Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive654

• Exactly – you've hit the nail on the head with your use of the

  issue Direktivs to others banning them from their talkpages. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate

  ─╢ 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Enough. Are you both going to agree to play nice and leave each other alone (and end the issue) or are you planning on dragging the community through another interaction ban discussion because you're both too stubborn to stop battling it out and go do something constructive? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Barring colleges from one's talkpage is quite tricky. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you're not helping much... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have unhatted - with the template and commentary intact for reactivation - since I was looking for the relevant policy/guideline; which appears to be WP:UP#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. It is fairly clear that disregarding a request such as that made by Namiba is specifically discouraged, and therefore the post made to this page is not trivial. There is the issue that a previous poster was sanctioned for posting to the same contributors talkpage (after a warning) and that even AGF'ing Treasury Tag was unaware of this past issue it might be considered within the admin remit to remind TT of the guideline and strongly suggest that they do not make any similar post. I will note my comments here to TT, as a form of noting them of the guideline, and HJ Mitchell (as an example of the courtesy we should be encouraging between contributors). LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  I, and I believe another administrator, have warned TreasuryTag about this recently, and yet has refused to follow policy on this. I think that a block is in order. NW (Talk) 17:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  How many hours has it been since I last edited Namiba's talkpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  What's that got to do with anything? Are you saying that you don't plan to do this again? Bearing in mind this is almost identical to what happened with you and Giano. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  If there is no ongoing disruption, it is not clear what a short block would be preventing. And I can't imagine that a long block could possibly be appropriate in this case. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  If that's how you feel, maybe an indefinite length (i.e. however long is necessary) block would be suitable? Although I personally feel even a shorter block would encourage you to not repeat these kinds of actions in future, and thus would be preventative (ditto NW: support block). I also feel Namiba could use a stern warning about incivility towards TT, which in this case clearly inflamed the situation. Not that this excuses TT's reactions in anyway. Other users following this may also want to have a look at this thread on TT's talk page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Given that I clearly stated, "I can't imagine that a long block could possibly be appropriate in this case," I am unclear as to what gave you the impression that I would support an indefinite block of myself... ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  And would I be correct in saying that you, Kingpin, are in two minds over the issue of a block, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Better to be indefinitely blocked than definitely blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)}

  Well, an indefinite block doesn't have to be long. No, I'm not in two minds. I said then that I didn't support a block at that point as I felt a better route would be for you to instead "simply leave this issue alone", and not repeat these kinds of actions in future. I see every indication that you have no intention of doing this (and do plan to repeat these disruptive actions), so I now feel a block would be a good idea. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  "An indefinite block doesn't have to be long," true. In which case it is a short block of the sort I referred to. Still not following you on that approach. And may I ask to be reminded of where I stated that I "plan to repeat" the actions this thread is complaining about? ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Again bearing in mind that you've previously (independently of this incident) made these kinds of actions. Also, I didn't say you stated that, I said it was implied. How was it implied? Well, (1) by saying that an indefinite block would be long, you imply that it would be necessary for a block to be long because (presumably) otherwise you would continue the actions. (2) By not admitting that what you did was wrong, you imply that you will have no problem repeating this in future. (3) By saying "I [...] cannot moderate my conduct accordingly" ^{full context} (the reason being that you do not understand how what you did was wrong, see point #2). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Aha, I knew you'd bring up that diff, which – as is obvious from the timestamp – took place before you stated that you were opposed to a block. So that is clearly not a factor which changed your mind. As for (1), I did not especially say that, you are playing semantic games in which I have no interest. I clearly stated that, given that there is no ongoing disruption now, a short block would be punitive. And a long block would be overkill. An indefinite block can be either short or long, and would therefore be either punitive or overkill. Not complicated.
  As for (2), no, I don't think that what I did was wrong. But

  that itself is not a blockable offence.
  Can I just also point out that we are the only two people arguing, and it's quite dull, and I'm willing to stop if you are. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation

  ─╢ 18:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  Well I clearly still hoped you would change your mind at that point (a user makes an action > gets warned > disagrees that they should be warned, indicates they will repeat the action > gets blocked, makes some sense to me. Saying that they shouldn't be blocked because they got warned instead doesn't make much sense, since the warning was ineffective (unfortunately)). Well no, an indefinite block would be in place until the very point at which it was evident that you no longer were going to cause this kind of disruption. If it's going to be overly long due to stubbornness on your part (or whatever other reason), then I would support a short block instead (I don't want you getting blocked for a year, for example), as a deterrent from future behaviour (encouraging more productive, congenial editing in future), as I believe that at present the chances of you repeating this are extremely high (see

  Wikipedia:BLOCK#Purpose_and_goals). I'm happy for us both to take a break from this and allow some other users to offer input. - Kingpin¹³ (talk

