Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

User:Stone put to sky has been blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[1][2]

Warned again one month ago for new attacks.[3]

Continues now with new attacks.

"Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs."[4]

"But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you"[5]

"You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it."[6]

Aho aho is a sockpuppet of Stone put to sky.[7].Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that some strong words are needed to calm everything down. Maybe some informal admin mediation? But certainly the atmosphere is too bitter.

As for the request user result, what does "likely" mean for Wikipedia's purposes? Is it treated as the same as "confirmed", or what? Sky has already been blocked for sockpuppet use. If people believe he is doing it currently then that should be stopped, especially as it is not a declared sockpuppet account. Given the level of disagreements over the article in question using sockpuppets is even more dangerous than usual - assuming he is. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of reference, of the four "likely" sockpuppets listed in the checkuser request, only User:Thecryptthing was indefinitely blocked - the others were not, however. I'm not sure why this is. John Smith's (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Thecryptthing was blocked after an earlier case, along with the others that were, in that case,  Confirmed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why that account was blocked. But what happens with "likely" results? I think this is where I'm not clear on what should be done with these other accounts. It is suspicious that of the three not blocked, only Aho aho continued to post - the others stopped. John Smith's (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Moriss levy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Thecryptthing (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Aho aho (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • YumpinYimini (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ultrastoopid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • UntimelyMaroon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Are all abusive sockpuppets of User:Stone put to sky per User:Thatcher's checkuser. All those accounts need to be blocked and SPTS needs to be blocked as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So can we get an administrative remedy here? A timed topic ban perhaps? Otherwise he will keep attacking these pages with socks. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine and Stone put to sky have been editing warring on the same controversial page for months. I agree with User:John Smith's, the only person, to my knowledge, who has not been personally involved with Stone put to sky that some "informal admin mediation" is appropriate.Trav (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Close, but it's really Ultramarine and SPTS's army of sock puppets, including two that were crated to disparage UM's user name, that have been edit warring. User:Stone put to sky should be blocked for violating policy and it will end two problems. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are they should both be blocked. The page has turned into a war ground for both of them, the few attempts I make to reach a middle ground with either are often met with repetitive arguments, such as Ultramarines continued insinuation that there is a double standard, even though everyone has told him otherwise, and Stone's continued need to battle him. Ultramarines passive aggressive behavior should be examined, and Stones harsh replies to it. While I myself have been annoyed with Ultra for his constant circular arguments, and appeals to random policies as it suits him, the goal is to maintain civility on such a hot button topic. Due to both, primarily Ultra, and it seems the new arrival of DHeyward, I have had to step back from the article.

The participants on it seem to feel they are in a war for the United States, taking each item in the article as personal attacks, renaming the article after not even participating on the talk page, and worst of all appearing here to ask one of the problem people have action taken against them and not the other. Unfortunately everyone's, including my own behavior, has been sub par, perhaps the article should be deleted to save Wikipedia, what appears to be, a handful of good editors.

Just to add it was eluded by Giovanni33 that John Smith and himself are suppose to be avoiding each other due to past admin action, yet John Smith appeared on the page a short while ago, of course arguing the point counter to Giovanni, this article has been turned into a battleground, I am starting to wonder if anyone is really arguing over the article content anymore, or if its a continued fight over past issues. --N4GMiraflores 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni is incorrect. There is no restriction on either of us avoiding pages that the other works on.

If a community sanction is to be placed on both Ultramarine and Sky then that may be appropriate. However, that does not address the issue of whether Sky has been abusing sockpuppets. There was a "likely" result that was not properly processed. I still would like clarification as to how the administration deals with "likely" results and a formal decision made as to whether any action will be taken over the report or not. If it is left idle that will cause more problems. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was a mess when I dropped out months ago and is still a mess. It's always been under attack by banned users and socks (socks of NuclearUmph and FAAFA were caught and banned there), when it's not under full prot. Certainly there has been bad behavior on all sides, but abusive socking is unacceptable and needs to be immediately addressed. The alternative is going to be ArbCom (which may in fact be the only entity capable of cleaning this up). - Merzbow (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Merzbow has a great suggestion, fully protect the article for a month to a couple of months. This has worked before. Everyone loses interest and goes their separate ways. Trav (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly suggesting that as the best way forward, but it's a superior alternative if peace can't be had. But one of the reasons peace can't be had is due to socking. Why not this proposal: 1) Article is put on 1RR probation, 2) Anyone caught socking will be be subject to increasing bans, beginning with a week. To enforce this, we need an uninvolved admin to promise to pay attention to the article. This will save the community the time sink of an ArbCom case. Aside from that, I'm out of ideas. - Merzbow (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, SPTS has been virulently aggressive towards anyone attempting to change the article in question to one different from his own POV. As a further note, given the results of the checkuser on SPTS, N4GMiraflores is likely his meatpuppet at the very least. I'll cheerfully submit to a checkuser to prove I'm not Ultramarine's sockpuppet or whatever-- in fact, I invite it. I'm glad this thread has been made, because the repeated incivil behaviour displayed by SPTS is unacceptable.

Ultramarine has been making good faith efforts to clean up a very bad article, attempting to engage in talk page discussion, and creating sandboxes. SPTS (and his allies), on the other hand blanket revert virtually every edit he makes to the article, and accuse him of bad faith, disruptive editing, and vandalism. Frankly, I think Ultramarine has been remarkably restrained considering the torrent of abuse that has been and continues to be aimed in his direction. Any intimations that he is as large of a problem as SPTS are, quite simply, false. The problem is with SPTS and the other editors who have WP:OWN problems with the article in question and resist any and all efforts at cleanup. Jtrainor (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference between a "meat puppet" and a "sock puppet" are, however I already make it clear on my user page that I have an alternate account. It is one of the reasons I have walked away from this mess of personal issues, it has become too much of a distraction. It is difficult to look at that talk page and not realize you have stepped into a mine field of personal issues. Perfectly reasonable middle grounds are ignored, everyone has stake in the ground and refuses to move, everyone uses the talk page because they are required to, yet no one is interested in forming a consensus at all. Even this message requesting administrators assist the situation is split into a defense of one side, and an attack on the other. It is almost unbelievable that those who views are seen as defending the US position are all stating Ultramarine is not that bad, and all those seen as attacking the US, all see it as Stone is not that bad. Is no one concerned with the article itself? Do you think removing the alternate view is going to make the article any less of a mess that needs work? I think the best answer is to make the article disappear, that way all the editors can move on much like I did. N4GMiraflores is my alternate account, subsequently closed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is an alternate account directly controlled by someone. A meatpuppet is someone you know in real-life who agrees to help you out when you get into disputes, etc. John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that distracts from the issues at hand. First of all final action needs to be taken over Sky's checkuser report and whether a sanction is required. Second Sky and Ultramarine's actions more generally. John Smith's (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, User:64.118.111.137 has shown up on the talk page and begun trolling. Given this thread and the user's contributions, I find the timing rather suspicious. Same user has also violated 3RR on the article itself in an attempt to remove tags. Jtrainor (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Four reverts (one over two edits), so yes, it's a 3RR violation. In less than an hour. I'm almost impressed. But if I read this right, the IP was not warned until the minute of the fourth, so I doubt anything will come of that.

However, I'd welcome a checkuser at this time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, was I wrong! one more revert within the hour, and yet one more revert while I was writing this! Mr. IP wants a time out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:76.102.72.153 has now shown up as well. Fortunately an admin semi-protected the page. Giovanni33, however, has begun reverting the page to the version insisted on by the previously reported IP that was blocked for 3RR. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

User:Rafaelsfingers was only registered at the end of last month and has jumped into the above article, State terrorism and the United States. It wouldn't surprising if he is a sockpuppet - could someone do a checkuser/file a report? I'm not quite sure what to do here. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we have to deal with sleepers... great. - Merzbow (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with IP address user- has dynamic IP so editing from constantly changing address

Special:Contributions/86.29.134.157 Special:Contributions/86.29.141.12 Special:Contributions/86.29.133.181 Special:Contributions/82.152.16.153

This user has ONLY made vandalism-related edits, so simply checking the logs for the IP addresses he/she uses will be all that's necessary.

This person has targeted myself, User: Bsrboy and User: Realist2. We all recently contributed to the Ivybridge Community College article and I suspect it is a student from that (my) school. The IP addresses would certainly place it within the region. Bsrboy is also a student at my school but not one in affiliation with me before our recent edits to the same Wikipedia page (we didn't even know each other existed) so my guess is that this is a non-personal assault by a student on anyone editing the page. He has posted photos of naked men on userpages, sworn ("Fuckers") used racial slurs and generally just...needs getting rid of. Realist2 was going to report this himself, but I'm sure if I do then there is no need for further comment from him unless you ask it of him. I don't know quite what is going on but I think it is clear that this is not something I can deal with. Please help if possible, thanks. (The Elfoid (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/86.133.6.176

Yet another alias of this same user. Can a dynamic IP be stopped?(The Elfoid (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

• All blocked for a week for harassment. They don't seem to realise that the more they do this, the more evidence there is a for a rangeblock which will cut them dead, but at present, it's not there. But it's close. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a perminant ban for using racist language (lol if only i was the King of wiki). Realist2 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My talk page got it again. I'm starting to wonder why anyone would be so dedicated to doing this....I have no enemies. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

86.29.135.72 - forgot to post the latest IP (The Elfoid (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I just got caught in the middle of this, but it's a pretty serious problem. User:86.29.141.188 was just blocked, but as it seems only for a day. I'm going to request protection of Realist2's talk page for now. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say after this many offences, a permanent block's required. If he had made actual edits to Wikipedia, perhaps he could remain...but this is a user who has so far used wikipedia ONLY to cause trouble. My page got vandalised a total of 5 times, Bsrboy's page once, Realist2 6 times. On top of a couple of other cases on other pages, if I remember rightly. (The Elfoid (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

A permanent block isn't possible, for two reasons, due to the dynamic IP. One is that because of the dynamic IP, the user can simply reset and they will have a new IP, and thus be able to evade the block. The second is that a permanent block would block out any other users that might have that IP later on. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I forget about the banning-other-users thing, since I use my account at school and my school's IP is blocked. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Stalking

I am tired of user:SWik78 stalking. He has been warned about that on 2 April [8] but he has not stoped. On 16 March I have recieved WP:ARBMAC decision with which my reverts has been limited to 1 time in 48 hours.

• On 18 March user:SWik78 has given me warning about my reverting [9] .It is important to notice that he has never earlier edited that article.
• On 31 March I have made editorial change in article SAO Western Slavonia. My changes has been deleted less of 24 hours latter by user:SWik78 to clearly POV version of article [10] . It is important to notice that this user has never earlier edited this article.
• On 1 April he has warned me about my changes in article Croatia Records [11] after which he has recieved my stalking warning [12] because he has never earlier edited this article
• On 6 April I have deleted parts of article Creation of Yugoslavia [13]. My deleting has started small editorial war between user:PaxEquilibrium (which has sneaked this part of article in February) and user:Hobartimus . Few hours latter user:SWik78 has reverted user:Hobartimus [14]. It is important to notice that user:SWik78 has never earlier edited this article !!

In my thinking because of this stalking evidence user:SWik78 need to recieve small award--Rjecina (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar to my situation user:SWik78 is stalking user:GriffinSB ([15] [16] [17] [18] he has never earlier edited this articles) which is clear evidence of his stalking policy--Rjecina (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the evidence above shows him checking your contributions rather than stalking. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If the user is undoing edits made by the above editor at multiple locations where they do not regularly/ordinarily edit in order to be disruptive, then it is clearly a form of harassment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am wary of any one editor who makes a conscious attempt to review the edits of another contributor who has a revert restriction, and then edit in a manner to which any response will be a violation of that restriction. That the original editor has a editing restriction may be indicative of a past poor record, but such a restriction was not intended as a means by which another editor may attempt to provoke a reaction. Per Wisdom89 I feel that there is likely an intent to harass. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

About my ban or "poor record" I will show administrator words [19] .There is no need to say that I am angry about that. --Rjecina (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If he is NPOV user (or similar to that) I will not have problem with his stalking because I am stalked by more of 5 users from Balkan region but his Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (both article edits has without any question been POV) and warnings are !

I think that his tendentious edit is clear. In article SAO Western Slavonia he has deleted my edits which speaks about Croatian and Serbian warcrimes so that only Serbian warcrimes are deleted [20].

In article Creation of Yugoslavia he has added section Vojvodina. Problem is that users outside ex Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary do not know that this is nothing else but Serbian name of Banat, Bačka and Baranja so that now article is having 2 section which speak about 1 province my statement is possible to confirm in article Banat, Bačka and Baranja--Rjecina (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Wisdom89 and LessHeard vanU that the evidence shows propable harassment here done by user:SWik78. He should be notified of this thread and given a chance to explain his actions. Hobartimus (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

I'm not quite sure where to begin so let me just say that I in no way, shape or form intend to harass or cause distress to Rjecina (talk · contribs) or anyone else who is working on this project out of good faith. I believe the evidence here has been misrepresented in order to label me as the bad guy even though I don't believe there is a bad guy in any of this. I believe Rjecina takes criticism of his edits a little too personally and sees these criticisms as personal attacks when in fact they're nothing of the sort. I would like to make a few points here so as to explain myself. I will do my best to only defend myself and refrain from accusing others of misdoings so please let me know if I stray from that path.

1. The first thing I would like to do is provide links to my contributions and to a Wannabe Kate summary of my edits. I assure you that these are not listed to brag of any imagined accomplishments in editing (honestly, I haven't accomplished all that much) but they are listed to display the diversity of my edits. I have never concentrated on one single topic, article or editor, rather I spread my contributions to as many different aspects of Wikipedia that my (to this point fairly limited) knowledge allows me to. Most of my efforts have been concentrated on fighting vandalism but I regulary patrol new pages, request speedy deletion of articles, participate in WP:AFD and, not as often as I should, participate in WP:RFA discussions. My user page also lists some of the articles I've created. Again, I'm not looking for any kind of recognition for my work but I only intend to prove the intent of my diversity on Wikipedia. The articles I've created range in variety from a Croatian actress (Zrinka Cvitešić‎), to a Finnish actor (Markku Peltola), to a pshychological cognitive bias (Subjective validation), to a Canadian film producer (Norman Cohn (film producer)), to a mountain in Croatia (Petrova Gora), to a Dutch musician (Marijne van der Vlugt), to a Finnish film (Drifting Clouds (film)), to an American musician (Carl Broemel), to a low budget American film (The Celestine Prophecy (film)‎). Once I am done responding to these accusations, I will cease my edits for a short period of time so that the above provided 2 links can be used by the community to reviewe and scrutinize my edits for any alleged Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or bias.
2. Although it may seem logically or chronologically out of order, the next item I'd like to discuss is my involvement in the Croatia Records article. As Rjecina noted above, I have never edited this particular article. It is a misrepresentation to stop there and say nothing of the fact that as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former Yugoslavia, I have edited and watchlisted many ex-Yugo music related articles (Toše Proeski‎, Đorđe Balašević‎, Novi fosili‎, Srebrna Krila‎, Doris Dragović‎, Bajaga‎, Prljavo kazalište‎, Thompson (band)‎, Marko Perković‎, Vesna Zmijanac‎, Miroslav Ilić‎, Tanja Savić‎, Bježi kišo s prozora‎, Tamo gdje ljubav počinje‎, Oliver Dragojević‎, Zdenko Runjić‎, Tereza Kesovija‎, Diskoton‎, Jugoton‎, PGP-RTB‎ and others). Recently, there was a content dispute started between Rjecina and 64.46.2.216 (talk · contribs) on the Croatia Records article. During their dispute, Rjecina did in fact delete a disputed section in this edit. I didn't revert the edit because I lacked the knowledge of the subject but I did post this warning on his page because in his edit summary he accused the IP editor of vandalism when it clearly was nothing more than a content dispute. In his accusation of me stalking him, he failed to advise this notice board of the fact that I left a similar warning for the above named IP editor for the same exact thing because he made this revert and in his edit summary called Rjecina a vandal (rvv = reverting vandalism according to Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend#Revert to a previous edit). Furthermore, I believe it speaks of my neutrality to say that the IP editor left this message on my talk page after the warning I left for him and spoke some more of his reasoning to label Rjecina a vandal. I, then, posted a response to him in which I strongly defended the same editor I'm being accused of stalking (my exact words were Rjecina's edits are not made in bad faith, therefore, you are incorrect in calling him a vandal). Therefore, the situation is being misrepresented because warnings were left for both sides involved in the dispute and both sides were given a link to WP:VAND#NOT to familiarize themselves with what vandalism is not.
3. This edit I made on SAO Western Slavonia that Rjecina refers to twice in the above summary of events and which he calls clearly POV was a revert of this edit of his so I only reverted to a version previous to his which I don't believe to be POV. I will do my best not to bring content disputes to this noticeboard but I just want to say that I reverted his edit because I generally find it unneccessary to keep listing Serb war crimes and Croatian war crimes out of context and simply for the reason of it being there. I felt, in utmost good faith, that the sentence he inserted was out of context in this article and did nothing to further explain Serbian population's reasons to separate. I believed it to be a sort of WP:COATRACKing.
4. Another edit that he refers to twice is my reverting of this deletion of his. The section that he deleted was quite large, well written and well sourced. At the time of his deletion, there was no discussion on the article's talk page about this section and the edit summary he left included the question Can somebody please explain what is having "Serbian" Vojvodina with Creation of Yugoslavia?. I believe that this question he asks might be a valid question but, instead of being asked on the talk page to reach a consensus, the question was asked after the paragraph was deleted and, therefore, it served no purpose. When I placed the section back, I also attempted to neutralize it by removing the word Serbian from the heading hoping to ease the tensions somewhat. Please note that I did not add the section to duplicate another existing section as is claimed above. The section has been there for some time and I had nothing to do with its creation, I only have an issue with large chunks of well written and well sourced text being deleted without consensus or even a proper explanation. I would revert the same edit from any other editor, including an administrator, if I felt that the removal was unjustified. Also, note that PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) has also replaced that section in the article believing it to be valid. Both PaxEquilibrium and myslef only replaced the deleted text so I would challenge the statement made in Rjecina's above summary that my edits have without any question been POV.

