Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive481

Please help clear names/User labeling me a racist and not AGF

Hello. I'm hoping that admins can help fix my checkuser case. It was worked out directly with ArbCom as I wrote them and User:FayssalF many times explaining that I am NOT Saxaphonenm. We are two separate people who share similar interests. However, because it still indicates that we are the same person, it seems many people are confused and are not AGF. I have been following a recent incident regarding Sax and it seems because of some misinformation on that checkuser page, some people are still confusing the two of us.

It started when Huldra claimed:

"*(Oh, I was going to add that many of the new editors sounded exactly the same to me, but then I saw this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Einsteindonut. I guess that explains a bit.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"

It then continued with Perdito wrongly claiming that a recent "incident" has something to do with me and that I am the whole reason for it

Perdito then claimed that I am a racist because I posted a video he didn't like as I was trying to make a larger context point saying that many "antisemitism" cases could be prevented if more people tried to focus on positive things about Jews and Israel (as opposed to the negative which oftentimes seems to plague many sources and WP.) I was just trying to make a general point, not claim racial or religious superiority. Perhaps the point was lost on him and perhaps posting that video was not the right thing to do, but it was merely trying to highlight Jewish/Israeli contributions (vs. the obsession we see all over the place of alleged war crimes and oppression, etc.)

Perdito verified that he thinks I am Sax and thus I am to blame for the entire incident (which had nothing to do with me.)

I'd just let the record show that while I did have multiple accounts (in which I established when I first started out and didn't even realize it was "against the rules,") I don't think I ever used them abusively except for one time in order to avoid the 3RR. Since that time, I was blocked for one week and had stopped using the multiple accounts for a long time prior and made an agreement with myself that I was not going to use them anymore as soon that I understood that it was wrong.

Sax had an indef. ban which was reversed because of the mistake. There were other mistakes with the checkuser as well. I'm just posting this to show how one "checkuser" mistake has now led two editors to have the wrong impression of me and to not AGF, so if there's anything you can do to help, I'd appreciate it.

It might also interesting to note that all of this happened as a result of me originally bringing up a case of someone posting a flag of Jihad and swastikas on my profile and on an article in which I was working on. Seems that people who are dealing with these problems might be facing some unfair consequences merely for our pro-Israel views. It also seems that many pro-Israel editors are "throwing in the towel" on WP because of these issues. It is my hope that WP can be more fair in the future toward myself and others. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We would need verification by ArbCom or Faysaal himself before we can do anything, as we cannot act on hearsay, no offense. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I have notified Fayssal of the issue. Well, what do you think about Perdito not AGF here and labeling me a racist for the video I posted? --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worthy of a warning for personal attacks, but not any further admin action. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut: firstly: could you please change the weasel word you use about me? You say "Huldra claimed".. Now, "claimed" is listed as a weasel word. If you changed it to "Huldra wrote", then it would be perfectly neutral. Thank you.

Secondly, you write that this "has now led two editors to have the wrong impression of me and to not AGF". But Einsteindonut: WP:AGF does certainly not demand us to disbelieve a checkuser report! I do follow AGF, and I believe checkuser,..until, (possibly) the checkuser is changed. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary. You were, in fact, claiming that some new editors sound exactly the same to you. This is not a WP article, so I'm not sure of I have to make an incident report "neutral." You did make a claim, so I wrote it as such. I don't believe the issue is with you, though you were the first to use the inaccurate checkuser report to back your claim. My issue is more with the checkuser report, for the simple fact that it is causing people to assume bad faith and make false claims. In other words, I'm blaming the checkuser report, not you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Huldra, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV are both article policies and have no bearing at all on ANI. ED, you might want to request another RFCU to prove your innocence if it cannot be proved with whatever communication ArbCom of Faysaal himself has. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. I did send an email correspondence with ArbCom and the Ombudspeople (again.) I also notified Fayssal. I'm not sure how to request another RFCU? I've never done it in the first place, but if an admin w/ checkuser power (if there is such a thing) can could help, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to the WP:RFCU page and follow the instructions there. However, it is best to wait for a response from The Powers That Be first, before you get into the RFCU drama. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignity to all

(cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:IPCOLL)

The CU result found out Saxophonemn and Einsteindonut editing from different locations but using the same user agent. Saxophonemn identified himself later on. I then unblocked him with a "I trust[ed] user's e-mails to prove innocence" rationale.

I hope that would stop the never-ending mutual accusations and provocations. I amazed by all those cartoons and incivility (Eleland), Mark Twain's irrelevant quote (Saxophonemn) video (Einsteindonut) and Jaakobou (comments directed at Tiamut a few weeks earlier), etc... Do we still block for wp:POINT, unnecessary and inflammatory acts?

Admins, please sort out the mess with objectivity and profesionalism and please stop arguing about WP:UNINVOLVED. This message is directed mainly to ChrisO and Elonka. I urge both of these admins to stop it or let others deal with the sitaution(s).

Partisans, please don't flood threads with repetitive wikilawyering.

To everyone, there's one important thing to all of us... Dignity. To understand racism we must first understand dignity. Let's start with this... Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them. (Aristotle)

P.S. By the way Erik, CU on oneself to prove innocence "are rarely accepted, please do not ask." And the issue of Saxophonemn/Einsteindonut has already been clarified. As I said above, accusations of sockpuppetry should stop. Any further accusation would be faced by a block. And any further provocative comments from any side would be faced with harsh blocks. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The CU result found out Saxophonemn and Einsteindonut editing from different locations but using the same user agent." - TRANSLATION: The two users were editing from two completely different locations, but are both mac people who (like most mac people) update their software regularly. From the very beginning, I tried explaining this and Sax disputed it as well. Lesson learned? Two mac people should not have similar POV's and work on the same articles or else you risk unfair blocks and false allegations of sockpuppetry. Again, while it might have been out of place to share the video, I explained the context of why I was doing it. It was not to inflame nor provoke. Regarding honors and dignity, I prefer this Twain quote:

"It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not to deserve them." -Mark Twain

Thanks. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Donut,

Just as a courtesy, you should inform users personally that you're taking things up with them on this board. You didn't. Live and learn.

As for your accusation of me accusing you of racism and not WP:AGF... Well... I'll WP:AGF and assume you have some kind of massive reading-comprehension disability. I presented you with an example of how your words could be misinterpreted as racist, formulated as a suggestion for a new and inexperienced editor. Where you get me accusing you of racism and bad faith, I can't imagine.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 07:01

No "massive reading-comprehension disability" here, just the ability to read between the lines. I'll admit posting the video here was out-of-line. However, you seem to have missed the point as to why I posted it and then suggested that I might have been using it to insinuate Jewish/Israeli superiority or supremacy, when you said,""You wouldn't be using it to insinuate anything like Jewish/Israeli superiority or supremacy, now, would you?"The fact that you said a beat later that you will AGF does not necessarily make it so, as you used the same technique above to AGF to "assume you have some kind of massive reading-comprehension disability." Your usage of an "AGF disclaimer" doesn't necessarily shield one from NOT assuming good faith and from NOT making personal attacks (as you have now done how many times?) In other words, (despite my alleged "reading comprehension disability") it's very clear to me that you are not AGF and you are also personally attacking me. If you were offended by the video, I'm sorry. I didn't make it, I posted it, again, to give others like yourself some perspective. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha, so you're saying the racism happened in your head (i.e. "read between the lines")? So everybody should take your commentary at face value with a dose of good faith while you're free to read racism between the lines everywhere else? Not very convincing and not really WP:AGFing on your behalf...

This discussion is more than over. pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 14:45

P.S. Erik, if you can show me where I don't WP:AGF and accuse Donut of racism, I will gladly take any warning to heart. I just really don't see where that happened... Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 01.10.2008 07:01

I wasn't saying you had, I just meant (maybe I came across wrong) that if you had, then it would be warranting of a block. Let's all calm down and get back to what we're supposed to be doing here: writing an encyclopedia. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you still debating here instead of collaborating in writing an encyclopedia? Do you both need some bit of dignity or prefer some blocks? -- fayssal - wiki up^® 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I believe I have the right to clarify and discuss my POV with regard to the incident in which I am bringing up. Efforts of collaboration are stifled because of these issues, so I believe working out these issues are, in fact, aiding in the collaborative effort of the encyclopedia. If that was a threat of blocking me (yet again) then I really do not appreciate it. This issue is not quite "resolved," and I do not see you nor ArbCom doing much to help clear my name or Sax's name despite the fact that the checkuser was inaccurate.--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how making your user page into a pseudo attack page here helps your cause. Get out a piece of paper and a pencil and take notes, or open an editor on your own computer and copy and paste to it. Copying pieces of conversations on another users talk page and placing them on your user page, AND then making a listing of administrators, attributing them as supporters of the content of the dispute because of their support in reduction of a block, appears as a smear campaign. Perhaps you should take a step back from the Eleland dispute and assess your motives. I notice a distinct lack of participation in it by Sax, or are you lobbying on his behalf? AGF is well and good, but stretching it to its limits will eventually render it invalid.--JavierMC 02:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and no I'm not lobbying on behalf of Sax.

Einsteindonut, this is not the place to "clarify and discuss [your] POV". Your doing so at length on this forum has become quite disruptive and is starting to test the community's patience. It would perhaps be forgivable if there was evidence from your content contributions that you are here to improve the encyclopaedia by an examination of your <200 edits to mainspace in the time which you have been active since early August. Why are you here? I mean this in all seriousness, as a significant content contributor myself. Are you here to participate or simply to argue and do battle? If the latter, I suggest you go find, or start, a blog. If you wish to participate, then do so and spend your time more productively than coming here and making loaded accusations against a wide range of people. Orderinchaos 03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm here because I have every right to be here. I wasn't aware of any editing quotas which had to be filled. Some people have jobs. I'm not asking for your forgiveness because I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I'm bringing an issue up to the admins and ArbCom hoping they can help. Thank you for your advice. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I should probably have used "excusable" instead of "forgivable", in retrospect - it's what I in fact meant. Orderinchaos 13:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we close this? Jd2718 (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really satisfied that no official action has been taken on the checkuser page. I have put my own disclaimer there but it would be more meaningful coming from ArbCom or an admin who can do it. I think the fact that a checkuser is at least 50% wrong is troublesome. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment, personal attacks, lack of good faith and civility

Resolved

 – Wikidea blocked by Gutza for 48 hours for incivility.

User Wikidea (talk · contribs) constantly refers to me as a troll, moron, idiot, pest... [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] [7], [8] He regularly accompanies those personal attacks with wishes for me to "go away" or "get lost". [9], [10], [11] Apparently he wants to drive me away for Wikipedia by constant harassment. His actions also included tagging my user page. [12] Two months ago I reported this issue on Wikiquette alerts but attacks didn't stop after that. Until now he was warned about his behavior by three admins [13], [14], [15], [16], and several users [17], [18], [19], [20]. Also, in a recent FAR that I started he also accused SandyGeorgia of being a "spoil-sport" and he generally showed a lack of good faith. [21] -- Vision Thing -- 21:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've told wikidea twice (and sort of a third time), to stop making personal attacks ([22], [23], and [24]). I make no comments on the behavior of Vison Thing, good bad or indifferent. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good grief, he even lays into SandyGeorgia! Any good reason we should not wield the banhammer here? That is one bad-tempered dude, with not a lot going on to offset the anger and aggression. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm actually told what this was about, and I can respond, the first thing to say is, "that's a personal attack, dude". You probably didn't read the page on Sandy. Yes, in my view, she's a spoil sport, and yes Vision Thing is a highly disprutive editor. In fact, he's the most persistently callous, editor I've come across in four years of contributions. I think it's pretty appalling that I wasn't told about this page to reply. How dare you chat about me behind my back. Show some respect, dude. Wikidea 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea blocked 48 hours. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Guy - with due respect, Wikidea is a prolific editor with thousands of content and value-added edits to law related articles. If you think he's acting out of line you're entitled to call it as you see it but to say there's "not alot going on" to imply he's not a productively contributing editor crosses the line into personal attacks. Please don't fight incivility with more incivility. Non Curat Lex (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Fair enough, I accept that there is plenty of past good work, but right now he seems to be in meltdown. A short lock will probably not fix that, he needs help and support from his friends - if you are one of them, please email him and start the process. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also plenty of past incivility and warnings against personal attacks, long before this incident. The argument that "the other guy is wrong and I'm a good contributor so I can make personal attacks and be incivil" should never be allowed to fly. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible range block (2)?

Resolved

 – Range re-blocked for a month. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC). Therefore archived. Please?

I brought this up on September 16, and a 2 week block was made. Less than 2 days off the block, an IP from the same range (168.187.176.71 (talk · contribs)) is back on their soapbox. Any chance for a new block here? --Onorem♠Dil 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Onorem♠Dil 11:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square

This is an edit war that has been taking place since 2006. A user who has operated multiple sockpuppets has been attempting to repeatedly re-insert content via WP:SPA accounts that read "There are lots of people that go to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Some are businessmen stopping for a bite to eat. Others are families out to see Portland. And some say that the square has many homeless persons who congregate there although most are harmless."

Multiple established editors have reverted this content over the last two years, only to have it restored periodically by the involved SPA accounts. In the process, at least 15 sockpuppets have been banned. Now, User:Beenturns21 appears to be the latest sockpuppet incarnation.

I was going to wait until the current semi-protection expired and if it continued to then request indefinite semi-protection if the vandalism continued; but a new (incorrectly placed) mediation request has been created at Pioneer courthouse square where the user appears to be taking the issue to while waiting out the current semi-protection that expires on Oct 2nd; so I believed this needed to be escalated to WP:ANI.

The user involved has demonstrated a complete disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines ... some of the onces involved are WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. Because of this, I would request that the latest user be banned, and due to the tenacity of the user involved that the article placed in indefinite semi-protection. Is a mediation case required for this - or can such action be taken here given the evidence below?

Here's a summary of the accounts that have attempted to inserting the content ... due to the large size of the evidence involved, I've listed it within a toggling collapse box.

Thanks for taking a look. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pioneer Courthouse Square. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is your comment to indicate that this does need to go through mediation despite the provided evidence of past sockpuppetry/trolling, or is it just informative that the "mediation" request has been moved to the proper location? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support indefinite semi-protection of Pioneer Courthouse Square. When there has been the amount of past abuse documented at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pioneercourthouse I'm not sure why mediation should still be considered appropriate. New SSP reports should be filed as necessary to deal with probable socks such as User:Yourew21 and User:Beenturns21. See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pioneercourthouse. If it is possible that all this abuse may trace back to a single editor, a Request for Checkuser might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to indicate that it is in the proper location. I detest when things are not in the right place. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is a job for... RBIman!. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Shucks, Iridescent beat me to it. I was going to block for "WP:SOCK and general lameness", vandalism is so much more prosaic. Seriously, guys, this is someone trolling us, keep the sockpuppet page to hand and there should be no great drama about playing whack-a-mole with any more that come along. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are being trolled, and it's a waste of time for everyone. For all you assume good faith junkies out there, I suggested alternate wording for the disputed passage on the article's talk page. But I'd suggest that nobody waste more time than I just did writing that on trying to reason with or otherwise figure this out. "Revert, Block, Ignore" (RBI) is the best advice I've seen so far. If a checkuser and subsequent blocks/sitebans can end this nonsense once and for all, please hasten to make it happen, dear admin types! Katr67 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not related to these so-called "sock puppets" that you speak of and I certainly do not appreciate your accusation. I am simply an interested user who has been observing this conflict from a distance - until now. It appears to me that the person who has been inserting this text about homelessness may have an argument that you have not considered. Rather than rudely reverting and banning him/her, you should try to engage in a conversation or mediation with him/her. The text he/she is trying to put in is not THAT ridiculous. In fact, maybe there's a way to get his point across in a way that is encyclopedic and will please everyone. I have seen much worse things that trolls have said. Instead, It looks like a case of a new user who has been harassed and abused by Wikipedia "elitist know-it-alls" who have automatically assumed that this is a troll. Why not see if a compromise can be reached. It does not appear that a good faith effort to compromise has even been attempted. This is why I nominated this article for mediation and I would be pleased to be a mediator if this user does in fact return It appears that this is what's needed. But I fear that these editors/admins are so stuck in their ways and convinced that this is a troll. I am 70 percent sure that he is not a troll in the traditional sense but merely a confused and harassed editor. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beenturns21 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the above as a sock, but I'm thinking that there may be a better way to solve this. It seems the user would like to try this a different way, though the end goal is the same. I'd support an unblock on the condition that conversation about the inclusion happen instead of adding it back into the article. It may also be necessary for the mediation. So, unblock if need be. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am friends with the original author of this controversy, pioneercourthouse. He informs me that he is willing to discuss this dispute. In fact he is very eager to discuss it and hopefully come to a compromise. I urge you to unblock him immediately so mediation can take place. He tells me that it is very important (in his view) to have information in the article about homelessness but he is willing to compromise if others will rationally discuss this. Mediman43 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

How many SOCKS is this editor going to use to push their POV? I sincerely doubt someone is going to call a "friend" and have them create an account on wikipedia to belabor an obvious removal of POV information in an article. Two years of debating the addition of this material and still no reliable source for the information? That in itself should point to the unreliability of the information or if not completely unreliable, the undue weight it carries for inclusion. If it were noteworthy, why no reliable coverage by media in all this time. I'm frankly astonished at the tenacity of this editor.--JavierMC 02:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say pioneercourthouse "called me." Indeed, he did not call me but e-mailed me. We are good friends and have been so for quite a long to. I beseech you to please use common sense and attempt to listen to the points of myself, merely a common editor who wishes for you to listen to reason. And by extension, you should listen to pioneercourthouse. I have a feeling that he is terribly sorry for the trouble he's caused and merely wants to explain himself and discuss how to put information about homelessness in the pioneer courthouse square article. I happen to be from Portland and I do know for a fact taht there are many homeless people there. Perhaps he was trying to force the issue, but you should try to have a civilized discussion with him instead of just banning him. That is rather rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediman43 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if we assume good faith that you are not a sockpuppet; you would still be a meatpuppet, which per established arbitration rulings would still be treated as a single entity sockpuppet for purposes of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

As to being rude; from what I can find in the article history, Pioneercourthouse is the one who brought the actions onto himself by engaging in sockpuppetry to force an issue, and lied about doing so (first confirmed via a Checkuser on Dec 26, 2006 performed by Jayjg and later further explored during a review of suspected Sockpuppets).

On the content of the article, any new sources should be discussed on the article talk page - the only current source mentioned fails as a reliable source. This is important because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. First hand experience is original research, and not a basis for statements in an article. A third party reliable source is needed for the content. Also, any source provided should establish why it's notable to mention it in relation to the article - from the suggested text addition, I fail to see where it's any more notable than any other location. Homelessness exists in all major cities throughout the world; it is hardly unique to Pioneer Courthouse Square‎. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• This has to go in WP:LAME. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow the admins and other editors seem so wrong on this one. Geeze, at least have a conversation with the guy about his edits. Perhaps he has soem rational reason for what he's been doing. Just reverting and banning the guy for no reason seems counterproductive and likely to cause more problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedit99 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And we have additional likely sockpuppet/meatpuppets:

• Fairedit99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Beenturns22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Their user pages have been tagged as likely socks - is something further required? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And now we have Beenturns23 (talk · contribs)

Note: in addition to the above Beenturns accounts, a quick scan of user account logs show that the following user accounts were all created within a few minutes of each other on Sept 27th: Beenturns23, Beenturns24, Beenturns25, Beenturns26. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked all the User:Beenturn## accounts created so far (not bothering to note this on user or talk pages, if anyone wants to, knock yourself out). I suggest someone file a Checkuser to find the underlying IP creating the socks; I don't have time to do it myself, sorry. --barneca (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks, abuse and wikistalking by Mathsci

Resolved

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

Summary I’m reporting Mathsci for his repeated attacks at me. During the past days he has wiki-stalked me and in different edits called me a troll, called me unintelligent, ridiculed my ability to think, mocked my English skills and called me a drama-queen. I’ve tried to resolve the issue at his talk page three times now, but instead of engaging in any discussion he just continues to direct personal abuse at me. This has been going on for several days and he has been warned both by myself and by other users, but as he keeps ignoring all calls for him to improve his behaviour, I’ve taken the issue here.

The whole thing started with a comment I made about an article I perceived to be in bad shape [25]. Let me stress that this is not a good comment and I can understand other editors correcting me, as one did in a civil manner and we have both since enjoyed a long and constructive discussion about how to improve the page. Mathsci, however, took this as a pretext for starting many days of abuse and wiki-stalking of me. His first response was to call me a troll [26]. As I have close to 4.000 edits on Wikipedia and not a single block, why would I start trolling now? He continued by calling me unintelligent [27]. Since that, he has followed my edits and edited Marseille, Aix-en-Provence and Puyricard immediately after me, which seems to prove that he’s watching my edits. He has been so eager to attack me that he did not even bother to check which articles I were editing, and had to revert himself in the article [28], [29] and remove the accusation he had left at my user page [30], [31]. Most people with a sense of decency would at least have apologised then. Instead, Mathsci went back and searched for another error and have now decided that Aix wasn't the capital of Provence [32] - despite him claiming yesterday that such was the case [33]. This is fine, factual disagreements are a part of Wikipedia, but apart from targeting my changes Mathsci always use highly offensive and aggressive language. Instead of just changing my edit, he felt the need to explicitly point this out to me on my talk page, to tell me that my English is bad and that I’m unable to think [34]. This is the behaviour of a bully, not someone interested in improving Wikipedia.

After Mathschi’s first attacks, I wrote to him twice on his talk page to resolve the issue, but his only response was to delete my comments [35], [36]. He has been showing bad faith from the beginning, not only in the troll comment but later on when he mistakenly accused me for editing Marseille in bad faith on my talk page [37]. When he thought I had claimed Marseille to be the old capital of Marseille, Mathsci claimed that that capital was Aix [38]. When he discovered that that was exactly what I had said already the first time, he immediately changed his mind about Aix being the capital of Provence [39] so that he could continue to attack me. Not only that, but he attacks my language skills and my ability to think [40]. (Ironically, he claim that since I called Aix the "ancient capital" of Aix, my English skills are bad [41], yet Mathsci wrote exactly the same thing [42].) At this point I took it to his talk page a final time to ask him to stop this disruptive behaviour, but he just answered with still more abuse [43]. At that point an administrator stepped in to warn Mathsci over his personal attacks directed at me and point out that he has been warned for this kind of behaviour before [44], but his only response was to delete that comment[45], as he had done with all the other comments about his behaviour. As I’m fed up with having a user calling me all kind of names, questioning both my English skills and my intelligence and following me around from page to page, I’m filing this report. I believe users like Mathsci do more damage than good to Wikipedia.JdeJ (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, this is nothing new. Mathsci has been blocked for harassing other users before. JdeJ (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• On reading your diffs I can see why you are upset. Mathsci's latest comment to Elonka that more than edit summaries are required for blocking is incorrect and I agree that a block should occur if the editor offends in this way again. That said it appears that Elonka's warning has provided an at least 8 or 9 hour respite and we can only hope that the editor take that warning to heart. I suggest that this thread is left open for a short time and you come back should you be again targeted. Others may feel that Mathsci is blocked now - I do not as yet - but I would not argue against any other admin that does.--VS ^talk 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the respite, after Elonka's warning, one of the last things Mathsci made before going off-line was this comment [46]. It's not as serious as the previous ones, but he agains takes the time to call my good-faith edit to Aix "silly and unhelpful" and "Surely, Elonka, you cannot be serious?". I also object to his repeated accusations that I "blanked one third of a page". I removed a table from a page and I have pointed out in detail why I did so, having found several errors in the page. He is as free to disagree with me as any other user, but it's neither constructive nor intended to stop the fight that he keeps repeating this accusation against me of blanking (=vandalism) even after I've gone to great lengths to outline the errors I perceived to be quite severe in the table I removed. JdeJ (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion should be happening at wikiquette alerts. If a user is having difficult communications, it is best to approach them in a less heated manner than to threaten blocks. Editors who have a history of conflict with Mathsci should back away from the situation. The goal is not to antagonize Mathsci until they crack and provide a reason to be blocked. If we are trying to actually help Mathsci and JdeJ to get along and edit collaboratively, uninvolved editors who have no history with these users should help. I oppose blocking good faith contributors, except as a last resort. Several uninvolved editors should watch the situation and counsel Mathsci in an effort to avoid a block. I also do not see evidence of stalking. If Mathsci has followed JdeJ to completely unrelated articles, please post diffs, otherwise, avoid making unfounded accusations of a serious nature. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, this was brought to WQA at one point.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I did find it after some digging (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive49#User:Mathsci), but I'll leave it to others who've looked at this incident to comment on its relevance (if any). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The relevancy is questionable, at best. The editor who filed that complaint ended up indefinitely blocked for serious policy violations. I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Perusnarpk which lead to the block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't dispute Jehochman's version for a second, my impression of him is that he is an honest and helpful administrator. But Jehochman, when you talk about uninvolved administrators without a history with any of us, isn't it so that you have a history of standing up for Mathsci? I don't claim for a moment that that would make you any less suited in this situation, but surely the same would go for administrators who have previously been involved with him or me in both good and bad ways? JdeJ (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Everyone is free to comment here, no matter what their level of involvement. Since I became aware that Mathsci has had some difficulties, I have been trying to help them, as I do for many editors. As it happens, in at least one instance Mathsci was being persecuted by a pack of disruptive accounts. Other administrators agreed, and those accounts were blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• About the accusation of stalking, it is of course impossible to ever prove for sure. I do however find it strange that immediately after Mathsci first called me a troll and unintelligent, he followed me to Marseille [47], to Aix-en-Provence [48] and to Puyricard [49]. The last of these, Puyricard is an article that Mathsci had never edited before, it begs belief that he just happened to go to it for the first time ever by pure chance immediately after I went there. So yes, I think that the accusation of stalking is at least not unfounded, since it's rather obvious that Mathsci is wathcing my contributions. Nor do I see him as a good-faith contributor, he has repeatedly been showing bad faith and continued to do so even after I've tried to explain the reasons behind my edits. I wish to add that I took matters here as a last resort after having tried to discuss the matters directly with Mathsci three times, only to be met with new abuses each time. JdeJ (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, that is evidence of troublesome behavior. Can we wait for Mathsci to respond now, and see if they are willing to comply with my request? Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