  ) 18:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If TT & TM have agreed to stay off each other's talkpage? blocking won't be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue at this stage is the wider pattern demonstrated by TT's repeated incidents of this nature with other users. There are concerns that a block may be necessary to prevent TT doing the same thing again with the same or other users as xe has numerous times in the past. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The closing admin should note the above editor's repeated displays of bias against me and our general past history. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest either providing evidence of my "repeated displays of bias against you" rather than a diff of a notice you apparently decided to write about me on your own talk page without my knowledge, or withdrawing the claim of "displays of bias" which is a pretty blatant personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not without your knowledge; it merely recorded for posterity you deleting my message to you on your talkpage. To say that someone is biased is not a personal attack, but for reference, in no particular order: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]+[6]+[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and, finally, various bits on [12] – ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 20:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See

WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

20:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into

whatever semantic debate you want to lure me into, whether "bias" is a behaviour or a state of mind, whatever. I have provided evidence above, so your claim of personal attack no longer has even the slightest validity. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate

─╢ 21:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Treasury, please consider the possibility that nobody is taking your side because you are just plain wrong. It happens, nobody is perfect. You don't have to agree that you were rude, but you are going to need to agree to abide by consensus on this. If there is no urgent reason to continue posting on a user's page after they have asked you to stop, continuing to do so exceeds the bounds of
  talk
  ) 00:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly this type of behavior by TT is continuing here (imo, fwiw, etc.). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Out of curiosity, why has a RfC/U not been filed? If it were, other editors can comment on the underlying issues, and if that doesn't end up with a desirable resolution in the long term for the project, then at least it shows for a more formal attempt to sort it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Warnings issued. --Elonka 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This user persistently engaged in propaganda and deletes the information from the articles. Made him two warnings to which he responded inadequately and called my actions - "garbage".

Agree that there is a problem here, though with the personal attacks being thrown by both sides, it's not clear who is in the right or the wrong. Please start by keeping comments

civil and focusing on discussing the article's content, not the other editors. --Elonka

19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(followup) This seems to be a skirmish between

Balochistan conflict and Jundallah articles. Hopefully both users will heed the warnings, and work harder to edit in ways that conform with our policies and guidelines. If not, further administrative action may be required. --Elonka

20:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Again. No consensus changes by Kermanshahi - one (and personal attack in edit summary), two, three. How long will it last?Sentinel R (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you can see from the edits, they were sourced. You see Sentinel R, used a source about Taliban insurgents supporting the BLA, to back up supposed claism that the Afghani government was supporting the BLA. Further he used an article about US and Iraqi (Saddam Hussein) support for a Baluchi tribal uprising in the 1980's to back up a claim that the current Iraqi government is backing the BLA (and completely ignoring the part about the US). He than refered to these edits, where in I reported what sais int he sources, to the article, as "unsourced lies," please Elonka just check up on the sources, read them you'll see what I'm saying. As for my actual "unsourced edits," it was because I do not believe that the whole list of supporters should be included in the infobox, so I moved it into the article instead. I gave up on this eventually, but I still believe that the infobox should only be the for the combatants and not the whole list of supporters under it, cause many are disputed or they supported only in the past and therefore need extra explenation which makes the list in the infobox even longer. These things are actually supposed to be said in the article. Further I notice he calls the edit I made removing unsourced figures "propaganda by Iranian government," but he had provided a non-existent link to back up some "2000" figure and used no sources at all to somehow include the 5,000 and 2,600 figures, that's why I removed them.

non existent link(c). Not even funny.Sentinel R (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sentinel R has been hiding information in sources, on purpose reporting things wrongly and making up figures while reverting my edits (which only back up what sais in the links) constnatly. So who is making propaganda here? PS. I've explained about the Jundullah article on it's talk page. Kermanshahi (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I also still want to complain about Sintinel R's insistence on the inclusion of Noor Ali Shooshtari and Rajab Ali as Killed in Action commaners in the infobox.

The deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard = low-level commander?Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For Pakistan only the top leadership (head of military, presidents, prime ministers) have beeen included. For the insurgents in Pakistan only the top leader of each uprising is included, meanwhile for Jundullah their former nr.1 and nr.2 leaders, the Rigi brothers + the current nr.1 are in the infobox.

You can add more leaders from Pakistan. I do not mind.Sentinel R (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Than for Iran, Sentinel R feels the need to next to the President, the head of the Iranian military (Hassan Firouzabadi), the head of Iran's military's regular branch (Ataollah Salehi) and the head of the military's Revolutionary Guard branch (Mohammad Ali Jafari), suddenly include the deputy commander of the military's IRGC-branch's ground forces branch + the military's IRGC-branch's provincial ground forcs commander (neither of which have an article about them because their names were not even known prior to the incident), only because they were assasinated, just to add Killed in Action to the Iranian side of the table. Is this POV and politically motivaded, or what? Kermanshahi (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm already tired of writing the obvious things third consecutive day. If the administration decides that iranian propaganda is the place to be in Wikipedia - then so be it. True about Jundallah: Iran's leaders are clearly skeptical of Jundallah's claims that it pursues no separatist agenda, but simply aims to alleviate systematic discrimination against Baluchis in Iran and thereby improve their daily lives. They perceive the rebel group as a proxy used by the United States and Britain in an effort to destabilize the Islamic republic from within by fomenting sectarian and ethnic strife.Sentinel R (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What Iranian propaganda? I was only writing what was in the sources.Kermanshahi (talk)13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Administrator made you final warning (not to promote your biased point of view), but you still continued after a warning. What is your interest in this? Obviously you all this not just to do so.Sentinel R (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was told not to get into reverting edits constantly. No administrator said anything about biasm. Now what I did was not revert edits, but add sourced information and delete unsourced information. Now it is clear we have a disagreement here. You claim Jundullah is seperatist, I say they are not. Now, I've brought you 9 sources which say that Jundullah claims not to be seperatist but to be fighting for the rights of Sunnis. Now it's your turn to provide me just 1 source where in Rigi or any Jundullah commander sais he wants seperation of Iranian Baluchistan. As long as you can't do that, you cannot add such baseless claims to the article.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jundallah = Sunni separatist group. How much more do you need links? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is merely a reported working for a website calling them like that. As long as they themselfes deny they are seperatist it is POV to add this to the infobox as their motive.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Themselves claiming =

