Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Request to modify my topic ban

Resolved

 – Grundle is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. See below.--Chaser (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On October 23, 2009, the following restriction was placed on me:

"Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks."

I am asking that my topic ban be modified specifically and exclusively so that I may be allowed to make suggestions at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I am only asking to be allowed to edit that article's talk page - not the article itself. And I am only asking to be allowed to edit that one particular talk page - not any other talk pages.

I believe that such a modification to my topic ban will give me a chance to prove that I am capable of making constructive suggestions at a talk page for this topic. This would give everyone a chance to see that I have become a better editor in this topic area, without putting any of the articles at risk.

By restricting this proposed modification to the talk page of just one article, it makes it extremely easy for administrators and other editors to keep track of my activities. In addition, if any administrator believes that, during the course of this proposed modification, I have not been a constructive editor, the modification can easily be reversed.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written and reasoned request. I ordinarily think such trials are a good idea, but having read the discussion leading to the ban, I'm hesitant. I'd like to hear from others.--Chaser (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Grundle, your comments in this[1] thread, from just three days ago, make it clear that you still don't understand the reasons for your topic bans. As long as you think you're in trouble because you're being "censored by liberals", I don't think you'll ever be able to contribute to political articles or talk pages. Sorry. PhGustaf (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to be able to suggest things for inclusion, for one article, as a test case. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If such a modification was to take place, I would be very reluctant to let the "test" page be such a controversial one. Black Kite 21:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I chose that one precisely because it is current, controversial, and very much within the subject of my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm almost tempted to say that in the goodwill and spirit of Zombie Jesus Day, sure, why the hell not? The problem though is that the proposal is bit flawed, logic-wise. You're asking for a trial run to edit the talk-page, and if you aren't disruptive during the trial period then that is proof that the editing restrictions should be removed? argumentum ad ignorantiam to a T, IMO, so I dunno... Tarc (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I thinking of doing it more gradually. If this request was accepted and I did well, then after some time, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of a few more political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to post on the talk pages of all political articles. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit one political article. Then later, I would ask to be allowed to edit a few political articles. And finally, if I do well on all of that, I would eventually ask for my entire topic ban to be lifted. I was thinking the entire process could take six months or a year. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say no. The diff provided by PhGustaf shows you don't understand why you're topic banned, and the article you've picked is far too controversial. You've said you see it as a gradual thing - so why pick the hottest topic in the American media at the moment as a starting point? Ironholds (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose modification request. We as a community imposed the restriction indefinitely so that it stays in place for as long as it takes to sink in - it clearly still hasn't, even as of 4 days ago ("No one ever showed any diffs to justify banning me from talk pages. I halve always been civil and polite on talk pages"). PhGustaf's link to the April 1 2010 discussion reveals more than a severe lack of clue in vandalising an article. It demonstrates that Grundle2600's tendentious conduct that led to the topic ban has not changed (he refused to get the point when repeatedly told by Theresa Knott that the discussion was not about his topic ban), and then Grundle2600 made was the following comment which makes things quite clear: "The real reason for these bans and blocks is to censor the articles in question from my additions of well sourced, relevant content that is critical of the subjects. Everyone who favors banning and blocking me is on the political left, and wants to prevent me from adding relevant, well sourced information that is critical of politicians on the political left. That's why none of the people who favor my indefinite topic ban have ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions." We cannot suitably manage talk page disruption short of a ban, while an undue amount of time and effort would be needed to supervise him (which will not be productive) - Wikipedia is NOT therapy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per [2]. My minimum standard for these things is a three month drama-free period. Not even close with this one. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A user named “Grundle”? Say ‘tain′t so! ―AoV² 10:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I explain on my userpage, it's a video game reference. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Quite strongly. First of all it's worth pointing out that Grundle again referred to his notorious "7 questions." Whilst he was indefinitely blocked (for the second time) back in December he agreed (see bottom of his post) to refrain from asking or referring to these questions again (this had been proposed on ANI, with the suggestion that if he did bring up the questions he would promptly be re-blocked). As far as I know no one has said, "Okay Grundle, it's okay for you to bring up those 7 questions about the Obama articles again." Technically he should probably be blocked for a lengthy period of time for even referring to them. Part of the problem here is that there have been so many restrictions, agreements, and unblocking with conditions of Grundle that people cannot keep track of them all, and while it may be a bit of WP:ABF on my part I think Grundle uses the passing of time to his advantage—only people who have been paying attention to this for a long time realize how long the disruption has gone on and how much time it has wasted. To this specific proposal to allow editing on one talk page, I am quite opposed. When Grundle was first topic banned from certain articles (implemented by User:Thatcher) he was allowed to post to article talk pages. The disruption did not stop. Grundle essentially took over (I know he contests this, but it's what happened) entire talk pages relating to Obama, posting dozens of suggestions (most of which were completely inappropriate/POV) which numerous editors wasted their time responding to. He even created sub sections of talk pages just for his suggestions, and article work largely ground to a halt. As far as I know this problem was never "fixed", and as such Grundle should never be allowed anywhere near political topics, be it in article or talk page space. It's been almost a year now (literally, I believe I first warned Grundle about his editing on 4/21/09) that this editor has been wasting our time with this nonsense, and the mistake we made was lifting the indefinite blocks placed back in November and December. This is an editor who has said repeatedly [3] [4] that everyone should get to add whatever bias they want to articles (as far as I know he has never rescinded this argument), suggesting that it will all come out of well in the end. It's a collective failure on our part that Grundle is still allowed to edit at all, and our inability to simply show editors like him the door wastes an extraordinary amount of time and community resources. Note that I am not one to lightly advocate what amounts to a ban of an editor (indeed I very, very rarely do so), but I've been watching/trying to forestall this train wreck for 12 months now and got completely sick of it at least 6 months ago. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Bigtimepeace, you're claim that I "took over" Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is false. I never prevented anyone else from posting there. As further proof that I never "took over" the talk page, since I was topic banned from political talk pages more than five months ago, there have been almost no posts at all at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Surely, if it really had been my fault that other people weren't posting there, then once I was banned from the talk page, more people would have posted there. But actually, since I was banned from the talk page, the number of posts on that talk page has approached zero. Hardly anything at all has been said there. Therefore, your claim that I "took over" the talk page is false.

Your claim that it's because of me that "article work largely ground to a halt" is also false. I never, ever erased any well sourced material that anyone added to the page. I never, ever prevented anyone from adding anything to the article. Therefore, I never caused "article work largely ground to a halt." Furthermore, during the more than five months since I have been banned from the article, hardly any new info has been added to the article. How do you explain that?

How do you explain that during the more than five months that I have been banned, hardly any new discussion has taken place at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and hardly any new info has been added to Presidency of Barack Obama? How can you blame me for this, when I haven't edited either of those pages in over five months? How can it possibly be my fault that hardly any changes have been made to that article or talk page in over five months, when I haven't made any edits there at all?

How can you blame me for other people's lack of editing an article and talk page, when I have not edited them for over five months?

What exactly have I done during the past five months to prevent other editors from editing that article and talk page?

And even when I was allowed to edit those things, how did I ever prevent anyone else from adding content? I didn't. I never, ever erased any well sourced info that anyone added. And I never, ever erased anything from the talk page. So you accusations against me are false.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but the above statements concern me. Comments such as "censored by liberals" show that you're still not quite to the point where even a test case, let alone a test case on such a controversial topic, could end well. This isn't to say that maybe a less controversial subject matter may be appropriate, but I don't see something like this ending well. You've been indef'd twice, take some time to do some non-controversial editing and show that you're really here at the project to help, not argue. I feel that after three or four months of positive editing, I would be more inclined to support at a later date. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 16:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I was going to sit this one out and see what the rest of the community thought, but BTP reminds us that you brought up the "7 questions" again recently, which I'm pretty sure was explicitly covered in one of your restrictions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bigtimepeace. --John (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I understand that the consensus is very much opposed to my suggested modification. I understand and accept that. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I still believe that I am being "censored by liberals," and as proof, I offer this. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per BTP, and others, above. And just above, Grundle links to the damn questions again? Why is he allowed here at all? Jack Merridew 18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the reasons above. It seems he is definitely not ready to contribute to these types of articles. –Turian (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Grundle, Zombie Jesus is not happy. Isn't posting or referencing those insipid "7 questions" grounds for an indef? Tarc (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#Why, exactly, is Grundle2600 getting more last chances?:

  As an example of how my topic ban has made wikipedia worse, I'd like to point out that even though it was reported by the New York Times, the article on Obamacare does not say anything about how Henry Waxman is planning to hold a hearing to question companies about their statements claiming that the plan will increase, not decrease, their expenses. As another example, even though the Boston Heralrd reported that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents, the Obamacare articles does not mention it all all. If I had not been topic banned, I would have added both of those things to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  Grundle2600 is requesting that his topic ban be lifted so he can disrupt Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  Misattributing a claim "that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents" to a "report" by the Boston Herald—
  which reprinted a story DeMint to Rock Hill: Government is to blame by Matt Garfield of The Herald in Rock Hill, South Carolina—
  about a Tuesday, March 30, 2010 address by U.S. Sen. Jim "Waterloo" DeMint (R-SC) to a business audience of 300 people at a York County Regional Chamber of Commerce monthly membership luncheon at the City Club of Rock Hill:

  During a Q&A portion of DeMint's address, an audience member stood up and said it was his understanding that the health care bill creates a "ready reserve army" in the surgeon general's office.
  DeMint said he didn't know what the guy was talking about, but quickly added there would be thousands more IRS agents as a result of the health bill.
  Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee warned that the bill could require the IRS to hire 16,000 additional agents to enforce the new rules.

  The IRS claim was from a March 18, 2010 partisan report by Republicans on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee—
  that non-partisan fact-check organizations FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com found to be false and misleading. Newross (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

King Punisher?

Not sure who this is or how it ties in, but I'm a bit suspicious of a user whose account isn't even 1d old, already running around and adding indef tags to Grundle's user page and a rather unhelpful comment on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Account has been blocked, also a sock report is up. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That new bunch are User:John254/User:Pickbothmanlol. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose outright ban

Resolved

 – Community ban imposed.--Chaser (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, this entire situation has gone on long enough, and there's no sign of it stopping. Grundle is again referring to these so-called "seven questions" he brought in October and which, as mentioned above, he agreed not to mention anymore (I just reminded him of that in the thread above) with the knowledge that a long block could be the result if he broke that promise (Grundle had been posting these (already answered) questions over and over again to the point that he was about to, or maybe even did, get blocked for it). The fact that he is again bringing it up in the context of "liberals are censoring me" only makes it worse.

This comes on the heels of the recent April Fools' incident where Grundle made this edit to Guam (referring to a jokey or just plain dumb comment made by a Democrat in Congress), argued that it was well sourced when called on it (it was sourced to YouTube), then argued that he was obviously making a joke "mocking the fact that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth," then promised to stop. Please note that this cycle of: 1) do something disruptive; 2) defend it at first; 3) then apologize; 4) then promise not to do it again is standard procedure for Grundle—indeed it's exactly how he got out of his most recent indef block that arose from this situation which involved egregious WP:SYNTH to defame a biography of a living person (this version of Grundle's talk pages shows the first three failed attempts to get unblocked and the way in which he finally succeeded in doing so).

In the process of responding to the recent April 1st incident, Grundle made a wikilawyerish statement arguing the Guam edit had nothing to do with politics (it was based on a dumb statement by a Democratic congressman), technically violated his topic ban about politics by essentially saying "if I wasn't banned here's what I would be working on," and claimed he never really did anything wrong (while still managing to reference Obama, who I believe is a politician of some sort) and that he was being censored by liberals, a point he is now repeating with reference to 7 questions he asked back in October and agreed to stop asking while he was indef blocked and trying to be agreeable and get unblocked.

Can we please get a consensus that it's past time to put an end to this, and that User:Grundle2600 is banned from editing en.wikipedia, period? If someone has a better idea I'm all ears, but bear in mind that what I describe above is about 1/10th of the total disruption of the past year, that the editor has already been sanctioned by ArbCom, sanctioned twice by the community, indef blocked twice and then gotten the blocks lifted when he promised to improve, and discussed ad infinitum on noticeboards.

