Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive501

Monarchians has been moving hundreds of articles related to Thai royalty in the last couple of days without any discussion. The previous article names were generally in the form of first given name or first two given names without titles, conforming to this style guide.[1] There has been lengthy debate on the issue of whether to add titles following the name. I don't have a dog in that fight, I'd just like to see something consistent. It's a big mess the way it is now. Monarchians has added titles both before and after the given name and sometimes even put the same title in twice in the article name. This does not conform to any style. Here are some examples, with the current article name first and the "short" form of the person's name following:

--> Chula Chakrabongse
--> Chulabhorn Walailak
--> Dipangkorn Rasmijoti
-->Mahidol Adulyadej
--> Ramphaiphanni
-->Rangsit Prayurasakdi
-->Vibhavadi Rangsit
--> Saovabha
--> Vajiralongkorn
--> Savang Vadhana
--> Srinagarindra
--> Srirasmi
(This one is just wrong -- Srirasmi's title is simply "princess")
-->Sukumalmarsri
--> Ubolratana
-->Valaya Alongkorn
-->Waranonthawat
-->Yugala Dighambara
--> Chatrichalerm Yukol
--> Chakrabongse Bhuvanath
-->Bhanu Yukol
-->Bejaratana‎
--> Soamsavali Kityakara‎
‎--> Sirindhorn
("Princess royal" is an unofficial translation of "princess maha chakri", so this is redundant)
‎-->Galyani Vadhana

Hundreds more moves were made similar to these. I hope someone can revert them all. Kauffner (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention defaultsort troubles. Other than violating style guidelines, the user's not really doing anything "wrong"... s/he is probably familiar with wikis other than enwiki?

Gracenotes^T

§ 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, just a user & sometime editor, but I do live in Thailand. It seems to me that Monarchians is a Thai Monarchist, and is trying to enforce Thai standards of address on English-language Wikipedia. It is above my pay grade to decide whether or not to get in a dog fight over it, but the only article that I think it just might make a difference has naught to do with a Royal, but the new Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva: if his name in Thai is not preceded by some sort of title, then it reverts to a noun signifying [one who has special] privilege. In Thailand. Where most people speak Thai. Pawyilee (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's a historical page,

WP:NCNT says use the "most common form of the name used in English". I highly doubt these full titles are the most common forms used in English. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 07:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not involved in the old discussions, but if First name + Additional name (if existing) were to be applied, a few items in Kauffner's proposal will need to be changed:

• Saovabha
  (full birth name without titles)
• Sukumalmarsri
  (preferred English spelling)
• Waranonthawat
  (preferred English spelling)
• Bhanu Yukol
  (correct name and preferred English spelling; in contrast to his nephew Chatrichalerm Yukol's surname, Yugala here is part of the full birth name.)
• Srinagarindra doesn't follow the logic of Savang Vadhana and Saovabha Phongsri, as the last two are being referred to by their birth names (which are also assumed in their queen consort titles) rather than their widow titles. Princess Mother Srinagarindra was born a commoner, though, and before receiving the Srinagarindra title, she was known as Princess Consort Sangwan, which is much less well-known.
• Soamsavali instead of Soamsavali Kityakara‎
  (surname not included)

--Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Monarchians is still moving articles as of today (i.e. after this notice was posted), but in fairness, (s)he had not been clearly told to stop. I have asked him/her to cease the moves for now. If (s)he does not, perhaps a block would be warranted? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this doesn't seem to be a problem needing administrative intervention (unless the user continues to move pages). I just saw the discussion on Kauffner's talk page, and I think this is an issue the community should be able to resolve. Monarchian's contributions are valuable at least in determining the royalty's full titles (which are lacking in the articles), and as Gracenotes notes, poorly-informed page moves are not reason for administrative intervention. If Monarchians insists on a change to the (outdated) MOS, We should start a discussion at WikiProject Thailand and ask other project members for input. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started such a discussion here. Kauffner (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war brewing at Mississippi between an IP and User:Christchild777 and myself (myself to the extent that I keep reverting to preserve sourced content until a consensus is met). I believe the IP and Christchild777 are the same person. Interestingly, Christchild is now redirecting his/her userpages to User:N/A and I wasn't sure of the policy on that either. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 15:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not identical with Christchild777, and what has been said above is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on, see the talk page of the article. 91.0.62.38 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And please someone have a look into the behaviour of Allstarecho, who keeps readding content, although several editor have said that this section is not appropriate for the article.I removed this section, explaining the removal in the edit history and he promptly reverted without explanation, simply stating that I am vandalizing.91.0.62.38 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Until a consensus appears to remove that section (it currently doesn't, on the talkpage at least, where views vary) then removing sourced information could be seen as vandalism. Therefore, please stop doing it. I have reverted. Black Kite 19:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP has since reverted again (only to be immediately reverted back), but since both the 91.0.x.x IPs are the same editor, and they have now removed the content four times, I have blocked both for 31 hours. Black Kite 19:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I reverted because the reason given (vandalism) is offensive and not true. How can a good faith edit that was suppported by arguments given on the talk page be vandalism. But good luck anyway, the stronger wins. Must be an American thing, the tactics of Allstarecho, intimidation, blocking, attacking. Bye,91.0.111.35 (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, not being American. But since this user is operating from a dynamic range far too big to rangeblock, I have semi-protected Mississippi for a week. Any other admin may wish to remove or tweak this. Black Kite 19:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry, I will not violate this 3rr rule, and if someone would have told me earlier I would not have reverted the edits. Will you also block Allstarecho, who kept reverting, too? Oh wait, my edits are labelled here as vandalism, so Allstarecho is the good guy, right? 91.0.111.35 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. It was you who was removing sourced material from the article on multiple occasions. Allstarecho was merely putting the material back. Unfortunately, whilst not always necessarily "vandalism", removing sourced material without consensus is looked upon poorly - see

WP:CONSENSUS. Black Kite

20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, BlackKite you are misrepresenting what has happened here and your response is one-sided and biased. The first time I removed the section I gave a reason in the edit summary, “section does not assert notability for the context of a state, removed per WP:UNDUE”. No one has to agree with this reasoning, but it should be clear that this was not vandalism. Allstarecho then reverted, giving as reason RVV and slammed a vandalism warning on my talk page. Do you think that this kind of intimidation is okay? And do you think that it is ok to canvass selectively and in non-neutral words, as Allstarecho did? And is it ok that Allstarecho is insinuating that other editors are homophobe, is using various vandalism and “no personal attacks” templates to intimidate other editors who are not as established and experienced as he or she is? Because according to your reaction to this incident all this ok. Thanks for making that clear.91.0.74.17 (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

// roux   04:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite

I was ready to let this go, but, unfortunately, some people never learn: here. The lad is disappointed over the copyvio I tagged for deletion earlier today. I'd really appreciate some input here, cheers! BanRay 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done. BanRay 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisms on Harry Julian Allen have been quite frequent in the last few days, because the page was mentioned on Yahoo! Answers.

Interestingly enough, some RC patrollers (in good faith, I believe) rolled back some of these vandalisms only to restore the most abusive version of that article!

Maybe the page could be semi-protected for a few days, until the question on Yahoo! Answers becomes old.

This is the last good version I can see.

--Lou Crazy (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears there's only been six edits to that article in the last few days, and none since July before those. The RC patroller made an error. Protection isn't needed right now, though some more watchlists would be good. (In future, you'd be better taking this to

requests for protection, by the way.) Tony Fox (arf!)

04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• 83.203.93.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 67.202.1.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I and others have reverted similar edits by different ranged IPs that seem to be against Durova. Please compare this with this. I am not sure if these IPs edits seem consistent with any known user or what, but the issue is ongoing and so maybe some page protecting may be needed? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Those vandalism edits are similar, yet they're two completely different ranges? Thoughts? VX!^~~~ 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

They also seem to have an interest in V for Vendetta. Does that ring any bells? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, one's from Paris and the other is from Kansas City, Missouri. Weird. VX!^~~~ 19:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess just warn them and see if more develops. VX!^~~~ 19:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we should promptly block anyone engaging in on-line harassment. No warnings necessary for blatant, disruptive trolls. JBsupreme (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a note at User_talk:Durova#IP_vandalism.2C_personal_attacks_against_you in case if she has a better idea of who is behind this. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much for keeping on top of this. I was out shopping and missed the whole thing. Feels good to return and see that people care. Happy holidays! :) Durova^Charge! 23:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; hope you bought something nice. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Admins did the right thing by blocking the IPs.[5][6] We must not tolerate harassment. The two IPs are from two different countries. When you are a famous WP editor, you can have enemies anywhere. AdjustShift (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Fouldsy09 repeatedly posted personal attacks on people's user pages. Now, he created a new account called User:Fouldsy08 and is still vandalizing. Schuym1 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been indeifinately blocked. Schuym1 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The ips 118.136.44.99 and 118.136.43.120 have been using the article Carnivore as a place to shove some other band's information in. His ips are within the same range persistently making these edits not showing any signs of giving up/understanding even when some (including myself) have explained to him why it's not allowed. He's about due for a block and is past his fourth warning. FireCrystal (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked both of the IPs and someone else has already protected Carnivore (band).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to hit me with the cluestick; I should probably know this. I recently reverted this edit, which introduced a copyvio of this website. Do I need to delete the article and restore all but the offending revisions, or is letting it languish in the page history okay? Thanks, Hermione1980 02:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We normally only delete copyvios like that if someone complains. --Carnildo (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup, what Carnildo said. I'd also delete if it was sitting in the edit history for a long time and was the primary text of the article (which obviously isn't the case here). either way (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

98.194.199.220 (talk · contribs) Anyone have any idea who this IP actually is? He keeps leaving me bizarre messages about kangaroo courts and admin abuse, but I've never had any dealings with them... --Smashville^talk 17:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's

Tan | 39

17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WHOIS record here, if needed. It's a Comcast IP. VX!^~~~ 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't Captain K die? I'm being haunted! --Smashville^talk 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He's back. Can someone else block him...my 6 month idea is probably a little overkill... --Smashville^talk 00:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris G did it already: [7], though only for 3 days. I would recommend you search through people you blocked recently to see if this guy rings any bells. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's probably User:LittleGreenVolleyball. I didn't get to finish the decline on his unblock because my cat was helping...but essentially, sockmaster -> IP -> sockpuppet. Fairly blatant. IP number of the one that keeps posting on my page is similar, too. --Smashville^talk 07:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The "(Network) Affiliates for (State)" templates are being combined by area (New England, Rocky Mountain, etc) by two users (probably one in the same),

• December 22, 2008 @ 04:02

Is there a need for administrative intervention here? Right now it appears to be a content dispute. Is there anything going on other than that? either way (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably going to need admin help, because they are all page moves. I, at the moment, can't revert page moves. An admin would have to do that. If

WP:TVS member and can help speed along the process of reverting, it would be helpful. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• December 22, 2008 @ 04:33

There are no page moves as far as I can tell, only redirects. The only admin tool that would be somewhat relevant here would be rollback, but that wouldn't be appropriate since this is a content dispute and not vandalism or the like, either way (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I am doing this by myself...lovely. Any help on reverting you could give would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:49

It's kinda tough to tell where what redirects to what. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 04:51

• User:Yay999's edits have been reverted (what a mess that was). Am on to revert User:XPL883 mass edits. Any help would be VERY appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 06:22

• For the record, I'm not on anyone listed in this thread's payroll, so I fail to see the reason behind attempting to assign me this task. JPG-GR (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, upon checking, I'm not even a member of WP:TVS. JPG-GR (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that, thought you were. The reason I thought of you, was I knew you did alot of page move work. Metros said it is a simple redirect revert, so that I can do on my own. When I thought it was going to require page moves, I thought of you. Think of it as a compliment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 06:59

Please protect User:Persian Poet Gal's page and delete certain stalkerish edits! LovesMacs (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not totally fixed, there's an account doing the same thing, User:Offensiveandconfusing! LovesMacs (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in case I am requesting an oversight for Offensiveandconfusing's talkpage. Rgoodermote  08:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits oversighted (and very quickly may I add). Rgoodermote  08:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oversight is done. Can you guys monitor User_talk:Offensiveandconfusing as I've blocked the account indef, pending a plausible explanation? Checkuser shows that the computer making the oversight edits is likely to be the editor's computer, and I'm not seeing any evidence of 'hacking'.[8] Feel free to override my block if deemed necessary, as I'm not really here these days tho' I'm available by email - Alison ^❤ 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He is on my watchlist. I can't do anything about unblocking. But I will send you a message if he says anything. But honestly, from that uncyclopedia page...I don't think this user is going to be a very good editor. Rgoodermote  09:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Two accounts,

.

Also, see possible wrongful copyright claim by one account File:MarkLevin.jpg (unrelated to above article)

Anyone ready to wield the block hammer and/or clue-stick ? Abecedare (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Protonk took care of blocking the two mister Dandreas. Could a checkuser perhaps look into the connection between the two accounts; I can file and RFCU if necessary, or if we don't want to get all wonky, any checkuser could just indicate here what the results are... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a

WP:DUCK situation. The 'sock' account was indeffed and the master got 2 months. That is based on the fact that the actual damage due to socking was minimal and not undertaken with as much intent to confound and obstruct as the usual sock-puppets. I am, of course, open for this block to be reviewed and shortened if an administrator decides that Markdandrea won't do this in the future. Protonk (talk

) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue there, using a sock to edit war is still a Bad Thing(TM), especially when the material being added is questionable at best. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me who is thinking "why the hell does that article even exist?" Sceptre ^(talk) 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yeah. Ask the various news organizations which lavished time and attention on this non-issue. Of course if we think that lefty blogs wouldn't be apoplectic over John McCain's panama birth were he elected, we are kidding ourselves. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That, and I don't see the 2000 election conspiracy theories article (ranging from ballot stuffing to "misplacing" ballots to deliberately stalling the recount to packing SCOTUS with conservatives). Sceptre ^(talk) 04:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just an invitation to be bold. :) Protonk (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That article was basically created as a dumping ground for the various nonsense theories about Obama's citizenship. If and when all the court cases are finally settled, a small summary (as with the McCain article) would suffice within the Obama article. Until then, I do not recommend deleting it, as it will just go back to edit-warring on the Obama article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a suitable venting valve in my opinion, which gives venue to shunt the whack-a-doodle insertion of CT into the various Obama articles. I think even beyond inauguration it is a nice museum piece for the looney fringe. Lestatdelc (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Two different, totally unique people with virtually identical views and virtually identical names editing the same article at the same time, and backing each other up? I started to run a checkuser, but then gave up when I realised that I could see a thousand dancing hamsters on the checkuser results and still think they were sockpuppets, or at the very least, meatpuppets. --Deskana (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think people with the time and distance (i.e., most fairly partisan United States users like myself are not suited for the job!) need to look closely as BLP as it relates to COATRACK here.

) 04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What image? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The image File:MarkLevin.jpg mentioned in my original post that was uploaded by the user and falsely labelled free.

I think we can mark this issue "resolved" now, but in case someone missed their favorite soap-opera today, do read the unblock request by Markdandrea in which he now claims that Mdandrea is his son ! Abecedare (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Father and son, blocked together. A heartwarming story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of grassy knolls and conspiracy theories, the attempt to delete the article was shot down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not quite - it's at

WP:DRV now. Black Kite

20:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

unindent

Collateral damage: The autoblock caught me in its net. User:East718 took care of the unblock request for me, and in his own words: "I've turned off the autoblocker on Mdandrea's account and unblocked your latest IP." This is because my work computer cycles through a group of IP proxies.
That said, it also tells me that the user(s?) in question are editing from a

13:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Semper Fi! I asked him his name. He said: "Puddintame. Ask me again, I'll tell ya the same." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where to put this, so I think this is the best place.

I randomly got to an

) 09:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You won't--well, shouldn't, and it wouldn't be believed if you were--get accused of harassment if you post a nice message on the user's talkpage saying "Hey, I saw this edit on this page. It looks a bit off to me because of XYZ, but maybe I'm missing something? Could you let me know what you were aiming for?"

That said, it looks to me like bog-standard marketing drivel, and you were right to remove it. // roux   09:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be really glad to be informed that an edit I made seemed unusual or otherwise off. Something like "Hey, I noticed your edit to LMNOP. (provide diff) It seemed a little unusual to me and might actually violate

WP:FOOBAR, so I reverted it". Fast and easy for you (easier than checking contribs for a pattern of vandalism), and helpful to the receiving party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 16:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The bog-standard marketing drivel is not the oddity here, really. The oddity is that the bog-standard marketing drivel was already in the article, and he has copied it and pasted it right beneath the previously existing text. (See here.) Double the bog-standard marketing drivel. And he's done this twice. That is quite odd, but I have a theory. :) I notice that the pasted section includes one new sentence: "An HD-DVD version was released in 2007." I don't believe this is intentional disruption (aka vandalism); I think he's attempting to add a fact to the article, but instead of inserting it in the existing text is reproducing the entirety. I see he hasn't been notified of this thread. I will remedy that, as per custom, and address the matter at his talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend directing the editor to the article talkpage and talking things out there. Some simple communication would probably help matters seeing as how he seems to be, as you say, a constructive editor in other areas of wikipedia. That's my feedback on the situation. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to report Pixelcounter for abuse and foul language, at here, thank you.

