Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648

Why is this user blocked for just one edit? [1] Is this another incident of an edoitor suspected to be Proabouviac or is there another reason. I think this needs to be out in the open too. I don't see any need to indeff from this [2] - or to be honest a need to CU in the first place. We have too many secrets lately festering away.

This was a relatively obvious case. I even considered drawing a checkuser's attention to it by email. Please observe

WP:DENY. Hans Adler

09:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you "obvious case." I just assumed it was a regular editor reluctant to be seen agreeing with me (there's quite a few of those)

 Giacomo 

09:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably blocked because its a gutless sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if we blocked all of those, there would not be many people left editing at all.

 Giacomo 

10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be good, too. HalfShadow 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We block as many as can be found. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On that premise: I expect to see this User indeffed imediatly. Or there is going to be an immense amount of trouble!

 Giacomo 

22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Like what? You'll type mean things at us or something? HalfShadow 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and its indeffed now, so we will have to see who suddenly goes very quiet.

These not-so-great impostors turn up now and then. They usually get sent to the phantom zone quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place for this. I have found several user pages that seem to be imitating namespace articles, either ones already created or some that seem fabricated. "They" all have been editing each other's user pages and they to each through wikilinks. I have found only one IP address, 24.184.11.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that has edited a handful of the pages. Here is a list of them:

User:Cmlf1 · User:Lade_Films · User:Ttlf3 · User:Tcdlf4 · User:Gglf2 · User:RichMaples · User:Mike_Glavine · User:Nyc2354 · User:Jjlf1

I don't know what kind of action should be taken on these articles, although I think they should be deleted or merged/moved to name space articles. If this isn't the right place, I can move the discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD, although you'll probably want someone else's opinion on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Blade. And the link should be User:RichMaples234. BOVINEBOY2008 17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to delete these. Tag them with {{

talk

) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are all g11s from Lade Films (the remaining userpages are character-character-L-F-#). Just because they're bad attempts at advertising, doesn't mean they aren't advertising. Syrthiss (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted all the "character" accounts, blatant ads. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And the user should probably be restricted to one account, rather than the ~10 currently being used. Peacock (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why they're called G3 and G11, and not A3 and A11. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the swift action! BOVINEBOY2008 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed:

• Nyc2354 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Priscilla Roberts (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Michael Roberts Jr. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RichMaples234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hmr234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wallstreetlegend234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Trainman123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• OnmuicFounder (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mickal Zaldon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kakistan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Winsodolf Zaldon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• John Zaldon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Largest Cities (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lade Films (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Greg Gregory (Lade Films) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• John Johnson (Lade Films) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jjlf1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gglf2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ttlf3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tcdlf4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jtlf1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hompage (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WIVKA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a deeper issue here, but I observed that on the Tbilisi International Airport article User:Jasepl and User:Inspector123 were edit-warring over the inclusion of a particular Privatair flight (see this 3RR report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jasepl_reported_by_User:Stepopen_.28Result:User_warned._.29). In apparent response User:Jasepl went on to tag dozens of dynamic and shared IPs as suspected sockpuppets of User:Inspector123, with circumstantial evidence at best (Note: An admin deleted these notices from the IP talk pages, thus these edits do not show up in the edit history of Jasepl anymore). See [3] for one of this tagged as sockpuppet and then deleted pages.

Furthermore, after being warned for edit-warring Jasepl canvassed at least one editor [4]] and indirectly asked him to revert on his behalf. Also note this racist and bitey remark towards an editor who edited the controversial information to the Tbilisi airport article, [[5]]. Stepopen (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your hands are not fully clean here. I protected the page because you and others were in a slow burn edit war. This is being discussed at the Airports project page. You have been to my page asking me to do something to him because he made a comment to another user you didn't like. This problem will only de-escalate when you walk away for a few minutes. JodyB _talk 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Inspector123 labeled himself as Pakistani, admits not logging in when not absolutely necessary and types something not English in edit summaries. Why would it be racist for Jasepl to use the word Pakistani? Why would tagging admitted IPs be inappropriate? HkCaGu (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so over half a dozen contributors have weighed into the discussion that supposedly was a result of my canvassing. Some of them I haven't even heard of, let alone canvas. And most of them I've had some skirmish or the other with over the years. But I'm sure a way will still be found to pin it all on me.