If someone feels this should technically be moved to WP:AN then feel free to do so as that is where we generally have ban discussions, but this seemed like the better place since there is a current thread. Sorry if my frustration comes through too strongly in this comment, but as I said it has been almost a year of this stuff at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All I've ever waned to do here is add true, accurate, relevant, well sourced material to articles. Your suggestion is extreme and unwarranted. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be open to a ban on me starting new discussions at ANI. That would solve the problems that you are complaining about. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it would i'm afraid. What would solve everything would be for you to get a clue, but what are the chances if you haven't by now? Theresa Knott | token threats 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would very much like to get a clue and learn, which is why I would like for someone to please answer my seven questions. Please go ahead and teach me - help me to get a clue - and answer my questions. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)'

OMG I can't teach you! I can't believe that you would bring up the 7 questions again immediately underneath a post proposing a total ban because you keep bringing the seven questions. There is nothing to work with. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe we could recall every AN & AN/I topic on Grundle2600 and we would see that they invariably contain some variation of "All I've ever...". That is the heart of the matter; this user, like his good buddy ChildofMidnight, still feels himself to be the victim. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support site ban per BTP. Clue ain't gonna happen, apparently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per BTP. Victim card played too often. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You people keep saying that I'm ignorant and I don't understand wikipedia policy. But at the same time, you refuse to answer my seven questions. That's very hypocritical of you people to do that. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions

[redacted]

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, shit. I'm frankly sympathetic to the idea that Grundle should be able to express his concerns about neutrality, because I think we should listen to concerns about the political neutrality of our articles on political topics - but he just can't stop shooting himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth. It's perfectly plain that every discussion he's involved with in the future will come down to the same issue above, and everyone is already out of tolerance for that. It's also perfectly plain that no attempt to have him edit under restrictions will ever work. There's no real alternative here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• As the user reneged on the promise that lead to his unblock ("please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose"), I have re-instated the indefinite block. Discussion may continue whether this will be considered or replaced with an 'outright ban'. –xeno^talk 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Earlier I composed a post warning Grundle that if he mentioned his 7 questions again, I would block him for disruption for a week, but was neutral on the permaban. However, since I edit conflicted with him posting his 7 questions again, I Support a siteban. And since I edit conflicted again on Xeno's block note, I'll add "good block". Just doesn't get it, and apparently never will. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• The indef block notwithstanding, as Xeno says above the discussion should really continue as to whether we are imposing a formal community ban or not—that needs to be perfectly clear going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Put {{done}} on it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Doesn't get it, too many last chances already given. --John (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Nothing will change if given more opportunities. –Turian (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment for the future - Keep an eye on any editor who uses "2600" in their username. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant support - Given clear warning to stop editing disruptively in some topics, topic banned from them, and continued to return to them in the belief that they were doing no wrong. At this point, clearly doesn't agree with the reasons they were topic banned and doesn't believe that they have a problem. Until and unless they come to the point that they do understand the basis for this and agree to abide by lesser restrictions, a ban seems reluctantly necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was going to skip this incident but I am supporting a site ban after noticing that Grundle keeps referring to the misguided seven questions (example). The user has no understanding of what should happen here, and anything other than a site ban will lead to masses of more wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support If he thinks he is being "censored by liberals" he can go edit Conservapedia. An editor who is both disruptive and blinded by their POV should not be tolerated here. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - History of POV pushing and tendentious behavior indicates Wikipedia would be better off without this editor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. I'm sure it's been discussed somewhere, but how was this guy not blocked per WP:BADNAME? Are we not aware what that term means? Şłџğģő 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The name “Grundle” apparently comes from the video-game Adventure (Atari 2600)—a perineal favorite I′m sure. ―AoV² 03:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • So that's the lie he told when he decided "taint" might be too obvious. Huh. Şłџğģő 03:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • What on earth are you talking about? Tarc (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
        • cf. Template:Nsfw Grundle. –xeno^talk 12:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Interesting. I'm certainly no stranger to vaginas, but I've never heard that term before. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Who says wikipedia is not educational? However, this still leaves unanswered, the question of the significance of the 2600. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Perhaps he believes information wants to be free. –xeno^talk 17:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
                • See also 2600 hertz, the frequency that AT&T once used to hold a circuit for a long distance call. Early phone phreaks used a whistle which came as a prize in Cap'n Crunch cereal to capture a circuit and make free calls, hence the nom de phreak of John Draper, "Captain Crunch". Whistles begat black boxes which begat blue boxes.... (Oh, it was a heady time, indeed.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
                • I was at HOPE, 1997, this Grundle is definitely not the type. The video game angle is far more likely. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my earlier comments in response to his restriction modification request above and per above regarding repeatedly toeing the line and violating his unblock agreement. Sadly, I have to agree with Bigtimepeace's earlier comment also that it seems to be a collective failure on our part that he's been allowed to edit at all for as long as he has. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Grundle keeps coming back to this board with the same problems, like Theresa I don't think that we can have hope of improvement at this point. -- Atama頭 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support due to utter lack of clue, and lack of any evidence Grundle thinks he has anything to learn. Or am I being redundant? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Dancing on people's graves is highly uncool. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to, George? I see no personal attacks above. I see many people wexpressing concern that this user simply does not get it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. If his topic ban was against editing articles about US politics or politicians, how is an edit to Guam a violation? Using a reference to a comical (sad, really) YouTube clip might deserve reversion, but it doesn't deserve a ban on all contributions. And some of these comments (e.g. "victim card") make it sound like you're holding it against him that he defends himself, and you don't care whether it might be justified. But the duty of any judge is to wade through such paper morasses and not to allow impatience to trump the law. Wnt (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How is an edit relating to a US politician's comments about a US territory not a violation? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Once the political comment is introduced, the article becomes political. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, wouldn't it be clearer to say "he is prohibited from any edit relating to US politics or politicians" instead of "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians"? People here really don't like repeat visitors, so you should be sure to say what you mean. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's redundant, and an unnecessary clarification. Any article that has political information added to it is by definition a political article, that's what Bugs was getting at. Take something innocuous, like doughnut. Currently there is nothing political about the article, but if someone were to include some political scandal involving a US senator, a doughnut, and a pair of underaged congressional interns, the article would from that point become political. Especially important is whether or not the topic-banned person were the person who added the info, or was editing that info. Getting past the wikilawyering of language, the intent of the ban was to stop Grundle from getting mixed up with political BLP information which he has abused in the past, and these edits were more of the same. -- Atama頭 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know this case and I'm not taking a side, but I think you do have a general problem, possibly with many topic-banned editors, when you say that users are banned from editing certain pages, but then it turns out what you mean by that is it's OK to edit some parts of certain pages but not other parts. I mean, whether you count doughnut as a political article or not, either it should be a political article or it isn't.

I just don't see any way to get past wikilawyering when you're running a wikicourt, and when you're judging topic-banned editors not based on whether their contributions are accurate but simply based on whether they're following the ban you placed. Obviously you can place any ban with any wording that you want and editors will prefer it to being blocked outright - but you should take a moment to make sure it actually says exactly what you want, so you don't end up holding proceedings like this one based on differences in interpretation. Wnt (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no holdup. People know exactly what this topic ban was about, which is why there has been practically unanimous support of the full ban. -- Atama頭 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the trouble, isn't it? If the ban said "articles", then it was not precisely worded. It's supposed to be a "topic ban", right? But if it says "articles", wikilawyers would say Guam is not (primarily) a political article. So instead of just saying "articles", such a ban should say "political articles and/or political topics", and that should cover it. If they want to talk about the types of trees found on Guam, no problem. If they want to "coatrack" a political comment (a comment that really has nothing to do with Guam as such), then it would be a violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. Read here, where the ban is listed. It says, "he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians". It's explicit with the word "pages", which means that his restriction applies to places outside of article space (talk pages, deletion discussions, etc.). Also, the "type" of ban on the page is "topic", not "page", which means he is banned from the whole topic Again, these arguments are meaningless wikilawyering over semantics, the ban is pretty clear, and nobody has actually objected to the enforcement of this ban. -- Atama頭 17:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Joe job

I noticed a username that had the same four numbers at the end of his username as the guy that you are talking about and I filed a SPI case on him out of curiosity. The Syntax (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, the sock was already blocked. The Syntax (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked JzG to clarify what evidence there was that this was actually Grundle2600. I think it's more likely this is #King Punisher? continuing to troll. –xeno^talk 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Contribs were not that innocent, in my view, but "2600" is an old meme for phone-phreakers and hackers, so should not necessarily be acted upon without supporting evidence. Rodhullandemu 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2600 Magazine is still around. I pick it up once in a while and it's generally lame. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, this was just an attempted joe job. I've deleted the SPI, changed the block reason for Wobble2600 and unblocked an apparently innocent party who got caught up in this. –xeno^talk 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request/Ban proposal

Grundle is now requesting unblock on his talkpage with more wikilawyering and empty promises. Propose ban enactment. Also his talkpage access should be locked. It is just ridiculous at this point. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have denied the unblock request, and if the attitude evinced in his request persists (indeed, he insists on a lifting of his editing restrictions as part of any unblock) I cannot imagine a situation where an unblock request could be successful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TheClerksWell's inappropriate "prank"

Resolved

 – User blocked, then unblocked for one more chance, the message bar has been removed.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If you go to TheClerksWell (talk · contribs)'s Talk page, you will see an orange bar saying "You have new messages". It's fake, of course. It's one thing for people to get pranked by the message to lead you to some funny page, or something of that ilk, but in TheClerksWell's case, clicking the link logs you out. He has been repeatedly asked to change it, and he steadfastly refuses. This is a major problem if there are users who don't want their IP address displayed. They may wind up logging off and then edting with their IP address visible. TheClerksWell needs to change the prank, or be blocked and the thing forcibly removed from their page and their page protected. Woogee (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

TheClerksWell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours by Bkell for violating WP:3RR. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And I agree that this is not funny or a joke, getting people to logout in this way does not in any way contribute to the project and if TheClerksWell persists in this he should be blocked again. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently not the first time TheClerksWell has been disruptive. They edit warred to retain a fair use image on their User page, and then called those who explained to him why it wasn't appropriate, "assholes". Woogee (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He's also got the copyrighted Wikipedia logo on his User page. Woogee (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, I think you are nitpicking about the Wikipedia logo. Thousands of admins have the wikipedia logo on their page, this is Wikipedia after all. You are being silly and pendantic. TheClerksWell (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo, although copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation, is permissible in the uesrspace so he hasn't done anything wrong there. But I agree, the name-calling is a definite no-go. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That stupid orange bar prank should be banned everywhere in wikipedia even if doesn't do something as rude as log you out, but the logging-out one is flat-out vandalism. I'm dismayed at the length of discussion on the user's talk page about it. Just explain to the person that we don't do that here, refer them to WP:NOTMYSPACE, and block for disruption if problem recurs. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be kind of annoying, and it's not April 1 anymore, but why does an IP care about it? If you're already there as in IP, what's it going to do, log you farther out? It does say explicitly that you've been logged out, which you would find out soon enough anyway once you went to your watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't an IP care about the smooth functioning of Wikipedia? Do you know that some people contribute to Wikipedia without registering? Do you understand that a registered user can also edit while logged out, thereby offering opinions as a registered editor whilst appearing to be unregistered? The point in consideration here is a point about policy, not whether any given editor has the right or experience, in your eyes, to comment on policy. Especially considering the discussion is about a misplaced logout button that could transform a registered user into an IP at the blink of an eye.

Also consider that not everyone rushes to their watchlist so quickly, it is possible to experience and contribute to Wikipedia without scanning the same few article continually to see if someone has made a change you might disagree with. Weakopedia (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me started on IP's. And whether you return to your watch list or not, the screen tells you you've been logged out. Maybe that's a little too confusing for some. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of including a remark like "good thing I'm already logged out". It's pretty easy to not notice that you've been logged out. That happened to me a lot before I gave up on logging in. (Think of clicking on the link in a way that opens it in a background tab). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I logged out and tested it. If you're an IP, it will say you've just been logged out, even though you were already logged out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So how are things in 'Frisco? :) I dunno, I don't do anything fancy-shmancy. If I get logged out (like when the system will hiccup occasionally), I always know it immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well bully for you because I don't. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When I save an edit, I go back to my watchlist immediately. I have never, ever found myself mysteriously logged out during that approach. Sometimes when I return to wikipedia I discover that I'm in a logged-out condition. Why that would be, I don't know. But I always start with the watch list, and when that log-out has occurred, obviously there's no watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logs you out automatically after 30 days. Try logging out and back in - you'll see a message when you log back in that it remembers you for 30 days. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I can always tell when I've been logged out, because it says so. Paying attention to the screen, figures into things just a tad. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have protected his userpage for a bit. When he returns from his block he will not be able to edit it and so may instead chose to make constructive edits to the encyclopaedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, the userpage clarifies the situation. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In his defense, that bloody trick was used on one or more April Fools fake RFA's Maybe that's where he got the idea it was cool, from us mature adults. Dlohcierekim 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the fake message stuff had been debated here awhile back, and it was decided to not allow it. Maybe only the first part of that statement is true, i.e. a debate with no resolution, which wouldn't be the first time. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in response to anyone who's worried about not knowing they've been logged out, it would be easier to tell if you change your Monobook skin (since Im presuming you all use Monobook) to look slightly different than normal, for example having a different background color. For me, all pages have a slight orange or green tint (orange for mainspace, green for everything else) whereas when I'm logged out both types of pages have a white background. However, I believe we are about to switch all IPs over to the Vector skin and for those of you who use Monobook you will see a very big difference between the interface that appears when youre logged in and the one that appears when youre logged out. —Soap— 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy this code from Soap's monobook.css page. Cheers.--Chaser (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This whole thread is just daft. It's only on his userpage and it's mildly irritating at best but you could always just hover over the link. Bugs is, however, correct. I can't remember exactly when, but it was debated on this board a couple of months ago and I believe the resolution was that this falls under WP:SMI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This comes up periodically yes, but the usual situation is a link to practical joke. I think this is a different case due to the anonymity concerns Woogee raised in the initial post in this thread.--Chaser (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another user had the logout prank on April fools. So I copied it.