Sardaka (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing administrators at the English-language Wikipedia can do about abuse on other projects. You'll need to contact someone at the project concerned - Commons in this case. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 09:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Incivility removed, warning left, reporting user notified via talk page. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 11:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

An admin made a change to a protected templated that went beyond both the request that was made and the consensus of the discussion behind it. (The request was for a change of width to an infobox, but the admin also changed the font size, which was never discussed.) Would someone please be good enough to undo it? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c}

• I don't see how this is an "incident". Why don't you wait for someone to see the request in the edit-protected queue? I don't want to jump in and revert that change w/o reading more of the discussion. Protonk (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

His comment can be found here BillyTFried (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for admin intervention at

) 07:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

Hello! I have been working towards a merger of the individual stub pages for 4 regional names (and many others that don't have their own articles) for the same sandwich,

. Therefore the current Hoagie page violates . That proposal isn’t going well for him as it is being seen as intentionally disruptive editing. So, after he reverted my edits 3 times in a row today, I added a 3-RR warning to his talk page hoping he'd stop, but instead he responded by adding the same warning to my talk page and then reverted my edits for a fourth time, and then reported me to the admins.

Here's a few examples of Kevin's

wp:Good faith

efforts in this situation:

• Kevin's first action in this situation was when a week after I posted the Merge Proposal Tag, Straw Poll and RfC he politely claimed that "no consensus has emerged to support a merger. Result: close RfC and remove merge tag. Cheers!", and then unilaterally removed the merge proposal tag and closed out my RfC, instead of allowing me to pursue that process which goes for 30 days, and despite the fact that the poll results at that time stood at 6 to 3 for Merge (now 11-6). When I caught on to what he'd done I reversed it and confronted him and he politely admitted he was wrong, but continued his polite but tricky tactics.

• His next shady action was when he removed a pic of the British
  Holland 1
  submarine that a cited source in the article said the sandwich was named for saying it was an "unrelated" image that had a bad date under it, and then when I restored it and removed the date under it to satisfy his complaint, he turned around and removed it again and replaced it with a pic of a different submarine not mentioned in the article and then dated it himself by putting WWII under it. I just walked way from that one.

• Then he decided to tell me what he thought of me on my Request For Mediation page by making a new section called "Wiki-Drama? BTF" (my initials) and stated that "You are cluttering the discussion with so much wikidrama and distorting the processes by continuing to vomit your emotional rhetoric". When called on that one he again politely apologized and then changed his comments to be less offensive, leaving my remaining replies looking overblown. I thanked him but reverted his edits and ask that he just use the Strike Out tag, but he reverted my edit and told me if I didn't like it then call an Admin.

• Then he took things a step further by placing a Merge Proposal tag on the
  Submarine Sandwich page suggesting it and other sandwich articles be merged with Sandwich
  stating that "Since there seems to be a strong and vocal group advocating a reduction of the number of articles about sandwiches, I suggest that we study the options including a more complete merger to one article about sandwiches". As I said before, that one isn't going well for him as it is being seen for what it is.

• Then he started making changes to the
  Hoagie
  page which contradicted what its own cited sources said in order to try and boost the notability of the page that was facing a merge. When I caught this, I change the content to accurately reflect its sources, then he reverted my changes, then re-re-revert, and we ended up here.

Just as I have stated about the Phili-phile, SummerPhD, I feel that Kevin Murray may fall into this category regarding the current situation: Consensus is not the same as unanimity. "Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best."

I had avoided taking things here as I thought or hoped it was not necessary, but now that we're here, I hope that you will give Kevin Murray the "reality check" he is asking for. Thanks! BillyTFried (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing to find this oddity sandwiched in amongst heavier disputes. I don't see why we need multiple articles for the same subject. I recall a TV ad featuring Subway founder

Fred De Luca, in which he said, "Some people call them submarine sandwiches, some call them hoagies; I call them Subway Sandwiches." I see the same illustration is being used for both articles, also. Maybe the complainant could explain what the practical difference is between a sub and a hoagie? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

12:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME, anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk

) 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Verging on

WP:LAMEST. – ukexpat (talk

) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It needs more meat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of eating hoagies! I want a grinder, a sub, a foot-long hero! I want to live, Marge! Won't you let me live? Won't you, please? --Smashville^talk 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"But even in Britain, where they don't bother to dub the original American voices (for The Simpsons), probably only a few get the joke. You see a hoagie, a grinder, a sub, and a hero are one and the same thing. They are simply regional names for a sandwich served on a large Italian roll and filled with Italian meat, cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, and sprinkled with olive oil and spices. Variations on the basic recipe are made by filling the sandwich with other things, such as tuna salad, roast beef, ham and cheese, meatballs, and all manner of other ingredients. Subs can be served either hot or cold. All the exotic things that Homer associates with travel are simply roses by another name."

Yeah its lame, I know. But trust me, some people would shoot you dead for calling their sandwich the "wrong name" faster than they would for calling their God make-believe! I think maybe someone just needs to buy Kevin this shirt for Xmas. BillyTFried (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, this has made me hungry...I think I'm going to head off to

Jersey Mike's. --Smashville^talk

20:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's so funny that they have one in Nashville and call em' Subs! I may have to head over to Jersey Joe's in San Carlos, CA where they call em' Hoagies! BillyTFried (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Chicago... so I'll have an Italian beef sandwich instead. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And do you say "sand-wich" or "sam-wich" or "sa-wich"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought everyone says "sammich"! Shit I better start a new article for

Sammich! :-P BillyTFried (talk

) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to say "san-wich" with a three P's and silent Q. I hope everybody has their own personal intervention with a Sub/Hoagie/Grinder soon.

♪BMWΔ

12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's plain to see that everyone here is well-bread. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That was a pretty crummy pun. Horologium (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Observers often comment upon my rye sense of humour. Decorum inhibits me from repeating those comments. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this entire line of discussion should be toast.

♪BMWΔ

14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta roll anyway. BillyTFried (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jwh3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Contentious AFD, and it has gotten ugly...

User has removed the AFD banner from the article [12], removed comments from the AFD itself [13], and engaged in persistent attacks on other editors at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Hunter_(film_director). Warned multiple times. Chasingsol (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Appears to also be editing under User:68.191.139.230.Chasingsol (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a block maybe neccesary. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion of a COI here, as do other editor's, related to the article's subject and the editor's username.Chasingsol (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

He was already blocked for it yesterday and hasn't edited since...why would we issue another? Nevermind...I see the IP edits. --Smashville^talk 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked his IP and his username for 48 hours. --Smashville^talk 17:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated.Chasingsol (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually unblocking him now...on second look at his edits, he hasn't done anything since coming off the block...I confused myself on what day it was...in the above diff, he didn't remove anyone's comment...he deleted his own comment and removed an SPA tag. Not really blockable. --Smashville^talk 17:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate your diligence. I understand he's new to editing (as am I), and having an article put up for deletion can be blood-pressure raising.Chasingsol (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but at least he knows we're keeping an eye on him, I guess. --Smashville^talk 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the incivility on the AFD continues, it's not productive at all. Ad-hominem attacks against multiple editors giving their opinion.Chasingsol (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See [14]. Chasingsol (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This one is too far. I blocked him for a week to allow the AfD to run its course. --Smashville^talk 20:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Chasingsol (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Could a few neutral veterans keep an eye on the Rashid Khalidi article? I came to it after a third opinion request weeks ago. An editor has removed an entire section of sourced content and has refused proposal after proposal after proposal and won't allow any compromise to restore it. The section has good sourcing, and the good faith editors involved are open to it being modified as needed and as appropriate with well sourced and reasonable modifications. But there comes a point where obstruction, wikilawyering, and gaming the system become real concerns. If you go to the talk page you'll see what looks like good faith discussion, but what you won't see are the three or four archives of discussion and obstruction over this same few short section. I'm willing to go into more detail about the specific nature of the problems, but if people are willing to help with the process and help to resolve it in a reasonable way, I'd rather not engage in a big drama filled battle. But I challenge anyone to read all the archived discussion and conclude that the process hasn't been abused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral observer of the article during the last several weeks, I'd like to point out that there is a serious question of

WP:BLP/N) may be more appropriate for this discussion. Priyanath ^talk

03:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I doubt anyone will have time to read the entire discussion that's gone on for several weeks, but regardless, these disagreements are currently being worked out by several editors. This should be clear from the talk page, as well as the request for mediation that was filed not long ago but is on hold while discussion remains productive.[15] ChildofMidnight, for whatever reasons, has decided that one side of the discussion is being obstructive, and so he has repeatedly shown up and re-added material that was removed in accordance with

WP:BLP, and perhaps that if ChildofMidnight believes one side is right or wrong he should explain this on the talk page in order to reach consensus. Mackan79 (talk

) 03:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2) The original complaint above is a pure content matter - an editor can't impose the content he wants in the article, a claim that Khalidi is a former "PLO Spokesman", which was part of the overall "Obama pals around with terrorists" line from the recent Amercan presidential election. Other editors who refuse to agree to the edit, he reasons, must think they own the article, be playing obstructionist games, refuse to compromise, be pushing their POV, and so on. I would call it a "content position" but hey, one man's content is another man's

WP:POV

.

The real problem is that ChildofMidnight has several times reverted in material that was challenged on BLP grounds as either being poorly sourced,

Khalidi of lying about his career. Worse, even though I am clearly not the only one with BLP concerns this editor has fixated on me for incivility, threats, accusations of bad faith, grandstanding, disruption, etc. using words like "shameful", "should be ashamed", "lousy", and "delaying tactics", "whitewash", and "not a reasonable good faith editor", [22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

ChildofMidnight has also been goading another inexperienced editor,

Pure argumentativeness", being an "obstreperous editor", considering Khalidi my "hero", and many of dozens of other insults, then pretending he wasn't talking about me.[32] Historicist encourages ChildofMidnight's behavior, saying "[he] threatens and bullies... it's all there. I'm very glad to see you standing up to him.",[33] and wondering how the two of them can "stop such a manipulative fellow" as me.[34]

At long last Historicist admits he is here for reasons other than to improve the encyclopedia, accusing Khalidi of being a "PLO Spokesman" as a breaching "experiment" based on a colleague's challenge to show whether he can "try to get accurate information to stick" on Wikipedia,[35] and concluding that he wishes this "vile" place would "collapse."[[36]]

This is all very toxic and unwelcome. Although the players are different this reminds me uncomfortably of the pre-election POV sockpuppet attack on all of these articles, on the same subject, Obama = friend of terrorists. I should not have to be abused and taunted by editors who are trying to prove a

WP:TRUTH

so they can demonstrate Wikipedia's wretchedness, nor by editors who poison the well against consensus because they have convinced themselves I am some kind of troll. I have begged, pleaded, and warned both of these editors, dozens of times, to stop attacking me, and to use the talk pages for article improvements rather than complaining about other editors. Historicist's behavior has improved in the past day or so, although I still question whether he desires to improve the article or this is still part of his "experiment" to see if he can make his content stick. ChildofMidnight continues to disrupt.

I'm not sure what I want out of this notice board - I did not bring the complaint. I would like to be able to edit the article in peace, and to urge editors who are not here to improve the article or establish consensus to stop editing the article outright. Hope this makes sense. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring / BLP

Despite bringing the matter here, and being warned not to revert nonconsensus material editors claim to be a BLP vio, the complaining editor is now revert-warring the content.[37][38] Wikidemon (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite the edit-warring there does seem to be a genuine desire to resolve this dispute, so I've given the article one month's full-protection to allow all parties to engage in the on-going mediation case without distractions. I'd strongly encourage every interested editor to participate in this - failure to so could be seen as evidence of an intent to ignore consensus and continue disruption. I hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 11:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is no closer to becoming inclusive and balanced than it was two months ago. Most of Wikidemon's accusations are false or misleading. Indeed Khalidi has been a controversial and polarizing political figure, but you'd never know it from the article. I haven't objected to a single version of the content added by Wikidemon. My only protest is to the exclusion of ALL material about Khalidi's past work and his politics. This has been covered extensively in the mainstream media and in academic circles. Every effort as dispute resolution has been rebuffed by Wikidemon's refusal to participate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What is there to mediate? This editor continues to fixate on me as their sole obstacle to telling the

WP:TRUTH. I stand by what I say 100%. Half a day ago mediation was on hold pending a "breakthrough"[39] on the article talk page where the four most active editors were nearing consensus of their own accord before ChildofMidnight showed up to disrupt things again. In six sequential edits:[40]

Me: "I generally agree [with X]."

Avi: "[proposal x] should be agreeable."

Historicist: "Let's go with [X]."

Mackan79: "I don't mind [X]."

- then -

ChildofMidnight: "The obstruction and blocking of well sourced content in favor of this awkwardly written and defensive whitewash is a strange thing to behold. It's a triumph of 'politically correct' nonsense....bias, wikilawyering, and gaming the system....editors who have diverted the good faith ....in favor of this sham, should be ashamed of themselves. And don't go harassing me on my talk page. I don't want to hear from 'you'." (reverts in BLP vio)[41]

What can mediation do to help abuse and disruption? The participants have a consensus already. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, particularly after this[42] (ChildofMidnight, in response to my saying we seem to have consensus, accuses me of "disruptive obstruction" and "silly distortions and twisting of the truth"). Can we please have an administrator take a look at the unabated

WP:NPA violations? Let me make this clear. We should not have mediation unless we can ensure a civil process, and if the consensus process is unfinished we cannot finish it in an atmosphere of accusations and abuse. Wikidemon (talk

) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The administratrators should know that we have reached consensus before, and posted the material on th page, only to have [[[User:Wikidemon]] remove the material, Protect the page, And start the duscusson again. Wikidemon appears to have infinite time and infinite determination to block this material from the page. Using a endless and varying array of threats, page blocks, repetitive and ever-changing arguments, he has prevented this material from being entered on the page for two months, and appears willing to go on arguing and blocking sourced material forever merely because he dislikes it. I would welcome an administrator who would take a close look at Wikidemon's behavior.Historicist (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, pah! Historicist has been repeating this flat-out falsehood to score points at every opportunity. He is describing a failed stunt he and another editor pulled to push through something nobody agreed to. It's already the subject of a previous bogus AN/I report against me two weeks ago so it's hardly worth the keystrokes to respond again.

The long and short of it is that Historicist (and with him, ChildofMidnight) want to add some hot-button political content to the encyclopedia as some kind of process "experiment" and cannot get consensus for it. Consensus requires editors to entertain plausible content proposals in good faith, but it does not require an editor to agree. We've been close, and we may be very close to an unobjectionable version that can stand. But the objections to other versions have been real, serious, and fundamental - some versions proposed are severe BLP violations, others synthesis, or WEIGHT problems, improperly sourced, or contradicted their sources. So the discussion has continued, on and on. That is all fine, a content matter.

What isn't fine are the constant, unceasing, petty accusations and personal attacks that, other than the completely made-up stuff, seem to amount to a claim that it is a policy violation to disagree with a content proposal. This is exactly the kind of thing I need help with, telling contentious editors to keep these kinds of attacks off the talk page and stop playing process games so the editing environment is not so poisonous. Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess what happens when Wikidemon gets called on his bluff? Anyone? When offered the chance to add a version he says he agrees to, he's happy to do so and ends the conflict right? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit too mudslingy. Dial it back a notch maybe? // roux   07:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Getting" is not the right word. Historicist and ChildofMidnight have been throwing this kind of mud at me for weeks, and it is continuing on the article talk page as this discussion progresses. Wikidemon (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cropped misleadingly? That's what you wrote and that was my response in the exact order in which they appeared. I've simply explained your refusal to abide by your own agreements. You said you agree to a version (not for the first time) and then you come up with new arguments why the version you agreed to can't be added. You've refused to participate in mediation and have refused to allow any version of well sourced content to be added. That's obstruction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Again with the made-up nonsense. My behavior is fine and is not the issue. This editor is fixating on me as an excuse for edit warring and disrupting the article. It's weird and needs to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a short housekeeping note that everything below this comment and Wikidemon's comment regarding "made-up nonsense", edit warring and disruption (what?), and his behavior being fine and not the issue, is part of a different and unrelated ANI notice. Not sure how it got merged, but I just wanted to make that clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Let's focus on the matter at hand here. This is all spawning from an admin who was much too thick-skinned and erroneos I might add in what he was stating was a personal attack towards himself. Even if anyone felt the comment should be removed, the manner in which he came to Law Lord about wasn't the right manner as Law Lord shouldn't have been accused of making personal attacks. Law Lord came to this Noticeboard about that admin's behavior, and suddenly the issue was removing this harmless comment of this editor finding some of 'some admins don't have good manners' as if it were some hurtful insult. Cheers dude (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That has absolutely zero to do with anything. --Smashville^talk 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that was supposed to go with the closed section further up about Law Lord's userpage, rather than this article issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the editor and the fact that he had already written the exact comment in a different thread...you can never be too sure. --Smashville^talk 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I noticed that CD had posted that here and then posted it in the intended section about the Law Lord, without bothering to remove it from here. I could have removed it myself, but I thought it was better to just leave it here, for its unintended entertainment value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not, but last edit was 17 December, so I'd allow for Editing Under the Influence as a defence Or those being his own IPs (no excuse, but still). Report again should they do it again. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So wait... those are his own IPs?

PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages)

19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you're saying IF those are his own IPs.

PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages)

19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What? Note: I just blocked the account as it looks like having been compromised. — Aitias // discussion 19:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't to me, yet, in so far as this isn't the behaviour of a compromised account. They always do something bigger (WoW, the giant etc) because they're trying to exploit it. In this case, it was one good and three poor (non-article) edits. It just doesn't have the MO. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Elnerdo's other edits all look good. Why should he suddenly start vandalising? — Aitias // discussion 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not very vandalism. It's the adding of inappropriate material to three, related, IP address talk pages. Are they his? Is this EUI? Is there a sane reason for this, or at least a reason short of "compromised account"? The answer to the latter could be yes, and that's where

WP:AGF steps in, especially since the last edit was 5 days ago. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh

19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And he's replied: they are his own IPs. Will you unblock now? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Already  Done. — Aitias // discussion 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fab. Thank you. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User Satanoid is refusing to learn from earlier ban. These words from Satanoid reflect very strong feelings and some personal vendetta against an assumed identity and is worrying me, this is very serious. Please see here-- --Sikh-history (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sikh-history, I saw an earlier report, and was trying to think who he reminded me of. It could be worth requesting a

check user to see if he's a Hkelkar sock. PhilKnight (talk

) 20:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

assumption of good faith override my suspicion. Now, I find some more weight in my suspicion as a third neutral editor (PhilKnight) has felt the same. If this editor really comes out to be another sock of user:Hkelkar I'll really be dumbstruck with his inspiration of hate against Sikhs and his never ending list of sockpuppets on wikipedia. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss=

20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry o not know how to do it? --Sikh-history (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

WP:CHU, I think PhilKnight wanted to point to WP:RFCU. The page WP:RFCU (called "Request for Checkuser") has some examples of already filed checkuser requests. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss=

01:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant

WP:CHU. Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk

) 01:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Cheers dude

Well, I disagree with a lot of things on this earlier ban report you've provided. As one example, you use his use of 'son' and 'extremist' as examples of personal attacks on that page which aren't personal attacks in my mind. Perhaps mild incivility at best, but nothing on that report falls under the category of personal attacks and a reason for blocking in my estimation. If those were the reasons behind his last block, I'm in disagreement.

Anyways, you go on to say he hasn't learned from that and provided this diff here. No, he shouldn't be commenting on irrelevant matters that don't pertain to improving wikipedia articles on your talkpage but I don't see where you make friendly efforts to explain to him that the user talkpages are meant for discussing how to better wikipedia articles. All I see is perpetuating irrelevant conversation by responding to him on the irrelevant matter he has brought up or criticizing him about previous blocks which is also irrelevant. Reminding the editor of previous blocks is not going to help matters. Rather, friendly attempts should be made in explaining to him wikipedia policies and what is and is not allowed and making sure that you are following those policies yourselves.

Bottomline, I see no reason to block this editor. I feel an attempt of relaying of wikipedia policies in a civil fashion should have been taken, before this was brought to the ANI noticeboards. As for the sockpuppets suspicions, I'm not sure if this is the place for that. Just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cheers dude, I could not relate your comments, edits and experience with the edits of Satanoid. Have you been editing the same articles as Satanoid. I am baffled, what brings you here on Administrator's noticeboard on something filed on Satanoid? Do you usually provide feedback on reports filed on ANI? Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite having only 351 edits, nearly twenty per cent of User:Cheers dude's edits (66) are to this page alone. He may be energetic and/or well-meaning, but he doesn't seem likely well-versed regarding how things are done on Wikipedia generally. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok Cheers dude, put yourself in my position. You come onto wikipedia in good faith and help edit materials in fields you feel you have some expertise. You meet someone who you think may have some prejudice towards some of the material you are dealing with. You still assume good faith. THe attacks get mopre personal, resulting in insults towards your religion. You still carry on. Then that person start leaving messages about an identity he percieves you to be? Some pretty hate filled and insulting messages. Do you not think this is at least a little bit creepy? Surely this is not the behaviour of editors on wikipedia? Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As user:cheers dude rightly says, the terms 'son' and 'extremist' don't amount to uncivil remarks to warrant a block demanded by tou and sikh History. You need to state exactly where on the

Sikh extremism related articles I have actually been abusive. Kind regards Satanoid (talk

) 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have been abusive enough as demonstrated here. Like I said above. To make fun of the Guru's children is offensive, but to make fun of the brutal murders of two children in it's own right is offensive. --Sikh-history (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, you do not have to edit the same articles as the users of disputes in order to provide feedback on those disputes on this page. In fact, its best that people who provide feedback on disputes have nothing to do with users so as to provide a neutral opinion on the matter. Please be aware that by bringing an issue here, anyone in the community is allowed to give their feedback and try to help.

CalenderWatcher, I ask that you would address solely the topic at hand and not get off point and discuss me or my editing history. The topic here has to do with Satanoid and I gave my feedback on the topic while you have not. If you do not agree with my feedback, that's fine and you may explain why, but please do not bring up irrelevant matters about myself that have nothing to do with this discussion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing the topic at hand, namely your lack of fitness--by way of experience, judgement, knowledge of policy and knowledge of the situation to hand--to pass comment, and am now saying, explicitly, that you should stop muddling issues that you're not involved in until you have a better grasp on things than your 361 edits and less-than-a-fortnight's experience imply. You've already had to retract some of the 'advice' you've given previously on this page, which should tell you something. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sikh, I'd agree with you that that type behavior is very offensive but I just haven't seen the diffs to support those claims with the exception of the identity issue (which I've already said I felt wasn't responded to the right way as the replies I saw didn't relay to him wikipedia policy and how discussion about things that have nothing to do with improving articles is not allowed but rather engaging in the same behavior addressing the matter he brought up). Other than that, nothing I saw from him was a personal attack or any attack to your religion. If you'd like, you could provide me other diffs of what you perceive as insults to your religion and personal attacks! I'd take an entirely different stance on this issue if you could show me that the behavior really is as bad as you're saying it is. Hope this helps! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read his entire code of conduct. I really cannot see how you could have missed the insults he posted.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Cheers dude", please butt out. These guys are trying to discuss ongoing patterns of vandalism about which you almost certainly know too little to make an informed comment, unless of course you are a sockpuppet. To those above, Hkelkar's latest IP was hardblocked two days ago - see
  off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!
  ) 11:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I highly suggest you take a good long look at WP:Civil and take a look at and study up on the policies regarding giving feedback on this page especially considering the fact that you are an administrator making those types of comments. That's all I will say to you. Sikh, I haven't seen anything related to personal attacks or attacks to your religion. However, judging from the history of edits on Sikh extremism, there seems to be a very lot of disagreement that's gone on for weeks. I see a lot of disagreement over what should and shouldn't be added into that Sikh extremism article. I would suggests that you all reach consensus by introducing more parties into the discussion on the article talkpage so there will be less friction. That's just my opinion. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that Guy has been editing for nearly three years, has over 54,000 edits, and is an administrator, I'd suggest he's very well up on policy. That said, I don't believe such credentials are necessary to realise that your 'advice' is unhelpful and carries little weight. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a classic example of a personal attack. Now insulting the Sikh Guru's children aside, to make an off the hand comment about two young children who were brutally mudered is simply not on. I agree with most of the comments here. I do not think you have enough experience to make a comment on this user. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• You've nicely proved my point, I think. Either you do not have enough background to offer valid commentary, or you are a sockpuppet. Either way, I don't think you are actually helping here; I suggest that if you want to try your hand at dispute resolution you start with what appears to be your area of expertise, Brooke Hogan. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Guy, see below. Please either validate your sock accusation or AGF and tone down the rhetoric. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• He's merely invoking
  common sense, so I'm not sure what 'validation' is called for here. This is regarding an editor who's been here--including his IP edits--less than two months, and has already managed to inject himself energetically into disputes, at least one of which he admits being wrong about. For a new-comer, he found his way here fairly quickly. --CalendarWatcher (talk
  ) 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made no comment about the content, but about the way it is conveyed. However, if I were to comment about the content I might - using Guy's rationale - decline to do so with you since as you so identify with Guys viewpoint I suspect that you are his sockpuppet... Now, once you have warned me on my talkpage for the personal attack please take the time to consider how making such comments do not advance the discussion; concentrate upon the content and not the contributor - and even if the account is an alternate, who are they teaming up with to violate policy? If Cheers dude's claims are baseless then explain why and then let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call your suggestion of sockpuppetry as personally attacking as I would delusional: if you're not serious, you appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove some kind of moral-superiority point, and if you are, your judgement has been demonstrated to be seriously impaired. If you'd like to continue to be unhelpful and stir up a side drama for whatever your purpose is, as with User:Cheers dude I can't stop you but I can point out that scolding a fellow editor based on nothing at all it doesn't help your case. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it LessHeard! As CalenderWatcher still hasn't been able to come up with arguments to refute any of the opinions I've provided, but rather continues to try to debate with you on irrelevent matters related to me, and has only brought up the manner he believes I gave my opinions in, referring to it as "scolding", I'm assuming that may be the real issue here. To the users whom I directed my comments to, if you felt the manner I came off in that original comment was harsh, I do apologize to editors I directed those comments to.

As for Guy and CalenderWatcher, however, redirecting this entire discussion to my edit history and making attacks based on sockpuppets, something about Brooke Hogan, etc., is far more incivil than anything I've said in this discussion. Thus far, I haven't entertained these users' attempts to throw off this debate by responding on irrelevant matters pertaining to myself they have effectively turned this discussion into, and I refuse to. This is not the place for it. If they have a beef with me and would like to have a full-fledged debate over it, they're more than welcome to take it to my user talkpage or another forum and discuss matters civilly with me there, but I feel their comments and incivility don't contribute to the matter at hand so this is not the place. Cheers dude (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see you are still determinedly missing the point, so let me spell it out once more. People come here to discuss policy issues with the admin community. The input of long-standing non-admin editors is also very often helpful. What is not helpful - actively unhelpful, in fact - is newbies chipping in with no apparent knowledge of the issue at hand, the policies involved, the past and present users being discussed, and even the content area. Your editing shows absolutely no evidence of expertise in this content field, and unless you are a sockpuppet you cannot plausibly have any significant experience of dealing with Hkelkar, to name one of the more prominent accounts under discussion. Your "tell the nasty man to go away" style complaints are also not exactly improving your standing. And as noted below you seem to have weighed in on the wrong side most of the time, which indicates that you are a newbie not a sock; as such you should be wary of getting involved in things you clearly don't understand very well. And you should be doubly wary of asserting that the problem lies with everybody else and not you. Now I suggest you go and find some articles to work on. God knows why I am bothering to write this, I doubt you'll believe it any more than you've accepted any other comments, but this is just my opinion: your clueless verbiage is annoying me, and I'd rather you didn't thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If the above comments just written by Guy aren't a clear example of what I'm talking about in terms of unacceptable, incivil behavior from this administrator, I don't know what is. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you don't know what is, I'm afraid. I requested Guy to address you in non antagonistic terms and that is exactly what he has done - I never had a problem with most of the content of his remarks other than the vague sockpuppet accusation, and he has now clarified that he does not think you are one (don't worry, CalenderWatcher was also unaware that I was addressing form and not content and didn't understand my response either - I am polite but obviously not so good at communicating as might be desirable). Guy appears to be correct, in that by attempting to educate seasoned practitioners you are exposing your own lack of understanding. It really would be better if you gained more understanding of the intricacies of maintaining this project before making statements that generate much more heat (as a byproduct of friction) than light. You are being advised to desist commenting upon matters you are not familiar with; it is good advice, now addressed in the appropriate civil tones, and I suggest that you do so. It is not incivil to point out your faults, when you choose to exhibit them against the advise of old hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding. You've certainly misunderstood the meaning and rhetorical intent of Guy's conditional clause as an accusation rather than a logical inference in your hurry, so I wouldn't talk of others not understanding if I were you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion as I'm not into playing games. As I said, the comments were uncivil and out of line. In regards to me providing feedback, show me a policy that states that states that editors must have a certain amount of edits before providing feedback on this page. Until then, I will keep providing feedback. If you don't agree with that, too bad! Cheers dude (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I recall, at least one editor has been or was banned from this page for constantly commenting without being familiar with the subjects discussed, so there is apparently precedent for consequences--if not explicit policy--regarding continual uninformed feedback. But if you're looking for a rules-based approached, I'll note that policy and rules here are not written in stone and handed down from on high, but evolve from consensus, so if you keep demanding to be shown policy, you'll likely find it will be created just for you. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that blatantly stalking an editor that disagrees with you and drawing them into an edit war is a pretty quick way to get invited to a block party: [44][45]. --Smashville^talk 00:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: My edit has been wrongly used by the following statement made by Cheers dude in the closed discussion below. Cheers dude said -"The behavior of these two users is clearly disruptive and incivil and as noted here even by the user who made out the complaint [46]". (stress mine) No, I did not say that in the diff to which Cheers dude has linked. The only purpose (and obvious) of that edit was to keep both discussions categorized so that they can be addressed appropriaretly. I'm not sure how and why Cheers dude is interpreting in the way s/he has claimed. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on CD's own user page, he was previously 65.31.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and you can see he's been contentious from day one, although "day one" was only early November, so unless he had another IP before that, he's still a newbie chipping in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Guy and CalenderWatcher

WP:OUTING

violation

And while you are arguing Satanoid carry's on writing creepy message and vandalising my page. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And with that, I gave him a week off. A

WP:OUTING violation is enough for me. I don't care if he hasn't been warned about that before, he's known long enough to quit screwing around and he won't stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 11:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm heavily involved with him over at

Sikh terrorism, I would like to ask for review. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 11:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay by me. The chilling effects of attempting to out editors are huge; the editor in question could use some time off. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have requested

11:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes it difficult to review the block, but yes, fair enough. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Catch-22: Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating. One way around this is to email Oversight and let them place the block. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I completely forgot. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few more diffs that need would need to be oversighted. See Sikh-history's talk page for more attempts at outing.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi All, I am actually quite scared by Satanoids behaviour. I feel like just deleting my account and leaving wikipedia. I do not wish to take the chance that he thinks I am Randip Singh (someone he obviously hates and thinks is an extremist ). I am very scared. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Best thing to do in that case is to retire this account, and come back in a few days/weeks to make a new one. You might have to avoid certain topics for a bit, so it's not easy for them to point and identify you again, but it'll let you get back to editing without such fears. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I have decided not to run away. Speaking to my Professor, he has convinced me I would be bowing down to those who would wish to stifle freedom of speech. Thanks you for all your concerns.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Daleep123 (talk · contribs)

A simple review of his contributions will show this to be a vandalism-only account, at least for the last 6 months. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

99.49.233.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has returned from being blocked for harassment (wikistalking and reverting), the editor is back and doing the same. (Is there a more appropriate place for such reports?) --

talk

) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for a week. While not strictly

WP:AIV material, no-one will complain if you report such obvious cases there. Best, Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}

18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --

talk

) 18:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:News4a2

I am requesting admin review of News4a2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recent activities (I'm too involved to act). User has edit warred, and almost certainly violated 3RR, at Physician assistant (which has now been protected), has made numerous personal attacks diff, diff, and asserts these activities will continue diff. Perhaps a block is in order (my AIV submission was bounced here). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with ZimZalaBim and several others. I've stated my reasons for that disagreement. One of the parties siding with ZimZalaBim has just been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. As ZimZalaBim has Wiki-stalked me to the Physician Assistant page from the Industrial Espionage page by following my contributions link and deleting all my edits and contributions

WP:Hound, I question his objectivity and motives. For all I know ZimZalaBim might be another sockpuppet of that same individual, Nomad2u001. The position of these parties is to block my sourced contributions, either by wholesale deletions of my contributions without compromise or revert of anything I add. This posting here is just the latest attempt to block my contributions to Wiki articles under the apparent guideline, "If you can't stop the message, kill the messenger." Either Wikipedia is open to contributions from all, or it isn't. And if it isn't, it isn't credible.News4a2 (talk

) 23:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The political commentary above didn't help your case. Provide good diff's in defence, and lay off the "either Wikipedia is xxx or else...", it will help :-)

♪BMWΔ

23:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What political commentary above? I was serious. I don't care if ZimZalaBim claims he's an administrator. ZimZalaBim wiki-stalked me to the Physician Assistant page from the Industrial Espionage page. He's deleted my contributions on the Industrial Espionage page without reason and again on the Physician Assistant page. He doesn't like my contributions so he deletes them, wholesale, as Nomad2u001 did. Now he's trying to block me from further contributions. I seriously question his motives. What else should I think? For one, he's using IP blocking software to disguise his origination -- [redacted by roux] -- and why hide if one is on the up and up?News4a2 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing ... these "personal" attacks alleged by ZimZalaBim (and roux) were me accusing Nomad2u001 of being a troll. And, guess what, Nomad2u001 was a troll with a lot of aliases and would have continued being a troll wrecking the integrity of Wikipedia had I not brought up the actions.diffNews4a2 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm "using IP blocking software to disguise [my] origination"? Huh? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I consider this attempt to identify me and post an IP address harassment, and request the edit posting an IP address be removed from the page history, etc.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block

For

06:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Outing -- "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers (defined by Wiki as SSN, NIN, etc.), home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct" -- nothing there lists an IP Number. ZimZalaBim is using software to cover his tracks and for what reason? Kinda makes one think.News4a2 (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I'm editing while logged in, and have no idea what he's talking about regarding cloaking my IP address. But if he's trying to uncover and post a users IP address, that is wrong. This is getting absurd. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's someone with Checkuser abusing their rights, the posting of an IP address is not outing. Perhaps you have indeed at one point or another edited without being logged in. Your IP address would have an edit history. That's not going to go away. It's a pretty childish and perhaps an uncivil thing to do, but I don't believe it's Outing whatsoever. News4a2, you really need to stand down on this, as you're currently escalating this beyond

♪BMWΔ

13:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks to me like a case of harassment and attempted outing, well worthy of a block. PR^talk 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The posting of someone's IP address is certainly bad form, unless it is being done to demonstrate a pattern of abusive behaviour (sockpuppetry to stack discussions or evade 3RR, making personal attacks while logged out, linking with previously abusive account, etc.). An IP address can potentially reveal or imply personal information about an editor — if the IP is linked to a large ISP, it may only suggest the editor's country of origin; if it is a corporate IP it may identify an editor's employer or school.