As for the other charge of racial assault, all I can do is laugh. The serial-vandalising user, Inspector123, happily swore away in English and some other language that I do not understand. I do know it certainly wasn't English. Inspector123 has on his user page, proclaimed to one and all that his is a Pakistani Wikipedian, so to presume that said swearing was in Pakistani wasn't too much of a stretch. If, after his leaving a bunch of (presumably) swear words on my talk page in a non-English language, saying "I don't understand Pakistani" and "swearing will not be tolerated, whether it is in English or Pakistani" are racial assaults, then I'm not the one who has issues.

Besides, this is the English language Wikipedia, isn’t it?

And regards the intimidation, Inspector123 has self admitted, on more than one occasion, that they have been editing using any of hundreds of IPs, for reasons ranging from "I'm lazy" to "I don't want to pretend to be an editor" to "I forget".

All of this has been clearly communicated to Inspector123 (or one of his many IP avatars) on hundreds of occasions. Yet he continues to do as he wills, resolutely refusing to follow editing guidelines or established procedure, while swearing away at those who revert invalid edits or remind him of the rules.

The fact that the serial illegal (for lack of a better word) edits and swearing has gone unnoticed likely is a result of his using so many IPs – a classic case of escaping accountability.

If anyone wants specific instances of any of the above, I'll be happy to provide.

So, as I asked before on more than one occasion, try to get a grip of the situation and an understanding of the guidelines first, and then wage all the war you want.

And yes, I still find it odd that an editor, who had made about a dozen edits in total, with the most recent one being a year ago, suddenly gets all hot and bothered about one line in an article about a relatively insignificant airport and about the imaginary mistreatment of one other editor. And those sockpuppet tags clearly said "suspected” – even after the above mentioned admissions. jasepl (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So why did you edit-war on this article and then canvassed User:Snoozlepet for support? Seems that you do not want to answer this question. And interesting how you are lying what you actually said. You said "Sorry. No understand. No speak Pakistani." NOT "I don't understand Pakistani". The fact that you lied about what you actually said suggests that even to you it is clear that you crossed the line here. Stepopen (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Over the last several days, User:Carmonians has been uploading a significant number of images (see file contributions) and placing them on the Carmona, Cavite article. While this editor has indicated a source for these images, he has refused to add any licensing tags to these images, despite many, many warnings to that effect (his talk page is filled with them). On 5 November, administrator ESkog placed a warning on his page asking him to stop this behavior, and cautioned him that continuing it may result in his blocking. The editor continued anyway, uploading another six unlicensed images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I placed a final warning on his talk page with a rather large stop hand sign after those six unlicensed uploads, advising him he was receiving a final warning [6]. Subsequent to this, he uploaded another two images, this time claiming he had rights and was releasing them to public domain (1, File:Patronjoseph.jpg). Editor has been notified of this thread, though he has to date refused to engage in any discussion on his talk page. Some assistance please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User hasn't made a single discussion edit, I suggest blocking until he wants to talk about it, he clearly has little understanding of copyright and licensing so until he asserts that he does understand these policies he should not be uploading any more files.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Would any administrator care to take some action? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it is appropriate to interpret this edit as a legal threat. User notified of discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not really a legal threat, but that sort of discussion isn't constructive anyway. Stickee (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• It is a good idea not to overlook the actual focus of the discussion, which appears to be that the article is an entirely one-sided presentation of a person's work, sourced entirely to detractors. Unfortunately, the people who are trying to balance it don't seem to know how to write free content prose of their own. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

<span class="anchor" id="Ncmvocalist <redacted> moving thread">

There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Dollar Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer to the question the change was undone by the same IP address. I can't be 100% certain, but I believe the original edit was made before the question was broadcast.

Shortly afterwards the same IP address edited the Isle of Man page at approximately the same time as Isle of Man was the subject of another question on the show. Again, the nature of the edit was relevant to the specific question asked. I'm not sure whether the edit was made prior to the question being broadcast, but the nature of the edit does suggest it was made by someone with foreknowledge of the question.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Campbell&diff=395252978&oldid=395004743 for the Naomi Campbell edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Man&diff=395253551&oldid=394829116 for the Isle of Man edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.187.202 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, IP is operated by Virgin Media out of Cardiff which also owns the TV channel in Cardiff... but there's nothing that can be done about this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Million Pound Drop question related edits

There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Pound Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which was directly relevant to the question because it made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer the change was undone by the same IP address. I can't be 100% certain, but I believe the original edit was made before the question was broadcast.