If I knew it would make a big deal, I would have removed it. Can I put it back but have it link to a page instead of logging out? TheClerksWell (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest since you were just unblocked for a disruptive link, you remove this new link [5] also. It's just not funny. Dayewalker (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It causes no harm. Funny is an opinion. TheClerksWell (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny may be an opinion, but "it causes no harm" is demonstrably false. For starters, it got you blocked. :) And as pointed out earlier, even though they "should" be aware that they are in a logged-out condition, it's not appropriate to log them out without their permission. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I'm moving this thread to the bottom for block review. Fastily indefinitely blocked TheClerksWell (with talk page editing disabled and email blocked. The indef block came at the end of a 24-hour block (discussed above) for a fake "new messages" bar with a link to Special:Logout. After the 24-hour block expired, TheClerksWell replaced the message bar with a link to Goatse. Fastily blocked him indef.--Chaser (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. This guy was having a laugh. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• A necessary block. The user claims to be 14, which probably accounts for a lot of his (apparent - AGF!) obliviousness to the problems this specific joke can cause. Maybe when he gets about 4 years older he might have an improved perspective and could apply for reinstatement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think an indef block at this point is a bit hasty. Blocking him with e-mail and talk-page-edit disabled is a huge problem though and needs to be undone posthaste. ÷seresin 06:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, at least give him a chance to file an unblock request. If he abuses his talk page after that, then stifle him for the next 4 years or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - Apparently here to screw around, not to build an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - yes, I agree that cutting off his talk page & e-mail went too far. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's perfectly fine with me if we all agree that talk page access and email should be restored. I believe it was a necessary step to take at the time, but if someone feels the need to restore ClerksWell's email and talk page access, go right ahead. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No - what has been agreed is not that talk page access and email should be restored. It is that you shouldn't have taken them away in the first place. Now rather than putting the responsibility of correcting your actions onto other editors why not correct your overzealousness personally? Weakopedia (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That was inappropriate. I agree that the talk page/email block is perfectly fine. He has made his intentions known. –Turian (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Protecting a talkpage if the user had put a goatse image there was a perfectly good call. 66.127.52.47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

You're right. It was a reasonable judgment at the time, as the user seems to not be here for any constructive purpose, and it's reasonable to let the user have a chance. It only takes a keystroke or two to modify the block conditions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sound block due to extreme lameness and resolute failure to get it, but we need to make sure he has some route to contact us if he ever stops acting like a child. I'm looking for a diff of the talk page which is actually abusive,. rather than simply lame. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Amend block to offer him a way to contact us saying he's not going to act the muppet any more. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• It looks like talk page access was restored @ 06:37, April 5, 2010 (but not email), about a half an hour after the heavy indef. This suits me just fine, providing an avenue for a constuctive unblock request after a deserved block. — Scientizzle 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I restored his talk page access. Sorry for not noting it here.--Chaser (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support block- He was asked repeatedly to remove the prank (which I have no problem with, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me), and he refused. The Goatse thing was completely uncalled for. Try again in 2-4 years--SKATER ^Speak. 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support block rather reluctantly because he is only trying to have a laugh. But the thing about having a laugh is that you need to be able to stop when it isn't funny, and he has shown himself unable. It's probably that he is too young. Give him a couple of years and who knows. Theresa Knott | token threats 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• No comment on the block itself, but if he's got his talk page back so if he wants to file an unblock request promising not to be a twat in future and accepting what he did was wrong (or at least poorly judged in the case of the logging out message banner thingy) I think it might be worth considering. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Block We all remember Mister Wiki don't we? We certainly don't need a copycat of him. With regards to the talk page and email access, I wouldn't have revoked his access to them as I don't feel it's necesary, but if Fastily saw the need, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Resolved

 – The user has actually already been unblocked for more than 15 hours, further supports or opposes are probably not productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now asking for an unblock. Imo I'm skeptical that he could have a change of heart so fast...--SKATER ^Speak. 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be worth reading this thread:[[6]] It's a rather similar situation, involving a teenage editor who created a prank redirect in mainspace, which resulted in an indef block. IMO, this editor was slightly less disruptive than TheClerksWell. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind chalking it up to hormones or him taking out frustration on us for something, and generally it's my opinion to at least give them one more chance. Idk, I still believe he could be set off like this again.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as he kept his nonsensery out of the mainspace, I'm inclined to grant this unblock or at least reduce the block length on the condition that he understands he will be reblocked if he tries something like this again. Nakon 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair, not trying to tell you what to do but I'd leave him blocked for 24 more hours and then put him on watch.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Except there is a lot of support for an indef above, and while I haven't weighed in, I'll support the block as well. Considering the effort that's already been expended on him, What's the benefit of to the project of an 11th hour plea? He says he's no longer here to troll, etc which means that was his original intention. Someone who comes here to intentionally disrupt doesn't get n chances when they're finally shown the door.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point Nakon, but I think that we should leave the block in place for at least two weeks to a month to show him we're serious. Also, with regards to skater's comment about "Chalking it up to hormones", keep Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy in mind. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't, I'm not even going to attempt to justify his behavior through this whole situation I'm just saying it's a possible cause.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also take note of how he changed his unblock request after reading what Crossmr say. --SKATER ^Speak. 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really think we need to keep him blocked at this point; AGF is a good principle. If he relapses into problematic behavior, it is no great thing to indef him again. So I support unblocking him with the understanding that he has no more chances after this. ÷seresin 01:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblocked per WP:AGF & the user's apology. Second chances are a good thing. — Scientizzle 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • He already had a second chance and stated that his intention was to come here to disrupt. AGF is not blind. Unblocking when you don't understand the situation is not a good thing.--Crossmr (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure why you would assume I don't understand the situation. In any case, I concur with Seresin's post-unblock warning: a re-block is easy to do if there is further disruption... — Scientizzle 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. People get caught up in second chances and they almost always get burned. Keep blocked, and lets stop wasting time. –Turian (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to Assume good faith, he's actually done some good work here and isn't like, say, Willy on Wheels or Grawp requesting an unblock request. He's been warned, let's see what he does.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't see contrition in unblock requests very often. Unblock the guy, and re-block in a New York second if he betrays that good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs here. The fact that he was forthcoming and admitted his disruption (rather than try to explain around it) is refreshing. Reblocks are cheap. –xeno^talk 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree to unblocking on the condition that any further disruption results in an indef block. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock, with the condition that this is "probationary" (which it essentially is). -- Atama頭 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User page unprotection request

User:TheClerksWell asked me to unprotect his user page, with the promise he won't add back the controversial stuff. I can't do that, as I am not an admin. I would like for an admin to review and decide what to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, Theresa has already declined to unprotect [7]. Personally I think the editor would do well to contribute to the mainspace for a while, rather than their userpage. –xeno^talk 13:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

and he's already getting back into it with some wikilawyering an inappropriate edits (like fixing other people's comments) and hilarious jokes about kicking people in the testicles. So I wouldn't exactly reward him for that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I had missed his note to Theresa. And if he said something about kicking another user (diff, please?) then he has already used up his "New York second" and should be at least given a few days off. And then if he still doesn't "get it", indef him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The kicking diff. — Scientizzle 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And he is continuing with the disruption. This was a fantastic unblock. This kid is here to do nothing more than disrupt. he admitted that, and you unblocked him. Since then he's gone around trying to "fix" people's comments all over wikipedia. Even after having been told multiple times, and as far as 2 or 3 days ago[8] he's carrying on. Even after "archiving" the discussion on his talk page where several people pointed out to him not to do it, he continued doing it [9]--Crossmr (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said I was only on here to disrupt. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[10] You said you were no longer here to disrupt, which means before that you were here to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The kicked in the nuts is a pop culture reference, and it targets vandals, not others. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed spelling. I thought it was okay to fix a spelling mistake, but not modify comments in any other way, I was not trying to be disruptive by fixing someones spelling. Clearly, I was wrong, and apologize for that. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Kicking has been removed. Guys, if smoething on my page upsets you, I'll remove it. Just ask. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the archiving stuff. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 01:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk I'd really advise you not to worry about your user page right now, just focus on article space like everyone says. If you don't and continue to change other people's comments and the other things you've done not to do the AGF factor's gonna go out the door.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll focus on the mainspace. Good Idea. I just made an article Castle of Magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've talked to this user on his page, and I think his heart is in the right place by this point, he's just unsure of how to go about things. I would suggest leaving the page protection for now to help inspire TheClerksWell to work on actual wiki pages, but I'd have no problem with lifting the protection after, say, a month of block-free editing. Dayewalker (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Writer's Cramp

Writer's Cramp is Green Squares is SirIssacBrock - see User_talk:Green_Squares#Ban_suspended. It appears that WC has fallen off the rails somewhat - he is describing reverts of his edits as vandalism again ([11], [12]), is actively edit warring over an article he owns - ([13] - reverts today [14], [15], [16]), and is placing bad vandalism warnings on pages of good editors he is in conflict with - [17]. He is supposed to be mentored by User:John Vandenberg, who has not edited for over a week. Could some admin provide him some helpful attention? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

His talk page is on my watchlist following a recent communication. I have responded to his request for administrator assistance but as I am unfamiliar with the background have e-mailed John Vandenberg in the hopes that he is not too busy elsewhere to chime in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For reference sake: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Green Squares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), WritersCramp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Syrthiss (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this and feel like I should contribute. WC also posted an accusation of Vandalism against me on an AfD I started regarding one of his articles. The accusation is plainly off base, a bizarre violation of WP:AGF, demonstrative of a total lack of understanding of what vandalism is, and uncivil. WC has failed to respond to my request to have him either redact or explain his accusation. I am entirely unfamiliar with his being mentored status, background, or the other issues raised above, but insofar as I've noted similar activity directed against me by this editor, I feel compelled to contribute. That said, this probably isn't an ANI issue -- at least not yet -- but seeing as this conversation already exists here, and I have relevant experience, I'm contributing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have notified WC of this ANI. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WC had already been notified of this ANI and removed it as "trolls nonsense". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Okay, see that now in his talk page history. Perhaps I can anticipate another vandalism warning for having notified him, then. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Writer get a bit bitchy when their article is targeted for deletion. News at 11!

I agree that WritersCramp needs a bit of an AGF tune-up, and have also inquired about a similar issue on his talk page.

ps, WritersCramp official mentoring period is due to end in a week. If there are concerns after that, feel free to contact me. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This may sound petty, and perhaps I'm unaware of some mitigating factor from WC's history, but an apparent pattern of an editor running amok describing any edit he disagrees with as "vandalism" or "troll's nonsense," that editors he has had problems with in the past need to be blocked indefinitely (per his talk page), seems a bit more than "a bit bitchy." Honestly, I don't normally even involve myself with disputes like this, but I was very bothered by someone throwing a boldfaced "VANDALISM" at me in an AfD, and I'm all the more bothered to see that it's apparently a well-established pattern. I have the utmost respect for you as someone attempting to mentor a troubled editor, but I just want to make sure you know that, at least from where I'm sitting, this isn't just the standard "author gets a bit bitchy when his/her article gets AfD'd". I have dealt with that type of situation several times in the past and never have I been called a vandal, nor has the editor at issue had some established pattern of doing same.