In the context of this report, I see no edits made by the reported IP address anywhere in the last 500 edits to physician assistant (going back to mid-September), industrial espionage (going back to the article's creation), or User talk:News4a2. Bringing up the edits putatively made by a registered editor while logged out serves no apparent constructive purpose in this context. Drawing attention to a logged-in editor's putative IP address serves to chill participation, inflame a dispute, and potentially enable harrassment. Not only that, where the IP given is incorrect, the attempted outing is apt to confuse future debates and discussions.

Whether or not News4a2's actions constitute a violation of the letter of policy, posting someone's putative IP address where there is no relevance to the discussion at hand is certainly a violation of the spirit of the

harassment policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 15:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now cautioned News4a2 that we take this sort of issue very seriously, and warned that he will be blocked if he does it again: [48]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

by Rgoodermote about his taunting remarks.

I would request an uninvolved admin to take a look into the behavior of this link spammer. He is promoting two links: a blogspot link where a pirated copy of a book has been posted, and also the personal blog site: www.bangladeshihindu.com . --Ragib (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How is "You have a life? OK LOL" a personal attack?

First of all, the blogspot link is not a pirated copy of a book. That book was available for free online under the domain name "bengalvoice.com. However, the author decided to move it to a blogspot. http://bengalvoice.blogspot.com/ For more information, contact, email redacted About the BangladeshiHindu.com blog. Well, it's obviously not a personal one since there are a series of writers such as Dr. Richard Benkin, William Gomes etc. It's a group blog. Hikingdom (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, the link is to a personal blog hosted at blogspot, with prominent "calls for donation" buttons on the site (may or may not be made by the purported author of the book, no way to determine that). The second link is to a nn blog. Doesn't matter if it is a personal one or maintained by a group. Finally, I have linked to the diffs to Hikingdom's taunts. These should be checked by an uninvolved admin. --Ragib (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sense of logic is utterly surprising. You are telling me that the site is not notable because it has a donation box? Wikipedia has a donation box. As I said million times to you, the article used to link to this book before when the author used to host it under his website, http://www.bengalvoice.com/ As that site is under construction now, the book is hosted in blogspot by the author. They have an email address to the author in the blog. Also, do you think it makes sense someone to actually sit down and type the whole thing if the author is not involved?

"may or may not be made by the purported author of the book, no way to determine that"

Then why are you saying that this site has a pirated book in your previous post? If you are not sure about something then you shouldn't abruptly conclude. The issue of piracy is a serious accusation and I expected a little bit more logical thinking from you.

About http://www.bangladeshihindu.com/ site, well, I am not trying to create a wikipedia entry out of it. This website, definitely takes into account the modern issues of Bangladeshi Hindus. Not to mention this is the only website concerning issue of Bangladeshi Hindus. Therefore, this site should be put as an external link. Just like IndianMuslims.info, which is also a group blogging platform concerning Muslims in India. Hikingdom (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, Ragib also thinks prominent writer, Salam Azad is not notable. You can find his books in all the major libraries all over the world. He is obviously trying to propagate his extreme nationalistic views and remove sources that show struggles of Bangladeshi Hindus Hikingdom (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"He also blanked my warnings from his talk page twice" - You might want to strike that, that is backed by policy. —

neuro^(talk)

15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:John254 was warned earlier to not continue any attempts at perceived harassment or outing of an admin, User:Cirt, who he is involved in a *VERY* contentious RFAR with.

• He endorsed a motion to undelete talk page contents that were removed for privacy reasons. THREE Arbiters said no.
• He then took the matter to DRV in response, where another Arb said to close the forum shopping request as disruptive, and a final Arb, Bainer, closed it here.
• John254 then took the fight to User:Durova's user space, edit warring with her on her pages.[53]
• Finally, I warned him to desist from trying to find out any personal information about the administrator User:Cirt.
• There was some back and forth, which was fairly civil. I went to leave well enough alone and was done, but then he alters the content, nature, and meaning of my post here, neutralizing that he received an official warning, which any user can give.
• Durova cautioned him that altering another's comments is a blockable offense.
• I restored my full warning here, keeping it in context. I don't care if he blanks or removes it, but changing it to link to my userlinks is downright bizarre, downplaying my warning and altering the meaning.

Can someone please review this repeated hounding of an administrator in good standing,

) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither Durova nor Cirt were actually willing to expressly state "the talk pages of Cirt's prior accounts must remain deleted for privacy/security reasons", perhaps because it quite simply isn't true. In that case, please stop making insinuations to the same effect. Since there was (and is) no apparent reason for Cirt's user talk pages to remain deleted, and since the Arbitration Committee had not forbidden their restoration, it was reasonable to request that the community restore them at DRV. If editors are to utilize their own userspace to present evidence to the Arbitration Committee, and permit users to comment on the talk page, it makes little sense for them to be able to arbitrarily censor comments on the basis of a bureaucratic interpretation of the "userspace privilege". For Durova to claim exclusive control over the talk page for her evidence is as untenable as for me to assert authority over the comments on User talk:John254/Homosexuality and medical science, merely because the page happens to currently reside in my userspace. My neutralization of Rootology's section header does not constitute an alteration of his comment, since the header is not reasonably construed as his signed writing. John254 06:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Chiming in with Root's request. John's responses to feedback have been unduly aggressive. He's been warned for

06:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, we need to tell John to, at the very least, stop jumping head first into drama (irony!). Say you what you want about him, but it gets on my nerves to see him flitting around and making noise as much as he does. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• +1 for that. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Mr. Darcy talk 13:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And now he's continuing his meme of harassment against Cirt in reply to Gwen's administrative warning, with a nice dose of personal attack against me for standing up to his bullying of a privacy-sensitive administrator. On top of that, he's now saying that Durova and Cirt can be blocked for protecting Cirt's privacy, which is preposterous.

) 15:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

sSome people don't learn... cluebat time? Sceptre ^(talk) 15:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've given a last warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a sad day for Wikipedia when daring to substantively respond to the accusations against me is being used as a basis to make further unjustified accusations and the most dire warnings. John254 15:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's sad you don't want to stop the harassment, I don't know, but if you don't stop it, I will, by blocking you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Some assistance with this user would be appreciated. Aparna rajesh has been active on Wikipedia for at least 18 months, which is ample time for him to be familiar with some of our basic guidelines and policies; no doubt he is a good faith contributor and clearly his first language is not English, but that's no excuse. Persistant problems include the uploading of copyrighted images without the necessary infomation, copying text from other websites, creating articles with little or no context, and making what appear to be nonsense edits. He has been alterted to these problems innumerable times - see comments currently on his talk page, and also these comments which were blanked a few months ago. In the past few weeks I've told him twice about copying text, and yet recently created articles The Cut (2007 film) and The Fox with Nine Tails contain text copied straight from asiandb.com and hanbooks.com. Clearly these comments are either not being read or not being understood, and without some form of intervention this is likely to remain a problem. PC78 (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning on the user's talk page. I've also cleaned up/deleted a handful of the edits, but would appreciate more help with that. PC78, since you seem to know a bit about this user, would you be able to sift through and do some tagging on the articles that are copyvios? That'll hopefully get other admins involved, since it seems like this is a large scope issue, either way (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can do, but I think most of the copyvios have already been dealt with one way or another, often leaving very short stubs stuch as A Resentful Woman. Tagging articles may also be a problem; he removed the speedy tag from Takipsilim earlier this morning. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, I guess I was wrong; per your request I've been through this user's contributions as far back as 7 November, and, in addition to some cleanup, have identified the following copyvio issues:

A few of the above seem to originate from forums or blogs, which I'm not so sure about. I don't know if the best course of action would be to tag these for CSD G12 or simply remove the copied text. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I request that an administrator review this user's history of contributions and assess whether or not the user should be blocked. A quick look at the user's talk page shows a lengthy record of complaints about blatant copyright transgressions, (one of which wasted a chunk of my time, before I realized that I was cleaning up a lifted article). The First Nepal - Tibet War that was just deleted also showed, if I recall, edits by a User:Rabindral, who has since disappeared. A previous incarnation of User:Rabindra_Baral, I imagine. Thanks, -- Wormcast (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note at the users page advising them of the discussion here. I have also left a warning. JodyB _talk 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's wrap this up and give Steelerfan and Kalajan some breathing room. Steelerfan has apologized for his disruption ("trolling" and "stalking" were probably a bit too strong) and addressed the issues raised. If it resumes, then we can deal with it, but if not, the issue's basically settled. I don't believe rollback removal is called for, and that discussion has died down. What seems of interest to everyone at the moment, the "adoption" (and if anyone wants my take on that whole system, feel free to ask on my talk page) of Kalajan, is an issue between Steelerfan, Kalajan, and any potential future adopter, and is not an ANI matter. --

) 18:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Er, so ... ArbComm won't accept cases until January. Until then, SA is free to go about his way with the incivility on a willy-nilly basis, or shall someone be keeping an eye on him? Just checking, as a truly uninvolved yet concerned editor.

21:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Having people "keep an eye on me" is rarely a problem.

talk

) 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right: incivility, lack of belief that rules and policies apply to you, the failure to recognize that everyone has both a right to edit and has something to add to Wikipedia are the more common problems...

♪BMWΔ

00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess your feigned commitment to civility doesn't extend to me. No, feel free to put words into my mouth and personally attack me. It's all in a days work as a self-appointed civility policeman, isn't it? In any case, the "lack of belief that rules and policies apply to you" is not something I have. I'm very aware as to how Wikipedia policies and rules apply to me and I'm reminded of this incessantly. I'll also point out that your claim that everyone has a "right" to edit Wikipedia is wrong. We are all here as volunteers for WMF, and the foundation can ask us to leave at any time for any reason. As to your final claim, while I too believe that everyone has the ability to add something to Wikipedia, there are a fair number of people who, while they may have something to add, tend to add (or subtract) things that make it worthwhile for us to consider showing them the door. Anyway, I suggest you take some of your own medicine and give yourself a level 1 civility warning. I consider "civility" to be wholly in the eye of the beholder. I have a system on my talkpage for dealing with perceived slights of incivility. I encourage you to avail yourself of it. I think that when people do it, it really helps. I have just done it for you. I have explained that your comment strikes me as particularly uncivil. Care to refactor? (I won't hold my breath.)

talk

) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall anything uncivil above...merely a polite distillation of the issues that raised this thread (and the ArbComm) in the first place. "You" is not being used to specifically refer to YOU, it's a general statement.

♪BMWΔ

10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a back and forth here. Let ArbCom deal with it if they are going to, otherwise it's obviously not something ArbCom feels needs to be addressed, in which case nobody here should be taking it upon themselves to try to do any ad hoc enforcement/vigilantism. I highly recommend, however, that anyone who complains about civility at least be civil in the complaint, otherwise it's obvious the problem is not as one sided as they pretend. DreamGuy (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellno2 (talk · contribs) Started actively editing major wikipedia policies. I reverted him, pointing out that big changes in policies must be discussed in talk pages. However he ignores me. Please intervene. Mukadderat (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• User warned both by myself and Seicer. The next major edit should probably result in a very short block as the behaviour will be very disruptive to all the editors who have the pages on their watchlists.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A new editor removing loads of text from Christian related articles because there is no reference [103] and also stating that he plans to use 'other IDs' for editing [104]. I'm not sure what to do about him.

) 15:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're being trolled. Indefblocked, but as always open to review ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was also looking at this and am ok with an indef block for now, let's see if an unblock request shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, although the edit history doesn't look very promising I'd be happy to be proved wrong. EyeSerene^talk 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be a sock, because it seems that he know quite a lot about wiki. Dontcha think?

19:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that the person is automatically blocked, even if they do have a sock, it could be legitimate (not saying that it is... well.) —

neuro^(talk)

02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also see his ensuing threat to continue with other IPs/accounts. Enigma ^message 00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. One of the editors, Narson, accused on being a meat puppet of Jayjg actually inserted a paragraph into the article on the subject of Moorer (WorldFacts pet subject) some 6 or more weeks ago.

The block doesn't seem to have worked, WorldFacts has been disruptively editing the article for some time and User:BQZip01 is attempting to mediate on improving the article. I can't see mediation working unless the editors involved a) using the talk page as intended and b) taking part in the dispute resolution process. The article seems to have attracted a couple of SPA who have disrupted the attempt to improve the article by introducing fringe material with undue prominence and making bad faith accusations of censorship and "cover up" against other editors. As a result many good faith editors are reluctant to get involved in improving the article.

I would suggest that the article is placed under a 1RR provision so that any editor that reverts more than once or reverts to re-introduce contentious material is blocked. Justin talk 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This maybe stretching it, but wouldn't this fall under

WP:ARBPIA? The incident involves Israel and took place during an Israeli-Arab war... Rami R

21:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look as I'm still online. The article would certainly fall within that overall umbrella as it has become linked to the Middle-East conflict and US support for Israel. However, it might be perceived as stretching a point, I think I'd prefer to see the current issues discussed and see if my suggestion for a 1RR probation on the article receives community consensus. Thanks for the suggestion though, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it if it had wider community consensus. Justin talk 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I must apologise for User:WorldFacts who has become obsessed with one of the lesser distortions of this article. Moorer is undoubtedly a significant source and is not being treated properly. But ultimately, he and his colleagues are the retired US military establishment demanding that a real investigation be carried out and the official record brought into line with what eveyone knows and the RSs tell us about this incident. There seems to be no real dispute, in 1995 (according to the "International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence") "all serious scholarship on the subject accepts Israel's assault as having been perpetrated quite deliberately". Can I be sure that that was the mainstream 28 years after the event (13 years ago)? Why, yes, I can - even the very pro-Israel JVL accepts it was true when it was written, only laughably claiming that subsequent FOI releases have exonerated Israel "even of criminal negligence". The RS version is roughly what the article will say when it's written to policy.
However, in the meantime, ANIs like this (an earlier one sought to smear others editors as antisemitic) are an attempt to lock the article into it's current laughable state and prevent a whole raft of real issues and sources that have been edit-warred out once from ever being re-included. (The trick is to introduce trivial and non-policy objections and then falsely claim improvements are edit-wars).
And if you wonder how an article can have got this bad and not been corrected earlier, then have a look at the really serious editing problems currently plaguing this article. Even when consensus is reached, it's proved impossible to get the necessary agreed edits to stick, there is rampant edit-warring not from WorldFacts but from others very much more effective in imposing their POV. Most editors (5 against inclusion, 2 in favour) object to a particular quote coming from a very problematical source - do you suppose it's possible to keep it out? No, edit-warring rules when it comes to inclusion of, in this case, what at least two of the 5 opposing editors think is a straight-forward lie. PR^talk 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that PR should apologize for me. However, I do not not fault PR for doing so. Instead, I'll accept the apology to others by proxy in the spirit it is intended. Before I begin, I would like to point out an amazingly brazen LIE printed by none other then Justin. The Lie: "WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page." Any look at the discussion pages of the USS Liberty will show that between September and today, I have added an extraordinary amount of commentary. There are several archives with commentary I have made. See USS Liberty incident archive 4, 6 and the current discussion page. Just thought I'd point that out. Many others have agreed that my entries should be included. When others agreed with my comments, and there have been many, I have generally stayed out of discussions with others. But one major attempt at reconciliation, available in Archive 4, shows that I have gone out of my way attempting to appease other editors, taking their respective views into account.

That being said, I certainly would not apologize for attempting to add (and add, and add, ad infinitum) a reference to a notable report as the USS Liberty incident page requires a serious dose of reality. The persistent minority who continue their edit war AGAINST the Moorer Report have never been able to successfully argue against the entry. This fact is confirmed by the fact that a link to the Moorer report does exist on the USS Liberty incident page. As some of us already know, truth and reality have nothing to do with how Israel is allowed to be portrayed to the public. A link to the report is acceptable. Damning Israel via displaying contents of the report is not.

It is also not surprising that I am described as the one in an 'edit-war', when I am ADDING valid information, and those who delete the entry are removing facts from this article. Oddly, they imply they are not in an edit war, but I am. Curious, don't you think? A war requires 2 sides, so an edit war has 2 sides.

What is most important is which side is getting clandestine support from within Wikipedia and which side gets the majority of editors, both inside and outside of WikiPedia(*) to agree with him. My entries have been agreed to by a majority of editors within WikiPedia, but alas, that minority of editors who wish not to have the entry, and who miraculously are not involved in an edit war, and who are also deemed (by themselves!) to not be pushing their own POV, are getting their way.

I am most satisfied however, by the word on the street. People CAN read. People DO read. In those locations where the minority of editors here do not have the level of control Wiki provides the select few, the commentary shows without any shadow of doubt who is right. That would be me, of course. (*)Please check here. Wiki Articles and their discussions threads are read by more then just Wiki Editors. WorldFacts (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I really am not sure how to respond to this. The majority of wikipedia? I doubt the majority of wikipedia gives a damn either way or has even visited the article. Clandestine support? Ah, everyone supports you they just arn't saying it? Wikireview agrees with you? That is likely more that they hate Jayjg for various reasons and is hardly relevent to anything. Oh, and the moorer report is mentioned in the article. It doesn't need a poorly formatted giant ass section just for it.

Accusing Justin of lyingis also a little strong. You left a message full of bad faith assumptions on my talk page before you were blocked, including a statement that you "have found that talking isn't productive...", followed by more accusations and the usual load of dross about censorship. I do not think it is unreasonable for Justin to describe the fact you have edit warred to the point of 5 reverts in a row plus several other reverts without discussion as "WorldFacts refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page".

As a final point, PR accuses eveone of trying to keep the artice stagnant, yet he has refused the offer of BQZip01 to mediate because of ludicrous claims that the USAF will put pressure on him to get the result they want. There is a limit to how far we should pander to conspiracy theorist accusations. That limit is now behind us. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack

The above is a typical example of how the SPA on the

significance, its duplicating material already in the article and the source quoted is a blog by a fringe author on a hard core porn website.