I'd only like to say 2 things in conclusion:

1. Contrary to what I'm being accused of in the POV department, I also revert POV edits from Serbian editors as can be seen here, and here. I also suggested here that an article defended by Serb editors and not liked by the Croatian editors (Petar Brzica) be nominated for deletion where I would vote to have it deleted. My motivations are not political, they are Wikipedical.
2. I earlier stated that I would refrain from accusing others of misdoings. If my following statements make me break my own promise, I do apologize but I deem it necessary information. Immediately after the warning I left for Rjecina in which I informed him of incorrectly labelling others as vandals, he posted these messages ([21], [22], [23]) on other editors' pages in which he accused me of WP:STALKING. First of all, the definition of stalking states that it is editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress. As per the evidence I provided earlier about my contributions and edit summary, I edit a very small portion of the articles that Rjecina edits and they in turn constitute a small portion of thousands of other articles I have edited. I promise all of you that my intent is not to cause annoyance or distress even though this seems to be that case due to Rjecina taking this to heart. I explained that to him when he first accused me of stalking and tried to explain that I'm commenting on his edits, not him as an editor. However, I question the sincerity of the intent of his accusations due to something he mentioned several times. I believe that he wants to see me punished more so than he wants me to leave him alone. In this and this edit he speaks of an administrator tool given to me by administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) and he is referring to the WP:Rollback feature. I must say that explicitly asking Fut. Perf. to remove this from my control (Maybe it will be OK for you to delete his administrator tool) seems punitive rather than preventative because I have never, ever misused this tool against Rjecina nor enyone else and I have fully abided by the rules governing the use of this feature. Indeed, if I was not denied permission to keep using rollback in my daily vandal fighting, it would in no way affect Rjecina negatively (or positively) in any way what so ever. I believe I use the tool well for what it was intended and I appreciate being given the opportunity to prove myself responsible with it.

So I will end it here. I thank you for your time and ask that you please accept my sincere apologies if I overstepped my boundries by by taking up too much of your time to read such a long diatribe but I felt the details necessary. As stated before, I will cease my editing for the rest of this day so that my edits can be reviewed for any alleged pattern or bias. I do welcome further questions from any administrators either here or on my talk page.

Thank you again!
Sincerely, SWik78 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking you have writen long text so that everybody forget part about stalking because you have not explained your changes in articles after I have edited !!!!

If your edits has been neutral and not tendentious can you please explain your defending of users which has sneaked article changes without discussions and not protecting original article. When I speak about that I speak about changes made by PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) in article Creation of Yugoslavia. Because it is possible to see that article is controversial all changes has been discussed before writing article. Only change which has not been discussed is PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs) POV change.

I still wait your answer about stalking or if you do not understand word how is possible that you have started to edit or write warnings about my edits if I have not been stalked ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will not be explaining anything to do with content here because this is not the place for it. If you have an issue with an edit of mine, bring up that specific edit in the talk page of the related article or on my talk page. Every message I left for you and every comment I made about your edits was very specific - I commented on your edits, I didn't comment on you. You seem to be blanket accusing me of a multitude of things from stalking to POV editing to writing long passages in order to confuse people. I welcome criticism but please criticize what I do when I do it, don't criticize me as a person or as an editor once you think you've had enough. I do understand the meaning of the word stalking as well as I understand the Wikipedia definition of WP:STALKING and I am not guilty of either just as you are not guilty of stalking 64.46.2.216 (talk · contribs) by reverting his edits you don't agreee with ([24], [25], [26]) and commenting about him on other editors' talk pages ([27]), as well as his own ([28]), and responding to him in discussions and calling him a vandal when you disagree with his edits ([29], [30]). That does not make you a stalker by any means so how does it make me one? I have an issue with editors being labeled vandals during a content dispute and I will always stand up for those people, whoever the accuser. But I am not stalking you nor anyone else. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add something if I may. At the very beginning of your summary of events you stated that you warned me about stalking on April 2 (which is true) and that I haven't stopped. From April 2 up until the time you initiated this thread, this is the only edit I made on any article that you recently edited. One edit in 4 days is enough for you to accuse me of stalking and not stopping? Mind you, I agree that there doesn't have to be a specified number of edits to constitute harassment but how do you deduce my negative intent towards you from one edit (that was not directed towards you anyways, it was a revert to a previous version of the article and my edit summary only spoke of content, not any editors) among the 200+ edits that I made in between your message on my talk page and my revert on the Creation of Yugoslavia article? SWik78 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your guilt is more clear every time when you try to defend yourself ! From history of Croatia Records it is clear that I have protected NPOV version of article from November 2007 ( [31] ) and when I have not been in position to protect article anymore administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise (which has given me revert ban) has started to protect my version of article against POV SPA account. It is interesting to notice that you have warned me about protection of this article :)

On other side you have never earlier edited article in which you have reverted me from NPOV to POV versions of articles and because of that this has been stalking ! In 4 situation about which we speak 3 times you have reverted (or given me warning) page in support of Serbian POV. One of this times has even been in support of forever banned person. Last warning it has been about my protection of NPOV version which speaks about Croatian company (administrator has supported my action). This is saying everything about your edits :)))--Rjecina (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have both said everything we can without repeating ourselves or getting into a content discussion. Let's allow others to express their opinions, questions or concerns. I welcome further questions from administrators here or on my talk page.
Thank you! SWik78 (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?

How do everyone suggest dealing with attempts to get other people blocked, including massive incivility? See this and onward on my talk page. There seems to be a mess of arguments between User:Squash Racket, User:Nmate, and User:Hobartimus on one side versus User:Tankred, User:MarkBA, and User:Svetovid on the other. Some also seem to be using the warning templates aggressively probably in a harassing fashion. Now, I've blocked Svetovid earlier for continuous arguing and incivility from Hedvig Malina. Otherwise, I've told everyone to use the warning templates and WP:AIV. Any suggestions beyond removing all the comments my talk page and telling everyone to deal with it themselves? Block people for harassing other users? I've had some edit disputes, I guess, with a few so could an outside admin look at this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if anything should be done about the user who started this nonsense saying that he's complaining about me "as suggested" and "Let's see if we can't get him and his kind kicked out of here." Some meatpuppetry going on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry no-one else has responded. As far as you are aware, are these editors only edit-warring on the Hedvig Malina article or is that part of a group of articles? I'm inclined to protect the article page for a day and give a stern conduct warning on the talkpage. Will there be many other editors caught by a article protection, from your experience? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring at Malina seems to have calmed down, so I don't protection would be that necessary. Another article was been Bratislava Castle which again has calmed down. This seems like part of a larger nationalist argument that I cannot piece together. I'm just wondering if it's worth doing anything beyond wiping my talk page clean and ignoring everyone. How many times is it appropriate for admin to tell others than I am not interested in being their cop before *I* can just block them for bothering the hell out of me? Just need an outside opinion as to how to respond. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted anything on Ricky's talk page in the last couple of days and already apologized for the earlier comments there answering another editor's accusations (and suggested deleting the whole part or using a hide/show template).
Some users post reports there that belong on a noticeboard and if it goes unanswered, the administrator will probably think it's completely valid. If I cut and paste those reports to where these belong, I would edit others' comments which is not allowed.
Still I decided to pass on yesterday's new report there though I could have added a few things. Since Ricky asked me recently to use WP:AIV I stay away from his talk page.
What to do when another editor who received the same message reports others directly to Ricky instead of a noticeboard? Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If the edit war has calmed down, I concur that you should wipe (or archive, just in case) the material and replace it with a notice that you do not wish to involve yourself with the matter (with a suggestion of taking it to WP:AIV). Like everyone here, you are a volunteer and you decide how you are going to help the encyclopedia. If you do get the sharp end of a few comments, and you are unable to ignore them, post a level4 warning and take it to AIV if repeated. I hope editing becomes more fun for you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You already got involved by your unexplained and seemingly biased comments and actions towards me, Ricky. You still haven't explained or apologized for that. Saying that you now don't want to be part of this seems a little strange now.--Svetovid (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned you about your uncivil comments ("Do have a look at the following articles: Fallacy, List of fallacies and specifically Ignoratio elenchi, Straw man, and Poisoning the well."), you went into a rant about nationalists again, and then I blocked you with an explanation. You had ample time during your block to request an unblock and if another editor thought it appropriate, he could unblock. I am not in the mood to rehash arguments you yourself used as a reason to complain to another user who posted it at WP:AN. You can't have it both ways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have further told you that comments like this ("watch out or you may be blocked for complaining without any explanation from Ricky") are not helpful and rehashing arguments at Hedvig again and again simply to get a fact tag slapped on a page that you obviously wanted deleted from the start is also not helpful. If anyone else has a suggestion, I'm open to it. I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him (check his last edits for reverting back in a number of articles using popups). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are just statements, not explanations.
I listed the fallacies and nobody challenged that yet so my comment stands and your reaction to it was inappropriate.
"I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." -> was this comment aimed at me? If so, I really would have to report this because you would have crossed the line of genuine confusion.
And to provide full information and avoid quote mining, here is the comment I made.
Moreover, why cannot I state my opinion on nationalism, especially when I was asked about it? How does that make my comment a rant?--Svetovid (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After being warned not to use "misleading statements" [32] by an administrator, to trying to get people blocked, Tankred first went "admin shopping" to user DDima, with the same misleading statement [33] , he was warned for citing a number of warnings (most of them given by user:MarkBA as harassment[34]) as "evidence". After he was rejected by user:DDima he went for AIV with the very same material now multiple times rejected [35] but now also falsely accused his victim of vandalism, but his complaint was promptly rejected, with one user charactherizing it as [36] "fraudulent report during a content dispute". Should he be allowed to shop the same material around to every forum and admin until he can mislead someone into a block? He was already warned and did it anyway and a quick look at his contributions shows other issues as well. Hobartimus (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand that Hobartimus shares Nmate's POV, I cannot understand why he is protecting an evidently disruptive user. If this edit[37] is not vandalism, how would you call it then? As to the warnings, Nmate has received a nice collection from four different users ([38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50]). Just look at all his personal attacks, for God's sake (see a list that excludes the most recent ones at [51]). Tankred (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Typical forum shopping yet again. Posting the same thing but not posting all the previous reaction to the material depriving it from all context for the 4th 5th time?. Among the reaction is admin warning about [52] making "misleading statements" user comment describing it as "fraudulent report"[53] and the fact that WP policy WP:HAR, found at [54] states "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them,... in their user space is a common form of harassment." Let's see how many warnings came from user:MarkBA who was already suspected [55] of harassment of this user weeks ago? I count no less than 9 warnings coming from MarkBA in Tankred's post above and what is more alarming that even some of the remaining warnings came after MarkBA directly requested another user to "watch out" [56] referring to user:Nmate, and the solicited warning arrived one hour later of that message [57]. A case of mass warnings given/organized by a single user almost word for word matching the section from WP:HAR down to the "restoring such comments" part. This by the book harassment is now presented as "evidence" to strengthen a weak multiple times rejected case. When shopping around like this all the previous responses and rejections are swept under the rug and this is why we need a definitive answer to the question in the title of this thread "How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?" Hobartimus (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA - an editor with 7,500 edits, 1 featured article, 1 good article, numerous DYK articles, and 3 barnstars - retired because of Nmate's and your hostility. I fully understand his decision. It is hard to contribute to a project in which you are called names and your nation is being constantly ridiculed. But MarkBA was only on out of five editors that have warned or blocked Nmate. Thank you for diverting this discussion from Nmate's disruption to a retired editor, who cannot defend himself against your attacks. And this is also my last attempt to ask the community for help. Since no one is interested in dealing with Nmate's repeated personal attacks in edit summaries,[58] hate speech,[59] and disruptive editing,[60] I have no reason to waste more time in this discussion. Tankred (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred is an edit warrer. He/she started deleting my edits, multiple times under false summaries[61]. Look at Tankred's edit history:[62] and block log:[63]. He/She's massively edit warring on at least 20 pages. And it would be "uncivil" calling him a disruptive editor or vandal or something even "worse" wich can be derivered from the likeness of his edits and behaviour and style and what you can see easily? Where are your eyes at?

Tankred is the disruptive and agressive POV-pushing user, who tries to hide this, by accusing everyone else as acting like him. No no no no, Tankred starts it and then tries to show himself as (in the role of) the victim as well as the saviour of wikipedia. However he uses the NPOV and other policies not for Wikipedia, but against Hungarian users, and Hungary and Hungarians in general.

Tankred is the agressor, however, the users he/she harasses unfortunately respont almost in the same way :( I am sure, that Wikipedia without Tankred would be a better place. I suspended my editing because of him, alone. This user is the "nationalist, POV pusher etc. vandal", hiding it by accusing everybody else of being that. TANKRED STARTED ALL THE EDIT WARS. This was my last comment on enwiki, do not try to respond or send e-mail, i wont answer. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now, this feels familiar. Anyone have any suggestions beyond closing this as "this is not the complaints department" and go to dispute resolution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not consider an article ban? A group of editors who've been part of highly contentious editing on Hedvig Malina in the past would be banned from directly editing that article for a period of time. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction Arbcom ruled that: Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. For previous bans issued under this case see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Archiving?

On User talk:Kei-clone, editor Kei-clone has stored a copy of MyAnimeList, an article fairly deleted through AfD on April 2nd for failing WP:WEB (by his own statement, it has now been deleted three times though only once through AfD). He first put this article on his talk page back in January, then removed it on March 17th when he recreated the page. The page was nominated for AfD on March 25th, at which point he archived the page to his user talk page again[64]. The page was deleted, along with a related page. I left Kei a note suggesting he now remove the article, per WP:USER or move to a subpage if he intends to work on the article to try to meet notability (which was never able to be established during the entire AfD). He said he can leave it on his main talk page if he wants to because it doesn't violate WP:USER. Additionally, User:CanadaAotS has also archived the same article, on his user page, and has had that archive up since January.

I feel both of these archives our violating WP:USER, as neither is showing any sign that they are doing anything but just simply trying to keep a copy of the article on Wikipedia. Both archivings make their user pages appear to be an article rather than a user page. I'm asking for an admin to address this as I'm uncertain on the rules concerning this since these are main user pages instead of user subpages, and Kei's reaction makes me suspect both editors will ignore anything said by a "regular" editor, particularly the one who AfDed the original articles. Collectonian (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in usersapce, it will not come up on a wikipedia search. The question is whether it sets out to be misleading. On User talk:Kei-clone, given there is a welcome template above it and talk messages below it I'd be inclined to answer this as 'no', though one might reconsider if done up exactly to look like an article page. The second user also has a proviso above it, so in this case (at this stage) I wouldn't do anything about it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I am going to respectfully disagree with Casliber. I am concerned that what appears to be a full article is being "sheltered" on a talkpage, especially since the information was recently deleted at AfD.[65] If the information is not being worked on, then the article should be blanked off the talkpage, and a diff can be included which links to the information in history. User talkpages should be used for communication between editors about Wikipedia content, not as archive space. If the draft is being actively worked on, then it should be moved to a subpage, though if after a reasonable period of time it appears that the subpage is just being used as a free archive to dodge the AfD, then the subpage can be nominated for deletion via Prod or Miscellany for deletion. --Elonka 07:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#WEBHOST is relevant, here. The "article copies are okay in userspace if you're working on them" rationale seems to fall flat once the community's decided to content should be deleted. Maybe give it a little time, see if they're working on a deletion review request or something else productive and reasonable, but if it's just sitting there and they're not doing anything else, it seems we're being used as a webhost of sorts. Should the information really be needed, it'll still be available in history. GFDL compliance may be a concern, here, I haven't looked. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

once the community has decided a page should be deleted, it is especially appropriate for it to be in user space if for the purpose of improvement. Not that I think that this was being done here. And we may need a statement that such uses should be on a subpage. DGG (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and part of my concern. This editor hasn't touched it since archiving it, or much of anything else except for a few brief messages with another editor. He is showing no signs of intending to do anything with the article at all but hold it until he thinks no one will notice it being recreated. I agree, that it also needs better clarification as to where such an article should be and what qualifies as holding for redevelopment. Collectonian (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is in usersapce, it will not come up on a wikipedia search Er, no, it does: this is the result when I put the name in the "search" box. If you meant Google...well, User pages show up there, too, which I suspect is the entire point.