WP:NPOV. Need opinions of neutral persons. you doesn't red sources but changes the information.Part 2..Sentinel R (talk

) 16:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You see, the difference between my sources and your sources is, you bring me the word of a worthless reporter which labels Jundullah as a seperatist group in one of his reports, I give you the word of Rigi himself which denies being a seperatist in every interview and statement. Bring me one source which sais that Rigi called for seperation. Untill then, all you can do is add to the article that "the group has been refered to as seperatist by various media, however the organisation has always denied this".Kermanshahi (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Own words - not neutral.

WP:NPOV - read this, ok? And Rigi said about separatism in this article "Earlier confessions made by Abdolhamid confirmed reports that Washington aided and abetted the armed separatist ring in carrying out its terror activities in Iran,".Sentinel R (talk

) 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a quote from PressTV, with "the armed seperatist group" being used as synonym for Jundullah. This is not a quote from Abdolhamid Rigi saying they are seperatists. Unless you bring that in, there is still no proof. There is however enough proof, proving you wrong, with dozens of sources about Abdolmalek Rigi saying they are not seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I found two references are cited where Jundallah called separatists. How much a references you needed? A thousand? Million?Sentinel R (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you still not get it? You need to provide a reference where in Jundullah leadership say they are seperatist, not a reference in which some journalist labels them as seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

His own words - not neutral. And this link doesn't work - [13] Why you added broken link?Sentinel R (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So you say when an organisation declares it's goals, we should completely ignore this, because the organisation is not neutral about itself and instead add some false claims made by (seemingly) unknowning journalists? That is ridiculous and that is definetly not how wikipedia works. Therefore I will not continue this argument. I hope the moderators sort you out.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

All of your edits from that - urgently need to revert. Since you added broken links and fine-tune the entire article at your own biased point of view, unconsensus changes after final warning from administrator.Sentinel R (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the links I added were broken, all of the information I added was sourced and and written down in a non-biased and objective way. I was not warned by any moderation to stop editing, I was told to stop blindly reverting your edits. What I did was normally edit the article, using sources to back up everything I said. I see not a single way in which wikipedia would ever disagree with the edits I made.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're biased edited the article and did not take those links that I found. You're not looking for compromise, you just decided that you're in charge here and you can do anything. But it is not. Wikipedia - the overall project, and it is not your personal encyclopedia. You do not have the right to change the neutral article to biased article, but you did it. You ascribe to me words that I did not say, and personal attacks on me. I am with you no more to say, you are perfectly revealed today when the article began to change after the final warning to you.Sentinel R (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The links you gave me were worthless, but I can add them if you want. For the rest can you point out what is biased about saying that Jundullah themselfes sais they are not seperatist and adding sources to back it up? I am not changing a non-biased article into a biased one, I am adding sourced facts to a very lacking article. You are biased and therefore won't accept facts. And why should I compromise when you are being unreasonable.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You said nothing in fact, you just went and changed the article in the direction in which you wanted to. And do not you decide which journalists write articles on international sites like Aljazeera, your original research can not be authoritative for the encyclopedia.Sentinel R (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not do original research, I reported what the organisations official goals rather than journalist mistakenly calling them seperatist. No-one has the authority to decide which source is right and which one, that's why in this case we use the organisation's own offical goal in the infobox and to be neutral here, in the article we discuss both sides. That's why I added to the "view and goals" section that they have been refered to as seperatist by various media (which is the case) but have denied this themselfes (which is the case), I don't see any other way in which this can be reported objectively.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the administrators' noticeboard is not the location to discuss article content. Please discuss these matters on the article talkpages. I have added both articles to my watchlist, we can continue this discussion there. --Elonka 18:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

• Editor182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I would like to bring attention to a case of harassment against my work from a particular user. In June, we were both involved in a large dispute concerning images in various articles, which resulted in edit warring, page protection, and account blocking. It was only after administration intervened that issue had reached consensus. Although this dispute has long closed, the User:Raeky, has continued to monitor my account and remove my work. After he recently reported an image I uploaded, which may or may not have copyright issues, he stated the obvious; "I monitor your account periodically", in the discussion.