Could I please ask for an admin to intervene, the continued personal attacks and disruption by SPA editors are wearing everyone down. Justin talk 23:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed regarding the conversation on User talk:203.87.202.142#Who is amatulic?

At first I considered the anon's request for personal information about me to be a personal attack. What instigated this, I'm not certain, but it appears to have something to do with my reversion of talk-page soapboxing and subsequent warning not to use talk pages as a forum, which resulted in a long complaint on the anon's talk page about many things unrelated to this incident.

The anon seems to think that I'm engaging in harrassment due to Wikipedia's mechanism of continually notifying anonymous users of messages on the user talk page. My explanation, which I felt was civil enough, only seems to inflame this editor even more, to the point of abusive language.

All I have done was (a) revert the anon's talk page edit, (b) explain why on the anon's talk page, (c) respond to the anon's reply. After the anon created a special section on the talk page just for me, my attempts to communicate have apparently had no constructive effect.

I welcome suggestions on how to proceed, or any intervention deemed necessary, but for now I've said all I need to say and will probably leave the editor alone unless some other disparagement about me is posted. ~

) 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What is an audit? Is it some sort of legal threat?

WP:NLT aside, would a short block be appropriate here? VX!^~~~

00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You should never respond to such a request. Just blank it and then warn about trying to out an editor. It is against policy to out an editor. I am going to be bold and do that right now. Rgoodermote  01:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also requesting a block. Rgoodermote  01:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested. Happy Holidays everyone! Rgoodermote  01:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks, although I'm not sure what a block will accomplish. It doesn't prevent the anon editor from making more disparaging comments on his or her talk page. Anyway, I've left as much of an "apology" as I can muster in light of the recent abuse from this anon. I can say no more, and will leave it. Happy holidays, all! ~

) 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You never had anything to apologize for. You were in the right. The editor is a

troll. Just wants to piss you off or scare you away. Just ignore him and not respond to him if he starts again. Just file for his talk page to be protected and maybe an extension to his block (only if there are like 10 hours left on the one he already has) and if he is already unblocked request a new one. Happy Holidays! Rgoodermote

  01:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Anhydrobiosis

• Anhydrobiosis (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Nominations of articles such as S (AfD discussion) for deletion always raises flags. I've spent a while reviewing this person's contributions history, and there are a lot of questionable ones, too many I think to ascribe to a new user who immediately leaps in to the use of Wikipedia:Twinkle without knowing how to drive it. Some examples:

• [119] — reverting User:NawlinWiki for "vandalism"
• [120] [121] — Erasing sourced content from
  Global financial crisis of 2008
  and then warning the editor who actually added that section for removing content.
• [122] — section blanking and source removal
• [123] — reverting edits that actually corrected grammar and fixed a problem with an unclosed <ref> element
• [124] — reverting the removal of vandalism
• [125] — reverting a good faith attempt to neutralize some clearly unbalanced content
• [126] — reversion, with the edit summary "typo"
• [127] — reverting the addition of an interwiki link to an article on the French Wikipedia
• [128] — reverting the addition of another interwiki link
• [129] — reverting article cleanup
• [130] — reverting article expansion
• [131] — reverting good faith attempts by editors to fill in sections that had been previously blanked by vandals
• [132] [133] — reverting a fact correction
• [134] — reverting a fact correction

Add to this this content addition, the nomination of insult for speedy deletion (which xe then self-reverted), these two false corrections of "hanged" to "hung", and I think that attention is required here. And by nominating S for deletion, this person has gained it.

Incidentally, these edits are a good reminder to the "I've never seen a good edit by an IP!" crowd. Most of the good faith edits involved here — the article expansions, the spelling corrections, the fact corrections, and the vandalism reversions — were by editors without accounts. 24.82.231.23 was indeed correcting Wikipedia. (Lipatti recorded the Waltzes in 1950, not 1948. I've checked against a source, which I'll put into the article next.) 67.173.89.212 was also correcting Wikipedia. (Our article is based upon a source that was written in 1968. But more recent sources confirm that the winter of 1978–1979 did smash the 1951–1952 record.) 72.133.197.212 was removing vandalism. 74.65.225.204 was correcting grammar and bad markup.

In comparison, Anhydrobiosis is an editor with an account, note. At the very best, xe shares the "All edits by people without accounts are vandalism!" philosophy espoused by some. Don't adhere to that belief, because this is where it leads to. ☺

But to return to the main issue: Even assuming that this isn't bad faith, and vandalism under the guise of countering vandalism (which vandals have done before), should this person be driving Twinkle or MWT? Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I spot checked five of this user's edits, and the only edit I could find that one can regard as good was the insertion of a comma before an "and" in an enumeration - a matter of taste. Clearly, this user has been creating far more drama than good. I feel it would be for the best of Wikipedia to block this user right away. But I will assume good faith and give them one last chance to improve, so I only posted a last warning on the user talk page. — Sebastian 05:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is [135] a legal threat? Exxolon (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• AFAIK, merely saying that something is against the law isn't a legal threat unless you actually threaten legal action. This person is skating on thin ice though. I think a warning would be appropriate. Reyk _YO! 23:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thinly veiled, yes. His talk page is also of concern. He's currently blocked, however. It has the same effect of trying to bully contributors that a full-fledged legal threat would, Reyk, so it's just as bad as if he had outright said, "Change X or I contact my lawyers." -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I see your point. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't the block be extended to indef pending a possible retraction of the threat?
        MuZemike (talk
        ) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Not for IPs. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually it should be extended until the legal threat is retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Funny, I thought that Verizon IPs are dynamic and a lengthened block would catch collateral and be easily evaded... -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's shameful that so many administrators, when faced with a complaint that a biography of a living person is inacurate, are concerned with blocking the person that makes the complaint, and that not a single one of them, apparently, goes to Kyle Eckel and checks to see whether there is any substance to the complaint. In fact, there is. Three sources are being synthesized to assert that someone was dishonourably discharged when none of the sources contains any statement to that effect, and one of the sources indeed reports that it was unable to find out from any reliable official source why this person parted company with the Navy. Shame on all of you! Especial shame that this is how you react to an issue of biographical concern actually raised at the biographies of living persons noticeboard itself. Uncle G (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

* Resolve removed, see below,— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, .. this has been going on for some time now, and to specify, I'm referring to the noted user's apparent unwillingness to follow, or even understand our policies here. A quick overview of the said user's talk page notes that many, including myself, have tried to reason with this editor over various breached policies, including, but not limited to

.

Many of these 'conversations'(re: see talk page), have not really had the desired result, and the editor in question refuses to either understand the policy, or acknowledge that he or she had done anything wrong. Please weigh in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me just message that this report was made after the final warning was given to this user regarding the insertion of OR.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's awkward. He hasn't done anything blatantly negative I don't think, but he doesn't seem to understand most of the policies you linked to...--Patton123 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The

ArbCom Enforcement Noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk

) 14:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been some recent disruptive editing of the Bates method article, so I think a 1-week ban from the article could be justified. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

More Canvassing: [136], [137], [138].— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going thru Seeyou's contribs to get rid of the canvassing edits. I can't plant any sanctions on him because I'm involved (and have been for a while), so I leave that to other editors. Likewise, I'm not going to try and understand AE's instructions because I was absent for the most recent spate. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week, because of disruptive editing and canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor apparently doesn't see that canvassing was bad, I do not see this as promising, or as a sign the user knows not to do so again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oop, yes, it seems that my {{

neuro^(talk)

09:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, per that, I would believe that for now, this is resolved, assuming of course, he stops being disruptive after the block expires.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have an opportunity which concerns a small group of administrators. Because of the heated exchanges of the past, I am interested in starting a conversation with an unbiased administrator . If you decide to assist, please don't acknowledge here. They follow and watch everything I do. Send me an email to [email redacted]. I would like to have a chance to discuss improvements without incurring disadvantages from the aforementioned. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems unlikely to happen. It's probably best to lay out your concerns, concisely and unemotionally, with diffs to support your assertions. People who are already involved will note themselves as such, and the community at large views possibly-biased statements accordingly. // roux   22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a quick look at his Talk page shows the source of this report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Even odds this is about this debate about whether to include a quote attributed to Einstein on the Insanity article. The complainant appears to feel he is being oppressed by a couple of admins. An outside view suggests that the complainant doesn't quite understand how consensus works here. I don't see any admin abuse evident. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No admin abuse, and probably a little too much niceness based on this: "...Thank you. Genisock2 (talk) ... There you go, JennySuck. Now after I squeeze the last load on your puss, I back hand you towards the door". For crying out loud, this guy wasn't blocked for what really good reason?

♪BMWΔ

22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. I missed that one. Jesus christ, who was asleep at the wheel on that one? // roux   23:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support any admin who gives a lengthy block, to be removed only with a topic ban or a mentorship, or both. If a problem starts in Insanity, where will it end? ThuranX (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If he starts messing with the baseball pages, he's toast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My reading of

_complex

12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Undent. Reviewing JPH's talk page, I hadn't remembered for my above comment but it turns out I did have dealings with him during his initial edits to wikipedia. Since that time, apparently he has not learned that hostility is not welcome. As an editor, I don't mind turning up the civility during initial learning when noobs are usually more hostile than necessary. This is nearly a year later and the hostility is still there, apparently being used to win content disputes. JPH is leaving a bad taste in my mouth and I see no reason to ask for an unbiased administrator to review anything. This problem is not "Because of heated exchanges in the past", it's because of current (as of December, 2008) belligerence. He has been warned, next personal attack or incivility gets a block, then start escalating.

12:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

dick, he's also engaged in simple vandalism [139], removed AFD tags [140] and posted copyright vio images. I beleive I'm one of the "admins" (he calls all other users admins by the way) he's referring to. Mostly because I spent quite some time posting about various Wikipedia policies, asking him to cool off etc. on his talk page. --Quartet

14:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I redacted the email, diff is here. —

neuro^(talk)

14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing a quick review of Jeffrey Pierce Henderson's contributions over the last few weeks, I find that this is an interesting talk page comment. I still can't quite tell whether he is genuinely this worked up or if he simply has a fondness for hyperbole. Nevertheless, calling for media campaign and the personal involvement of Jimbo, threatening the project's tax-exempt status, and doing a bit of all-caps YELLING seems to be a...disproportionate response to what amounts to a very minor content question.

I am very concerned that unless this editor learns to

tea when he's about to hit 'save' – then he will continue to find himself frustrated by editing here, and probably won't be allowed to do so for much longer. I am also very concerned that an editor who has been editing regularly for the better part of a year hasn't already internalized those principles. If this is to be a 'final' warning, then it really must be final. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He may have been here a year more or less, but his actual edit count is very low - less than 200. I've read some of the interactions with Quartet, and I'm pretty sure that the problem is with JPH, not two admins viciously abusing their power for the fun of it. Were

_complex

16:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to work with him but my patience quickly ran out when anything I said to him went totally unheaded. As a result I've stopped trying. I'm not stalking him by any means, however quite a few pages that he edits including his talk page are on my watchlist and I've watched him closely. And I'm not an admin and I've made that clear to him. By the way, this just appeared on this talk page [[141]]--Quartet 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I can't tell you how much it means to me that I might be able to continue learning more about how to edit here on Wikipedia, but most importantly I am happy that I might continue learning how to debate important issues in a more peaceable and constructive manner. I want to thank the three admins who emailed me concerning my troubles here and want to assure all interested that I will heed and act upon all their suggestions. Furthermore, that I will conform to and abide by all the laws rules and regulations concerning editing articles in Wikipedia and will obey the spirit of the law of civility in future edits. I sincerely apologize for making that aforementioned comment and hope others will see past it. I want to put this behind me and make reconciliation if possible, but the problem I am running into is being repeatedly harassed by a small group of admins who refuse to let me advance to becoming a better editor. Just recently one of them threatened me again merely because I asked for help here, hence my request for an email. My problem is this. I don't know the protocol for getting assistance. I am not even sure I am in the right place! I have asked around outside Wikipedia to other editors and found that I am not alone. Am I at the right place to complain about a small group of admins, and am I safe from harassment form those admins when I post my concerns here? Thank you in advance. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this threat. // roux   17:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

JPH: The very, very first post on your Talkpage: "If you need help, check out

♪BMWΔ

18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want this whole problem to go away, please read and take to heart

_complex

18:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I second what WLU posted above. Talk:Bench press#Big James Henderson was a pretty good example of working out a problem without getting uncivil. Talk:Insanity#.22Well_Known_Quotes.22 is not how to go about discussing changes to an article, especially this edit [142]. And that edit was not the result of being harrassed by administrators or being held back from being a better editor. As I wrote on your talk page back in May - the key is to just learn what you may have done wrong and come back with better material that works within the policies and guidelines. Getting worked up about it and picking fights, calling people names and making threats about having admins stripped of their duties will only cause everything you do to be scrutinized further. Stay cool. And remember - anyone can edit your work at any time - and it's okay if they do. Articles are never finished... --Quartet 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My lack of knowledge has resulted in problems. I will review everyone's posts again and seek out assistance for future interaction, edits, and issues. I consider this thread finished, but I will keep returning here over the next couple of days to read any new posts to this thread. For all the advice and action, I thank everyone who posted to this thread, my talk page, and emailed me. I have learned a great deal and look forward to learning much more from you. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lack of knowledge" was responsible for this[143]?? Okay.... Well I'll raise a toast to the hope that new knowledge helps curb your temper. BTW - does this new conversion mean you're handing out apologies for all the users you've insulted in the past? If so, mine can be posted on my talk page. Thanks! --Yankees76 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That last comment was uncalled for. Keep it cool. —

neuro^(talk)

11:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by Deanb

I've transferred the follow from

WP:AIV as this is a more appropriate forum. Kcordina ^Talk

09:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Deanb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user has been uploading copyrighted content falsely tagging it under GFDL for a while. His latest one is a re-upload of the image File:TA Skyline.jpg, which was taken from here, and has been deleted in the past. Another one is File:TA Skyline2.jpg from here. This is despite continuous warnings spanning several months. In the past, he also uploaded File:TA.jpg (from here) and other images I can't remember (althouh this version of his talk page says a lot. Also in reply to a previous warning, he indirectly stated that he had no intention of stopping ("Do us both a favor and stop 'being bored', OK?"). I know that the warnings weren't from last month, and one may argue that there aren't sufficient 'warning levels'. However, because he is a long-time registered user who is ignoring basic warnings, I think some kind of administrative action is in order. I have filed an ANI on this user in the past for an entirely different issue, but can't find it right now. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems a bit complex, more appropriate for an

WP:ANI report, IMO. Cirt (talk

) 08:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that he's been given clear notice of blocking, but he's certainly been pointed to policy many times. Copyright is a potential legal land-mine for Wikipedia, and if he refuses to respect our copyright policy, his contributions do not belong here. I am giving him the templated copyright warning, with notice of potential block. If another admin feels that he's had warning enough and chooses to block now for the protection of Wikipedia, I certainly wouldn't find that inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Moonriddengirl. I believe that Deanb should be blocked because of numerous policy violations which add up to a stream of persistent subtle vandalism. Copyright violations are just the most serious cases, but there are a bunch of other things he has been doing, which display that he never really 'got the message', despite being told nicely a million times. I respect your decision however, and won't pursue further action unless another admin reading this has already decided to act (based on the previous evidence). If the copyvios continue though, I will probably take the liberty of blocking him unilaterally as after this warning, it should be considered a clear case of vandalism (please correct me if I'm wrong). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly support a block if he continues with the copyvios and, as I indicated above, wouldn't look on it as amiss if he were blocked for the copyvios he's done already. The block warning is a courtesy, not a requirement. Our blocking policy says we should generally ensure that users are aware of policies and give them reasonable opportunity to change. He's had that. One of these images he uploaded twice: (File:TA Skyline.jpg) He knows better, and he keeps doing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mdandrea

Hello everyone,

The Arbitration Committee received a block appeal from User:Mdandrea. Rlevse investigated the sockpuppetry accusation using the checkuser tool and has confirmed that the users are not sockpuppets and has decided that the two users are indeed unique users. However, I noted that there were still considerable disruption of the article in question, and that the users were slightly deceptive by initially totally denying any sockpuppetry accusation.

It was decided that Arbitration Committee invervention was not necessary (see this comment by Newyorkbrad that eloquently describes when we feel it is appropriate to intervene). Given there is new evidence that the community is unaware of, we are passing this information onto you all so you can review the original block. It is the recommendation of Rlevse that the block duration be reduced to two weeks, as this was not a serious case of sockpuppetry as was originally suspected.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Deskana (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now this is excellent ArbCom communication! // roux   21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you can expect further notifications like this from me in future. Seems we're coordinating well right now. :-) --Deskana (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No comments on this yet? If there are none soon I'll go ahead and reduce his block per Rlevse's suggestion. --Deskana (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse reducing the block, also, what Roux said. Good job guys. —

neuro^(talk)

11:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Unblocking is easy - once the autoblock expires, anyway - and blocking again is even easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

User:GDETY

Resolved

 – —

neuro^(talk)

09:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This individual is insisting on continuing his disruption via the talk page. --

talk

) 02:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. He's been clobbered. Thanks! --

talk

) 02:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor blanking own SSP

If I understand

Aecis·(away) ^talk

11:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's all there is to say. —

neuro^(talk)

13:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And reverted, anyone wants to revert me, go ahead - no need to contact me. —

neuro^(talk)

13:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Don't mess with Mr. Booze..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin

He's been blocked 6 times in 6 months. He's nothing if not consistent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Two people sharing one account?