If the editor doesn't want to work on it, he can keep it on his own hard drive until he's ready. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As Sintaku and I have informed the nominator previously more than once (although I removed that section), we are keeping it on my userpage for development purposes. If the problem is that the article isn't on a subpage then that can easily be fixed although I'd like someone to point out to me where on WP:USER it says I need to do that. Kei-clone (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That requires you to actually being developing the article. You've done nothing to it. User pages are not for indefinite holding of a deleted article until you someday decide to work on it. Also, Sintaku's were a general statement, not anything related to your continuing to hold it nor to CanadaAots having now had it archived for almost four months. Collectonian (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have other things more immediate in my life right now than a Wikipedia article, so there have not been any recent edits. The article was deleted hardly a week ago, and this is being a bit hasty. Also the entire process has left somewhat of a bad taste in my mouth so I feel I need some time away from it before I can properly improve upon it.

Still, if you need proof you can look back in the history of my userpage. I, and other editors, have used it before as development space for the article, and now that it has been deleted we shall continue to use it as workspace to improve it to wikipedia standards. It's a rather lengthy process at times, but this saber-rattling and effort watching over a userpage that hardly anyone looks at could really be focused on other things more important to wikipedia quality really. If I was a new editor I'd surely be disenchanted and gone by now. Kei-clone (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps you should mention your WP:COI in the matter, namely you being a forum moderator at MyAnimeList? And that you posted on the forums there asking people to come to Wikipedia to argue against the deletion of the MAL template? FYI, insulting other editors off site is still a violation of WP:CIVILITY and Wikipedia:No personal attacks as you did in saying "what an asshole, keep watching my page after she got what she wanted." while referring to me.[66] (and yeah, your forums are public, so going over there to post about what asses we are here really isn't wise). Collectonian (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(as a side note, Kei has had the entire topic deleted, but not before putting out a call for assistance). Collectonian (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna stay silent your above comments because they are beyond the scope of this discussion but if you post misleading information like that I will have to point you out. I definitely did not put out a call for assistance for this discussion. Sandgolem's comments below were made entirely of his own volition. In fact, I did not even notice that my userpage was being watched until other members who helped contribute to the article (and watched it die before being relocated to my page for development) alerted me to this. Even after it happened, I had never asked anyone on the forums for assistance with our current topic at hand. The fact that I may be WP:COI or may have violated WP:CIVILITY also has nothing to do with my userpage (and the fact that you actually managed to dig that comment up only reasserts the reasons for my comment anyway). While they may have been relevant in the AfD, and if you feel I have offended you at some point we can resolve the dispute somewhere else (probably not here, dunno exactly where as I'm not familiar with every dispute resolution procedure on wiki), they don't need to be brought up here as I remain respectfully civil in any matters of discourse when it pertains to WP policy, regardless of my opinion of you as a character. Now if you would please remain within the scope of our discussion, which is the contents of my userpage, that would be much appreciated. Kei-clone (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought I'm not really sure what else there is to discuss. I already made it clear here, if I was ambiguous on the userpage, that this article is going to be worked on, if not now then later. Shouldn't this be case closed? Kei-clone (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your off-site insult and your posts there speak to your intentions with the archived article. You posted a link to this discussion there, when MAL and its forums have nothing to do with the discussion either. That, to me, is a call for the members there to come assist by joining the discussion. In either case, it is clear that you do have a conflict of interest with the article, and in looking at your contribs, for nearly a year you have done almost nothing but work on the MyAnimeList and MAL Uploader articles. As someone tied to the article, with an interest in its contents and promotion of the site, you should not have created the article, nor should you recreate it. Someone who is not a moderator or otherwise directly connected to the site should be the one to do so, and only if real notability per WP:WEB can be established. As such, you do not need to have it archived at all. Collectonian (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was informing everyone that their comments were being watched, which was true. Afterwards I had second thoughts and decided not to add more fuel to the fire so I had the thread deleted. The link to the discussion was simply proof that the thread was being watched, and whether you believe so or not I am going to let all the other editors here know there was no call to arms or any of the sort. Your whole COI claim is weak because if you read WP:COI carefully you'd realize that it is simply a warning and a guideline, and the policy isn't so black and white that it immediately disqualifies me from working on an article that is worked on by multiple editors as long as I stay neutral and within the aims of Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, may not be the most neutral editor either. Although we can't exactly prove it, multiple editors from the AfD have called you on possible WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so let's just call this ad hominem attacking off now shall we? Kei-clone (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI may "just be a guideline" but that doesn't mean its one thats easily dismissed nor ignored. That almost you entire edit history relates to an article about a website you have a direct and personal connection speaks volumes. As for the IDONTLIKEIT, a - that's thrown around in nearly any AfD by supporters, b - I have no issues with MAL and despite whatever you may believe, I investigate to see if it had notability before AfDing it, and c - the whole "OMG you hate anime" really doesn't work against someone who owns thousands of dollars worth of anime and manga, has her own anime site (which, BTW, I would never presume to make an article for), and contributes heavily to the Anime and Manga project. Whether you personally like it or not, the plain and simple fact is that MAL is NOT a notable site per Wikipedia guidelines, period. Maybe in a few years as it grows, it will be, but right now it is now. Few websites are and even fewer anime websites are. Collectonian (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're so into looking through edit histories you should also notice that before it was deleted, the MAL article was contributed by many editors other than myself, which is why this COI claim is so weak. I never claimed that you hated anime (it is quite clear from your userpage you don't) nor was I one of the editors who threw the IDONTLIKEIT at you, but I thought I'd point it out since you seem to be quite intent on perhaps even salting this article that you'd even continue attacking it on its development ground, and when your original points - that I was not developing the article on my page - were dealt with and explained, you go on to attack the editor's motives and whatnot. Nonetheless, I repeat that these points are beyond the scope of the discussion at hand, and request that we return to the actual topic - how my userpage is supposed to be used - rather than the contents of the article. To prevent going off on another mudslinging tangent I shall refrain from replying to any further comments that don't directly involve the discussion at hand and await for perhaps third opinion. Kei-clone (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, CanadaAots has now moved his archive to a subpage (as well as archiving off site with a link to that page in his user page), but that doesn't negate the fact that its been "archived for development" for more than 3 months and he clearly states it is a "backup" not a copy to work on to try to improve/develop the article to meet WP:WEB for possible recreation. 3 months and no intention of editing, to me, seems like a pure violation. Kei's is more ambivalent though he has given no real indication of actually doing anything but holding it as a backup either. Collectonian (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(I wrote this up before reading Collectionian's latest paragraph. I've decided not to change my reply)

I've moved the text to a subpage on my userpage (User:CanadaAotS/MyAnimeList-WIP). As you can see even in the title, it says "WIP". At the moment, I do not have the time to edit this article right now due to exams and generally having many other things to do. This isn't just an archive. I will be working on it soon enough. Probably within a week at most. If you all feel the need to delete it anyways, I've already placed a link on my userpage to a shorttext url, that I'll keep synchronized with the subpage's code as I work on it (assuming it'll continue existing).

This'll be my only reply on the matter. It doesn't really matter to me, it's just a lot more convenient, since I can't see syntax mistakes as easily when editing from a notepad file.

Oh, nothing to do with the matter at hand, but for the record I'm a he. haha. CanadaAotS (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've updated my post appropriately. Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry as a user of MAL, one of 40,000 users I might add. I feel that Wikipedia is out to get us. I thought we met the notability creditial already. It seems to me, that the only reason this is a consistant problem is because there are certin wiki admins with a personal problem against MAL and they are doing absolutely everything they can to remove the page. I wouldnt matter if we were listed in the New York Time I have a feeling the article would still get deleted.

Sandgolem (talk) 2:12, 8 april 2008

It has nothing to do with admins at all. The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, plain and simple. A single brief, casual mention in one magazine does not make the site notable. If the New York Times did a piece on the site, the no, it probably wouldn't be deleted. Try to assume some good faith as several editors and admin who supported the deletion are also fans of the sites who use it. That alone doesn't make it notable and they were able to be neutral enough to acknowledge that, just like some of the people posting over on MAL in the now deleted thread also were able to acknowledge. Collectonian (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that only Ned Scott admitted to having an account on the site, and he never voted delete. None of the admins nor editors who voted delete admitted using the site or were "fans" of it. Not that the past two comments had anything to do with the discussion at hand anyway... Kei-clone (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, it is recommended that the use of a personal sandbox or drafts page is a good idea. And as long as there is something on the page identifying that it is a user page and/or is a draft, I don't have a problem with it. There are occasions were material has been deleted where I know there are sources yet don't have the time to visit a library to get the proper sourcing, and it may be months before I do so. I know of a recent case where an article only acquired reliable sourcing over 12 months after deletion. Unfortunately, the user who developed the article has been banned so it is invisible to non-admins. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, guess I'll throw up a userpage box Kei-clone (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Subsection:Is there some guidelines on personal sandbox use/userfying somewhere?

Is there some guidelines on personal sandbox use/userfying somewhere? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DRAMA = WP:ANI ?

I'm just a lurker, but is WP:DRAMA really supposed to link to this noticeboard? That seems odd... Dgcopter (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny. My last edit. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[67] and [68] --barneca (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's intended to be one of those little harmless, but still amusing, things that keeps us admins somewhat sane. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is supposed to link here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the humorous redirects. I use WP:SMITE all the time. Neıl ☎ 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PFFFTT! I didn't know SMITE existed. I'm using that too. In the same vein, I believe WP:SMOTE should go here. Any takers? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would love for WP:PWNRSHP and/or WP:PWNAGE to go to WP:OWN. Also, WP:PWNED could possibly go to something block- or ban-related. Mike R (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to... — CharlotteWebb 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Just an FYI, WP:SMOTE was a redlink when I posted above. Now it goes where I thought, humorously, where it should go. Ack. What have I gotten myself into??? :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

THEY killed WP:RICK's redirection to WP:ROLL as well. John Reaves 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually WP:RICK should redirect to Template:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar, or to User:RickK, or to some other kind of memoriam or maybe a "Don't be a Rick" essay.... — CharlotteWebb 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal MediaWiki interace, WP:RICK would redirect to an external link. Cookie to whoever guesses which one... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it should redirect to to Rick's Cafe right DiMo? :P Dureo (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it count as being Rickrolled if I only hovered over the link? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ignore all dramas. The Cabal (TINC) has spoken. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An aggressive sock puppet?

Could anyone check please if an IP 206.186.8.130 (please see his talk page [69]) is a sock puppet of User:RJ_CG? They both conducted RR warring at the same page Chekism: [70]. Note that User:RJ_CG inserts poorly sourced defamatory statements in BLP of Yelena Tregubova right now [71].Biophys (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Most probably User:RJ_CG forgot to log in or was logged out by the WMF software and did single edits to Chekism‎ and Talk:Chekism articles (within 3 minutes). Do not see any reasons to violate WP:AGF here. I fail to see a connection here with User:RJ_CG's edits inserting Kommersant's (former employer) opinion about the subject of the article I also do not see how the newspaper's opinion may be better referenced then by providing the reference to the online version of the publication on the newspaper's own website. I would suggest to work towards consensus rather than shop for a block of your content opponent Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So, do you confirm that IP 206.186.8.130 was him? If it was not him, all this conversation does not make any sense.Biophys (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • My guess is based on the account's contributions and probably as good as yours. It looks quite believable that some edits of the account belongs ro RJ_CG while the other belongs to a different user. Quit possible a shared IP address Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So, you think he does not deserve even warning for edit warring on the same article using multiple accounts, even though he was blocked multiple times on the both accounts and was uncivil and disruptive according to ArbCom decision? Then I am sorry for interruption here.Biophys (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day threatening to stir up libel actions.

This user is blocked for vandalism and gross incivility. He's been evading the block by coming in with variant IP, sometimes just his local ISP block, likely, but also from various ISPs around the world. I was reverting his edits, as have some others. He then turned to some biographies of porn stars and removed unsourced material, claiming BLP violation. As he is a blocked editor, I reverted his edits, though in some cases I also posted to Talk, inviting any editor to review his edits, stating that I was not making any content decision in reverting him.

As he had, I am sure, planned, he reported this to WP:BLP,[72] where, as he has before, he stirred up a flap, with the first response being, from a number of users, that he had no right to edit articles. At this point I continued with my reverts. Then other editors arrived and protested at the return of BLP violating material to the articles (which is understandable). Then an admin unblocked one of the block-evading IP addresses,[73] though it was quite certain this was being used by the block evader. Because I was asked to stop the reversions where BLP might be involved, I have; however, this is background. The following is the occasion for this report:

User:Fredrick day (See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IP addresses and socks, the ID is not doubtful) wrote:

am I going to have to email those people to get some action taken? nobody is bothered that a unsourced claim about people having AIDS is being re-added to articles?[74]

so the answer is - I'll have to email each of those people individually and put out the audit trail that shows that I tried to remove libel from articles but it was felt best to add it back in.[75]

[edit inserted by Fredrick day]This of course misses out the context, that Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article. This is all in the history - ABD preferred to just keep reverting them back out. Even in a situation where it was indicated that the article stated without sources that a woman had infected others with HIV. What option was I left with but to get a bit shouty? I'd tried removing the BLP vios,abd reverted me, I'd tried to highlight the BLP vios on the BLP page, Abd reverted me --87.112.67.187 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what I was doing was being explained, and legitimate users were being invited to undo my reversions if the edits were legitimate, my actions weren't based on content, it is as if I were a bot capable of identifying that an edit was made by a blocked user, but not capable of reviewing the content, so no content decision was made through them, and yet attention was called to them, ultimately through BLP, and, indeed, some users did revert some of my reverts, which was quite proper, all I was doing was placing, effectively, Fd's contributions in a kind of "submitted status," instead of allowing him to unilaterally edit articles, given that he is blocked and massively evading it. As I mentioned, I've stopped doing this in the same way, but the above shows that the blocked user is not acting for the welfare of the project, but to force his own agenda. More aggressive measures may be warranted, and, at least, his IP should be blocked on sight.

--Abd (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It does sound as though the blocked editor might be playing games with us. But I don't see the logic of you reverting his edits to biographical articles without checking the content. I think WP:BLP should take precedence over the more subtle issues you have mentioned. Nobody should act like a bot where biographical articles are concerned. Measures to prevent User:Fredrick day from editing biographical articles might be considered, but mechanical reverting should not in my opinion be one of the ways. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've seen this game before. Banned user edits in such a way that when we revert him we do something worse, which of course is what he wants. It's a particularly refined form of malice. My recommendation is to just check each edit. Dynamic IP -- you probably wouldn't even have to bother to block unless he starts disrupting something, or vandalising again. Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he isn't banned, then you shouldn't be reverting all of his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does anyone actually think that he shouldn't be? -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that if he hasn't been banned by the community or an administrator, then his edits should not be undone wholesale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stop reverting edits that violate BLP. -- Naerii 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is also seeming a little pointless as he appears to have a limitless amount of IPs. The best thing to do is revert, block, ignore (i.e. deny recognition) with the caveat in this case that you don't restore BLP violations. I know it's tempting to revert him as he is intensely obnoxious but by doing so you're playing right into his hands. -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bother with the biography changes, but I did revert his edits to the BLP board. They at least were clearly intended to be disruptive and attention-seeking, and I thought that revert, block, ignore was the appropriate action in that case. I was a little hurt that one user said I was wrong to do it, and another admin unblocked one of the ips that I blocked without even contacting me, and if I was wrong to revert and block in that situation, I'd like to know so I don't do it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe in this case ignore, ignore, ignore would be better. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a relatively experienced user very deliberately trying to get editors to fight with each other. He is block-evading, using various techniques, openly defiant about it, very aware that he can manage to edit even with quite a bit of effort made here to prevent him, though more could be done (IP block his home range, for example. The damage from a range block would be small compared to the damage he is regularly inflicting, and the message from an IP block gives ways to get around it, not difficult. There are not many edits from his IP block. He still has other ways to post, but they are, I'm sure, more cumbersome. He can make lots of them for a short time, but keeping it up would be another matter.)

I still believe that the simplest solution would be to bot-assisted revert all his edits, once he is clearly identified, *then* review them manually and bring in what is legitimate. This converts his edits into what I've called "submissions." Just as if we had moderated submissions. Which ain't a bad idea, all by itself.