JdeJ's assessment of the situation with Jehochman is correct, in that Jehochman does often run interference for Mathsci and try to protect him from sanctions. So I would recommend that Jehochman try not to post too much in this thread, and instead allow other more uninvolved admins to participate. As for my own opinion, I have been observing Mathsci's behavior with concern for a few months now, since it was brought to my attention that he was engaged in a dispute with Michellecrisp (talk · contribs). Mathsci appears to have a tendency to stalk users with whom he is in a conflict, and he tends to make the same comments as he has towards JdeJ, accusing them of trolling and low intelligence. It's easy enough to spot, as he frequently puts his insults right into edit summaries. Mathsci does do good work on articles, and multiple admins have tried communicating with him both on- and off-wiki to try and get him to work in a more collaborative manner. He has received multiple on-wiki cautions, on his talkpage, other admins' talkpages,[50][51] and at the Math WikiProject.[52] Unfortunately, Mathsci has not taken these cautions to heart, as the behavior has continued unabated, even though he was already blocked once for harassment.[53] Bottom line, I would support a block, whether it be now, or if he has another inappropriate outburst in the future. Though he's a good writer, this does not outweigh all the good writers who we may lose, because they are driven away by his antagonistic attitude. --Elonka 16:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Mathematics: this is a complicated issue which it is not appropriate to discuss here. I have contributed a signficant amount of content, which has required a lot of work on my part. These mathematical contributions are meticulously sourced and detailed. Early mathematics articles on the wikipedia were less well sourced, more like essays; this evolution in article style is normal. But the change in culture has led to problems, which I am happy to hear that Paul August and Charles Matthews are working out calmly.
• wikistalking: Elonka has made some inflammatory claims above. The allegations of wikistalking have been retracted by JdeJ. Aix-en-Provence, Marseille and Puyricard were discussed on my talk page with User:Choess in connection with Hugues des Baux and the other Lords of Baux on September 27th-28th and were situated just above where JdeJ posted (three or four times). I am a frequent contributor to articles on Provence, France and French culture and watch the articles for the town where I live and the city in which I work. Elonka has not provided diffs to prove serial wikistalking by me of a series of wikipedians.
• Elonka remarks - antagonistic, dismissive and condescending - could do with refactoring. What she has written seems itself like an "inappropriate outburst". Many of the comments apply only to interactions between her and me. In the Michael Atiyah affair, where a group of meatpuppets attempted to insert libellous unsourced material into his BLP, I was attacked all over this wikipedia numerous times. Fortunately, on contacting FT2, Charles Matthews, Nishkid64, Slrubenstein and Alison behind the scenes, things could be resolved without coming to ANI. Elonka did not help much, despite being asked.
• I rarely use the word trolling to describe edits (not editors) nor unintelligent or stupid to describe edits (not editors). It is true that I regarded Jagz as a "polite troll" and that I used the other words to describe Elonka's protracted campaign to include me in one of her imagined "lynch mobs".
• Which users have been lost, Elonka? Jagz, MoritzB, Fourdee, Zero g. It's not a great idea to generalize like this. Other editors like Harland1 have actually apologized to me for getting involved in Elonka's machinations (for example on wikiproject mathematics).
• It is hard not to see Elonka's intemperate outburst as coming from some grudge she bears against me, perhaps because I dared to criticize her handling of Jagz, Zero g and Koalorka. I hope that this was not the case.
• Elonka has attempted to criticize Jehochman here and MastCell on his talk page for their "softly, softly" non-confrontational approach in this situation. Dbachmann was also involved in this storm in a teacup and indeed was in agreement with me at the time on his talk page. Both JedJ and I agree that we got off on the wrong foot, but there are now no differences of opinion and we are friends. I have no idea why the situation escalated in this way after just one edit of mine. I can't help thinking that somebody might have been pulling strings behind the scenes; but it has made me quite uneasy about continuing to edit this encyclopedia. Elonka does not seem to be a positive force as far as academic editors like me are concerned; she seems more comfortable with POV-pushers.
• Wikipedians are judged by the number and the quality of their mainspace edits. Administrators, such as Moreschi, have explained this to Elonka on numerous occasions, but it still apparently has not sunk in. Indeed Elonka seems to be in dispute with a fair number of administrators at the moment.

Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Jehochman's note, Mathsci has refactored two of the offending comments ([54], [55]). That's encouraging. Let's do what we can to promote de-escalation rather than assuming that another outburst, and a block, are "inevitable". Let's extend Mathsci a fraction of the forbearance routinely lavished upon editors with less constructive material to their credit. Some of his commentary and edit summaries were out of line; JdeJ was certainly correct to raise the concern. Given some of the history, I think Mathsci is more likely to respond positively to commentary from admins other than Elonka. I will be happy to add my voice to Jehochman's asking Mathsci to disengage and interact more civilly. If that fails, we can revisit the issue. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand why this complaint has been brought, I also have considerably more background. User:Paul August and I have been working to put in place some effective mediation within the Mathematics WikiProject. Both editors involved are experts, and we can ill afford to lose either of them. Without going into details, I have very good reason to believe that the root causes of the dispute (rather than the behavioural symptoms) are something that can be treated. Therefore I request a measured approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Support deferring to Charles and Paul. I see much merit in allowing experienced, involved (in content, not in conflict) editors take a crack at this. Thank you, Charles. Jd2718 (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, I think allowing Charles and Paul's mediation measures time to get up-and-running (and to have an impact on the productivity and volumes of behavioural problems at the Mathematics WikiProject) would be the best course of action for the time being. In 2-3 months' time (time scale adjustable, with Charles' input: how long do you anticipate the new strategy should take to work), should their measures not be as successful as one would hope, we can re-assess the matter, with a view to how to tackle the matter. I suggest the specific complaint brought against Mathsci be closed in lieu of the ongoing progress at WQA, and any action that would otherwise be taken waived in favour of the mediation strategy being implemented. Let's go softly-softly, here; the blockhammer is probably not the most helpful option. Anthøny ✉ 17:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On time-scale, there are matters relating to policy and its application to discuss, which should be a relatively short business. Defusing the animus that has got mixed up in this affair might take longer, but an agreement between the editors to keep away from each other on the site might also be put in place without too much ado, while we work on it. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Mathsci may be more responsive to commentary from admins other than Elonka. Both Jehochman and Mathsci endorsed her adminship recall proposal that was initiated by the former editor. Her comment here may be seen as retaliation for those endorsements by some. Others may see it as a pointed disregard of Mathsci's earlier and politely worded request that she not involve herself in this matter and is thereby intended to be provocative.[56] While I assume that her comments are well-intentioned, I think it best to avoid any possible appearance to the contrary unless the circumstances are compelling. I am troubled, too, by the "inevitable" wording that contrasts with the exemplary tolerance that she has extended to editors who are far less constructive than Mathsci. Toning down that sentence was helpful.[57] I think a measured approach is indicated in this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to MastCell on my talk page, where all is revealed. Many thanks for the measured and helpful comments here. Mathsci (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that this matter is resolved, as far as I am concerned. It was unfortunate that Mathsci and I got off to a bad start but the situation has calmed down and I'm sure we'll be able to co-operate in a constructive way in the future. I most certainly do not want to see Mathsci blocked, he has made many constructive edits and is valuable to Wikipedia. He has offered his apologies and I've offered mine for our heated exchange and I believe that no more needs to be said about it. I wish to thank the other users and administrators involved in this discussions for constructive and meaningful comments that helped to diffuse the situation. JdeJ (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IP doesn't get it

Would someone please take a look at IP 211.30.133.70 (talk · contribs)? The only recent contributions have been to remove a properly sourced section about an incident on the Newington College page (and refuse to discuss it on the talk page). Also, the IP appears to continually try and delete the page for James E. McPherson, both edit warring to keep the CDS notice on there, then repeatedly adding the AfD notice without actually creating a page for deletion. It seems this IP is here to disrupt. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It wont let me create the afd page. can somebody do it for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.133.70 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They tell me to go to the talk page which i do then they delete what i say! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.133.70 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert, warn, if he exceeds final warning, block. No admin intervention needed at the moment, in the future AIV might be more appropriate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a new editor trying to argue that the disputed sentence in Newington College gives undue weight to an issue, but unable to navigate a talk page to present their opinion. I've helped them with the talk page posting, and we'll see if there's a consensus on the inclusion of the material. Hopefully this then resolves this into a content dispute and not anything requiring admin intervention. Euryalus (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember that IPs can't create AfD pages. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism at Talk:Hydrogen

A small range of IPs keeps deleting the contents of Talk:Hydrogen, as can be seen in the revision history. All but the most recent IP has been warned about the unconstructive edits - rst20xx (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock and semiprotect if necessary. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very lucky for that range to be small. It looks like contribs within 87.36.14.75/28 are all vandalism, probably by the same guy. You might want to verify this, if you have the range tool. ~ Troy (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one's done anything about this yet.... rst20xx (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to WP:RFCU to ask for a checkuser, propose a rangeblock, and make a mention of this section. From the IPs in that range that I've spotted (87.36.14.67, 87.36.14.68, 87.36.14.69, 87.36.14.70, 87.36.14.75 and 87.36.14.76), my estimate would be the range of 87.36.14.64/28, meaning that 16 users at most would be affected (don't forget to mention that). Remember that it can take about a week for a checkuser to look at the request, so you just have to keep your eye on it for that long. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Lesson learnt - rst20xx (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson and FAC

Resolved

 – This is an inappropriate forum. An RfC has been filed to try to resolve the content dispute. Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC). Therefore archived. Please?

I'm taking this here because I just can't deal with User:Pmanderson's actions on FAC or on the Samuel Johnson article anymore. I have contacted quite a few people to deal with this, but this is out of hand. I don't even know where the reverts are anymore, because its buried in the text. Besides claims in the FAC that there is plagiarism (because we used the word "informed") and claims that "cannot now rely on any of this article to represent its sources correctly or completely", the user has taken a biography, pushed it into a medical section, and when told that it is not a medical work and does not belong in the medical section between actual certified individuals who are trained in diagnosis, he labels the section as POV. He has misrepresented the source as a historian (hes a professor of literature) and misrepresents the text (he relies on Oliver Sacks, and not Sacks's quotes on Johnson, but just in general).

This is becoming very upsetting for many of the FA Reviewers and editors of the Johnson page. I have spent a lot of time working with many of the reviewers to fix different wording, language, and the rest to accommodate all concerns and consensus, and this user just whole sale adds in unnotable information to a page that is already far too large and has subpages for the information and rearranges and expands text into areas where it does not belong. The page has become completely destabled, which is one of the things that prohibits a page from becoming a FAC, and it would seem that this FAC will either be ruined because of the changes that he wishes to make which go against the lengthy consensus, or destroyed because of the destabilization. I have worked with Johnson for a very long time. I also have all of the sources listed if anyone wants to verify any of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was just about to file a request for Mediation; unless OR declines it here, I shall file one. The fundamental problem is that OR is defensive of every jot and tittle of xer prose; reading the FAC will show tons of her abuse, and complaints about it; xe lectured peaceful Awadewit as much as me. The FAC has gone on much too long, and should probably be closed.

The problems here are entirely content issues; I checked two points in Samuel Johnson, and found neither supported by the source. I am now beleaguered by the following alleged citation rules:

• One must not cite a source without quoting its exact words.
• One may not cite a passage of a dozen pages if other footnotes cite pages in the middle. That's somehow inaccurate.
• All editing of Samuel Johnson must consult with Ottava Rima.
• Only psychiatrists may be cited in a section called Health (Please note that the assertion under discussion is about the effect of Johnson's actual condition, whatever it may have been, on his actual life.)
• the source can't be used, since he isn't specifying individual incidents. (Our OR policy does not apply to our sources; they have the credibility of being published to begin with.)
• The beginning of a sentence doesn't need to be cited; the footnote at the end of the sentence only applies to the last clause. (Really; I'm not making this up.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

PM Anderson, I'm very confused by your points.

• One must not cite a source without quoting its exact words - what does this mean?
• One may not cite a passage of a dozen pages if other footnotes cite pages in the middle - is somehow inaccurate? Are you not sure how it's inaccurate? What's your actual objection?
• Psychiatrists are medical doctors. How are they not qualified to comment on someone's physical health?
• Your diffs are to your own comments in the FAC, or to the history of the article. What is it you're actually referring to?
• I don't understand your point about OR and notablity.
• The part of the sentence that is accurate to the source should be cited. Ideally, it should be at the end, but if there is a complex sentence with two points from different sources, it's quite ok to cite which fact came from which source. --Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the diffs. PM is quoting claims made to him by Ottava. Thatcher 17:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; that's the problem with explaining a situation to third parties - one assumes too much. (I am not quoting exactly, since xe is sometimes elliptical, but the first diff is I have a problem with your recent change because it uses Bate when not giving a straight out quote, for example.) These are my best guess at what Ottava Rima means; I have no idea why xe thinks we must do these things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is an unfortunate situation involving several of our good humanities editors, each of whom want the article to follow the lines that interest themselves, and are quite skilled in making arguments about it. I have my own personal interest in the subject, and my own idea of emphasis here, different from the others. I made some comments at various times--a few were followed, but I found continuing there would mean to keep arguing on everything indefinitely. I do not think want to assign fault --each person there is skilled at argument and not very willing to compromise. None of the diffs should be seen out of context--they were part of a long series of arguments in which everyone was generally quite stubborn, and over-insistent on detail; their analysis would mean reanalyzing every sentence of the article & every footnote. The sort of academic questions raised are the sort that are never settled, and in the academic world they typically continue for an entire career--originality tends to mean differing as sharply as possible from everyone. One rarely sees true cooperative academic writing in the humanities: SJ himself once said, that he didn't see how two people could write something together, that joint authorship must mean that each person wrote some of the parts, but separately. I find it very disheartening that some of the relatively few people we have in this subject should have such difficulty adapting themselves to the Wikipedia medium. They would rather argue indefinitely, than have an article they though imperfect. Such stubbornness would basically rule out the possibility of FAs, since no qualified reviewer will agree totally with anyone else. DGG (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did an RfC instead. There is a petition to Raul to finally close the FA here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Might Morphin Admins® have rather limited powers of blocking, deleting and protecting, and there seems no one here to block and nothing to protect and delete, I think the appropriate place to raise this issue is Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. It certainly seems pointless to continue the FAC at this time. Thatcher 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, charges of plagarism and other personal attacks, and templating a page because of a disagreement are no longer under the authority of administrators? There is a page disruption, which is clear from the edit history. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If Ottava really wants to start trading charges, I will begin with her words to our learned colleague Awadewit: your ignorance, before you start making things up. I am, for the moment, willing to overlook xer more recent incivility; the FAC has gone on for a month, and it extenuates much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the FAC shows 26 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutrals. I would like it if you would take that into consideration before you say "It certainly seems pointless to continue the FAC". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for disputes over FAC. I believe the RfC that has been filed is the right next step. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

@Ottava, you did not provide any evidence of those things. I suppose it would be within an admin's authority (under certain definitions of the concept of "community sanctions") to declare that certain editors, who were disrupting the FAC, are banned from further participating in the FAC for some period of time, but a this would be controversial and b are you sure your own actions can withstand that sort of scrutiny? For example, the claim that the Health section is a medical section, and you cannot put in "historians" who are not doctors is utterly ridiculous. Shall we remove the claim that Julius Caesar may have had epilepsy or that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome, because the sources are not doctors? Biographers are tertiary sources, a good biographer researches his subject from all angles, consulting primary and secondary sources. The claim that a particular biographer relied on an unreliable or fringe source is certainly worth evaluating, but the blanket claim is just not supportable. Article content disputes are best resolved among the parties through the normal methods (RFC, mediation). Any time you ask an admin to step in, you take the risk that you will get stepped on. Are you sure you want that? Thatcher 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I thought I provided evidence by linking directly to the plagarism and other claims. "Shall we remove the claim that Julius Caesar may have had epilepsy or that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome, because the sources are not doctors?" Thats not my point. My point was that we are over the limit for words, and we already have medical sources saying the material 100% without needing him to regurgitate it because he prefers to have his selection of what the page stated promoted. The labeling of the section as POV and the edit warring is a severe problem. "Shall we remove the claim that Julius Caesar may have had epilepsy or that Abraham Lincoln had Marfan's syndrome, because the sources are not doctors? " I would rethink these claims if they are not made by doctors who are trained in diagnosing. And Thatcher, I know I edit warred on the page. I can't tell how much and where, because there is too much confusing. With the page going back and forth, its almost impossible to tell which is edit warred and which was changed to accomodate other people at FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Resurrection and Immortality

I have semi-protected both articles, each for one week, because of an edit war, posting of fringe theories, spamming, and soapboxing. Other sysops blocked the offending editors. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
See also my talk page and User talk:DJ Clayworth FYI. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

o.O Looks like a good round of actions to me. The editors involved should probably be editing snake oil instead... Watchlisting both of the above, as I suspect there will be more.... Tony Fox (arf!) 22:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Titles of Kosovo geography pages

There has been a slow edit war of the titles of certain pages related to geographical features in Kosovo, as far as I can see most recently between User:Ev and User:Albnaian, including regular moves between Serbian and Albanian names. Examples include Pashtrik/Paštrik and Sharr Mountain/Šar Mountains, as well as others. Edits today suggest that this may be taking a turn for the worse and going beyond good faith behaviour. For example, after moves in one direction, speedy delete typo CSD-R3 tags were wrongly placed on the resulting redirect from the other language (it should not be used in language cases). Since those tagging edits prevented reverting moves, the redirects were instead deleted as CSD-G6 as housekeeping and routine non-controversial cleanup to enable the re-moves (they clearly are controversial). --Rumping (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it proper for a user to edit other people's comments on this page?

This edit doesn't seem proper. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• My bad, thought that guy made a mess of this page since it is already over 322kb in size, just wanted to do some clean ups of disruptive and redundant double posting which that user has created in the first place. Anyway, this page is taking way too long to load as it is... so there! --Dave1185 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes Issues

A couple requests at WP:RFPP] came in and were serviced, regarding Ten Lost Tribes and its talk page, by me. While I can see a content dispute on the article, the IP(-hopper) involved is also trying to use the talk page as a soap box and generally being a nuisance ([58], [59], [60], [61]). I've protected the Ten Lost Tribes article for one week (full-protection as a content dispute) but these comments give me pause in assuming good faith towards this person. Any suggestions on what to do here short of taking sides? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP74 has been blocked for one month. Grsz^X 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

After another look, IP74 was used by indef-blocked User:Serenesoulnyc. 72.248.188.130 (talk · contribs) is adding the same things, looks like a block needed here as well. Grsz^X 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Is 72. another Serenesoul sock? I'll block, but I want to know if this is another sock to see how long I block for. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar edits at that article, similiar Kashmir related edits. Possibly worth a Checkuser? Grsz^X 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on the blower to Ali - I'd prefer to hear her wax lyrical on IPs than listen to Palin put barbecue sauce on her foot to make it taste better. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm - from past data, the 74 account is  Likely to be related to Serenesoulnyc (talk · contribs). The 72.248 account is geographically near to the other IP and resolves to OneCommunications which is nearby. So that's a  Possible. All in all, I'm not seeing a massive amount of activity and there doesn't appear to be any underlying accounts there - Alison ^❤ 02:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Blocked 3 weeks. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes; Talk:Ten Lost Tribes

Resolved

 – See Ten Lost Tribes Issues above. Any further abuses can be taken to AIV; this appears to be puppetry by an indef'd user. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see here and here for the latest in the ongoing attempts of myself and several others to put an end to one person's crusade to delete the same material from the Ten Lost Tribes article for invalid reasons (see explanation at the above links) dozens of times while refusing to answer any attempt to communicate with him, after a half dozen IP blocks or more and several rounds of temporary page protection. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm exhausted from writing about it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:E36chase325

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours by slakr

E36chase325 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)

Continual Removal of AFD and CSD Tags despite warning as seen here. Consequently also violatng 3RR at least three times over. Requesting Short block   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Block on User:Gene Poole

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs) has blocked Gene Poole (talk · contribs) for harrassment and personal attacks against Bidgee (talk · contribs). I personally concur with the block but consider a wider view may be necessary as the threats and harrassment has moved off-wiki and intensified (see User talk:VirtualSteve#Threats receive from Gene Poole on my email account). It may be best if a totally uninvolved administrator—who can't be dismissed as part of a "little cheersquad of proxies" takes a look at the entire issue including the conduct of the AfDs, the harassment, the block and the threats. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Any review should look at the talk page history for User:Gene Poole as he has been removing comments and warnings --Matilda ^talk 08:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (one of the cheersquad of proxies)

Reprinting emails is very bad form, regardless of their content. Poisoning the well, no way to verify them, etc. I'm removing all the instances of this I can find, call it a biographical decision if you'd like. If you're considering reverting this removal, please think very carefully about what you're trying to achieve, as I will be willing to block for disruption depending upon the cirumstances. That is to say, please discuss first before reverting.
brenneman 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment Aaron. I will not be wheel warring or reverting either of your two redactions and I note that you have covered both public copies by that work. However I also note that upon emailing an editor the wikipedia system now shows the following notation in a box:

A (non-public) log of this action will be kept for abuse prevention purposes via the Checkuser function. The log entry for an email does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the email. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia server administrators ("developers") can verify the recipient account, which CheckUsers can only see in hashed form.

I also note for the record (without reference to the content) that I have since received another inappropriate email from Gene Poole and of course I can provide copies (by private email) as necessary which will detail the time and date of the sender etc. Of course I understand your point but I too am concerned that too allow for protection of this type of email is to allow cowardice through the email process to prosper.

Best wishes.--VS ^talk 08:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Disagree with the removal but will not revert. Personal threats made off-wiki are in no way worthy of being considered protected and I for one reserve the right to post in my userspace any and all off-wiki communication of that nature. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) On further consideration blanket statements like mine above are not useful. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Respected longterm member"? A longterm obnoxious member I'd dare say. I'd have blocked for longer actually but the block has been placed, and I'm letting it stand. I've witnessed (and experienced, a long time back now though) nothing but outright chest-beating rudeness from this self-proclaimed "Emperor" [62]. -- Longhair\^talk 08:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

All this vicious stuff over Fish Information and Services??? Crikey! I think I'll start an article on Tiddly winks, and then fight to the death anyone who tries to delete it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is seriously lame. The user's conduct after the block is absolutely deplorable, so I fully endorse the current lengthened block. The first block seems to me to be much harder to justify, due to the general lameness of the dispute. Really, people, you should try practicing a healthy level of not giving a fuck, in regards to both articles and other editors (so that we don't take comments personally, ya' know?). Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned with the following aspects of this series of events:

• Longtime user blocked for obnoxious but not threatening on-wiki behavior without talk page or in conversation warnings to stop.
• Blocking administrator was involved in the argument on-wiki.
• First email (the one posted on-wiki and reverted) contains clear venting but at best vague threats and no threat of harm or off-wiki contact or stalking - it does not seem to justify extending a block. Venting on-wiki or in non-threatening emails to blocking admins are semi-protected activities, to avoid single blocks from escalating into a destructive circle due to complaints / venting by blockee. Clear threats or real-world contact are exceptions to that, obviously.
• I have no idea what's in email #2.

I was taken to Arbcom for blocking Giano in a situation comparable to issue #1 here a few weeks ago. This particular block is far more problematic than that.