Resolved

 – Stale. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Benfo-Dutch (talk · contribs)
• From userpage User:Benfo-Dutch: Benfo-Dutch is a co-operation between the two Dutch contemporary painters Ben Vollers and Fons Heijnsbroek: Benfo.
• See also en.wikiquote user page, wikiquote:User:Benfo-Dutch, stated on their userpage: Benfo-Dutch, we are two contemporary Dutch artists ... We started working on Wikiquote-English in november 2008.

I do not think it is allowed to have more than one person on one account. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The applicable policy is laid out, at

WP:NOSHARE. Cirt (talk

) 11:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)True, but it appears the account was only used for a few days in November. I don't think any action needs to be taken as long as the account remains inactive.--Atlan (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because an account may be promoting something (which, I might add, is a violation of username policy) that happens to have multiple parties in it, it doesn't mean that the account itself was operated by multiple parties. The case is stale anyway, unless it begins to edit again. Anyone want to slap a {{

neuro^(talk)

11:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, initial edits seem to be in good faith. —

neuro^(talk)

11:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I left a query about it on the account's talk page. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A sub-page

Resolved

 – Deleted. {{

db-user}} is the best way to go in the future. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk

) 14:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please delete

SANTA IS HERE

14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

75.2.143.40

75.2.143.40 (talk) - reverting my edits to various articles, previously warned for PAs aginst me; also removing warnings and {{ISP}} template from talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you try

WP:AIV? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because this goes beyond simple vandalism. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If he's been warned before, and he's doing it again, it would at least be worth a try. The worst they could do is not take the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that's just what I thought about ANI. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you try, they might do nothing. If you don't try, they will definitely do nothing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI is for slightly more serious infractions of policy than these, I doubt anyone is going to mind you taking it to

neuro^(talk)

11:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV is explicitly for "for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only" (direct quote, my emphasis). Wiki-stalking and harassment goes beyond that, even if it's no longer serious enough for ANI. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One key issue there, where IP's are concerned, is whether it's happening right now, and if they've ignored warnings. Why everyone who can do something about it here is ignoring it, I couldn't say. But I don't see why you don't post it on AIV. It's not like there's a penalty for posting it and they decide not to do anything. The main thing is it has to be happening right now. If it's not, they won't block an IP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayley Williams

While I hate to create controversy, there is a user who is edit warring to make this page a redirect. There is a bit of a history here, so I request you read the history, as I will outline below:

• The user has edit warred with a large number of other editors in the past. He has reverted the page exactly 13 times, against, by my count, at least 8 users.
• The user has consistently claimed consensus was on the side of redirecting the article, when by my count, there were 8 people for a separate article on the singer, and only 2 for a redirect.
• I recently brought this issue to Deletion review (see the log, linked from the talk page). The consensus was an overwhelming restore, with about half being "speedy restores", as the person passed
  WP:BIO
  quite easily. The user is claiming this DRV is irrelevant.

To be honest, I don't feel like edit warring, but it seems silly that a user can edit war against over half a dozen people, and against a DRV, and this be considered appropriate. I request an administrator address this situation.

Also, I've had nonadministrators in the past shut down my threads as "no admin action required." Please don't shut down my thread if you aren't an administrator, and, for that matter, if you are an administrator, please give the thread a chance. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The only admin action I'm seeing that would be needed at this point is blocks for both of you for editwarring, and/or protection of the article. // roux   06:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to block them, so I protected the article for a few days. This isn't an endorsement of the current revision. I'm going to look into the history of this a little further. Protonk (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 15, which is relevant. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this is my pet peeve: if you are basically going to bring the conduct of a user here for review, just name the user. It doesn't help to point to the article and say "a user", we are going to look and see it was User:Neon white soon enough. I know this wasn't an attempt to be cute (unlike some other editors who shall remain nameless), just an unwillingness to name names on this noticeboard. For future reference, so long as you are posting a (relatively) unbiased request here and aren't dragging someone through the mud, it is productive to list names and it is always productive to include diffs (even though you gave a precise description). Protonk (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not have the diffs; the page history tool gave them to me. I will provide in the future. And yes, I did not name this user as I have no desire to go dragging someone through the mud. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You can pull the direct link to the diff from the page history. See Help:Diff for some more info. Protonk (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Someone needs to connect w/ Neon and let him know he should disengage from the article (as he seems to be editing against consensus and I have no idea why). Other than that I don't think anyone needs to be blocked (the edit warring today was relatively minor w/ attempts at communication and no one breaking 3RR), but the page protection can stand for a while. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect, there is a clear consensus on the talk page to merge the article. --neon white talk 16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to have that big ugly lock template at the top? I'm sure the people who are arguing over it knows it's protected and I doubt any outsider who is looking for information on her would care if it is protected. That just looks ugly to me. Will someone put one of those little bitty lock icons on it instead of that huge template? Tex (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

askmen.com as a source

• I notice that this article has a source, askmen.com. I looked at that source and would be astounded if it meets our reliable sources guideline, especially for
  WP:BLP articles. What do others think? Guy (Help!
  ) 11:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, it fails
    neuro^(talk)
    11:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My statement

I consider this report utterly unecessary. This article in question was discussed at length and a clear consensus to merge (the reasons are clear on the talk page, primarily because the article is 95% copy and pasted info directly from the parent article falsly attributed to the subject) was agreed and performed. Since then the article has been continually discussed on the talk page but no consensus to 'spin out' the article has ever been agreed.

WP:MUSIC. None of the editors involved in either article or the discussions were informed of this. That, together with this report is bordering on forum shopping in my opinion. User:Magog the Ogre is welcome to join the discussions on the talk page and present any new sources or evidence of notability to the discussion and discuss the spin out of the article but continually talking this to different boards is not an appropriate way to discuss the issue. As far as i am concerned the consensus on the talk page still stands and therefore reverting the page to a previous version that was changed with good reason is disruptive and unecessary. --neon white talk

16:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like there is actually no consensus. If anything, many more editors over the past year have been on the side of creating a separate article. // roux   17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isnt a democracy and consenus isnt a vote, no editor has made a valid case for a seperate article. All we have is 'there should be a page cause i think so' and 'i like her so she should have a page'. Remember that not every subject needs a seperate article and notability guidelines on music artists dictate that info on band members who's notability is 100% inherited from a notable group, as is the case here, should be contained on the parent page not on seperate articles unless there is enough to spin out, (there are numerous reasons for this that i wont go into here) but that is the community consensus. Currently this article minus the copied and pasted info, the unsourced fancruft, weasel words and incorrectly attributed info is one single line that is currently quite happily and sensibly contained in the parent article. Also remember that we should edit to improve the encyclopedia not to create article on our favourite celebrities. It's sensible and neater to do it this way. As i said earlier, i fail to see why User:Magog the Ogre is not able to use the talk page to discuss this as is customary and what myself and other editors have done. Admin, User:Either way also voiced similar concerns in the drv about the dubious methods being used here. I like the assume good faith but i'm puzzled as to why User:Magog the Ogre, who has never once edited the articles or been involved with the discussions chose this course of action. --neon white talk 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It doesn't really matter if 8 people think she is notable. It's the actual proof of notability outside Paramore (which there is none) that counts. about 7million people ^[

^T /_C

17:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There may be some in the future but currently none has been provided to the discussion that i know of. Obviously this person is still active so the discussions are ongoing and the potential to spin out a seperate article is always there. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the relevant section on the parent article should be expanded first to the point where we have enough encyclopedic info that a seperate article becomes necessary. The subject still exists on wikipedia, just in a different place, within a subject that is not only very relevant but which the subject's notability is wholely dependent on. We need to remember that we shouldn't create articles simply to pay reverence to a person, this is about how the info is best presented. --neon white talk 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe she is not notable enough for an article of her own, take it to AfD. It was recreated through process (at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 15), so it needs to be deleted through process -- not through unilaterally editing. Edit warring gets nothing accomplished. If there is truly a consensus that she doesn't deserve an article, a new AfD will show this, right? Khoikhoi 08:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not incident

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. —

neuro^(talk)

17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This page contains the issue of

CHOCODILES

17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you're looking for

neuro^(talk)

17:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Azad chai

Azad chai (talk · contribs), also known as Azerbaboon (talk · contribs), is back. The contributions of Baboner (talk · contribs) and 128.122.195.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are very similar to contributions of the banned user Azad chai. Usually he goes around making vandal edits to the articles and calls Azerbaijani people baboons or makes other racial slurs. CU data would be stale by now, but the contribs leave no doubt that it is the same person. Grandmaster 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I caution administrators not to fall for this report. The strawpuppetry has to stop. This 'vandalism' from this new strawpuppet and the similar is to associate legitimate positions with sockpuppets. See this particular edit by Azad chai, where Karabakh is written by it's Azeri variation 'Qarabaq' by this Armenian wannabe. VartanM (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of VartanM. Does he think that the admins should not react to vandalism by Azad chay, and his evasion of ban? Grandmaster 08:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like repeating myself, so I bold faced my point for your viewing pleasure. VartanM (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but it would be good to see real evidence of "strawpuppetry", other than speculations around the spelling of some words. In any case, ban evasion has to be dealt with. Grandmaster 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Um... what's strawpuppetry?

talk

) 10:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Straw_puppets "They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur. They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute." VartanM (talk

) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating term, I'll have to remember that one. Thanks. Now your above comment makes much more sense, I thought you said 'the sockpuppetry has to stop'. --Golbez (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Apparently it is meant as a reference to socks being used to set up editors from the opposing camp. Grandmaster 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This one too: 70.21.172.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They all appear to be the same person or a group of people. Grandmaster 11:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with, thanks. Grandmaster 12:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Vartan is implying that these new apparently pro-Armenian contributors are actually Azeris in disguise. No matter. We dispose of trash no matter its perceived nationality. To believe otherwise should cause you to leave the project. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Said the pro-Azeri administrator ;) (That should cancel the pro-Armenian tag) Thats exactly what I was implying and asked you, the administrators, to get down and dirty and find the roots of this stink, and not just mask the smell and say how nice it now smells. VartanM (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But I would be really thrilled to see some real proof of Vartan's allusions, other than speculations over spellings. I heard this all from User:Fadix, now indef banned, who is the real generator of all conspiracy theories for a certain group of editors. But of course such claims cannot be taken seriously, unless supported by strong evidence. Grandmaster 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence was already provided. This was filled by you on Feb 22, Yerkatagear was the last active user, with his last edit on Jan 13 on Jayvdb's talk page, His baseless criticism discredited the concerns. The next sock become active after you added his name. Checking his prior contributions we can see that the user started editing after two months of silence and a day after you filled the checkuser. As reported, when you filled the checkuser no socks were active (at least for over a month) they only become active a day after you filled them. One of the series of sock was possibly AdilBaguirov according to geographic location [144]. You can keep screaming conspiracy theories. This socks magically appear every time you need to vilify the Armenians, just like during the recent elections when all the eyes were turned on us. So under those circumstances, the fact that this pretending Armenian wrote Karabakh under its Azeri variant makes a lot of sense. VartanM (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, nothing but bad faith assumptions. Btw, Verjakette/Erkusukes/Yerkatagear is still active, as one of the recently registered Armenian editors, you can ask all your questions to him. You know who that person is. Grandmaster 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No I don't, please tell me who this new Armenian user is. [70.21.172.141 This IP you provided] is indeed interesting. With all the IP addresses that this user has used, as well as his knowledge of Wikipedia, he knew that his oppose vote would be rejected and that he was only discrediting the opposing side. VartanM (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See last CU on Erkusukes, the clue is there. As for the voting, is Divot (talk · contribs) Azeri? He did the same thing as the IP, with the same result. If a certain group of editors did not want to be discredited, they should not have engaged in meatpupetry and vote stacking in the first place. No need to blame others for your own deeds. I think this thread needs to be closed, the issue is resolved, and further discussions about this are pointless. Grandmaster 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so eager to close this? I have a legitimate reason to believe that Azad Chai and other socks associated with him are strawpuppet accounts. The timing and the way they edit articles all point out to their strawpuppetness. Thanks for the info on Capasitor, lets see how long it takes 'till this "Armenian" gets himself banned and a new set of Capasitor socks appear. VartanM (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing the IP accomplished is for you to now point your finger at a certain group of editors and accuse them of meatpuppetry. And thats my proof, confirmed by you, that a certain group of editors engages in strawpuppetry, Thanks. VartanM (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you talk to the guy, ask for his name, maybe meet up to check his real life identity? You are in the same geographic region. Making bad faith assumptions will result in nothing, no one is gonna take them seriously. Remember the story with Ehud and the controversy, that resulted in an arbcom case and proved you wrong? And it is not just me accusing a certain group of editors of meatpuppetry, the entire community does, even Jimbo said that there was an "offsite campaign". If you have another conspiracy theory, there are ways to deal with that. Ask the admins or maybe the arbcom to investigate it, but you'll need something better than speculations. Grandmaster 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You claimed there was no evidence, I provided it, now you're claiming bad faith assumption. Here is more, perhaps you forgot, when we make allegations of strawpuppetry, the straw puppet makes them himself. It's interesting that he starts making those charges which will associate him with Rovoam. Then your awaited reply... I always knew that it was User:Rovoam behind all those accounts, and the above post is another proof. Grandmaster (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC). When Dmcdevit run the checkuser and came to the conclusion that it's possibly Adil, based on geography, your reply was: Thanks. It is unlikely to be Adil, because all those accounts push extreme Armenian POV, while Adil's POV was quite the opposite. [145], and more interestingly another allegation by you: Rovoam has a geographic location close to Adil,... Do you know something about Rovoam we don't know? Dmcdevit wrote: Unrelated, and I have no idea about Rovoam, because the edits are too old and the only IPs we have marked for him were from open proxies. How do you know both live near each other? And now you claim that I should ask that new "supposed Armenian" user to answer, when you claimed it was obvious that those series of socks were Rovoam, who from his own admission was not Armenian. But not surprising, this new user you identified got himself blocked for this remark[146]. As for Ehud, I'll give you a short answer, It was Adil. VartanM (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is starting to get way too personal. Vartan, if you think you have good enough evidence, submit it for a Checkuser. Otherwise, these accusations back and forth are getting out of hand. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers have already been done, the links are provided above. Please ask yourself this 2 questions, why is Grandmaster trying to halt any further investigation on a user he reported for racism? What is he hiding? VartanM (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So Ehud was Adil? Why don't you take this to arbcom then? Oh, they said it was not him? Then why do you keep repeating the same baseless allegations over and over again? As for Rovoam's IPs, they are all over the place. Check for yourself. I'm not responding here anymore, if you have any serious evidence, ask for investigation, or take it to the arbcom, or I will. Grandmaster 05:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a single answer to my questions. Why are you trying to halt further investigation? P.S If you read the Ehud arbcom case, you'll see that arbcom didn't say Ehud wasn't Adil. VartanM (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To the Arbcom? Nope sorry, after the elections? It was already useless anyway. BTW, Ehud Geycha claim, there was only one living site, you remember? Well after his claim, several months later it now became the official position of the republic of Azerbaijan and written as Adil and Ehud wrote it. Can't do much, when even Abdulnr who appeared to be a typical user, was related to the same industry (Amoco corporation). Conflict of interest and interest groups are here to stay, one day they will run this place if they already don't. - Fedayee (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How can I halt investigation? Which relevant venue did you submit your allegations for investigation? You can waste space here as much as you like, but that's not investigation. File a request for investigation, if you really want your claims to be investigated. And also, it is time to stop proxying for banned User:Fadix. He admitted that he uses several users as his proxies: [147], and repeating his refuted fantasies time after time and creating another controversy out of nothing is no good. I think I will have to ask the admins to investigate the proxying for the banned user here. As for Abdulnr, it might be a surprise for you, but in Azerbaijan most people with a good command of English work in the oil industry, as that's where the money are. I also happen to work in the oil industry for many years, you can build a conspiracy theory around that as much as you like. Grandmaster 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting User:Fadix [148]:

... my mission on any Wikipedia project now is not to add information but fight desinformation. I can do this banned or unbanned, I can have several members proxy for me, and I have no reason to hide that. By now Atabek, Grandmaster et al. know probably when another member comes with the material and caught them, there is some Fadix behind, and they will probably be right.

Plain and simple, by his own admission, there's a whole bunch of meatpuppets operated by that banned user, who sees his purpose not in adding material, but fighting with what he believes is disinformation. The rules do not allow proxying (

WP:MEAT). Grandmaster

08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you got conspiracy theories of your own, we'll talk when you come back from your vacation. VartanM (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Long-term edit war on

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Two editors have been involved in edit warring since before the Nov. 4 election. While several other participants quit as soon as the election was over,

the article's talk page. --Evb-wiki (talk

) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't see it immediately, has

neuro^(talk)

15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves, an agreement to participate wasn't forthcoming. This has been going on so long that I'm not sure. I'll look in the archives. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

An AN/I report seems unproductive at this time when we seem to be on the verge of compromise. csloat (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

...or is the ANI report a threat in case compromise fails? Just being Devil's Advocate here...

♪BMWΔ

16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but I didn't know that threats were considered an appropriate means of ensuring a compromise here. In either case, I'm pretty sure a compromise will be reached soon. csloat (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Commment There was a request for mediation, but it was rejected because not all parties agreed to it. It has since been deleted, but administrators can view the contents, if they so desire. Enigma ^message 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the

rejected medition request, two of the three talk page archives and the current talk page are filled with discussions of the disputed text, and include a couple of requests for comment and several fleeting claims of consensus. Seriously, nothing has yet worked, and the edit war continues. --Evb-wiki (talk

) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about improper block by

User:Phil Sandifer

Resolved

 – in as much as it's going to be, anyway. Bad calls on both sides, best have a glass of mulled wine and chill out. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I was recently blocked for 24 hours for nominating three articles (

WP:RS). This is a perfectly normal nomination rationale. Rather than discussing the issue, or attempting to find the appropriate sources, Phil Sandifer blocked me, claiming that the deletion nomination of three marginal Scientology articles was "egregious disruption" and POV-pushing. See [149]; note that he later changed the wording from "mass" to "batch" after he apparently realized that 3 articles might not count as the former. In contrast, User:TTN routinely nominates dozens of articles a day for deletion (many of which are merged or kept), and, while this has raised considerable discussion and controversy, a perusal of his block log

shows that he has never actually been blocked for it. Note that I am not saying that someone else got away with bad behavior and I should therefore also be entitled to do so. I am saying that even more substantial "mass" deletion nominations have been discussed by the community before, and no consensus to consider them disruptive has ever emerged. It was grossly inappropriate for Phil to block me for a mere 3 nominations in one day, with no discussion of any kind.