Completely know that you're on the case, and this response isn't even slightly intended to suggest otherwise (and I sincerely mean that), just want to make sure it's clear that WC's behavior is, to this editor, very troubling. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(BTW: I write the above knowing full well that I don't seek WC to be on the receiving end of any truly impactful disciplinary action, so perhaps I'm just venting...WC's obviously someone who is trying to contribute in good faith) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, Writer'sCramp hasn't edited since that day and hasn't responded on-wiki to John Vandenberg's note on WC's talk page. He may be stepping back to take a breath (which I appreciate, if that is the case). It was starting to look like a ramp-up of his previous troubling behavior. Syrthiss (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's what WC's doing and why, that is indeed a very good thing. He's definitely trying to contribute in good faith, and it's a shame for anyone in that vein to go "off the rails." Regardless, good point, agreed, I'll shut up now :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Toolserver IP blocked

I've blocked 91.198.174.201 for 24 hours anon-only, as it looks like User:EdwardsBot is running while logged out. I'm going to contact the operator now, but please keep an eye out for any bots I may have accidentally disabled. If it seems to be a problem, please unblock without consulting me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is almost certainly caused by a change in logging in reported at WP:VPT#Bots and Logging In. Svick (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the site was patched for a security bug, causing the underlying frameworks (wikitools, AWB, etc.) to break. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would this be why the AIV bots aren't working at the moment? Syrthiss (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed. Odd to patch for a bug described years ago at such short notice, or was there more warning? Will (aka Wimt) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:RulerOfTheAirwaves

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

The above user has been going around various radio stations unnessarily changing the formats listed of the stations to information that is incorrect. I told the user this, and it was promptly blanked, which, yes, is his right. But his edits have gone over into vandalism territory. I noticed the user blanking a category and vandalizing the category page. When I warned him for vandalism, that too was blanked. This account is not sitting right with me, from the name to the actions of the user. Could an admin take a look and have a word with the user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added new rock format sub-categories (alternative, album-oriented, etc.) when I noticed that only a few (classic, modern) were present. I was re-categorizing the stations (you might think of them as orphans) which led to the generic rock category. Look, if you want to turn this into something sinister, go ahead. I have only been working to more accurately identify rock stations-- that's all! RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This may not be AGF, but for a user who just started yesterday, this user certainly knows their way around categories and other pages of the Wiki and already has the lingo down. Quack anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the vandalism this user claims was the removal of a very small category (only 6 entries) for a group of sister stations in a certain radio market. There is absolutely no way to verify this, but I will say it anyway-- I created the category myself some months ago using a different user name. Since I have been going through many, many radio stations and their respective categories/templates, I noticed that there was literally no other similar small category for sister stations in a single radio market. I simply thought it was appropriate the do away with the grouping, but if the user who began this discussion feels otherwise, leave it, that's fine! I can't stress enough my constructive intentions here. I simply have been trying to clean up some of the Rock-Radio categories and templates. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Admitted sock? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ROTA, it's a bit more seemly to post to the appropriate wikiproject (I'm sure there is one) before engaging in an operation like this. "Discussion" can consist of saying what you want to do, waiting a while to see if anyone objects, and going ahead with the plan if nobody has said anything. Then refer to the wikiproject thread in your edit summaries so that bystanders can understand what you're doing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I use no other username currently, and haven't used any other for some time now. I fully understand the policy regarded multiple accounts. RulerOfTheAirwaves (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would seem to be this guy. Deor (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it. Has a big interest in WMMS and other Cleveland radio stations. I recommend a Checkuser (any up this time of night?) and run one on his account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

They also have the right to vanish, so if they would be willing to admit to one of us either through this thread or by e-mail their old account, I don't really think that we should go through all this trouble. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Right to vanish involves leaving wikipedia permanently. If they come back, they haven't vanished. Maybe you're thinking of CLEANSTART which doesn't apply to users under active sanctions. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I do think we should go through the trouble. If ROTA is the this guy, then he is evading MANY blocks and should be blocked (yet again) and range blocked to boot. ROTA has already disappeared, so it is obvious from their behavior they are guilty as sin. I have taken the liberty of reverting their edits, 90% were completely incorrect and downright vandalism. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By trouble, I meant speculation. Go ahead and re-open the SPI if you want, but assuming a link isn't credible enough to most editors to block. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit more than speculation. He admitted above that he created Category:Clear Channel Cleveland "using a different user name", which would make him User:TheBlankingCompany79, one of the number of users blocked as a result of the SPI I linked. Deor (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying that we shouldn't just assume a link between users. There have been many times where I have and I have then been proved wrong. I've also seen users accused of being a sock and the accusations were proven false. A quick investigation wouldn't hurt anyone though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I already suggested a checkuser, so anyone know one that is up? Could have found one about 5 hours ago when it first suggested it, but they ain't up know and this dude has probably made 10 accounts by now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to ping a specific checkuser, just open a case at WP:SPI, say that CU is needed, and fill out your info. Someone will take care of it before long. -- Atama頭 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:LynnCityofsin

User:LynnCityofsin has been asked to not accuse other editors of being fans or editing to insert POV at Talk:Glenn Beck multiple times (comment on the edit not the editor). She had previously been involved in long and heated discussions that were overall more suited for a forum than what is needed for improvement of an article. A final warning can be seen here regarding what I find to be surprisingly offensive (I don't want to be lumped in as a Beck fan for trying to keep a BLP acceptable). She took some time off but recently had a quick edit war ([18][19][20] and then made another inappropriate accusation on the talk page here. Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bring it out in the open then. That page is being over run by POV in favor of Beck. Note that up until this point all of my criticisms were contained in the talk page. Only recently did I try to edit the actual page. And my edit was reasonable and within the scope of the section in question. Still the Glenn Beck page certainly needs review from an editor without a dog in fight, because it is clearly the front in partisan war. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Others do not agree that it was OK for inclusion. I don;t care since the reason this is open is you continue to assert that editors are fans of Beck. You have been asked not to do that multiple times and this situation seems to have emboldened you. You are disrupting the editing process.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I am not the user that swears at people and attacks them. I may complain about bias, but I have generally refrained from personal attacks. You want to complain about someone on that page, DIGGITY should be the one. DIGGITY has crossed lines of basic decency. I've just tried to defend the entry that I think belongs on the page (and apparently others agree with me). I happen to believe that the pro-Beck bias is very obvious. I think like a lot of public personalities, he has fans who routinely comb the article and remove entries (rather than improve them) for the slightest violation. This is very common on now. I shouldn't be banned or punished because I noticed a trend. The trend should be brought to the attention of the higher ups, and the Glenn Beck page should be locked just like the pages for many prominent figures are locked. And just so you know. I am not an anti-beck liberal. I just want some objectivity on the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So I really don't mind the above being said here since it seems to be the appropriate place. Can an admin make it clear that the repeated allegations on the article's talk page are not acceptable? If it continues, can a block be considered?Cptnono (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Glenn Beck it seems that everyone is getting understandably frustrated with everyone else. However, LynnCityofsin needs to assume good faith, especially of Diggity. Yes, they have a high criteria for inclusion of material into the article, but that is a good thing. LynnCityofsin has repeatedly refused to provide Diggity with sources to back up their claims, and should refrain from complaining so arduously about certain aspects of the article if they are unwilling to support their accusations with anything except escalated conflict.

However, Diggity has also been abrasive and rude (with swearing, which I really look down on) towards LynnCityofSin. I can understand them being frustrated but that is not the way to handle the situation.

I think both parties deserve a slap on the wrist, with promises to be more civil towards each other in future. LynnCityofSin perhaps needs someone to also explain how to easily find sources to back up their claims, what qualifies as a reliable source, and how they can work towards improving the article within the rules of Wikipedia. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In my defense, I want to point out that at the time of those disputes, I wasn't contributing to the page. I was just commenting as a reader of the page. In the last dispute, when I actually contributed to the page, I felt the rules were being applied selectively, as there is a POV phrase in that section that attacks Mark Potok for misrepresenting Beck's treatment of conspiracies (though it may have since been removed). Also, I don't mind that people want me to put more sources up. I haven't been seriously editing for very long, so I know I am not well versed in the methods of wikipedia. But I felt like guys like Diggity, immediately piled on me and called me ignorant and attacked me. It just seemed like there was a political axe to grind there. I have had a history of run-ins with diggity. While my position has been strong and adamant (perhaps too adamant), I haven't resorted to the kinds of personal (and frankly unacceptable) attacks that Diggity has. LynnCityofsin (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

In my opinion, this page is being overly manipulated by people with pro-Beck leanings, and is often vandalized by Beck critics. I think the editors should review the page, and I think it should be locked, so regular users can't edit it. Only reputable editors should be allowed to edit the page. LynnCityofsin (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think attention needs to be drawn to the Glenn Beck article, please bring it up here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a quick look over at Glenn Beck and the talk page as I've tried to help with the article in the past. Late last summer the article was indeed extremely skewed in Beck's favor (literally making it appear that there was nothing at all controversial about him, which is obviously absurd), but some balance was eventually brought to it. There was at least one editor who was editing in a highly POV manner/dominating the article and who was chastised by several people for it (I also had to block them for egregious edit warring), but they do not seem to have been active recently. In general the Beck article is a bit of a POV war zone (shockingly), and without saying anything definite about this ANI report I'll just point out that it's understandable that people working there would get frustrated. Experienced editors or admins who are willing to wade in and offer outside advice would probably be helpful, more so than doing anything in direct response to this thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the words of wisdom bigtimeLynnCityofsin (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Vexorg

This user is engaging in the kind of disruption is virtually impossible to deal with. Reverting without consensus or references, disruption on the talk pages, and even canvassing to get his WP:POINT into the article. For the record, this is not the first time I have brought this editor to this board, but report is in reference to this article only. The defense will be a loud accusatory finger (sorry about the mixed metaphor) pointed at me and any of his other accusers. Please strip off the histrionics and look directly at the diffs. I hope I have not got any of the diffs wrong. I have tried to be careful but mistakes happen and I will correct any asap. Thanks

Disruptive editing at Rothschild family

The following are recent reversions (the last three days)

• [21] 5 March
• [22] 5 March
• [23] 5 March
• [24] 3 April
• [25] 4 April
• [26] 4 April
• [27] 5 April
• [28] 5 April

Disruption on the Talk page

Verorg started a section about another editor he titled 'Complaint about User:Mbz1 and his POV edits

• [29]

Examples of Vexorg's dialogue on the talk page:

• [30] "this isn't the place to discuss your lack of knowledge..."
• [31] acknowledging that he is restoring material on the basis of his own argument without consensus or references
• [32] continues to restore debated material based on his own arguments rather than consensus or references
• [33] asking another editor if he is editing as an IP and threatening to do a checkuser
• [34] again threatening this user with checkuser
• [35] accusing another editor of "untruths" and "smelling a Pov here"
• [36] more personal attacks, expresses his desire to reinsert the same material "after a reasonable time has elapsed"
• [37] Accusing other editors of having a "problem" - again expressing his intention to reinsert his material despite the lack of consensus for such a change
• [38] demanding of another editor once again if he is a particular IP
• [39] "It's not surprising that Stellarkid wants to remove the section, given his/her political stance as shown in several disruptive Arbitration reports over the last few weeks. "

Canvassing

• [40]
• [41]

User:NickCT's comment after being canvassed by Vexorg here [42]

Thanks for your consideration. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Stellarkid