Gene is clearly not behaving well in this manner, and I am working up a comment on his talk page, but to say that this block was in poor form and problematic is a grave understatement. This is exactly how not to do things and pretty much guaranteed further drama, rather than de-escalating the situation and calming it down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked Gene Poole's talk page history? You will find that Gene Poole had indeed received warnings but had removed them. You therefore need to look at history rather than the talk page to see those warnings and the exchanges, noting the edit summaries - for example [63] and [64] - note the attack on me was to accuse me (Matilda) of being a Single Purpose Account (withdrawn) and to state that I had nominated an article for AfD on spurious grounds - not withdrawn and in fact escalated. The blocking admin (Virtual Steve) was not involved in the argument up to that point - but was an active observor in my view. I would state that VS was making a call on behaviour he had seen on three related AfDs. The subsequent escalation has made Virtual Steve involved since. I do not think the block was in poor form or problematic - Gene Poole had breached WP:NPA to three editors - myself, Bidgee and Michelle Crisp and repeatedly over several days. I am concerned that that civility is not more emphatically supported. I am grateful that Virtual Steve was prepared to intervene in a situation that Gene Poole chose to escalate. --Matilda ^talk 04:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As a genuine outsider to this situation with past good dealings with Gene, and after having examined the background at about 5 locations, I concur with this assessment. Orderinchaos 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As the involved user I never requested for a block (Nor did I want to see anyone blocked) on Gene but I did warn him on the AfD (Since I'm not welcome on his Talk Page) as he was twisting my words and assued me of deliberately adding misleading comments in order to attempt to influence the outcome of an AfD[65]. Now he has called me a "known problem editor", out of the editors I've interacted with I've only had issues with 5 editors. Gene has for some reason has got a vendetta against me which I have no idea why. He also removes editors (who he seems to have issues with) comments with the edit summary of "delete trolling" plus this comment by Gene was also assuming bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the above Gene has now said "the real issue here is VirtualSteve's abuse of admin priviledges to slap a block on my account in order to endorse the uncivil, disruptive abuse perpetrated against me by a known problem editor (Bidgee), while simultaneously attempting to alter the outcome of a disruptive AfD process in which he has an explicit conflict of interest." Bidgee (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record none of the editors of the AfD (including but not limited to myself, Bidgee, Michelle Crisp or Virtual Steve)have a CoI with fis.com (now that the sockpuppets have been indefinitely blocked). --Matilda ^talk 06:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo the concerns of Georgewilliamherbert. Blocking for alleged harassment can be a reasonable response; it can also very easily arouse anger, and emailing the blocking admin with a hot response isn't beyond the pale. Taking that email and posting it was utterly inappropriate for an administrator. If one is concerned about threats, law enforcement would be appropriate; if Wikipedia issues are raised, forwarding it to a member of ArbComm could be done. I do not consider the block of a long-time experienced editor to be an emergency, when it has anything like a reasonable basis, as it apparently did. "Reasonable basis" does not mean that the block was proper, it merely means that it could appear so, and blocking for harassment is, on the face, protective. (I was blocked in August for alleged harassment, and I did not and do not consider that resolving that is an emergency, it is being disentangled one small step at a time.) Gene Poole would be encouraged to reflect on WP:DGAF as well as some others involved here. That he should not have been "punished" for an angry response in email to an administrator doesn't mean that it was wise. He might ask himself what result he was seeking by that mail, and, then ... was it effective? --Abd (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Gene has sent me the second email, which was never posted on-wiki. It also does not appear to contain anything that appears to me to be a threat. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just to note that I have declined a request on my talk page by Georgewilliamherbert to lift my extended block, for these reasons: "By his latest comments and with his previous wikilawyering, Gene Poole has made it clear that not only does he not see anything wrong with his conduct, but that in his opinion, everyone else but he is to blame for what has happened to him. While it may be that "we try to give recently blocked accounts some slack on venting about the block" (although I'm not aware of any guideline to that effect), if an editor is blocked specifically for harrassment and attacks, I expect him not to continue with any behavior that may be reasonably interpreted as such. The e-mail he sent is just beyond the pale in terms of aggressiveness, rudeness and implicit threats, and in view of clearly-enunciated policies such as WP:CIVIL, I don't see why we should tolerate such conduct from anyone. I ask you to please not undo or reduce the block absent a clear consensus for this on WP:ANI."  Sandstein  20:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still reading up on this so I don't have an opinion on the blocks yet, but I just want to comment on the posting of emails. It's long been established that it's not acceptable to post emails on-site without the author's consent. There's been various AN/ANI discussions and ArbCom cases that have reinforced this, probably most notably with the Durova arbitration which found that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki." and "Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators." [66] So I don't agree with posting the emails on-site and support their removal (if they need to be shown to another administrator for review reasons or to ArbCom they can be forwarded privately). Sarah 03:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Noted Sarah - as you know I trust you explicitly and appreciate your comment. I did not know this was the case not having read anything related to this situation before. Will not happen again by me - but will send them on privately to you or other trusted admins in the future.--VS ^talk 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone clarify the status of Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence? Is it still true that "there is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence", or should this be changed? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Durova's comment - we cannot post private off-wiki correspondence without the consent of the sender: When you receive an email message, remember that you do not own the copyright; that is owned by the sender, or the sender's employer. - no change should be made to Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence. --Matilda ^talk 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This conversation sounds familiar. I don't recall who was involved now, but a few months back someone sent a canvassing e-mail to several users, or some such topic, and its contents were posted here. Someone kept trying to remove it on the grounds of "copyright violation", and then claimed there was no evidence of wrongdoing. In the post-9/11 era, anyone who sends anything in e-mails, anywhere, can be held accountable for it, and that's the reality of things. The "copyright" argument is bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Being held accountable for the comments is not the same as posting copyrighted material into a GFDL environment. The copyright argument is not in my view bogus. --Matilda ^talk 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes it bogus is that it's a red herring. Someone makes threatening comments off-wiki and then tries to hide behind "copyright" when he's revealed for what he is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It was not the author who took up the issue of copyright - it was User:Aaron Brenneman. Otherwise - yes it is a red herring as to the validity of the blocks. However, User:Viriditas questioned whether Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence should be modified ... --Matilda ^talk 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It has to be a judgment call in a given case. If a user claims innocence, and e-mails reveal otherwise, they need to be made available to someone. Whether that's just one or more wise admins, or on here, is a judgment call. I would argue that e-mails in general should not be posted here, not because of "copyright" issues, but because of violation of confidentiality. However, if someone writes a "poison pen" letter, they have forfeited the right to confidentiality. That doesn't mean it should necessarily be displayed here, but it doesn't rule it out, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent> Durova didn't say it, the Arbitrators did. It was findings in the arbitration case about Durova's block of User!! where Giano posted an email Durova had written without her permission. And it's got nothing to do with whatever Griffith University have to say about copyright law, it's an internal ArbCom ruling. I don't know who posted that media file, what it is, why it was posted, or who it's directed at. I don't listen to media files here so if it was directed at me whoever posted it might want to use written words instead. Baseball Bugs, no one should email anyone on Wikipedia with some assumed right to confidentiality because emails around this place leak at an unbelievable rate. Anyway, getting back to the original subject, I read the various discussions and I don't think there's a problem with this block. There's a not unreasonable argument that Steve should have asked another administrator to make the first block because he was involved with the AFD, but he wasn't the subject of the attacks so I don't think it's that much of a problem. The second block by Sandstein for continuing attacks after being blocked seems pretty solid to me. Gene is a very disruptive, rude and abusive user with a COI and it's about time we stop tolerating his abuse of other editors. I think the block should stand and if he continues his abusive and aggressive behaviour when he returns, the community should consider long term NPA sanctions. Sarah 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Right on all counts. And I seldom write e-mails; and then only to a very short list of trusted users, and obviously not to threaten them. All users should follow that principle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question rephrased: Is there or is there not community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two inherent problems with publishing off-wiki correspondence. First, unless the sender licenses his or her private correspondence under GFDL or other copyleft license, it's a violation of copyright. Second, authentication poses a dilemma: without the full headers there's no way to confirm whether the material is genuine or fabricated, but the Foundation privacy policy gets in the way of posting full headers. Of course people are still responsible for what they send via off-wiki channels: notify ArbCom if necessary. Durova^Charge! 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no monetary gain possible from a random e-mail, the copyright issue is essentially irrelevant from the legal standpoint. The possibility of fraud is a much better argument against it. Forwarding a threatening e-mail to a trusted admin is a much better course. There are a number of reasons to be very cautious and conservative about posting someone's e-mail here. But the alleged "copyright" issue ain't one of them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer? Durova^Charge! 03:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Are you? The last time the subject came up, I did some research on it. Although e-mail is theoretically "copyrighted", the courts in general don't care about "copyright" issues where there's no financial interest, as it's basically a waste of their time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally when Wikipedians have a reliable source on one side and a nonexpert editor saying take my word for it on the other, the discussion resolves quickly. We have a reliable source stating this is copyrighted material and you agree with it. Yet you propose a new metric that deprecates WP:COPYRIGHT. There have been many times when I've refrained from uploading an image that had almost zero commercial value because I couldn't prove conclusively that it was out of copyright, even though the creator's heirs (if any) were very unlikely to object. The question is not so much whether a judge would award damages as whether WMF has the resources to withstand an influx of lawsuits that go as far as trial. Our site policies have been conservative in order to minimize this risk, yet there are areas where noncompliance is widespread. I've been going through popular song articles for months taking out blatant violations. It doesn't help anything to start sending mixed messages in this area, especially when other mechanisms already exist for addressing the problem you identify, which I agree is serious. Durova^Charge! 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) We very easily get distracted. There are several issues raised here. I'm going to a list of them and my responses, separately signed so that others can intersperse if they choose.---Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Was the original block proper?
  • This is debatable but moot, unless someone wants to later examine it. Definitely it's not an AN/I issue at this point. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• (2) W Should the email have been published on-wiki without the permission of the writer?
  • No. It's well-known and established; if an editor receives an email that the editor thinks requires some community action, a copy may be sent to an arbitrator. Editors may privately share emails they receive. The arguments about legality are largely moot. I'll note that nobody reverted the removal of those mails, which shows, effectively, consensus on this. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• (3) Was the email from GP to VS a blockable offense worthy of a 30-day extension?
  • No. Suppose the editor had written this on their Talk page instead of in an email. Would it have been worse, the same, or better? I'd say that the private email was actually an action less in violation of policy than had the same material been posted on Talk, because, particularly if it is to an administrator, it should be less disruptive. It only caused disruption because VS posted it, something that I'd expect an administrator to avoid. Then, on Talk, it would fall within established ArbComm precedent that angry comments by a user, to an administrator, in response to being blocked by that administrator are to be, generally, tolerated. The "threats" involved were that the user would follow formal complaint process, and, he was claiming, sanctions would then be applied. It's actually chilling to respond to this as if it were a threat of, say, RL harassment or even on-wiki harassment. A sound administrative response would have been to reply to him with instructions and pointers on appealing his decision, both immediately and later, through dispute resolution process--Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• (4) Should GP be unblocked?
  • I would not necessarily recommend that at this time, unless Sandstein changes his mind. My thinking is that GP seems to be having difficulty recognizing the changing conditions here; his rather aggressive "frankness" was probably less of a problem, or no problem, when he began here, in 2002. However, if he requests unblock, it should be considered, and, were it me, I'd want to see some kind of acknowledgment from him regarding his part in this. He's still focused on what others did, not on what got him blocked, which wasn't them, it was his own responses to them. I've called it "impolitic," and he acknowledged that; but he seems to think that being "honest" is more important than being politically sensitive -- which means to respect how the community functions, which increasingly requires careful and cautious civility. The problem is that "honest," to him, means expressing his negative feelings. Hence he uses polemic and exaggerated terms. (I.e., the editor he's upset with isn't actually an imbecile so his honesty isn't about his knowledge, it's a dump of frustration (with what he sees as stupidity or carelessness) through uncivil language. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oral sex, chihuahuas, and hoaxes

Resolved

 – Ami Llort blocked indef. Therefore archived. Please?

We are being used to propagate a hoax. Beverly Hills Chihuahua is being vandalized frequently from multiple sources to list its director as being Gerard Damiano, the director of Deep Throat. People don't recognize the problem, edit on top of it, and it sticks for too long. Long enough that now hundreds of sites are listing Gerard Damiano as the source. This is probably 4chan, SomethingAwful, or some similar crap. This doesn't fit the normal criteria for protection, but I feel like we should at least semi-protect and maybe full-protect the article for a while. Since it isn't a standard reason, I'm bringing it here for discussion instead of WP:RFPP. I think that Ami Llort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs an indef for this one (reported at AIV), and it has also been edited in by other editors: [67] and [68], among others.—Kww(talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The account's got an indef by MoP as a vandalism-only account. I put an in-text note next to the director, so people should notice when it changes now. I'd prefer to avoid semiprotecting it, if there are other ways to address the problem. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is coordinated fact-changing vandalism afoot, an {{editnotice}} identifying the correct director would be the best solution. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody read "Ami Llort"'s name backwards? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole thing, just each word individually. Well, that's under the bridge now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted another attack. I'm watchlisting it. I wouldn't mind more escalation. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please have exact change

Carlossuarez46 is almost certainly acting in good faith, but he seems to be creating articles for every named spot on the globe (other than those for which there are already articles). —SlamDiego_←T 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they're all in Azerbaijan. I wouldn't have thought we needed a stub article on every named place in Azerbaijan, but wasn't there a ruling not too long ago? Something about villages in France, and all existing places having inherent notability? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ed. I really wish the ANI archives search wasn't so out of date. It's really annoying for finding discussions at times like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note User:Carlossuarez46 is an admin, and from discussion on his talk page, I believe work is bring done by this bot, or, perhaps, CS46 is manually supplementing the work of the bot. In any event, the whole thing seems to be a Project with many Admins & Familiar Names involved, so I think it can be assumed that it's on the up-and-up. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For searching purposes, I believe it was User:Blofeld of SPECTRE trans-creating stubs for all communes in France referred to above. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I came across this weirdness by way of “Mexico, Illinois” (in turn found by way of a disambiguation page). This particular Mexico is an obscure community within Chicago, a small part of one of the larger areas that would normally be identified as a “neighborhood” within Chicago. —SlamDiego_←T 10:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I put a {{prod}} on that one. It's not a place name. It's a 1950s nickname for Englewood, Chicago, a neighborhood in Chicago which already has a reasonably good article. At best, "Mexico, Illinois" should get it a mention in the Englewood article. One wonders how many other such bogus place name articles exist. --John Nagle (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article about Holder, Illinois that has been around for at least a year. Holder consists of a grain elevator and like 4 houses. You can't get much smaller than that, except maybe Bill, Wyoming. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hillsview, South Dakota, East Blythe, California, North Red River Township, Minnesota, Rulien Township, Minnesota, Hush Lake, Minnesota, Pfeiffer Lake, Minnesota, Livermore, New Hampshire, Point of Rocks, Wyoming, and Hobart Bay, Alaska make for some damn good reading. — CharlotteWebb 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why list the places with 3 people Charlotte? How about Hibberts Gore, Maine, population one. And the "Gore" in the name means that the place exists because of an error by the surveyor... most likely a Mr. Hibberts, but I've yet to find an online reference establishing that. Of equal 2000 population are Erving's Location, New Hampshire, Lost Springs, Wyoming, and New Amsterdam, Indiana. GRBerry 17:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that I could write an article on Flint, Ohio, were there a felt need. When last I knew, they were just a few houses and a long-derelict school house. —SlamDiego_←T 11:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring it on! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that I could stuff beans up my nose. --NE2 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Google maps show that one of the main roads leading to Bill, population 11, is Dull Center Road. I wonder where they got that name from? – Sadalmelik ☎ 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody's guess. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article “Mexico, Illinois” has been turned into a redirect. But the prior version of the article referred to a US Geological Survey entry, which in turn refers to

Hauser, Philip M. and Evelyn M. Kitigawa, editors; Local Community Fact Book for Chicago 1950. Chicago, Illinois : University of Chicago, 1953. p258

This seems, then, to be a genuine place. If consensus really supports the madness of an article on every verifiable place, then Mexico, Illionois, should ultimately have it's own article, not just a redirect. And if it should presently have a just redirect because of the lack of content, then the same should hold for the many near-zero-content articles on other locations. —SlamDiego_←T 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In theory yes we should have articles on every place. In practice past experence is that not every place listed in standard databases actualy exists.Geni 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly, some makers of atlases "salt" them with a small percentage of fake information, as "bait" for ripoff artists. Holder is a real place and I read about Bill, Wyoming, a number of years ago. I can't vouch for any of the towns in Azerbaijan, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And that doesn't even count places like Ravenstoke, Alaska. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

salting isn't to much of a problem in this case. Azerbaijan shouldn't be to bad since I would expect there to be fairly good soviet records. The problem comes when you have people makeing mistakes or missunderstaning what records there are in less well recorded areas. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination).Geni 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. A town phonier than Hooterville, and it took 3 nominations to get it purged. I've heard of Gnaa, though. It's about a stone's throw from a mysterious, elusive place called Irdt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's nice that someone finally bothered to tell me about this "incident" - If SlamDiego wanted to act in good faith, s/he would have perhaps informed me of his "issue", which had already been addressed before rather than stir up drama. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, the complainant should have quizzed you about it first, or at least notified you of the ANI discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Apologies from me -- I meant to post a note to you last night, and somehow it slipped away from me. I did intend to, though. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No, he's wrong. Even if he were right that I should have gone to him first, he's flat wrong in accusing me of not acting in good faith. And the fact that he accuses me of not acting in good faith illustrates that he is wrong that I should have gone to him first. One lesson that should be quickly learned around here is thatwhen a non-admin encounters an admin who seems to have gone off his head, it's usually best for the non-admin not to try to deal directly with the admin. Far too often, the admin reacts badly. It's best, instead, to ask someone else to look at things, which is exactly what I did here. —SlamDiego_←T 01:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • So, how's it working out so far? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Not well. But better for it to be more in the public eye if it happens. —SlamDiego_←T 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with FritzpollBot

This is not FritzpollBot (only operated by me) and this work is not sanctioned by the Geobot project. I guess he's using some of the old lists generated by some early trials. These data are potentially inaccurate, and this user is acting against a well-argued consensus of the community. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? The consensus is that all places are inherently notable. While I understand you efforts to protect your bot, your comment is way off. I am not using your data - I'm using the government's data. Could it be "potentially inaccurate" - of course, but so could the NY Times, CNN, or any other source. This was played out in a recent AFD when some one decided they couldn't find a place I added - well with a little checking including non-English language sources (Russian and Azeri) the place was found and is alive and well. If you think that there is a consensus somewhere that settlements not be added to the WP, show me where and we can go ahead and delete all of them in accordance with such a fouled up consensus or maybe we'll just WP:IAR and say that consensus smells like what it's full of... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that all places are inherently notable? I have been away for a few weeks and may have missed the discussion. The (horrific) FritzpollBot discussion is what I'm referring to, where it was made clear that there was no consensus of inherent notability of geographic locations. But if consensus has changed, then I am happy to admit that I am wrong. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES#Places. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You state that the "community" are against the creation of geographical articles but you seme to be forgetting that over 100 decent editors supported, some strongly that original "horrific" proposal which was one of the most ambitious projects ever proposed on here and a genuine one to dramatically attempt to improve wikipedia in the long term. Now I believe that government sources are necessary to identify notabiility and some basic data, which might I add Carlos has been adding to articles evne if as yet they are a little stubby. One thing however if the community is so against the creating of geo stubs, why is it EVERY time a geo sub stub article is listed at AFD it results in a Snowball keep every time because it is an article about a real world place. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant the discussion was horrific, not the idea. I'd figure that much was obvious from the similarity between the bot's name and my own... :) All I know is that whenever the community as a whole tries to discuss geo notability, there's not consensus for inherent notability Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see yes it really was a terrible discussion wasn;t it. There isn't a full agreement about inherent notabililty no I agree, another example of how peoples view differ greatly in just about every aspect of wikipedia. The consistent scenario though at AFD however stubby the article, if it can be verified as a populated place it always seem to get a resounding snowball keep. The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's mark this resolved. I see no point in further discussing the issue, since we all know how it will turn out. I've got to work on Nepal geo stubs now. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 19:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Masonic ritual and symbolism

I'm not sure what to do about this page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic ritual and symbolism was kept as no consensus with a note saying that if it was kept or merged should be a matter for the talk pages. After the debate the nominator has redirected it without discussion, saying that a merge would be easiest. I undid this and the redirect was reinserted by another editor who has a history of agreeing with the nominator. I have no idea what to do. I don't think that the article should be redirected without a proper merge vote but I don't want to start an edit war. JASpencer (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth the article started as a cut and paste from the Freemmasonry article and never got beyond that in any substantive way. The majority opinion was that it should be merged or redirected.

I'm surprised there isn't some form of interpretation of an obscure rule somewhere about it, but given the closure it was pretty clear.

This is more content dispute than anything else.

ALR (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The closure decision was to discuss whether to keep or merge, not redirect without discussion. JASpencer (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there was no substantive content that wasn't already in the main article, a merge and redirect were the same thing. I'm surprised, you're normally much more prepared than this.

ALR (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do it through a merge discussion while the page is up and allow the page to be improved during the discussion, then. JASpencer (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, process; a substitute for thinking... Not everyone takes the same slavish approach to blind obedience when there is little value in doing so.

ALR (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ALR, please try to remain civil. JASpencer seems to be consistently suggesting practical ways to improve Wikipedia; by contrast you seem to be trying to provoke an incivil response. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The former is open to interpretation. The latter, frankly I'm not too bothered how JAS responds.ALR (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50

Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to edit tendiciously across a broad swathe of template articles after being repeatedly asked (and then warned) not to do so by various editors. He's accompanied the latest reverts with a new spat of personal attacks. I can't see what's going to convince him that continually repeating himself on talk pages (sans threading) and reverting to preferred versions of articles over periods of multiple days is unacceptable / unproductive short of administrative action. His talk page and template talk:Sun Microsystems should provide an ample study of his behaviour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They were a recent discussion at WQA as well. BMW(drive) 17:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

KingsOfHearts

KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still date-warring at History of antisemitism (see above). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for edit warring/disruptive editing at History of antisemitism and other articles; for abusing edit summaries. The fact that he was given a final warning by another administrator, then minutes later conducted this revert, and was pushing the boundaries, led to his two week block. seicer | talk | contribs 14:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Returning troll

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by BlackKite

Valliant1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for persistent racist and antisemitic talk page disruption on 14 September 2008. He vowed on his talk page that he would return to cause more disruption, leaving behind some advice to the blocking admin and to me. He seems to have made good on his threat in the guise of Tybridgefarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing on 19 September 2008. Note his similar trolling of the Rodney King and Holocaust denial talk pages and talk pages of related articles. Compare also the promiscuous use of caps by Valliant1967 on his own talk page to Tybridgefarm's similar use on Talk:Rodney King. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking this situation over. I think it is a pretty obvious sock puppet and don't see any problem with a permanent block. --Leivick (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I'll mention that Valliant1967 was identified as a sockpuppet of Bannedtruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to ask for reaction to the idea of treating this user as banned and reverting on sight. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody going to deal with this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. You might often find a delay in the UTC morning hours, as North American editors are asleep and European ones are at college or work. Black Kite 10:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Masonfamily

Masonfamily (talk · contribs)

Masonfamily's contributions strongly suggest that s/he is not a new user. His first edit is this. S/he even talks about Wikipedia:Deletion policy[69]. These are not somthing a new user can do. S/he seems familiar with complicated policies. S/he cannot be a new editor and might be someone who was blocked before.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're doing something wrong it's not unacceptable. Grsz^X 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

She's been around since July. Nothing to see here. Blueboy96 17:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note Just for your information, Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) is confirmed as the sockpuppeter of Robert Houdini (talk · contribs) per checkuser[70] at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa although he constantly excuses himself with his implausible "brother theory".[71] Recently, Michale also canvassed to 2channel, the biggest web forum of Japan to keep South Korean cultural claims from being deleted via WP:AFD. As the result, many socks/spas emerged at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination). He also did the same thing and supposedly used a sock/or meatpuppet from his alleged brother, Robert Houndini for Uriginal.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uriginal&diff=141120087&oldid=141115112] I think the user is the one who should deserve to get careful attentions by admins for the obvious evidences. Moreover, the user's first contribution was to upload a lot of bashing copyrighted images for 2002 FIFA World Cup. Along with him, another sockpuppeter's offsprings are not blocked yet, so the RFCU case should be taken care of from now.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can some one please help with a vandal

Resolved

 – User blocked. SoWhy 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This vandal 216.135.96.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made several disruptive edits in the past few days to William Howard Taft. Please can we block him or do something. I would but I am not an Admin.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked it. In future please direct such requests to administrator intervention against vandalism. Regards SoWhy 17:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenian genocide debate

Resolved

 – Done by User:Redvers

Will someone please put protection on Armenian genocide debate as it has been subject to two cut and past moves in less than 12 hours. I would do it myself but I am an active editor of the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the wrong version for three days and asked people to discuss on the talk page. It doesn't look to me that the original move had consensus, but the revert war afterwards was just silly. Jaw-jaw, please. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Threat made by banned user

Resolved

 – semi protected for duration of block Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This user 216.135.96.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been given a three day ban for vandalism, but posted a threat at the top of his own talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Royxomonuchi

Royxomonuchi (talk · contribs)

Could an image-savvy admin please talk to this user? I think they just need to be given a good explanation and perhaps a good policy link or two. I would wade in myself but I don't have a good knowledge of image policy (particularly fair use).

They've been uploading hi-res box art for Playstation3 video games, and edit warring to include them in the relevant articles. So far, they've been blocked once (Disruptive editing: Edit warring and disruption on image pages after multiple warnings) and have not changed their behaviour since the block expired.

Thanks in advance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ze vandalism on Shamokin, Pennsylvania

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinetely by User:Ioeth RoryReloaded is an I.Q guy (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some bloke called Jefffoxworthy345 who is continually vandalising Shamokin, Pennsylvania with things like "SAM EATS BUTT" on 1 of the sections. I have had to warn him 2 times in a row, almost a third revert. Upon my hypothesis on whom he is, he is most probably a new sockpuppet vandal SPA. I'll inspect the contribs and see what else is there. If there is vandalism all over, I would deeply have a blocking concern. I'll check now. RoryReloaded is an I.Q guy (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK - blocked indef. RoryReloaded is an I.Q guy (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated removal of speedy tag

Resolved

 – Both deleted. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would any admin with a moment please look at Cardiff airport parking, a non-notable parking company whose db-inc tag I have just replaced for the FIFTH time? Since its SPA author got to a level 3 warning, an IP has taken over removing the tag. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted and salted... It should be done with now. If it comes back under another guise, let us know again, and we can take care of it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The same SPA has also put in Silver zone parking which I have just tagged - perhaps you could look at that one too before the same game starts there? JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done (i.e. salted). --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR enquiry

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#1RR enquiry per suggestion.