This is not what has triggered this report. Today he removed my image of a photograph I had taken, with the comment "dark low quality cell phone image is not better than previous infobox image... restoring.", as he has had issues with my "cell phone images" and their quality in our past dispute. Since I added the image, at least one or two regular contributors to the article had either made an edit or reverted vandalism without questioning my image. Raeky has had no past interest in the article, except of course, a few hours after I added an image to it.

What happened in the past is irrelevant in terms of who was right or wrong. What I would like now is very simple, which is for Raeky to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Wikipedia community. In short; I'd like this user to be instructed to leave me alone, period. After leaving a firm message on their Talk page, regarding their actions and my notification that administration will be informed if they continue, they've since notified me of taking some sort of administrative action.

I don't want any further issues concerning this user. We don't edit the same articles in general, so we wouldn't and haven't run into edit conflicts concerning text. I'd like what was said and done, and my content to be of no concern whatsoever to this user or to this report. All I'm asking for is as above, for the user to be told directly; to stop monitoring my contributions, stop removing or questioning my images, and to leave any questionable work that I submit to the rest of the Wikipedia community. In short, to leave me alone. A much appreciated message on their Talk page could end this issue and stop it from continuing further. I'll await your response, thank you. Editor182 (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sure was a firm message you left. [14] Given your history of image problems I'm not surprised other editors are following your edits. Quite sensible really. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Editor182 and Talk:Possum#Image are attempting to resolve the image dispute. Netalarm^talk

06:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way I see nothing but ongoing problems here from a user who apparently just doesn't get it. Surely it's at the stage of an indefinite block. Note I've been involved with him/her in this

Mkativerata (talk

) 06:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like Raeky to discontinue interest in my work. It's as simple as that. That's all this is about, not images, this is only a request for a cease of involvement in my work from one user. I'm not sure who this "indefinite block" mentioned above should be applied to, but I'm only asking for a message from administration to another user. Editor182 (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting to note: When Raeky brought my image up for discussion on Wikiquette, he used the heading Editor182, when on response to his request, and yet another discussion opened, but with the heading Image.. so what is this users concern, the image or the editor? If just one administrator could put a close to this now with a message on this persons Talk page to cease their involvement in my work, undoubtedly based on bad faith, it would be appreciated. Editor182 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just what in the world are you talking about, I started the WQA in response to your offensive comment on my talk page. Netalarm made the second link on the Possum page about your image. I posted
    WP:BOOMERANG ANI you've opened. — raekyt
    08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Still don't get the message? I'm hoping an administrator will give it to you, then you might. Editor182 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Does Editor182 really expect to be backed up by an administrator for a request under the header "F*** off" on a user talk page? [15] Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Not even if the header was "Seasonal greetings" - I expect nothing, especially as Mkativerata is apparently an admin, and trying to get another admin to come along and side with me? No. I thought if there was a shred of decency when I opened this request.. but, now I'll just say that it's closed. Won't bother with disputes or contacting admin for help in the future, I'll just accept the decisions of Raeky, who may continue to reign over my account. Editor182 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My edits hardly justify such a claim, I removed your picture out of Possum today, I nominated your image of the Monster Energy can for deletion on Nov 22, which got deleted, and sparked huge discussion here and is still unresolved... and aside from our previous encounter where you got banned for edit warring to the extreme about your images, I've done nothing else to your edits or history. The only reason I even looked at your account on Nov 22 was because I saw you editing the same articles that you was banned TWICE for edit warring over, and today I looked at your account again after I noticed that those deletion requests was still ongoing and the huge deletion review... I hardly thing this "lording over" your account, lol. Also, again yuo don't know how to use HAT, you didn't close it. Plus it's not your place to close this. — raekyt 08:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not my place? Who's place is it then, account overlord? I opened it, I closed it.Editor182 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior hasn't been entirely resolved, an admin above called for your banning, possibly this is a valid reason why YOU should NOT push this under the rug? — raekyt 08:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like another case of

I concur. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I could see there was no point in the argument after an admin was against the proposal. That's all. Editor182 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor182, admins aren't Gods. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I reopened this thread, but only because its closing was improper. It should be closed by an uninvolved party: as the filer requests this, and thus no administration action is sought as a result of this report. Doc talk 10:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• What if an administrator who thought for themselves read the review and decided it would be in the best interest of all involved if Raeky did refrain from monitoring my contributions with malicious intent, and ceased involving himself in my media? I personally keep track of articles that I'm interested in and improve them in any way that I can. I don't monitor the editors; in this case, in bad faith; taking courses of action to remove images from articles where their experience is zero, instead of leaving it to the regulars judgement, but instead takes it upon himself to delete my content. Then, when a user suggests it be used somewhere else less prominent, he still advises against it. They are not helping, and not leaving judgement to others in a more suited position to make them on experience. Anyway, I concur, unless an administrator with independent and rational judgement sends a message to Raeky; to stop engaging in the aforementioned; then let's close it now. Editor182 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) Editor182, you opened this thread, closed it twice improperly[16][17], and now want to keep it open... again, for an administrator that may come along who "thought for themselves" with "unusually good judgment". Have you actually read

WP:BOOMERANG? Quit while you're behind, and read up on policy is my advice to you... Doc talk

