Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m fix lint issues |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
:::79.75.128.0/17 blocked temporarily for abusing admins ;) –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I assume you mean abusing ''editors''... Surely there's no special penalty if you're abusing an admin? --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::There's no gain in abusing the rank-and-file editors. Abusing admins can get their bits revoked. —<
:::::: I'm sorry, but I can't read that last post without seeing a ''double entendre'', probably unintended. Although I wonder which party will have their bits revoked -- the user or the Admin? And just how painful would that be? -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 17:
As you are probably aware, British Airways staff are going on strike as of midnight UTC, 20 March. The article is likely to get a lot more attention than usual in the next few days. Therefore, as a damage limitation exercise, would it be worth semi-protecting the article for 10-14 days, or should we just keep a weather eye on it and only protect if IP vandalism becomes too much of a problem? [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:I vote "weather eye". Watchlisting. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:Watch, use the same policy as we do for the mainpage. -- <
:No more reason to protect this than any other article in the news. I've watchlisted it as well. [[User:Bobby Tables|Bobby Tables]] ([[User talk:Bobby Tables|talk]]) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
: You'd be better off watchlisting the article on your own birthday if you want to stop drive-by vandals. BA? Sod 'em. Disclaimer: this user mey or may not be friendly to a greater or lesser extent with certain former directors of operations at certain airlines, with whom he may or may not be a frequent flyer anyway and of whom he may or may not have formed the view that they are a shower of dunces. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 24:
== nazi personal attacks ==
{{resolved|Nothing more we can do at this point. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<
See [http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=Klerofa%C5%A1ista+Posp%C3%AD%C5%A1il&blocks=true&lang= cross wiki adits] - all are vulgar personal attacks (nazi, homo, fascist etc., just like on other wikis). Pls block, -jkb- 14:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] ([[User talk:-jkb-|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/-jkb-|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Line 30:
:He's blocked on this wiki. Try the Polish wiki? There's not much we can do. [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 14:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
::I blocked the user here on the English wiki, and he's already blocked on the German wiki. I deleted his edits here, too. -- [[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:If it is on multiple wikis, try [[m:Main page|Meta wiki]]. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<
::The account has been locked by the stewards. <font face="Segoe Print">[[User:TTTSNB|<font color=#0040B0>The Thing</font>]] <small>//</small> [[User talk:TTTSNB|<font color=#007080>Talk</font>]] <small>//</small> [[Special:Contributions/The Thing That Should Not Be|<font color=#00A050>Contribs</font>]]</font> 19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 180:
== Mass article creation by Tratra22395768 ==
{{resolved|1=Unapproved bot blocked, articles deleted. –[[user:xeno|<
Let me just preface this by saying that this is my first ANI report, and if I'm in the wrong place, let me know. Between 05:00 and 05:06 UTC, {{user|Tratra22395768}} created 83 articles, appearing to go alphabetically through every species of the Conus genus of sea snails. This user started with [[Conus anemone]] and got to [[Conus capitaneus]] before [[User:Tim Song|Tim Song]] blocked the account on suspicion of an unapproved bot. At the moment, these articles are just sitting there, each one identical but for the species names. As I understand it, species are inherently notable, but surely all these articles can't be left sitting there like this?<span style="padding-left: 1em;"> </span>-- '''''[[User:Lear's Fool|Lear's Fool]]''''' ([[User talk:Lear's Fool|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Lear's Fool|contribs]]) 05:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 231:
William has been warned now. Should he revert it again (and I mean whenever that should happen, not just in the next 24 hours), I'll block him. If there truly is consensus for his edit, then someone else will no doubt make it so he doesn't have to. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
Hmm, I just reviewed the talk page and what shocked me was the blatant soapboaxing by Saturn. I think he needs to be warned about it and stick to discussing the article. [[User:Factsontheground|Factsontheground]] ([[User talk:Factsontheground|talk]]) 01:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 416:
:::: Nothing is ''necessary'', we're all volunteers and Wikipedia is, to borrow a phrase from fandom, just a goddamn hobby. Burnout is a real problem especially when dealing with long term abuse. Why not wander along to Jeske's talk page and offer some tea and support? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've watchlisted all of them. [[User:Ged UK|<
:Me too. Good Lord, is that the stupidest LTA case to date? <span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Times New Roman;">[[User:Wknight94|<span style="color: #EE5B0D;">Wknight94</span>]] [[User talk:Wknight94|<sup style="color: blue;">talk</sup>]]</span> 15:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