Myself and User:Boodlesthecat are subject to 1RR restriction. At Żydokomuna, I have reverted Boody's once and I ceased, per 1RR. But he has been revert warring there, before and after my edit (he is now at 3 reverts there), with incivil edit summaries - and in addition to edit warring, he claims that me and Tymek are spreading anti-semitic propaganda ("This is Jew baiting claptrap. Pure and simple. tymek and Piotrus think the article is simply a repository for them to insert arbitrary claims about evil Jews"...as a justification of your own attempts to make this entry into a vehicle for anti-semitic libels"" and so on). Is his behavior acceptable in light of our 1RR restriction and our other editorial policies? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The ADHD article and Scuro

scuro (talk has removed the same line of text more then three times on the ADHD article. The line of text was refering to the controversy about ADHD in the lead. This user has also removed previous well formated and peer reviewed sources muiltple times from the lead. Have warrmed him about his edits with no effect. He went to the village pump were this issue was discussed and the conclusion was that the references were less good then what they were repaced with. He still reverted them back. Would appreciate if someone could look into this. ADHD is a page on an important topic. This editor makes it very difficult to make improvement as he just reverts anything that doesn't match his POV back to were it was before.

Many thanks in these matters. --Doc James (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I'm suffering extremely similar problems with Scuro on the ADHD controversies article, however I believe I am slowly making progress without admin help so don't worry about it if you're busy. 92.4.125.88 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd point out that the "Disorder" section has no sources whatsoever, so removing it isn't controversial. If you could source it, that would be a different matter. Black Kite 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the line of text that has been removed by scuro greater then three time. This however is just one of the many disruptive and uncooperative edits made by Scuro. If you read thru the talk pages they become apparent. As the user above states he is also doing the same thing on the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. Scuro denies the exsistance of any contraversy arround ADHD except when it comes to medicating toddlers:

• ADHD is one of the most controversial psychiatric disorders.

This is perhaps less straightforward than Doc James has said. In fact Doc James has made many changes to the article quite successfully - sometimes 30 a day. There are only a few points of disagreement but DJ has been very upset about these and seems to have had trouble working collaboratively to iron these out. --Vannin (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a large chunk that part of the problem with Scuro is essentially one content dispute: that Scuro rejects the existence of any controvery around ADHD. I suspect he honestly believes he's in the right, but his view is so far detached from reality that it is completely incompatible with happy editing. Possibly a RFC over the existence of ADHD controversy would be a more effective way of aiding understanding than trying to get him topic banned. Although admittedly a topic ban would solve the problem by default. Going by his reaction to this discussion, I'm going to say that it would be very helpful to have an administrator keeping their eye on him afterall. 92.4.125.88 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Check talk, I've asked repeatedly that other contributors focus on content and seek consensus on editing. Repeatedly, I have been on the receiving end of personal attacks. Repeatedly, my requests to seek consensus have been ignored. Instead we see a "might is right" approach to editing, where editors make sure something sticks on the page by escalating to edit warring to a point where I will not go. It is only when I have sought outside opinion, which backs up what I have been saying all along, do they relent and allow my edits to sick on the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_55#WRT_ADHD_Can_one_cite_web_based_information_from_the_Mayo_Clinic.3F

When I have removed something from the page I have clearly stated why in talk. The reasoning has been rock solid and I don't believe DJ has ever made an honest attempt to seek consensus on any specific issue when I raise them on talk. On the ADHD page I don't believe I have had more then several words stick on the page since DJ appeared on the scene. Take a look at the edit summary history. DJ has made hundreds of edits. The few edits of mine that have been allowed to stick are the ones that reinsert material that was already on the page. Even as they file complaints they are doing multiple edits.

In fact, the specific sentence that DJ is complaining about was not removed but inserted lower into the article. If he had read the edit summary he would know this. It was removed from the lead because the sentence, up until today when new sources were offered, was minority opinion of three people who would not be considered experts in the field. I saw no reason to include minority opinion in the lead.

92 has made personal attacks in this hearing, it's just one of many I have endured from both editors. If this case is to be taken seriously, I would want both editors to be considered for censure as part of this process.--scuro (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well that's the last time I stick up for you. 92.4.125.88 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Scuro makes lots of accusation. There have been multiple other instances of this in his past. He has been sited for POV pushing in the past.--Doc James (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and this ain't the first time that people have made formal, groundless accusations against me. What's your point? That I deal with tough articles that sometimes attract rabid contributors hell bent on getting the truth out?

I have never been censured. I play by the rules, I seek consensus, I assume good faith, and if I make an formal accusation you can bet I can back it up. How do you stack up on that score, Jmh?--scuro (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

NO Scuro, you make up your own rules and rewrite the guidelines to suit yourself then try to enforce what they don't even say as if they were law, you don't seek consensus you just tell people to seek consensus and claim that anyone disagreeing with you isn't doing so, your frequent threatening of anyone who disagrees with you is an obvious example of your lack of assuming good faith and talking of those threats, hell no you can't back many of them up, maybe in your mind you can but not in reality. Why don't you try to follow your own suggestions and work with us rather than trying to force your own views into articles and shouting and threatening when people disagree with you. Or better still, just leave us in peace to try to improve the articles in question, because any and all editors who aren't scuro are welcome to look at the recent history of the ADHD controversies page and it's talk, and judge for themselves exactly who here is trying to improve the article and who is being disruptive. 92.3.127.176 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue will calm down now, as an experienced editor - Vaoverland - has come on board and has volunteered to collaborate with DJ. This type of mentoring will be very helpful to reduce his mass reverts and should be just what the article needs.--Vannin (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I haven't looked at his contribs lately, but Scuro is a long-term SPA dedicated to articles generally relating to ADHD. He's been relatively hostile to "controversy" in the field, aggressively removing references to it, even when reasonably sourced. However, he's also been responsive to warnings about edit warring, can be cooperative at times, and, overall, if restrained, I'd conclude he's an asset to the project. The participation of experienced editors in those articles has normally been enough to keep the consensus process working; my concern would be, though, that as a long-term SPA, as the attention of other experienced editors moves away, Scuro moves back in. I have not been able to give those articles the attention they deserve, and occasional review simply doesn't cut it, too many changes are made, it's like rolling the boulder back up the mountain. Over time, in my view, the quality of the articles has declined (last time I looked), as various sides demand perfection in sourcing or strict "balance," slicing up each other's contributions. The articles, thus, become more reliable, in a sense, but far less interesting and informative. We should have both, and it can be done, when the consensus process works and the sides all share that goal: informative, reliable. And interesting. I.e., a good encyclopedia. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow a reunion of old friends! ;) Hey I openly admit that I focus on a few pages that all deal with mental health in one way or the other. ABD, you see that as a negative but I'll tell you that the tenacity of editors attracted to these pages suck up all of my time on Wikipedia. I'd love to see a month go by where wholesale changes by dogmatic contributors didn't occur on the few pages where I have done a fair bit of editing. That doesn't really happen. So yeah, I'd like to work on the Chess article or music articles but the amount of bad changes that I see happen on a daily basis give me no free time here.

Funny that you chimed in Abd. Like you Doc James has done a good job to make sure I am "restrained", have no worries in that regard. He also didn't like the term neurobehavioural, disorder, or chronic in the lead...so that battle is still being fought. With you, he shares a fixation that the term controversy is presented exactly as he wants it in the lead and he also escalates to all out edit warring to keep it the way. Really things haven't changed much at all.--scuro (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Giano blocked (and unblocked)

Resolved

 – Storm. Teacup. And also wandering off onto other issues. Therefore archived. Please? Black Kite 23:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Presented without comment, and with still less intention of participating in the ensuing shitstorm: [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77] Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was also this [78]--Tznkai (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block notice by Tzknai at User_talk:Giano_II#Block_10.2F2. Not a great block. And Moreschi already unblocked. rootology ( C)(T) 23:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unblocked. We can't use blocks to bully people into writing more kindly like this - particularly when we KNOW it doesn't work with Giano. He just becomes more forthright. Moreoever, by Giano's standards that was very, very mild. Moreschi (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• SirFozzie is tough enough to endure a little criticism from Giano. It is part of an Arbitrator's job description... Jehochman ^Talk 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I have grave concerns about this block. SirFozzie made statement announcing his intention to run for ArbCom. Giano called him on some of its content in strong terms calling the statement "bolox". Apparently now Giano is blocked lest he agrees to remove his assertions that SirFozzie's statement is inaccurate. The effect of this seems to me to be to stifle criticism - a use civility blocks that really isn't acceptable. People should be free to ask tough questions bluntly without nannying "civility" blocks. I urge an unblock in this case. WJBscribe (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Essentially, it's been empirically proven that blocking Giano for civility vios does not make him more civil. It does the reverse. So don't block him for this. Moreschi (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate that this might be satirical in nature, if there is a long-term problem with Giano in any way at all, can someone tell me why he's still here? --Rodhullandemu 23:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Because we get far more good out of Giano than bad. Moreschi (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent decision. Now you might lift the "probation" this same Admin imposed on me for....we'll, he doesn't seem to be sure actually, but he doesn't like something about me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, no, I'm not likely to be pressing for you to be unsanctioned, Sarah. Have you forgotten who you're talking to? I'm the racist English imperialist who thinks all those outside my little island are irrational scum, remember? The one devoted to promoting systemic bias? Moreschi (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just because I parodied your daft essay! Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you said that, not me. But any port in a storm. You find it all here, a real pacy read, unputdownable. Are you saying your Admin responsibilities are conditional on agreeing politically with abused editors? Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did say it. And what "admin responsibilities"? Do they exist? I particularly like "abused editors". Is that supposed to make me change my opinion that you should have been banned long ago? I don't care what you got sanctioned for, I just want you gone. Anything that helps with the assisted-movement-out-the-door process is fine by me. And no, it's not politics, it's just WP:TIGERS. Moreschi (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers seems to sum you up pretty well; but is that really the sort of editor we want running loose as Administrators on Wiki?? Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no. You're the one with the strong opinions (the mention of the phrase "British Isles" seems to make you sick). But hey, it's obviously terribly smart to go round insulting people and then expect them to do you favours. After all, one must protect all minority points of view we can possibly find in order to avoid systemic bias! Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Look, guys.. I don't want to become the center of the drama. I don't like having to explain to Giano (yet again), that no, I didn't create the ArbCom case to get him, or at any one else's direction (he seems to think that I'm a puppet for one or more Arbitration Commitee members, when that's the furthest from the truth. However, right or wrong, Giano will believe what Giano believes. I did not call for his statement to be refactored, or to be blocked. I'm hoping that this does not turn into another 200KB Wikipedia production of Much Ado About Nothing.. Tznkai is right to expect better behavior from Giano, but we don't need to fight the Giano/civility wars again.. do we? SirFozzie (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fozzie. Glad to have finally got your attention. Would you remove the "probation" please? Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah777, I have a habit of not undoing other administrator's actions without getting consensus first, even if I wasn't of the mind that the whole Troubles thing needs MORE restrictions, not less, because there have been too many edit wars amongst too many people already. But let me look things over. SirFozzie (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So if blocking doesn't help Giano follow the civility policy, what do we do instead? It's all very well saying "it's Giano", but obviously if blocking people for not following that policy doesn't work, why is it still a policy? -- how do you turn this on 23:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance it needed to be said, I'm not going to argue about the block or the unblocking or try to have it overturned or whatever. I did what I thought was proper, and another admin disagreed. As far as I'm concerned, that ends that part of it.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do it again. It's not the idea of blocking Giano that missed the mark, no one should get a free pass... it's how you carried it out. You threatened him, demanded a refactor, and then blocked him, all worded in what struck me as a bit impetuous way. At least it wasn't all in the span of 5 minutes but still... please put a bit more thought into your actions and consider gaining consensus for them when they are likely to be controversial. I hope you've learned a valuable lesson. You've been gone a long time and things are not exactly the same as they were when you were here before. Plunging in doesn't seem a good approach to me. Civility blocks do not work. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not "threaten" him. I strongly recommended he refactor, I gave him specifics on where I thought the problem was, he reverted, I blocked with the aforementioned notices. As for not doing it again, I will not, because clearly the community doesn't want me to.--Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I find this block beyond belief and it is difficult to surprise me, i must say. This is an incredible lack of judgment. That Giano would be unblocked in no time was beyond doubt. But I remain firmly believing that only on the spot desysoppings for such self-serving exercises may alleviate the situation of such outrageous blocks. The reason is easy to see. Most (even if not all) of those who blocked Giano do not build encyclopedia but are having an alternative career on-wiki. For admins who don't write, the horror of desysopping would be a very well working self-restriction because the lack of the bit (with removed #admins access) would leave them lost here. I am not blood-thirsty by any measure. But the truly outrageous actions got to prompt an adequate and swift response. --Irpen 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the desysopping. Most (even if not all) of those who blocked me do not build encyclopedia but are having an alternative career on-wiki. mMybe you'd look into my case Irpen, or are you another one of those things that Moreschi calls himself :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, come on. Tznkai's been away for a couple of years, it's natural that he's not going to have been following every inch of Giano drama during that time. This is just a good faith mistake. Moreschi (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If I ever go away for a couple of years I am not going to just plunge right back into the thick of things. This is not the first matter that Tznkai seems to have jumped into. Seems unwise to me. And Sarah: This is not about you. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was "probationed" by the same Admin for even less reason that Giano was blocked by him. But I see from Moreschi above that this is all political and obviously having expressed non-mainstream views in the past puts one outside the normal due process, such as it is in Wiki. Maybe you'd look into my case Lar? Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent :) No, quite possibly you were sanctioned wrongly, and I would look into it if I weren't just about to fall asleep. You'll have to wait till morning. I'm just mocking your ludicrous expectations that you can freely insult people and then still expect them to do your bidding. Moreschi (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "bidding" - I asked politely. But your response read more like your personal Administrator Manifesto than mere mocking. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Giano's talk page access restricted?

Giano says on his talk that through the block Tznkai restricted Giano's ability to post to User talk:Giano II. I'm lost at how that happened--if so, is that appropriate? rootology (C)(T) 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• NO further administrative action is required here, as far as I can tell. I move to close this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• • No further admin action is needed. Second. WilyD 23:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. The no talk page editing thing is just the only dangling participle here. rootology (C)(T) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The block logs shows that Tznkai didn't set that - if Giano couldn't edit his talk page, it must be a bug. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is quite serious. I already dislike the idea of this new block feature, but with bugs it's really quite serious. It means that users could be blocked from editing their talkpage - one of the most common methods of appeal - without us knowing this. Compare Tsnkai's block to this test one - Giano should have been able to edit his talkpage. The fact that he could not is worrying as we have no idea what the extent of this problem is. WJBscribe (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla, and perhaps request that the feature be disabled until such time as it works flawlessly. It not very difficult or frequently needed to protect the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just theoretically

I reversed an admin action without discussion. Does that mean I should be sanctioned somehow? Particularly given that I've done this before? Do my actions not constitute wheel-warring? Moreschi (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically yes. But for practical purposes, let's just stop. Please. —kurykh 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not wheel warring, no. Possibly a violation of blocking policy. Those are two different critters. I suggest that this should be ignored as no harm was done and there was an emerging consensus to unblock Giano. Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Talkpage editing bug

Just a related note, separate from Giano--WJBscribe and I just ran my account through some tests, and whatever happened to Giano's talk page was a bug. See here and here. He's going to drop a bugzilla on this. rootology (C)(T) 23:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that I have filed a bug report in relation to this: Bugzilla:15812. WJBscribe (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This matter seems far from resolved, I want this incompetent apology for an Admin fired, and fired fast! Comments such as this [79] show a stupidity, naivety and unacceptable degree of ignorance as to the way Wikipedia works, or at least is supposed to work, and I stress supposed! - and who archived the above with such unseemly haste - it's archived when I have donw with it! seldom have I seen such blaten abuse on wikipedia, if you lot don't care, I certainly do! "Use IRC it is quicker indeed" - I bet it bloody is! Giano (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget this one [80] where he blocked someone 24 hours for stating the opinion that a just-defrocked admin was "horribly bad". He was promptly slapped down for that one, and the block lasted all of one hour. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I want a unicorn that can fire death rays from its horn. I think it's perfectly acceptable request. HalfShadow 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, as those death rays come out in a spiral. But right you get that, we'll get a healthy dose of pigs on the wing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All I want is a small pony that can disintegrate things with it's forehead. IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK?! HalfShadow 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They have them at Wal*Mart. Look for them in the same aisle as the Wayback Machines and the Vegematics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam-only account

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

A ten month old account posted a complaint over removal of external links to the talk page of a featured article.[81] Prior to that post, the account's only activity had been to add links to a particular domain that was recently removed from the featured article.[82][83][84] Requesting independent review and action. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked through that account's total contributions, and I compared it to the histories articles in question, to see if this was a sockfarm of some sort. I didn't see anything that raised my attention; the additions were not re-added by other accounts as far as I can tell, and other than a snippy tone in the talk page post, I don't see anything blockable or actionable yet. You've done a fine job of reminding them of NPA and AGF, unless we can tie this to a larger issue, I don't know what else we can do here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Spam-only accounts can be blocked per Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption when there isn't any encyclopedia-building activity. Durova^Charge! 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Our good faith contributors are not required to wear out their fingers endlessly reverting spam, and responding to frivolous complaints. Jehochman ^Talk 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think COIbot could probably deal with this, it is not high volume. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IP redirecting talk page

Weird one. This IP 216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs) is redirecting their talk page to User talk:User216.153.214.89 in protest of something or other [85]. The User216... page clearly shows they have been blocked, I'm bringing it here for admin attention. Seems disruptive to me. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not really disruptive -- at most, they're going to confuse the hell out of some anonymous user happening to access Wikipedia via that IP address. However, given the five day period during which this same person has been editing from that IP address it stands to reason it's a pretty static IP, so I don't think there's any serious cause for concern. The situation is a bit weird though, since the anon's talk page obviously can't be salted -- but then again, given the context I don't think there's any real harm being done. --Gutza ^{T T+} 22:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly confusing. It doesn't make sense to me to redirect your talk page, which is the only way anyone has to discuss things with you, to a page that says the user has been blocked (with no explanation). If I just logged on to make a comment there, I would assume the user is blocked and move along. Dayewalker (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing, yes, by all means. However, disruptive, at least in my opinion, no. I suggest we let it be for the time being, and only address the issue if anyone is affected in any way by this. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The only possibility I can think of is that it might be disruptive if anti-vandalism tools that issue warnings would follow the redir and make the warning at the target rather than destroying the redir and warning on that page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

True. However, given the history of the account (see above) I think it is reasonable to expect the IP is static; as such, the registered user is indeed using the same computer as the anonymous user, in which case there really is no difference between the two accounts (user pages and talk pages respectively). Incidentally, I think we're splitting hairs. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User adding libelous information to articles

Resolved

 – zot. --barneca (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please block Big777d (talk · contribs) who adds libelous and defamatory information to biography articles of living persons, see [86], [87], [88]. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

blocked. --barneca (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

childish vandalism is better not dignified by being called libelous and defamatory, just stupid. in the spirit of RBI.DGG (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasant stuff from User:TV Stations, and apparent related sockpuppetry

User:TV Stations is producing some rather unpleasant material at User:Phuntsok2000/Nickerlodeon. They have also made a number of other edits in Phuntsok2000's userspace: sockpuppetry?

Also, various bogus edits to articles about TV broadcasts in the "Mushroom Kingdom". Could this be the same user who was creating fake TV stations some time ago? If so, I wonder if they have been editing under any other accounts recently? -- The Anome (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Yes, this looks the same person as Phuntsok2000 (talk · contribs): their userspace is full of garbage -- preparation for later vandalism, I wonder? -- The Anome (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Update 2: searching for "WGFO" finds other messes, such as at List of NBC slogans, which I haven't yet been able to discern which edits are clear nonsense, sneaky vandalism, or attempts to clear up vandalism. It's possible that some of the other editors are also Phuntsock. -- The Anome (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Uodate 3: Anime Channel (talk · contribs) looks like they may be the same editor... -- The Anome (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we may have a bigger problem. Phuntsok2000 (talk · contribs) and TV Stations (talk · contribs) are obviously the same person, both blocked by others. I've just gone through and cleared out all of Phuntsok's user space. It's all a mix of alternative history cruft, obvious nonsense, not so obvious nonsense, and sneaky vandalism to copies of articles. Since User:TV Stations was using the user space, I figured his socks would probably return, so I just nuked all the subpages. I have not looked at Anime Channel (talk · contribs), and I have to log off for the night now, but someone should look at this, and maybe file a Checkuser to see if there's a whole sockfarm or not. --barneca (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT page Admin problems

The Admins are acting partial when it comes to the edition of Arjun MBT page. Admin don't value each edit based on their criteria but always revert my edit. Not only that when asked them to take a totally impartial stance by having the first version that existed before the edit issue (that version was a verified version and got B-class article status) they don't agree and stick with a non-agreeable incorrect version based on a wrong PIB report. Atleast I want them to stick to rules when editing Wiki. The other things like high handedness, blocking, partiality etc can be tolerated.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, you were blocked twice for reverting to an edit was rejected by consensus, despite advanced warnings. Moreover, you were blocked once for personal attacks on your fellow editors and admins. So don't cry wolf here.By78 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but this user is currently blocked in relation to this dispute. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, his block for that just expired. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Woops, my bad. It seems I can't do simple math in my head in the wee hours of the morning. To that effect, I believe I shall turn in. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say, stop reverting back to an older version. Move on. The article has added new content. The older version was also in violation of some policy changes (like the use of flags), so I don't see a problem with User:Jauerback's reverts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of flags can be removed, that are minor issue. The present version is with a inaccurate information based on the PIB report. Hence an impartial stance is to restore the original B-class version which you can see met all the criteria of a B-class version article. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

An impartial stance is not to revert to this version from July repeatedly and complain when no one else agrees. The fact that that was the version that was rated is an absurd argument for sticking with that exact same version (especially when it violates multiple MOS changes we have had since then). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A revert was made to List of main battle tanks by country in which Arjun MBT edit was made by By78 "" and I had asked him not to do it since amount to speculation. The reason for it is that the DRDO wants 500 more Arjun's to be produced. Whereas the DGMF don't want more than 124. What will be the end result. No one knows. Why speculate. The Government may agree with the DGMF, Indian Army or agree with the DRDO based on which Arjun's will be produced. How can one say that only 124 will be produced. There is even a chance of DGMF changing his mind and stick with the Arjun. No speculation please. Admins please take note that there are two versions. Which option is selected will be known afterwards. Until then have patience.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The army orders the tanks, not the tank's developer (DRDO). By your logic, Boeing would make decisions on how many F-18s US navy should purchase. Besides, mine was not speculation at all. I provided a source to back up my claim. If you prefer, I will add additional sources. By78 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says they are ordering 124. Why is saying that they are ordering 124 then unreasonable to you? It is not speculative to say what exactly they are doing right now. You keep on wanting a version from months and months ago and adamantly refuse to budge. I'll leave it to the talk page, but anyone wants to compare can decide between the version from July or the newer one with more current information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are again mistaken. The order for 124 has already been placed. Some already delivered to the Army and further ones is ready to be handed over. The total will be around 90. It's not unreaonable for me to mention 124, that's what I want it to be. But the guys try to add comments like "no more than 124" etc. This is about predictiion. It may be 500 as well or even more who knows. I ask them not to speculate but put it as 124. No personal opinions, predictions etc. Regarding the version, I am not allowed to edit the page (gets reverted by the Admins) for months and months. And all others are allowed to add anything without any source. I am complaining about such actions for months and even tried reverting the articles by giving links. Not only that the article again got reverted but I got blocked as well. This story continues. The newer one did not have any new info but pure personal opinion and edits (more like a blog like). The present version even don't have what was there in the old one. Many with credible links were removed with edits without providing sources. When I intervened, got the article reverted and me blocked. The last one had all the correct info except the latest trials.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You insisted on 424 units of Arjun in service but changed it to 90 when I provided a source to debunk your original number. However, 90 isn't correct either because 124 Arjuns are expected. By78 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Even a version with all viewpoints existed with credible links that can be seen in the talk page under compromise section. That never was admitted by the Admin because By78 said "I don't agree" Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say your compromise version accounts for all viewpoints does not make it so. Your edits are rejected because they were POV pushing.By78 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Having all versions is not POV pushing, it's called neutrality. And if you accuse me of POV pushing can you prove that?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Having one version that is sourced and another that is just speculation is POV pushing. Either way, I've completely redone the article into chronological so I think it's moot. Chanakya, you need to provide a source for your view. Musing that the other sources are just inadequate and should be removed without any evidence are not improving the article. I suggest closing this section, for the arguments to repeat themselves for the most part at Talk:Arjun MBT. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The army themselves have admitted that the PIB report is a mistake. They said no engine problems during the trials. Only minor gear box problems. Even the gun performance was exceptionally well.[89]

Give it up. This source of yours is a BLOG. What did we say about using BLOGs as sources? By78 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now what you and your fellow Admins are going to do?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You are gonna get blocked again if you revert to your POV version.

