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

Pioneer Courthouse Square

This page has been full protected for 3 months in apparent contravention of Wikipedia standards. From the wikipedia protection policies: "Brief periods of full protection are used, rarely, when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article." In this case it appears it is not autoconfirmed accounts editing the article. Also 3 months could hardly be considered "brief." Also note, (again from protection policies)"Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of such for high-trafficked articles does not usually provide a basis for full-protection." I hesitate to say this is an abuse of power, but it certainly appears to be an overreaction. This article should not be protected, or at the most -extreme should only be semi-protected. Yofton (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The wikilawyering on our rules as to when and where protection is used is one thing. But the rules as written allow for variation. You can, and should, argue which changes you need to make on the talk page of the article; or even argue for unprotection - but not on the grounds that we're not obeying our own rules. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 21:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

The Requests for Page Protection page is backlogged. If an admin or two could take a look, it would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 27, 2008 @ 04:50

User:Looie496

Looie496 (talk · contribs)

This user has posted an slanderous lie here. I have requested he immediate delete his comment and apologize. Since he has refused to do so, I asked that he be blocked. This is uncivil statement that can only be described as a personal attack veiled in what appears to be a real Arbcom decision. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The time interval between demanding stuff and filing this report was precisely 20 minutes, during which I was not around. I intend to respond to this, but it may take a short time to get my ducks in order, so this is just a quick note that I'm not ignoring the issue. Looie496 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be this is a reference to this; the case was of sufficient complexity, drama and confusion that it's easy to be mistaken or have your own interpretation of the outcome. I wouldn't characterize Looie's statement outrageous, though perhaps s/he would like to point directly to the case and/or outcome and clarify with jpgordon. Or I could be wrong. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Um...yeah. That's a 'slanderous lie' in the same way the Star Wars prequels were epic examples of motion picture history (In the good way, obviously). At best, this could be considered an error on Looie's part. Overreact much? HalfShadow 22:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's the case. I wasn't aware of the "further statement", and I deny having "lied" in the sense of making statements that I knew to be false when I made them. I apologize to OM for having misrepresented the outcome of the case. That being said, there are real issues with his current behavior, which can easily by seen by anybody willing to take the time to read Talk:Major depressive disorder#False statements in the other treatments section. There is also material that may be relevant on my talk page. Looie496 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

you lied. I didn't. Instead of an honest apology you make excuses. This about your slandering me. Where's the apology and full retraction. Otherwise I hope you're blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

he has apologised above, and says he didn't deliberately lie but was himself unaware of the conclusion of the case. You could just have linked him to it or explained or something. :) Sticky Parkin 01:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, the worst effect of this frighteningly intense attack is that it is obscuring what I see as the main problem, the post from OM that I was responding to with the passage that he is complaining about, quote:

"Too many medical articles on this project have utter crap when discussing medications. Tryptophan or 5-HTP cannot treat depression under any condition, and picking one dumb-ass paper out of the millions published is an embarrassment. Do you really want to treat your spouse, your mother or yourself with tryptophan if you have MDD? I wouldn't. I think there's a CAM-wikipedia somewhere. Take this stuff there. Not here. I intend to remove any CAM crap from this article, and if Casliber blocks me for doing so, I'll respect that. However, if I'm mistaken and some of these useless therapies have shown to work as described in a fair number of real peer-reviewed journals, then I'm willing to eat humble pie. I don't see it however." -- OM