::Read and weep: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonel_Sanders&diff=prev&oldid=324586030]. –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 590:
:::I have to agree with Equazcion on this. This editor, SRQ, already has one interaction ban in place and wanted more of us to be included, including myself. I am not a neutral in this as I have had contact with both editors. My contact so far, though brief, with DOH have been pleasant and she has be receptive to ideas and help given her. When will more be accomplished about all of this is the question. I support this I guess, if that's all that is available. --[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:Indigo">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
::::If a member is causing this much trouble to warrant two interaction bans, why not just ban the user. Obviously they are causing more disruption to the project than anything. I'm sure people don't want to have to keep babysitting adults that don't know how to positively interact with each other. What does it take to get banned here? —'''<span style="
:::::I haven't commented on any of the numerous threads on this editor to date as far as I know because, frankly, I have better things to do. I'm inclined to agree with MikeAllen, however I think this interaction ban is worth a go but if it doesn't solve the problem, I think we need to get more drastic. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User_Talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 04:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm not convinced anything needs to be done just yet, but after talking with SRQ on her talk page, I get the impression that she needs a mentor. I would once again encourage her to revise her watchlist and focus on creating and improving article content, or get involved helping with routine maintenance tasks. Anything would be preferable to the constant conflicts and disputes. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 687:
*'''Support''' Per what I said in the last ANI thread regarding SRQ: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive601#Block_review_of_SkagitRiverQueen]. [[User:RadManCF|RadManCF]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> [[ User_talk:RadManCF|open frequency]] 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. There's a limit to how much time the community is willing to put into resolving one dispute after another. However, if she agrees to AniMate's conditions, I've no problem with her coming back in a month or so. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User_Talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 21:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support''': Per above. I just recently came into this, and have been flabbergasted to see how long this has been going on. SRQ has been blocked, and then gets unblocked after having a pity party making an admin feel sorry for her. Finally an admin, SarekOfVulcan, has brought some resolution to this. I just hope we all can get back at contributing to the project without having to be sidetracked by these avoidable and disruptive disputes. Thank you, Sarek. I also hope other admins feel the same way and support your decision. —'''<span style="
*'''Support'''. Regardless of any personal issues or conditions she's claimed, Wikipedia has turned into a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] for her and anyone who crosses her path. I'd support an unblock somewhere down the line if she ever calms down, but for now, it's a good idea to prevent further disruption. Also, last time she was blocked, SRQ continued her conflicts at great length on her talk page. As that kind of behavior obviously doesn't do anything to calm down the situation, I'd advise an admin keep an eye on the page in hopes of the block having the desired effect. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I'm not convinced that SRQ can change her behavior, so I'm concerned that any future lifting of the ban be under '''''very tightly''''' controlled conditions, not just an opening of the door. AniMate's suggestion would seem to cover that, but I'd suggest it not be made available until a suitable period of time has passed. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 709:
*'''Agree''' -[[User:FeralDruid|FeralDruid]] ([[User talk:FeralDruid|talk]]) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Agree''': I see no reason why WHL would comment on her talk page. Also, an interaction ban is pointless, now, since there can't be any further interactions on articles while SRQ is banned. —'''<span style="
{{Discussion bottom}}
Line 791:
:Honestly that is not ever warrant a response, but in the last few minutes Malik Shabazz violated two wikipedia policies 3 times:<br>
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factsontheground&diff=prev&oldid=350723237 reverted my edits from the other user talk page] in the violation of [[WP:TPO
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factsontheground&diff=prev&oldid=350721444 reverted my edits from the other user talk page] in the violation of [[WP:TPO]], and in the edit summary advising me "to stay in my corner"
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMbz1&action=historysubmit&diff=350723123&oldid=350599008 threatened me with the "perma-ban" in the violation of
:Looks like Shabazz forgot to add that that my message he reverted was posted in response to that: Factsontheground wrote about me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factsontheground&diff=prev&oldid=350577746 I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda "] with no reason whatsoever.