Questionable Username

Please be very careful to respect the request I made on my talk page.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I originally posted about this at WP:UAA and after a bit of discussion, we all thought it best to bring it here. The user in question is IReceivedDeathThreats (talk · contribs). While s/he makes it clear on their user page why they chose such a name, I'm not sure if it's the best thing to have around, and thus brought it here for discussion. Of particular concern is the last sentence on the user page, which reads to look up Gator1 (talk · contribs). This statement seems like a suggestion that Gator1, an admin, is the threatener, pointing a finger that may not be appropriate. Anyways, just thought I would bring it up to hear some opinions. Grsz^talk 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it should be suggested to the editor they change it. If anything, it distracts from the project and may even solicit inquiry from others in an attempt to find out who did what, where, when and how. As to the last point of "look up...", it is very suggestive and in this context could be viewed as a WP:PA. Better to stop this now, than have to redress it at some point in the future.--JavierMC 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not and did not intend to suggest "Gator1, an admin, is the threatener". I'm happy to clarify that on my user page. Well, except I see you've gone and edited my user page for me, simply deleting the reference. Happy now? Fine by me. I note you did so without giving me time to respond to this ANI. I do not feel comfortable elaborating on why I feel I need to retain the name IReceivedDeathThreats. IIRC, the reference to Gator1 was that the former user Gator1 was a threatenee (so to speak; not real words). Looks like the reference ("Look up ex-user Gator1.") no longer makes sense, even when I look through the visible history, probably due to some article or page history deletion, and a possibly completely different person now using the username Gator1. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking I might change my user ID to "IReceivedTelemarketingCallsAtSuppertime". Oh, the humanity! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you take that back or strike it through, as it is uncivil.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He can call himself by that provocative name, and I can make gentle fun of it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't do that and be civil. Especially when someone had just put in a formal request for me to be banned immediately. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You chose your user name, no one else. So don't complain if you get slings and arrows about it. Or merely pies, in this case. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it uncivil, rude, and offensive. Perhaps you've never received a serious death threat. It's not fucking funny. I am complaining. You be happy self-control, C and AGF limit it to that. I'm tired of this. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want people to comment on your username, then it shouldn't be your username! Grsz^talk 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=242411413 nice. You closed the discussion, then you insult me again. Nice.

Troll.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you take that back or strike it through, as it is uncivil.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WOW! You say that and then you go and call me a troll! I would suggest you take back your own uncivil statement you made on your talk page (in an edit summary): "removed trollish comment". I'd say more but if I did, I fear you'd say I was being uncivil. WHERE'S MY FUCKING GOLD MEDAL BARNSTAR FOR HOLDING MY TONGUE?  :) --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grsz11&diff=next&oldid=242382749 - Grsz11 claims he never asked for me to be blocked. And yet Grsz11 did exactly that!

Also, Grsz11 removed questions/comments I put on Grsz11:Talk without replying or providing any sort of explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You accused him, and stated it as a fact, that he reported you because of political reasons. There is no evidence of this, and you appear to just be throwing accusations around.

To others, I have a feeling this user is trying to make a point.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 01:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Posting on UAA is a request for the user to be blocked. I don't see how this could be construed as a vio of the username policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Properly read, posting at UAA is not a request for a block in the way that posting at AIV more or less is. Sometimes a mere {{uw-username}} on the talk page is enough. Many times the user with the questionable name never edits again, or never edits at all ... the concern note has made them rethink what they were thinking of doing. Or they request a change or open a new account. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that UAA was wrong, I missed the blatant part, but either way irrelevant. They told me to bring it here, and here it is. No harm done at UAA. Here is the full bit at UAA. Grsz^talk 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with your 'no harm done' claim! I still have a vandalism accusation from you on my page. And an outstanding AFD on TronixCountry (and you didn't even follow step 3 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AfD_footer Step 4. Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|TronixCountry}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s). You were nasty. I'd say an apology is in order; I don't see the word sorry in even one place.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

bump!--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No further good can come out of this. The user doesn't have to change the name because it is in no way disruptive or in violation of the username policy. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Praise FSM!--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik: Oh, I don't know, I think the name is inherently disruptive, whether intended to be or not. Personally, I think it's creepy. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The name looks like a problem to me, whatever its genesis. But isn't there a proper place for reviewing names? Wikidemon (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, based on the point that the user filling this request made at UAA, the fact that it could be disruptive by instilling a thought in another user, such as, oh, he/she received death threats, [various words expressing sympathy, etc]. That wasn't exactly the wording, but it's as best as I can remember right now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Names such as "DeathThreatsAreBad", "IWouldNeverSendADeathThreat", "OnlyEvilPeopleUseDeathThreats" or "HowISpentMySummerVacationWithoutReceivingAnyDeathThreats" would be just as disruptive. There's no real reason why, with all the possibilities available, the phrase "death threats" needs to be allowed in a user name. I would like to request to IRDT, who is certainly monitoring this discussion, that they change their name to something which is not disruptive to the community. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It could. I think that the user should change their name but shouldn't be indef blocked for it (which is what a request at UAA is advocating for). Change the username to something less disturbing, but don't block for a username vio. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lame spillover

Can someone take a look at this? IRDT is now using his Twinkle to revert edits I made on my talk page. Grsz^talk 01:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is inane. I reverted my own edit, with a full edit summary explanation, immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grsz11&diff=next&oldid=242385887. But Grsz decides to complain anyway, 15 minutes later!?! Not to mention that he removed --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Struck the above. It was hard to tell what was going on it all those edits. Grsz^talk 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't even worth it anymore. IRDT has turned this into a personal war on the world and discussion of his disruptive username has been thrown aside. Grsz^talk 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its mch better than if it were 'I give death threats', isn't it?:) Sticky Parkin 03:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Or IWasTheVictimOfIndecentExposure. Grsz^talk 03:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken to RFC/N

Yes, there is a place to decide this: WP:RFC/N, which is where I feel debates about a username should go when the user himself sees no harm and hasn't done anything otherwise blockable. Maybe we should take this there? Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Grsz^talk 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have opened the RFC there, where this discussion should be continued. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked for some time off from this arguing and explained why and what I thought was up on my talk page, saved the edit, and then moved it to Daniel's talk page. It's disappeared from both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here and here. Now please stop disrupting this page. Grsz^talk 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think those are the edits I'm talking about. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you then refer us to the edits you are talking about? Then we can refocus at RFC/N and mark this AN/I thread as resolved. Franamax (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

After reading through this entire thread, and the following thread on WP:RFCN, I have blocked IReceivedDeathThreats for violation of the username policy. While the patience of the community and its admins is great, it is not infinite, and the degree to which we have been subjected to trolling and irrelevance in this case is already too great. In addition to this thread, a number of IRDT's other edits have been problematic, including his user page, and his explanations for them constructed in a way that does not contribute to the project. However, it's just a username softblock, and if he wants to come back with a new account and be a good editor, that's OK, at least with me. --MCB (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He has now reincarnated as User:IRDT, with the same general approach to things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to AGF with him and suggested he make a clean start, and got showered with profanity for my troubles. So far, the new User:IRDT does not have a single productive edit. Dayewalker (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, his purpose is to continue the diatribe of his predecessor account. I'm assuming the admins are asleep currently, or they would have blocked his new user ID by now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the history, please note the section that he keeps trying to add. [90] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I stated earlier this user seemed to be only here to violate WP:POINT, I can't see that's changed. His fascination with equating the loss of his user name to "rape" is quite troubling. [91] [92] [93] Dayewalker (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. As I was about to say before the WP:ANI page got vandalized... It's evident that his sole purpose is disruption. The admin showed him a lot of good faith and he stomped on it, as he did with you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in at WP:AIV. They might not take it, because it's under discussion here (as I told them), but it's worth a try. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Which they didn't. It will require an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. I have absolutely no issue, for the record, with anyone reviewing or modifying my action but the above did seem to justify acting. Orderinchaos 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a solid block to me, preventing more drama.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too...I also filled in the notice and removed his rants from his user talk page. --Smashville^talk 14:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them from his user page as well. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did just that - not protecting quite yet...at least give him a chance to maybe ask for forgiveness/request an unblock. --Smashville^talk 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be an unexpected turn of events. In any case, the user seems to have been around for at least a year, unless he was renamed from something else. He had a chip on his shoulder from the beginning, but the nomination of an article or two of his, as being non-notable, apparently pushed him over the edge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Was there ever any reason to block this guy before you guys started fucking around about his perfectly fine username or is this block completely the fault of this thread? I received mail 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was against the username at WP:RFCN. He was blocked for the username violation. Then he created another and continued to harass and disrupt, and was blocked for that. Grsz^X 17:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation: "No, there wasn't. We are the real trolls here because we hounded this guy about his harmless username until he flipped and we got to block him. Now hopefully we can continue this pattern of being worthless to the encyclopedia while simultaneously ruining other people." I received change 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine then, if you think everything here was worthless, unblock him. Grsz^X 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

John, do you believe there was a different consensus that we are not seeing? Do you not think perhaps there is a better, more civil way to go about this than shooting your guns blindly into the dark? --Smashville^talk 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz / Grsz11

Grsz11's behaviour toward me in the following incident (see Questionable Username, immedately below, at least 'till it's archived) was uncivil. (Putting this here, not at the bottom because it's probably more convenient to have it here.) --IRDT (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC) FKA IReceivedDeathThreats. (New acct w/MCB's permission.)

Note - this thread has been moved down. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Refactored to this place, as it's part of the same discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the complaining user has been indef blocked. I came across his user name when I was putting an article for his up for AFD. To him it appears like I had a personal vendetta, as after the AFD I opened a UAA report, which was then brought here, and then went to RFCN. The odd chain of events that transpired was certainly no attempt to make personal attacks on the user. Grsz^X 15:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He had a history of "chippiness" from day one, but apparently flew under the radar until the AFD issue came up. Someone who gets really attached to a non-notable article will sometimes take it personally, and thus claim a "personal" attack. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Review Review

He has expressed a desire to go back to productive editing. I am reducing his block to 24 hours. Please review. --Smashville^talk 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"You'll be soooorry!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya right, but I guess we could just wait and see. Grsz^X 16:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If the unblock stands, are there conditions? I'm sure he'd try and put that notice back on his userpage, and that was one of the problems in the first place. We offered him a clean start with a new username and he took advantage of that. Grsz^X 16:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Productive editing sounds good. Let's give him a chance. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Minus the potentially confusing comment about Gator1, is there any reason why they shouldn't be able to put the notice on their userpage? What was the actual problem with it? --Onorem♠Dil 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Daniel Case pretty much gave the best reasoning. --Smashville^talk 18:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just catching up on all this since last night. Smashville's reduction of the block of the new account to 24 hours seems fine to me. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out, but if he returns to just being a normal productive editor, all the better. I am inclined to cut him a little bit of slack on this second iteration because he has been the inadvertent recipient of some negative feedback like an erroneous (but understandable) accusation of sockpuppetry which would be frustrating to anyone. (I told him, via the {{uw-ublock}} on his first talk page, that he could either change usernames at WP:CHU or start over with a new account, which apparently FisherQueen didn't see, and declined unblock of the new account based on socking, and said he couldn't come back with a new account.) In any case we'll see. --MCB (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry allegation was incorrect and unfortunate, but his incivility, personal attacks, constant comparison of his username rejection with rape, etc. all came long before that. I agree with the reasoning on the RfCU page above. The unblock is fine after 24 hours, but this user should be watched. It's been a long time since they have made any positive contribution at all to wikipedia, and I still feel they're being pretty pointy about all of this. Dayewalker (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I support Smashville's actions in this case. Orderinchaos 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can this be closed or is it going to go on and on? The user name in dispute has been blocked and the user has chosen a new name.-JavierMC 02:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it another day or two, to see what happens after the block expires. That may well save us a lot of repeated backstory for context in case there are further developments. --MCB (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I had no problem with the username. What I did have an issue with was them complaining when others felt things like "IReceivedTelemarketingCalls" could also be just fine were sudeenly acting uncivil. I've personally received both death threats and telemarketing calls. Now, if the person's name was "IGiveDeathThreats", that would be far more inappropriate. They unfortunately became more and more argumentative and abrasive, therefore deserving some form of action.

As was pointed out to the user, if someone doesn't like others making fun of their user ID, maybe there's an issue with their user ID. I've been called plenty of things. It's not important. If it becomes "important", rather than coming here and arguing about "incivility", maybe it's time to change the user ID. And simply abbreviating it to IRDT is not really the right answer, as it's still liable to invite trouble, i.e. it's liable to be a distraction from writing and editing, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be about - not about arguing over incivility over making fun of someone's user ID. Which is the whole point of the rules about user ID's - they should not be lightning rods for controversy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, editors' energy should be spent on editing, not on trying to manage the behavior of others when that behavior has nothing to do with editing. I.R.D.T. and Pigsonthewing are both guilty of that form of nannyism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the original username issue, sometimes you have to look at a username in context of the user's edits. There are a lot of usernames that are patently inappropriate on their face -- obscene language, insults to ethnic or religious groups or individuals, threats to hack/spam/vandalize Wikipedia, etc. -- and those are offensive or disruptive and are summarily blocked, per WP:U. Others, though, depend on how they're used. An organization or group name is not patently inappropriate -- but it is if it's a role account or used to promote or spam for the organization. In this case, "IReceivedDeathThreats" is not patently inappropriate, and if the user simply contributed to the project without repeatedly calling attention to his username and treating it like a chip on his shoulder, we would not be here. If the user had not created a provocative user page, and had replied "my username? oh, it's the title of an old song my band used to play", we would not be here. Instead, he used it -- and its successor -- as a focus of Wikidrama, and that is not well received by the community and is not productive. --MCB (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MCB that this name might have been acceptable, but take on this (an opinion which has developed gradually after learning more and more) is that the username is rather emotionally manipulative. I don't want to speculate (AGF etc) but it feels to be outside the spirit of collegiate editing and discussion. Please do not disagree with me! I will feel very hurt if you do! HELPLESSKITTEN^TALK 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok to wait see what happens, but there's no harm in being straightforward about what's likely to happen. Each time you pick a dodgy username, a kitten cowers in fear (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the editor's behavior contributed to the community's negative reaction to his user name, once that name come to their attention, but I disagree that the name is otherwise appropriate. I think, rather, that the name is inherently disruptive because of the inclusion of the phrase "death threats". If the name was "IReceivedTelemarketingCalls", there would be no problem, it's no more bizarre than many existing names. "Death threats" brings it to another place entirely. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:92.43.64.70

Resolved

 – issued schoolblock

User:92.43.64.70 has numerous vanadalism warnings on its talk page, the most recent being a "final warning" from Alexius08 on September 30.[94] 3 days later, on October 3, there were at least 4 additional disruptive edits, to Beluga (whale) [95], Talk:Beluga (whale) [96], Blue Whale [97] and Elephant seal [98]. I think it is time to escalate to a block. Rlendog (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has not contributed anything after the last warning registered on their talk page. --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a final warning on September 30. There seems to be a 2nd final warning based on one of the disruptive edits on October 3. I'm not sure that October 3 warning was necessary, given the final warning that had already been issued on September 30. Rlendog (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they have been blocked 3 times as of now. They seem to be warrenting of a school block. I will presently be issueing a 1 month school block. In the future, please report these issues to WP:AIV. Thanks for your good work, and have a nice day! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Orthopraxia engaged in edit war

Orthopraxia (talk · contribs) is currently engaged in an edit war on the Misr page, against established WP editors and WP:Firearms guidelines. He refuses to provide any arguments to support his position, has accused me of vandalism [99] and has violated 3RR. Koalorka (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Either tell the user, go to WP:AN3, or do both. ~ Troy (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just left a note on his talk page, advising him to take his idea or opinion to the relevant discussion page. Let's see if he would respond in a less confrontational manner, shall we? ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. ~ Troy (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is fair because it is common sense that it takes two or more to have an edit war. Maybe its time for those who act high and mighty to reconsider their manner of approach by taking things into ANI just because they cannot handle things in a logical or sensible manner. Administrators have better things to do than to keep squabbling party at arm's length from each other although it is, legitimately, part of their duty. In short, they have other fish to fry too! Mind you. ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Um...Dave, you might want to read what you wrote above and think about how civil that sounds?? Not very. --JavierMC 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• What can I say? I'm a troll magnet! Plus, you are quoting things out of the context now. FOCUS! And note that I endorse WP:DGAF. ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I'm not an admin, I'm glad to help with that kind of stuff! ~ Troy (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson Page Semi-Protection

Resolved

 – page already semi-protected

Since he was just convicted of the 12 counts against him (on CNN as of this writing), a semi-protect on the O. J. Simpson page from IP users to limit vandalism might be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 4, 2008 @ 06:02

Good idea. When the verdict was read, Simpson was heard saying, "D'oh!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It already is semi-protected since 00:52, 30 December 2007 when Can't sleep, clown will eat me set it. —Ashanda (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This I did not know. Sorry about that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • Work • October 4, 2008 @ 07:37

Spamming sock farm needs blocking

Resolved

 – Blacklisted globally. MER-C 11:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A sock farm is inserting links to illegal MP3 files at Black or White, They Don't Care About Us, The Addams Family (film), Earth Song and HIStory/Ghosts. They try to cover their tracks by making insignificant edits before and after inserting the links.

Accounts identified so far as being involved in spamming of quickfilepost.com links:

• Deaf Sentence (talk · contribs)
• Hub Ballroom (talk · contribs)
• Shellshock12 (talk · contribs)
• TranceOnTheDancefloor (talk · contribs)
• RockNRollBlues (talk · contribs)
• JamesDJ-Wozz (talk · contribs)
• NewCoke² (talk · contribs)
• Bee's Kness (talk · contribs)
• Just A Lad (talk · contribs)
• Discotek (talk · contribs)
• Christmas Island92 (talk · contribs)
• Tangerines Aux Fleur (talk · contribs)
• V8 Engine (talk · contribs)

I'm fairly sure there might be more but these are the ones I've identified by looking at the edit histories one month back. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you checkusered it? Why not get to the bottom of the whole thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that a few quickfilepost and a lot more jacksonstreet.nl are still around. More work to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checkusered it because Wikipedia:Rfcu says not to file requests for obvious cases but I'll do that later today. I was going to look at the jacksonstreet.nl links later today unless someone feels like helping out. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a big ol' sockfarm here, operating under two IP addresses. I'm going to softblock both of them and block the rest of the socks. That should hopefully hold them off. And EconomicsGuy, even though they're obvious socks (block per behaviour), this is a classic use of Checkuser; locate the source IP and softblock them to prevent more and more socks. Not so much associating accounts as stopping the source - Alison ^❤ 05:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank Alison. I found ((user|Chubby the bink}} so the spamming goes back at least over a year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alison. I'll remember that next time before taking it here. I'll nuke those jacksonstreet.nl links later today. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• quickfilepost.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• jacksonstreet.nl: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Are these domains blacklisted yet? MER-C 06:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to consider blacklisting on meta because of this. MER-C 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just requested COIBot to save reports on these links. Quick summary, quickfilepost.com is added here 33 times, on it.wikipedia 2 times, for jacksonstreet.nl there are more records: en.wikipedia (43), es.wikipedia (8), de.wikipedia (6), fr.wikipedia (4), pt.wikipedia (3), ja.wikipedia (3), tr.wikipedia (1). If the users are the same, I'd suggest meta blacklisting both. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's enough for me, after checking the cross-wiki searches, which show Chubby the Bink on several projects adding this spam and YouTube copyright violations, I have blacklisted and logged this on meta. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Qwest Communications Corporation IP vandal

There is an ip-hopping vandal (registered to Qwest Communications Corporation) inserting profanity into multiple articles and vandalizing my user page. I'm starting this thread per a talk with Bidgee, who suggested that the problem extends beyond AI/V and requires comprehensive admin attention.

Evidence

• My user page: [100]
• 76.87.210.39 (talk · contribs)
• 75.165.89.45 (talk · contribs)
• 71.34.129.209 (talk · contribs)
• 69.136.190.125 (talk · contribs)

Perhaps a range-block is necessary? Cheers --Flewis^(talk) 07:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• No rangeblock can cover IPs so far apart as those. However, I have semi-protected your userpage. Ask me (or another admin) if/when you want it removed. Black Kite 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but could you please remove the protection? It seems as if the vandalism on my userpage was a 'one off' bout of anger or the like, - I doubt it'll happen again. Thanks in advance --Flewis^(talk) 10:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Black Kite 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User uploading bank notes

King wiston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a few photo and claiming that it was self taken or having nothing at all. I've found some images on Flickr. Now the user has uploaded[101] Australian Bank Notes but unsure if they're copyrightable or not. Bidgee (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to move this to WP:MCQ; the helpers there would probably be able to better answer this question. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

Resolved

 – No new drama, no new additions to this section, and the editor is behaving post-block. Steve ^{T • C} 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to take a look at what's going on over there, where an editor who appears to be an SPA (188 mainspace edits, 184 of them to this article) appears to be deliberately editing a BLP article with a political agenda. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at BLP and a few others have now looked in and are keeping an eye on it. I wish I had more time to help out, but that was the best I could do for now. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Help needed with Aaron Sorkin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Likely either the subject or someone connected. Be nice, eh? Guy (Help!) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think Aaron Sorkin would use bigger words... --Smashville^talk 01:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would a full protect for a few days be in line? --Smashville^talk 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NM, I reverted it to the FA-status article again...and sent him a 3RR warning. He has two full page reverts and a revert of one tag in the last 24 hours... --Smashville^talk 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He's just reverted back. Is there consensus for a 3RR block? -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned him before he did it...so he's definitely aware of the rule...and he's shown that he does read his talk page...I have a feeling a solid 5th revert will come while we discuss...since I reverted him, it would be out of line for me to do it...and I'm not about to link all 200 or so of his edits to the 3RR noticeboard... --Smashville^talk 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Review

I have just blocked Homely Features (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for the stated reason of edit warring and 3RR violation, but also to protect the wiki from damage and abuse. I welcome a review of this block especially since I am certain the user will appeal through an unblock request. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally users are blocked for blockable offenses, especially when they have been warned not to do so. Good block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse obviously from me...5RR after the warning is a pretty straightforward block. Seems like he's likely a sock of someone else, too...of course, the question is which user... --Smashville^talk 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought, the blocked user has posted an unblock request. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline it. He violated 3RR by multiple reverts and so should be blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I do enjoy after all that MBK being reverted for vandalism...snicker --Smashville^talk 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I need another admin to take a look at this guy's talk page. He's constantly under the impression that he's correct. I believe that he intends to get right back to what he was doing when the block expires. I'm not able to talk sense into him and think that a longer block may be in order to prevent damage to a FA. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this person has found THE TRUTH about Sorkin, CapsLock and all. Experience has shown that people such as this very often have trouble restraining themselves. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left another note, trying to explain the situation and give him an idea of what to do to move forward productively. We'll see how that goes. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reverting to the FA version and blocking the problem WP:SPA looks to me like the right result for the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that while I agree with the block, as it might encourage the editor to curb his/her incivility, I spent a long time yesterday stepping through the diffs. Of concern is the editor's lack of civility, both in edit summaries and at the FAR page. The "hacking and slashing" at the article noted by others, and the speed at which this is being undertaken, also hampered efforts to determine whether the edits are truly constructive. Despite all this, I didn't see too many edits that I would consider harmful to the article, and those that could be construed as such in isolation did ultimately seem to be part of a wider plan of improvement. I wouldn't endorse every diff I've seen, but I think we've a chance for a net gain here. In short, I was content to leave the article be for a short time to see what Homely Features managed to do with it. I think it would be a mistake right now to continue barring the editor from making his/her edits to the page when the article could end up in much better shape than before the FAR began. If the editor gives assurances that he/she will use appropriate edit summaries that properly outline the rationale behind every edit, and will stop issuing borderline insults at the FAR page and everywhere else to the article's previous contributors, we should tread a little more softly on this one. The editor can be a valuable contributor here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I have actually shut down the FAR. When flaming outweighs suggested improvements, it's better to close a review. This editor has serious temperament issues. Perhaps he can be a valuable contributor but until he makes a clear statement that he understands cooperative editing, I would actually suggest extending the block. Marskell (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Closing the FAR was a good decision; it was getting in the way and acting as no more than a vehicle for the editor's frustrations with the article. Without that, dialogue on the user talk page should resume, and if it is made clear that no further outbursts will be tolerated, and he/she agrees to this in a statement alongside a commitment to using proper edit summaries and a promise not to violate WP:3RR, I think that would go some way to resolving the situation. I can leave another note on the user talk if you want, requesting such a commitment, but I think it would be better coming from an admin. I know the softly-softly approach can be frustrating to admins who have to deal with vandalism, POV-pushers and trolls day-in day-out, but as I say above, it is clear that the majority of edits to the article have been genuine improvements, and in its current state several problems persist. It's just a pity the editor's temperament hasn't matched the maturity of his/her article-building skills. Steve ^{T • C} 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At it Again

Well, I just saw the block on the user expire and he's gone right back to what he was doing before. I do not have the time or the desire to deal with this, but it does not bode well. I already support any block that may be imposed. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But I did an detailed summary of all my edits with a long explanation of them on the talk page.Homely Features (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused on this one. I agree the editor should have been blocked for his 3RR violation and he was and it has now expired. Here's where my confusion comes in. Prior to his edits on this article, the last real article talk page activity took place in late June 2007. Now User:Homely Features comes along in October 2008 and begins making edits on the article, leaving edit summaries for his edits, albeit "screaming" the summaries would be more accurate, yet all his edits are reverted, no conversation or explanation is given on the talk page for this reversal. Considering the amount of work this editor did in his "rewrite" (which the FA template on the talkpage says to be bold in doing to improve the article if it can be done), I would think a simple cursory revert without an in-depth explanation of what was wrong with his edits, was a bit drastic. Then he is admonished on his talkpage that he should have used the article talkpage prior to making his edits to gain a consensus. How is this inline with WP:BOLD and where is the contentious or sensitive past article edit discussions on the talkpage? The article talkpage was basically stale, or is this a FA rule that after reaching this status, any further edits must only be made under consensus? Hence my confusion.-JavierMC 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was told in about 3 different forums and his talk page why his edits were being reverted. --Smashville^talk 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. I went and read the other conversation. I wasn't aware there was a whole other thread instead of the main article talkpage. With the edits made after the block expired, it appears he has repeated his indiscretions against consensus. His misunderstanding or apparent unwillingness to adhere to the process is landing him in hot water. With his declarations of wanting to improve the article (AGF), it's unfortunate he doesn't "get it", but the process is necessary. I've struck my previous remark.--JavierMC 05:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor now seems to be taking a more reasoned approach to his/her edits, with a detailed explanation on the talk page of what he/she believes is wrong with the article. The section concerning the infobox photograph also seems to indicate that the editor is happy to discuss and compromise on these issues. The situation appears to have resolved itself amicably, so perhaps this section should be marked as such. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's entirely resolved, Steve. There's a mighty mass o'edits on the article itself that followed the editor's post to the talk page - done without any discussion from other editors, and started within a minute of the post on the talk page. I am nowhere near familiar enough with the article to say whether the changes are good or not, and frankly I don't have the time to go through those edits and determine that, but I think there's still something to be considered: consensus takes more than a minute to determine. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget Tha Otha Side

Resolved

 – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget Tha Otha Side

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this wikipage, created on 04 October by an obvious member of the Dade County band whose music is being discussed. The db-band template is being consistently removed, without any discussion. Thanks for your attention.Raymondwinn (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first lesson is to actually use the person's talk page and discuss it with him. He might not know about the history or see any edit summaries. Second, just AFD it. If it's easy enough, it'll be deleted in just about the same speed. At least give the person a chance to understand what's going on and be told. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Third, there is an assertion of notability ("The single features fellow Dade County rapper Trick Daddy who dose the chorus of the song. Production for the track comes from Miami Music Producer Gold Ru$h"). It's arguable and probably nowhere near enough, but it is there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Trexon

Trexon (talk)
Only one edit so far: adding link to porn image on talk page. I'm concerned.