This user regularly lies about what has happened. He knows that many readers won't bother to check, or that a superficial check may make it look correct. See above, where he claimed that "Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article." No, I did not revert out appeals to the BLP board unless nobody had responded to them yet, the original and long appeal was left in. Besides, editors concerned with this stuff use watchlists, you can't keep edits out of vision by reverting it. I invited users to check my reverts and bring back in anything legitimate, since I knew that some of it was almost certainly legitimate. Now, what he wrote above is totally unreliable, he knew what he was doing, he set it all up so as to be able to make claims that would seem legitimate on the surface. Hence edit summaries can't be relied upon. If he can, he will use copyvio and BLP claims to justify many of his actions, as a cover. He's a deletionist, so all he has to do is claim a violation (copyvio is handy, just claim that something is improperly quoted and it can take some work to determine if that is true). The real situation here is that this is an editor who has had some success setting up wiki-riots. That he can succeed in this is something that we should notice. It's about us, not about him. He plays on all the suspicions that, it seems, many of us hold about each other. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are to believe he's trying to prove a WP:POINT that "ban-evading users can be helpful" and/or "it's easy to bait reverters into looking very stupid", but that he's skipped the low-lying fruit in favor of less trivial (and harder to find) issues which could, potentially, spare us from legal problems... something doesn't add up. So I have to ask, is it possible that at least some of the copyright and "BLP" violations were in fact planted by him beforehand (using whatever another account or IP)? — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history of Sarah Harding, one of the articles he complained about, and none of the bad edits came from ranges he's known to have used. If someone reminds me what the other articles were I'll look through them too. I wouldn't put it past him, especially considering the vast amount of ranges he seems to have access to, but it'd be difficult to prove. -- Naerii 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd never add BLP to an article because I'm aware that I would be legally liable for that edit, if the living figure came knocking. I'd removing it from articles that are in disputed categories and so on. Abd idea of a bot revert of edits of banned users is unworkable because it would make the bot owner legally responsible for adding libel to article (remember the foundation position is that you are all responsible for your own edits and actions, they would not help you). Regardless of whatever made-up rules Wikipedia has, the law is clear, if you add or repeat libel, then you are responsible as if you had created the libel. Saying "well it is our wikipedia policy that we revert banned users" would not cover you in a court of law. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So (can I call you Freddy?) is your goal here to prove that certain policies do not co-exist well and that common sense should ultimately prevail, or that one particular policy ought to be changed, or that you should be re-instated as some sort of "user in good standing", or that User:Abd puts his antipathy toward you ahead of the project's best interests, or are you acting only out of genuine concern for the article subjects, or do you just enjoy watching other users' heads explode? — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm too far gone to be re-instated as a user in good standing so that's not worth discussing. However, the most recent wikidrama we've seen here was kicked off two nights ago when I tried to remove BLP from a single article (a line in the Seal article about him working for prostitutes) - I was reverted and then when I headed over to BLP to bring it to people's attention, I was reverted there and the libel reinserted. I was a bit surprised at this, surely people were checking out if libel was occuring (and I was leaving detailed edit summaries of what I was removing)? So I'll be upfront, the following night (last night), I'd had a look at the porno categorizes and started to remove libel from there, At that point, I'll admit, I was interested to see how far people would go in their zeal to "punish" me. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the answer, people desire to play toughguy override their common sense about BLP - even when the edit summary clearly explained what the libel was. So yes in a sense, I guess I was testing policy - regardless of my status, is it really a bad thing that 2 things have been highlighted 1) that regardless of status, anyone bringing BLP violations to the BLP board should have those claims examined, not just reverted and that 2) regardless of status, that edits that seem to remove BLP violations should not just be reverted without consideration of what is being reverted back in. What I find most staggering is the claim that they should just all be reverted "because it's a lot of hard work to find sources"! that's is a shameful attitude for an ecyclopedia to take in regards to it's duty to Living figures. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what CharlotteWebb says, there is no example of "certain policies do not co-exist well". Even when dealing with banned editors, WP:BAN is clear on this - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". There is no policy that says that BLP violations are added back regardless of who removed them, and anyone doing so should be jumped on from a great height in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking somebody if they are trying to prove X does not mean I believe X is true, or that I even hold any opinion on X. I went on a limb to list several possibilities regarding Fredrick's actual views and motives. I was hoping a compromise of sorts could be worked out here, though I still have some doubt. — CharlotteWebb 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no sign of any effort to "jump from a great height" on those who inserted these allegedly violating claims (more accurately, they have been unsourced claims, low-lying fruit, when I investigated one it seemed pretty solid), but rather an attempt by Fd to get everyone else to jump on me, and on other users similarly aware of his shenanigans, based on some alleged disagreement about BLP policy, being deliberately set up by a blocked user who knows exactly what he is doing and how to get editors worked up, which he has done before (it's part of what he was blocked for in the first place). I'm finding certain aspects of BLP policy "not coexisting well" with BAN policy, on what may be deeper consideration than what is currently reflected on the policy pages. To really pursue this would probably involve consultation with Foundation legal advisors. Better procedures are needed. I have no intention to push the edges of BLP policy, it's important, and I don't blame other editors for being concerned. But be careful. This guy is lying about what happened, so don't jump to conclusions based on his reports. Know, as well, that he will report something that he knows could appear improper from a superficial examination, that is how he worked before. And, from what has been happening, it still works.

My possibly improper reverts are very easy to find, just look at Special:Contributions/Abd, all of them have clear edit summaries that are about the blocked user, not about the content, and are preceded by the edits allegedly fixing copyvio or BLP problems -- or other alleged problems. I have in some cases specifically invited other editors to look at the situation, and whenever another legitimate editor has intervened, I have taken my hands off that article. It's then up to that editor. Given that this information was already up, generally for a long time, my reverting it back in increases the risk to WMF, if at all, very, very little. Fd has claimed that I'm taking upon myself personal liability for what I do. Yes, I know that this could, under some extreme situations, be true. And that's my business, not anyone else's. Frankly, though, I take on more risk just driving down the street or owning a house. Much more.--Abd (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Don't be confused by the barrage of smoke set up by Fredrick day. There were a series of reverts which I did to the edits of a blocked user, and some of these reverts may have been inappropriate, they explicitly did not (much) consider content. Some were definitely appropriate, some, probably not, and Fd was deliberately setting this up so that a bad revert would be likely. Then, today, I made *one* edit to *one* of the articles where someone else, not me, had reverted Fd and Fd had again reverted back. What I did in my revert was *only* to restore the material and supply source, the fact involved is widely reported, and is actually in the article on the living person in question, Darren James, as well. I have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source, though I did check it, and what Fd has discovered may indeed be that there is a veritable hive of improperly sourced material in the articles on porn stars, but I see no sign whatever that the claim involved is controversial (though there is some question about the direction of infection; nevertheless, the original source I found, which, on the face, seems reliable, was old, 2004. The risk to Wikipedia of this material being up is minute. Nevertheless, even though Fd has again reverted it out, that is also harmless, our readers will not suffer for not being informed of something they could find in a few seconds with Google, and so I am not touching this article again. Besides, researching this, I get exposed to lots of material I'd rather not see. The question I have is, can we rely upon a known vandal and troll (one who seriously tries to get Wikipedia editors fighting with each other) to police these articles? One place I agree with him. If he edits an article, the edit should be examined carefully. Now, who is going to do it? And if one person does it, how do we know, so that many people don't duplicate the labor? I had a suggestion. Someone who knows he is a dangerous, blocked editor, who would not hesitate, I suspect, to actually carry out the threat to incite a libel action against Wikipedia, should immediately revert him on sight, and then other editors, more familiar with BLP policy and the general subject area, can look at the edits and quickly and easily restore them if they are useful. In this way, there is no duplication of effort, and the only harm is transient. This material was up for a long time, months at least, and being up a few more minutes isn't going to kill us. But that's my opinion, I'm certainly not going to force it on the community.--Abd (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

should immediately revert him - what part of don't reinsert material flagged as unsourced on BLPs don't you understand. It's irrelevant that people can find it on google, it's irrelevent, how long it's been there, it's even irrelevant that it might be true, because we are not interested in truth but verifiability from reliable sources. Your advice is very dangerous for a number of reasons - the main one, is that any editor who reverts the material back in will then be responsible (in the eyes of the law) if it actually was libel being added in. Be very very clear about this, as mentioned upthread, if someone comes knocking with a lawsuit, the foundation will hand over you IP and other identifying details about you. why? because YOU are responsible for the edits you make, not wikipedia, not the foundation. The correct way to deal with this is NOT Revert>>>check, it is check>>>>add in material that can be sourced. Abd should be asked to either a) stop repeating this advice on multiple boards and threads or b) be forced to add a disclaimer about the position of the editor who makes the revert. He is advocating reinserting BLP violation as a matter of course - regardless of my status, this would have massive ramifications and needs to stamped on immediately. --87.112.233.6 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not advice, it was a suggestion, clearly, not to be implemented unless the community agrees. First of all, I'm not an anonymous editor. My real name is on my User page. And I'm not making reverts that risk BLP violations; I certainly may have done that, there was a fuss, and I'm not doing it again. I made one edit today that I do not consider a risk at all. Fd, who apparently can now edit with impunity, reverted it, and I don't care.--Abd (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty, anyone?

Interestingly, Fd notes that he's too far gone to be unbanned at this point. But, he is arguably more disruptive and difficult to track when editing from all these IPs. I would rather see him edit from one account, so that his history can be more readily scrutinized. That would also facilitate his investing time in making some more constructive contributions, since he would not have to fear their reversion. Might we not extend amnesty, and allow him to edit under an account, in exchange for an agreement to follow Wikipedia rules? (And indeed, might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation?) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Say, aren't you a banned user who should be immediately blocked? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:56, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation? He means himself - this editor is the blocked user Sarsaparilla --87.112.233.6 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been claimed by 87.112.x.x (which is certainly Fredrick day, I think it is also 87.113, 87.114, and 87.115, plus varios singlets of random ISPs around the world). Yes, there is reasonable suspicion that SLN is Sarsaparilla, and not surprising that Equazcion, a nemesis of Sarsaparilla, would notice it. There is a pending checkuser request to test this, I've commented there, confirming that the suspicion is reasonable. The suggestion is nevertheless worth consideration. And is likewise problematic. A great deal depends on details.--Abd (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever, unbanning somebody because they go out of their way to prove that the ban was sound by vandalising and disrupting the project is probably not the smartest thing we could do. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam.J.W.C. Stalking

Adam.J.W.C. (talk · contribs) has recently outed the identity of (or attempted to - I don't know if the identity they gave was correct), another editor. The edit in question was oversighted. Adam has since taunted the other editor with his claim to know his identity e.g. "did you get my Facebook poke?" Now he is querying on his talk page whether it is permissable for him to post photographs of people against their will. In my opinion this is both Wikistalking and real world stalking, and I believe it is appropriate to turf him off the site for good. Any comments before I do the honours? Hesperian 04:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh.... he made a general inquiry here regarding people in photographs, never alluding to "post(ing) photographs of people against their will." It was a question and not a forceful statement, and does not constitute stalking. And a Facebook "poke" isn't stalking. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh... he published the identity of someone, poked them to prove he knew who they were, taunted them about it here, then started a thread about whether he would get in trouble if he posted a photo of someone and they complained about it? I reckon if it was you who had been outed, you'd be a little better at reading between the lines. Hesperian 04:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement hear is a bit misleading. I inquired of User:J Bar a few days back about posting photos with people in them. He did not respond until sometime today. If you look closely I am responding to the message that he left on my talk page, that is why I wrote what I did. If it wasn't for him replying to my question that I left on his talk page a few days ago. I never would have wrote this. You need to check the message that I left on his talk page and his reply days later, and then my response to him at the same time of the other incident. Please Check. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also User Jbar copies and pastes what you left on his talk page onto your talk page every time. You need to check the diffs a bit better and his take page.

You are giving us very little to work with, other than vague generalizations. A "Facebook poke" isn't stalking, and you have provided very little context or supporting evidence of anything else. Starting a general thread asking if posting a photograph with a person in it isn't stalking either. If the statement was phrased in a way that alluded to the publishing of a photograph on WP with an individual in it, then that could be a legitimate complaint, but I don't see that. Unless I am missing something here, isn't this where you should be adding in citations to your statements, or at least providing at least some documentation -- an OTRS #, for instance. seicer | talk | contribs 05:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd be difficult to do that - no-one who's replied to this thread are OTRS volunteers so aren't privy to that information. I'll ask and see if that information is available somewhere. Orderinchaos 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One editor outs another, outing edit gets oversighted, outing editor gets indefblocked. SOP in my book. In fact, I was thisclose to blocking him myself after reading this thread. But in lieu of that, I endorse Hesperian's proposal. Blueboy96 05:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Hesperian and Blueboy - I saw the edit before it was oversighted. We do not need the drama of possible real life stalkers on Wikipedia and the indef block has a lot of precedent. Orderinchaos 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a possible copyright vio.? This post at UER.ca from Hatsumi stated, "some disgruntled person steals your images, sets up a wiki, then sets about trying to get every location u know and love locked down while also trying to ruin urbex for ur whole city - then brags about it ?" The user disclosed in private conversation that it was Adam J.W.C., but has not provided any supporting evidence of such incident. Would it be safe to remove the images? seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are they uploaded here? If they are, gimme the links and I'll speedy the lot. Blueboy96 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot. If you start at the top... But it's hard to determine which images are legit and which are not, and I couldn't garner any further information from Hatsumi @ UER. seicer | talk | contribs 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't help matters that the UER message board is behind a subscription wall. Still reason enough to watch this user's uploads VERY closely. Blueboy96 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn. I've sent in a request to have the thread made public, but it contained no other posts from the user except for that. The private correspondence was a little more detailed, but not by much. seicer | talk | contribs 05:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The images Adam kept stealing were Bunker today.jpg and Inside bbunker.jpg from the Bankstown Bunker article please also see : [76] Dmod (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you on the Bankstown Bunker talk page. I was given permission from the guy that runs this website [77]. If you look through the permissions for those images there are email confirmations from this guy, Peter Dunn who runs the website. The matter was taken care of on Commons once the mistake was pointed out to me. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to war with you any further - I could go on about this issue forever. I just hope you can learn to listen, if you did the whole OTRS thing would have been avoided Dmod (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Its over and done with, like I said before once the mistake was pointed out that was it. Now someone has nominated the CC article for deletion, I am neutral to this but it might be of interest to both parties if it was deleted. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is over and done with? There was a complaint at the top of this section and it is usually an admin - and not the complained about - who either closes or somehow resolves the issue - and the issue seems to have been lost - would an admin please at least allow someone else other than the editor complained about to actually review the issue before attempting to divert the original point completely SatuSuro 11:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - revealing someone's identity on here in a fashion which actually had to be oversighted, then taunting them about Facebook just two hours after an oversighter deletes the offending edit, while implying geographical proximity to the person, is very menacing behaviour and completely unacceptable. It's most definitely not "over and done with". Orderinchaos 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with an indef. block for stalking, and continuation of such behavior after the outing was deleted. As for the images, I'm discussing the matter with a user from the Cave Clan group itself, and I am hoping that that issue can be resolved shortly. seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Other image problems

Distortion from a 10.5mm lens--an extreme wide angle lens.

Other uploads by Adam.J.W.C. also present problems. Surveying the situation with representative examples (this isn't the whole of the problem). For starters have a look at the fisheye lens article and compare it to the official specs of Adam's camera. The widest angle setting of a Fujifilm FinePix S5700 is 38mm, which does not produce extreme distortion. A large number of Adam's uploads are missing parts of the metadata, and combined with the physical limits of his known camera's lens this raises questions about his claims to copyright. I'll supply examples.

• 
  Extreme distortion; notice the floor tiles. Image metadata includes the aperture but not the camera model.
• 
  Extreme wide angle distortion. Metadata includes aperture but not camera model.

Also, Adam has been edit warring over Photoshop changes. Check this image edit history. Another example is Ladakh Highway: original version, Adam's version. Adam's edits are poorly conceived and less valuable than the original images.

A number of Adam's uploads are also orphaned images.

• Image:2008 0101klklk0009.JPG
• Image:2007 0801klklk0010.JPG
• Image:2007_0801klklk0023.JPG

Also, I was not impressed to discover that one of Adam's joke images was being used in an article.[78] Note the image description EU ID for user space and uncyclopedia later. Not only did Adam place that in an article,[79] when someone removed it he reverted the edit as vandalism.[80]

So I suggest the following:

• For modified images, wherever Adam's edit is the live version compare it to the original and probably revert.
• For original uploads, first check the metadata. Given Adam's forum post and the limitations of his camera, there's a very strong possibility that the images which lack camera make and model may need to be deleted as copyvio.
• For original uploads that do list his camera in the metadata, check to see whether the page is orphaned.

Durova^Charge! 09:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well all I can say to this is that I make mistakes but try to improve myself when possible even though my improvements may be wrong. You need to get your facts straight. I spend money on this shitty website that I work on for free as in, camera, petrol and computer software. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk)

I am not using a fish eye lens, I join photos using a special program. Some of the photos that I upload are a combination of up to thirty photos or more. I am afraid that you are completely wrong. The meta data changes when I use programs such as photo shop and PTGUI. I have recently started to use this software and am trying to improve my image quality. I used to use a fish eye, it was useless and then I found out about photo stitching and then learnt how to use the photo shop program. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want I have a good proposal, I can show you the photos before they were joined, I think this would solve this problem. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What about adding the joke Bin Laden image to mainspace? - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with that. The images were from commons. If it is that bad then just delete it. Here is the original [*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia_And_Herzegowina_ID_issued_13_12_2007.jpg] but I am having trouble finding the osama one. I may have gotten it from this project and not commons. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That wharf isn't stitched. Some of your uploads may have been stitched, but not that one. Durova^Charge! 10:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for your post to that forum about doing copyvios of other people's work I'd be more inclined to give benefit of doubt. Do you have a good explanation for why so many of your recent uploads list aperture setting and even exposure time, but not the camera make or model? Durova^Charge! 10:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is my whole point. I am trying to show you the photos before they were stitched. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• 
• File:Before the stitch.JPG

Well I have found that when you use ptgui or photo shop it changes the meta data for the camera. If you want you can delete all my photos. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, benefit of the doubt for the wide angle issue. Photoshop adds edit data; it doesn't normally strip camera data that I know of. What about the orphaned images and the joke image you used in article space? Durova^Charge! 10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - every one of my uploaded photos goes through Photoshop. Paintshop Pro strips *all* metadata from it, but Photoshop maintains the original info - see for example [81]. Orderinchaos 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the single shot cathedral with the man sitting in the chair and the stitched version at the top he is in both photos. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I posted this before I got one of them from commons. Also what foram are you talking about. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with that. The images were from commons. If it is that bad then just delete it. Here is the original [*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia_And_Herzegowina_ID_issued_13_12_2007.jpg] but I am having trouble finding the osama one. I may have gotten it from this project and not commons. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC

• I have to leave my computer now. I will be away until tomorrow round the same time. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam, if you think this is a shitty website, stop contributing. While on the topic of images, do you think you could change the image you added in Urban Exploration to one which has the same width as all of the other images? Dmod (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the distortion-fisheye issue, some camera models come with extra lenses that attach onto the lens. For instance, my old Nikon Coolpix 4500 had a variety of lenses that I could have used, like a fisheye or wide angle. And some programs do strip the EXIF data or at least some of it -- I seemingly lose some EXIF data after post-processing in Lightroom->Photoshop CS2 it seems (mainly aperture). seicer | talk | contribs 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam's camera doesn't have that interchangeability. If you can show me an instance where your photo processing software accidentally stripped camera make and model from your metadata, I'd be interested. Here's my field experience:

• 
  An image I resized in Photoshop CS. Adds info for the program, but doesn't take any camera info away.
• 
  After upgrading to Photoshop CS3. Same thing.
• 
  Here's one I worked on in CS. It's missing camera data. That's because it isn't my photography; the photo was shot in 1942.