This argument is used to justify altering a statement in the article in a way that causes it to misrepresent its cited source. As far as I can see, this is the same kind of belligerently uncooperative style that led to the Arbcom proceedings, and that's what I was trying to say. I have a great deal of respect for OM, and think that the vast majority of his edits are excellent. But there have to be limits for everybody. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Given the mentorship outcome of the arbcom case, I've posted a comment on jpgordon's talk page for his awareness. I would expect he'd have the best opinion on the situation. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't an outcome, it was voluntary on my part. Remember, it was the result of secret, vindictive, arbitrary, and hateful proceedings by one Arbcom member, FT2, without the support of any others. So please don't misrepresent what happened. If you want to complain about someone, go after FT2. Otherwise, the point of this situation is not me, but it's the patent misrepresentation of facts by Looie in an vain attempt to silence my opinion. WLU, whom I respect, is misinterpreting what is going on here. I am not the subject of this ANI. I did nothing but respond in a very appropriate way to an outright lie and fabrication by a fellow editor, so that his awful pro-CAM POV can be added to articles. I would appreciate it WLU if you would stick to the point of my ANI--someone lied in a most hurtful manner. There's nothing else to discuss, other than the full blocking of Looie from this project.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, you probably need to watch how you phrase things in future. I looked at this thread thinking it had been startd by User:Malcolm Schosha per his complaining in a thread above [1]. I was surprised to find it was a totally different person who was raisng this thread. Okay neither of the complainants seem to have the thickest of skins, but you seem to have irritated both in fairly quick succession.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Previously, on this page, Looie496 made this statement about me [2], which includes this: virtually all his editing at anti-Zionism is aimed at pushing that point of view. A look at an article on POV pushing, which he accused me of, includes this list of characteristics of a POV pusher [3]. In the context of WP, POV pushing is a serious accusation, and if Looie496 thinks I am guilty of anything on this list, I will be happy to discuss it further. But Looie496 seems to have a pattern of making foundationless serious accusations against other users which are insulting, and apparently intended to undermine the credibility of those he criticizes. The apparent intent of destroying the credibility of editors is highly problematic and harmful. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. There's no admin action to take here. OrangeMarlin, your show of bad faith in response to his clarification is shameful. And you can throw whatever you like at FT2, but when it comes down to it, there were serious issues raised in your case. The fact that you are demanding a block for this, claiming it is a "personal attack"... I don't even have words. You're in no position to be demanding apologies from anyone. لennavecia 15:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia, the role of people commenting is to deescalate a dispute, right? I'm not seeing your comment as helping to improve the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Er...I'm pretty sure the "role" of a commenter is to shed light on the situation by providing a comment...y'know...a singular opinion within a greater discussion with the goal of creating a consensus? Or did ArbCom ban "comments" which might upset people? Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment:It is extremely bad form to mention an users ArbCom sanction in an effort to "win" a content dispute. It seems to me that Looie496 muddied the water by talking about Orangemarlin prior conduct in this discussion. The fact that he mistated the situation makes it worse. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If I were in OM's shoes, my response to such a statement would be simply, "You are mistaken about the ArbCom," and elaborate as needed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, in a perfect world, OM would have not responded in a heated way. But in the real world people have different temperaments. OM has a legitimate complaint that I've heard from many of other users with current and past sanction. I think we need to make a point to remind users not to take discussions sideways by mentioning a persons past conduct. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. What's the value of a civility sanction if it can never be invoked? Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that many users have been blocked for less, but in this there has not been even a warning to Looie496. It seems true that Wikipedia is a virtual police state with club welding administrators keeping the slaves in line, but it would be nice to know that the punishments were being given out in something other than a random fashion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with mentioning someone's arbcom sanction- if the facts are correct. Unfortunately, Looie had gone on the case 'verdict' before it was altered, so had misunderstood the findings, for which he's apologised. Sticky Parkin 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mention?! The way it was done was not a mention, but a cheap shot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A cheap shot indeed -- and one of the reasons I came to the realization that "civility paroles" are not a good tool on Wikipedia is that they are used as bludgeons in precisely this manner, and the result, a disproportionate amount of the time, is escalation, just as we are seeing here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a cheap shot, and the guy who brought it up knew just which button to push. Everyone's different, but what matters here above all else is the content of wikipedia - to keep it a place where the casual reader to go to find information. If someone takes a cheap shot, it might sting, but does it interfere with the content of articles? That's the issue that should be the primary focus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not a cheap shot, and the problem was that I didn't know which button to push, or I wouldn't have left myself open to such an obvious counterpunch. In one of the threads OM started a few days ago, somebody included a link to [4] or something similar. I read it, and the evidence, but was not aware that the decision had been vacated. In the evidence, I noted several instances of the same type of angry intimidation apparent in the passage I quoted above. Believing that it still applied, I cited it. I have apologized for that. I consider that in doing so I have taken the first step to de-escalate this. I don't think I am obligated to keep trying to de-escalate while OM keeps trying to escalate. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• If it was just one, I would be more inclined to believe your innocent mistake excuse. But you did the same to me. I invited you [5] to explain just what it is that makes you think I am a POV pusher, and have gotten no reply. That was two cheap shots in one day (or was it two?). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And you're right that stuff like this takes away from time that could be better spent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The right way for Looie to have handled this was to bring it here if he thought an ArbCom sanction was being violated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to get him punished, I only wanted him to change his tactics in the dispute. Bringing it here would have been the last resort. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this thread continued beyond here. Looie made an honest mistake; OM overreacted; Looie apologized. It wouldn't hurt if OM apologized for his part as well, but anything beyond that and a handshake seems like overkill. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin has a history of this; if he doesn't like you, you 'need to be blocked'. HalfShadow 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I never got a reply at all from Looie496 about his accusation that I am a POV pusher. It was a cheap shot too, although the one against Orangemarlin was worse. Looie496 seems to see no need to respond to my challenge of that at all, and has continued to ignore my request for an explanation. In my view Looie496 is just trying hard to play innocent. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to deal with this in the current thread, it's already too complicated. Start a new thread and I'll respond. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, this began with you responding to a forcefully put reminder of the essence of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE by alleging that it's "belligerent intimidation" and dragging in imaginary sanctions. Your response was completely out of order, and you should be presenting reliable sources to support the claims you want included, not trying to get people shut out for asking you in no uncertain terms to comply with policy and fringe guidance. If you acknowledge that it would be a great help. . . dave souza, talk 19:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I sympathize because it's always hard to understand the flow of editing coming from outside, but you're not really grasping the sequence of events here. This literature review, the best source that could be found, explicitly states, "Available evidence does suggest these substances are better than placebo at alleviating depression." There was consensus between at least Casliber, me, and ImperfectlyInformed to use a wording in the article that reflected that conclusion. OM then did this, and defended it with the passage I quoted above, which provoked the response I made. Looie496 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, but that isn't the conclusion. You seem to have forgotten the next sentences – "Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5-HTP and tryptophan before their widespread use can be recommended. The possible association between these substances and the potentially fatal Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome has not been elucidated. Because alternative antidepressants exist which have been proven to be effective and safe the clinical usefulness of 5-HTP and tryptophan is limited at present." So, OM's edit would have been better focussed on the safety implications and the existence of proven alternatives. Or, as he suggests, leave this unproven and potentially dangerous medication out. See? it's good to discuss these things, not to try to bully people away by claiming their reasonable concerns over article content are "intimidation". Do try to do better in future. . . dave souza, talk 23:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble at Nicolaus Copernicus talk page

One or more anon users at the article talk page for Copernicus keeps posting irrelevant material (for example [6]). This is a violation of article talk page guidelines, in particular "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." and "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)". Additionally, the nature of these posts is that of trolling, with pretty much an obvious purpose of re-starting old edit wars and reverts that that article used to be plagued by. Following the last round of edit wars, a consensus compromise was worked out (no mention of nationality in the lead and a balanced nationality/ethnicity section, without undue weight given to the topic) and it should remain in place. Extremists on both side of the issue (like the Polish editor who keeps inserting "Copernicus was a Polish astronomer" into its lead) are basically trying to destabilize the situation again and spark another edit war. Since the comments currently being posted are 1) irrelevant and 2) have a destructive rather than a constructive purpose, they should be conscientiously deleted. I, and some of other editors have done this. However, user Matthead has been restoring the irrelevant posts and adding in his own irrelevant commentary. Matthead has gotten in trouble for edit waring on this kind of topic in the past. I would appreciate it if an administrator issued a warning to Matthead and made a comment on the article's talk page about the proper article talk guidelines. Thank you.radek (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not just there. The IP's edit history today only shows a lot of problematic edits changing the history of where Danzig/Gdansk was located. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Radek apparently had no problems with previous talk edits of another IP: Special:Contributions/99.225.147.123. Speaking of "problematic edits changing the history of where Danzig/Gdansk was located": We have the Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, which states "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively", to avoid edit warring about the city's background in countless biographies. See Special:Contributions/Space_Cadet for somebody who mainly edits bios of clearly German persons in such a way, since at least 2003 [7][8].-- Matthead  Discuß   02:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those should be removed as well, though they are at least on topic - a very useless topic that has taken up way too much time and constructive effort but at least on it. They're not about some school in New York or whatever. Does this mean that we have consensus here, Matthead, to remove all the stuff from "Copernicus was German according to German Wikipedia" on down to the end?

As far as Space Cadet's edits, I have no idea what his edits are. Looking very quickly at some of his/her more recent edits of "clearly German persons" I see "diplomat of the city of Danzig (Gdańsk)." [9], "Fahrenheit was born in 1686 in Danzig" [10], "Sahm ... was a German/Danzig politician." [11] - so I don't see any evidence of your accusations.radek (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Radeksz above calls the fact that my post about the Buffalo University New York using the Polish version of history from Poland Ministry irrelevant material and problematic.

USA University of Buffalo State University of New York's use of Poland Ministry Material

The very puzzling fact, that the United States school system uses material from Poland's Ministry of Education , such as the internet websites [http:/info-poland.buffalo.edu/] or [http:/wings.buffalo.edu/info-poland] from the University of Buffalo State University of New York in a very propagandistic way might come as quite a surprise to many people.