(Disclosure: I created this account on the ACC tool. My bad, sorry.) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Still the account's only edit, so it's probably abandoned. Page's been deleted, too. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, this user was created by you, PrinceOfCanada, but you're concerned about its edits? What's going on here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Turkish Flame

Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) Massive POV edits and moves on a large scale. Thoughts? AIV seemed like the wrong venue. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to post an AIV against PrinceOfCanada-HG (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) ... this user has most horrific use of Huggle, etc that I have seen in ages. Nothing but templating, many of them wrong, a poor understanding of WP:VANDAL, being very very WP:BITEy. He's given level 4 warnings, but never actually explained what the user did wrong. PLEASE someone stop him. I have tried to advise on his talkpage, but of course it redirects to his normal talk page, so he doesn't even see. BMW(drive) 12:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs would probably be helpful here, BMW. I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's difficult to find anything unusual for someone who uses Huggle. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, rather than post 4 diff's, have a look at User talk:Turkish Flame's talk page at the 4 warnings, and how easily I solved the issue underneath. On top of that, [102] was a the receipt of a pretty serious vandal templating, considering the edits in question were AGF edits. In fact, my first note to that user was to welcome him, then to try the sandbox...which he did. I can do a lot more easy hunting, but he's done dozens of templates/reverts today based on "vandalism" that I would bet 1/2 don't meet the criteria. BMW(drive) 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at User talk:Blanche of King's Lynn (bottom section), which is pretty horrible. I am looking further at this at the moment. Black Kite 15:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have left a warning regarding use of automated tools on his main account talkpage. Black Kite 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought: try engaging me in discussion first, rather than leaving rude messages on my talkpage. I know you don't like me, but you could at least pretend to be civil, especially to a fellow Canadian. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dole n' Kemp

Resolved

 – Blocked. Caulde 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dole n' Kemp (talk · contribs) has been around since September and all contributions appear to be vandalism. —KCinDC (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User also claims on his/her talk page to be Fatbutt, who is blocked indefinitely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the contributions and blocked indefinitely. Quite obviously a VOA. --Smashville^talk 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RTV revisited

It seems that an old friend has come back again from being vanished (see archived AN section) and has engaged in a game of sockey as reported here. This was discovered after another user observed similar comments at various AfDs and after making a comment on my talk page here in which I am not sure is an admission or not. (I don't think that is my call to make that judgment.) MuZemike (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems premature to open this thread at this time. The SSP report hasn't given a conclusion. There was a CU done recently that didn't turn up these results, and another one could be requested. What action would we discuss here, without the facts in hand? Durova^Charge! 01:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be disingenuous, Durova. It's absolutely obvious who's editing from those (and related) IPs. I personally have no problem with it, though many of his edits to articles are useless at best and arguably detrimental rather than constructive. His contributions to AfDs are so lame that I can't imagine any closer paying them any heed whatever. As long as he doesn't get up to his old tricks of adding bogus "references" to articles, etc., I agree that there's no action that needs to be taken; but there's no reason to live in a world of make-believe. Deor (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) First sentence stricken per request on my talk page. Deor (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's not be disingenuous. I happen to know where he lives and I doubt very much he has the skill to disguise his IP location. He's easily checkusered. Why not go there? Durova^Charge! 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the strikethrough. I've gone ahead and requested checkuser. Let's see what it has to say. Durova^Charge! 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief it doesn't take that much skill. But it does sadden me that this issue has arisen yet again. For the record, I'm not convinced that I assumed too much good faith last time around. I knew somebody was trolling us, I just didn't think it was Grand Roi (but in hindsight it seems I was quite wrong about it). — CharlotteWebb 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, requesting a checkuser on cases of obvious sockpuppetry is a waste of the checkusers' time, and should be discouraged. Admins should feel free to act as they think appropriate when they encounter an obvious sockpuppet. Nandesuka (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher was quite helpful and polite regarding this request. If it ought to have been discouraged I trust he would have done so. It's important for those of us who aren't inclusionists (and I'm not one either) to remember that not all inclusionists are necessarily the same person. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I found Thatcher's "resolution" of the CU less than enlightening. I hate all these behind-the-scenes shenannigans; WP should be more open than that. If LGRdC wants to edit, he should do so openly, under whatever name he chooses; if he is unable to do so, he should refrain from editing. It isn't as though adding empty "References" sections, moving periods, and posting jejune opinions in AfDs are invaluable contributions. But I've wasted more attention on this guy than he's worth. Deor (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? Since his talk page has been undeleted, and everyone knows what his account has been renamed to, he's no longer "vanished". If he wishes to continue editing as an IP or with a new account, then let him. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the last interminable discussion about this pest, Durova said "If the editor does return on someting [sic] other than his main account (or in an appropriately transparent and undeclared [sic] manner) then I'll consider myself obligated to follow through as appropriate" and "If he changes his mind and comes back there will probably be a conduct RFC," so I guess the ball's in her court, as the rest of us aren't privy to all the relevant information. Deor (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing

When this editor first appeared on the law page with his single issue pushing, I was inclined to be accomodating. And then it came up on the competition law page, using "neutrality tags" and again I did what I thought was reasonable to deal with the views being pushed. Then it seemed to get worse, and uncompromising, so I gave a warning, because a disruptive pattern was developing. But it didn't help, because soon enough, the editor had learned how to exploit the formal Wikipedia channels. And so this review appeared, after I (and other editors as always) had rejected the plugging of these views as slanted. On these pages, of course, we have to summarise, and encourage editors to expand the subpages. But no. Here are examples of persistent reverting, without talking when explanations were already given:

• Six times trying to get one sentence by an economist about an economist into the law page intro, explained on the talk page here: [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]... and when he'd been told be me and others that he wasn't going to get it, he brought a featured article review (which I was disappointed to see veteran editors condone).

• Again in an introduction (my experience is people argue over that mostly) of the competition law page, one sentence which was changed because of grammar mistakes - explained here - reverted three times: [109] [110] [111] ... after which point I'd really had it.

• And this is probably the best, on the History of economic thought page, trying to keep a section on chicago economists expanded (the same thing as in the above two pages), when it'd been explained that it was condensed for style, and the sub-page was expanded to match: one potato, two potato, three potato, four... five potato, six potato, and there'll be a seventh potato and more unless there's some kind of intervention.

• Here is Vision Thing deleting large tracts of prose (without moving them anywhere) four times: once, twice, three times, four times

• Here he is trying to insert the same odd notion that Proudhon didn't say property is theft, but property is freedom in the law page: [112] [113] [114]

• Here he is putting up a few more tags, when he doesn't get his way: [115] [116]

This editor is intent on spreading his views with a strange mix of anarchism, and what's known as the Austrian school of economics. It's persistently bias editing across the three pages you can see. He may be doing it on other pages as well, but it's got to stop. You'll see from my own talk page, that I've been scolded for going too far in using bad language. I've not brought complaints before, because I just try to get on with editing myself, rather than get bogged down in these discussion forums. But I've been persuaded that it might be the only resort when people who are asked politely, then asked again, then asked firmly, then pleaded with, then warned, then mocked, then castigated, then insulted, just won't quit. The other side, of course, is that he hasn't contributed anything, except I think a footnote or two, and a sentence or two. It's perhaps characteristic, but it's always over one sentence or one paragraph again and again and again. Wikidea 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Vision Thing has registered a complaint here a couple of days ago, accusing Wikidea of personal attacks. As a result, I have blocked Wikidea for 48 hours. In the meanwhile I have had an exchange with him on his talk page during which he has acted consistent with a good faith but frustrated editor (I have ended up unblocking him, although I only did it one hour before the original block would have expired anyway). I'm not saying that proves Vision Thing's guilt, I'm only saying that I don't think Wikidea can be accused of bad faith or any other form of genuine malice, and, as such, I believe that his recent block should not be taken into account when considering this complaint. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Vision Thing is that he believes so much in his own truth that he sometimes decides he can impose these views of him or even edit WP policies as he likes them even without any dialogue. In this particular case, I have to say that Wikidea's attitude was not an ideal one; I once warned him and advised him to be more polite. But it was VisionThing who started tagging the article with some inacceptable POV tags, and initiated a FAR IMO not in order to improve the article, but to push his personal vendetta with Wikidea. In addition to all this stuff, reading the detailed and well-exposed diffs of Wikidea, I get the impression that VisionThing may be wikistalking Wikidea.

Important notice: This is a case I cannot be objective, because I have repeatedly co-operated with Wikidea, an editor I highly esteem, in the Law article (and he has also asked me to review the History of Economic Thought article). But I do have the right to make my own conclusions and remarks, which are the following:

• VisionThing and Wikidea have entered into editwars in more than one articles. Most of these editwars started when VisionThing removed material he didn't like or when he unilaterally tagged articles as POV.
• Wikidea was not always polite towards VisionThing, something that infuriated the latter.
• I disagree with calling VisionThing a troll, but the latter shouldn't remove material he doesn't like (as he did more than once) without prior discussion.
• If VisionThing wanted to convince us that his Law FAR was sincere, then he should have been more active (as Ottava and Ceoil have been), and limit his long-lasting absence from the FAR page.
• Because of the articles he edits, and where the edit wars occurred, VisionThing gives the impression of wikistalking and provoking Wikidea (the FAR could be regarded as one of these provocations).
• Wikidea is a great editor, creating and expanding core articles. This should be taken into consideration when judging his (sometimes overwhelming) frustration.

In any case, one thing is sure: This cannot go on like that for ever. These two users is difficult to co-exist, and some adm action seems necessary. Now, if they cannot find a modus vivendi at all, then I am afraid ArbCom might be the ultimum refigium, but this wouldn't be nice for neither of them.

I close speaking about things I do know, the Law article and Wikidea's great contributions there: some days ago he announced that he will never again edit the article. His absence is already noticeable and bad for the article. I cannot say the same thing for VisionThing's absence during the last weeks. As a matter of fact, I could say exactly the opposite!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I came here via a message on my talk page. Perhaps it is to offer some insight, which I hope to do. This is in part from a problem with a FAR. One user put up a FAR, and at the time, I originally pushed for it to be closed, because it became obvious that the original complaint could have problems. After that was made aware, other users wanted to focus on their own problems with he law article and continue the FAR, and I don't remember much from Vision Thing after that. The two have a clear problem with each other, and Wikidea has shown that he is willing to listen to the community in changing parts of one article that he has fought over with Vision Thing (but that article is since being worked on by some others, so, I don't know). That's just a little background info as I see it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I read this thread as well, I must say that I am annoyed! Wikidea was punished for incivility (and PA?!), while nobody of the eloquent critics of a prolific editor's behavior, found a word to say about VisionThing's misconducts. Shame!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, incivility and PAs -- but I suggest you ignore that complaint, I believe everything related to it has been resolved. Wikidea has been incivil, administrative action was taken and he promised it won't happen again; while Wikidea's incivility might have annoyed VisionThing, that has no bearing on the content dispute and disruptive behaviour discussed here. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gutza was only trying to do the right thing, and I'm giving up on name calling, because it obviously hasn't worked. Wikidea 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Query about ANI archives: I've never seen this happen before. Are AN/I archives intended to be edited? Wikidea came off his block to add a comment to the archived ANI thread, continuing more of what led to his block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a history with Wikidea, and this seems to be a straightforward content dispute. I see there's some POINTy acts on VT's part, but it's unclear how administrators can help. For example, VT apparently tried adding Hayek's quote to the lead of Law because of user's longstanding complaint that a novelist's quote is in the lead. VT might have a point, but he shouldn't violate WP:POINT to make it. Anyhow, I hope that Wikidea does in fact stop the namecalling. Cool Hand Luke 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea is a thoughtful editor, creating and expanding core articles such as the History of Economic thought and Economics... I have found him to be cooperative... and always interested in preserving content... where that is possible and relevant. This should be taken into consideration when judging his (sometimes overwhelming) frustration. I did groan when reading the dialogues between the two, both parties are obviously frustrated... however everyone has p.o.v. Because I have found Wikidea compromising and cooperative... I think when someone starts deleting big pieces of information... its extremely frustrating unless there are lots of explanations and reasoning for doing so. I hope for a friendly outcome here. skip sievert (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User Strayson

Strayson (talk · contribs) This editor has been going through several articles and removing information, and leaving an edit summary of lack of reference or citation. I have left a message on his/her talkpage here asking that they stop removing the content and instead tag it with citation needed or fact, and allow time for others to find sources to keep the information. However, they have made approximately 20 or more edits already to several articles without giving time for citing. I'm not sure what we should do here, but I think the edits should be reversed and the cite template added, instead of removing so much content. I also noted that another editor has left a message on the users talkpage, with the same request about removing content, yet the editor has continued to do so. Should something be done here?--JavierMC 04:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I notified him of this thread. He has no edits to talk pages, other than wiping all the warnings away from his own talk page. If he doesn't respond soon, a last warning and then a block if he continues. Civility requires that he respond to people's questions, not play games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reversed most of these edits. Note that Strayson is now adding contentious material to the lead, with a pre-emptive fact tag, as in Carbon footprint. Gaming the system, I'd say.Cap'nTrade (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out the earlier versions of his talk page. I had several altercations that revolved around the same type of edits: removing material when adding a fact tag was more appropriate. I chased him around adding references that were very easy to locate indeed. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok this guy needs to be stopped. He obviously has an agenda other than improving this encyclopedia and seems to be pushing a personal POV with his edits. He is misrepresenting referenced material by changing the wording in opposition to what the reference provides. Here's one example diff where he makes it appear as if the reference can only be attributed to one person when in fact it is a collaboration of no less than 19.^{see reference}. He has still not responded to messages left on his talkpage nor made an appearance here after notification of this thread. Rickey81682 gave him a final warning on his talkpage about his editing habits, which he apparently is choosing to ignore. I think it's time to block.--JavierMC 06:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide another diff please? That one appears to be a good faith edit to improve readability. I have refined it further. Thanks. Answering own question. e.g. [117] [118] - Atmoz (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 31 hours. I told him he needs to stop and respond and he decided to wait another half hour before continuing. The controversial part is not what bothers but the lack of response. Even someone who edits well but doesn't response isn't helpful here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an entry on here just a couple of weeks ago about assuming good faith when unsourced items are removed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that he's refusing to explain his actions, it's kind of hard to do so. HalfShadow 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He lost all good faith when he started doing edits like this. Adding controversial sentences with an unsourced tag is not amusing to me. He knows perfectly well what he's doing and he's being a hypocrite removing some sentences and adding his own. If nothing else, he should at least respond somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check on Shirley Manson

Resolved

I've been reverting on sight IP socks of an indef blocked editor (User:Nimbley6/User:Bennet556). This editor has an obsession with Scottish topics, particularly Scottish singers. In the past few minutes, I've reverted >3 times on Shirley Manson and I'd appreciate it if someone could sanity check my reverts - am I being obsessive, am I in breach of WP:3RR, etc. I don't like reverting this much - it makes me feel hypocritical...! Cheers,  This flag once was red  22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly another sock, but also a dynamic IP so I've blocked it for a short while. Reverting isn't a problem here. Black Kite 22:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More abuse by User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Resolved

 – blocked indef per AIV report, quack quack! Therefore archived. Please?

This has gone way too far. This user has persisted in added erroneous information to a large number of articles. In particular, I was horrified that this user has made a highly racist edit and got away with it.[119] It seems that the user is attempting to push forward fringe views. Note that I have reported this user aleady a few days ago for personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry.

In fact this user has been accused of sockpuppetry by an administrator on this same page (you can also see my other report about the user in question on the link provided as well) [120]. Also, the edit histories of the sockpuppet user pages and talk pages contain extremely racist content about Turks, Mongols, Altaic peoples, etc.

To add insult to injury, the user is still allowed to edit. I urge the administrators to take action against this user now. I really have a bad feeling that this case will drag on and eventually end up in ArbCom. I am sick and tired of seeing this user's racist rants and spurious edits. 122.105.147.101 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You might try WP:AIV, on the grounds of vandalism and also an inappropriate user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading someone mention that with the new unified IDs, we should be expecting non-english character IDs on the english wikipedia (this was made I believe in the case of one being all arabic).--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has not been warned at all, so AIV would be inappropriate right now. I suggest warning the user and taking it from there. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The complainant at least owes the Chinese editor a warning, for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, his username "ㄏㄨㄤ=huang ,ㄉㄧ=di" literally means Emperor in the Chinese language and I expect that he wants to be treated like one on Wikipedian. Here's the new, Emperors are a thing of the past and consider him to be on my radar from this moment on. Whatever inflammatory or racially charged statement he makes here will earn him the wiki-gressional medal of blocking. --Dave1185 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like he won't be able to get away with being uncivil in Chinese. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out Um....it doesn't seem like Chinese Huang Di to me. Huang Di in chinese is: 皇帝. NOT ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. Unless of course, wikipedia uses something that's a Internation version which I wouldn't know (only know basic chinese). Google actually gives me this weird translation: Ⓒ ㄤ 's construction of hot (http://translate.google.com/translate_t#zh-CN%7Cen%7C%E3%84%8F%E3%84%A8%E3%84%A4%E3%84%89%E3%84%A7%0A ) Lots of words characters sound the same in Chinese, they don't mean the same thing.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this edit is cause for concern[121]. Why else would the user name in question be used? 122.109.121.250 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Huangdi in Zhuyin. But that's besides the fact. Someone should give Huangdi a strong and final warning that if his behavior continues, he will find himself unable to edit the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given Huangdi a stern warning. I've found other editing abuses by him as well as his massive user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's already a User:Huangdi - the same name, but in the Latin alphabet instead of Zhuyin. The similarity might be a problem. --Amble (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this user has already been accused of sockpuppetry by an administrator. The content in the edit histories of the sockpuppet accounts are even more disturbing. Perhaps we have already forgotten about the sockpuppets? The initial report (which has not been resolved yet) about the user in question can be found here[122]. In that report, two sockpuppets of this account are named: Vietnameseis*******notcantoneseisvietnamese and User:Nefbmn. The first account has been indefinitely blocked but only for a violation of the username policy. The second account remains unblocked and seems to serve primarily as an "attack" account.

By the way, this user edited Cantonese people some time ago, quoting a source out of context and inserting his own spurious analysis[123][124][125]. An attempt to remove his edit has failed because another editor thought that I was vandalising the article[126][127]. That other editor has been contacted for comment. 122.105.149.69 (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the anon editor 122.105.149.69 is also known as David873, who has been blocked for disruptive editing, and harrasmentㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! The Emperor has finally appeared, and none too late to face the music here. Guys, please take note of his sockpuppets, disruptive edits (all listed above) and lastly for throwing a smoke screen in-front of us now thus thickening the plot. Let's go through them now and see what can be done to render the man a well deserved block. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

this anon editor 122.105.149.69 first says im wrong about northern chinese being a conglomerate of peoples. now in this comment he made at Talk:Cantonese people he blatanly contradicts the statement about my edit he made in this noticeboard

it goes as follows-

What the above information (which seems to have been lifted from Vietnamese people) does not tell us though is the origins of the Cantonese people themselves. Also, people in this so-called "Southern Chinese population" do not necessarily have to be of Chinese ethnicity, ancestry, etc (just like how a lot of "Northern Chinese" are largely descended from Manchus, Mongols, etc etc). After all, the Vietnamese population itself shows high levels of intermixing and I believe the "Cantonese population" would show this as well. Thus, a claim that "vietnamese people have more chinese DNA than their own" is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. Its unfortunate that the term "Han" appears to have been misused as "Han" and "Chinese" are certainly not the same thing! For example, no one in their right mind would call the Manchus "Han Chinese"; however, calling them "Chinese" might be appropriate depending on the context. 122.105.147.127 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185, your username sounds suspiciusly close to the blocked user David873 AKA 122.105.149.69, how do we know your not his sockpuppet? plus your user oage said exactly the same thing as his?ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up the same page with links to other Users and you can find many more Dave with that same display... so are we all one and the same? Think before you speak again. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

you have the same text diaplayed on your userpages, plus you both accused me of being a sockpuppet of the same hong kong editor. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My statement to User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Let me state this clearly here, I tagged your discussion page twice (how covenient of you to delete this part prior to tagging me a sockpuppet due to my tagging of you as one!) with regards to some controversial un-referenced minor edits (can be easily interpret as hoaxes which I did tagged you for) which you've made prior to this confrontational episode, informing you that it is against wiki-policy to add original research materials into any article that could be construed as being biased and not upholding the WP:NPOV during editing. I did not at any stage call you a racist although your actions speaks clearly of your intent.

Next issue was your username, which we all felt was really not in compliance with English Wikipedia's policy on Usernames so I tag you again but your reply was this "i dont enjoy having to copy and paste my username instead of typing it. i ws just trying out a new account with a weird name.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)".

This effectively resulted in me tagging you as a sockpuppet since you have already admitted to it and wouldn't even consider about how best to salvage the situation, thereby testing our patience with you which was already wearing thin. Your reply to me was a counter-accusation of me being a sockpuppet of another David and anon IP 122.105.149.69 (that IP is from Optus NSW Sydney Australia while mine simply reads as Qala Singapore) based solely on the evidence that my user page is the same as them having the exact same words: This page intentionally left blank., that effectively becomes your factless claim and false accusation which I don't believe any sane and level headed admin would even close an eye to, given that they have been rather patient dealing with you prior to this confrontational episode. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another piece of just came in confirming that User:Nefbmn is indeed User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ and vice versa. Best part of the joke, this happens right after the blocking of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. Click to find out more → Special:Contributions/Nefbmn! Admins, you have the evidence now to act and I shall rest my case. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 is a sockpuppet of David873Nefbmn (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong it wasnt just that, you and David 873 accused me of being the EXACT SAME sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefbmn (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

let me state this to you, considering the fact that you arent evn an admin, you have no authority to tag me any more than you claim that i DONT have the authority to tag you.Nefbmn (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[128] Let me state this clearly here, I tagged your discussion page twice (how covenient of you to delete this part prior to tagging me a sockpuppet due to my tagging of you as one!) with regards to some controversial un-referenced minor edits (can be easily interpret as hoaxes which I did tagged you for) which you've made prior to this confrontational episode, informing you that it is against wiki-policy to add original research materials into any article that could be construed as being biased and not upholding the WP:NPOV during editing. I did not at any stage call you a racist although your actions speaks clearly of your intent.

"Next issue was your username, which we all felt was really not in compliance with English Wikipedia's policy on Usernames so I tag you again but your reply was this "i dont enjoy having to copy and paste my username instead of typing it. i ws just trying out a new account with a weird name.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"."

funny how the username policy says non latin usernames ARE allowed. Dave is lying blatantly in my face, go check out the policy.Nefbmn (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note Checkuser User:YellowMonkey  Confirmed that ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs) is Nefbmn (talk · contribs).[129] So he is currently evading his block and so not even allowed to write to accuse somebody. I once encountered this insulting user, who were busy to falsely accuse anyone against his agenda as "vandal". Abusive sockpuppetry/block evasion are all no-nos.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong Caspainclue, you were removing information from Lelang due to nationalistic korean reasons...... then do an ip trace on David873 and Dave1185....Nefbmn (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong? You went for forum shopping to admins and made racist comments against Korean editors. Technically', I have not even met you with your current sock account. You're just confessing yourself as evading your block.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Feeble/factless complains by User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Dave1186 personal attack

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn has been indef blocked for vandalism and identified as a SOCK of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ avoiding a block. Therefore archived. Please?