This discussion has verified two instances that shed considerable doubt on Adam's good faith and editorial judgement: one where he deliberately discussed pulling mass copyright violations on someone else's photography and another where he put a Photoshopped joke into article space and kept it there. He doesn't regret either of those actions. A substantial portion of his uploads had already been deleted before I started looking into this. So I no longer assume good faith in any of these gray areas. Our responsibility is to protect the integrity of the project and prevent possible legal exposure to the Foundation. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have numerous photographs inserted on my four web-sites (linked from my user page) but they have been processed from a RAW file to TIFF and then to JPEG (for web-viewing) through Adobe Lightroom. Some images have been HDRed in Photoshop CS2, and the compression of multiple images most likely distorts or eliminates EXIF data. Stitching together multiple photographs into a single image will have the same effect, and some or all of the original EXIF data will be lost. I also cannot find any wide angle or fisheye lenses for the Fujifilm Finepix S5700, although a wide angle exists for other Fujifilm models; this does not take into account any possible third-party manufacturers.

Adam, can you give the model of the lens? It would do much in simplifying the discussion. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

fyi [82]--mikaul^talk 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review the thread: we've already settled the fisheye issue. Others remain. Durova^Charge! 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate reverting

Adam has been persistently reverting edits made to the Cave Clan article wherever his contributions have been altered. He does this citing vandalism and advertising where neither seems applicable, and despite the objections of several other editors. I have attempted to discuss this matter with Adam on his talk page, however my inquiries have gone unanswered. He has recently[83] been challenged regarding similar editing practices on other articles and been blocked from editing Cave Clan.

Other editors seem to have been experiencing similar problems with Adam's reverting habits on Identity document [84] and a 45 revisions & 2 months revert [85] on John Wayne Glover. S.Nadir (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked him per the discussion above and particularly the comments made by Hesperian in support of such a move. This makes no presumption on the separate issues raised regarding the images, those still remain to be resolved. Orderinchaos 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Those discussions above should continue - he will probably be unblocked within 12-48 hours once he engages with the community about his recent behaviour. Orderinchaos 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Adam deserves to be blocked for a period of time and so I endorse the block, however, I must admit that I'm not all that comfortable with a ban or an indefinite block at this point. It seems quite obvious to me that the other person's name was raised as a means of intimidating an editorial adversary and there are still concerns above about some of his images and his habit of edit warring and blanket reverting any edits to articles he's essentially taken ownership of. So I would support a fixed block of say a week or something like that with the understanding that the indefinite block will be immediately reinstated if he ever posts another user's personal details or possible personal details again and an agreement from Adam that he will stop the blanket reverts and edit warring and start to work collaboratively with other editors. Sarah 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I go with the "indefinite is not infinite" point of view. We have indefinitely blocked him, when we get a commitment from him that the behaviour will not persist, then we can unblock him or shorten his block to an appropriate finite length. From developments at his talk page I suspect we will get some kind of commitment to that effect soon. Orderinchaos 07:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot asleep?

Resolved

 – It was a problem with the section headers. --Elonka 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, User:MiszaBot II used to be archiving at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, but it doesn't seem to have done anything since March 24, and there are many threads on the page older than the 14 day cutoff, such that it's up to 280K. The bot page says to report errors here at ANI. So, anyone have suggestions how we can "goose" the bot to start up again? --Elonka 08:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is significant, but the last edit it made to that page was to create a new archive - maybe that broke it somehow? Hut 8.5 09:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It archived on the 5th. It only archives when its 30 days old, not 14. :) Collectonian (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same page? The one I'm looking at hasn't been archived since March 24, and it's set to a 14-day cutoff.[86] The bot seems to have created a new archive normally (#42), and copied a thread to it,[87] but hasn't worked since then. --Elonka 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, I looked at the talk page. :P I can't see anything weird in the code and it doesn't look to be tampered with. I did a partial manual archive to see if it helps prod it. Maybe something in a post was hampering it since MiszaBot has continued archiving other Wikipedia space pages on schedule. Actually, I just did a comp of the page at the last archive and the current and the header levels had also been changed. I think that may have been what broke it since, essentially, it was probably considering the whole page one big active thread. So I've fixed them back to what they were before. Let's see if that fixes it. Collectonian (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot stopped archiving because it's only capable of recognizing separate threads as level-2 headers. Each Wikiquettes alert used to be a separate level-2 header, but they all seem to now be level-3 headers under "Active alerts". So, unless the entire "Active alerts" section can be archived, nothing will be. The format of the page will need to be changed back to using separate level-2 headers for each alert, if automatic archiving is to function. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:24, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Looks like fixing the section headers did the trick. Thanks for the help!  :) --Elonka 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

500,000 ips blocked by Thatcher

Resolved

 – Move along, nothing to see here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Thatcher blocked more 500,000 IP addresses from editing wikipedia.S\he was told not to do so by Stevo Crossin twice....
Note: A WHOIS shows the IP is from a rather large range, an IP range block here may be impractical. Just my opinion here, its up to an admin here, but seems a large range to block. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: A range block here would not be permissible, CIDR suffix of 70.104.0.0/13, rangeblocking would whack out 524,288 addresses. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC).
...but did so anyways:
So far I've blocked 70.108.128.0/18 and 70.108.64.0/18 anon only. If he creates an account presumably he will be recognizable. There are a very few good editors on that range. Thatcher 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The block needs to be lifted and Thatcher needs to stop being overzealous. One cannot punish the masses for the actions of one. CassieSOUBRETTE (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that Stevo Crossin is an authority on range blocks. On the other hand, I've always thought Thatcher was careful and diligent in these things. So there must be a reason the IPs were blocked - can you fill in some details? Without them, it seems reasonable to trust Thatcher's experience here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, if only 70.108.128.0/18 and 70.108.64.0/18 were blocked, that's much less than 500,000 addresses. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above) Actually, according to the evidence provided above, Thatcher did 2 /18 blocks. A /18 block each covers 16,000 or so IPs, thus he blocked 32,000 adresses, large but still an order of magnitude less than the 500,000 implied above. /18 blocks are large, but still below the Wikipedia policy limit, which I believe are /15 or /16 blocks. This is well within reasonable limits, and I don't see that Thatcher has done anything wrong. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he has only blocked two /18 ranges that is only 32,768 addresses. There is no "policy limit", but there is a software setting for maximum range size (talk to the devs). Thatcher's reason for blocking those two ranges was "disruptive IP-hopping anonymous editor evading blocks" and they will both expire 5-6 hours from now, if that helps. — CharlotteWebb 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that what he was told not to do (block a /13) is not the same as what he did do (block two /18s). You may be confused here. And nobody is being punished, anyone (well... except you) from those IPs is free to create an account and edit. --Random832 (contribs) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• See this. SSDD, plus CassieSOUBRETTE (talk · contribs) is evading the block. Thatcher 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That account is blocked.[88] Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And I thank the topic creator on behalf of the admins for making blocking them so easy. 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is a checkuser. Steve Crossin is not. Thatcher has confidential IP information relating to the use of this IP range. Steve Crossin does not. Thatcher has experience in evaluating whether a block is likely to be effective or detrimental. Steve Crossin does not. I'm inclined to side with Thatcher on this. Daniel (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For posterity: To be fair to Steve, the sock is misrepresenting what he said: [89]. --barneca (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've struck part of my above comment, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regardless, I'm still inclined to agree with Thatcher :) Daniel (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I assumed you knew that, I just thought I'd clarify for future readers before the thread is archived. --barneca (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Increasingly uncivil conduct from User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

I've only been tangentially involved with this user prior to now, but I believe it needs an eye from an uninvolved party:

• Declaring as pointy a tag that had been applied two months previously on an article he'd never worked on. No reason to call it pointy as I advised him/her here and when the discussion continued on my Talk, I pointed out that nothing exempts stubs from being cited if the info is challenged.

• In response he continues to refer to the tag as pointy. It's not pointy and I don't intend to revert because I have no desire for an edit war on this article.

He has a history of issues related to reference tags, but his tone is increasing.

• Same article, different person, he demands a self revert because he's close to 3RR. Appears to be some history between the two.

He's exhibiting odd ownership of this article, considering he'd never worked on it before. Doesn't like the presence of any tags.

Unrelated incivility is present here with this discussion.

It's not a question of content but rather his/her tone which is a bit off-putting. I recall another discussion to this end here or at WP:AN, unfortunately I've not been able to find it in the archives.

Suggestions? Neutral eye? I'll be notifying him of this as soon as this posts. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "increasing" uncivil conduct. Regarding the tagging by User:Londo06, he tagged a web article with prophecy, crystal and time-context [90]. But these templates are for articles which directly tell something about future event. Although the site is about a website which depicts future scenarios, it is not about any future event, it is web article. Hence the tags were inappropriate in the article and I told User:Londo06 to remove these. And regarding WP:OWN, I have never shown anything like that. The article is about a website which meets WP:WEB as it has three good references describing the subject in detail. So I removed the "refimprove" tag. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter beyond the fact that the demand was replaced by a request after liaising with the user in question.Londo06 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, immediately calling someone's two-month old edits, POINTY is quite uncivil. And none of the refs demonstate notability, which is why I originally added the refimprove tag. It exists, that doesn't pass WP:WEB. I tagged it for refimprove so someone would hopefully fix it.

The website is notable per WP:WEB. WP:WEB says website will be notable if "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". The article has three references and all cover the subject significantly. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone tell if the following sources establish notability:

• A complete article on the website
• Discusses the subject in quite detail
• An entire paragraph on the website

Why the article will fail notability based on the three sources. However someone who has more knowledge regarding WP:WEB should look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One of which you added this morning, hence the need for the refimprove tag. It needed improved references to establish notability, so can you explain why the tag was pointy? That's the issue, not the article itslef. I only noticed your tagging because it was still on my watchlist from when I tagged it before. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The issue is with 'Increasingly uncivil conduct', one only needs to have a look through the history of talk and it is plain to see the number of instances when an editor has had occasion to question his actions. I have tried to politely suggest he moderates his behaviour but he just pretended not to understand and deleted my comments as indeed he does with all adverse comments.Paste (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

After declining to comment on their current incivility I can confirm that this user has a long history of problems with a vasst number of users, most of which the user chooses to remove from their talk page. I myself fell into this category, without wishing to beat the guy up too much, I think they should take the message on board and be civil.Londo06 18:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have had second thoughts about contributing to this thread, and now I can confirm the presence of numerous incidents with editors and some administrators that the user merely removes from his talk page without seeming to register with th editor, except in some incidents, in which the editor is uncivil in an aggressive way towards those who take issue with him

(See Smallthorne's edit history where the user tagged individually every sentence in one section, which is not the best way of proceeding; he was then reverted by one user, which was itself reverted to reinstate the tags by this user. Exchanges (including some with an administrator) took place on the user's talk page, which resulted in a removal, by the user, of the tags with a highly inaccurate and damaging description of the editors who took issue with his method of tagging. A report was made at WP:Wikiquette alerts, though it remains unresolved: This: diffs for unacceptable comments in edit summary; exchanges about his Smallthorne edits on his talk page; Wikiquette Alert (not yet resolved, though an apology for one aspect was made)

See Peterloo Massacre, where an entire section was tagged, inappropriately a number of us felt, as unsuitable for wikipedia here This was raised on the user's talk page, and the user made accusations of incivility and harassment on my talk page, here, because I said he was an over-zealous tagger (which, having read by then the numerous other incidents in his talk page history, I believe could be sustained. This was accompanied by a removal of my message on his talk page alleging that I was "trolling" here. Now, I do accept that my wording would have been better phrased as "over-zealous tagging" rather than "over-zealous tagger", but by that time, a look at the talk page had already yielded a large number of disputes between the editor and others, some of them administrators, over the use of overly speedy or unfounded tagging, or too speedy speedy-deletions or inappropriate AFDs, sometimes brought about by using a semi-automated system and not taking enough time to carefully consider the subject matter and status of articles.

Amongst the other incidents, a glance at the user's talk page will see that there are numerous other issues to do with editors, including administrators, disputing the mass-tagging of articles without careful enough reading of them to establish whether the tagging was at all appropriate. This led to him being temporarily prevented from using Twinkle, which had been used to carry out mass taggings, etc here, though the more recent history shows that this has had only a slight effect on behaviour. Some other problems from early January and February this year are: here January 13 2008; on 20 January, but issue took time to be resolved; here on January 26; Mislabeling a dispute about a vandal warning as being itself vandalism; mislabeling vandalism; Problem is edit summary and unexplained edits in the midst of an editing session by another February 15; Problems to do with mass MfDs; Contested, inadequately and unexplained and possibly inappropriate reversion February 19; and warning about overly speedy/unchecked deletion nominations February 21. These are what I discovered fairly quickly, and I could have spent more time getting many more such incidents.

Now, I do believe that the editor is doing very good work, but in between this are these incidents that I think are troubling and potentially causing problems. In this I wish to state that I am very much in favour of more care being taken to verify information in articles as much as possible (I feel I have to state this, as the Smallthorne incident, above, led to myself, an administrator, and another editor being accused in an edit summary of not somehow seeing the worth of verification.) However, it is the means by which some of the actions to improve verification are being carried out: mass tagging in which not enough care is taken to see whether the tags are appropriate; other incidents when speedy deletion requests are put in within 5 minutes of an article being created when the editor concerned is still obviously working on the article (a few incidents in his talk page history); or where unreferenced tags are placed immediately in a set of edits that cause edit-conflicts with the editors who omitted to put inuse templates, and repeated immediate tagging of some of these articles, sometimes wanting strange verification of matters that are almost common knowledge in other incidents (a few incidents.) The editor has complained about the behaviour of other editors, in various places, some on here, before. I think some of the complaints are justified, but there is a worrying amount of evidence on his talk page that shows that sometimes he has brought the behaviour upon himself by the problems I have summarized, above. I really do hope some attention can be given to helping this situation get resolved, as I really do think this editor makes good contributions, and they should be encouraged. However, the problems I and others believe are present also need to be addressed so that the editor's work can be further improved. Sorry for the length of this message.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Suicide note edited into suicide article

Resolved

A user has written a suicide note into the Suicide article here [91]. I don't know if this is the right venue, but I thought I should report it somewhere. Dawn bard (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have blocked user and emailed the Foundation for their information and action. That's all that needs to be done right now unless someone with Checkuser access can look up the IP and contact the authorities? I doubt there's much I can do from here. .--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry too much about it. "Goodbye cruel world"? Uh-huh. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but custom and practice, per Jimbo and previous threads here, is to take all these seriously. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look in checkuser. It's someone playing silly buggers. I blocked all account names I could find and hard-blocked the IP (it was previously soft-blocked for vandalism). I also deleted the offending rev - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider reporting and action via WP:TOV. Bstone (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The H-word and Dana Ullman

There's been quite a bit of arguing over at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents recently, regarding User:DanaUllman (AKA Dana Ullman). Frustrations seem to be nearing the tipping point. Some admin comments would be helpful here, as nothing seems to be being done with respect to the comments already there. Relevant sections to this particular dispute include

• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#gross_WP:COI_on_pushing_of_another_shooted_down_study,
• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies, and
• Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Shoemaker.27s_Holiday:_When_Content_Disputes_Lead_to_Attacking_the_Messenger.

