deletion be done with serious respect and caution and helpful civility. I understand, it is very, very easy to become frustrated with all the POV pushers and the "fancruft" seems to breed in the dark, there is more in the morning than there was last night. But in your zeal to rid the encyclopedia of all this messy stuff, if you needlessly offend people, Wikipedia suffers. That must stop, and quickly. Delete someone's article and they call you every name in the book? Understand that the reaction is normal; with a minute's work, you destroyed -- he thinks -- his hours of work. Wouldn't you be pissed off? So cut him some slack, tell him how he can get a copy of his article you speedied, suggest other wikis, express regret for any inconvenience you caused, etc. You can still be firm about Wikipedia policy, but, please, when you interact with clueless fans, and the like, you represent Wikipedia, they will think you own the place. Don't trash our reputation! So when someone like Allemandtando shows up, blowing the bugle Charge! Kill cruft!, do not encourage him, and do not let it be inclusionist editors who are forced to restrain him. I'm an inclusionist, but I do not go after deletionists. Those are polarities, and wisdom is always, in comparison, a synthesis.

I was a prison chaplain, and I had some experience with prison gangs and how they function. Basic rule for functional gangs: do not allow your own members to abuse members of other gangs, it will cause a gang war. Instead, discipline them yourselves. A member of the

, even if it's "reliably sourced." Let me put it this way: the info in that article is based on a lurid newspaper report describing alleged behavior over thirty years ago as if it were current. My Muslim informant, supposedly an enemy, had a far more constructive view of the Aryan Brotherhood than did the newspaper writer). --

talk

) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion to incidents requiring admin intervention. Debate over content in specific articles should be relegated to the Talk Pages of those articles. --Richard (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. By the way, was there any such "debate" here? I did mention

talk

) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day (talk · contribs) has now requested an unblock at his talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he has, actually...

^T

13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He did, I commented, pointing out that without some kind of agreement governing future behavior unblock would be problematic. He removed my comment and his unblock request, noting that if I was going to continue to follow him, it was useless. I reverted his deletions, trying, actually, to persuade him to continue the confession he had started and to negotiate that agreement, but he deleted it all again. He's apparently unable to tolerate observation of his behavior and criticism, and that's fatal to the possibility of his return, I'd say. Too bad.... It seems that he acknowledges that he was the IP harasser that started this report, but it's hard for me to say for sure if he is seriously admitting it or being facetious. Definitely, he admits, through the whole thing, that he was Allemandtando and that his problem was that he behaved like an asshole. But I don't think he really gets the depth of the problem and the damage his behavior caused. Good work, yes, but at very high human cost.--

talk

) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodgechris was indefinitely blocked yesterday for using multiple sockpuppet accounts abusively (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dodgechris). He's now actively editing again using his sister's account PAWSFORSPORT2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While none of his edits with this account have been necessarily 'bad' thusfar, user contribs clearly follow his usual editing patterns. Is this grounds for this account also to be blocked? Frickative 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for dealing with that. Could someone tell me - what is the best way to report block evasion? He's now moved on to using Chesseman,ganster rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so is obviously going through accounts at quite a pace. Should I be opening new sockpuppet cases, or is it better to report it here? Frickative 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion for sockpuppetry, providing it is obvious and current, can be reported to AIV or here (AIV is faster but may be denied as not being obvious enough) and obvious but not currently editing should be reported here. Not obvious should be returned to SSP for a more expert opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Chesseman,ganster rabbit blocked indef as sockpuppet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - so just to be certain, it's definitely okay to report to AIV, even if the edits he's currently making with the new account don't actually constitute vandalism? As of this morning, he's moved onto using King Sausauges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Frickative 13:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is critical that it is obvious; so after the sockpuppet account give the sockmaster account and another blocked sockpuppet account so the article contribs can be compared. AIV admins do not want to do the investigation work, they want to protect the encyclopedia from vandals who are operating "now" - so provide them with the proof. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

King Sausauges now indef'd as a sock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit diff edit-diff . Please see that the edit summary is an indirect legal threat. As it is quite serious, I request immediate action.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you take an oath of any sort? If not, then you can't perjure yourself in the legal sense. —Kurykh 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the word i had used "indirect" . User:fowler is clearly threatening here, why else he should make a remark like don't perjure yourself.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a breach of

WP:NLT. On the other hand, anyone looking at this should probably be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer... --Akhilleus (talk

) 06:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:akhileus, Did you mean to say that I had made similar legal threats before???? This is as per

WP:NLT.-Bharatveer (talk

) 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I realize it's late at night, but I'm not seeing it. Where is the alleged "legal threat" in Fowler's posting? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See edit summary.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in riddles tonight. Please state explicitly what you're getting at. Quote the guy's alleged "threat". I'm not seeing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"No Legal Threats", not "no legal terms". Honestly, now. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone posted this to my talk page. If anyone can find a "threat" in there anyplace, please point it out to me in plain, straightforward English:

Regarding Bharatveer's allegations against Fowler&fowler

These are the diffs I (will get an account soon) found "threatful"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=226880350 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala_school_of_astronomy_and_mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=226878753 Was just trying to solve the riddle... anyways keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.60.172 (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a threat anywhere in there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit [71]. Territorial expansionism. Inflammatory messages.
These kind of messages are not enhancing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum nor a graffiti wall. Kubura (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning left for user.

talk

) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please review my actions at Overspending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in particular in relation to this thread on the talk page: Talk:Overspending#Primary_source_is_outdated. I plan to disengage, so as to ensure I don't violate 3RR, but would like other admin's opinions as to whether I've already crossed (the spirit of) that line. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for

WP:DRV nomination to review the closure of the recent AfD. (It was a speedy Keep, closed in less than 8 hours by a non-admin, without meeting the criteria for speedy keep in my opinion). Nothing wrong with you proposing the DRV since you were the AfD nominator, if you choose that option. EdJohnston (talk

) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• disruption out of pique relating to another AFD. Since his behaviour seems to be stalking
  , it is well that he should withdraw. As for the article, I shall continue to work upon it as the fancy takes me since no-one else is doing so. Removing tags is quite proper in the course of such work since that is their purpose: to provoke edits which address the issue. In my most recent edit, I:

• added a source which was more recent than the disputed source
• provided some historical context to show that overspending is not a new phenonemon and so does not require an exclusively contemporary treatment.

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, Colonel, please

WP:AGF. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk

16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)