I have fixed the edits above to reflect the correct date. I misread 3-4, or 3-5 got it backwards or something like that. My intention was not to indicate 3RR violations since if that were the intention I would have gone to the appropriate board. My intention here is to show that there is disruption and that Vexrog is not using the talk page constructively to make his case. He is not getting RS or listening to the concerns of others and trying to address them. He seems to believe that he has the truth and so the right to put his edit in despite lack of consensus and challenges by others. Stellarkid (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the beef? What are you trying to do here? Surely you don't think that's enough to get Vexorg banned. In fact if this is all you could dig up on him it's a credit to Vexorg. Factomancer (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could straighten out what's going on with these two groups of editors, but if that's not possible to do, then I suggest it might be necessary to block Vexorg, Stellarkid, Factsontheground, Mbz1, Breein1007 and whatever other members I missed of these contentious and disruptive groups. They've all been warned that blocks were going to start coming, I assume other people are as tired of seeing these same names here over and over again, so admins should start wheeling and dealing, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This ANI has nothing to do with me. I will strongly request that you refrain from mentioning my name again unless you intend on filing a report against me. Otherwise, keep me the hell out of this because I am not involved. Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned. Those of us merely trying to write articles and improve the encyclopedia should be left alone and not punished for other people's misbehaviour. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that you can be banned just because people mention your name a lot. And who are you to suggest that I am banned? How many articles have you written lately? Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment And in fact the accusatory voices are raised against the messenger as expected, with calls to block me for bringing it forward. This venue is where we are supposed to bring such things. You may call it drama, but not one of you have addressed any of the diffs brought forward. If you don't see anything problematic here, fine, say so; but please do not start calling up other names for blocks. Deal with this one, then if you are unhappy with me or others, bring the report and the appropriate diffs. Some people are beginning to make editing Wiki an unpleasant experience, and that goes against the purpose of WP. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned your name in the above comment, I merely said "The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned". It's interesting that you immediately interpreted that as meaning yourself. Freudian slip? Factomancer (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Those first diffs on the Rothschild article are from early March, not early April. However, I completely agree that Vexorg's discussion on Talk:Rothschild is uncivil. There's a ginormous debate on that page over what looks to me like a relatively minor section heading issue, complete with canvassing and tons of personal attacks about the "political agendas" of other editors involved. I tried earlier today leaving the editor a note about civility 1 because I thought all of the conspiracy accusations against other editors were pretty irritating, unfortunately s/he found it "patronizing" and told me so on my talk page. The editor is certainly willing to engage in discussion, but their incessant conspiracy theorizing about editors who disagree with them on issues related to Israel/Zionism being part of a "Lobby" just seems to me to be really unhelpful in terms of keeping editing in this area calm and civil. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First and Final Comment by Vexorg - This clearly obsessive and bad faith attempt to get me blocked/banned by Stellarkid doesn't even warrant a millisecond's response. It really speaks for itself as a continuation of the disruptive derailment that has no doubt annoyed all the admin who have had to wade through this nonsense over the last few weeks. This latest piece of partisan melodrama is not something I wish to be associated with and I sympathize with any administrators who have to deal with this incessant and childish guff. And for the record the 'rant' left at my talk page by CordeliaNaismith was extremely patronising and that is why I swiftly removed it. I won't be spoken to like that in real life or on Wikipedia. This whole debacle is getting beyond ridiculous. I'll leave you all to it. Vexorg (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Vrubel's Demons - having been at the receiving end of Vexorgs incivility, I was thinking of reporting him myself, but apparently someone else did that. I do not know and do not care about any prior quarrels this editor had with other editors, but I do care that he derailed a discussion about content by attacking other editors and by canvassing what he perceived as like-minded editors (though let me emphasize that one of those canvassed did not respond, and the editor responded added to the discussion about the content). He also filed a bad faith sockpuppet report about an editor who disagreed with him, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Off2riorob/Archive. When warned at his talk page about his incivility and edit warring, he accused me of hounding him [43]. It this behavior which makes any discussions about content impossible, and drives away those editors who actually want to improve the content of the article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by NickCT This is another example or "drop-of-the-hat" arbitration. If you read the Rothchild talk page, you'll see that this issue is being taken care of, and the tone of the debate is simmering down. @Stellar - By filing these ANI you only serve to inflame. Verxog may be loud, but he hasn't done anything egregious. When he does, I'll report him myself. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I don't really care who it starts with, but something's got to give or this will go on forever -- so why not start right here and now, since general warnings have been given already. My suggestion is that both of these editors should be blocked for a reasonable short period of time, say a week, and when they return it should be under a topic ban which requires them to deal with their disputes with each other only on the relevant article talk pages or in legitimate dispute resolution. Any posts to AN, AN/I, RSN, COIN, SPI regarding each other would be grounds for another block. The third time, block indef. Then, when some other member of either of the two battling groups cames here with another dispute, start the process over with them.

Until they are forced to deal with each other, there's no real reason for them to come to any accomodation or compromise as long as they think they can come running here (and elsewhere) to continue the fight and run the string out even further. Channel them into dispute resolution, and if they don't want to go there, indef them.

Anyway, I'm feeling bloodthirsty tonight and that's my suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If Vexorg did something to earn admonishment or a block then Stellarkid was justified in bringing this report. I don't want to get too involved in this since I know the admins are losing their patience but this proposal seems a little far reaching and based on frustration instead of a decent review of the complaint. If it is found that both CordeliaNaismith and Stellar are wrong in their perceptions then there might be reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this is basically a problem between Stellarkid and Vexorg, Vexorg directed personal attacks at other editors on Talk:Rothschild family also. It also looks like 2 other editors have discussed campaigning or personal attacks with Vexorg on his talk page: 1, 2. Given that, within the last day, Vexorg has started a Wikiquette thread regarding a comment on another editor's talk page and opened a sockpuppet investigation which was rejected as fishing, it looks to me that this editor is making significant contributions to the drama. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I have nothing in principle against your affection for radical solutions. However, we have enough action already and I have good reasons to believe that you solution will only increase the stream in this bloodbath (so blood-thirsty or not-you may not like the outcome). I see it as a complex problem that need the intervention of expert surgeon-maybe involvment of other admins, new in this I-P but experineced with solving complex long lasting conflicts, and with the close supoervison of bureaucrats-could lead to cease fire. Nothing would be less benificial for WP than mass "executions" of user accounts. It will only result with less articles on this topic, with articles that are biased and so forth. This conflict involved, generally, with more than 30 editors-it seem just to suggest special policy in regard to editing in I-P related articles.P.s. I agree with Breein 1007, this random name dropping you did is improper and destructive.--Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Comment: Any reviewing administrator should be advised that User:Vexorg was recently given a strong warning (final warning?) about such behavior. Vexorg has also been previously blocked for a type of behavior that somewhat resembles what's shown in this report. FYI. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment #2 – The edits that Vexorg made to Stellarkid's comments are also concerning, and, I believe, actionable in of themselves. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - I am discussing this at my talk page. So before you jump in and start shouting for action, I did in fact revert myself previously. And after it was pointed out that it was against policy I just came here to revert myself a 2nd time but I see you have done it for me. So thank you for that Ynhockey :) - I think, and in regard to policy, I think it's better to let Stellarkid's misrepresentations of my diffs be exposed for all to see. Vexorg (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I apparently made an error in my dates. Will try to fix that later in the day. The point was not to show that Vexrog had violated 3RR. I don't know if he did or not, probably he didn't as he was conscious of violating it and made a note of giving it a proper amount of time before reinserting the material. My point was just that he was edit -warring and disruptively inserting information against consensus and without references to back up his assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - "Will try to fix that later in the day." - if there is good faith why not fix it now? It would take 5 seconds? Vexorg (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment to Stellarkid It is very difficult to believe that you accidentally dated edits made on the 5th of March as being from 3rd of April.

I will note that you have made use of misrepresentation when it suits you:

• here where you selectively quote for effect.
• here where you misrepresent the provenance and quality of a source: Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information,.
• Which I asked you to correct here
• Yet you continued on with the misrepresentation here - The root source was of course http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/, this is apparent when one visits the link that I gave when adding the cats in question, which is why it is troubling that you chose not to reproduce it in full.

I think it is understandable that one wants to offer a strong case but it is troubling when an editor does so by proffering half-truths and fabrications, as I believe to have demonstrated that you have. Unomi (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to Unomi-- The difference was I think between the dates 4-3 and 3-4 -- March 4th or April 3rd. Stellarkid (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Further reply to Unomi.this is not a misrepresentation nor a selective quote. It is what the words say. It was not quoted "for effect" but to clarify why people might find it offensive. The tacked-on disclaimer is a bit meaningless if you know Carlos Latuff's work and the fact that he came in 2nd at the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest

• The second link which you call a misrepresentation is based on this link [44] which your edit summary says {"add cat per http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements"} and a handful of other edits using the same edit summary, all of which are found on the page you linked to. Will deal with the other accusations of misrepresentation later today. Busy now. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your third and forth diffs are directly related to the second which I answered above, and are not in the slightest misrepresentations of your source which you yourself listed--please see the second point above. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you can't distinguish between: http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements" and Based on the link Big Campaign then I would say that your value proposition to wikipedia is questionable.
• You cut off the quote in mid sentence in order to support your preconceived notion of what he really thinks. You cut off the part of his quote where he defines the subset he considers to be racist along with the part where he explicitly rejects anti-semitism.

This is intellectual honesty 101 stuff, please stop trying to defend the indefensible. I am withdrawing from this thread, please do hit me up on my talkpage if you have further concerns. Unomi (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a looks like bad faith comment, I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact this recent comment by Vexorg [45] suggests that the Vexorg shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior. A preventive block or ban might be in order, in particular given the extensive block log of this account. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction of misrepresentation by Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons above by Vexorg - because I don't want to clutter up this ANI with a battlefield, I made a comment about a misrepresentation of me by user:Off2riorob on my talk page. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons has now misrepresented me by claiming this is 'showing little insight into the inappropriateness of [my]behavior.' There is nothing inappropriate about commenting on misrepresentations made about myself on my talk page however many times you say it is. It is my right of reply to comment on such and as long as people continue to misrepresent me I shall continue to comment on that. And the repetition of your arguments at this ANI are starting to make it seem untenable that you are acting on good faith. 'extensive block log of this account' - hyperbole. Vexorg (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by George

Going through the presented case:

• I don't see a case of disruptive editing, and I view Stellarkid's list of Vexorg's edits as misleading. You've listed eight edits over two months. Of those, three were made in a row, and only two were reverts. If the implication is that Vexorg was edit warring by reverting twice, I would note that Vexorg wasn't the only one who reverted to his version, and it would appear that Off2riorob reverted two editors three times in total (assuming that they are IP address 173.120.203.243, something that might warrant a CheckUser), making them more guilty of edit warring than Vexorg.
• Regarding Vexorg's commentary on Mbz1 on the talk page, I find it odd that you would be reporting this a month after he wrote the comments. Vexorg is clearly commenting on the contributor in addition to the content, which should be avoided, but at the same time I don't view anything particularly outlandish in their statement. Mbz1 has since been topic banned, which adds some weight in Vexorg's defense of his comments.
• Vexorg's comments on the talk page constitute minor incivility, when he says things like "lack of knowledge" and "untruths". Stellarkid's synopsis of those edits, and extensive list, is, however, somewhat exaggerated. Most of those diffs don't show anything other than a content dispute.
• Vexorg's comments to Unomi and NickCT were pretty clearly canvassing.

All-in-all, Vexorg's minor incivility and canvassing should be punished. Maybe a short term (1-3 month?) topic ban would be in order. However, I would also address Stellarkid's own actions:

• Stellarkid's list of infractions is exaggerated and misleading. Many of the diffs listed are not a violation of anything, and strike me as someone throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what sticks.
• Stellarkid reported Vexorg and three other editors on these very boards not even a week ago. In that discussion, several administrators slammed both sides for using Wikipedia (and these boards in particular) as a battleground. I view this report, rife with exaggeration, and coming less than a week after Stellarkid's previous on the same user, as little more than a continued attempt to exploit these boards as a weapon. Editors need to stop using these boards as a tool to get editors they're in a content dispute with banned.
• If Vexorg is guilty of canvassing, which I believe he is, then Stellarkid is likely guilty as well: [46][47] Notifying users you discuss on ANI doesn't mean you cram a report full of meaningless diffs so you can then notify those editors who were in disagreement with Vexorg on the article in question. Surgically notifying editors who are diametrically opposed to the editor being reported, while at the same time not notifying other editors who agreed with Vexorg's viewpoint in those same talk page discussions with Vexorg is clearly canvassing.

I would suggest a similar, short (1-3 month?) topic ban for Stellarkid, for canvassing and attempting to use these boards as a battleground tool (in contrast to building consensus via dispute resolution), and per the warnings of Georgewilliamherbert, Sandstein, and Malik Shabazz in Stellarkid's previous AN/I report. ← George ^talk 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to George -- Just to reply to your last paragraph. The two notifications apart from Vexorg were entirely appropriate since I used their diffs in my presentation. That was a courtesy to let them know that I had used them and if they thought I had used them in error or against their wishes they could respond. While other people were involved on the talk page, I did not use diffs related to them (I think) and thus did not "notify" anyone else. I probably should have notified NickCT since I did use a diff of his and apologize for that as it was late and I simply forgot about it until you characterized my notification as "canvassing." As for the battleground accusation, that was what my earlier characterization of Vexrog in the previous ANI with respect to his accusations of a local Zionist lobby--[48][49] and now you are trying to turn it on its head and accuse the accuser. I don't think you will find a similar diff from me, accusing people of an anti-Zionist cabal or some such. I understand this as it has worked in the past, where administrators throw up their arms and ban people indiscriminately. I realize that these accusations are tiresome for administrators, but I still hope that they will find the time to separate the wheat from the chaff here (meaning the issues, not the people), because this is the place where they need to be brought up, and if I am banned as well for bringing what I believe to be disruption forward for examination at the appropriate venue, then so be it. I will at least have been true to my principles. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the whole think stinks to me. When filing AN/I, editors are supposed to notify editors they're discussing - you never discussed either Off2riorob or No More Mr Nice Guy, the two editors you notified. You only linked to diffs in which Vexorg was in a content dispute with them (among others), and the fact that you only notified editors supporting one side of the dispute is highly suspicious.