Shortly afterwards the same IP address edited the Isle of Man page at approximately the same time as Isle of Man was the subject of another question on the show. Again, the nature of the edit was relevant to the specific question asked. I'm not sure whether the edit was made prior to the question being broadcast, but the nature of the edit does suggest it was made by someone with foreknowledge of the question.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Campbell&diff=395252978&oldid=395004743 for the Naomi Campbell edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Man&diff=395253551&oldid=394829116 for the Isle of Man edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.187.202 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As said above by Seb az86556 (talk · contribs), the "IP is operated by Virgin Media out of Cardiff which also owns the TV channel in Cardiff... but there's nothing that can be done about this". Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Owns the TV channel in Cardiff"? what does that mean. Cardiff has more than one TV channel available. The channel the program is broadcast on is Channel 4, which isn't owned by Virgin Media, nor is Endemol the producer of the show. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what happened. Basically some bored teenager was watching the TV show while on their laptop. They decided it'd be a "lolz" to edit the article that the quiz show was asking questions about so that it seemed that the producers had got the answer wrong, tehehe! No big media conspiracy, just mindless vandalism. GiantSnowman 22:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Threads conglomerated because they are obviously about the same thing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Media is also an ISP. Do you have any reason to believe the IP is from their corporate offices rather than just a random broadband customer? Bovlb (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's true that the Naomi Campbell edit was made before the question was broadcast - and bearing in mind that the edit was reverted by the same user just afterwards - is it possible that these edits were made by a member of the production staff in order to prevent people from cheating (by e.g. looking up the subject of the article on Wikipedia, and quickly texting the contestant?). The producers would pragmatically assume that most people quickly looking up a subject would go to Wikipedia's page and not do any further research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – SPI filed, Rangeblock initiated. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been some suspicious IP edits by

Here's another IP from the same range corrupting film information since the sock investigation was filed: Special:Contributions/98.85.7.221. This is affecting dozens of articles, so a range block is seriously needed here guys. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck, not him again... HalfShadow 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

what the hell I thought we were done with this idiot a long time ago, PS the range block would be 98.85.0.0/17

talk to me

01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello anyone here???

talk to me

05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, he continued doing it for an hour or so after this report was filed, and no doubt will be back on tonight. I'm not going to bother reverting the damage if there isn't going to be some effort to prevent it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI on Bambifan and the IPs but the SPI Bot seems to be down (or maybe I just need to be patient). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate some help at Greek love where I am trying to nurture a debate on my upcoming nomination of the article for an Afd. However, the tags I have put on the article are being removed. This looks to me like an attempt to stifle debate. I am not the only WP user who believes the article is structurally compromised. The tags are appropriate. Please monitor this situation. Thanks. McZeus (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the next step. While heated the discussion does not yet seem to have reached a stage where admin action is needed.--Salix (talk): 07:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed that the disputants could continue their debate so fiercely while the opening sentence of the article remained "Greek love is a tern in Modern English synonymous with other similar phrases". Suggest you all cease warring over the tags and go find sources to actually improve the content for our readers. Skomorokh 11:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone resolved the thread above but its obvious User:Bad edits r dumb and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back are the same VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Their editing behaviour is similar (like trolling), but "Bad edits r dumb" came after than the Fat Man, it seems. Diego Grez (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Does anyone but me think it is odd that an editor who has been here all of 4 days already knows all about ANI and spotted this right away? Risker (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Self-outing? Wouldn't surprise me if this guy's BerD. Highly interesting. StrPby (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • He's been around for a 4 1/2 years, albeit with some very lengthy pauses where he was presumably either editing under another guise or two, or was on vacation consuming donuts. Oddly enough, looking at his rap sheet, the length of his blocks have decreased each time, from indefinite to a week and now just 2 days. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Risker's reply was in regards to the OP.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, they're the same person. Unambiguous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, who's the same? The original poster and blocked account or the two blocked accounts? TNXMan 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Soryy, Fat Man and Bad edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The same person as in you CU'd them? If so, shouldn't the sock's block be upped back to indef?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