A note to other involved editors: I'm deciding not to weigh in with any of my opinions here, as there were concerns about too much of that happening from involved editors in the Whig case. I can't stop anyone else from doing so, but it might be appreciated if we can keep this thread from becoming another battleground. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that one reason for the silence might be that people don't wish to plumb through the discussion without some summary first of what's going on. So, I'm going to go against my previous advice to explain how I see things. Basically, Dana has a chronic problem of misrepresenting sources in a direction that favors homeopathy. All the evidence is laid out in the above links. When these concerns are brought up with him, he starts quibbling. For instance, in the third section linked above, he pulled the discussion down into quibbling over the use of the word "retraction." It's gotten to the point where a lot of editors immediately distrust anything he says. He has a clear motivation to promote Homeopathy on Wikipedia, and yet he claims that he has no conflict of interest. (The difference between him and your average MD however is that the MD has no obvious financial benefit from promoting mainstream medicine on Wikipedia.) He's shown throughout his history here that he's practically unable to learn. I wasn't even able to teach him how to use diffs - in fact, he couldn't even tell the difference between a diff and a link to a section of a talk page. That's just one example of the difficulty in working with him. When it comes to sourcing, it's almost impossible to get him to interpret anything in any way except that which is positive for Homeopathy. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will also go out on a limb and suggest that the reason for the "silence" is the lack of justification in bringing this subjective appraisal of another editor's serious academic efforts to this Noticeboard. Dana Ullman has sought to bring true scholarship to the homeopathy articles on Wikipedia - which are blantantly slanted in their language toward an anti-homeopathy bias, with deliberate attempts by a number of editors to exclude positive research findings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, pushing the same flawed studies over and over on different talk pages trying to get around other editor's objections that they are flawed and unsable for the article(s). That's not a serious academic effort, and in wikipedia that's called POV pushing --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did my bit here a long time ago. I don't regret that and, upon reflection, do not think that I should have consented to my original decision should have been overturned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be unlikely that you'll find an admin willing to take action on an AN/I request on this particular situation, for several reasons: a previous indefinite block was overturned, the mentoring situation is a bit unclear, and the pattern of disruptive behavior does not lend itself easily to quick, digestible presentation. If it has not already been tried, a user-conduct RfC may be the most appropriate setting to get more input. I don't think there's going to be a resolution here until a larger section of people weigh in. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring is finished since 1 March, like LaraLove says herself on Dana's talk page [92]. There is a message of her saying that the mentorship is still not finished, but it's from 25 February [93]

Also, notice this warning from Lara Dana, if there is another complaint about you editing article space without first reaching consensus, you'll be back on article probation. and this other one Dana, the agreement with your unblock was that you not edit the article space until consensus had been reached on the talk page(...) No pushing references of questionable reliability. If there is a disagreement about the reliability of a source, it should be posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.. I think that Dana has broken the promises he made on unblock and should be put on probation or blocked again. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Infophile appropriately sought to get uninvolved admins to comment, but none have. He initially tried to maintain a certain objectivity (good for him), but when that didn't work, he chose to make outlandish claims that I am "practically unable to learn." He further asserted that I "quibbled" over one editor's use of the word "retraction." Yes, that is right. I asserted that the word "retraction" was never used by the researcher in question, and the editor who put this word into his mouth was inserting OR. Ironically, I asked that he retract his word "retraction," but all we got was stonewalling. And worse, the editors with whom I have had a content dispute came to his aid and simply attacked me for dwelling on this issue. Yes, I prefer to dwell on following wiki policy, in this case, OR is OR...and strangely enough, the many editors who have cited chapter and verse to me about wiki-policy began complaining that I was encouraging them to follow it.

I do not have the time that some editors seem to have to mount a more thorough defense, though clearly, the extra time that select editors have placed into attacking me and my contributions has not generated the support for punishment they wanted. It is no surprise that the editors who have been most critical of me are people with whom I have content disputes. Because I do a darn good job at maintaining civility, despite having many sock puppets going after me and my contribution, the editors who do not like the NPOV evidence I bring are now going after the messenger. One previous admin warned me about the many socks that surround me.[94] I am not saying that the editors in this dialogue are socks, though admins should note that I am generally good at maintaining civility and at giving and demanding good faith whenever possible. Yeah, I'm not perfect, and yeah, I sometimes have written a date incorrectly (we all have) or mis-written the name of a journal, but my present record of providing good RS has led to many improvements in many articles. I am a useful resource to wikipedia, and to me it is sad that some editors who disagree with the information that I bring here seek to punish me. Ironically, previous Wiki-editors have sought to create more neutral language in various homeopathy articles, though other editors have insisted upon providing RS evidence for all edits or additions. I have sought to provide RS by my referencing of research, and the vast majority of the time, I bring this to the Talk pages. We may not always agree, but let's try to get along. For the record, my former mentor, [LaraLove] had actually received "hate mail" about me, though here she expresses pleasure and surprise that she hadn't gotten any recently[95] And then, because she saw that I learned how to do wikipedia, she ended the mentoring with no stipulations [96]. Finally, for people who are new to me, I am a relatively new editor who only became active in late November, 2007. However, as a newbie, I made some mistakes and for which I was blocked. Since becoming unblocked, I have provided many contributions to this fine but frustrating endeavor. DanaUllman^Talk 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, when trying to argue that you aren't incapable of learning, making the very mistake I used as an example is not a good tactic. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A-ho, it looks like admins are once again paralysed by a CIVIL POV-pusher. Shot info (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Grawp sock

User:Renvarian appears to be a sock of banned user Grawp. I've listed it as a suspected sock puppet, but I was wondering, is it obvious enough to be listed as confirmed? Angel Cupid (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly think so. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh GAWD yes its obvious enough to list. See [97] where he fully admits to it... No doubt this is Grawp. Looking at his contribs, one can only think, can't this guy make it harder for us to figger out its him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When the duck is quacking too loudly and too similarly, its convincing enough to be considered confirmed.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some IPs who are, if not Grawp, his allies based on behavior; I have blocked the 4 IPs adding *that* pic to User:Gavin.collins for one month apiece as proxies and/or Grawp himself and deleted the revisions. Having said that, Grawp and Gavin have crossed sword in the past; see this. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody. Would it be too much to ask that someone staple Grawp's face shut? HalfShadow (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

now now.... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it, I request that administrators not protect my user talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry Jéské - I can understand your feelings here. That's why I asked rather than taking action, when you can do so yourself if you wish to. Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Trust me, I am. And now that the crapflood is over (thanks, Anonymous, for your link!), I have posted a thread at WP:VPT; I've noticed something about the crapflood links. IPs harassing myself and HalfShadow blocked anywhere from 2 weeks - 3 months AO ACB. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 00:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone check these IP addresses for me: 86.134.219.187 (talk · contribs) and 71.116.20.107 (talk · contribs). They have just been involved in some main-page FA vandalism, and certainly had a distinctly "Grawpy" odor, if you catch my drift. I blocked them as obvious Grawp socks/copycats. Can someone endorse? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shiznit... Looking at the history of that article, it is clear that Grawp (or whoever) is using a batch of massivly drifting IPs... Perhaps these are TOR nodes or some such proxies? Could someone with more experience investigate these? I have been tagging them with {{IPsock|Grawp}}, but there's almost too many to keep up with. The article has been s-protected, but can someone look into further action against these IPs??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on this edit, someone posted to a forum asking people to help. I'm sure they'll look at the protection as a victory. It's very unlikely that "grawp" was actually involved. --Onorem♠Dil 01:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat related...I think protection is wrong, but at least there's a chance that it will draw out some sleepers. --Onorem♠Dil 01:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible, though with Grawp's recent return to full PITA status recently, it is highly suspicious that a bunch of ranmdom, uninvolved editors take up his distinctive editing style instantly and without provocation by him... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

True enough. My statement probably could've been more clear. I don't doubt that Grawp, or someone that saw that Grawp has recently been active, posted to a forum somewhere. I just doubt that most of the IPs involved are directly related to the user. --Onorem♠Dil 01:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this has actually been happening quite a bit recently. Just block the IPs AO ACB for a few weeks, delete the revisions they are reverting back to, and be done with it; it's high time Anonymous got back to harassing the CofS rather than Wikipedians. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can assume that I must have missed something fairly nasty if it was a history deletion instead of just a revert. HalfShadow (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Attacks of this nature always rely on past revisions to work; thus the only way to head off the attack is to delete the source revision and all revisions that mimic it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivil and abusive edits/edit summaries by User:Gennarous

I'd like to draw your attention to the personal attacks and gross incivility employed as standard by Gennarous. My belief is that his/her method deters other users from editing, and thus I call into question the benefit to the community of such editor and suggest that action may be necessary.

Users that disagree with Gennarous are seemingly "stalkers" [98][99][100][101][102][103] "ignorant human beings" [104], "commie trolls" [105][106] and vandals [107][108] prone to "typical communist behaviour" whose edits will be reverted "tomorrow when you are at school". [109]. The user is given to edit war above consensus [110] to support his/her personal POV [111], especially in relation to the Mussolini family [112] [113][114][115] with abusive edit summaries [116] where he/she seemingly doesn't even bother to examine what other editors do - these for example during a recent edit war over what the 'main' Syracuse is: [117] [118]. There are many other such examples, and I can go further into the hist contribs of this editor. However, I think that's sufficient, and importantly visitors to User talk:Gennarous can see what upset this user is causing in the community. Many thanks for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And having been notified of this discussion, the user promptly does this [119] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that AlasdairGreen has started this thread after the attentions of his pro-communist propaganda edits were brought to light. On the article Rab concentration camp despite three people telling him he is wrong[120] Alasdair has gone on a campaign to slur Italians in the article. Refusing to enter discussion on the talkpage in an attempt to wind up editors.[121] He removed citation requests from the article and a tag bringing to attention its POV status.[122] In an article where he has attempted to depict Italians as some sort of holocaust killers, despite the fact that three people on the talk have pointed out to him that this is a prisoner of war camp.[123] AlasdairGreen27 has attacked and mocked the Italian people in the content of the article saying they all have "amnesia", this despite the user Bedford pointing out that it is POV. Three different users have added the POV tag, three times he has removed it without solving the problems.[124] He has also trolled the article Walter Audisio, in regards to Benito Mussolini. Alasdair's anti-Italian propaganda and hatred is also exhibited on the Dalmatian Italians page amongst others,[125] where he comes to blows with other editors about Italians where he uses abusive language about Dalmatian Italians "it's all a pile of bollocks".[126] - Gennarous (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the Rab concentration camp article: There was not a single editor in the last three months that said the current version of the article by User:AlasdairGreen27 would not be neutral. Today User:Gennarous edited the article in an extremely revisionist way [127]. I do not want to start a discussion about the article itself though, but just wanted to clarify Gennarous' "constructiveness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomis (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think all of my edits are OK. I'm happy to have my whole edit history in every article, every talk page checked. I think I'm quite a good Wikipedian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment (before the Red mist - and the capitalisation is deliberate - descends and I do something I will regret) - Wikipedia has a policy regarding NPOV. Not anti-Communist POV, not pro-Vegatable Rights POV or Lets-All-Sit-Down-and-Have-a-Calming-Drink-of-Tea POV, but NPOV. Every time I see someone justify their actions as "anti-communist" I have this barely checked urge to plaster hammerandsickle templates over their userpages. Please, you defenders of democracy and free speech, just stick to violations of Wikipedia policy/guidelines and not indulge in your morally petrified interpretations of who is and isn't permitted to say what and where. It is hard to take seriously complaints of POV when an opposing one is so obviously (red) flagged. </rant ends> LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (it is hard being a liberal...)

Though many of AlasdairGreen27's diffs are relatively old, I do agree that Gennarous seems to be unable or unwilling to remain civil. Then again, some of AlasdairGreen27's edits aren't much better.[128][129] Overall though, AlasdairGreen27 seems to be the far more civil of the two.

I have been giving Gennarous some steadily-escalating warnings since April 2, [130][131][132][133] but he doesn't appear to be listening. If Gennarous could acknowledge the problem and make a promise that he was willing to try and do better to abide by WP:CIVIL, I would say to give him another chance; but if not, and/or he continues with this kind of behavior, I would support administrator action to rein him in. Though some of Gennarous's work is good, that can't excuse this steady pattern of antagonistic behavior in what are already powderkeg articles. I have no opinion on the content that is being disputed, but it is essential that editors remain civil with each other while they are in a dispute, otherwise it just magnifies the problem and makes it that much more difficult to find a solution. --Elonka 08:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Alessandra Mussolini was the article where I stumbled upon Gennarous. He constantly reverted edits by an IP which removed [134] a sentence about her education, stating that the university never issued such degrees [135]. Gennarous reverted without any comment, and when I tried to argue with him and asked him to cite his claim, he called me a communist repeatedly. [136] Later he attacked me on my talkpage. [137] I don't have a problem with giving him another chance if he promises to cease such behavior, but then again, he has done this in so many articles already. lomis (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And he doesn't stop. Now he called another user and me "Eastern Bloc neo-Balkan nationalists" [138] for trying to keep a concentration camp article neutral. Though I actually start to find this amusing, nevertheless he really should get banned or at least be given a last warning. He has done this far too often, in my opinion. lomis (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lomis is voilating WP:STALK, by stalking me to an another article to continue a dispute. After Lomis followed me to the article in question, he then vandalised an article with numerous sources from scholars and historians by blanking 75% of the article.[139] I warned this user above stalking me and blanking sourced information[140] yet he ignored it and removed the warning from me. I would like somebody to take a look at this Lomis character, since coming over here from the German Wikipedia he has contributed nothing of worth, all he has done is attempted to remove sourced information, motivated by political opinions[141]. Is there any reason a user who has contributed nothing is allowed to follow me to continue a dispute and generally act in a wild manner? - Gennarous (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A note to all participants: though you may or not have valid points on the article content, ANI is really not the place to sort out content disputes. This board is more for immediate problems with user conduct and serious policy violations. If the issue involves anything where an administrator actually needs to research sources to figure out who's telling the truth and who isn't, then that's probably going to be more complex than what you need an admin for. Instead, on issues of content, your better bet is to try one of the steps in Wikipedia dispute resolution, such as requesting comment from other editors, or perhaps posting at the the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can get the opinions of other editors on whether or not sources are appropriate to include in an article, and perhaps on whether or not those sources are being properly interpreted. --Elonka 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Lukeatomic

Resolved

 – user blocked for 3RR by Toddst1

This new user, User:Lukeatomic seems to be stubbornly going against policy adding trivial information to articles about episodes related to Arrested Development (TV series). He adds info explaining every joke in every episode and adds things like continuity errors and original research WP:EPISODE. See list of all episodes, especially season 1 and the beginning of season 2. I don't believe I have to provide diffs because the users only edits were to revert me without valid explanation (so just see contribs), I have attempted to discuss and pointed him to policies and guidelines also warning about the three revert rule, but user has completely ignored me. Can somebody please help, thanks. The Dominator (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that user has now violated the 3RR on several articles, here is an example: first revert second revert, third revert and fourth revert. The Dominator (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kittitian repeat copyright violations after warnings

User:Kittitian contribs posts information copy/pasted from nationsencyclopedia in many articles. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com has a copyright notice on the bottom of their webpage. Kittitian has been warned about copyright issues in the past, and I left 4 messages on their talk page yesterday, explaining why this is important and asking them to either remove or rewrite the material, or show that permission has been obtained. I marked the all the articles Kittitian has added seemingly copywriten material during April, but I'm sure there's more from before, unsourced and now changed by later editors.

Today they ignored the messages and added similar material to two different articles.

In a seperate issue, they are also not sourcing the material that is not completely copy/pasted, even though I asked them to do that as well (did so to only one page--Economy of Cuba‎--but that just showed me that the material was c/p'ed). NJGW (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave a very short block; it should be reinstated if they start doing it again when it expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Their user page also needs purging as they are self identifying as a minor and giving location information. I've reverted some more copy-pasting and left the warning template. An admin has also given them a short block to help emphasis the message.Collectonian (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Kinggan

User:Kinggan has slapped suspected sock-puppet templates on three user pages including mine. This happened after someone had tagged him as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Ksense. This user is repeatedly reverting Hogenakkal Water Dispute article to a POV version. Can someone please look into this issue and revert his userpage edits? I am not sure it will be right for me to do so. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted it.This is highly ethical on your part not to do so.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sockie gone. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Annett‎

User:Grannysaga added information that I considered as biased and conflict of interest to the biography page of Kevin Annett. I warned her, removed it and she reverted my edit accusing me 'censoring information'. I explained it on her talk page and she subsequently remove the 2008 protests section and cite it is biased (however, he/she ceased to add back information that are in conflict of interest).