According to Buffalo University, N.Y. Nicolaus Copernicus (the Prussian Mathematician- Prussus Mathematicus) was born in "Poland" [12] and the long history of Danzig is disregarded and merely described as Gdask Poland [13]. One can only wonder about the reason for the US University Buffalo to use Polish Communist era propaganda, without identifying it as propaganda. The site is pretty explanatory. An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Almost all of encyclopedias in the world(besides few German ones and I believe a couple of sources from XIX century) name Copernicus as Pole born in Poland. Actually. We have been over this before and even a scholary study was presented with this information.--Molobo (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Yes, the world will be glad to learn 20th and 21th century new wisdom, taught to students, such as at the Buffalo University New York:

Nicolaus Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) Nicolaus Copernicus was born in Poland. He is a famous astronomer. An astronomer is someone who studies the stars, planets and solar system. Copernicus lived over 500 years ago! He was born in the year 1495[14]. An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

User Conduct: TylerPuetz

Resolved

 – Apparently. Don't worry Thor, I don't get the joke either. CIreland (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am writing this message to ask if the administrators would be willing to look at the issue of the user, TylerPuetz. Whilst in IRC (#wikipedia-en @ Freenode) this morning (29th November), TylerPuetz has openly admitted to writing what I and other users in the room to be an exceptionally rude email to user Cwii. The email has been removed from CWii's page by Darth Panda, but I have retained a copy of said email if any administrators wish to view it. The essentials of the email were that Tyler was "ecstatic" that CWii's RfA failed, and that he wished CWii would leave Wikipedia.

Myself and other users consider this to be a deplorable thing to have done. Your comments on this behaviour would be welcome. A copy of the IRC messages in which TylerPuetz posted this will be made available to any admin not present in the channel who wishes to review it, by email only to prevent breach of the public logging rules. Thanks for your attention, its appreciated. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote Tyler himself, "God, I thought that joke would be obvious". Sorry for the mess, this can be ignored. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am will not comment on this any further. That is all. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through and linking the usernames you mentioned. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this, Admins. It appears Tyler was indeed having a joke with us. However, he did not make that obvious until after I had logged this complaint. For me, trying to spot a joke is pretty hard unless its practically plastered up in front of my face. Still, please ignore this report. It was initially made in good faith. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesson: Don't ever put IRC shit on AN/I. John Reaves 05:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, with exceptions for egregious cases involving onwiki actions. This is not one. // roux   08:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated, this was a Good faith report. While I may not agree with what you say, John Reaves and Roux, however, I will defend to the death your right to say it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think JR's comment was actually aimed at Tyler. Orderinchaos 14:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't joke like that. Sorry about that. --Tyler | Talk - Contributions | 08:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

John Reaves Just so you know it wasn't an IRC issue. It was being discussed on IRC but the actual issue was onwiki. --[[::User:Sidonuke|Sidonuke]] ([[::User talk:Sidonuke|talk]] :: [[::Special:Contributions/Sidonuke|contribs]]) 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Unusual edit by new user

Please would an experienced admin take a look at this diff and inspect the edit made that appears to impersonate another user. Please then take whatever action is necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that intention of the said user was simply a reaction to my comment. Considering that s/he is a new user and has been informed of the mistake, I think we can ignore it at the moment. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 11:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really never a big deal and not really blockable unless you're in a bad mood and they're persistent. Yanksox (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour by User:Ceedjee

User:Ceedjee has been struggling, against a clear consensus view of many other editors, to remove the category Zionist terrorism from the article Irgun. He has demanded sources which explicitly use this phrase, insisting that those who refer to the Irgun as Zionist do not call it terrorist, while those who call it terrorist do not specify that this is "Zionist terrorism". In the course of this, he has made personal attacks on User:Peter cohen[15], [16]. When I removed one such attack from my own talk page[17], he immediately reposted it[18].

When I provided several sources confirming the usage that he objected to,[19], he responded by refactoring my comments to make it appear that I was haranguing and shouting at him, and he mocked me, including questioning my ability to contribute to Wikipedia because I am the target of a notorious vandal and wikistalker.[20] After I objected, and posted a warning notice about refactoring comments on his talk page, he sent me a hostile email, demanding that I withdraw the warning.

In response, he has just posted a comment on my talk page, including my name and email address[21], followed by a string of hostile comments -- all of which I have now removed. Since he is clearly aware of my harassment by the serial vandal, this posting is at best irresponsible, and could even be seen as encouraging the vandal to harass me by email.

I request that action is taken to restrain this editor's aggressive behaviour towards other editors. I would also like to know how I can have the disclosure of my email erased from the page history. RolandR (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on WP:RFO to get rid of the email diff. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just seen that he also, without explanation, posted my name and email on his own talk page[22], though he later removed this.RolandR (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Report that to oversight, as well. And it seems obvious to me that Ceedjee deserves a block for WP:OUTING. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit clash) Ah, I had been just thinking of putting together a case myself. Very briefly on the minor issue of the posts against me, Ceedjee keeps claiming that I haven't provided sourceds despite these posts of mine [23],[24], [25], all of which are replies to his own posts on the article talk page and thus not buried somewhere he was unlikely to notice them. However, I can live with the posts that he makes against me which are rather unintersting compared with what the JIDF were saying.

It is when Ceedjee starts talking about Roland's stalker [26] as part of a WP:POINT-scoring exercise that things get beyond the pale. As far as I know, User:Runtshit is the most eprsistent vandal on the English Wikipedia and is expected to reach 1000 identified sock accounts by the middle of next year. The vandal also appears to be active elsewhere on the web (see conversations I've had with Roland on his talk page). Yesterday, as soon as I noticed Ceedjee taunting Roland about Runtshit on the article talk page, I posted [27]. However, today I noticed the additional material on Roland's talk page. And please note that if the email address is being WP:Oversighted that Ceedjee has also WP:OUTed Roland on his own talk page. [28] --Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Ceedjee (talk · contribs) for one week for outing RolandR. This is not something which should ever be allowed, especially on such a contentious subject where the threat of violence in real life is ever present. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reported this to oversight. But they have removed only two of the references, leaving more in page history. They have not responded to my follow-up request. And I have received another hostile email from Ceedjee, using his real name, and stating "you and your friends are just fanatics : http://www. (address hidden) poor little guys". Can anything be done to stop him? RolandR (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It can take a while for them to reply, but make sure you link all the revisions for them to delete. IS he sending you emails from Wikipedia? Have they been sent since I blocked him? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have listed them all, twice. But not all have been deleted. The email was not sent through Wikipedia; it came from the same email address as emails I had earlier received through Wikipedia, but signed with a name, not Ceedjee. It was sent after he was blocked.RolandR (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If Ceedjee "outed" RolandR, that certainly warrants some sort of sanction, however, Ceedjee in general is in my experience a very fairminded editor. If he has one weakness it's his lack of facility with English, which sometimes makes it difficult for people to understand what he is trying to say.