The issue isn't that you reported Vexorg, the issue is the context of that report. You listed eight diffs as "disruptive editing". The first three occurred over a month ago, and you claimed that the misdating was accidental. Looking at the article's edit history, it seems unlikely to me that one would confuse March (at the very bottom of the page) with April (at the top). Of the remaining five edits, three were made one after another - effectively counting as one edit - and two were reverts. So your disruptive editing accusation leveled at Vexorg equates to one edit, and two reverts - I don't see the disruption. You listed Vexorg's comments on Mbz1, a user since topic banned, as talk page "disruption". I see minor incivility, but nothing that I would consider disruptive editing in that diff. You then list ten diffs of Vexorg's commentary on the talk page (the second and third of which are duplicates, by the way). Of those, I see a couple instances of minor incivility (e.g., "your lack of knowledge", "untruths", commenting on contributors instead of content; attributing motives), but most of the diffs are just filler. In a couple diffs, Vexorg is asking if an editor is the same person as an IP editor (I consider it a valid question, if that editor may have been edit warring or violating 3RR using their IP address), and in another, Vexorg sounds frustrated at being the only one discussing the issue, and says he'll take a break from reverting. Any real problems (the minor incivility, and canvassing) are buried in diffs that are relatively meaningless. What makes you think that this requires administrative intervention? Essentially this looks like two problems you've compounded - incivility, which probably belongs at WP:WQA, and a content dispute involving you, Vexorg, and a few others editors, which should be resolved via WP:DR, not AN/I. ← George ^talk 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry George, but you are maximizing my perceived sins and minimizing the extent of the problematic behavior of this editor. I believe that letting the editors know that I am pointing to them in a ANI is appropriate for the reasons I gave above. I did not ask anyone to comment, unlike Vexorg, whom you defend: [50]- [51] Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made it clear that I think Vexorg's actions warrant a topic ban as well (and probably a stiffer one that yourself). My concerns with how and where you chose to bring the issue up, however, are irrespective of how noble your cause might be. ← George ^talk 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment on Vexorg. In the articles Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel - Labour Friends of Israel and Northern Ireland Friends of Israel Vexorg has been adding the categories [Category:Zionism in the United Kingdom] and [Category:Zionist organization]. There is already a [Category:Israel friendship associations]. These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations.[52][53][54] His rationale on one or two of the edit summaries was that he was reverting a known sockpuppet. Another is that "Israel is the Zionist State." I don't feel it is right to push your POV across articles like this and against consensus. Not sure what the relevant Wikipedia policy on that might be, but it surely seems disruptive on the face of it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg wants to help Stellarkid - Carry on Stellarkid. Any unbiased and uninvolved admin ( and unbiased editors like George) can see your seeming obsession with searching for just anything to denigrate me with. Let's see, I've made 3.944 edits to date. I'm sure there's plenty of non-crimes in there for you to bring up in your personal campaign. Would you like me to help you? There's also real crimes that could help your campaign. How far do you want to go back in time? See, I've got a block history, because in the distant past I stupidly got embroiled in edit wars and didn't stop to think about the consequences of such at the time. Never mind that these events have already been dealt with and I've served my time already for the punishments given out for the crimes, I'm sure they could add weight to your current obsessive and seemingly relentless campaign against me. Anyway, get in touch with me at my talk page and let's see if we can collaborate in developing a real solid case against this demon who goes by the name of Vexorg. I really want to help as you are clearly really struggling in this AN/I and I guess if you are going to be successful in your agenda to get me banned, instead of self-destructively getting yourself banned for wasting admin time, I figured you could use all the help you can get. I've got some real incriminating stuff on myself which I would be happy to divulge if you care to get in touch. This is a genuine offer. Look forward to hearing from you Stellarkid. Vexorg (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that the above is an egregious violation of WP:BAIT and should, even not taking anything else in this discussion into account, be actionable. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, regarding "These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations", I think it's more accurate to say that the categorization was reverted because WP:V compliance requirements were not met in their view rather than editors having an opinion about the categorization itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that would have been more a better wording. I would just note however that on March 25 with the first diff [55] the category was reverted with the following edit summary: ("Reverted 1 edit by Vexorg; Uncited and unsupported in the text".) Apparently that lesson was not learned by April 5th when he put up this edit or a minute later when he put up this one. All three have been reverted with the note that it is not sourced. For an editor who has made almost 4000 edits to the project as he notes above, he should know by now that you do not push arguably controversial material into an article(s) without providing a reference. Stellarkid (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:CheesyBiscuit requesting unblock of 1RR

Resolved

 – It's expired now anyway (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

CheesyBiscuit was blocked for 1RR in violation of an Arbcomm decision. He requested unblock, which I declined. However, one of the options to overturn the block is community discussion. Seeing as he's drafting an Arbcomm appeal, I'm being bold and bringing it here for discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would unblock him with a strict warning about 1RR in future. He's only one of many editors who have reverted a now-blocked editor who is inserting information in the article which effectively tries to deny that the event happened as stated. I don't think we'd ever block anyone for reverting holocaust denial propoganda in a Holocaust-related article, regardless of whether they'd stepped over our technical limits; this strikes me as a similar situation. Black Kite 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Given his explicit mention of 3RR in his edit summaries I get the strong impression he was unaware of the specific 1RR restriction there, and the person he was reverting was clearly being an awful lot more disruptive than he was. I'd be inclined to unblock with a warning. ~ mazca ^talk 11:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Except that in this edit he indicated that the article is under 1RR. This is before he did any of the reverts. Tim Song (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yes. I don't doubt his intentions were good, but it's clear he consciously and intentionally broke the restriction he was aware of. These 1RR restrictions really do exist to stop exactly what happened here, he definitely should have reported the other user and then left it alone. I can definitely see the justification for the block here. ~ mazca ^talk 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't support an unblock - his justification was that he was reverting borderline vandalism, which if you look at the edits it clearly wasn't - he was involved in an edit war. He knew about the 1RR restriction, yet he still decided to break it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Restrictions are restrictions. He knew it and broke it. Don't really see why that is up for debate.--Crossmr (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, CheesyBiscuit first went to that page yesterday to service a semiprotected edit request from TheDarkLordSeth. I also got involved with that request and I, for one, was surprised to find that TDLS was able to edit the article unassisted. It seems to me that CheesyBiscuit merely got caught up in the moment and perhaps could be given some leniency, since it's not his war. Also, since he has expressed that he will gladly agree to not edit that article, the block doesn't appear to be preventing anything. I think it would be best to unblock him and let him continue his gnome-like activities. Celestra (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Suggest reduction to time served. It was a mistake I am confident won't be repeated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Identity Theft S-F

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I just wanted to inform you of Identity Theft so to speak --> This User:StevenFraser account was created without my friends consent and It is a account which contains his First and Last Name which is in a way Identity Theft as he did not create that account. Tho I do have a idea on who did actually create it but I will not get into that. Steven has asked me If one of the Admins could either block or delete the account created in his name. Thank You 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Putting the name "Steven Fraser" into a Facebook search gives 714 results - it's a very common name. Do you have any reason to suspect whoever created that account even knows who your friend is? It could very easily be someone else who's actually called Steven Fraser, and the account hasn't edited in several months. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The account's first edit was in 2008 - chances are it's legitimate, and just another person with the (quite common) name of Steven Fraser.  f o x  12:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My ex friend created the account due to the fact she and he both are at war with each-other (they hate each others guts) and i already know it was her that created it since He goes on Blue Kaffee and the fact knowing her She would probably create a account on here with my name as she did on Facebook by creating a false account on there with another ex friends name Then go on a hating/harassing/spamming spree as I witnessed when I was her friend in the past. 142.163.148.8 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you have noticed, but the world doesn't revolve around you. The account looks legit. Syrthiss (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure whether the account is legitimate, but this edit, the first one that the account made, does not look legitimate.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It was also made 2 years ago. The edits from February appear legitimate. Nothing to see here. --Smashville^talk 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iamstiff

This account appears to be a single-issue, "throwaway" account, used primarily to make a series of drive-by edits to remove the term "Northern Irish" from all articles about Northern Ireland football clubs.

Perusal of Iamstiff's contributions should confirm this.

There are dozens of edits making the same change, and so I'm not posting them all, but example diffs are:

[56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

I reverted the edits, as per WP:BRD. User:Iamstiff did not engage in discussion, but rather made the edits all over again. He subsequently declined to engage in dialogue and has apparently disappeared. I would like to be able to revert the edits without this being considered edit-warring.

I suspect Iamstiff may be a sockpuppet for User:Vintagekits who made similar edits in the past, and who is now banned. Mooretwin (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't think it's VK, other edits are US-centric, and some show poor grammar, spelling or wiki-knowledge. Having said that, I don't think there's a problem with reverting all of those edits. Black Kite 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So Black kite you are encouraging an editor to edit war there is a discussion on this matter on the talk of the Northern Ireland and consensus on which to prefer is far from established, if it is a sock then revert away if not wait for consensus, edit wars never do any good and I am surprised an admin would encourage them. Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This guy Mo ainm is probably BigDunc based on dates of registration/retirement, and his interest in edit warring over this phrase. Has anyone got that tool that compares editors interests? I know there is no policy against users 'retiring' and then re-appearing under a different name, but they aren't supposed to edit in the same areas of past conflict thereby avoiding scrutiny, and this guy is referring to BigDunc in the third person [63] too. He also bizarrly declares on his user page he is an alternate account of an established user, without naming the user, I know for a fact that's not allowed. MickMacNee (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Infact Mo ainm has picked up where BigDunc left off at Gainsborough Trinity F.C., edit warring over use of the Ulster Banner, I'd say all of this adds up to evasion of scrutiny and if BigDuc is infact not 'retired' (seriously, why does this stupid template still exist?), he needs to revert to his main account forthwith, or link to it from this new account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If Mo ainm is BigDunc then he, too, has a history of edit-warring over this issue on the very same articles. Regarding the discussion at Tatlk:Northern Ireland, I started that to try and obtain a consensus, but it is clear that there is no consensus either that "Northern Irish" is acceptable or not acceptable. On that basis, under WP:BRD, User:Iamstiff has failed to achieve consensus to his changes and reverting them is quite legitimate. Ohterwise, Iamstiff's edit-warring will have been rewarded. Mooretwin (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is just the usual disruptive forum shopping that Mooretwin usually uses when he does not get his way in his point-of-view campaigns. He brought it up here, was told to go away, went here where the discussion want against him, so now he comes here to try and get answer he likes. This is a content dispute, no administrator action needed other than someone stopping Mooretwin's relentless forum shopping. 21:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The username, Iamstiff, seems a bit... questionable. Now, I'm not one to be offended by anything, but I've seen less suggestive names get blocked as violations of the username policy (I've been around as an IP before this). But given that their last contribution was March 21st, this may be a little late. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle. AGAIN. (and Bali ultimate)

In this discussion and it's related links, Delicious carbuncle is misstating the purpose of that RfC. The RfC is regarding Ash's BLP editing behavior, while Dc and Bali ultimate are deliberately using this as a platform to make points (attacks) about other possible and/or perceived violations.

If any other issue is to be raised in this RfC besides Ash's BLP editing, it should be addressed promptly, properly, with diffs, details, summaries, and certifications. Otherwise, those comments should be immediately stricken as hostile and Wikihounding/bullying. Isn't that right

Please advise. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The irony of a SPA bringing up DC's supposed single-minded attempt to ban Ash is amusing in an ironic sense. What admin attention is needed? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some admin attention at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty Trombone might cut this round of trolling short. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the irony of those points and possible socpuppetry, the IP seems to have a point and an Admin should look at this. 69.86.55.52 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

These three again? Can't we just tell the to pack it in, stay away from each other and enforce it by block if necessary. I say this without any bias for or against any of them, but they've all been reported or reported each other to ANI more times than almost any other editor (if we exclude the indef'd and perma-banned, they're probably on the top spot). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an open RFC/U, I don't think there's any need for such precipitate action on the say-so of two New York IPs.   pablo_hablo. 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell wrote: "but they've all been reported or reported each other to ANI more times than almost any other editor (if we exclude the indef'd and perma-banned, they're probably on the top spot)." Really? I haven't reported the trolling IP (the second IP appears to be the same guy evading his current block, but whatever) or Ash, ever. I think the last post i initiated at this board was months ago and resulted in the indef blocking of a pro-pedophilia account. As for complaints about me, there have been about 3 this year (leaving aside the question of there having been any merit to these complaints). I suggest you actually do a little research before you insert yourself into these kinds of conversations Mitchell.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible threat

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding.  f o x  17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

66.99.248.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made what could be read as a threat in this edit (stating that a specifically named person was an endangered species) ... to me, it seemed relatively minor; but I wanted to report it here in-case others viewed it more seriously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Disregard ... the user made a subsequent edit claiming the same person was "the cutest" endangered species. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see where the possibility lies, but yes, not a threat.  f o x  17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The three-revert rule

Resolved

 – Quaplaxicked. Tan | 39 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR made more than three revert actions on Bleiburg massacre article within a 24-hour period. Pada78 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please take it to this noticeboard. Dusti^{Insert Sly Comments} 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like DIREKTOR is reverting the contributions of sockpuppets per WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned users. They are puppets of this person. Pada78 above is yet another of them. No admin action necessary, except perhaps either at WP:SPI or simple blocks per WP:DUCK. -- Atama頭 18:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week, it looks like all the activity on the page recently has been an edit war between a sockmaster and a couple of editors. -- Atama頭 18:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It seemed pretty obvious it was an attempt to get me blocked by one unfamiliar with Wiki policy. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

GameZone

Right, I'm not really sure if this is the right place (or if a right place exists), but I received a bullying-sounding email from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone based on a comment I made on a talk page. Basically, I noticed a user's (DarkBlade4658 (talk · contribs)) sole contributions were adding GameZone reviews and previews to articles - a little bit of looking and the user turns out to be an editor for them. I gave the user two warnings before reporting them to the COI noticeboard. The user then replied on my talk page and I explained the situation on his talk page. Here's where it gets interesting - I then received an email to my personal email account (the address of which is available on my website, the email wasn't sent through Wikipedia) from the purported Editor-in-Chief of GameZone, criticising my expression of opinion on the talk page (I questioned GameZone's reliability in passing). Now, seeing as this is essentially off-wiki, I'm not sure if it should even be here, but then again, seeing as it's (essentially) the head of a company sending (what I found to be) a bullying email for someone saying something about said company on a talk page, maybe it should. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think he might just have qualified for a lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

General disruptive editing

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptive editing on March 17 per this thread. He has since made several posts on my talk page, persistently soapboxing about:

• "sick americans", "Nudity rocks" - [64]
• "Sick American aversion sex syndrome", "USA has been hijacked by a pack of religious Christian and other evil sects", " Nudity in films rock and thats a fact, no crazy American priest or evil sects are gonna tell me otherwise" - [65]
• "And while we are at it: Health care in USA! Only 100 years behind Europe!" - [66]

At times, he makes attempts to make his edits look legitimate, such as starting posts like this one. I've replied to that post of his and even notified him of this when he kept persisting for a reply on the article talk page. My talk page is full of communication with him where I was very patient and offering advice in the unlikely event that he decides to do something useful. My last comment to him stated, among other things: "should you cause any further disruption to articles or talk pages, I will report you and ask that you be blocked". He replied to that post today (from a different IP, 91.150.30.17 (talk · contribs)) by calling me an "American self appointed dictator asshole", "American fag" and told me to "Run home to mother you fuck" ([67]).