I've wrote a really long explanation on his/her talk page and on Kevin Annett talk page. I want administraors to intervene as I don't want to violate the 3RR rule.--Cahk (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The user in question was clearly trying to edit war. I have issued a brief block to stop it. I would ALSO recommend that you follow your instincts to avoid the article yourself for a while. I commend you on your restraint in coming here before being engaged in the edit war yourself. Please encourage Grannysaga to use the article talk page and I also encourage you to do the same. Good luck and happy editing!--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Featured Article Victoria Cross is under coordinated attack by IP editors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is significantly worse than usual vandalism on the TFA. I've upped the protection to edit=autoconfirmed; move=sysop. I didn't change the expiry time to avoid losing the move protection while its still on the main page. Anyone can feel free to reduce it at their discretion. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know which group of speds it is today? HalfShadow (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Same as started to attack me once Z-Man protected it and as attacked you and me earlier. Where's V when you need him? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is all part of www.4chan.org, where trolls request for wikipedia to be vandalized. The best thing to do is WP:RBI and WP:DENY, this has been going on for a while now. Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, Tiptoety. You'll also have to delete the source revision for the whole vandalism in order to stop it (even if momentarily); these attacks give an edit link to a specific revision. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 04:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well then revert, block, delete revisions, and ignore. :) Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User redirecting to IP page weirdness

This [142] seems very strange. A registered user is redirecting his pages to his IP address page. Not sure if it's allowed, or makes sense, or anything, really. I just wanted to get an opinion on it. This guy seems determined to make a point. Redrocket (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I have some help with this please, I am currently discussing this with the user in question on my talk page, and frankly not sure where to go from here. I do not think they are really violating any policies, but do not think it is the best idea. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: that IP has been trolling for about a year now, with multiple (inexplicably short) blocks. I cannot believe it is not the same person. The acccount is now just more of the same: trolling. My normally well-controlled rougeness may be showing, but the question is: why in the world should you allow them to yank your chain? Rather than discuss what policy they're violating, I'd be contemplating an indef block for the account and a months-long block for the apparently static IP. --barneca (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I was assuming too much good faith. I was just looking over their block log...hmm.... Though if you run a WHOIS on the IP it appears to be shared. Tiptoety ^talk 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the content of their edits over the last year; either it isn't shared, or that particular ISP has nothing but trolls subscribing to it. Lots of different vandals on a shared IP, maybe. Lots of different trolls? No. If it was really shared, I don't think it would keep getting re-assigned to the same troll, would it? And, in any case, the account isn't shared... --barneca (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The coincidence is strange, but just the other day we were talking about IPs having the right to delete material on their own pages. If no one "owns" an IP talk page, how does he even have the right to set up shop on that page? He's now copying material from my talk page for his own, for some reason. Trolling, WP:POINT to the extreme. Redrocket (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that his claimed IP address is not always static, and thus the redirect is inappropriate. See: [143] where he clearly "claims" a different IP than the one he redirected his talk page to. Thus, redirecting his talk page to the IP talk page is clearly inappropriate, since there is no proof that a) he only uses that IP or that b) he is the only person using that IP. I propose we unredirect his pages, and warn him not to do it again. If he insists on redirecting his talk page to that specific IP (the connection to his main account which is entirely unprovable) then he should be blocked for simple disruption and attempting to mislead other Wikipedia users by that disruption. Does that sound reasonable? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, seems reasonable. Not to stuff beans up my nose, but he is going to make a fuss about it. Tiptoety ^talk 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, that's fascinating. I just got dragged into something with this IP editor last night that to me looks, sounds, and feels identical to the page above. I wonder if there is a relationship of some sort here? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've used up my allotment of rouge for the evening, but that does indeed look similar; bears watching. Geographically dissimilar, however. Figuring out whether one or both are open proxies is beyond me. --barneca (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) see below

Sorry, didn't see Jayron32's comment before I blocked both the IP (3 months) and the account (indef). I have no problems if someone thinks I went overboard and wants to adjust, but this is silly; "trolling" is overused on this board, but this is a textbook case. --barneca (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By my count, he's had 43 edits in his two identities today, and not a single one of them was productive. Most of them were trolling and disruption, and he's trying to continue the argument at his talk page while blocked. Redrocket (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undone the redirect. Personally, I think we give them one more chance and unblock them to see where the go from here. However, that may be just part of my desire to extend this guy a length of rope suitible for self-hanging... I would say unblock him and see what happens, but I am not strongly held to that desire... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I won't fight someone else unblocking, but I won't do it myself. IMHO, we don't need to give him more rope; he's already hanged. Before anyone unblocks, I suggest looking at the edits from the IP from last year, and tell me if you think it isn't the same person. --barneca (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh... good enough. I have always felt that later blocking is always better than earlier blocking, since the more evidence, the more likely it will "stick"... However, this guy has made NO attempt to improve any aspect of Wikipedia, and I'm not sure we miss much not having him around... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP Loren posted has been pseudo-spamming talk pages tonight. Enigma ^message Review 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

About the IP Loren mentioned- I haven't looked at what he's been doing on the talk pages but please see my comments at User_talk:74.234.39.218#This_IP_bloke_is_slightly_right-_don.27t_block_him_yet . special, random, Merkinsmum 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the other IP's (74.234.39.218's) contribs in the light of day, I have to agree with Merkinsmum. First, although the two IP's share a tendency to include others' text when copy/pasting to other locations, that's about the only thing they have in common. 125.60 copy/pastes in an intentionally disorganized way; If you go thru diff by diff, there's a method to 75.234...'s madness. Second, 125.60... is a pure troll. 74.234... appears to be trying to make constructive edits; the problem is, they were so abrupt that others tended to not look past the abruptness to see their underlying correctness. Not the same person, and I agree with Merkinsmum: don't block. --barneca (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:McJeff

Every since he has had a problem with me here: List of characters in Bully, he has been uncivil and shown a lot of bad faith. A few recent examples: [144] (first time he blanked my comment on the talk page). I reverted it, and told him about Template:Notyours. Later, he once again blanked my comment out: [145]. Then there is this: [146], which I see also as bad faith. It should be noted I hadn't edited that Bully list page (or it's talk) for a while, so his original attack (found here: [147], wasn't necessary at all. There was no need to drag past editors into the discussion, and basically drag their name in the mud because of past disputes. Then he butted into this alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Angrymansr, due to past issues with me. I also posted this at Wikiquette alerts, the issue with him seems to fit both pages in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rob posted this exact same thing on Wikiquette Alerts already.

Not to mention he has been reported on wikiquette alerts by me about a week ago, where he was told by an administrator to knock it off. Exact quote. McJeff (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Recommend you avoid each other. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't think that's fair to be quite honest - why should my wikipedia editing be constrained because he won't quit harassing me after having been told to knock it off? McJeff (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to avoid him, when he follows me around on Wikipedia and posts on a majority of the same talk pages I do. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been involved in a grand total of three articles. One of them was your bad faith AfD on Vicious and Delicious. Another was the List of Characters in Bully. The only article you were working on that I later stepped into is Smackdown vs Raw 2008, and that was after Angrymansr brought your behavior on that article to my attention on your warning at Wikiquette alerts.

And might I remind you that you were instructed to stop the bad faith attacks on me, and that accusing me of wikistalking is bad faith, especially since it's not just a false accusation but a blatant attempt at smearing me? McJeff (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

Resolved

 – Substantive matters being dealt with in another place

Kbthompson (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way ... what do you expect this notice board to do? Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My first and most important request is that Arcayne be directed to support his specific allegation ("Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks") underpinning his formal effort to ban me, failing that it should be immediately withdrawn and if it proves to be as utterly baseless as I allege there should be a sanction. I would also request that Arcayne be directed to not accuse me of Sock-puppetry and to not follow me around threatening me or changing my talk page edits and include a time-out on reverting my article edits.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd direct you to the notice board header - particularly What these pages are not - you should find the right forum at Are you in the right place?. This page is NOT part of the dispute resolution process - and so can take none of the remedies you seek. The WP:Wikiquette alerts issue against User:Arcane was already dealt with there, and any further bite of that particular cherry is likely to be resolved as the last one was. The Sockpuppet matter is ongoing - and if you are, as you claim, unrelated to the other AnonIPs, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only other resolution I can entertain is semi-protecting the articles that are in contention - this would obviously disadvantage yourself more than User:Arcayne, so not something I shall do unless I feel the situation warrants it (other admins' mileage may vary). Be assured they'll be a lot of eyes on this, so I would respectfully advise all parties to keep it cool. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have claimed all the IP's. I even used a specific identifier to remove all doubt, I used the symbol before Arcayne entered the discussion. Here is a quote from Arcayne himself noting my identifier:

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. Arcayne

The symbol was affixed because of the rapid nature of the discussion. It was lost on nobody - as Arcayne himself so pointedly notes. There were no incidents whatsoever from those IP's of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".

There is really no substance, nothing at all. It never happened. Arcayne has made it up an effort to ban me - The only thing that exists is a static IP address. There is no pretense whatsoever that there is more than one user using those IP's at all.75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

... and as I said, this is not the forum for resolution of such matters. The process is evidential and an admin will review that matter in that forum. Bringing up the matter in multiple forums is 'forum shopping' and strongly discouraged. Kbthompson (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never previously initiated an action against Arcayne. What is the correct forum for this kind of abusive bullying, stalking, reverting, etc?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the response Arcayne received to the action he initiated against me in the other Forum:

Clerk note: Since the IP does not deny being the same person on a dynamic range, I'm not sure what Checkuser can do to help :). -- lucasbfr talk 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which forum addresses abusive use of Wikipedia forums to harass and harm? Which forum considers McCarthy like baseless user charges? Is there no limit to a members ability to completely fabricate formal charges without even a single example of the charge?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must you consider dragging this issue through the mud? You've already been told to take it to dispute resolution. This thread has been marked as resolved, and I see no further reason that it needs to continue here (or at WQA). You've been forum shopping, and by the looks of your recent edits, perhaps a bit too obsessed with the case in itself. seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has filed a formal charge against me without a single piece of evidence, not one diff. I have NEVER initiated a single action against this individual at any other Forum. There is NO forum shopping. I guess I just believed in the core Wiki philosophy "The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. ".

Arcayne has used the formal levers of Wikipedia power in an effort to ban me - I've asked for nothing more than a single shred of evidence. I apologize if I am out of place, or that my honest, civil and supported defense is now "obsessive". No links, no diffs=Good/Citations, Reliable Source=Bad? 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If I were the AnonIP, I would take a day off from wiki, or have a cup of coffee, and just calm down. It has been pointed out (ad nauseam) that you both need to pursue some form of dispute resolution; and there will be a forum there where you can have someone help untangle this mess. This is just becoming disruptive, and I feel, not helpful to you. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: you complained about Arcayne, absolved; it now appears that his sockpuppet counter claims are resolved. The process is evidential, and has been followed in those places. This is not the correct place to consider these matters and a recommendation has been made that allows you to resolve your disputes within the system. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You sent me here first:

My personal opinion is that it is a storm in a teacup and the two parties should go there to sort out their differences, rather than forum shopping for a resolution in their own favour. Kbthompson (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that I go to WP:DR? I looked at your second link and it is a resource for resolving disputes about content. I have explicitly stated that this is not a content dispute - nothing that I have written has even the hint of a content dispute. I shall do as I am directed though and post this dispute in DR.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tw3435

Resolved

 – page(s) deleted, user warned

_GB^T/C 11:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to bring this up - User:Tw3435 is offering other people's passwords on their userpage, at least, I think that's what's going on. NOt sure what to do; I'll fall foul of 3RR if I keep reverting. Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

99% of their contributions are to their userpage. I think I'll delete the userpage under G11 (a bit tenuous, perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a webhost / myspace alternative, and warn the user accordingly. _GB^T/C 11:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Emmerdale episodes

This might seem quite trivial, but none the less it's frustrating me somewhat. The template Emmerdale episodes is used as a running tally to record episode numbers. Because of constant inconsistancies in date, I decided to change it to use the FULLDATE template which grabs the day when a date is entered. However, another "editor" (I use editor lightly) is persistant in reverting my change, with his reasoning being that "he prefers it the American style". This has nothing to do with cultural differences, as the show in question for the tally is British, coupled with the fact that his change means the day doesn't show, which has pretty much created an edit-war somewhat.

Ok, so that's pretty much the issue. As I said, I know it's trivial and I couldn't really see it as "vandalism", or at least what is normally described as vandalism, but possibly falling into edits without good reason with disrespect towards my civillity (I have been civil on his talk page). What's the best way to approach this? Cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard for TV episode stamping? Whilst Emmerdale doesn't fit into a numbering system per se, it's easier it all TV episodic shows follow the same guidelines. Minkythecat (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural rather than television; per WP:MoS (which is 'pedia wide) British related subjects should use Br-En grammar etc. conventions. Project guidelines should generally follow WP where there are multi-cultural applications (not that I wish to suggest that Emmerdale is "cultural" in anything but the loosest sense of the word!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No idea what the situation with the episode numbering is, so I'll leave that for more informed people to resolve, but the matter regarding the date format can be resolved by recourse to WP:DATE and MOS:SYL. Have reverted to the last edit by Bungle and low-level-warned the other user accordingly. Note that my edit made some other change to the episode numbers - that may need to be looked at by someone else. Orderinchaos 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the note about date formats and user-specific preferences. I don't believe there is a "set standard" for formatting with this kind of template, but as mentioned before, there is set standards and preferences for date formatting per geographical location. Orderinchaos, the actual numbering you mentioned is negligable to the problem and easily sorted, but my appreciations go to you for referring some useful and noteworthy policies, hopefully finding some resolution. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just calling attention to this one - The user Wingard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is sterile-reverting edits to this template, including my most recent attempt to resolve the issue. A couple of eyes on this one would be good - thanks. Orderinchaos 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This still continues to be an issue and the user in question doesn't seem to be changing his habits or indeed acknowleging there is a problem. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This was archived, however the matter is unresolved, so bringing it back for attention. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest news is the template has been listed for deletion, so the question may be moot soon. Kbthompson (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have given the user a higher level warning, as it seems they've been edit warring this change for 4½ months - since their first edit, in fact. Apart from updating the episodes on this template and the date warring, this user has less than a dozen contributions to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@Kbthompson; Regardless as to whether it remains a template or not, the edit conflicts is likely to continue whether it be in the template or in the article. The user in question probably wont stop just because the template may case to exist. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have trouble making myself clear today. That was a heads up, rather than a proposed resolution. Although you might find it easier to defend the date within the article as per MOS:SYL. I've added a talk header to the discussion page. WP:AIV might consider a block after the latest warning. It does seem to be trolling since the user appears to contribute to nothing else. One of the problems is that the template seems very specific in its presentation, most date options display in the user specified preference - and that would give the editor no excuse to change it. Kbthompson (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Gene Hoglan's reported death

Resolved

 – multiple eyes on the article now. --barneca (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To the admins:

Someone keeps adding a death date of April 8th, 2008 for the drummer Gene Hoglan here on his Wiki page.

I have had contact with Gene and he is very much alive and well. In Oregon as of the night of April 8th, but alive and well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holkimcardie1 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the source they cited wasn't to a metal music website but a porn site and I can't find any sources on the internet at all suggesting he died so I'm guessing it was just sneaky vandalism. AngelOfSadness talk 15:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the past tense "was" references as if he was actually deceased to present tense as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AngelOfSadness. Yeah, I went and contacted Gene myself with I saw that. I had actually been directed from someone on the Adult Swim boards. I hadn't been able to find the site they cited in the report of Gene's death. But I got a reply from Gene last night. And from the response I know it was Gene.  ;-D Will try to change if the twit comes back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holkimcardie1 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess you can't get a better cite a better source than the man himself. I'll keep an eye on the article for the next few days in case someone re-adds it in good faith or whoever origianlly wrote it comes back. AngelOfSadness talk 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given the original instigator of the hoax a final warning. I think/hope this is resolved. --barneca (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, all of you! I know your job is hard. What with twits thinking they are funny if they post wrong info. (Not the language I want to use, but Is good.  ;-) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holkimcardie1 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/216.229.227.142

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Nick for a merciful 48 hours considering it's a University

Running rampantly leaving random messages on user talk pages. Clearly falls victim to WP:DIS. Messages left by other users on 216's talk has no effect.

If this is for a different venue, please point me to it. 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Those really are "special contributions". Support block (and block length). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is related to this message left on my page a few days back, given that they started with me first. Good block as far as I am concerned, clearly disruptive. Woody (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had to block several IPs belonging to the very same university recently (most recently 216.229.227.144 (talk · contribs)). I doubt the entire Southern Adventist University campus is crazy, so it's likely the same student using multiple computers to troll Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting of personal/contact information on Mulberry High School

Anonymous IP editor 157.127.124.15 (talk · contribs) made this edit to the above mentioned article which he subsequently reverted. Anyone can still go into article history and find this uber-personal information. Forgive me if I sound ignorant but is this something that could or should be deleted from page history?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT would be the best way to go here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the full names of the accused minors still appear in the article. Policy on this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) You might want to consider if mentioning the names even without the contact information is a good idea. These are kids and I see no value in having the names there in the first place. In my opinion BLP applies here. Could an admin delete and restore to hide the edits by this IP? EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the name, as I also thought this was in violation of BLP, correct me if I'm wrong though. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oversighted. Are there sources for this allegations? If not then I suggest removing it. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been all over the news in the last couple of days. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I blanked the section. No sources and it is not directly related to the school anyway. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is marked resolved with all offending edits oversighted, but the name of the girl who was attacked is still in the edit history. Shouldn't that be oversighted, too? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit in which the name of the 16-year-old girl was deleted but not oversighted. her name has not been mentioned in the news because of her age. I think it should be oversighted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This incident was also created as an article in it's own right yesterday. The article was speedily deleted following the filing of an AfD. Herewith the link. [181] Xdenizen (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Social network aggregation

Igorberger keeps removing my valid AFD nomination of Social network aggregation. Angrysusan (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be confused between the templates from his edit summary that you are marking it with a CSD tag, I'll drop him a line just to let him know. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He keeps calling me a vandal and erasing my messages pleading with him to actually read the tempaltes he is removing. Angrysusan (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[182] and now calling me a troll and claiming I put 10 CSDs on the article. I never once put a CSD on there, and was just trying to get him to listen on his talk page, but he keep deleting. What's up with this guy? Angrysusan (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Being Stalked by user:Maher-shalal-hashbaz

About a month ago, this user jumped into a disagreement I was a part of, and escalated it into a revert war. After attempting to get me blocked the page was temporally locked and the users who were part of the initial disagreement, came to a consensus while Maher-shalal-hashbaz spent his time arguing that The Wrong Version was protected.