From what I've seen, Ceedjee has been trying to remove Irgun from the "Zionist terrorist" category because he thinks the terrorist categories are a breach of wp:terrorist, and I happen to agree with him. Whether his approach of trying to rectify the problem by removing articles from the categories in question is the best possible response is questionable, but I believe he has done it with the best motives and with wikipedia policy in mind. "Outing" is of course a serious breach of confidentiality, and if he has done this it would indicate to me an uncharacteristic lapse in judgement, but please let's not use this one apparent breach to mount an opportunistic attack on someone who as a general rule is a useful and productive editor. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have received a further long hostile email from Ceedjee, in which he describes me inter alia as "pathetic", "psychotic", suffering from "mental disease" "a terrorist, a manipulator and a liar", and also states that he has been in contact with User:Einsteindonut about my identity. This may not in itself be an offence against Wikipedia regulations; but it is unarguably uncalled for and unacceptable behaviour. And it would certainly undermine any argument of his that the Irgun shouls not be called terrorist. I'm not responding to any of his increasingly hysterical screeds; but I'm concerned about possible disruptive behaviour on his rreturn after the block ends. RolandR (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can take any action regarding alleged off-wiki attacks, because they are unproveable. I'm not sure what this alleged "outing" consisted of exactly, but Ceedjee seems to be implying on his talk page that your identity is available online outside Wikipedia, so he may have assumed that referring to it did not constitute a breach of confidentiality.

Regarding the content dispute, if I'd known things were getting this heated I would have followed up my posts on the Irgun talk page yesterday, but I think perhaps the best solution would be to start thinking of some alternative category names that do not breach wp:terrorist. Renaming some of the existing categories to conform better with policy should have a much greater chance of success than attempting to delete them, which has not achieved consensus up to now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia sometimes acted on the basis of off-wiki activity. However, email is tricky evidence and could be liable to allegations of tampering. If Roland wanted to take this further, I would recommend getting the ISP to hold info as they would be a more independent source. Contact with ED is interesting because ED is now a long-term blocked, block-evading individual connected with an anti-Wikipedia attack site (though interestingly they haven't yet seen fit to withdraw Ceedjee from their lis of hated editors.). There's also the question of whether Ceedjee contacted ED or visa-versa. For all we know from what's been said here ED could have sent the JIDF's file on Roland to Ceedjee unsolicited.

With regard to the outing,it involved listing Roland's surname (which is well known) and an email address for him (which I certainly did not know.) These appeared on both Roland's and Ceedjee's pages. Obviously the oversight people were sufficiently concerned to act on it. However, what should also be noted as evidece that it is not altogether innocent is the post (linked above) where Ceedjee attacks Roland for being stalked by the Runtshit vandal. As for the content dispute, it is best discussed on the article talk page. --Peter cohen (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And there was no possible legitimate reason for posting this; indeed, Ceedjee did not even offer one. He simply posted my name and email, in bold letters, on his talk page. Since, as Peter notes, he had previously taunted me for being stalked by a persistent vandal, I can only see this as encouragement to harass me by email. Though so far the only person doing this is Ceedjee himself. RolandR (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just recalled this earlier disagreement over validity of sources, in which Ceedjee accuses me of lying and appears to endorse the attacks on me, using them as an argument against my ability to edit. He then apologises for this, and for not assuming good faith. So his latest behaviour is not "an uncharacteristic lapse in judgement", but part of a pattern of personal attacks on editors he disagrees with -- see also his remarks about Peter noted above, his dispute with User:IronDuke and his attack on User:Eleland. This editor has difficulty in assuming good faith when anyone disagrees with him. RolandR (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• For anyone who may be interested, I have raised an issue on the Village pump (policy) that deals with some of the problems at the core of this particular dispute [29]. The issue is important to the credibility of Wikipedia, and I hope as many users as possible take a look, and comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Commodore Sloat

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

csloat has been engaging in disruptive editing on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 since October 25, 2008. After a month of disruptive behavior, administrative intervention is required.

• His first edit was a POV contribution with a section title name that drew a conclusion that the source material did not. The first diff, and a later edit which sourced it. This initial contribution was also incorrectly placed in a section which lists events chronologically. The result of this edit was a long heated content dispute which was ultimately resolved satisfying everyone involved to some degree. In the interest of keeping this brief, I'll just say that csloat's contribution to the consensus was hardly constructive and he exercised no compromise whatsoever. Upon request, multiple specific incidents can be diffed.
• Repeatedly reverted deletion of libelous material only supported by biased media outlets. Here, here, and here. The content is no longer in the article. Again, contributions related to this on the talk page were hardly constructive.
• Insistence on using pejorative terms. Related to this first contribution, multiple sources have been found showing that Muslims find the term "jihadist" offensive, so general consensus on the talk page determined that "Islamic extremist" is a more appropriate term. His only "proof" is links on Amazon and pretentious comments. Yet again, no real constructive contribution to consensus. A few examples here, here, here, and here where he claimed the argument was "conceded" after a mere 20 hours of inactivity on the talk page.
• Removed factual information from World Opinion section, claiming that a source which drew no conclusion drew a conclusion. First collection of edits here, and more here where he also unilaterally restored the "jihadist" term. He then switched his tactic to tag abuse, applying a totally-disputed section tag which claims neutrality and factual accuracy are in dispute. After applying this tag abusively multiple times, and being warned that it was not the appropriate tag to apply, I finally warned him on his user page, indicating this would be his last warning. The warning was for a mention on the Vandalism noticeboard, but considering all of his incidents I think a disruptive editor report was more warranted. He shortly after removed the warning, calling the warning an abusive lie, (similarly to how he removed a 3RR warning calling it "incorrect" in the edit summary) and then reapply the inappropriate tag yet again -- at the same time restoring the pejorative "jihadist" term (he's done that a lot to say the least).

There's more evidence available if needed related to these incidents, but I think in this brief report there is enough to indicate disruptive behavior. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is all a content dispute. The dispute got disruptive because Amwestover refused to abide by typical Wikipedia policy which allows the use of such tags as the NPOV tag and the Totally-disputed tag to warn readers that the material they are about to read is disputed. I chose to employ the tag in order to avoid an ongoing edit war with Amwestover. The other editors on the page have been more reasonable and have tried to talk the issues out; Amwestover has instead chosen to personally attack me over and over, and to edit war over the tag. His removal of the tag is extremely unjustified - even if he feels that I am wrong in the content dispute, he should leave the tag up and attempt to resolve the dispute in talk, as I tried to do. Instead, he bullied me in talk and kept removing the tag without addressing my arguments on the talk page at all. Then he posted a phony warning on my talk page falsely accusing me of vandalism. I removed the warning and warned him on the article talk page to stop being disruptive. I see he has now escalated his disruption to the AN/I page in the hopes of getting me sanctioned. It is inappropriate to attempt to resolve a content dispute through sanctions.