VoteJagoff is not the one who linked the two, although it is indeed interesting that the user started posting to ANI a mere 4 days after creation.    Thorncrag  01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If Fat Man has been trolling, not only with his main account but with a sock even (which is now blocked), why is he allowed to continue editing? This is what I find interesting and I think it's a legitimate question. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? I find Thorncrag's point more interesting Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• VoteJagoffForMayor (please consider changing your user name), Berd had started editing with a request to a cu, disclosing past identity(ies). Berd got blocked not for socking - but for disruptive editing. Fat Man is blocked currently on incivility issues. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

   * (del/undel) 18:42, 3 November 2010 Bencherlite (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...)
   * (del/undel) 10:12, 8 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (more...)
   * (del/undel) 11:05, 5 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...)
   * (del/undel) 10:46, 14 May 2009 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse ‎ (removed content for 1 revision: gaveout IP) (diff | more...)

WP:DNFTT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Thank you for the input Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 174.118.149.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [11] ...as are Materialscientist and Jpgordon Comments? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Constant reverting without discussion or reasons point the "terrorist" label to Seb az86556. Name calling and labelling help your cause a lot...NOT! --Special:Contributions/174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Does anyone else see a problem here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you could start by cleaning up your signature.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) ?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC) It's Navajo, right? 174, please stop calling people "vandals" and "terrorists" if you wish to be taken seriously at all -- have a look at what vandalism is, for a start. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) If the user is vandalizing the page then the normal warn/block process should work, no?    Thorncrag  05:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Was blocked. Returns with different IP and restores the talkpage section on "Administrator terrorism"... I don't know what to do with this anymore. I need someone else's opinion. I don't appreciate "vandal", much less so "terrorist". Just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 174 does not appear to be a vandal, but he's a persistent edit-warrior, and has been blocked at least twice (that I saw on a quick look). The section on "Talk:Long_and_short_scales#Administrator_Terrorism" indicates he doesn't quite get it. 174, will you please stop the name-calling and discuss calmly what your issue is with the article, on that talk page? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC) OK, I give up. You have your power trip. Discussion was open and you made it clear none was wanted by deleting my edits, threatening me and removing my comments. --174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC) By now, at least 5 other people have warned you, disagreed with you, blocked you, reverted you, and declined your unblock request. No bell ringing. And no, I don't think I have to "discuss" whether I am a terrorist or not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 174.118.149.54 and 173.35.12.221 do geolocate the same. Given the evidence, a block would probably be uncontroversial given the extensive warnings and blocks already imposed.    Thorncrag  05:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I wanted to at least take a crack at reasoning with him. Unfortunately, he shows a pattern we see commonly with some new editors -- immediately jump into a revert war on even a mild disagreement; shout and stamp feet and call the other editor abusive names; claim it's our fault, threaten to run away, we won't get their great contributions, etc. Bullying and abusive behavior are so endemic on the internet that I wonder if a majority of our first-time editors expect it to be that way here too. Often enough it turns out to be self-fulfilling, as an abusive newbie is unlikely to encounter someone calm and patient -- two qualities in short supply on Wikipedia these days. Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. –George W. Bush 06:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC) At least this is a different take than the usual "Nazi" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It's here, and that's where it's staying. GedUK  09:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a thread above asking for a community ban for SRQ. I moved it to AN because that is the proper venue for discussion of community bans (they can take place here when they arise naturally from a discussion regarding a specific incident}. Ncmvocalist moved it back, and when I attempted to correct his error, reverted me in the middle of the process. I'm backing off now, will someone please inform Ncmvocalist of the proper placement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've notified him of this. Also, he changed the title of the thread, overriding the request of the initiatoing editor with his own opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

From

WP:BAN:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

Beyond My Ken (talk

) 06:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken should avoid editing the Wikipedia space altogether, or be restricted from doing so. He's misrepresented the way the title of the thread was changed; it shows he has no clue of what is going on when he edits here: he didn't look into what it was the user was actually requesting and why it was that the discussion started here (not AN).
  Community banning discussions generally take place at the administrators' noticeboard 'or a subpage thereof. [emphasis added]) That's why another ban discussion is also taking place in this venue (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_proposal:_User:Justa_Punk) and why other ban discussions have also taken place at this venue (irrespective of whether it stems from an incident). That Beyond My Ken isn't happy with this development doesn't mean his views trump policy (never mind the fact that policy isn't fully up to date). He boldly moved it to AN and it was reverted; instead of discussing anything at all, he's come here. Ncmvocalist (talk
  ) 06:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken should avoid editing the Wikipedia space altogether, or be restricted from doing so.