Line 1,075:
{{anchor|Recent block of User:Keepscases}}
{{resolved|1=Further details available [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=351561296#Keepscases_erroneously_blocked_indefinitely here]. –[[user:xeno|<
I do believe that the block of Keepscases may have been wrong. I strongly believe that this user is not a sock of TownDown. There was a user under the same name (Keepscases) on Commons that was blocked as a TownDown sock, but [[User:Keepscases]] on here has said (see his oppose vote on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingoomieiii]]) that he is not the same person on Commons that was blocked as a sock. Could a CheckUser or something be done for this one? I'm pretty sure this is not the same person. Furthermore, TownDown had only been on enwiki since 2009, while Keepscases has been around much longer, since 2007. I also think there is a pretty distinct behavioral difference between the two, as TownDown had specialized in graphics, and Keepcases as a WikiGnome/RfA participant. Not sure, but if you can prove me wrong, that I'll back down. Thanks for your time. [[User:Connormah|Connormah]] <small>([[User talk:Connormah|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Connormah|contribs]])</small> 01:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Keepscases blocked indefinitely]]. –[[user:xeno|<
::Ah, I should have seen that. Thanks for the pointer. [[User:Connormah|Connormah]] <small>([[User talk:Connormah|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Connormah|contribs]])</small> 01:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
: Yep. Our Keepscases appears {{unrelated}} to the Meta one, per checkuser. I've already had a lengthy discussion with the Meta CUs and we're in agreement. He's now been unblocked - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D; font-family:
::Thanks all. :) [[User:Keepscases|Keepscases]] ([[User talk:Keepscases|talk]]) 03:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,110:
::::::IfD can decide whether an image should be deleted according to some offered rationale, but it can never be a forum for establishing that an image is to be permanently considered appropriate on some article. If a non-free image is not used on an article, it goes regardless. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::True, but there is still no NFCC violation; the image should not have been deleted. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 00:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Prodego seriously an admin? <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC
*Finally, someone who really does understand [[WP:IAR]]. Well done, Prodego. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,116:
:::See now, that simply demonstrates that you do not understand [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Congratulating Prodego demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of being an administrator. <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC
::::I think I understand it pretty well. If someone thinks the rules (against wheel-warring, in this case) prevent one from doing what they feel will improve the encyclopedia, then they may be ignored. I furthermore think it was a pretty unhelpful comment, and frankly inflammatory, to congratulate someone this way for something as simple as ignoring everyone else in favor of what you thought the best action was. IAR means ignoring the rules -- not people. I hope you understand that. <font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#000080">'''Equazcion'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|'''<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>''']]</small> 00:34, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)</font>
Line 1,128:
:''The following discussion is preserved as an [[Help:Archiving a talk page|archive]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
{{#if: |::{{{1}}}}}<!-- from Template:Archive top-->
::Seems premature - wrong venue in any case. –[[user:xeno|<
*Good grief. '''Restore''' the image, a nice wet '''trout''' for Prodego, and let's move on with the discussion of whether or not it is appropriate. (disclosure: I'm the MedCab mediator) <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Communicate]]</sup> 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
----
Line 1,135:
*Desysop motions are not handled on ANI. File a [[WP:RFC/U]] or a [[WP:RFAR]] if you wish. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:*'''comment''' I'm not sure if I have any weight here given that I consider myself a novice editor but Prodego's actions demonstrate a user that is completely missing the fundamental point of being an administrator. The role of an admin is, in my view, to clean up after the rest of us fuck up, not create the mess in the first place. <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC
**That is a shame that user bans can be done here but there are a whole bunch of hoops for admins, especially egregiously abusive ones such as this. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
***Talk to the stewards on that one. They won't honor a desysop request unless ArbCom has passed off on it (or unless the account has gone rogue). [[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 00:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,170:
===Bit of an issue here...===
I've just had to edit through protection to remove a redlinked image from a page that has been under full protection since Feb 25. I'm not sure it's appropriate to to delete the image during an ongoing dispute. I do note there have been no edits to the MedCab page in a week. If mediation has stalled, perhaps a more focused RFC, formal mediation, or arbitration may be necessary (an [[Talk:Goatse.cx/Archive 3#RfC: Should the image be displayed?|RFC (124kb)]] already ran a few months ago). –[[user:xeno|<