If anyone would like a fuller explanation of the reason I felt that the term "jihadist" is appropriate on the page or the reason that the totally-disputed tag should stay on the page until the dispute is resolved, please consult the talk page (read the last sections in order rather than just the comments cherry-picked by Amwestover to make me look bad), but I don't feel that we should extend the content dispute over to AN/I so I will not address them here. Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Often a tactic that csloat used was diversionary arguments instead of addressing the actual issue, of which this is a fine example (and the subsection below, too). Since any content disputes that may have related to csloat's edits have been resolved, this is clearly about his disruptive editing behavior. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The content disputes have not been resolved; that was the point of the tag that you disruptively kept deleting, Amwestover. Again, I'm happy to discuss them, and we will no doubt continue discussing them on the talk page of the article, but the only relevant issue for AN/I is your disruptive behavior, as outlined below. csloat (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Amwestover

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

I've created a subsection here so that Amwestover's userlinks are easily accessible to admins. I am certain that if this incident is investigated it will be Amwestover, not csloat, who is found to have been editing disruptively. My actions have been focused entirely on trying to add factual material to the article. There is some dispute about whether the material belongs in the article -- I have tried to address those disputes civilly and have bent over backwards to compromise. But I feel it is disruptive for Amwestover to continually portray basic content disputes as "libel" issues or as "vandalism." It is also disruptive for him to lie in warnings to my talk page, to constantly insult me on the article talk page (the NPA violations flow in nearly every post he makes to me), and to waste everyone's time with an AN/I report that is obviously lacking in any basis whatsoever. csloat (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute

You guys seem to be arguing over a quote from Washington Post. That's a content dispute. I don't see what admins could do here (besides locking the page, which they've already done). Both of you need to follow WP:DR. Did anyone consider drafting a WP:RfC on this issue? Pcap ping 19:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The content dispute related to Islamic extremists supporting McCain on the internet was solved several weeks ago. All productive editors involved contributed to the consensus and the compromise which solved that content dispute. Speaking of which, csloat did not participate in the consensus or compromise which resolved this issue whatsoever, other than to voice his opposition to any suggestions which differed from his original edit. No, this report is about his disruptive editing habits on the article and talk pages, which goes beyond this particular issue. If you believe that more evidence is necessary, please let me know. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"libelous material only supported by biased media outlets" [30]. The outlet would be MSNBC. Yeah, I find the material very marginal, so I would argue it should be removed per WP:UNDUE, but you'll have a hard time getting someone blocked for this. Pcap ping 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

csloat, you also need to be less aggressive in editing, and avoid edit warring over contentious material. I know it can take a long time to find consensus on politically charged articles, but insisting on every minor point will aggravate editors holding the opposite POV. If you guys cannot come to an agreement, try WP:3O first. This is all I'm going to say here; I put a {inuse} tag on an article, and I need to get back to it. Pcap ping 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot

Why does ClueBot have the 'Accountcreator' permission? Looking at it's tasks/actions, I don't think it needs it. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We have him doing DNSBL work at ACC, I don't know if it actually is required as such, though. Maybe it is simply more of a guidance flag than a technical flag. — neuro^(talk) 23:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

IP range reverting valid edits

A dial-up address range is reverting valid edits on this template (hist), saying it is "vandalism", when clearly the edits are not. I believe that removal red links is a perfectly valid edit to clean up templates, however this person thinks otherwise. I am unable to warn him/her because of their dynamic IP (They wouldn't see the warning), and reverting it back would violate the 3 revert rule. Kyosuke Aoki∙♫talk∙^contribs♪ 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I rolled it back and watchlisted it ... unfortunately, the edits are too spread out for semi-protection to be a valid option at this point. Blueboy96 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all the edits are originating from *.dial1.stlouis1.level3.net. While the WHOIS gives Level3's entire /8 netblock, maybe it's possible/feasible to rangeblock any IPs whose hostnames match the above string? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit drastic though. Is it just possible to block the range from editing, but allowing them to register? And thanks Blueboy for watchlisting it. Kyosuke Aoki∙♫talk∙^contribs♪ 18:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by obvious/deliberate sock puppet in order to make a WP:POINT

User:Sarah777 is engaging in making nonsense contributions to a straw poll at Talk:Ireland#Another arbitrary section break. The purpose of her "contributions" appears to be to undermine my (and another IP's) contributions. She has accused me of being a sock for an unstated user.

The substance of her nonsense is to sign out and post "Very very stong !vote" after I had posted "VERY VERY strong oppose". After another IP posted "Strongly oppose" she again signed out and posted "Strongly Post Another !vote". I removed the first of these nonsense posts, to which she responded by restoring the nonsense with the comment, "if said IP deletes material again it will be removed compleatly from this thread with extreme prejudice". She has admitted to making the nonsense contributions at her IP's talk page.

While the nonsense itself is trivial, the purpose of the nonsense - to undermine the contributions of others by WP:POINT - is serious IMHO. I'd like the nonsense edits removed and Sarah777 reminded not to disrupt discussion and to behave civilly. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

So speaks an IP who has twice recently grumbled about having been forced to vote on this same proposal in the past, not least attacking people in a knowing way, and doing pretty much what he is accusing Sarah of doing. Goes with the territory. If anyone wants to visit the RM though please do!!! We are desperate for serious support. The need to finally sort out Ireland has become a clear policy matter now - we simply have two Irish state articles, Republic of Ireland and Ireland - both being linked to as the modern state. This RM is for making Ireland a disambiguation page, but there are other routes too. Ireland is hardly Wikpedia's finest hour, and lack of involvement is one of the problems! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Matt means. Why would it matter that he grumbled about "being forced to vote"? If he didn't want to vote, but did because he felt strongly about his position, how does that void his complaint about having his contribution undermined? Also, Please give specifics (with diffs if possible) about how he has done the same thing. General accusations of dirty hands are not useful. I'm neither dismissing nor accepting your position, Matt, but I think the Administrators will need more to go on to consider your thoughts. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a recently created IP, editing with obvious knowledge on a highly controversial page and who has admitted editing before but has not declared under what name. Personally I think the IP should amend his/her vote to a sensible one (then Sarah can remove her comment) and declare under what name(s) they previously edited. Complaining here is an indication of disruptive intent. --Snowded TALK 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly the disruptive beheaviour here comes from this IP who (1) admits he is a participant under a regular name (for years it seems); (2) takes it upon himself to twice delete the contributions of another IP by a regular editor (mine); (3) appears to be voting twice (at least) and (4) gives a totally POV reason why he wants the status quo, referring only to his political opinion and ignoring any consideration of Wiki policy and standards in the matter. My action was clearly not (merely) pointy as I felt the need to highlight the action of this (and other) dubious IPs whose Socking and multiple-voting appears to have escaped the attention of the numerous watching Admins. Also, as alluded to by User:Djegan I thought there was a policy against IPs voting in these polls (resulting from the GH/Wikipiere issue)? Sarah777 (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, I pointed Sarah777 to a thread that would explain the situation (and the accusations of sock puppetry) twice: first here and then here here.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "think the IP should amend his/her vote to a sensible one". My !vote paid particular reference to the role of policy and the history of the dispute. I explicitly avoided stating other reasons for opposing the move because these had already been discussed. What can be more "sensible"? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh....here and here are the same place! And not very helpful; the last editor to call you a Sock turned out to be a Sock; and you, an IP, deleted my IP twice. I explicitly avoided stating other reasons for opposing the move because these had already been discussed. Nope. You gave the real reason you opposed the move and it was 100% political; nothing to do with Wiki policy or practice or the need to dab or improving the project. Pure desire to prevent RoI being called Ireland (its WP:COMMONNAME) for political reasons. Sarah777 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated the link, Sarah777, thanks.