[130]- he called me a "dammed horse gnat"Nefbmn (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The above user was swatted with an indef-block. Gnat's all, Folks! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

False accusation by David873 AND his sockmaster Dave1185

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn has been indef blocked for vandalism and identified as a SOCK of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ avoiding a block. Therefore archived. Please?

they have both accused me of being User:218.188.90.194. do an ip trace and you will see it is false.Nefbmn (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More abuse by User:Dave1185

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn has been indef blocked for vandalism and identified as a SOCK of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ avoiding a block. Therefore archived. Please?

he has used his anon ips to remove my sockpuppet notices on his page. ill leave the admins to do the ip trace and sort this out. Hugs and kisses!Nefbmn (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

122.105.149.69

Resolved

 – No AN/I action necessary, needs to be taken to WP:SSP. Therefore archived. Please?

i suspect this user 122.105.149.69 is also known as the blocked account David873. he seems obbsesed with stalking and harrasing me.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think these are sock puppets of a blocked user, please take it to suspected sock puppets. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 AKA David873 AKA 122.105.149.69

Resolved

 – Needs to go toWP:SSP, no WP:AN/I action necessary. Therefore archived. Please?

these 3 are all the same.

1. the content on Dave1185's user page matched exactly the one the blocked user David873 put on HIS userpage.

2. all 3 listed above are obssesed with getting me blocked.

3. They all have made similar warnings on my page while they are clearly not admins.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

i can now confirm that Dave1185 and David873 are 100% the same trolling, harrasing, and unconstructive editor, they have both accused me of being a sockpuppet of someone in hong kong, both have the same material on their user page, at least before David873 got blocked.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

look at the edit history of User:Nefbmn.

both dave and david put the exact same warning up, they both put "this page has been intentionally left blank" on their userpages too.

they are 100% the same all someone needs to do is look it up becuase David873 was banned from editing for harrasing and trolling.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:It seems that this is the beginning of the final chapter in the tragic demise of User:Dave1185 (no sarcasm intended by the way; you could almost be excused for thinking that the whole saga was a sick joke). Knowing that he is going to be thrown out shortly (he's blocked as of writing), this user has falsely accused User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ of being a sockpuppet of User:218.188.90.194 in a final act of desperation. Nefbmn (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is the beginning of the final chapter in the tragic demise of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (no sarcasm intended by the way; you could almost be excused for thinking that the whole saga was a sick joke). Knowing that he is going to be thrown out shortly (he's blocked as of writing), this user has falsely accused User:Dave1185 of being a sockpuppet of User:David873 in a final act of desperation. 122.109.98.33 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is something that needs to be discussed at WP:SSP not here. --JavierMC 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the old days, one might have said this whole discussion is something that needs to be submitted to BJAODN. Orderinchaos 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one might. In this case, the punch line to the joke is that the complaining user is the one who ends up with the indef-block. It's always funny when that happens. I especially liked the complaining user's final entry: "He called me a horse-gnat!" I can almost see the tears streaming down that teenager's face just before he discovers he's indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sad, isn't it? The fact that he refuse to own up to his own mistakes but yet continue to tag both my user and discussion page with the so called "Sock tags" repeatedly after I tag him for his confession for using another account prior. First, he use ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ to tag me but when he was indefblocked and couldn't get it unblock, he resorted to change to Nefbmn to continue his prank. Fortunately, an alert Admin saw through his masquerade and indefblocked him again. Bugs, I can also imagine the tears streaming down it's face, if not why would he/she/it be so bothered by my statement of "damned horse gnats!" as I cleared my pages of his filth? My last conclusion is, "it" is from Hong Kong but now studies in the States hence the different IP and it's blazon challenge to checkuser him, knowing very well that it would be a US IP instead of his original HK IP. As Bugs bunny would've put it, I'm no Elmer Fudd but he can fool me sometime but he can't fool me everytime! Cheers all~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now he's got socks vandalizing various user talk pages. The vulgar stuff is one thing, but flying the Vietnamese flag on my page is really going too far. Also, I was expecting to see a picture of a horse gnat. Elusive little devils. Hard to capture on film or video. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict and Possible Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn BLOCKED COMPLETELY by Admin Bearian! QUACK!

A report that showed up on AIV. I've just moved it here since it'll probably get answered here a bit better.

"Nefbmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for harrassing me on my user page and discussion page, I had deemed him as an apparent sockpuppet of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ who was blocked following an earlier complaint by me that ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ was harrassing me on my user page and discussion page. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"
"Dave1185 himself is a sockpuppet. his former blocked account was David873.Nefbmn (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)"
"see his list of sockpuppets on my page, and plus i wasnt harrasing him at all, all i was doing was putting up a sockpuppetry warning."

--EoL talk 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dave1185 ann Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ would be pertinent to link here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As would the log for Nefbmn's userpage, showing the account was created by a blocked user. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a username block, so, account creation was enabled intentionally so he could create another account. --EoL talk 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I just realized that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. --EoL talk 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I stand firm that I don't operate any sockpuppets and you can run a checkuser on me now and see where my IP comes from, it should read Qala Singapore. However, the sockepuppet User:Nefbmn had tagged User:David873 and anon IP:122.105.149.69 (from Optus NSW Sydney Australia) as my socks. This is ridiculous! For more info, read this! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oiy. Looks like I guess we know who's the sockpuppet. Now we just need a blocking administrator. --EoL talk 00:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, it all makes sense now. I suppose that would explain the comment about "not wanting to copy and paste" the username; a 40-something char long username would be a bit difficult to type every time, while a zhuyin username would be rather easy to enter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible related cases

DavidtheProxyusertoevadeblocks

Resolved

 – Blocked already, never mind. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't following the discussion above, but DavidtheProxyusertoevadeblocks (talk · contribs) just seems to be oddly named and worthy of an admin look or two. Thansk in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Slakr. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds, smells and seem really like you-know-who... check his userpage for more details! ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Raisininthemoon

User:Raisininthemoon is guilting of harassing User:Baseball Bugs. Just look at this outrageous diff. This type of harassment should not be tolerated. Please block User:Raisininthemoon indef from editing. AdjustShift (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser on the vandal's username? Anyone? ...Dave1185 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, an admin should block User:Raisininthemoon. AdjustShift (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's either another sock of User:Nefbmn or a copycat. Thanks for y'all's help dealing with this swarm of "horse gnats". 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So I did coined the term correctly, huh? XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. :) Actualy, I'm not exactly sure what a horse gnat would be. I've seen horse flies, and maybe a horse gnat would be a horse fly only way much smaller and insignificant. Horseflies bite, and it hurts. Gnats are somewhat annoying, but harmless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the user has been blocked indefinitely by User:Alison. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Harassment should not be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So many sockpuppets, so little time...

Look at the taunt that this anon IP User:162.84.138.33 posted on my discussion page, I checked the anon IP and it says that it is a suspected sock of User:218.188.90.194 here, who has been blocked. Amongst his other blocked accounts are User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, User:Nefbmn and User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese. There seems to be no end of this happening... help from admins? Please? ...Dave1185 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have not blocked, as this is a dynamic IP with one edit about 15 hours ago, but this would be better dealt with at the suspected sock puppets page, or requests for checkuser. Black Kite 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can you please bring this up to the suspected sock puppets page, or requests for checkuser because the above-mentioned user can be extremely disruptive and abusive. Read this! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, http://kr.youtube.com/user/david873AKAdave1185

Is the YouTube account really yours? If not, and it was created by ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, this is a serious identity theft and racist attacks, and you should ask admins at YouTube to delete it first.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries! I noticed and although I do watch clips on Youtube, I don't have an account there and I'm least bothered by it. Though you could help me ask the site admin to remove it, the guy is obviously peeved and trying his luck now with youtube to get back at us or me to be exact. My answer to him would be this: "Want a cookie?" ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have my account at YouTube, so I could not help you for that. I think you should be worried. Because if you google your ID, you will notice that your name linking Wikipedia comes up.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries mate! Although I think the Youtube user Dave1185 should be the one worrying... please note that I endorse WP:DGAF. I will quote this from DGAF: "Wikisuffering (wikiconflict and wikistress) is caused by wikiattachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by Wikidetachment (not giving a fuck).". Cheers and have a great weekend~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of sockpuppeteer/vandal

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn had been BLOCKED COMPLETELY and his baseless report swatted. Archive? Please?

I have indef blocked User:Nefbmn as noted at User_talk:Nefbmn#Blocked_completely. If anyone wants to review this block, please do so, but I think the histories of the user page and talk page is reason enough. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the final analysis, I was proven right but the lingering question remains... he falsely reported me here as a last ditch attempt of face saving measure and how am I supposed to be cleared from the above report now? Help? Anyone? --Dave1185 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nefbmn certainly didn't correctly fill out that report (after all, he was a sock himself). Still, does the report need to be urgently dealt with? ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law. If a trolling party lodges a bad faith report, I'd say we trash it. Orderinchaos 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh, didn't bother to read someone else had reached the same conclusion and acted accordingly. :) Orderinchaos 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

213.233.128.120

Resolved

I'm not sure whether or not this is the right section to log my complaint, but a IP address user who has been remarked against me, his IP address is 213.233.128.120.HMR 10:57, 05 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, this IP address hasn't edited for four days, so a block would be pointless here. However, if they start editing again in the same way, please post the details at the administrator intervention against vandalism board. Thanks, Black Kite 10:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

This user has been personally attacking me and other users for ages. I've filed a report on Wikiquette [131] but this issue has not been resolved. He's now back with even more aggression [132] [133]. Please can someone protect me from this abuse?--   Avg    11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a warning regarding the use of language in their talkpage summaries. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job, we must not tolerate any kind of personal attacks. AdjustShift (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that Avg should also moderate his language [134], and I'm going to suggest him that he stops implying that anyone contradicting him is an irredentist [135]. It's very tiring to edit Balkan-related articles where you are getting accused all the time of being X or Y depending on what you edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to a content issue and I've limited myself strictly to BF's behaviour here. It was never my intention to enter into content issues, therefore I'll reply to your talk page on the irredentist issue. Whoever is interested they can follow the discussion there.--   Avg    19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, this is about your behaviour denying any discrimination against minorities on Greece and claiming that any source or map mentioning minorities is forcefully suspicious because it's promoted mostly by nationalist groups and saying that stuff should be removed from Greece because greeks find it offensive[136]. I'm sure that BF can point at more examples of this, and then you can start to see why some editors will complain that they are "tired of his bullshit". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Eric once more you're bringing up a content issue. Okay, I got the point, you do not agree with me. However, no matter how much we disagree, there is always a level of civility that we all must abide to. --   Avg    22:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a level of civility which you certainly do not adhere to, but I'm not going to waste my time collecting the diffs. Any passing admin is free to mark this as resolved now. BalkanFever 07:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot changing date formatting in artlces in violation of MOS

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

SmackBot is going around delinking dates in articles. Yes, that is a good thing, however he is changing the format of the date from one to another, i.e. from "March 27" to "27 March" without prior consensus on articles. This I believe is violation of MOS. Please see [137][138][139] for what I mean. The bot is also removing commas after dates and before years, so instead of March 27, 2008 it is March 27 2008. D.M.N. (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this. Unlinking dates I have no objection to, but the subjective changing of date formats at the same time is perhaps worth avoiding. ~ mazca ^t | c 12:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing this post I dropped a message at User talk:SmackBot#SmackBot problem, referencing this thread, which is supposed to have the result of automatically stopping further bot edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked though quite a few diffs and have not seen an instance of March 27, 2008 to March 27 2008. Anyone have a diff? Note that 27 March, 2008 to 27 March 2008 is not that case because with autoformatting the first comma wasn't displayed. Gimmetrow 13:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[140] - The first diff I provided. It was [[March 27]], [[1971]]. The bot changed it to 27 March 1971 thus removing the comma. Normally, if it's simply [[March 27]] [[1971]] the comma would appear magically, but this wasn't the case here, the comma was actually inserted. The bot fails to insert a comma if date autoformatting is removed i.e. [[August 8]] [[1980]] as a random example shows up as August 8 1980 with a comma, while the bot is changing it so no comma is shown - the bot should be inserting a comma like what happens with Lightbot's script. (see for instance here as an example) D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In that diff [[August 7]] [[2006]] is converted to 7 August 2006 - which is the correct DMY format without a comma. Above it was claimed [[August 7]] [[2006]] is converted to August 7 2006 - which would be wrong, but I haven't found an example. Gimmetrow 13:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:DATES#Retaining the existing format:

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.
• In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

So, it should have stayed the same. The comma should have really been inserted. D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two very different issues. One is whether the date formats should be switched between MDY and DMY - the other is whether that switch was performed correctly from a technical perspective. Above you claimed it was performed incorrectly from the technical perspective - your example was March 27, 2008 to March 27 2008, by which I understood [[March 27]] [[2008]] to March 27 2008. If that is happening, yes that is technically incorrect, but after looking at numerous diffs now I have yet to find this technical issue. [[March 27]] [[2008]] or [[March 27]], [[2008]] to 27 March 2008 is, however, technically correct - if the date were displayed autoformatted as DMY, the comma would be absent. Whether DMY and MDY should be switched at all is a completely different issue. Gimmetrow 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I was on about. No problem originally (well apart from datelinking), but no comma was inserted in unlinking dates. D.M.N. (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying by that diff is that there is no comma issue, as 13 June 1941 doesn't take a comma. So it looks like we are only presented with the MoS problem. I say "only", but it is not insignificant and will lead to huge numbers of wasted edits by users manually changing the dates back if it continues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing technically wrong with [141] - no comma was displayed in DMY format, and after linking removed still no comma. There are technical issues with some of the edits (mainly not doing everything, so it takes another edit to either complete or undo), but I have yet to find a problem with commas. Gimmetrow 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If a bot is going to do this sort of thing, it should insert the comma, and leave the order alone; it's the order on which users have strong feelings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A bot has no business making a change in dating convention. De-linking is one thing, but changing how the date is then displayed, i.e. changing it from MDY to DMY, needs human intervention along with talkpage consensus. We have already went through an extensive month long and more discussion concerning this at talk WP:MOSDATE, and for a bot to be taking such action is counter to that process.--JavierMC 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Javier here. Now my ultimate preference would be to standardize on ISO 8601 (yyyy-MM-dd) for all dates, I'm realistic enough to know that isn't likely to happen anytime soon, so the best consensus in the meanwhile is to leave the dates the way they are currently formatted, while getting rid of the unnecessary links. --Cyde Weys 14:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was only a little test on pages which had DMY format dates. Rich Farmbrough 14:28 6 October 2008 (UTC).

User troublesome again and again (Einsteindonut)

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

Both users have been blocked and will be watched for continued un-wikilike extremism from either perspective.

---

Please check the last two edits by this editor, Einsteindonut (talk · contribs), I think his/her account and IP address must be blocked forever cause of his/her last two edits. posted on 03:04, 4 October 2008 by User:PuttyschoolSorry « PuTTY^SchOOL 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a complete violation of WP:NOT#SOAP but I'm not absolutely sure it requires eternal bannination. A somewhat shorter block, however, may be in order for this and a range of other problematic edits. Orderinchaos 09:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No one can imagine that here in Wikipedia, we can receive such comments, which is very offensive, hateful, horrible to a whole country with 7500 years of history, I don’t even think that blocking forever is sufficient« PuTTY^SchOOL 09:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wikipedia, I don’t know if this is one of my rights or not, but blocking Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) for only 72 hours is by all means not enough especially this is not his/her first time to use such comments with me and with other editors« PuTTY^SchOOL 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In general things work on an escalating basis. We usually do not block users indefinitely for a few occurrences - initially they are given the benefit of the doubt until even good faith cannot accommodate what they are doing. Then a block ensues which reflects the community's wish for them to rethink their approach. If they do not then do so, then a longer block is tried. If it keeps going, the cycle repeats, the blocks get longer until someone (uninvolved, I mean) concludes that a community ban is a good way to proceed, proposes one, and people sick and tired of seeing the person acting in the way they are support it. To be honest, I think that is where this one is heading. But we're still at a late stage of the "benefit of the doubt" phase, and if this user (ED, I mean) proves me wrong with their conduct, I'm prepared to eat my words. But 72 hours is reasonable (it's three times as long as the block reason usually attracts). In general, the presence of clear and obvious adversaries in the process complicates things and makes it harder for admins to decide what to do, or even want to get involved to begin with. I've seen cases in the past where out and out trolls have gotten off in part because they have been able to allege harassment from good faith users they have been bothering, and the evidence actually seems to exist. Orderinchaos 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Putty, was he right or wrong when he said you suggested that Wikipedia editors should turn to Jew Watch to learn the truth about Jews? I ask because this post of yours makes it look an awful lot like you did. Why not Stormfront? Seems to me that if you want to dish it out like that you ought to be willing to take it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This post probably didn't do much to de-escalate the situation either. - Atmoz (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at this user's block log--apparently he was blocked before for sockpuppetry, per this subsection of the previous ANI discussion. For a week that time--is 72 hours enough? Blueboy96 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the two should maybe keep the hell away from each other. Einsteindonut does something Puttyschool doesn't like and PS comes here screaming 'Ban 'im forever!' Rinse and repeat. HalfShadow 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the previous ANI discussion, that was my thinking as well. But what about Einsteindonut's socking? Blueboy96 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

72 hours seems proportional, especially given the recent reduction of Eleland's block from indefinite to 3 months to 1 week. Einsteindonut's conduct was less egregious, so a shorter block is reasonable. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

see [142]

JIDF Threats (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know how editors are trying to show that 72 hours is enough, but can anyone show me a comment worst that this shits by ED, I saw hear editors blocked for one month and more for a very trivial comments compared to this comment, if any one believes that 72 hour is enough and we can take this as a rule, any other editor can use the un-polite and un-respectable part of humans personality to post similar comments about ED believes or even ED country and can afford 72 hours block « PuTTY^SchOOL 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool, for the love of God, would you please can it? Both of you find something to do away from each other. Please. HalfShadow 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m more to be a Secular than a spiritual, so talking using logic works little bit more with me « PuTTY^SchOOL 00:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster; his block isn't getting extended just because you want it. HalfShadow 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t believe in this strange link you posted which is totally unrelated to using a logical method of thinking as I said« PuTTY^SchOOL 01:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's really nothing more to say here, but for the sake of it, I'll just add a comment, having already come across PuTTy and ED. Both of them were at it for one time too many. However, while ED was rightfully blocked, an infinite block would, as said before, not apply at this point. Also, PuTTy seems to be asking for the permanent block as if it's a punishment. Please refer to Wikipedia's BLOCKING POLICY and Wikipedia's BANNING POLICY. There's a wide difference between the two, simply put: blocks are to prevent further disruption, and bans are to punish the user (and are used only in extreme cases). Can we resolve this already? There's no point in further discussion if it's not going to result in anything. ~ Troy (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, bans are NOT used to punish the user. They are implemented when the community's patience is exhausted, and has lost all realistic hope of the editor being collaboratively productive. That is not a punishment. Such a view is both wrong and poisonous. —kurykh 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I simply misspoke. ~ Troy (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It can turn out to be a "punishment" to the one blocked or banned, but it's purpose is to permanently stop disruption. This is the argument that's used in reference to death penalty vs. life imprisonment. The result is the same either way - permanent removal. Meanwhile, I don't see anything in Einsteindonut's rant that warrants any kind of lengthy block. He's expressing anger, soapboxing, yes - but Putty simply wants to get him banned for personal reasons, and that doesn't cut it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don’t have any personal reason and ED comment with not about me, but it was a general hate comment, he commented about a country not about a person« PuTTY^SchOOL 01:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a "hate" comment, it was an "anger" comment. Many observers think that the problems that various middle-eastern nations have are problems they have brought upon themselves, and they like to use Israel as a scapegoat or a distraction from the real source of their problems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ED thinks "Israel should take back the Sinai" and this is not a hate comment, do you think Egyptians can accept such comment as a peaceful comment?, can't you check ED article Jewish Internet Defense Force, and see descriptions for such comments « PuTTY^SchOOL 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an opinion regarding something Israel could do to defend itself. That doesn't make it a hate comment. Nor does it necessarily make any practical sense. Meanwhile, certain other middle east countries want to destroy Israel, literally. That's hatred. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This can’t be an opinion about defend as you said, this can be an opinion about increasing certain countries by one, which means more hatred in the reign. and this is why I’m saying it is the most a hateful, vile, horrible comment written in Wikipedia« PuTTY^SchOOL 04:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop beating a dead horse, Puttyschool. In effect, Einsteindonut wrote that Israel should take part of Egypt's territory. That's not a hateful comment. If ED made a vile remark about you, your mother, or your sister, that would be hateful. Give it a rest. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We are like all countries, Our land is a piece of every Egyptian like our families. Any way tell us your classifications for such comment« PuTTY^SchOOL 05:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Those two (Puttyschool (talk · contribs) and Einsteindonut (talk · contribs)) have been going at each other for weeks now, without accomplishing much other than generating a large number of edits which cancel each other out. This is apparently a spillover from some multi-year flame war on Facebook. I'd suggest at least putting them both on 1RR per the general sanctions on Israel-Palestine articles. Banning them both from the Jewish Internet Defense Force article is an option worth considering. There's really not much more to be said about the JIDF anyway, unless and until the organization gets some more press coverage. The few reliable sources available have all been cited. --John Nagle (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a user of facebook, and I don’t have time for trivialities on facebook « PuTTY^SchOOL 05:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool blocked for 72 as well

In line with the discussion above, I've blocked Puttyschool for 72 hours as well. His continued stale edit-warring and over-the-top comments are bad enough, but his antisemitic references to the New York Times as the "Jew York Times",[143] and his justifications for doing so, complete with a link to the antisemitic Jew Watch site,[144] are too much, and certainly worse than anything Einsteindonut posted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that neither user seems to have got that Wikipedia is not for flying the flag of offline struggle but about collaboration and compromise. Both accounts have been signed up in the last three months, we're looking at 299 mainspace to 1034 total for Puttyschool, 271 to 1046 for Einsteindonut. The majority of those are either reverts or minor edits, and in areas such as Jewish Internet Defense Force and other such venues which are already problematic even without their presence. Both seem to spend more time in AN/I than editing. Both have used ridiculous and incendiary rhetoric and claims to further their case. Both seem to think the only solution is to get their opponent banned. This is not a case yet for a community ban, but what are others' thoughts on this matter (now that we have some clear air for a couple of days)? Orderinchaos 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Article-banning them both from the JIDF article would be a start, I think. Black Kite 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for his explanation on why "Jew York Times" is not a hate comment. Reckon I'll have to wait about 3 days for that. Darn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think asking for rationalization from either of these two is probably going to be a WP:DEADHORSE issue, to be honest. This is a textbook case of two editors who really need to be made to stand in opposite corners of the room, hence my suggestion of banning them from the middle of the room - the JIDF article. No doubt they'll still manage to argue about things around the edge of the room, though. Black Kite 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is not like beating a dead horse. We cannot go through all this everyday or every 72 hours. I totally agree with both Jayjg as well as Orderinchaos. I am thinking of blocking the 2 users indefinitely as explained in a thread below. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"If I were an admin" (sung to the tune of "If I Were a Rich Man") I would suspend the both of them to expire at the same time - 72 hours or whatever - and then see if they behave. If not, I would double the time. If they still don't behave, keep doubling it. At some point, they might decide how badly they want to edit wikipedia. Two axioms: (1) How badly do they want to edit? and (2) Why are we still messing with these guys? Those are the two general guidelines that should drive decisions about misbehaving users. You're basically asking the second question. I'm thinking you shouldn't quite slam the door on them yet. But it's getting close. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good analysis. I must just add something like "how could Wikipedia benefit from allowing them to edit (they edit so rarely) use talk pages against our guidelines and policies disruptively further?" They have been warned more than enough by multiple administrators. The thing is that we've got through 3 ArbCom cases and both editors are aware of the cases' remedies. We cannot spend months with every user who decides to slam those remedies at the wall. This would suggest and encourage new problematic editors to come and disrupt the project for a couple of months before leaving being blocked. Wikipedia was fine without their bickering and attacks and editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; there is no right to edit Wikipedia. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I can't argue with your logic. You're pretty much at the "one more chance" stage at this point. This whole deal reminds me of the classic Star Trek about the two guys who were the last survivors of their respective races and were determined to fight to the death. I think that episode was "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". It also turns out to be a good metaphor for the seemingly perpetual stalemate in the middle east. And your answer at this point is, "We don't care what you do, as long as that battlefield is somewhere other than wikipedia!" Einsteindonut has only been on wikipedia for about 2 months, Puttyschool for about 3. Maybe they don't totally get the rules yet. But it starts to look like they are simply using this site solely as a battleground, and are unlikely to contribute much that's useful. So if another block doesn't open their eyes, it's probably time to bring the hammer down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with FayssalF. Puttyschool is a classic antisemite with nothing to add to Wiki. Einsteindonut baits and attacks anybody who disagrees with him, using denigrating and sometimes hateful language. Although I agree with his view that Wiki editors on average tend to have an anti-Israel POV, I do not see the general anti-Semitism he sees and I find his methods wrong. Both have been given multiple chances already. Since the block is 72 hours, let it expire. The first thing either of them does, block them permanently. Then watch real carefully for new sock puppets. Putty's already asked for his account to be close. I kinda think they will both be back breaking the rules, since I don't think either of them knows how to be civil.Sposer (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're onto it. At most, one more chance; and watch for sockpuppets. As with most disruptors, there can be a brief flurry, but there are eventually enough barriers raised that they go away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Please watched "Johnny Jackson AKA Johhny J's" entry.