:I would like to say that while I understand the deletion rationale, I find it to be totally against policy to delete an image which is the subject of an ongoing content dispute when there is no legal reason for deletion. I agree, MedCab has stalled - people are entrenched and will not back down. The same will happen at every level. It doesn't matter how long we discuss this, there will never be a satisfactory answer as this isn't something that can be decided by debate - this is about feelings, and people's feelings can't be altered that way. Thus, while I must say that the deletion was out of process, I also, even as someone who thinks the image should stay, support someone taking a definitive step on the issue. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 01:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,382:
That leads me to believe that this person is editing as an IP in order to evade a block, which I believe is a violation of WP's sockpuppetry policy. I am not sure exactly who the sockmaster is, but I think it would be easy for admins to figure out. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
: That's [[User:South Bay|this guy]] - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D; font-family:
::He just now posted a congratulatory message ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stonemason89&oldid=351659354]) on my talk page. The message is quite vague, and I'm not sure if it's intended to be sarcastic or not. [[User:Stonemason89|Stonemason89]] ([[User talk:Stonemason89|talk]]) 02:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,413:
:And I believe the account Mkativerata is referring to is [[User:TomCruise55]]. - [[User:DustFormsWords|DustFormsWords]] ([[User talk:DustFormsWords|talk]]) 01:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
**The article has now been deleted, but I'd appreciate it if someone could please consider blocking the sock. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
*Blocked. I'm not familiar with the user's history, but after looking at the evidence, it [[WP:DUCK|quacked]] indeed. '''[[User:JamieS93|<
**Thank you --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,427:
::::The sockmaster was told to contact OTRS [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:James_dalton_bell&oldid=339864836] --[[User:NeilN|'''<span style="color:#003F87;">Neil<span style="color:#CD0000;">N</span></span>''']] <sup style="font-family:Calibri;">''[[User talk:NeilN|<span style="color:#003F87;">talk to me</span>]]''</sup> 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
::::{{ec}} They should email [[WP:OTRS|OTRS]] via [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem]]. –[[user:xeno|<
::::<small>(ec*2)</small> [[WP:OTRS]], perhaps? Certainly a better choice than socking... —[[User:Department of Redundancy Department|DoRD]] ([[User talk:Department of Redundancy Department|talk]]) 02:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,610:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godzilla&diff=prev&oldid=351447097 He reverted an edit which had previously reverted vandalism so therefore said that Godzilla was a real monster].
There's others as well, but that is sufficient to at least suspect the account is compromised. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:Seems like a plausible interpretation. – <small>[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#28f">Luna Santin</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</small> 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,619:
: I agree that it is reasonable that this is not a compromised account. Suggest unblock. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::There's absolutely no need for an unblock. Even if the account isn't compromised, th recent edits suggest that he's going to be far from productive and he's caused quite a bit of disruption - he can stay blocked regardless. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:::From my experience with the editor, I have to agree about his disruptive nature. Perhaps his block should be adjusted to reflect this ... ? — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::: Then let's have that discussion. But let's not slide into blocking a user for one reason into another reason. If people think the user is disruptive enough to be banned then we should discuss that. That's especially relevant because if this block is for impersonating then the user in question is perfectly allowed to create another account. If this block is a ban then we're in very different territory. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 23:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,629:
== Gratuitous misconduct by [[User:Heavydata]] ==
{{userlinks|Heavydata}} has been posting deliberate, manufactured lies, including false accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to sway opinion on a [[Talk:Power Rangers: RPM#Requested_move|requested move he proposed]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Power_Rangers:_RPM&diff=350885823&oldid=350870354] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=350780665&oldid=350774412] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=350861526&oldid=350820690]. His welcome message to a new user was a false accusation of sockpuppetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.177.84.41&diff=prev&oldid=350780232]. In addition, he has admitted to being affiliated with a site called Rangerboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=prev&oldid=350768262]--upon seeing that mention, I went to Rangerboard and found a recent (i.e. this month) thread consisting entirely of personal attacks against Ryulong, the primary target of Heavydata's false accusations, plus a mention of the dispute this requested move is about. So, yeah, a user who is primarily focused on smearing Ryulong is a member of an attack site against Ryulong. I can provide a link to the thread by email, as I'd rather not link an attack site on here; if you'd like to find it yourself, the title of the thread is "Wikipedia: Power Hogs". After I pointed out his misconduct on the talk page for the requested move, he has harassed me on my user page, posting the same false accusations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jgp&diff=351749354&oldid=351748178] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jgp&diff=351750305&oldid=351749473], which I have since reverted. [[User:Jgp|<
:Such delusion...