Sarah777, you logged out and inserted nonsense onto the page. That's sock puppetry and vandalism for the purpose of making a point. It was done deliberately in order to undermine the contributions of another by way of uncivil behavior.

As I have already requested, if you have genuine concerns about sock puppetry on any page please take them to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and desist in making personal attacks. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a proponent of mandatory registration, I would prefer the IP to delete his -vote(s)- from that RM proposal discussion. I would prefer the IP to creat an account, but that's his/her choice. Anyways (IMHO) IP accounts should be barred from 'voting' in such Polls. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:PopSinger623

Resolved

 – Kanonkas dropped by.

Can I get an admin to pop in on this kid's talk page and reassure him that I'm not feeding him crap about his chances of getting unblocked, and what he needs to understand to get anyone to honor any unblock requests that he may make?

PopSinger623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Kww(talk) 23:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by Raven in Orbit (talk · contribs) (Pedophilia-related accusation)

[Upon further review, the offensive comment by Raven in Orbit was quite serious, referring to established good-faith editors as "pedo POV-pushers". I've re-edited the section heading that Flyer posted to add the topic area for clarity in this report. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)]

User:Raven in Orbit has continued to be a hassle on the Ephebophilia article. In the past, he has tried to edit the article by‎ likening the term to pedophilia and going as far to dispute valid sources by saying that the sources have to exactly say that ephebophilia is not pedophilia, and then placing unneeded citation or POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the sources are clear in stating what ephebophilia is (seeing as it is not the same as the sexual attraction or preference to prepubescent children; pedophilia) and editors experienced on these two subjects (like myself) have told him this. He has tried to consistently alter the article so that ephebophilia comes across as a mental disorder, against other editors telling him that it is not and explaining to him how dangerous it is to allow people to be confused in thinking that a sexual attraction to a 17-year-old could possibly be the same thing as a sexual attraction to a 7-year-old... However, now that an editor, editor Legitimus, has edited the article so that it relays information that ephebophilia could be considered a mental disorder in very rare/specific instances (though is still not the same as pedophilia), Raven in Orbit still does not seem satisfied. While I was conversing with Legitimus about getting the article just right regarding this information, which included a little humor, Raven in Orbit proceeded to personally attack us. "LOL, yeah! You pedo POV-pushers are really having a good time here! LOL, cool! Glad you people like Wikipedia! Hehe, LOL!" he said.

This editor has basically called me a pedophile before, but this time I could not ignore the personal attack. I am tired/frustrated by these little rude quips/personal attacks he leaves in his edit summaries against me while editing this article, when what I am doing is making sure that this article stays factual and this subject stays clear from being confused with pedophilia. I did respond in a calm manner to this personal attack of Raven in Orbit's on the Ephebophilia talk page, once again explaining to him that these two subjects are not the same thing and telling him that I would be reporting this, but I have no doubt that he still does not quite grasp these two subjects and will most likely still be a problem when editing the Ephebophilia article. Some administrative assistance would be much appreciated here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I support Flyer's request. That talk page comment by Raven in Orbit (talk · contribs) is highly offensive to editors working on the topic. I don't know if a block is needed, but a clear and direct warning from an administrator would certainly be appropriate. I've had no interaction with User:Raven in Orbit, but in addition to his offensive talk page comment Flyer reported, I previously noticed him post at least one other personal attack against Flyer in an edit summary on that topic: [31], and another edit summary that was generally offensive to all editors working on that page (and to the experts cited in the article): "what pedos?". User:Raven in Orbit recently edit-warred (though not past 3RR), to insert the word "obsession" even though it is not supported by sources and every time he inserted that word it was reverted by at least 4 other editors - while not one other editor supported his use of the term: [32] [33] [34][35] [36][37] [38]. His behavior in general is not extreme, but on this topic is bordering on disruptive. The insult he posted today was way over the line. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a more detailed warning here. I saw the discussion earlier but was just hoping someone would have used {{uw-bv}} instead. The warning templates are nice, but we can't just go on automatic here. Flyer, as a word of advice, you would have received a quicker response if you shortened your comment. A simple "Raven called me a pedo-POV pusher and only got a basic incivility warning" with a diff would have caught the eyes of a lot more admins. No amount of background would justify that comment nor is needed. Sometimes there truly is addition by subtraction. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I had not known that he received a minor warning about it before I reported him here. But, anyway, thanks Jack and Ricky. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:HPJoker

Please see here: WQA on HPJoker. User responded to the warnings from the WQA with personal attacks and more incivility that I added to the original WQA. In addition to what I have mentioned on the WQA link, he has also been uncivil on my usertalk page here: User talk:Atlantabravz. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of an admin, because it seems that the WQA warnings haven't worked for this editor, and admins seem to pay more attention to this board for obvious reasons. Atlantabravz (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with additional admin action. After responding a WP:WQA report, I provided 2 warnings: one for his jokes (adding a header to one of his friend's talkpage calling someone a "cunt"), and the second for using his userpage as a blog. I was so very pleasantly faced with this message on my talkpagewith the edit summary "Suck me". ►BMW◄ 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to just give him a "one more stunt like this and you will be blocked" message, but after seeing this, I decided he needed a three-day Wikibreak. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup - that is what you did, all right! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mary-Louise Parker has a troll account

This was an account on which I'd stumbled across a few days ago and which was subsequently blocked for an inappropriate username. The strange thing is, I've been seeing this same account popping up an awful lot as an autoblock on the list of blocked users. He/she is certainly persistent in attempting to log in, so that's why I'd thought it best to bring it here in case that user decides to try again through another IP. A username like that sure can't be attached to anything good. Just a thought. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Popped up again just two minutes ago. At least the block is working, but this individual hasn't got a clue. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Article about West Chop College