Now a month later he has followed me to another article, and is actively attempting to turn it into another edit war. After cleaning up and discussing an issue with a misguided (but well meaning) editor Maher-shalal-hashbaz is taking the opportunity to start another edit war. Already he is dropping 3RR warnings on my talk page, citing my six undos to the article in the past three months (despite him having just as many in the past week).

In the end, I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this. Or if I am stuck having to repeatedly revert this user on every single page I edit for the rest of my life. Can I get any help? --T-rex 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC

Resolved

 – Closed as delete. Blueboy96 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some serious SPAing and forum shopping going on from both sides of this debate. It's gotten pretty out of hand. Would someone mind taking a look at it and closing it if need be? --Smashville^BONK! 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

At least one account (AnteaterZot) who participated has been confirmed as a sock per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I read through that one when going through WP:AFDO earlier today. What a mess. Apparently, the Subaru Impreza has a pretty loyal fanbase. The general accusation is that those voting to "keep" this organization's article have been forum shopped on their own forum, encouraged to "join wikipedia". Been trying to get "involved" on NASIOC to find the relevant thread there...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it. 18 pages long. And stickied. --Smashville^BONK! 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That absolutely needs to be linked to the AfD. I'm on it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Linked. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a quick update, some of the members of the sock farm identified here participated on the delete side of that AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of undeleting NASIOC; it is clear that a band of sockpuppets intentionally created and disrupted the AfD and I don't believe we can credibly say that it was performed in good faith. This is without prejudice to the article being renominated for AfD; I agree there are sourcing issues, but given the confirmed fact that the AfD was launched and supported by a sockpuppet ring, this cannot have been considered a fair process. FCYTravis (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Exceedingly WP:BOLD editor at AFD

Recently User:Dustihowe has apparently taken upon himself to non-admin close a handful of AFDs less than a day after they were opened with very few people participating in the discussion. I full disclosure, on of this closures was one of my noms: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I would have left a note on his talk page, but others have already tried discussing the issue with him without any real result. I hate to escalate this when it looks like Dustihowe is just trying to do what he thinks is right, but condoning this type of behavior will quickly make AFD unusable. Burzmali (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Burzmali, this is an overreaction. I am one of the administrators that is working diligently with Dusti. You should have gone to his talkpage first, or to one of the talkpages of another editor before this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And now that I've looked further into this, you have made absolutely no attempt to resolve your obvious difference of opinion with Dusti. I'm not endorsing his early closure, but you didn't even notify him of this post on AN/I. This noticeboard is not the first step. Saying an editor is "on the loose" is not exactly constructive either. I recommend an apology to Dusti, and then we'll work out the issue at hand. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I find an attempt by another editor to resolve an issue of this kind User_talk:Dustihowe#A Request to be quite concerning. His rationale in his closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acceleware seems to be based on personal opinion, which would be fine if he'd added it to the discussion, but as it is he seems to be effectively making his opinion the deciding one... ? Incidentally I see he hasn't been notified of this thread, so I have.-- Naerii 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not endorsing his closure (s), and said so on his talkpage. I've said so many times on his talkpage. He and I (and Cameron and Fabrictramp and others) are working with him and his closing. His heart's in the right place, these were too fast. All that to say, ANI isn't the right forum, even if it was, it's titled antagonisticly, and it's premature, with no attempts at resolution from the noticeboard poster with the AFD closer. Unnecessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not working with Dustihowe on AFD closings, just on basic editing. My only input to him on AfDs is that I think his time would be better spent participating in the discussions to get a feel for how they go. I'm not a fan of non-admin AfD closings, because in my experience they cause more grief than help. (Nor am I a fan of all the speedy keep and speedy delete closings I've been seeing lately. The vast majority are AfDs that should have run a full five days.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And as for the thread on his talk called "A Request", that's from a deletion nominator that doesn't like how the debates have closed. I've looked at both of the debates that Dusti has closed from that particular nominator, and the nominator is making an unreasonable, perhaps even biased, request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for non-admins to close AfDs that aren't unanimous, to be quite honest. -- Naerii 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I admitted in my comments to Dustihowe that the AfDs probably would have closed the same way, so I'm not sure where you read a bias into this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not notifying him, I got distracted after leaving the original notice. Two people have already voiced disagreement with him over his non-admin closures and his exchange with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) convinced me that I would be wasting electrons disagreeing with him on his talk page. I'm not calling for him to be drawn and quartered, but I don't think closings AFDs after a hour or two because you disagree with the nominator is really a behavior to encourage. Burzmali (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Burzmali for your civil response. Trust me, I'm not encouraging his behavior. If you have 10 minutes, peruse his talk archives. You'll see my name in there about, oh, I don't know, 50 times, working with him on AfD closures. I've gone so far as to tell him to stop. He has been improving greatly as of late; these last couple are out of character for him. I'll say again to Naerii, I'm not endorsing his closures. I think this could be better handled on a talkpage, that's all, and its customary, even if a dispute is a repeated dispute, it's new to you and Dusti. Assuming good faith, at least a single attempt at communicating with him would have been better and perhaps helped bring a faster conclusion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, as long as the "powers that be" are aware of the situation, I'm satisfied. Burzmali (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a very nicely-worded warning on his talk page.[183] Repeatedly disrupting the AfD process by arbitrarily deciding when to close things is unacceptable; I'm hoping this can be resolved without a block being used, but I'd definitely consider it an option. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation, I have to agree with EVula that this editor has already received plenty of input as to the propriety of his AfD closes. If he choses to disregard this final warning, I would strongly support a block. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in favor of keep or delete, however the closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Sovereignty_Restoration_Act after 4 hours and only two votes raises questions.--Hu12 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a grossly improper closure, as is the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union after only some 22 hours. I've reverted both and restored the AfD notices. They should be allowed to run through to the normal conclusion. If the articles survive AfD, fine, but they should first be reviewed on AfD in the proper way. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A further thought: I see from Dustihowe's contributions that he has closed many AfDs lately. Given the poor quality of the closures mentioned above, I suggest it would be worth someone having a look through the other closures to see if there's a systematic problem here or just a one-off. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As you asked, I checked through the recent ones and the only one that I thought might be questionable was 1 delete, 2 merges, 1 keep, closed as redirect after 2 hours. There were a bunch of snow keep closes but as they all had 5-6 keeps I'm not too concerned. -- Naerii 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Even snow-closes I'm hesitant to have him do, given his established history of questionable closures. About the only one I saw that didn't make my eyebrow raise was one where the nominator withdrew the nomination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputes noticeboard

Please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Disputes_noticeboard - jc37 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious activity with new AfD

Resolved

 – AfD closed by yours truly, user blocked for sockpuppetry by Jpgordon. Bencherlite^Talk 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be fishing a bit here, but I suspect something quacking here with this AfD. New user, who's very first edit is to nominate Martin Luther King Jr.'s article for AfD to make a point? If this is a sock, I'm not sure of who, but it's very very suspicious to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

beat me to it. Speedy close the afd, and by the way, i'm pretty sure this, [184], another edit by this user, is vandalism, but knowing nothing about baseball, i can't be sure.--Jac16888 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless A-Rod's been sent to the Tampa Bay Rays in a shocker, it's very much vandalism. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Assumed as much, i just didn't want to blindly revert it without being sure. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about baseball, I've nonetheless reverted that edit. Looked at two sites and they both agreed with the way the article used to be. Note that the edit in question also changed his place of birth (from New York to Managua). -- Why Not A Duck 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on, you just know this person is going to end up being a sock, or be blocked for trolling or vandalism, isn't there a way to cut to the chase? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ahem, WP:AGF--Jac16888 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, this user has been blocked and it is a good block. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an appropriate block to me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Obviously not here for the betterment of Wikipedia. Very pointy. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoax sourcing

IP 68.5.250.146 adds sources he does not even know how to spell. One of his sources is a journal published in Germany in 1868, the article he claims to refer to is written in French, his IP is from the US, and the quarrel is about an Iranian language he considers to be a dialect of Persian. Given his long history of disruptive editing at Amir Taheri I cannot believe that he got hold of this journal, let alone read it. - Here is where he came up with those sources, here is where he obviously culled them from (a list of books on the talk page, not provided by him, and containing exactly the same misspellings/misspacings: nord- ouest / l, Iran / Wiesbadan / Geselaschaft ), and here is what he has to say to that. -- Regards, Ankimai (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst & Young

For several days now someone has been consistently adding and re-adding the same defamatory remarks about Akio Takisaki, Managing Partner of Ernst & Young in Japan on the Ernst & Young article. I do not work for Ernst & Young and have no axe to grind but per WP:SOAP wikipedia should not be a soapbox Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week. That stuff was defamatory about a living person so falls under WP:BLP as far as I'm concerned. You should list these at WP:RFPP in future. Woody (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing COI issue at WSEAS

Resolved

 – These people's understandable enthusiasm for their new venture has led to them creating articles which are unfortunately more promotional than anything else.

This was originally reported at WP:COIN#WSEAS on April 4th, but no administrators have taken up the issue as yet. The COI contributors involved have chosen not to participate in discussion on the article's talk page or on their user pages. They continually restore the same version, purging all other changes (cleanup tags, referenced content, etc) to the version that they seem to insist on keeping. Can someone please take a look? I've reverted the changes, but even without the COI edits the article is a mess and requires considerable cleanup - that's assuming it even meets WP:N, which with a single source of its own site, I question. Much of their version of the article appears to be straight cut-and-paste from their website. To date, there appears to be four editor maintaining the version that's ported from their site: User:Prof.bose, User:Prof.juri, User:TKaczorek, and most recently User:CharlesLong - some of whom also share cross-over in creating and/or maintaining other articles which may also have WP:COI and WP:N issues such as North Atlantic University Union‎ and Nikos E. Mastorakis. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Update, I've reverted twice, and had the reverts undone by the same COI contributor (each of the users mentioned above have comparable names within the body of the COI version of the article) - so I'm stepping aside for someone else to look at this, rather than perform a 3RR myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty good argument for G11 deleting the whole thing. CIreland (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that was just done ... the WP:COIN issue was picked up shortly after I posted this and the article deleted. It always comes down to my poor timing ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.168.48.34

The user behind the IP address 198.168.48.34 has repeatedly vandalized the articles about Mario Dumont (by inserting a picture of the video game character Super Mario) and Baraka (by inserting a picture of Barrack Obama). The users has been warned several times for his/her behaviour (and has been temporarily blocked once) but has chosen to ignore them and continue vandalize these articles. J-C V (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple problems with this report.

1. It belongs at WP:AIV.
2. Its a university IP, which means other users share it.
3. The vandalism is too sporadic.
4. Blocks are preventive not punitive.

If the IP vandalizes within closer periods of time and violates a final warning during such periods, feel free to report it at WP:AIV next time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We're sorry, Mario, but the Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr. Wheely Guy

This user page - acceptable or not? Saw it while checking the usages of some commons images of dubious value. First time I've put anything here, I think, so if this is the wrong place, feel free to tell me to take it elsewhere. Brilliantine (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, while WP:USERPAGE gives users a whole lot of control over their userpage, wikipedia is not a porn site and I really see no way that this is constructive what so ever. Have you tried asking the user to remove it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalised as instructed to.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How could I resist? I moved it to User:Mr. Wheely Guy ON WHEELS!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem the original user added it himself but a rather perverted vandal instead.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know- mr wheely just put "you are all free to vandalise, ' and a User:Morecomes added the porn, someone else the cow. Looks a bit chan-ish, but might just be genuine wiki-ers having a laugh. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not think there is anything that says they can not request users to vanalize their page, and honestly I know a bunch of other users who have pages just like that. Tiptoety ^talk 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - User:UBX/hornysonofabitch, User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n, User:Cyde/Weird pictures are a few examples. They should all be MFD'd and deleted, but too many people enjoy Wikipedia providing them with GFDL porn galleries. Neıl ☎ 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all in the censoring wikipedia camp, but maybe there should be some kind of guideline on this. Or maybe not. Are all or any of them on the bad image list? Might be a good idea to place the there if not. Brilliantine (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is more about user inviting others to vandalize their userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all about the wording... I mean, the line between good faith edits and vandalism is blurred at the best of times, and even Jimbo encourages others to edit his page, just in slightly more guarded terms. There is precedent for images such as this to be placed on the bad image list in any case, to avoid their placement where their presence would be likely to be unwelcome. In any case, the bad image list is in need of an overhaul in general, containing as it does a large number of deleted images. Brilliantine (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I took him up on the offer also. KnightLago (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandals taking time on my page will take time away from them vandalizing real articles. So everyone is free to screw around with my user page all they want. And of course if you don't like what someone (such as that porn guy) puts on my page then anyone is free to revert it. Mr. Wheely Guy (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Resolved? Tiptoety ^talk 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

University System of Maryland IP vandals

There seems to be a run of IP sockpuppets going through the University System of Maryland/Combnet IP range and as soon as one is blocked, he/she pops up with a new IP. It's now moved to taunting administrators who have blocked them. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and User_talk:Toddst1#Univ_of_Maryland_IP_troublemakers
Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, perhaps we should investigate a range block. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any chance in giving one final warning to the next IP that pops up, along the lines of "we don't want to put a rangeblock on you, as it will harm others, but if we have to we will"? And how about an abuse report? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just left the "one final warning" here. I'll work on the abuse report. I'm sure there are others involved. Please help me complete the list of IPs involved if you know of any others (I assume there are). Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has vandalized my talkpage. Since I'm involved with this. May I help? Also, how are we going to stop this if these IPs will continue vandalizing (probably)? Block them for a long period of time?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) When you say "abuse report", do you mean reporting it to someone at the university? Is there an "official" or de facto accepted way to do that? I ask because I've been having some trouble with vandals using Boston University addresses. I dropped an e-mail to an address I got off of WHOIS, but never heard back. Just wondering if there's another channel to go through. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Abuse report Wikipedia:Abuse reports/136.160.x.x range created. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing official, just some volunteers at WP:ABUSE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty weird, I just recieved sort of a confession on my talk page about this User_talk:Toddst1#Coming_Clean Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If a rangeblock does take place, please use care to make sure it's an anon-only block unless absolutely necessary. (Going to UMBC, my IP is in a range very close and somewhat related to the one causing trouble) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the coming clean, I do think we should give another chance. Those four IP's were all in 136.160.128.0/18 by the way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The user claims now to be User:VegitaU, a seemingly good vandal patroller. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism. I might expect a stunt like this from someone who hasn't been around the project that long, but not from someone who has been a registered user for three years. Recommend a block of at least three days. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let someone else call that one. I'm a little annoyed right now. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at ajusting clue level should be enough for now, with the warning that future disruptive behaviour may result in blocks, if he's not cutting it out. I don't have the idea that he will be continueing disruption on short notice, so a block now would be punitive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If they don't log in as that account, I don't see why we should care who they say they are. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the latest contributions from VegitaU (talk · contribs). He/she has apologized for the vandalism spree, so I'd say that pretty well settles it as far as identity. --B (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the second incident in two days I've uncovered where well established wikipedians have gone underground and become rather distructive trolls. The first is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Paul20070 and now this. It really does consume a tremendous amount of an admin's time to track these clowns down. I really think there should be a policy with consequences for this. In the other one, User: Paul20070 claims to have retired. How does one go about proposing such a policy? Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is probably not a good thing to have a policy on for WP:BEANS reasons. I think it falls into the category of just use your best judgment. Whether you feel a block is warranted or not, I don't think anyone will object. --B (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's gone back to constructive editing. As mentioned above, a block now would be punitive, but maybe a new policy would be a good idea. Useight (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 5 seconds, so that this stunt was recorded in logs should he/she ever apply for RFA or other duties. Unblocked already. Toddst1 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Recording_in_the_block_log. -- Naerii 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - The policy Naerii linked was to discourage noting every little thing, but this action done in lieu of a lengthy block, seems reasonable. --B (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation at all. It it not subjective. It says Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings. It was a bad block. the_undertow ^talk 02:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Then pretend that Toddst1 blocked the user for 24 hours (justified under the circumstances) then, after an {{unblock}} request, commuted it to time served. Either way, the result is the same. --B (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that argument. It's called 'the ends justify the means.' 24 hours = good block. Blocking "so that this stunt was recorded in logs should he/she ever apply for RFA" is against policy. I'm not into pretending, by the way, and I don't care for the suggestion. the_undertow ^talk 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

See Appleappleappleapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blockedblockedblockedblocked. Thatcher 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And another death threat

Resolved

[185]. Corvus cornix_talk 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a threat. We are all going to die anyway, but this IP feels that there would be more satisfaction if the death were of a painful nature. Blocked - 1 week. the_undertow ^talk 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

His only edit is his rather distasteful post. Perhaps he's a user hiding behind an anonymous edit? – ClockworkSoul 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like JuJube's Talk page is full of threats and personal attacks from IPs. Corvus cornix_talk 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was semi-protected. By the way, death threats should be taken more seriously than regular vandalism. I think more is required for that IP. Either a 4im or an immediate block. Enigma ^message Review 03:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But this was really not a death threat. Tiptoety ^talk 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Still worse than your run-of-the-mill vandal. Enigma ^message Review 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Today is the day to revisit the topic of non-admin rollback....

Ok, so as promised I have went ahead and started a conversation in regards to rollback as promised a few months ago when the previous conversation was closed. Lets try and keep this drama free, and civil. You can find it here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Its that time. (Posted on AN as well, do not want anyone to claim they did not hear about the discussion as happened previously). Tiptoety ^talk 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)