Line 1,673:
::Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=345762212 here]. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Wikipedia is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Wikipedia's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Wikipedia citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
*'''Also note''' Per [[WP:SOURCEACCESS]]:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. [[Special:Contributions/38.109.88.196|38.109.88.196]] ([[User talk:38.109.88.196|talk]]) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
::The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Barron_%28pornographic_actor%29&diff=349313447&oldid=349311797][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bo_Summers&diff=349310986&oldid=349310846][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cliff_Parker_%28pornographic_actor%29&diff=349313312&oldid=349311333] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of [[WP:Drama]] which I am not interested in prolonging. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
::::Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the [[Dave Awards]] article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met [[WP:PROVEIT]] nor [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]] when you reinstated that citation. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
::After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact [http://www.facebook.com/dave.kinnick Kinnick through facebook] so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,690:
:::Ash, in the BLPN [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=331279563#Vladimir_Correa discussion] that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is ''impossible'' to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying ''stated'' problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as ''A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with...'' and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them [[WP:Griefing|grief]] when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and [[WP:Drama|dramatic threads]] to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - ''BLP sky-is-falling'' nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to [[blame the victim|flip the script]] that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for [[User:Ash/analysis]] which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to [[WP:Hear]] that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. '''Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them.''' [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
::Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=331279563#Vladimir_Correa BLPN discussion from over three months ago] where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am '''perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention''' (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for [[wp:griefing|griefing]] somewhere else. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash|talk]]) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,700:
::::::::Ash, if any admin feels that I am using this thread to harass you, I hope they will speak up, because that is not my intention and I apologise if you feel that that is what I am doing. I'm simply asking you to address the unresolved sourcing issues that came out of the AfD of that article. If my allegations that the sources do not contain the cited information are wrong, it should be very easy for you to show that and would probably take about the same amount of time as avoiding the question has taken thus far. Since this thread was raised about concerns with your sourcing, it seems wholly appropriate to have that discussion here, not on the article's talk page, since the concern is with a pattern of misuse of sources, not with any specific article. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.235.38.171&action=history bad faith sockpuppetry claim] over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi&oldid=300333722 encourage] an [[User:Cubert|abusive sockfarmer]] and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
::No need to characterize my statements as false or "fantasia", they are my opinions are I believe them to be true and accurate. As for the accusation that I am in any way Wikistalking you, that seems contrary to reality and I can assure you is utterly false. I have no interest or inclination to Wikistalk anyone. Of the many editors whose edits I either felt needed to be and were asked to review yours didn't strike me as anything but rather uncivil and quick to assume bad faith. As you seemed to be doing a lot of vandalism patrol I think that goes with that territory. If you are open to advice I encourage you to be much more welcoming to newby and IPs editors, even promotional-ish ones. If we can encourage them to add good sourcing and amend their less than positive interactions and contributions that the project wins. Promotional-ish editors often are experts on the subjects they are trying to edit. If they can instead work to rise to our level of notability, MOS and standards then, again, the project benefits. Time and again on your editing I've encouraged civility and coached much of what I wrote above about better sourcing. Wikipedia is not a battleground so i have little interest in engaging as such. I'm sorry you feel I'm in any way stalking you, the likelihood is I question and restore the deletion of content on articles that our paths cross. I have apparently edited thousands of articles so that we intersect from time to time is not that peculiar. As for the sock claim it looks like it was accurate although simply a technical glitch, meanwhile you're faulting me for supporting a sock of some sort, I didn't know they were then and still don't. If they are they still had a valid point that they felt you may have been using socks and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive509#Possible_checkuser_abuse.2C_inappropriate_block_threats_by_admin_AuburnPilot this] seems