I believe the purpose of this block was to create a

WP:RS, and other policies and guidelines to Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. *** Crotalus ***

20:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've notified

User:Phil Sandifer about this thread. No opinion on actual complaint. Exxolon (talk

) 20:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Typically I dismiss these sorts of threads as BS, but this one might have some validity. From what I can see - and I might be mistaken - there was no discussion or warning from Phil Sandifer about the block, or any chance for Crotalus to explain himself. Further commentary should probably wait for a statement from Phil, however.

Tan | 39

20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explanation from Phil as well. A quick examination doesn't reveal blockable behaviour to me, either.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that mass nominations, using Twinkle, of previously discussed articles in an area under an active arbitration case in which one is a participant, and in direct support of a POV is active disruption, and well justifying a 24 hour block. I glanced over the talk page a few hours after the block, after I saw that an unblock request was made, in fear that perhaps I had overreacted. However, I was dismayed to find that, even in the face of a patient and clear explanation of the issues, Crotalus displayed no understanding of the problems with using automated tools to nominate articles for deletion in accordance with a POV he has clearly and openly pushed on Wikipedia. That nobody else responded to the unblock request makes me suspect that my dismay was not an uncommon reaction.

Frankly, as a user whose contributions amount almost purely to POV pushing, I would consider 24 hours a pleasantly light response.

talk

) 21:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? If that's really your statement here, this needs to be escalated.

Tan | 39

21:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I am highly disappointed. Are you open to recall? Is there any way you would voluntarily step down as an admin? Bstone (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Three noms is 'mass' now? // roux   21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on here, fellas. Bstone, put down the shotgun and step away from the Arbcom button, allright? No one is, or should be, calling for anyone's admin resignation here unless there are a shitload of other problems that I'm not aware of. If we can discuss this calmly and either get a valid explanation or "oops, I messed up, I won't do it again" apology from Phil, then we can close this and move on. One questionable block a bad admin does not make.

Tan | 39

21:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So our criteria for even suggesting an admin step down is a "shitload of problems" but apparently regular editors can be blocked willy nilly for no reason at all. No wonder things are so screwed up here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Given User_talk:TTN#Request_at_ArbCom, he might actually be sanctioned in the near future for the indiscriminate mass noms. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Crotalus Horridus has been wronged, and gave a lengthy explanation on his talk page. It does not appear to me, an outside observer, that CH has disrupted anything or pushed any kind of POV except for his interpretation of our inclusion policies- which is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring to AfD. Reyk _YO! 21:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• I am disappointed at Phil's statement above, especially the claim that I am pushing a POV. I consider my actions to be the opposite - pushing NPOV, and trying to maintain the same high quality and neutrality on Scientology-related topics that we maintain on other parts of Wikipedia. It is perfectly appropriate, and indeed desirable, to remove low-quality sources regardless of whose POV they support, and to nominate articles for deletion when no reliable, third-party sources are available to substantiate them. I also do not consider myself to be a party to the arbitration case simply because I have posted evidence, though of course it is ArbCom's prerogative to determine who is involved and to what extent. Incidentally, I will be leaving for Christmas vacation soon, and may not be able to respond to further comments left on Wikipedia for several days. *** Crotalus *** 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh give me a break. You've been heavily involved in the case, and your views amount to "the sources that do not support my preferred POV are unreliable sources." Presenting your contributions as improving NPOV is absurd. Frankly, the correct response for tendentious POV pushing of the sort you engage in is a permablock. I threw up 24 hours for a particularly inspired bit of idiocy in the hopes that perhaps you would take the hint. The underlying fact remains - use of automated tools such as Twinkle for POV pushing edits is inappropriate, and the edits amounted to a flagrant violation of
    talk
    ) 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was only one call for desysopping by one of the more easily excitable editors. However, I gotta say your complete lack of contriteness in the face of perhaps five or six other agreements - and zero disagreement - that your block was improper is disturbing. This is not adminly behavior, by any stretch. Mistakes will be made, but if you don't acknowledge them or act mature about it when they happen, I start to lean towards action being taken.

Tan | 39

22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I disagree with the assessment, and disagree with the attitude that discussion over... two hours can possibly generate any sort of meaningful consensus that has innate persuasive force that ought bear down upon me with sobering resolve. If the block were still active, I might respond differently and consider lifting it on the grounds that the message of caution had been sent, but there were concerns about the block. But as I stand by my assessment that Crotalus's behavior was actionable disruption, and as there is no block to rescind, I see little that I can do.

talk

) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could attempt to explain yourself, and why you think Crotalus's behaviour was so objectionable. It's not obvious to me or to anyone else here that Crotalus has done anything wrong at all. If you could provide some diffs that show ongoing POV-pushing that would be one thing, but all you are doing is going "I'm right, so nergh!" Reyk _YO! 22:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know bad admins when I see them. Phil is a great editor but a bad admin. He is refusing to take any responsibility for his utterly bad block. Tan, want to join me in support of desysoping? Bstone (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, and I'd appreciate it if you acted a little bit more like the 28 years old your user page says you are.

Tan | 39

22:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Tan, I just have to ask you to be more

WP:CIVIL, right? If not I would gently suggest you to go review them. Thanks! Bstone (talk

) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please step off of your soapbox, please. There is no basis or rationale for desysoping, and all administrators make mistakes from time to time (this is not a review of this administrator's actions). We would have zero administrators if we allowed all to be desysoped for every minor infraction. seicer | talk | contribs 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Utterly no soapbox of any sort here. Just reminding someone- with an admitted quick temper- to please be civil and avoid

WP:NPA. Have a great day! Bstone (talk

) 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Admin abuse! Hang him, quick! Tiptoety ^talk 21:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Motion to Desysop Phil Sandifer

1. Support Admind must be held to a much higher standard than editors. Minimally, Phil needs to be blocked for 24 hours. Bstone (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be punishment, nor prevention, and out of process. --Rodhullandemu 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. No fucking way.
   Tan | 39
   21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Fuck no. This was one error, not grounds for calling for someone's head. Jesus. // roux   21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Silly idea. This isn't the place for this anyway. --Rodhullandemu 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose as on balance I think I have seen more good than bad from Phil Sandifer. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Not necessary. I would be satisfied if Phil would apologize for the block. *** Crotalus *** 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose- I'm more concerned with getting this wrong righted than with retribution. If Phil Sandifer continues to abuse his power we can discuss desysopping, but I don't see any reason to expect he'll do that in the future. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
7. This is a fucking joke, right?. No fucking way. I don't have much opinion of Phil, but really? One possibly bad call, still under review? for a 24 hour block? There are legitimate cases where a 24 hour block might call for a desysop, but this doesn't read like that. It's a shitty call on Phil's part, however. He could have closed them as contrary to an open Arb-case, issued a talk page warning, and brought it here for review, all actions which I would've supported, so long as there were no predications of double jeopardy attached to Crotalus' renomming after arbcom. Phil looks to me to have made a shit-tastic decision, but it's also a no-harm-done decision. Admins can note in your block log the block was reversed, and that'll be that. ThuranX (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delays in unblock reviews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move along. We aren't desysoping anyone here. Want to discuss the delays in block reviews? Please seek a new thread or venue. This thread has been tainted. seicer | talk | contribs 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

I will not comment on the merits of the block for obvious reasons, but I am very concerned about the fact that an editor's unblock request apparently went more than 23 hours without being reviewed. The promise is made to blocked users that their block will be promptly reviewed by an uninvolved administrator on request and we should keep that promise. After all, we should always bear in mind that for a blocked user, Wikipedia has become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—except you. It would probably be helpful if more administrators kept an eye on the requests-for-unblock user category as well as the unblock-en-l mailing list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost always watch #wikipedia-en-unblock, so I see most requests. The problem is, most of the time people write like 1000-byte unblock requests. This just complicates things, and makes me less likely to deal with it. Apparently, I'm not the only one, because from my experience watching that channel, there is an inverse relationship between how long an unblock request is, and how long it takes for the request to be addressed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1500+ admins and not one- not a single one- answered the fellow's plea for an unblock. And in this case it was a horrible block is absolute violation of policy. Yes, the system is utterly broken. Bstone (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, go bitch somewhere else. You don't help the situation, you only inflame it.

Tan | 39

22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not a very

civil response Tan, please consider moderating your response. Exxolon (talk

) 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

←Bstone, how about instead of complaining about the current system you try and fix it? The whole reason this section of the thread was started was to address the issue, not sit around and complain about it. Now, I must agree with J.delanoy, often times I see a unblock request that is 1000+ words and simply skip over it. I think it would be a good idea to have some kind of limitation to the number of words. But, that is just me...some admins have more patience and time. Tiptoety ^talk 22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am simply observing where this poor fellow was failed by the system. Perhaps you can be a bit more tactful? Using words like "fuck" and "bitch" are typically not received well. Bstone (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Exxolon, puh-leeze. Look at Phil's talk page. All Bstone has done is call for Phil's head and berate admins for being the cause of a "broken system". Moderation of response considered, declined.

Tan | 39

22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Bstone's edits or viewpoints, resorting to epithets in reponse isn't going to help. Nor is resorting to sarcasm. You could easily have gotten the same view across in a civil fashion viz :- "Please consider continuing your complaints about the failure of the unblock system somewhere else. Bringing this issue up here repeatedly is only likely to inflame the situation" - exactly the same viewpoint but a much more civil tone. Paradoxically, resorting to "bitch" is actually more likely to have a contrary effect to the one you wish - inflaming the situation more. Exxolon (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Tiptoety For some reason Tan has decided to steer this sub-thread's conversation to me and not about the issue. Now I claim that with 1500 admins there ought to be enough to answer blocks. 23.8 hours is way too long a response. I have some ideas for improving on this. Would you like to hear them? Bstone (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While I obviously have a temper, I'm not the one calling for desysopping. Look at the response you got above - what is that, eight resounding NOs? I had to essentially warn you about harassment on Phil's talk page. You can try to act like the calm one here, but your actions show otherwise.

Tan | 39

22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to continue to disrupt this conversation about admin responses to blocks or would you like to discuss my ideas? I have a few and I think they may help. What say you, Tan? Bstone (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the system broken? I've responded to a few unblock requests today. The ones that are still up are either waiting for discussion from the blocked editor, or they're complicated issues that aren't clear-cut enough to

undo another admin's block over, so they're waiting for input form involved parties and the blocking admin. A delay means that there was something about the request that made admins reluctant either to deny or to unblock, not that no one reviewed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What an odd and pointless thread. Crotalus doesn't IMO have much of a cause for action here, quite simply because he put up an unblock notice immediately and no admin felt it warranted an unblock.

Heck, I was one of the people he was arguing with in the original AFDs in question - I wouldn't have blocked him (I responded on the AFDs saying "no way" in the standard fashion), but his lack of awareness of how it could have come across as querulous disruption indicated a severely worrying lack of good judgement. (This is by the way not a statement of assumption of bad faith - I am fully confident that Crotalus' actions are all undertaken in sincere good faith and he's as dedicated to writing a good encyclopedia as any of us - but my subjective impression of his judgement calls toward our common goal. I'm sure he'd say the same about me. Welcome to Wikipedia ;-) ) So I didn't unblock. I did discuss the matter on his talk page, in a hopefully productive two-way fashion - I don't have anything against Crotalus, I'm just unsure of his good judgement, as I'm sure he may have qualms about mine. That's fine, y'know.

Basically: his appeal was to put up a "please unblock" notice. Plenty of admins keep an eye on these, and not one who looked at it was inclined to act upon it. Other people who objected to the block didn't find an admin willing to undo it. That means the block was basically supported, as far as I can tell.

Given that, it's hard to see what the point of this thread is likely to be, and the call for desysop on a block no admin could be found to object to is, uh, what? - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• As Phil says, I think that mass nominations, using Twinkle, of previously discussed articles in an area under an active arbitration case in which one is a participant, and in direct support of a POV is active disruption. Whether it is block-worthy or not is a judgement call well within the bounds of normal administrative discretion. Probably Phil should not have blocked, but almost certainly Crotalus should have held back pending the arbitration, since this is a contentious area. This thread amounts to "The nasty admin done me wrong" and then a succession of "yes he did" and "no he didn't". If one applies
  WP:AGF, the entire matter vanishes in a puff of smoke. Guy (Help!
  ) 22:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am deeply concerned by the actions taken by some here who think it is acceptable to unite arms to force an administrator out of their respective position because of one mistake. It is, in irony, egregious disruption to assume the worst on one instance. With respect to the unblock(s), I also find that there is an direct relationship between complication and response timing. Caulde 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• That is a terrible attitude. If I were an admin I'd have unblocked immediately. The fact that in nearly 24 hours only one admin took enough interest in an unblock request to comment, and didn't act because they happened to turn up with only 20 minutes left, doesn't mean the block was supported- just that nobody cared. That's a massive problem. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Due disclosure: I have given extensive evidence in the arbitration case related to these actions. Phil, would you be willing to retract the word idiocy? It doesn't reflect well. Crotalus, would you be willing to exercise greater restraint regarding matters currently under arbitration? Three nominations isn't a whole lot, but the use of automated tools and a rather transparent tit-for-tat

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale does look POINTy. Probably better resolved with discussion than with either the tools or calls for anybody's head. Durova^Charge!

23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will grant that "idiocy" was an over-dramatic choice of words.

talk

) 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect many people looked at the unblock and decided not to deal with it. And if there were an inverse relationship between complication and response time, then complicated issues would be dealt with the quickest. I think you mean a direct relationship.

masterka

23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Amended, with thanks. Caulde 23:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Grandmasterka on this. The fact that an unblock request received no response in twenty-three hours doesn't mean that it wasn't seen for twenty-three hours. I know that I have on occasion looked at an unblock request, concluded that any action I took would likely make matters worse, and left well enough alone. Call it a 'soft' denial of unblock — I think the block should probably stand, but actually posting a denial would be inviting a lot of time-consuming and pointless argument. (Heck, it might even lead to talk page protection or an extension of the original block.) I'm not saying that that is necessarily what happened in this case, but I'm sure it is what happens for a lot of unblock requests. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! That admin turned me into a newt! [A newt???] Well, I got better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the Wiki Witch traded the mop for a broomstick. If you drink this potion I promise it'll upgrade your newt to a toad. ;) Durova^Charge! 23:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Awright! I'll hop right on that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

*Rolls eyes* Move on people. Bad decision by Crotalus to inflame an already controversial area, and bad idea by Phil to consider that a blockable offense. Is there anything else that needs admin assistance? Aside from the moronic call for Phil's head, which deserves a

trout slap, there's nothing. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse

) 23:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP talk page rant

Someone might want to have a look at the rant against the majority of Wikipedians, including a few lucky individuals singled out for personal attacks, on

WP:BOLD and remove this material myself, but then again I don't want to be an amoral "vandal of the soul." Cosmic Latte (talk

) 12:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

From their contributions, it looks like they made a good faith edit which was reverted as vandalism, they then removed the same material from the talk page and got reverted, and they're now going around posting rants everywhere trying to complain. Hut 8.5 13:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

They claim to be visually impaired, so in the spirit of Christmas I think we should also act as if visually impaired and ignore it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just returned from the midnight christmas

WP:CIVIL a bit?) it is the name of a song by a Korean-pop group H.O.T, Operation Takeover. Anyway, now that this matter has met closure, I guess what I say won't matter much now, right? Optakeover^(Talk)

18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What you say does matter, but if the incident has calmed and there is hopefully a future that contains good contributions from all parties then - in the spirit of the season - let us give it a chance. If things don't work out... well, this can be revisited. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rumble Roses images being removed

Almost every article on wikipedia on video games such as GTA 3 and [150] all have character pages with images of the main characters. However, userUser:J_Milburn seems adamant about removing the images. If GTA and other games(which are incredibly popular and obviously had admin approval for doing so), why not the same apply to Rumble_Roses#Characters ? --Roaring Siren (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's generally considered polite to notify users when commenting on them on the noticeboards, and it's also generally useful to actually discuss the matter with the users first, not just come running to a noticeboard when someone cites policy at you. I have already pointed you towards

pointing to other, extremely low quality articles as evidence that something is acceptable holds no water. The images on the GTA list appear to have been left over from merges from articles on the individual characters, and have now been removed anyway. J Milburn (talk

) 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

When I posted this in the noticeboard, my intention was to get the attention of other admins, as I feel a third party might be able to judge better, than the same user. As you can see

List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto_IV Milburn's wonderful edits have been reverted by an another user has reverted hisedit

and it appears there was a consensus that determined insering images of the major characters of a game are OK.

So in a nutshell : Other admins please help ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaring Siren (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what you're basically saying is that you disagree with me, but rather than discuss it, you want to get others involved to judge the situation. It's not like I have a history with either you or this article, there's no reason to be posting here. If you really wanted a third opinion, and not just to stir up some excitement, a better place to post would have been

the non-free content talk page. However, I will say it again, the standard practice is to actually discuss it yourself before requesting a third opinion. J Milburn (talk

) 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm another admin, how would it be if I were to block you for trolling, disruption and abuse of non-free content? Or was that not the sort of other admin you were looking for?