He edits from a dynamic IP and I think he deserves a block; a range block would be appropriate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you list the IPs from which the edits came? It will be easier to nail down a rangeblock (if deemed appropriate). TNXMan 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 91.150.30.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are the only ones I've seen so far. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A CheckUser could help identify more info (IPs) and calculate a rangeblock more accurately.--mono 19:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless there has also been activity from registered users in the range I don't think a checkuser would be much use here. Right now I'm seeing some blockable activity from two IPs, but it's very sporadic and there just hasn't been enough activity to nail down exactly what range is being used here, let alone justify blocking it. I blocked the recently-used IP for harassment but that's all that's warranted right now, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 19:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, CheckUser is not needed when it regards only anon edits. That said, 91.150.16.0/20 blocked 2 weeks for abusing Americans disruption. –MuZemike 00:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edson Rosa

User:Edson Rosa (Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa; Special:Contributions/Edson Rosa Brise) was recently banned for one week for persistently uploading images without proper documentation. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Edson Rosa.) That ban was extended to two weeks after the user created a alternate account and continued editing in the same fashion. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa.) Today, following the expiration of the block, the editor again uploaded a non-free image, claiming it to be his/her own work and releasing it to public domain.

None of these incidents seem to be malicious vandalism. The user seems to sincerely wish to contribute to Wikipedia. Yet they are clearly persistent violations of Wikipedia policy, and at least in the case of uploading non-free images constitute serious problems. To my knowledge, the user has made no attempt to discuss these issues or seek ways to redress them. User talk:Edson Rosa and User talk:Edson Rosa Brise include more than 110 warnings, but no responses from the user. Cnilep (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See also: Special:Contributions/Edson Henrique Rosa Junior, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edson Rosa/Archive Cnilep (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor indefinitely. It's obvious that he/she is not getting the point here, what with no apparent intention of stopping the incorrect uploads and no attempt to communicate at any point in time. The multiple socks are definitely a problem as well. If the editor is willing to discuss their actions and learn why they're doing things wrong, then I'd be fine with an unblock at that point. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing of Natural born citizen of the United States by IP user

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected.

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

The IP user 108.7.96.216 has been repeatedly attempting to add material to Natural born citizen of the United States, purporting to explain why an exception to the "natural born citizen" rule was made for people who were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. No source has been cited, and the accuracy of the explanation is questionable. I advised this user regarding Wikipedia's sourcing policies on his talk page after the third instance of this, but he went ahead and did it a fourth time a short while ago, without addressing (or even acknowledging) the problem. I fear this user is just going to keep doing this over and over again unless some stronger action is taken. Richwales (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no source, and it's wrong anyway, since without that "Grandfather Clause", the first several U.S. Presidents would have been ineligible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that 108.7.96.216 appears to be a Verizon "pool" address. The same user has apparently had this IP address for at least eight days (March 29 - April 6), but it doesn't seem to be a static address and there's no assurance that he'll keep it indefinitely, so a block on this one address may not be very useful. Semi-protection of this article would seem a bit extreme, but I'm not sure if there is anything in between that would be useful. And since this editor has ignored warnings, both on his talk page and also in edit summaries, it doesn't seem like an article ban is likely to have any effect. What do people think is appropriate to protect the article in this situation? Richwales (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

He did it again. Reverted about an hour later, with another warning on the IP address's talk page, but something more effective really needs to be done here. Richwales (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. That will cool the IP's jets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And it was granted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Physical threat on user's page

There is a user page that I don't wish to name on this board, containing a physical threat against, as he put it, "Wikipedia." Is there any way I can notify you without having to use a public noticeboard? Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You could use the "Email this User" button on the side of the admin you would want to contact.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You could email WP:OVERSIGHT, but I would only do so if it was a threat against an actual user or person. If it was just to Wikipedia, I don't think that really warrants attention. Aiken ♫ 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

IP:76.184.84.73

IP user 76.184.84.73 has made persistent uncited additions to Luger P08 pistol. Specifically, the users list in that article. The section he is editing has an edit banner stating that all additions need citations and warning that any additions without citations will be removed. He has also been warned by myself and others in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page] not to make additions without citations from a reliable source. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page, and I have not been able to find a source for his claim. ROG5728 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

Well, I've just been a total tool and installed twinkle for the first time. Basically, I've messed up big time with it. I firstly started deleting everything in Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 March 2010 with it - that might not be the end of the world, but it's worth a review. The major problem is that I attempted to delete the category here, but Instead I deleted the three articles in the category and unlinked anything that was linking to the category. I'm going to bed shortly, so I won't have time to fix my mistakes now - I'll do it in the morning, but if anyone has time it would be much appreciated. Apologies for causing such a mess. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

well the Circular bidirectional bus routes thing has been fixed but the prods are still an outstanding issue.©Geni 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockfarm vandalizing

There is currently a sockfarm (of who I don't know) going around creating inappropriate articles and vandalizing pages together. One account makes this edit [68], then another one creates a bogus article about Alex Beckman (now speedied). Several other accounts continue to vandalize the same articles in the same way [69], [70]. Quack Quack, can we please block them? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

User Quiet till stirred (talk · contribs · block user) recently made this edit after being inactive for almost 2 years. This latest edit was the reinsertion of what seems to be a bogus message on the Gravitation talk page, asserting that the article has been vandalised with the insertion of the words "Penis hole" into it. But there are no such words anywhere in the article. The bogus message was first inserted by user Anonoslo (talk · contribs · block user) and then repeatedly reinserted by an IP user 67.101.149.9 (talk · contribs · block user) in defiance of repeated warnings left on its talk page.

One other possible explanation that occurred to me is that these users had all being looking at a cached older version of the page. However, on a brief check (admittedly far from exhaustive) over the last 9 months or so of the article's history, I couldn't find any version of it that contained the alleged offending text.

I have posted notices of this discussion on the talk pages of all the accounts mentioned in it.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

{{General relativity}}, used as a sidebar in that section, got vandalized to display this text - see [71] [72] [73] [74]. Logged out users might typically see a stale cached version of the template contents displayed in the article that wouldn't be displayed to logged-in users. There's nothing bad going on with these reporting users. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. The user of the IP account is owed a grovelling apology, since it was blocked for repeatedly reinserting the notice advising other editors of the problem. I will take care of this. However, a note should probably also be inserted in its block log to indicate that the block was unjustified.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Malice 123

Resolved

 – Malice123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef by Materialscientist. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Malice123 has been blanking the Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver article. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE! 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV is over here. HalfShadow 03:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting editing block for 76.170.239.56...

Resolved

 – old stuff, apparently Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request that user 76.170.239.56 be blocked from editing because of a threat to sue because of something that happened here on Wikipedia. If you direct your attention to Talk:Mutual_Broadcasting_System, the user 76.170.239.56 is threatening to sue because of something that happened on Wikipedia. If you direct your attention to Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment/Archive_5, even though all I said was that Wikipedia is like a newspaper & mentioned the possibly that a newspaper can be sued because of something being printed that caused defamation to someone, I was told

(and just to point something out, threatening to sue because of something that happens here can cause you to be blocked from editing)

In this case, user 76.170.239.56 IS threatening to sue because of something that happened here on Wikipedia. So, I am requesting that 76.170.239.56 be blocked from editing indefinitely. I have reported his website, the DigitalDeli, to Westwood One for copyright infringement. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are linking to stuff that happened back in 2006 and 2009. What's your actual problem? 76.170.239.56 has not made any edits since 2007. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The OP has apparently concluded that the IP and User:TJ Spyke are the same guy. Spyke is currently nearing the end of a week-long block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and a BLP issue on article Conservapedia

Future Perfect at Sunrise has repeatedly removed a particular quote from the LA Times regarding RationalWiki editors "admitting to cyber-vandalism". FPaS argues that the LA Times article isn't strong enough and that the quote violates BLP policies. Other editors argued on the talk page that the LA Times was sufficient.

Links:

• (diff) FPaS latest removal of quote
• (diff) FPaS explains himself on talk page
• Conservapedia edit history
• Talk:Conservapedia#Removal + Threat - lengthy discussion, several editors disagree with FPaS
  • discussion title referring to this edit summary

Can a few impartial admins look into the issue? Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to propose an alternative wording that might bypass the BLP issue. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued attempts at wp:OUTING

Cla68 has been warned multiple times to stop wp:OUTING attempts. Warned by me multiple times and at least four warnings by admins. See the four admin warnings here [75][76][77][78] Yet this person is still continuing. Here are three more attempts that all occurred after the four warnings from admins previously linked [79][80][81]. This person has asked that I inform them before I post here because I warned them I would come here if they didn't stop. However, I have not informed Cla68 of this compaint because my fear is that they know that they will be blocked and they will just use the opportunity to make more edits attempting the wp:OUTING. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Informing another editor of an ANI case isn't optional. I've let Cla68 know here [82]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dayewalker, Here's some more background information. I believe that Cla68's campaign to harass and badger me began with this edit that was really nothing more than a wp:OUTING attempt.[83] Consensus quickly formed that the COI accusation was unwarranted yet Cla68 continued. Cla68 was warned about wp:OUTING but countered that he is allowed to out editors on the COI board. [84] Since that COI didn't work Cla68 files a frivilous SPI investigation.[85] From that point on, 01:28, 7 April 2010, for about the next 24 hours, Cla68 seems to have become consumed with trying to find ways to continue his/her harassment, meaning that almost all of Cla68's edits from that point on seem to have that goal.[86] I would appreciate it if Cla68 could be stopped. Thank you for your consideration. TallMagic (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• TallMagic is operating two accounts concurrently. Atama has asked TallMagic in this thread to give up one of his two accounts. Unfortunately, TallMagic has not responded to that request, instead initiating this ANI complaint. I'll notify Atama and Amorymeltzer, who closed the SPI request, about this thread. I support Atama's request that TallMagic's first account be blocked and/or deleted or otherwise abandoned and that he edit with only the TallMagic account. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so cut and dry, it looks like TallMagic started a new userID so they could defend their privacy from, ironically enough, you. Besides, SOCKing isn't grounds for OUTing, they are seperate matters. I'm no admin but I'd suggest you stop trying to OUT this person and let them pass/fail SOCKing on their own. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Atama will be along shortly, but in the meantime, what he actually wrote is " I would be a lot more comfortable if you retired the old account. It's skirting along the edges of WP:SOCK as it is, and if you continue to use it, it becomes more difficult to justify it." I'm not sure why both accounts are being used, but the alternative one has only been used this year on one article's talk page and TallMagic has not been posting to the article or the talk page, so I'm not particularly bothered right now although of course I would be if they started posting to the same articles/talk pages etc. I suggest that Cla68 simply leave the issue and the editor alone, others I am sure will take care of any problems if they occur. I'm an Admin, I watch several of these articles, and rest assured I won't overlook any misuse of multiple accounts. I don't see any benefit to continuing this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, Cla68 did file a wp:SPI. It was closed yet, Cla68 can't accept that fact and still keeps bringing it up and has even been lobbying for getting it reopened.[87]TallMagic (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller, Cla68 has been told the same thing on multiple occasions yet he/she continues along the same lines. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that Cla68 is still defiant and unremorseful. Cla68 is still arguing above that I'm the one that must change my behavior not him/her. I consider wp:OUTING one of the worst infractions possible here on Wikipedia. I'm very disappointed that Cla68 is allowed to continue. Please make Cla68 stop. TallMagic (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)TallMagic (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'll try to provide some background, if it helps. Cla68 brought a concern to the conflict of interest noticeboard about TallMagic and others in regards to what seemed like a crusade against diploma mills. It was a reasonable concern, but in the process of making the request, Cla68 violated WP:OUTING (intentionally or not). TallMagic used to operate under another account that had personal information attached to it. TallMagic has abandoned that account for the most part, but at one point had accidentally made a comment using his old account, unsigned, which Signbot attached an automatic signature to. TallMagic went back in with his new account and signed it. That accidental slip showed that he was the owner of both accounts.