to suggest they had a point. If you follow my entire history I continued to push for civility, dispute resolution and even did an overhaul of one of the articles myself so that editor could see you weren't the only one who felt that article needed clean-up. I strike to limit the drama and simply work to improve the articles. Years from now what will count is the quality of the articles not the drama that goes into their creation and maintenance. Now as for blogs as reliable sources, this is an ongoing misperception that more experienced editors have been handling on a regular basis. First off this medium is growing exponentially and replacing in part traditional news media much like the advent of radio and television, and cable channels. Some are perfectly acceptable on BLPs and elsewhere, some are not. A blog written by the subject of a BLP is certainly acceptable for statements about themselves. If in doubt a civil talkpage discussion and possible a visit to the RSN would usually clear up any issues. As for this thread, which presumably you still seem to care about, the content was never disputed by anyone, and still isn't. it was all a matter of sourcing it correctly and that's being resolved. So it would seem this has been another escalation to ANI that was unneeded but has shed some light on the background of those involved. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors regardless if our paths ever cross again. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
:::Now that's a fairly skanky response. You pretend to justify you groundless accusations by citing a long-discredited socking charge, one that had already been proved false when your sock buddy tried resurrected it. As was evident at the time, the charge was disproved by CU, and no less than Jimmy Wales had intervened on my behalf, suggesting that I be "thanked for right action [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAuburnPilot&action=historysubmit&diff=270978460&oldid=270655003]. While you pretend you "push[ed] for civility," in fact you encouraged conspicuously dubious users, virtually all of whom proved to be SPAs/sockpuppets, to maintain campaigns of personal attacks after extensive talk page discussions and AN/I disputes had consistently rejected their positions. Your comments on the substantive dispute involved are equally shabby: despite what you say here, the policy regarding blog-sourcing of [[WP:BLP|BLP] content is quite clear - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - and the stated exception was not involved in the dispute. You can strike this [[Uriah Heep]]-ish pose all you want, but it won't suffice to disguise your lack of good faith, your double standards, and our refusal to abide by WP content/reference policies. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Referring to my response as "skanky" and calling another editor who I really don't know nor work with as "my sock buddy", etc seems a really bad way to maturely discuss who you handled the situation.It's utterly false to suggest I encouraged them to "maintain campaigns of personal attacks". If there was ANI threads, etc were they three-ring circuses such as this? Really, I pushed for them to use better sources and improve content as that was the best response to someone who seemed to be acting tendentiously against this one set of articles. I really didn't know the subject but I did feel your editing was a bit heavy-handed when it didn't need to be. Similar to your hard line stance following the letter and avoiding the spirit our policies you strike me as seeing too much as either black/white extremist positions when human beings aren't quite as easy to push labels onto. I stand by my comments but if you never used socks then my apologies. As for the rest of your baseless accusations I respect that you actually believe them to be true for whatever reasons. They aren't but you can believe whatever you wish. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
:::::I'm not sure why I'm getting involved with this, and I may already be regretting it, but a quick look at the most recent arguments leads to the obvious call to [[WP:cool|COOL IT]] on all sides. DC's use of expletives, and HW's use of the word "skanky" and the general accusative bickering nature of all this is unacceptable to me. - [[User:Stillwaterising|Stillwaterising]] ([[User talk:Stillwaterising|talk]]) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm cool, but I agree - let's deal with the issue below and get this thread wrapped up. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,762:
While not as concerning as the misuse of references for BLPs, this clearly demonstrates a pattern which needs to be dealt with. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
:Looking through the Pleasurdrome one the first cite should have included the next page which does have a description listed; the second ref listed above may have been used simply to note it was a gay focussed bathhouse which arguably is the one fact that would need to be sourced, also there may have been other items on the website that confirmed when opened but I found and added a council hearing note which covered the dating of the establishment, also not an terribly exceptional statement. I wasn't able to view the QX material but even a paid advert that states "open 24 hours", etc would seem acceptable even if not ideal. QX has included blurbs and even a few articles which confirmed pretty much the same thing. So here again it's a case of it would be nice if the refs were blindingly obvious so there is no question why they are used but that is a different case from inserting false information or indeed fraud. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