11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with

uncivil, and unlikely to lead to a better encyclopedia. You should know, if you don't already, that there's no way to add a user's contributions to your watchlist- the only way to 'monitor' a user is to periodically check their contributions, when you remember to do so. If Raecky is doing that from time to time, rather than merely watching Possum, I think you'll find that she stops bothering with it once she stops seeing anything but polite and useful contribution and discussion in them. Don't worry too much about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 11:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Editor182 has requested the speedy deletion of the photo of a possum at the center of this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bwilkins. Was this this really necessary? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "my sympathies to your mother" bit actually took me to the "block user" page for a moment ... but then I took a sip of Starbucks Winter Blend and hit the "back" button. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 has a habit of blanking their talk page after every post. This has the effect of making it much harder for observers to see the accumulated warnings and repeated issues. Rather than blocking Editor182 per
  gaming the system, and may result in a block. This will help other editors monitor and assist Editor182. It's very hard to help somebody when they keep blanking their talk page. Editors normally are allowed to blank talk pages, but in this case that tactic is being used to game the system. Editor182, Wikipedia operates on the principle of transparency. When you are actually causing problems, it is perfectly acceptable for other editors to monitor your work and try to help you improve. Jehochman ^Talk
  12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support restriction for a minimum of 6 months, at which point they may request an amendment/removal (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Try to help me improve?" I don't need help to improve, and I am being provided with no such thing. Editor182 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess you haven't read

WP:BOOMERANG yet? You came here to report a problem. We have looked into the problem, and now, we are trying to help solve it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 12:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you say 'it is my talk page and I will archive it when I want.' That indicates to me that you think you have been archiving it. You haven't been- you've been blanking it- but I've created a place where you can archive it from now on. Check out my archives to see how it work s-

archiving is not what you've been doing, and it's really useful for easily looking back for past conversations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 12:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per User:Jehochman and User:Bwilkins - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 decided to test the validity of their restriction,[18] and as a result they have been blocked for a week. It just goes to show that sometimes
  it is better to block disruptive editors, instead of giving them a less restrictive remedy. Jehochman ^Talk
  12:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:
  WP:BLANKING states "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." I've always felt that users should be permitted to remove comments they really don't want on their page, but routinely removing all comments, instead of archiving, seems counter to the communicative purpose of a user talk page, and in practice often has a certain chilling effect on discussion. If someone agrees with that, perhaps they could suggest (at the appropriate talk page) some kind of clarificatory amendment to the policy. Rd232 ^talk
  13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• That was POINTy blanking and the block was good. The user needs to learn to be less belligerent in general. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Editor182 has agreed to terms and been unblocked. We've set up automatic archiving of the talk page. If a few experienced users would watch their talk page and help with a little coaching when needed, that would be great. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Does this administrative action resolve the problematic issues with images which spilled over onto Commons? Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of this permanently-blocked User has appeared, right after his last one was blocked for three months (see User talk:174.27.246.236). User:67.2.187.252 is editing in the identical manner as User:174.27.246.236. I think these socks need to be blocked permanently just like the User himself. Rosencomet (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs don't get indef'd but the latest one has three months. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no indication that User:67.2.187.252 has been blocked on his/her talk page (he/she hasn't one) or user page. Are you sure it's been done? Just asking. Rosencomet (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was looking at the wrong one. I have blocked the other now for three months per

Thanks for your prompt response. Rosencomet (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the list of sockpuppets of User:RasputinJSvengali probably includes at least the following:

• User:174.27.235.100
• User:67.177.27.74
• User:67.2.187.252 (Three-month block)
• User:174.27.246.236 (Three-month block)
• User:BackMaun (Permanently Blocked)
• User:Alien666 (Permanently Blocked)

And there may be others. Rosencomet (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Doesn't warrant revdel GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See this.

They call that vandalism? I get nastier vandalism than that free with my breakfast cereal... I don't think it needs to be revdeled... just reverting it is fine. It doesn't contain any personal information that might harm Jimbo, after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Praytell, what personal information about Jimbo could possibly still be secret? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't let anyone find out he's a nerd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's simply "run-of-the-mill" vandalism, whether it's to Jimbo's page or anyone else. "Material must be grossly offensive...": if this gets "revedel"ed, I'd be surprised... Doc talk 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Overreaction much? This is just standard mindless vandalism and certainly doesn't require suppression, or indeed any form of intervention beyond simply reverting it. --Dorsal Axe 13:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how the vandal would say "fcuk" out loud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, they may have been trying to skirt cluebot. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Like those spam e-mails that misspell certain things to get around the spam filter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep! However, cluebot "knows" about most of those (and as I understand it, gets updated a lot). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently nominated

Removed the invalid AFD notice, will attempt to counsel user on his talk. Exxolon (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

One has to wonder if Clearwatercity (talk · contribs) and Whitewater111 (talk · contribs) are related. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Erfurt150 (