The problem is that Cla68 used the name of the old account to find TallMagic's off-wiki activities and was using them to attempt to prove a conflict of interest. Since TallMagic's disclosure of his identity was an accident, and he had been trying to distance himself from the old account (no longer editing articles with it and for the most part only using it to respond to messages sent to it), I warned Cla68 about outing. I also looked over the info myself and determined that there wasn't a conflict of interest anyway. Cla68 persisted somewhat, stating that outing was allowed in order to prove a COI (which is untrue), and finally brought up a sockpuppet investigation into TallMagic's two accounts. The investigation concluded that while the two were acknowledged as being the same person, they weren't abused and therefore no action was taken, and the case was closed. Since then Cla86 hasn't advertised the information about TallMagic, but has instead confined discussion to user talk pages (especially mine).

While I do feel TallMagic has been a victim in this to an extent, his responses haven't been helpful. He insists that Cla86 is "still outing him", presenting the same old diffs each time. He has been aggressive in his responses, to the extent that he has been been warned about shouting. I've also told him that if he truly wants to distance himself from his old account, for privacy reasons, he needs to abandon it completely. He has used it as recently as a few weeks ago, and operating two accounts without disclosing the connection is at the very least frowned upon.

I apologize for not using diffs, and being a bit vague in my explanation, but I do want to avoid making connections between TallMagic's two accounts, though at this point it only takes a bit of digging for anyone to make that connection. (We may need assistance from an Oversighter for that.) -- Atama頭 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats and Sockpuppetry

A couple days ago User:JourneyManTraveler recreated a previously deleted (via TfD discussion) template. I nom'd it for deletion again and this IP posted that it would be recreated and I would be taken to ARBCOM by User:JourneyManTraveler. I said point-blankly if it was created again after a second deletion, I would take the offending user to ANI (TfD discussion is leaning toward merge right now). So about 10 minutes ago, I receive this from the same IP user. Claiming if I take User:JourneyManTraveler to ANI, he will file ARBCOM "charges" against me (whatever) and "should that not work, there is external resources to appeal to for relief, such as the Wikimedia Foundation or consultation with a legal counsel to see what to do about you" and furthermore "[my] campaign against the re-creator of the un-retired template is criminal harassment, plain and simple. It won't be tolerated. You continue, we go to arbitration at once."

So, I bring this here. It is clear sockpuppetry and legal threats. Both accounts should be blocked and an SPI started (which I will do). If they want a fight, I aims to bring 'em one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI started here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Both have been notified. 1, 2. Forgive me if they are a little snippy. I hate being threatened by trolls. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP user has threatened to go to ARBCOM in a followup message. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The threats continue. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Tim Song for 72 hours. TNXMan 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter needed

An individual in Indonesia has been a problematic user who has been constantly vandalizing articles (primarily ones relating to the Digimon anime 2 3 4) since before July 2009. He has also recently begun vandalizing other television series' articles with similar content. The full list (as given to me by User:Nanami Kamimura in February with the new IPs added; in order of use) is as follows:

The following is his MO:

• The individual has access to multiple ISPs based in Jakarta
• The individual seems to believe that the Digimon anime are connected to the Resident Evil video game series (characters from RE are often put into the Digimon articles)
• The individual believes that various famous American actors were involved in the production of these series (claiming Mary Tyler Moore is the voice of Rita Repulsa or Carol Burnett is the voice of the Digimon Terriermon)
• The individual believes that Paramount, MGM, and CBS own the rights/produced these TV series
• Other companies are involved that have had nothing to do with production are inserted

Due to the insane amount of IP addresses that have been used by this individual and his more or less predictable nature, it would be beneficial to the project to create an edit filter to prevent this individual from putting his false information into these articles, as semiprotecting all of these pages is more harmful (as after a period of time he branched out from the four Digimon pages into other anime pages and into the Power Rangers pages). What myself and other editors in these topic areas need is someone with edit filter coding experience to pick out the patterns of edits and make a filter to prevent them entirely, because a year of this nonsense (and it appears that he was active for longer) is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of racism and general problematic editing

User:Irvine22 has a long record as a provocative editor and a block log to go with it. His habit is to make small but deliberatively provocative edits and then claim innocence. After a more or less inevitable block he then goes silent for a period and starts all over again. User:Elonka recently placed him under probation with a warning of a permanent block. This silenced him for a period but he has now returned.

His previous record was in Troubles related articles, generally taking a strong Unionist stand and making provocative changes such as listing Bobby Sands as a suicide. He latest fad is to find any Irish or Welsh person with an English birthplace and label them as “English” or equivalent. At one point this included a commander of the Provisional IRA! The shift from Irish to Welsh matters seems to have happened after the final warning from Elonka; moving to pastures new with new admins. A quick check of his edit history will show that hardly any of his edits survive scrutiny, but his enjoyment seems to come from provocative remarks and exchanges on the talk page.

He is fairly skilled at stopping just short of a level of provocation that would result in a report here or elsewhere. I have been on the verge of reporting him for deliberate attempts to provoke me by edits on the article about me (I make no secret of my identity) and by matched remarks on my talk page for which he was warned. Its part of his general habit of hitting BLP pages. While that can be lived with, he has now made direct accusations of racism against editors in good standing and to my mind this needs to be addressed.

The article in question Welsh People

The lede states “The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation associated with Wales and the Welsh language” Irvine22 has made the following attempts to change this

• Unnecessary and irrelevant addition of “There is no separate Welsh Citizenship”, although the article is not about any subject that relates to citizenship. As is normal with Irvine he reverted once but then backed off.
• Insertion in the lede of a statement that there are Welsh People of Pakistani origin. While this is true, there are also Welsh people of Polish, Irish, Argentinian, Chinese and many other origins none of which are listed so he was again reverted twice
• Unnecessary insertion that people who identify as welsh may draw on other cultural heritages, again reverted (this was my first involvement on this thread), on this occasion he gave up after one revert
• Removal of reference to nation and also citation from John Davis dismissed as “just one among many historians”). FYI Davis published probably the most respected academic histories of Wales and is a principle source on nearly all Welsh related articles. Again the normal pattern of a single revert then he backed off and moved on again
• In response to his questions on the talk page a range of editors tried to explain to him why his changes were unnecessary, he then proceeded to insert their explanations into the article here and here in the later case with a misleading edit summary.

The accusation of racism

In the discussion on the talk page a range of editors sought to explain the issue to Irvine22 who gathered no support for his changes. The other editors involved are all established editors with clean block histories and good content track records on welsh related articles. They include User:Ghmyrtle, User:Daicaregos, User:LindsayH and User:Pondle. The discussion was going the normal way it does with Irvine22, a series of arguments with an isolated individual going no where, until yesterday. The whole thread is here but we then get the statement out of the blue from Irvine22 that “the article at present is deeply racist”. An inspection of the thread will show that I made a series of attempts to get him to state that he was not making any accusation against any of the editors involved as that could be implied from the phrase. I also gave him a cooling off period in the hope that he would retract. Instead we got:

• He took a comment from another article talk page from User:Daicaregos out of all context (a rather dubious article on anglophobia), falsely claimed it had been made on the talk page of Welsh People and then made a direct comparison with the leader of the whites only party in the UK, the BNP along with the snide comment”Nick Griffin(a good Welsh name there, no?). This is a direct and unprincipled attack.
• I asked again if he was saying that editors were racist, in response he stated that three editors, myself, Lindsay and Daicaregos were removing his edits the effect of which was to make the article racist. We also had another false claim, with his suggest that the welshness of Shirley Bassy had been questioned; the only reference on this page was my statement that she was Welsh. He later dragged up a six month old exchange on a completely different page in which none of the editors of this page was involved.
• His final statement was to say that he did not judge the intent of the editors but the result which he viewed as “exclusionary and racist”

Given the history of this editor, especially his provocative and disruptive edits I think it is time for the community to do something. When I told him that I would make an ANI report if he did not withdraw the innuendo/insinuation against three named editors he started to make the separation of intent and result. This is a pretty typical bit of Irvine22 wikilawyering, trying to pretend he has not really said something.

I never like permanent bans (which he was warned would be the next step) and he is an editor who could make a valuable contribution. However despite many opportunities he has never done anything other than use the Wikipedia as a play area for the provocations that obviously give him satisfaction but consume huge amounts of time. If the decision were mine then at the minimum I would expect Irvine22 to make an unequivocal statement that he does not consider the editors racist (he declined over three invitations to do so). I do think its time either for an extended ban, or possible a topic ban from all articles to do with the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and BLPs associated with those areas? --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Support community ban I don't know the ins and outs of this but since Snowded's talk page is on my watchlist I've seen User:Irvine22's hounding of Snowded over the past couple of months. He seems like a nasty piece of work. --RA (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Irvine22 indefinitely based on this and the long history of past behavioural issues. He clearly has no intention of ever reforming. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• support block. User seems to have been given sufficient opportunities to reform and hasn't.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. I think we have put up with Irvine's disruptive editing for far too long. He never had any intention of reforming. He has had plenty of opportunities to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia; instead he just wastes everybody's time and patience with his tedious, contentious editing coupled with snide, nasty little comments. Enough is enough!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, I think Snowded's summary is very accurate. It's very rare that he steps over the line with one particularly obvious blockable edit, but the overall pattern of his behaviour over a really extended period is highly unhelpful and provocative. ~ mazca ^talk 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, the editor-in-question has become a liability to the project. He/she refuses to reform. PS- Irvine's reaction to his block, confirms my observations. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, this editor was given several chances on the basis that they are 'articulate', 'intelligent', 'misguided' and 'capable of reform' (don't think it ever quite got to 'misunderstood'). Multiple commitments to contribute constructively have evidently been a long term deception. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Very Strange

Back in the end of march Sonic120 (talk · contribs) for some reason created userpages for a bunch of users, none of whom have many edits, or any recently, all saying "This account is no longer used", and I deleted all of them. Then, over the last few days several of them have been recreated, by the original owner, to say the same thing, "This account is no longer used", User:Home2000, User:Heater120, User:Check mii out channel, User:Fantasy zone, User:Pencil12. Is this some sort of strange sock-farm? Or mass account hacking? In addition, Sonic's talk page is a redirect to User talk:Keyboard mouse , despite there being a user by that name--Jac16888^Talk 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All the "no longer used" accounts seem to have very similar patterns - 1-3 edits of extremely blatant and silly vandalism, mostly in the area of computer games. I'm assuming this probably is some disused sock farm, it may be that the master account (Sonic120) wants to turn over a new leaf or something and felt the need to inform us of that fact by declaring his vandal accounts disused. I'd probably suggest blocking all the old accounts at the very least. ~ mazca ^talk 13:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More move warring at Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010

This time it involves Lotsofmagnets (talk · contribs), who is a reasonably established user. I have lost count of the number of times this user has moved the page today, and that's partly my fault as I made a mistake in trying to restore it to its current name on one of the moves. Nevertheless, there is an open page move discussion going on at present and such unilateral moves should be more than discouraged. If an editor is not willing to joing in the search for a consensus as to the correct titele for the article, and to respect the opinions of other editors, he or she should desist from making such changes or be forced to desist from editing Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Lotsofmagnets (talk · contribs) has been informed of this thread here. Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've move-protected it for a week. Hopefully the talk page discussions will reach a consensus during that time. --RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

please be aware also that consensus has been clearly reached and the only person who has been reverting the page is none other than the only person who opposes the change, who also displays a significant bias in the talk page. please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article and see that consensus has been reached by an overwhelming majority --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are actually more Oppose votes in the discussion than there are Supports - I suggest you read the entire discussion! Black Kite 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:212.120.237.89

Probably banned user Gibraltarian vandalising Gibraltar related articles. Could someone please block it and revert the changes. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Standard stuff from the long-since permabanned User:Gibraltarian (those not in the know, see User talk:212.120.237.89). I've reverted it. Pfainuk talk 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)