These are not the admins you're looking for, be on your way. Guy (Help!

) 20:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like I got a full house against me... Either way, the milburn guy seems to be putting it across as if I've just blindly come here : WHICH IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. I don't about mil and frankly I don't care, but if my messages are still there on his talk page,you'll know we were not able to reach an agreement. And that's the reason I came here.

And jguy ,your message was not one I'd expect from a professional admin, not that I thought you were one anyway. You see to be have blind faith that admins are always correct,even though I had given ample proof as of here where mil seems to have gone against the consensus reached after a lengthy discussuin (search the talkpage and you'll know what I'm talking about). And as for your dissing me as a troll and other comments, I pity you. --Roaring Siren (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

JzG is right. This is not the correct locale for this. ANI is to report serious incidents that require more or less immediate admin action and not for petty disputes over whether or not images should be allowed.

MuZemike (talk

) 20:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Waraji changing User templates

Seemingly inactive editor has now introduced two drastic changes[151][152] and POV[153] to two different userbox template pictures without obtaining consensus. Asked to explain change and discuss before editing by myself[154] and warned by another[155].

talk

) 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that this account was created as a

Proposition 8 article. He or she has not responded except to repeatedly engage in the same disruptive behavior. I request that admins run a check on the IP address used for this account to attempt to identify another account which controls the sock puppet, and to discipline the individual accordingly. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs}

) 19:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromised account, or troll that managed to fool an admin?

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

Per this edit, which blanks an entire page... well, just look at it, you'll see what I mean. Previously, this user was auto-blocked because the IP was trolling. And now this. Either the account has been compromised, or the IP and the user are one in the same.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Assume it's compromised. Possibly get a CU to check to see if the associated IP is in a different geographical area? Bstone (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's AfD conduct

Badagnani has just suggested that I be banned from Wikipedia for nominating an article for deletion. Normally I would let this go, but this has now happened several times (see my previous comments here and here). Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm starting to feel intimidated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I was contacted privately by Cordless Larry). Have you actually been warned formally to stop deletion nominations in this field? I'd be surprised if you had. Badagnani's conduct on the specific AfD is incivil and unnecessary in my opinion. There's no reason to focus on the contributor if he has a legitimate worry about the content, and to suggest you should be blocked (as opposed to banned) is misguided.

Somewhat slightly unrelated, but the actual content issue might be worth raising at the

Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. --Jza84 |  Talk 

19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been formally warned, no. I don't see why I would have been since I have always provided justification for my AfD nominations and many have been successful, including ones where Badagnani previously suggested I be blocked. I presume that Badagnani is referring to the past suggestions that she/he has made that I be blocked. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any suggestions? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The larger issue is whether the articles on Spanish Germans, Australian Indonesians etc. are appropriate article subjects. The statistics are included in official fact books and there are a lot of theis type of articles. Apparently he took issue with your multiple nominations of articles dealing with this type of subject. I don't think his comment was helpful. Perhaps you could ask if he's willing to engage in a discussion of why he thinks those articles are worth including. Maybe someone knows the best place for a broader discussion? As far as his comment goes, I'd ignore it. I suspect he was just frustrated. Don't take it personally and happy holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'd be happy to ignore the comment but this is the fourth time it's happened now by my counting: here, here, here and now this time. They also did the same to another editor here. I got an apology once before, only for this behaviour to resume. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask if any of these articles have been deleted through AfD, but I see that some of them have. So it seems the consensus is not to include all of them. I'll leave him a note and see what he says. I think it's his way of saying he strongly objects to the nomination and deletion of articles on ethnic groups within countries. I would just take it as that, an over the top expression of his opinion, but I'll try to encourage him to avoid framing his view in that manner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He/she also needs to provide reasons for opposing deletions, preferably citing Wikipedia policy, rather than simply objecting. I've made this point in several discussions and on their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the larger issue is indeed his conduct

Crossmr (talk

) 02:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As I recall you and another editor were the majors for most of that feuding, and that archive is full of complaints about your behavior. I don't think it's helpful to bring a separate issue into this to try to get back at someone you had a prior disagreement with. Unless you have something helpful or useful to add I suggest letting more neutral parties handle it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As I recall almost none of those complaints came with any diffs and when pressed on it, he refused to provide any. These diffs, which any can check for content to verify the claims made there show a pattern of behaviour on the part of this editor in attacking other editors in disagreements. Its completely relevant to this complaint as it shows an on-going issue not isolated to a single encounter. As I also recall more than one editor told him assume good faith in that case and he continued make bad faith assumptions and attacks long after he was told. Making good contributions doesn't give you a pass on civility.--

Crossmr (talk

) 06:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me there are several editors who spend a lot of time building or improving the encyclopedia who get defensive of attempts to distract from or make those efforts more difficult. I haven't said the behaviour is okay, but if people are going to delete other's work, you can't exactly expect them to welcome your efforts with open arms. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry,

Crossmr (talk

) 00:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch for that, as I have sternly warned the user several times as well as spelling out in bold on a previous AFD not to call for the banhammer on other users with no good reason. The user seems to take every AFD against his articles (

MuZemike (talk

) 08:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He makes similar nonsensical statements to me as well. Look at the diffs I provided. In one he cautions me against writing in all caps, yet I can't find any words (except the abbreviated link to a policy) that appear in all caps in my statement. There is nothing that remotely looks like a death threat in what you wrote.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

same vandalism from different accounts

These users have done the same vandalism to chess articles:

• 64.24.45.59 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• 64.24.45.165 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Tutuman (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

I have warned all of them. Tutuman has just done the same vandalism to Threefold repetition for the second time. These are all probably the same person. Is there a way to stop it? Bubba73 (talk), 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tutuman also vandalized White and Black in chess four times. Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would continue to monitor their contributions and warn them as necessary. If they persist with the vandalism, you can report them to

AIV. Cheers! TN‑X-Man

21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I watch articles, not editors. The editor is vandalizing several pages, some of which are not on my watch list. Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:64.24.45.59 and User:64.24.45.165 are from the same ISP, so it is possible that they are indeed both Tutuman.

It looks like ZimZalaBim has initiated a conversation with the user on his talk page. The user appears to be inserting references to a chess player (who does not have a corresponding article). Hopefully he'll respond to ZimZalaBim's note. TN‑X-Man 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only is he inserting a sentence about a redlink, he is inserting it in inappropriate places, in places that have nothing to do with the player. Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there is Tutuman2 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) (note the "2") doing the same vandalism. Bubba73 (talk), 22:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And another IP address: 64.24.41.70 Bubba73 (talk), 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tutuman2 blocked indef as a sock, Tutuman blocked for a week and pointed to
  WP:N. I'll look at the IPs now. --Rodhullandemu
  23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Range for the IPs is a /21, 2048 users, but will see if it stops. Please notify me if it doesn't. I predict little collateral damage would be caused for a shortish block if it needs to come to one. --Rodhullandemu 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Given this response which, to be honest, ain't gonna get him unblocked, I've now indeffed the main account Tutuman. I think we can live without him from now on. --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he meant it with affection. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet KosovoLegacy (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He made a change to one article today. Is it a bogus change? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is basically the same change that Tutuman, Tutuman2, and the three IP users above made to about six chess articles. Bubba73 (talk), 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was going to revert his edits, but you beat me to it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm being

WP:MEAT. --Rodhullandemu

00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the contributions by

• 64.24.41.50 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) and
• Bootsatbush (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

to

Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history. Bubba73 (talk)

, 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you want any help reverting stuff. I'm in a reverting kind of mood tonight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked Bootsatbush indef and the range /512, so not too large, for a month. This is clearly some concerted campaign. It stops. --Rodhullandemu 02:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Baseball Bugs, but I'd rather get it stopped at the source. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• 64.24.57.103 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) seems to be another one of them in the same range of IP addresses, diff. Bubba73 (talk), 04:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Largegs (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is another suspected sockpuppet. Bubba73 (talk), 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Largegsss (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), another one. Bubba73 (talk), 06:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • All now blocked. --Rodhullandemu 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No more trouble since then. Bubba73 (talk), 01:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Largegss (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is suspicions, but a different modus operandi. Vandalized English draughts about the same time. Bubba73 (talk), 01:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unusual contribution history

Is there any cause for concern regarding [162] this edit history? In addition to a lot of dubious AfD noms (Harvard Graduate School of Design?) there also seem to be a lot of edits marked as minor that removed significant content or links. Thanks for any informed consideration and opinions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

i personally aisagree with a few of his noms but i dont think that any of them are acutally criminal. you should go on his talk page and open a dialogue re: the minor and major tags. one thing that i have noticed is that ofr some suers its set as default to mark all edits as minor unless its deslected on the edit summary page. i am sure that if you worked with this editor swon this talkpage he might be more responsivable to your statementations. Smith Jones (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good explanation and suggestion. Thanks. Although I do think that an editor who seems so focused on deletions is a bit concerning as far as building an encyclopedia goes. But I suppose it takes all types. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer you original question is NO this is no concern here. Yes, I am a new editor and I take it people don't like my AfDs. I listed academic colleges within larger universities that per

WP:UNI needs to change what is notable. Some of the reasons to keep Harvard Graduate School of Design

is because it is "Harvard"... which is wrong.

Minor edits. Going back and looking at my minor edits I agree some of them are mislabeled, made a mistake. However, others were done under the idea of 'Obvious factual errors' or 'Removing vandalism and graffiti' from Help:Minor edit. But I will keep my use of M under control in the future.

When I got down to your complaint about it "takes all types" I guess it does. I kept noticing so many "ads" or spam within wikipedia as just a casual edit / user to WP. I could not stand the bias or lack of quality control on some articles and figured I would remove the

WP:CRUFT (see my AfDs above) before doing research to "build and encyclopedia". 16x9 (talk

) 16:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. If something isn't independently notable a merge might be more appropriate than deletion. I would think Harvard Graduate School of Design, for example, should be included in some form even if not as a stand-alone article. That being said, I appreciate your explanation and your good faith. It's not for me to tell you how or what to put up for AfD. I'm just sharing my opinion, and if you'll ease up on the minor edit button, I'll do a better job of communicating with you first if I have a question.  :) Sorry about that. Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey ChildofMidnight, maybe that was a good-faith nomination, but the user also left me a not-so-nice message on my talk page--in the AfD discussion I asked, rhetorically, what the nominator was thinking, nominating the Harvard Grad School of Design, and the user responded not so rhetorically. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. You're both on the naughty list. "What was the nom thinking" is probably not the best way to phrase your keep argument.  :) And his *cough* comment wasn't helpful either. I suggest we let it all go and celebrate the holidays with a loving spirit of peace and collaboration. The new year is right around the corner, and I'm optimistic with confidence that 2009 will be wholly conflict free and full of civility for all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have wiki linked to

WP:DICK instead for it to be understood. It does seem like this newcomer is getting bit a lot. I hope everyone has a very Merry Christmas. 16x9 (talk

) 01:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well 16x9, I think I understood you quite well the first time--you've now called me a dick twice. Happy Hanukkah to everyone. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

So I guess that makes me the dick.16x9 (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

IP trolling on Mississippi articles

Resolved

 – IPs rangeblocked. —

neuro^(talk)

23:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I came here to report something that was reported 2 days ago, but you ignored me. There's some user with tons of IP sock-puppets that all start with "91.0", that keeps removing gay sections from articles because he doesn't approve of gays and thinks his home country is better than the US (which is a racist remark). He/She has been edit warring for weeks, and i when tried to break up the fight, i became his/her's new target, he/she would seen serval harrasing messages to my and AllStarEcho's talk pages. Eventually the Mississippi article and my talk page was temporarily semi-protected, and the IP was blocked, thinking this would solve the problem...WRONG!!! The IP waited untill my talk page was un-protected to do the same thing again, and is now wiki-hounding me with several of his/her's sockpuppets. Now he/she's calling all american users idiots and "assholes" and is now vandalizing Equality Mississippi, another article about gay mississippians. There are so many of his/her sock-puppets that i can't count them all. But here's a list of the one's i've observed:

• 91.0.91.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.63.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.105.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.85.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.111.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.65.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.67.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.81.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.104.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.112.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.117.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.107.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.78.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.108.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.58.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.59.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.107.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 91.0.118.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could someone please block all these sock-puppets, someone who's not involved in any of this? And end this madness once and for all?

talk

) 19:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I might be able to do something fantastic for you. Give me 15 minutes or so to do some investigation. --Deskana (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, if you can link to block logs of accounts that prove that he is evading blocks, or prove that he has violated 3RR the IPs, then I can block the range he is on. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

* Added IP vandal templates for ease of reviewing and blocking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

His IPs broke the 3-revert numerous times on the Mississippi article ([163], [164], [165], [166]).

talk

) 21:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

East718 blocked the range before I could. I guess he saw this. :-) --Deskana (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Something is just....off.

For the past 3 days, there's been an IP user in the 98.28.xxx.xxx range, who's been futzing with the "Funding" sections on all the PBS Kids' articles. Aside from just horrifyingly weighting down my watchlist with his one-byte edits (to a section I would mercilessly purge with fire wherever it appears, had I my way), there was very little to judge as not-right...BUT. This user jumps IPs about five times a day. I finally had to block one of the IPs (98.28.204.87‎) for blanking content after a final warning, but I have no doubt he will be back with a new IP in minutes. My questions: Is there a "something-just-ain't-right" criteria for blocking? Is there anything against policy with his series of minuscule edits? ("Aggravating Gladys", alas, isn't a policy violation.) What about the IP-hopping? That, particularly, seems suspicious.

So basically, I'm acting on a series of suspicions, none of them blockable when taken individually--but taken as a group, there's something just WRONG. Any advice, other than "have an eggnog and forget it"? GJC 21:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It may simply be an dynamic dialup account which would account for the ip hopping. If so, there is not much that can reasonably be done. If more nefarious then a range block could be in order if small enough and serious enough. JodyB _talk 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but i'll through in my 2 cents anyway. Maybe it's just a combination of guilt and stress. I felt a mixture of feelings when Simulation12 was blocked, because i had this nagging feeling that she was just trying to help, but didn't know how to. I'm sure someone can come up with a better explanation.

talk

) 21:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP Gladys lists is allocated to Road Runner. It's also part of a huge range, 98.24.0.0/13. It is fairly easy to force your DHCP to allocate you a new/different IP.

Yngvarr (t) (c)

22:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• This doesn't happen very often, but when it does, it's a huge drain on resources. Multiple floating IPs and multiple articles is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps it's time to consider semi-protection of articles on a category basis, such that applying protection to a suitably-defined category, with cascading protection to articles listed in that category, but with appropriate safeguards, would be appropriate. I had a similar problem less than 24 hours ago with a bunch of chess-related articles, with new accounts and IPs persistently adding non-notable references; only personal vigilance can counter that sort of editing, and it would have been much easier, and comprehensive, once that sort of thing had been detected, to restrict editing access for a short time. My reluctance to compromise the open editing model here is tempered by the reality of have to spend otherwise constructive time fighting vandals on too many fronts. --Rodhullandemu 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Zionandbabylon

He created a page that was pure vandalism, then claimed it could not be deleted because he is not a sockpuppet when nobody had made mention of that. He then proceeds to admit to sockpuppetry, saying "i am he". May or may not be connected to User:Samthemaniloveut (a known sockpuppeteer), as that is the user he mentions. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat problem.

Over on Talk:Gratin, and the article space, there's been some conflict about the number of potato-in-cream-sauce articles needed. A new editor, User:Believe It Or Not, has been trying to separate the page into three separate articles, against apparent consensus and the status quo. He's pretty insistent on it. As well, two IPs, 86.144.204.217 and 81.157.213.116 have supported BIoN's edits, as seen in the edit history. last night, User:Michael Grossman showed up on the talk page, and as his first edit, supported BIoN's position. I removed, because it sure looks like a sock/meat issue. He reinserted it, and I've left it there. I'm asking an admin to review the situation, and if needed, look into it further.

I came to this page by browsing the 'recent changes' page, and offered an admittedly unsolicited 3O, but it sure looked like a stalemate as far as the regular editors were concerned. I find it suspicious that a page which has scant traffic for months suddenly attracts four editors (two IPs, two accounts), who all hit the page within hours of each other, all supporting the same major revisions to the article. I also find suspicious that a new user's first edit is to a talk page of a nascent, yet both contentious and stalled, conflict. Thanks to whatever admin looks into this. ThuranX (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles about potatoes-in-cream-sauce? *blink*

♪BMWΔ

19:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, we have at least three. What's bad is we have more candidates for a sockfarm ABOUT potato-in-cream-sauce dishes than we have articles about potato-in-cream-sauce dishes. 4:3 is a bad ratio on that. ThuranX (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, what's with all the edit-wars re: food items lately? We've had the

hoagie conflicts, and now the gratin contretemps. Anyone want to join me in creating a pool on what comestible will be the next victim?? GJC

22:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The great hoagie conflict of 2008. POV pushers will, of course, redirect it to "the hero wars" or "the grinder action".

Yngvarr (t) (c)

22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Until an unseen flotilla of 'Sub conflict'ers rises up to ambush us all. (Can some one please look into this?) ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, I've looked...and it looks like good progress is being made without me. Am I right? GJC 16:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. While that editor hasn't said anything else since, the problem of a possible $tring-puppet returning to pad the consensus remains, and a Checkuser might be needed, but since I can see only a situation and am not sure who the PM is, I'd rather not file the report. That's why I'm asking for some more eyes on it. Thanks for checking though, Gladys. ThuranX (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yngvarr (t) (c)

01:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. can we block the socks, or should a formal report be filed first? ThuranX (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)