I'm pretty sure those are two different people that happen to have the same MO. Today's sockpuppet spree is by Dr.Mukesh. He's from Pakistan, and his interests, and fractured English style, are distinctive -- for example here. I'm not familiar with Erfurt, but looking at the contributions attributed to his sockpuppets (prior to today) they seem to be completely different, and he speaks English well. I've previously been able to shut down Dr.M with this and this range, but without confirmation from a checkuser I don't want to do that because of collateral damage (it shuts down editing from most of Islamabad). Acroterion and Geniac are both familiar with this editor. Antandrus (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, are there more socks from Dr.Mukesh111 than were recently turned up here? If so, please feel free to reopen the case. TNXMan 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any signs of Dr.Mukesh111 today, but there's still time for a new crop of socks to appear. @Tnxman, I appreciate your work esterday in shutting down the latest sockfarm. He generally stops for the day around 2200 UTC, as one would expect for someone in Pakistan. I agree that Erfurt150's a different person with the same pattern, and can be formally or informally banned. Acroterion _(talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I was wrong - another dozen today. Acroterion _(talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I have just noticed that someone(s) using the exact same username has been impersonating me on other wikipedias. Where do i go to sort this out? Simply south (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably that wiki's admin board, or Meta. You could try talking to them, it might just be coincidence. Basket of Puppies 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

are you talking about other language versions of this Wikipedia, or other projects like Wikimedia or Wikisource thtat are in Wikipedia, or are you talking about completely separate websites that use the Wiki format?? User:Smith Jones 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias. Actually, is this just to do with exporting articles? I've not seen this before. When the article has been exported, if you have contributed to that article will that show up on the foreign Wikipedias? Simply south (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you. Resolved elsewhere. Simply south (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Rollback has been revoked; Huggle & Twinkle access removed; ed. agreed to a mentor; will not use automated tools til mentor says okay. — SpikeToronto 05:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

At

Everything should be left as it is currently. WAYNESLAM 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Wayne, that you, too, violated

WP:3RR. One exception to 3RR is "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." However, the edit this user kept adding does not fall under this category. Eagles 24/7 (C)

21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My original block edit noted that there were multiple reversions. My 3RR comment was a clarification. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you see

WP:NOTTHEM? WAYNESLAM

21:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Because that policy has no relevance to this discussion at all... Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot POV-pushing going on there, and Wayne is as guilty of edit warring as any of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't appear to have been with intent. HalfShadow 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was not intentional. WAYNESLAM 21:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean; generally edit warring is "I want my version, not yours"; this was just reverting what was assumed to be an unwanted/unhelpful edit. Someytimes I technically edit war when reverting edits to an article I have no interest in and am merely reverting because consenus seems to be that the edits are unhelpful. HalfShadow 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but

WP:3RR states "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes...is likely to be considered misuse of the tool" and the edits made by the IP were not "obvious vandalism." Eagles 24/7 (C)

21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on what Eagles said here, and based on the rest of this thread, I would like to recommend one of two things be done:

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want neither to happen to me. WAYNESLAM 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I'm inclined to go with #1. Rollback rights removed, maybe, but he should not be blocked because it won't prevent anything that's already happened.

NaSpVe :|

21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be my choice, as well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Using rollback here was an absolute no-no, and he needs to acknowledge here and now that he understands that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do anything to my rights or my account, as I'm sorry for doing this and won't let it happen again. WAYNESLAM 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have misused rollback/Huggle. See User talk:Wayne Slam#Please be more careful, User talk:Wayne Slam#Boscastle flood of 2004 and User talk:Wayne Slam#Incorrect warning template?. Yet every time you say "I'll be more careful" or "It won't happen again," it happens again. I'm about ready to revoke your rollback rights now, unless you can persuade me otherwise (sanctions, etc.) Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want my rights revoked because nobody's perfect and we make mistakes. WAYNESLAM 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we don't have to eventually face the consequences for unintentionally doing something bad. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but can I get a second chance because this is something that I won't let happen again about what I did such as I did with that IP? WAYNESLAM 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the stuff the IP was trying to post was blatantly pushing a particular viewpoint, citing one specific source's opinion at some length. That's not vandalism, though. It's a short block, so it's not that big a deal. But Wayne needs to come away from this with a lesson or two: (1) Good-faith edits, even if wrong-headed, are not vandalism. (2) Users have the right to delete almost anything from their pages. Re-posting is not appropriate, as they're assumed to have already read it. (3) Most importantly, edit-warring is futile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• WayneSlam is just as guilty as the anon in violating
  NaSpVe :|
  21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wayne's a hard-working vandal-fighter, if a bit... overenthusiastic at times. I think in this case his biggest mistake was taking the previous editor's "vandalism" call at face value, rather than critically evaluating the IP's edits on their own merits. If it had been true vandalism, Wayne's actions on the article (though not the IP's talk page) would be uncontroversial. Wayne, would you be willing to agree that:

If you'll agree with the above, I think a warning – and the understanding that another visit here will probably result in loss of rollback privileges – are probably the best resolution for this. I think it's unanimous that your intentions are good and that it's just the execution that needs improvement. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