/* Death */ ThugLifeArmy.comhas spread many rumors in the past, the are the only "journalists" to be reporting his death that supposedly happened almost 24 hours ago in LA county jail. He isn't very famous, but most long time hip hop fans, and all fans of Tupac Shakur know who he is. I believe that if he had committed suicide in LA County jail last night, that one of Los Angelos's credible news sources would have picked up the story. As it is, according to google news, only one web site, Thug Life Army has reported this "news". No other website has picked up the story, which tells me that no one can confirm it's credibility.

Thug Life Army has numerous moderators, any of which could have created this as a rumor, or reposted it without confirming, for any number of reasons or vendetta's. I personally know of several other times that Thug Life Army has been involved with unreputable activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff F. Pierce (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This concerns me as well, and I'm going to revert the article to prior to the edits claiming his death until some more sources start to emerge. The one presented is not very good, in my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

May want to throw a semi on there. IP's are coming out of the woodwork to say he's dead. HalfShadow 02:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I still can't find any actual reliable sources that confirm this death, most of what's out there is blogs or close to it, but editors insist on adding the death thing. Could someone else please look over this situation, because I'm getting cranky and tired and need to go to bed. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just semi-protect it for 24hours. Eventually some reliable source will pick it up if true. If anything, committing suicide while in jail and police custody will be reported by the LA Times or some other reliable source, even if his fame as a musician is not massive.--JavierMC 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The All-hip Hop Article is just a rewrite of the original Thug Life Army Article. There has since been proof found that he is / was in LA County Jail. But the fact that he is in jail is for from proving the suicide. This supposedly happened on the 3rd. Two editions of the LA Times and LA Daily News have been published since then, none of which include any mention. Also worth noting is that his myspace ( http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=125249677 ) had someone log on the 4th, the day after his reported suicide, and whoever didn't post any information regarding his death on the third. talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly it: the only 'sources' we have for his death aren't credible and most of them are just copy/pastes of the original 'source' which is apparantly even less credible. It's getting to the point where people are posting a link to Youtube, suggesting that this is somehow a credible source. YOUTUBE. A credible source.. HalfShadow 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

TMZ has a clip on it now, but really it doesn't matter; I've been taken to task for refusing original research and primary sources ("I got proof, I talked to his family!") on the talk page, so the hell with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

William Smith (lexicographer)

This harmless bio has been overwritten with that of the actor, maybe by cut n' paste. The editor seems vandalism-only. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's a vandal, all right. Thanks for catching and fixing it; looks like the ip hasn't edited in several days, so he may have gotten bored and moved on to writing his name on bathroom walls by now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal on 118.137.x.x range

In the past couple days, there's been a vandal on 118.137.x.x IPs that has been doing rather subtle but repeated vandalism. The IP's I've identified so far are:

• 118.137.68.103 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.21.140 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.20.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.48.87 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

The MO of these addresses are to repeatedly put insert false information into articles about anime series and companies, specifically that certain companies are owned by or series licensed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer or other major American studios. Their most common targets are Sunrise (company) ([145], [146], [147], [148], [149]) and TMS Entertainment ([150], [151], [152]), but they also add this information to a wide variety of articles ([153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]) as well as miscellaneous vandalism to other articles (changing the station an anime series is broadcast on, adding a list of uncofirmed character to a video game article, adding false info about actors in a Mexican TV series).

Repeated warnings to stop have been ignored, and at least two of the IPs (118.137.21.140 and 118.137.68.103) have been blocked, but then the user shows up again on a new IP. I'd like to request a rangeblock to stop this user, if at all possible. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the contributions of the IPs and they are guilty of persistent vandalism. It is quite possible that one vandal is using these IPs for vandalism. A rangeblock is required. AdjustShift (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for checkuser is thataway! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whois shows that the range 138.136.xxx.xxx-138.137.xxx.xxx is owned by an Indonesian ISP. Seems likely the vandal just has a very dynamic IP and would show up within this range. Would a rangeblock be to nail their whole subnet? Seems a bit extreme to deal with what's likely one vandal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, filed a RFCU report. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(resp to Mendaliv)It would depend if there is anyone else regularly editing en-WP from that range, and a range block need not be of any great time length to alert the individual of our intent to stop their vandalism. That is, however, something a CU will be able to determine with their tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've checked the range, and discovered that it's 118.137.0.0/17 (up to about 30000 users would have to be blocked). Normally, from what I've seen, if the CIDR range is /24 or higher, then a rangeblock is not too hard to ask for. But /17 seems too risky :P Of course, we'll see what the CU has to say about this one. ~ Troy (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Gah, and I can't watchlist everything, as the user usually hits new articles with each new IP address. Oh, and 118.137.48.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back - he's only hit TMS Entertainment so far, but I'm sure he'll hit more articles. Should he be blocked? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is an Indonesian ISP there may not be any other addresses editing en-WP, or so few that block exemption makes it a viable option. This is why it should be a CU determination, as they have the tools to see the entire ranges' contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've alerted Nihonjoe about this. He blocked 118.137.0.0/16 twice before because of the MO. I think this time, he didn't notice this recent breakout. I just hope he replies ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IP range (118.137.0.0/17) blocked for three months ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you block the range for six months last time? Shouldn't it be longer? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks reasonable enough for now. Remember that there are innocent folks within that range ...it's not that small. If anything, the possibility of someone asking for an unblock isn't too low. ~ Troy (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There may be innocent folk, but so far no one from that range has been legitimate.

I don't think the previous block was for that long, but it's been a while so I don't remember. I'm trying to find the other ones from last time. This is what I've found so far:

• 118.137.2.210 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.2.70 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.3.155 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.3.90 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.34.229 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.34.82 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.34.83 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.35.124 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.35.46 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.35.91 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.50.82 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

I'm sure there were others, but I can't find them at the moment. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes ...he must be one of the lucky idiots roaming around in those relatively dynamic ranges. Still, what matters now is that there's time to track the IPs while the range is still blocked. ~ Troy (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmph, there's more:

• 118.137.2.109 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.68.103 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

...118.137.43.146 asked to be unblocked a couple of months ago, but it seems that nobody noticed. Strange. ~ Troy (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mcumpston, again

Mcumpston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose editing was discussed here recently, has returned and is posting personal attacks incuding false allegations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a level3 npa warning on the editors talkpage. I don't see much good faith in their comments, either, but am not inclined to pursue that aspect while they may yet blatantly violate WP:NPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible interwiki vandalism (User talk:195.221.155.2)

See User talk:195.221.155.2 and 195.221.155.2 (talk · contribs) for full report. Same IP adress (Utilisateur:195.221.155.2) was blocked on French Wiki.

This (French) user, engaged in childish vandalism since years ([159], [160], [161], [162], [163] ([164], has a troubling pattern related to a user of the French Wiki, who appears to make constructive edits.

Thus, on April 4, 2008,fr:Rafael Sánchez Mazas was created by Vincent D. Rousseau, and, just a few hours before, a link was added to the French article by our user here (195.221.155.2) to the English Mazas article (see dif).

Same for Latin Kings created on French Wiki by Vincent Rousseau, born in 1990.

Same also for Music of Ancient Rome, modified on the same day that Vincent Rousseau modified the French version of the article.

Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I have checked the user's global contribs—it's a real mess. The latest edits were just last month on frwiki. However, there were several projects affected. The WHOIS report indicates that it might be in a semi-static IP range, so that's a good thing. There's some pretty childish stuff, but hopefully it's obvious enough. I've reverted all of the edits that were rollbackable, but there's probably several conflicting revisions too. I'd suggest going either on Cross-wiki Vandalism reports or requesting for a Global block, although it would seem more reasonable to do the former as this user hasn't edit within a few months on this wiki. If the same guy edits anonymously from another IP, report again as needed. ~ Troy (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Just a quick notice of the degeneration of the Palin article talk page into partisan bickering (my candidate is better than yours type, with personal insults.) I attempted to close the section where this is occuring, but was promptly reverted so the slugfest could continue. I have left a warning that article, topic, and site blocks and bans are possible outcomes when this type of thing continues unabated, and specifically advised the combatants to take a step back, read Writing for the enemy, Tigers, or Mastadons, and to focus on the article when they return. Although I have hope, I have no great confidence my adivice will be heeded, hence, I notify you all here. Please assist in reining in the hostiles and encouraging them to refocus their efforts. I will support (and even cheer wildly) at any short blocks deemed necessary, as I would strongly prefer to keep this article unprotected and if the fighting moves into the article space that is what will happen. Thanks, KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note that KC has been an active participant in the recent bickering. I am out of that fray, having exhausted energy in seeking compromise. Collect (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

translation: "KC has had to warn editors before this. And I finally gave up, consensus was against my edits." KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really much ado about nothing. Having read the section, there are a few WP:TALK-ish comments but overall there is a discussion about what to include in the article. I believe the discussion to be largely on topic and nothing that requires admin intervention. (Full disclosure: I have edited on Palin's page extensively but I've been uninvolved in this discussion and only went to look at is as a result of this post). Oren0 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was uncertain how far it would go when I posted that; political pages tend to spin out of control rapidly when they do. Rather than MAAN, please view it as A forward-looking concern which thankfully did not materialize. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am SHOCKED that any Wikipedia editor would seek to violate WP:NPOV to make the candidate he favors look good and the opposing candidate look bad. Can't we all just get along and edit collaboratively to create a fine NPOV encyclopedia? Edison (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

lol! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly did that mean that you are "uninvolved" on the Sarah Palin article or you made no statement regarding it? Hobartimus (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Scurrilous vandalism mirrored on scraper sites

A user posted a request on the BLP board to have his deleted article (which he restored) left in place, as scraper sites have been reflecting old version with unpleasant vandalism about this user, and he is afraid of what might happen if an employer, for example, were to Google his name. He wants the restored page left up temporarily to "clear out" the vandalism on mirror sites. His request is here Questions: 1) Can someone immediately protect the restored deleted article, at least until a longer term decision can be reached? 2) Will what he's doing actually help his cause? I don't know enough about the tech side of it to know. IronDuke 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is already protected... still curious about the tech end of it, and what people think. IronDuke 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the oft-noted issues with having BLPs on Wikipedia. I believe the more correct course of action would be for the BLP subject to contact Nationmaster (i.e., at the forum they have for that purpose) and other sites. I do not believe that they will overwrite their content automatically. If they did, they would presumably drop the article if it no longer exists here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it some other sites will only update if we have a page but will leave it more or less alone if are page goes away. But I agree that contracting other sites is a much better way of dealing with this and more likely to actually succeed. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly NationMaster seems to work that way. We deleted Zachary Jaydon long ago as a hoax, but when I Google for it, the NationMaster article comes up, complete with the AFD notice from its last appearance here.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

With the number of mirrors that come and go (and in some cases remain static and unattended for years), coupled with the recent creation of "Deletionpedia" for the express purpose of preserving content that we delete, this type of thing is going to grow as an enormous problem. We need to be discussing ways of eliminating it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

how can we possibly eliminate it? our license to copy is irrevocable. We can possibly avoid encouraging it, but at present having an overwritten article for a short period may be the best technical means available. It will get at least the most active mirrors. DGG (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We can, however, eliminate future incidents by implementing sighted/flagged revisions. CIreland (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How would that work? Incidentally, isn't scraping forbidden under the TOU in favor of downloading the backups? Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would depend on our exact implementation. For example, we could set it to only show the sighted revision for some/all pages unless the viewing user explicitly asked otherwise (e.g. via a button or via preferences for example). Thus scrapers et al. would only ever see the sighted version. CIreland (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Psst, we're all scraping right now by reading this. That is to say, the effect of scraping articles once each at a slow rate is indistinguishable from a human reader (except for possibly the user-agent). If somebody wants to copy all or most of the site, using a database dump would be easier on both us and them, but downloading a dump would be pointless if they only want a small number of (usually inter-related) articles, few thousand or less perhaps. I guess the breaking point is where the combined size of the scraped html exceeds that of the db dump, but nobody would be nuts enough to calculate that.

Anyway, what you're thinking about is WP:MIRROR#remote loading, which involves scraping and re-scraping Wikipedia every time somebody reads a page on their site (I use "somebody" loosely, as I don't doubt banner ads and pay-per-click fraud are also involved). Remote loading sites are aggressively banned by server admins. You can test them by seeing if your edits here also update their site in real-time. — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the issue is with third-party fixed copies of all or part of the database and it could be solved with some variant of stable versions/flagged revisions/etc. etc. The real problem is that the English Wikipedia will never implement such functionality. CIreland (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, and what CW said below ↓ too. CIreland (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cough cough stable cough versions cough. Try out the German Wikipedia if you want to see how it works. By default, only the most recent good-flagged version is visible, so they are what is scraped by search engines and mirrors and so on (use {{{1}}} to see the actual "top" edit — any urls with parameters are excluded from robots.txt).

Deletionpedia is a completely different issue. I really like being able to look at my "contributions" there to see what needs DRV . — CharlotteWebb 18:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been using stable versions on the English Wikinews also and it has worked very well there. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Emex420

Resolved

 – Blocked indef.

Emex420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has commited multiple vandalism edits. However since he keeps blanking his talk page he never seems to get himself the higher level warnings, although he does have 1 level 4 warning on his talk page. This user does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Examples of vandalism.[165][166][167][168]. There's more but these are all from the first few days of October. If you check the history of his talk page you can see the warnings.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't have to read very far down those contribs to work out his general editing pattern. Thanks, good spot. Black Kite 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

an editor is reverting to bad images

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WPAR&diff=243068154&oldid=242446188

PNG images are supposed to be better than GIF and JPG images, particularly since JPG compression is lossy. But an editor is reverting the substitution of PNG images on radio station articles and is tagging the PNG images for speedy deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WPAR&diff=243068154&oldid=242446188 He should be blocked and the PNG images restored and untagged. -- 192.30.202.21 (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a {{hangon}} tag to the PNG page; the rationale for deletion seems incorrect - the PNG is (a) a different format to the GIG, and (b) at the same resolution.

You should probably try and discuss this with Rtphokie (as I plan to do now) - it's possible that they have a good reason for this changes and for tagging the image for deletion.

(Disclaimer: not an admin)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  03:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Like keeping an image they uploaded from being deleted as an orphaned image because it was replaced with a .png? Not sure if that's a good enough reason.--JavierMC 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea, mate! I/we won't know until Rtphokie replies. But the image is tagged with {{hangon}}, so for the time being there's no harm, no foul. There are, however, at least a couple of other images in a similar state - I believe one of them at least has been raised with Rtphokie by the IP editor already. I've not tagged these; I'll leave that as an exercise for 192.30.202.21.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  03:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) TFOWR, sorry I was commenting on the edit summary he provided with his edit, not on your actions. Thought you might have missed it.--JavierMC 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I assumed you were commenting on Rtphokie. I saw the edit summary, but thought they might have a valid reason for choosing the GIF over the PNG - I can't personally think of one, though.

Incidentally, won't the history of the GIF transfer through to the PNG, anyway?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's frustrating to find orphan notices for ~300 images that you've spent a lot of time on because of this bot. It wasn't initially clear (because of poor communication by this bot) what was going on, only that these images were replaced by identical looking ones. Occasionally, radio station articles (these were all radio station logos) will be replaced by eager fans with identical or nearly identical versions of the logo for some unknown reason. Yes, I reverted a couple of this bot's edits and CSD'd the duplicate PNG files but gave up after the flood of orphaned images kept coming and coming, I clued in that it was the PNG bot at work and stopped.

While on the topic of this PNG bot, it needs some tuning. While in theory it's a good service to wiki in that PNG images can provide better compression and therefor faster downloads, in practice the bot is disruptive. The bot needs better communication with the original uploaders rather than just leave cleanup to the image orphan bot and original uploader of the file the PNG bot has replaced. Perhaps the PNG bot can mark the original images for deletion rather than orphan these images and create work for editors who spent time locating, preparing, tagging and uploading these images. Also this bot needs to focus it's efforts on images where PNG can be most beneficial rather than it's current selection method (by category? by original uploader?). The conversion of the images in question here to PNG saved very little. Hundreds of perfectly good images, all of which are properly tagged with full copyright information, were orphaned. That's not helpful, that's disruptive. It created work for the bot which tags orphaned images, it created work and confusion for the original editor (me), and it created work for everyone involved in this thread.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to your comments on the bot, that would perhaps be better raised with the bot's author, and I do sympathise with your frustration, but I would question why you tagged the PNGs for deletion rather than the GIFs? The PNGs have all the license and authorship info carried over from the GIFs. The work created on this thread would have been avoided if you'd tagged the older GIFs instead of the PNGs.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  06:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of blocked editor

User:138.40.153.43 has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and harassment. One suspected sockpuppet has been indefinitely blocked for an inappropriate username[169], and another as a sockpuppet[170]. The original account is currently blocked for a month, until 27 October. However, a new account has been set up today, which is clearly a further sockpuppet of the same user. This account has twice[171] [172] made identical tendentious edit to Israel and the apartheid analogy to those by the puppetmaster which which led to the original concerns, has continued to harass me on my talk page[173], and has made it clear there and on his/her own talk page[174] that this account is a continuation of the currently blocked one. My report to WP:SSP several hours ago[175] has not yet been dealt with, and this editor continues to make abusive edits. Could someone please look at this and take appropriate action. RolandR (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A subsequent unblock request[176] by the still-banned puppetmaster confirms explicitly that this is another puppet. RolandR (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to have a conversation with him. Hopefully this leads somewhere. I'd appreciate it if people hold off on blocking (unless of course he starts disrupting again) so that I can try to resolve the situation without having to block seven ways to Sunday. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move vandal

Resolved

 – User blocked by Luna Santin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). SoWhy 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter giant. Cheers,  This flag once was red  10:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it was just about to file a complaint for the account to be blocked here. Vandalismterminator (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Beginner's luck - I'll try and be a wee bit slower next time ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  10:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings it's better that we report the buggers than let them run loose on the wiki moving articles to crap pages. Vandalismterminator (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time, consider reporting to WP:AIV which usually results in faster blocks for such vandals. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wiki8fishy repeatedly changing my Talk page comments

Wiki8fishy (talk · contribs) created an entry which I thought sounded ... well, fishy, so I nominated it for deletion on AFD. The user keeps removing the afd label, and I've asked them several times to stop, but they won't. They also keep changing my comments on their User Talk page to make it look like I'm encouraging them to remove the label. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. In future, in cases of obvious vandalism like this, you can often get a quicker response at WP:AIV. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is 31 hours long enough? Changing someone's talk comments like that to me suggests a high likelihood of further abuse and disruption. Dlohcierekim 00:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to give him a chance to participate in the discussion before it closes if he wants to do so politely; I have the page on my watchlist, and will smack him down much harder if he comes back blanking. I'm not that emotionally attached to him, though, so feel free to extend it if you like. Of course, I made that decision before I did the extra research to determine that the article is rank nonsense.... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature impersonations

I have noticed that this IP has been copying an editor's signature and leaving messages on talk pages like [177]. Is there a policy regarding this?--Res2216firestar 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, good call. More specific would be the line in WP:SIGN#Customizing your signature, in big bold letters saying "Never use another editor's signature". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

141.209.x.x. is registered to a college; the only significant editor there is someone I caught making vandal accounts (Grawp imitator) and harassing another user anonymously while pretending to be a good user. This seems to be his idea of revenge. Amazing what $17,000 per year in tuition and room and board will buy you these days. The range is blocked to prevent further vandalism. Thatcher 10:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Regan Mizrahi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Mizrahi was withdrawn on October 3rd, and the subject deemed notable, but the deletion log shows 2 subsequent A7 deletions. Does the AfD not mean the article deserves at least another day in court before it's deleted, and that notability speedy deletions are out of order? I'm not sure what the convention in these circumstances is. the skomorokh 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I myself might have !voted "delete" if I had took part in the AfD, I agree that a speedy deletion of an article immediately after it was kept in an AfD is improper. Seems to me, however, that this should be taken to DRV, not AN/I. Nsk92 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If it survived an AfD then there is no reason to speedy it. It ought to be undeleted. Bstone (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It didn't survive an AfD due to a discussion, the nominator withdrew the nomination. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A DRV would probably conclude that it was an incorrect speedy, though that's not really the point - it's largely unsourced (or sourced to IMDB) and probably needs to go through AfD properly. Black Kite 23:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. the skomorokh 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quixotic92, Kmzgirl and Rrindie126

Quixotic92

Quixotic92 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

• Kmzgirl (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Rrindie126 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Evidence

• The group has shown repeated disruption of the AfD process.
• As the logs show, the page has been deleted twice and the only significant author of both versions is Quixotic92.
• Around after the prod tagging, Rrindie126, a new sockpuppet, appeared and removed the prod tag. Then the AfD began. Rrindie eventually started to oppose the AfD. Later, Quixotic92 supports Rrindie126. After the sudden deletion of both two posts by Quixotic92, they then brought the discussion to the talk page.
• Another sockpuppet appeared, then tried to influence the ongoing discussion at the talk page. After I relocated the discussion to the main discussion page, Quixotic92 began to support Kmzgirl's statements. He later denied to have significant relations with Kmzgirl.
• Rrindie later votes again and accuses us of not discussing towards consensus, defending Quixotic92 and Kmzgirl.
• Rrindie126 also posted at the talk page of a relevant image, trying to tell not to delete the image.
• Kmzgirl eventually reveals that all of them are fighting for the same cause and Dominic Luciano is their friend (a sure conflict of interest on the case of Quixotic92).

Report submission by Alexius08 (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving this to WP:RFCU or WP:SSP as this is an inappropriate noticeboard for dealing with suspected socks. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Quixotic92 - now completed - Alison ^❤ 07:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also to note that one of the above users has been extremely disruptive in the sockpuppetry case. I kindly ask for an expedient closure on this and that appropriate action be taken. User shows blatant disregard for WP:CIVIL and likely any other policy and guideline. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A credible death threat?

Resolved

 – Local authorities and Mike Godwin contacted, no further action needed. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this edit [178]. It may just be a joke, however you can never be too careful these days. Maybe someone should consider alerting the school, just in case another 'columbine' appears on the front page of our local newspaper. --Flewis^(talk) 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just posted again [179]. This is the user: 92.16.210.213 (talk · contribs) --Flewis^(talk) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is 3am on Sunday in Scotland. School's closed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already blocked the IP for 72 hou0rs - a note is also placed by myself in the other board just to give a heads to other admins. --JForget 01:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the info for the IP. Might this be an open proxy? I believe we should certainly let the school know about this, at a minimum. Bstone (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The school is closed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The police jurisdiction for this appears to be Grampian PD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. I live there.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And a third time. Even though the ip is blocked, the person sitting behind that computer seemed pretty intent on doing something. --Flewis^(talk) 02:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This site [180] gives a rough location of the whereabouts of that particular ip. From what I can deduce, the ip is located near the town of 'Skipton' by the Yorkshire Dales. That is quite a distance though, from Stonehaven (the location of the school). This is definitely worth checking out. --Flewis^(talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the Grampian police department and carbon copied the message to Mike Godwin. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. On the one hand, we should WP:DENY. On the other, we'd be foolish to not contact the cops. Dlohcierekim 02:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DENY is more to say not to make WP space pages or engage in other ways to immortalize vandals like Gwp and Willy on Wheels. In cases of death threats, it is best to follow the procedure at WP:VIOLENCE. Even if it is a hoax, it is best to be better safe then sorry, especially when it comes to human life. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:TOV says we should certainly report threats of violence. Bstone (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV was rejected (for good reason). But it isn't WP:DENY that's relevant here, but WP:BEANS and the old maxim about feeding trolls (which this thread is great for)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that TOV was rejected, but it has advice from law enforcement officers, Jimbo and medical/legal professionals. Thus it's a good idea and a good piece of advice. WP:BEANS is about the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard when advocating for ignoring all threats of violence. Are you aware that in New York there are thousands of signs which say "if you see something say something" and it was reported there were only 2000 or so reports since it was first rolled out. Clearly the public governments are asking people to be vigilant and report these sorts of events. Makes sense we should do the same. Bstone (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that any government wants us to bother them with internet trolling. But, look let's agree to differ. If you want to phone in trolling etc., it's no skin off my nose, you do what you think best, I'll go with RBI.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you reconcile the fact that TOV contains statements from law enforcement officials and government agencies which implore Wikipedians to report threats of violence with your opinion that "I sincerely doubt that any government wants us to bother them with internet trolling". Looking forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed at how quickly we took care of this-- even to the point of contacting the local PD. Good job, y'all. Dlohcierekim 02:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

<EC> And Erik, well said. Dlohcierekim 02:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still waiting for a reply from either party contacted. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've a friend in Grampian police, I'm sure he'll be amused.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• This threat gets a credibility rating of 0.000000001% from me. Bored frustrated teenager venting his anger, sprot and move on. Do you people not know how hard it is to get the wherewithal for a school shooting in Scottishland? We've only had one in my lifetime, as far as I can remember, and that was emphatically not some semi-literate bored kid. I thought we'd decided to WP:RBI and hand this off to an external list, rather than giving ourselves the foolish illusion of being crime-fighting superheroes? Guy (Help!) 11:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, but that would reduce the drama.....--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We aren't crime-fighting superheroes? Everyme 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No one claims to be a superhero. And a simple email or phone call to the police is hardly dramatic. I don't get paid to evaluate the state of mind of others or to decide whether or not someone might do something. I just turn it over to the people that do get paid (the police) and let them handle it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One should use some common sense though. This is obviously time wasting vandalism. In the UK, it is an offence to waste police time.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we take any further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott, what happened to your mailing list idea? -- how do you turn this on 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's atWP:VPP, but there are people objecting on either sides, and no one volunteering to actually make the list.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mailing lists have to be created by either a developer or Cary. John Reaves 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so. Anyone can create a mailing list.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Official ones do though. -- how do you turn this on 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)