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G3. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

After tagging the article for speedy deletion, page's author removed it. A warning was issued. Apparently, West Chop College is a false college. There are no results for it on Google. Which db template should I use? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

{{db-g3}} might be appropriate, but as it isn't blatantly vandalism, AFD might be the best route to getting the article knocked down permanently. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And I see Protonk has now taken it to AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said on the AfD, I don't have any problem w/ people speedying this so long as they feel it fits G3 (I don't). Protonk (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist troll - what to do

Can anything be done about an anonymous racist troll? 75.84.190.213 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting to an extremely one-sided pov-worded version at Indian Massacre of 1622 full of highly emotional language directed against native Americans, and he is also repeatedly switching the casualties in the reference to "over 400", when it is indisputable among ALL sources that exactly 347 died. His edits there and at other articles (which started on Native American Commemoration day, perhaps coincidentally) clearly fall within the description of "trolling for a reaction". But I am hesitant to break 3RR, while he keeps on reverting the article to a racist version. I've tried engaging him on his talkpage, but he shows no understanding at all of wikipedia's neutrality policies, nor how the editing process works (he's already requesting "arbitration" after only one day of this dispute). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not endorsing his view or edits, but he does not appear to be vandalising the article or trolling editors. Please don't use those words to characterize his edits. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If that doesn't meet the definition of trolling, nothing does. He is using inflammatory language to back up a racist pov. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is, in fact, not the definition of trolling. Trolling is staking a position in order to deliberately rile up others or cause resentment/consternation. I see no sign that he picked the word genocide for any reason other than ignorance. Protonk (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. Taken a longer look at this. While he's obviously pushing a POV, this is largely a content dispute and I'm disinclined to use the tools in order to resolve it. My first suggestion is to find better sources for the Indian Massacre of 1622 article--from the cited sources in the article I can hardly say that many historians believe the figure to be 347. Likewise for the other articles, seek to improve them and if he continues to revert, come back here or try to go through dispute resolution. I know this is the long way 'round, given that this IP is clearly pushing a pseudoracist/revisionist POV, but we can't in practice just block based on that. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The IP's recent edits to the article have been challenged and thus should not be re-added until and unless consensus to do so established at the article's talk page, per WP:CONSENSUS. The IP should be warned about this by an admin and apprised of the fact that WP:edit warring may result in a block. In fact, by looking at the edit history, it seems to me that a block for edit warring may already be warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sly77

Resolved

 – Blocked 12 hours by user:Blueboy96 HalfShadow 02:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User keeps reverting an edit on an article he created, Get in my belly. It is coming close to WP:3RR, so please help me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a 3RR warning since he has reverted 3 times. This is largely a content issue with a newbie editor. CIreland (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've reverted to the redirect, as it should be. If it continues, AFD might be able to establish a more convincing consensus. Though I doubt it'd be necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He also seemed to think he owns that article, if this is any indication. I gave him a 12-hour block. Blueboy96 02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't block him. It really does seem like this is a new editor who doesn't "get" the content and inclusion guidelines. I think engagement is preferable to blocking, though I don't think it is a bad block. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that diff Blueboy96 provided is relevant to this case, but I'm going to assume it was in error. While the user clearly does have ownership issues, I don't think I can endorse a block just yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure he meant this HalfShadow 02:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50

I have indefinitely blocked User:Ramu50. This user has had a history of, let's just call it intentional ignorance, and incivility on a number of templates. See here, here, here, here, here (where I blocked after he continued messing with Template:Nvidia which was specifically being argued about at ANI), and the second half of this latest one. I originally warned him about adding Small office/home office to Template:Linux here was enough. Playing games like the meaning of the slash in FOSS (not based on the article but personal interpretation) and this response to a fairly reasonable request from User:Ahunt for a complete explanation of what Ramu is doing were enough for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse this. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Block endorsed, per the threads cited above and the numerous warnings on his talk page. Blueboy96 02:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, especially based on his repsonses [39]. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad. I warned Warren about his comment but I wonder if anyone else would consider protecting his talk page. If he is not submitting requests to be unblocked, his rants are inappropriate. I would prefer a 24-hour or so protection only, so that he can request again if he calms down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Ramu50 had a long history of troublesome editing due to his lack of knowledge for the topics he chose to edit, coupled with an explosive temperament. He should not be allowed back until he matures enough to understand that constantly attacking editors that disagree with him is not acceptable. Pcap ping 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review block of JARIAN

I happened upon JARIAN (talk · contribs) via a report on AIV. This user was blocked for three days in February for disruption. He's returned twice since then--once in August and again in November. In that time he's created several articles that appear to be hoaxes (but to my mind, escape being G3'd by an eyelash) and inserted apparently false information into articles. He's also edit-warred by way of IP 97.89.6.61 (talk · contribs) and moved his talk page "because I am getting tired of complaints."

I decided he needed a month-long block to rethink his behavior--the only reason I didn't indef him was because, as mentioned above, those articles he created don't appear to be blatant hoaxes. Please review. Blueboy96 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stretched the block out to indefinite, because he's been creating very subtle hoax articles, and linking to them from multiple articles. He's engaged in an active campaign to damage the encyclopedia by introducing non-obvious false content. We have no need of this nonsense. It's going to take me a while to go and undo his contributions.

If there are any Checkusers about, it might be a good idea to have a look for other accounts in the sock drawer. This is obviously an experienced editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh...he's been tampering with MADtv season summaries to insert references to his imaginary actors. I've deleted the actors' articles, but the removal of the junk that he's added is slow going. He's edited both as JARIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and as the IP 97.89.6.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

Any article-space entries that come up in the "what links here" for Tisha Williams, Kevin Barrymore, Eddie Mitchell, Jeremy Wayne, Judith Foxworth need to be cleaned up. What a twit. (I've cleaned up links to the struckthrough articles already.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Mitchell leads to a huge number of red-linked names at Home Improvement. They all look like nonsense since I can't seem to find them at IMDb (yes, I actually stopped once I saw Q2 listed there). Does this go any further? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, those were all added by JARIAN while logged out (diff), under his already-identified IP address. For now I'm going to say that I think we've got them all...but I've filed a Checkuser request to be sure: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JARIAN. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse the ramping up to indef. A classic case of gaming the system, in my mind. Given TenofAllTrades' evidence, the results of that checkuser ought to me mighty interesting. Blueboy96 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:CMJMEM

I don't know where to begin, but here goes: About a month ago, a consensus was made here to turn List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees from a list, into table form. CMJMEM has made numerous attempted to change the format afterwards with "votes" and canvassing users to vote. He was then blocked for a week for being disruptive. After returning, he continues to go against consensus. He reported User:Wrestlinglover to User:JodyB, here due to Wrestlinglover reverting CMJMEM's edits and explaining once again to CMJMEM the consensus, here, here, here, here, and here. CMJMEM attack Wrestlinglover, here. Again, he is just off a block and still being disruptive. I've gone to his talk page before he was blocked, and he would repeatedly remove my threads, which is why I haven't tried to go there this time. iMatthew 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not even know he tried to report me.--WillC 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

check my edits since i have returned.i made two bad edits witch i apologized for after i realized it had already been talked about.since those two edits i have tried to discuss it on the talk pages and avoid an edit war.CMJMEM (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this user a-lot lately, he has zero care for Wiki rules, guidelines or any thing like that. He want's to edit war and demands another re vote. I think this user needs to be dealt with, as he is very disruptive. SteelersFan-94 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this user is a troll. If he keeps it up, top men at Wiki need to think about blocking him again.