28bytes, the real issue here is edit warring. His reversions without edit summary is another thing, but he could lose his rollback privileges or earn a block due to edit warring. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. It's quite possible a block or rollback revocation is warranted based on the edit-warring. I just get the impression he thought (quite incorrectly, of course) that he was reverting obvious vandalism based on the fact that another editor had tagged the IP's edit as vandalism, which seems to be where he needs some re-training. As HalfShadow says, I don't see the edit-warring as intentional. I doubt Wayne really has a POV on the Nader article or particularly cares what edits are made to it as long as they're not vandalism. 28bytes (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I read this discussion with much interest. After looking over Wayne's user talk page, his user talk archives, and his contributions, it's clear to me that he is careless and in too much of a hurry with the automated tools, both with Huggle and the rollback button. While I think his heart is in the right place, he is causing disruption to the project. I would support removal of the rollback privilege. I also think he should stop using Huggle or Twinkle or any other automated process for at least a couple of weeks. This has to stop. - KrakatoaKatie 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Likewise, having looked over this, it seems clear to me that giving the user another chance isn't so much going to be a "second chance" than an "umpteenth chance", and would support removal of rollback and removal from automated whitelists. Perhaps further mentorship by an experienced user would be good here and rights could be restored when the mentor agrees the user is ready. StrPby (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I also question the judgment of
  NaSpVe :|
  00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • TelCo, you can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you still think it is needed. But, at this time, there has only been one edit since Wayne’s last revert four hours ago. — SpikeToronto 01:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with you. I shouldn't have called it "vandalism." It simply seemed (in the moment) to be vandalism to me, as the IP user had been continually reverted by a number of different editors and simply kept reverting it to his/her version. That may not be the wikipedia definition of the word, but the word has meaning outside of wikipedia as well. Mystylplx (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Mystylplx, just for future reference, you might want to take a look at
      WP:VANDTYPES. Thanks! — SpikeToronto
      19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support revocation. I think that Wayne has had upteen “second” chances and any more would not result in any change in behaviour. Notwithstanding that his heart is in the right place, and that he really cares about the project, he is not a good vandal fighter at this time. While I have tried to mentor him, as his talk page and talk page archives can attest, progress on understanding the concepts has not been at a pace that would support letting him keep his rollback privileges. Of course, I accept that I just may not be any good at mentoring. Nonetheless, I would be more than willing to adopt/mentor him once the rollback bit is removed — because I cannot get him to slow down while he’s got it — unless he would prefer someone else. Finally, if his rollback privileges are revoked, and he seeks to have them back in the future, he should have to ask at
  WP:PERM/R where his recent edits can be assessed more publically than through a private request elsewhere. By the way, I am truly sorry to see this end up here at ANI. But, many people have tried to help this editor in this regard without much success. Let’s hope that a period of time without rollback can be used to better acquire the necessary skillset for recent changes patrol. — SpikeToronto
  01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support after a quick look at his contribs. There may be a
  talk
  ) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. RC Patrol is very delicate; mistakes must not be common. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support rollback removal. The concern is - and I'm sure many users are plenty aware - that Wayne is obsessive over Huggle and views it as a race. This diff basically states, "if I use the drop-down menu [on Huggle], someone else will beat me to the revert." It's a chronic problem with him, unfortunately; see here, where I had to alert Wayne about complaining about another user (who was obviously offended) constantly beating him to reverting vandalism on Huggle. Revoking Wayne's rollback would benefit him as an editor, since it would relieve him of this "race" mentality and allow him to constructively contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fighting vandalism is good. But if someone is in a big fat hurry to revert vandalism and (apparently) doesn't look very closely at it to confirm it really is vandalism, that's not good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have revoked Wayne Slam's rollback privileges and blacklisted him from Twinkle. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Wayne's Huggle privileges as well, as I think that may well be the proximate cause- using the program way beyond the speed limit. Courcelles 03:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like Wayne Slam needs a mentor of some sort; I know that Wayne Slam was working with Tommy2010 before he retired. Vandal-fighting isn't my line of work, so someone who does a lot of that would probably be the best person if Wayne still wants to do that; if he wants to do NPP, though, I'd be more than happy to work with him. I think he's trying to help, but just needs a bit of guidance; with said guidance, he could be quite valuable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He is very valuable but very young. His speed will be an asset once his judgement gets better: when to go fast, when to stop for a minute and investigate more thoroughly. User:The Utahraptor has offered to mentor; he is an experienced Huggle user and all around experienced editor. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good; I hope Wayne takes it, and I think he'll be fine. He was doing really well with Tommy2010, so I think this is just what he needs to get back on track. I don't know how you vandal fighters do it (I've tried it with Twinkle, with limited success), but we need as many as we can get; we need to do our best to keep our good younger users around, and I can see some serious potential in Wayne Slam. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He still doesn't get it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment. How about we actually try to help him rather than drag him over the coals? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually HJ, while it may not be a helpful comment, it is a very helpful diff. For those of us who might have been feeling a little bad about this action, it’s vindication when we read that Wayne’s concern with losing rollback is: “Now my edit count will suffer because now I'm done with rollback.” — SpikeToronto 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another troubling diff, Spike: [24]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that that just attests to youth and growing up in a world where “can’t we all be nice” trumps everything else, including reality checks. It’s not that revoking rollback is an action that isn’t nice; it’s that revoking rollback, in this instance, protects the project. I think that, in time, with some better mentoring than I had been able to give him, he’ll come to see that. I certainly hope so … — SpikeToronto 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I need some mentoring. WAYNESLAM 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily a good choice for a mentor, but here is an example of actual vandalism.[25] That kind of garbage is what rollback is to be used for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Or look at my recent article edits for more examples. There are probably a few mistakes in there butnot many.