::A [http://books.google.com/books?id=SxCN57GotDkC&q=pleasuredome#v=snippet&q=pleasuredome&f=false search] on Google books (for "pleasuredome" not "pleasured'''r'''ome") only shows it appearing on page 507 and page 508 is not available for display. If you have a copy of the book handy, would you mind scanning that page and uploading somewhere, Benjiboi? Thanks. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:Looking through Chariots Shoreditch this seems pretty much also [[WP:Drama|making a mountain out of a molehill]]. The first site may simply be confirming that it's even notable enough to be referenced in a traveler's guide and does confirm a Roman style; the second ones confirm general bathhouse etiquette and do seem rather uncontroversial. And again a paid advert describing a club's own features is akin to a BLP subject blogging their own biography - we consider them to be experts on themselves. We would be concerned if these were exceptional claims. That doesn't seem to be the case here. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
:::This comment does not accurately present the standards for the use of self-published claims, which are found here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source]. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
::I have included diffs of the edits and links to the sources themselves. Please take the time to look for yourself and do not rely on Benjiboi's misleading interpretation. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:::<yawn> More of the same I'm afraid. You start a whole new subsection much like you've done on so many other ANI threads and allege misconduct et al. You may note that [[Pleasuredome]] is a massive gay nightclub also in London, and no I have no interest in scanning anything for you ever. '''This entire exercise has been yet another [[WP:Drama]] fest and I invite anyone uninvolved to close it as still not needing any admin attention unless Delicious carbuncle is to be topic-banned off LGBT subject areas broadly construed and possibly a civility topic ban and just maybe a admin board ban. You likely do have much to offer the project as a whole but my interactions with you have proven otherwise. ''Civil'' vandalism patrol has its place but colossal leaps of bad faith time and time again show bad judgement in the least'''. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
:Looks to me like DC picked apart these two articles, finding lots of poor sourcing and your response is to pooh-pooh it. Not helpful. I suggest that some interested party go stub out everything cited to the problematic sources. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm with Lar on this one - if sources have been forged that is rather large issue for the project and needsto be dealt with as productively as possible, soon. - [[User:Schrandit|Schrandit]] ([[User talk:Schrandit|talk]]) 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::My take is that this entire thread is designed to disparage an editor not because any content they edit is untrue but that it is focussed on gay sexual activities. Why Delicious carbuncle is so focussed on wikihounding editors who work in these subject areas is for others to judge for themselves, a visit to Wikipedia Review may help. That they feel it is their right and duty to publicly flog and enact their pound of flesh seems to be the actual underlying issue. The oft-bandied BLP flag of concern rings hollow when the fact remains that person X is the same person X who indeed does gay porn. This all digresses from the fact that we, of course, want high quality sources but this "evidence" suggesting that a company's <ZOMG!> paid advertisement used to support information about their services is somehow fraudulent remains ridiculous. Obviously it would be better to use an independent source however statements by the subject of an article are considered reliable as they are considered experts on themselves. [[User talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<
:::Incidentally, does anyone have a copy of the fifth edition of [http://books.google.com/books?id=SxCN57GotDkC "The Rough Guide to London"] by Rob Humphreys & Judith Bamber handy? I've asked Benjiboi to scan page 508 for me, but he has refused. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Have you placed a request at [[WP:REX]]? [[Special:Contributions/38.109.88.196|38.109.88.196]] ([[User talk:38.109.88.196|talk]]) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,914:
:''Moved from [[WP:AN]]''
{{IP|67.216.243.127}} keeps on inserting [[:File:Zrocrack.jpg]] into [[Z-Ro]], even though he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.216.243.127&action=historysubmit&diff=351519624&oldid=349450838 has been told] that this is unacceptable. He has also been resorting to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z-Ro&diff=prev&oldid=351488826 uncivil edit summaries]. Please intervene. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 06:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:A bit stale now, but he did receive a warning for the personal attack: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.216.243.127&diff=351728543&oldid=351519624]. I think if he continues with the personal attacks or edit warring to insert the NFCC-violating content, a short block may be in order. –[[user:xeno|<
::{{AIV|w}} Report the IP to [[WP:AIV]] if the disruption continues. -<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">'''[[User:Fastily|<span style="color:#4B0082;"><big>F</big><small>ASTILY<sub>sock</sub></small></span>]]'''<sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<span style="color:#4B0082;">(T<small>ALK</small>)</span>]]</small></sup></span> 03:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 1,924:
:{{usercheck|Edson Rosa}}
This user is consistently uploading images without proper information. All attempts to engage user in discussion have failed as the person refuses to use talk pages at all (in the past 500 edits, the only 3 edits to ''any'' talk pages were to move the talk pages). I request a block until this person is willing to talk about such edits/uploads (blocks are corrective in nature, not punitive). [[User:BQZip01|<span style="background-color:
: Wow, this user has been very busy uploading material. Some random clicking through their contribs shows numerous blatant copyright infringements (e.g. company logos marked as self-made). Previous blocks (24 and 72 hours) have done nothing to help here. I agree that a block is unfortunately necessary here until the user agrees to help us out with the copyright issues. Blocked for 1 week. [[User:Papa November|Papa November]] ([[User talk:Papa November|talk]]) 15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 2,030:
{{resolved|1=[[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Msa1701|Sockpuppet investigation]] opened. ~ [[User:Mazca|<span style="color:#228b22;">'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|talk]]</sup> 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)}}
The users [[User:Msa1701]] and [[User:Zippyandgeorge]] have strikingly similar editing styles (almost all edits marked 'minor', the occasional edit war, both contribute to an article on a relatively un-noteworthy British town) but most worryingly if they are the same user have recently both made similar edits to [[British Airways]] that look as if they will develop into an edit war. The reason I'm brining this to AN/I is that the user does not really appear to be using the two accounts to hurt the project so am unsure if there is grounds to throw accusations around (although, obviously, I have informed both users of this post). <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC
:Editing the same article with two different accounts is abuse according to [[WP:ILLEGIT]]. You should bring your evidence to [[WP:SPI]] to see if your suspicions are confirmed, and then a reviewing administrator can determine what action would be appropriate. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 21:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
::I've submitted an SPI so will wait and see what happens there but, like I said, I'm not sure the user is using either account maliciously (if it is the same person). <b>[[User:RaseaC|<span style="font-family:Eras Demi ITC; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">raseaC
::: Looks to me like they're the same person...very similar interests, very similar editing patterns, and they just made the same disputed edit to [[British Airways]]. I was going to file an SPI myself before I saw this thread. [[User:Bobby Tables|Bobby Tables]] ([[User talk:Bobby Tables|talk]]) 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
::::It looks suspicious, and if it is one user they're definitely being disruptive. This is now [[WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Msa1701|at SPI]] and the discussion is probably best continued there. ~ [[User:Mazca|<span style="color:#228b22;">'''m'''a'''z'''c'''a'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mazca|talk]]</sup> 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 2,040:
{{resolved}}
So I could use some assistance. There is an IP that is going around making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Beck&diff=prev&oldid=351992329 vulgar and violent statements] and leaving [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joshuaingram&diff=prev&oldid=352007162 vulgar comments on talk pages]. Can someone block this IP, or at least leave a warning that might stick? <small><span style="font:Arial">[[User:Joshuaingram|<span style="color:blue">J </span>]][[User talk:Joshuaingram|<span style="color:blue">DIGGITY </span>]][[Special:Contributions/Joshuaingram|<span style="color:#FF4F00">(U ¢ ME)</span>]]</span></small> 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:They've been blocked 72h. –[[user:xeno|<
::Yeah someone blocked him. [[WP:AIV]] would have resulted in it being dealt with sooner, for next time. :) [[User:SGGH|SGGH]] <sup>[[User_talk:SGGH|ping!]]</sup> 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I blocked for 72 hours (same length as last block) because those edits were particularly aggressive and threatening. However, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A209.2.60.83&action=historysubmit&diff=352040864&oldid=347156172 this comment] was not helpful at all. It doesn't help to egg on a vandal, and you're countering harassment with some borderline comments yourself. -- '''[[User:Atama|<span style="color:#06F">At</span><span style="color:#03B">am</span><span style="color:#006">a</span>]]'''[[User talk:Atama|<span style="color:#000">頭</span>]] 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Line 2,213:
:''Moved from [[WP:AN]]''
I'd report this on the holding pen instead, but it involves multiple pages, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around what happened. Before the moves: [[HTC Bravo]] was a proper article, and [[HTC Desire]] was a dab page. If I'm reading the histories right, somewhere along the line, {{userlinks|Darth007}} decided to make [[HTC Desire]] the article. So we have a ''huge'' series of cut-and-paste moves. Looks like [[HTC Bravo]] was moved to [[HTC (Bravo)]], and [[HTC Desire]] was moved ''three'' times: to [[HTC Desire (Disambiguation)]], then to [[HTC not Desire]], and finally to [[HTC Bravo and Eris]]. The contents of the old [[HTC Bravo]] page were cut-and-pasted into the redirect left behind at [[HTC Desire]]. Some people really shouldn't have move permissions. As a side note, Darth007 is now trying to [[WP:OWN|own]] the page and delete all disambiguation notices. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to down a bottle of rum... [[User:Jgp|<
:I've notified Darth007 of this thread. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 13:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
*What a mess. <s>I can't find the original genesis of the page!</s> –[[user:xeno|<
**Found it... [[HTC Desire (Bravo)]] histmerged to [[HTC Desire]]. No comment on the appropriate pagename or whether there should be a disambiguation there. [[WP:2DAB]] may provide guidance. –[[user:xeno|<
***Thanks for handling this. And I think I've stopped caring about the dab page thing...better things to do than get involved in yet another bloody formatting dispute... [[User:Jgp|<
| |||