  Thank you!, that gave me the best laugh I've had all day.

  Oh, and I restored the word "disruptively" from the title I gave this section. I meant "disruptively" and I stick by it. Your disagreement with my assessment doesn't authorize you to change what I wrote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it's well established that you do not use titles to grind your personal axe. Please cease unless you wish to be blocked; the alternative is to keep the username as the title on its own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're supposed to keep you headings neutral (not that that guideline isn't frequently ignored on this page). Disruption is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you insist that "disruptive" remain? I didn't find his reversions disruptive, and he explained them in his edit summary, and from what I read, it makes more sense to keep the thread here. Why haven't you tried to discuss this with Ncmvocalist on his talk page?---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, because Ncmv was moving the thread back, Doc of Soc's comment ended up floating free and posted to the wrong thread over at AN. I initially moved the thread when I did because I happened to be here just after the thread was posted, so it could be moved without any dislocation. As for the title of this thread, it is "neutral", in the sense that it neutrally presents the problem I saw with his moves, that they were disruptive. The title is not pejorative or a personal attack, it's a dstraight-forward description. I can't help it that Ncmv objects to it - many people object to having their disruptive behavior called out.

Anyway, what I came here to say before I leave this thread was to point out this consensus discussion on WT:Banning policy, in which it was established that AN was the preferred venue, because ANI is archived too quickly, among other reasons.

So that's it from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, one more thing -- I see that the thread has now attracted comments, so at this point I think it's too late to move it back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note the use of the "anchor" statement, just above the section header (go into edit mode on the previous section), which preserves links to the previous titles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

The article currently named

I can't really see consensus on the talk page.

WP:NC suggests that we title articles according to common English-language usage. A rough-and-ready google comparison, excluding Wikipedia results, shows 6560 results for "Eggenburg Palace" and 9050

for "Eggenburg Castle". Make of that what you will.

It takes two sides to move-war. However, as a fellow admin Gryffindor should really know better than to short-circuit the consensus-building process and impose a solution while discussion is underway. I'm not going to reverse their move (see

WP:RM. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk

10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well not really, since it implies that someone can simply get away with, as you put it, short-circuiting the consensus-building process simply by virtue of having admin status (I find it rather astonishing that he's an admin, but in any case, it doesn't seem relevant to this issue, since the behaviour in question could have been done by anyone). If people can just get their way by move warring (no, it doesn't "take two to move war" - if A moves, B moves back per BRD, then A moves again, then only A is move warring) totally ignoring discussion, then that is how things will come to be decided. It's not up to me or anyone else to show a consensus for some name; it's up to him, as the person proposing a change; and if he can't show such consensus (and he has shown such contempt - now I discover he's an admin, I feel stronger language is justified - for community processes as not even to lower himself to participate in the discussion), then his action should be reversed. Ideally by himself, but if that doesn't happen, I would expect another admin to do it (and really have a serious word with him about how to use his admin rights).--Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to back up my assertion that this user (admin!) has a history of this sort of behaviour, I've found this previous discussion which resulted from the exact same thing. (I see he does a lot of page moves, most of which are probably useful and totally unobjectionable, but I would have thought he needed to learn that when an issue is or has been the subject of discussion, then he doesn't get to just make the decision himself.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kotniski, you can put your axe down. I didn't see that there was a discussion going on about the rename, sorry about that. I'll put in my feedback there. Gryffindor (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But you remember doing exactly the same move before, right, so you knew it was opposed? Oh all right, consider this resolved (I assume you'll move the page back to its original name if your proposal doesn't get consensus).--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Err, not sure what you mean with "doing the same move before", but whatever it is I'm sure we can discuss the name over on the talk page. Gryffindor (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This article is being repeatedly blanked out by this user. He claims to be the subject of the article, and wants the article removed. I am unsure of what policy this comes under, but his repeated blanking is a definite COI. Can an administrator please look into this? And please put a lock on the page for now - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved this from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), as it is an ongoing incident right this minute. I have no comment on this otherwise. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Article has apparently now been

proposed for deletion, looks like the best course of action. ~ mazca ^talk

11:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD has been removed. The prod stated that the source wished the article removed. How can this be verified? Ask him to state this on his own website? Also, can subjects of articles just "wish" their articles away? The article does not belong to them! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs}

17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)