talk

) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Delisted  With this edit, I removed Wayne from the list of Huggle users, per this discussion. Also, and perhaps more importantly since Courcelles had already disabled Huggle access for him, with this edit, I removed Wayne from the Huggle whitelist so that any of his manual reverts, edits, etc., will appear on the Huggle screens of other Hugglers. — SpikeToronto 18:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you removing it for? Could somebody look at this? WAYNESLAM 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It should stay disabled until your mentor feels that you're ready to have it back. Nakon 19:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about all of this. This should have never happened. I'm very sorry. WAYNESLAM 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I should note that Wayne has chosen me to be his mentor. Like I said on his talk page, there's certainly the potential for him to become a truly great vandal fighter. He's just not able to reach this potential yet. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I just deleted a test article about some horribly named album called "To Hell With God." It and the talk page were created by

The IP only created the talk page, the actual page was created by User:AlexanderBp. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I just caught that. The IP edited the talk page and an article on the, um, band. A registered user created the test page. Nothing to see here.  :) --

To Hell With God... you know, that sort of stuff was interesting when Mayhem and Emperor first made waves, but that theme gets really boring after a while. It's annoying that every single garage band has to be either some "Satanic" group (and it's clear none of them know what Satanism actually is) or Christian music. It's too predictable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the IP be unblocked now that it has been determined that it isn't a proxy? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, I'll do that right now. --

talk

) 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jpablo95 (talk · contribs) has several final level warnings for adding inaccurate info to Vampires Suck and Mad (TV series). After an unblock, he made this very inaccurate edit to the latter. A search of his edits shows he's never touched a talkpage, nor responded to the warnings piling up on his talkpage. I say a longer block is in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have lowered your ten-pound hammer for you.  :) He's indef blocked and I suspect he's a sockpuppet. Seen this too many times before.
  talk
  ) 04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, he's been doing that for ages. In fact, that's almost all of his edits; some of these oiks, once they start they don't stop until a house is dropped on them. Pity a lot of them are IPs... HalfShadow 04:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No shortage of weirdness on the interwebs. I just can't figure out what's going on in the head of someone like this. Way too much kiddie TV and not enough real world interaction. Sad. --

talk

) 05:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

122.60.93.162 (talk · contribs) is currently disrupting Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak and my talk page and I would appreciate if an administrator would block this account. Over at the cable leak talk page, the user continues to disrupt discussion by claiming "A retarded 10 year old child can see what is happening." I warned the user on their talk page, only to have them accuse me of lying over and over again, and attack my talk page:[26]

1. (cur | prev) 12:42, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (18,059 bytes) (Undid revision 400843815 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 12:40, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (17,468 bytes) (Undid revision 400843514 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:37, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,714 bytes) (Undid revision 400843284 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:35, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400843027 by Viriditas (talk))
5. (cur | prev) 12:33, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (16,078 bytes) (Undid revision 400842781 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
6. (cur | prev) 12:31, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842569 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
7. (cur | prev) 12:29, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842395 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
8. (cur | prev) 12:27, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842168 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
9. (cur | prev) 12:26, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400842071 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
10. (cur | prev) 12:25, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841880 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
11. (cur | prev) 12:22, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841622 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
12. (cur | prev) 12:21, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841471 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
13. (cur | prev) 12:20, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841336 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)
14. (cur | prev) 12:18, 6 December 2010 122.60.93.162 (talk) (14,905 bytes) (Undid revision 400841214 by Viriditas (talk)) (undo)

Looking into this further, we can see that their entire history at Wikipedia, consists of some kind of personal attack:[27][28][29][30] etc... The user also disrupted a recent discussion on the cable talk page about the unreadability of the page by claiming it was "nonsense" and that it was "one of the most "readable" large articles I have seen in Wikipaedia." The user is trolling the talk page, attacking retarded children, and bombing my talk page. Could someone semi-protect my talk page and remove the insults about retarded children from the article talk page as well? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talkpage for a week. I agree about the trolling, but do not necessarily agree that there is any specific attack against children with different capabilities, so I have not taken action on that part. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Their entire contribution history is pure trollery, consisting of nothing more than personal attacks against someone or another on talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I've also given them a 3 day vacation. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some extra eyes on that AFD? I've got strange stuff going on there, namely.....

New user pops out of nowhere to !vote Delete or Redirect

Another new user appears to !vote Keep

This weird thread on my talk page (note that the user who posted that thread only has one edit unrelated to the AFD)

Divebomb is not British 15:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Movadito (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as Wiki brah (talk · contribs); consider all others  Unrelated. –MuZemike 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki brah again? Yawn. ----Divebomb is not British 18:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)