What do you get for a second block? 10 days? Whatever it is, if he doesn't behave himself, he should find out.

Vjmlhds 05:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that all of these users are those actively working around him, and know him. This really needs a review by an un-involved admin, but not just yet. I'm awaiting a checkuser. iMatthew 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an admin's opinion on this? I'd like it to not go into the archives. I think that more disruption should result in a topic ban on wrestling. iMatthew 18:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments made by 75.36.220.124

This individual has engaged in vandalism and uncivil comments. Witness his comment on the talk page for tobacco smoke enema. Dr. Morbius (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to warn him 4 times before he can be blocked. If he does it again report it here and someone can take action. SteelersFan-94 05:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a popular misconception. While there are four levels of warning templates, there is no requirement – none – that all four be issued before a block. Serious vandalism often leads to a block after a single warning; in particularly egregious cases a block may be placed without warning. If there is further vandalism from this IP address, drop a note at WP:AIV. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I reverted the talk page entry, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with improving wikipedia. That, along with being a lame joke unworthy even of my low level sense of humor. However, it did raise the question, in my mind, of whether the article itself is a hoax. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of lame jokes, what Ten said reminded me of this one from Ernie Kovacs' old radio show, the "Mr. Question Man" segment: "A listener writes, 'If the world is round, why don't people fall off?' (chuckles) The listener has repeated a popular misconception. Actually, people are falling off all the time!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:YcOaDtA and Mythbusters

Someone might want to look at Special:Contributions/YcOaDtA, When I brought it up in the IRC channel earlier someone said he might be a sockpuppet so you might want to check that also. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 07:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He was already blocked for edit warring about an hour ago. Not sure about the sockpuppetry, but he certainly seemed to either be a dedicated new editor or a pointy older one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh the horrors of being an involved admin

Resolved

 – User:ChrisO reviewed and re-instated block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted a block of my own, on Historikos (talk · contribs), out of concerns that I'd been too much "involved" for taking this action myself. This user had just broken 3RR over an issue where I was indeed involved, and then just after reporting him on WP:AN3, I discovered he had also been making serial copyvio image uploads, and I blocked him for those. Probably a bit hasty decision. Could somebody else please step in and have a look at the situation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

weird edit history possible massive article disruption.

Can someone take a look at the edit history of RichHandsmGuy (talk · contribs) - virtually all of his edits seems to be reverting to article versions (sometimes those versions are over a year old) of Rassmguy (talk · contribs). Sockpuppet? team editing? I'm going to take a look but some eyes would be helpful and maybe if it is disruptive - a block to prevent further damage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK clearly disruptive - virtually all of his edits revert article back at least six months and in every case seriously degrade the quality of the articles by reverting clean-up work, removing sources etc. The guy is a menace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great and as far as I can see the edits have been rolled back. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

huh? claims that it's a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It may well be written to be somewhat automated. However, this particular task ("revert to the last version by me") would never be approved for a bot. In any case, an indef block seems reasonable for the time being. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit looks suspicious, too. Why would another unrelated user make that edit? -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now trying to get unblocked on the basis that it's a autoblock of a bot account. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rassmguy (talk · contribs) has posted two unblock requests at his talkpage - the first is on the basis of "I know nothing about this" - but what's odd is that he's posted a second on the basis that the first one was declined - but nobody has edited the page in-between his edits to decline the request? huh? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:PaxEquilibrium

PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in July as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss, which I was responsible for as checkuser. He has been in contact with me since, and claims innocence. There is undoubtedly a sockpuppet user who has been persistently reverting and harassing Rjecina (talk · contribs). This person edits from a particular residential ISP and a university in a certain city. While investigating Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss I found that PaxEquilibrium edited from the same university. However, the university only has two outward-facing IP addresses that are massively shared, and PaxEquilibrium only had 3 total edits from there. In addition, he posts from a different residential ISP in that city, not the same one as the harasser. He claims he is the victim of a Joe job (See the accounts PaxPaxicus, PaxVendetimus and ToxToxicus, for example). On review I think there is at least room for doubt, and Pax has been calm and polite in pursuing his unblock request. He has appealed to Arbcom but has not received an answer either way, possibly they are preoccupied. I propose unblocking. He can be monitored if necessary. (And Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PaxEquilibrium will have to be renamed to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PaxPaxicus or something.) Thatcher 13:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock. I always knew him as a decent contributor and was surprised when I heard he'd been indef'ed for sockpuppeting, something that just didn't seem like him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I echo Rlevse, should be fine to give the user a new chance in the spirit of good faith. --Kanonkas :  Talk  17:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

For users which are not knowing this case I must say about my surprise with finding in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PravdaRuss, because I have never dreamed that Pax is behind this attacks. On other side this unblock demand for me is very funny and I am afraid that wiki community will became victim of this user joke.

We are having good faith but second time we are having claim that his account is victim of another user [40] !? For me is very hard to imagine that he is somebody victim because few of puppets in question are 2 years old accounts. Somebody has worked in silence 2 years only to block Pax (example 1 year old accounts User:Roramaster user:Roremaster). Has anybody noticed that after Pax blocking we are not having anymore problems with Belgrade IP ?

Second problem is that we are having 2 checkuser cases. First is PravdaRuss and second is behind accounts user:PPNjegos, user:NICrneGore, user:Anti-Note. He has been blocked because of puppetry in this second case (17 July) and banned because of PravdaRuss (30 July)

For me 3rd problems that for me it is not possible to agree with you Fut.Perf. that Pax is decent contributor. I will agree with you that he is decent in many articles but there is number in article where account Pax has been edit warring against all other users (articles Pagania, Podgorica Assembly and Creation of Yugoslavia).

Reason for creation of puppets: Pax style of work in articles which are very important in his thinking has been very simple: He will write POV versions with explanation that article is not finished and he will finish job in near future (Creation of Yugoslavia, Podgorica Assembly, Pagania). In my thinking Pax has started to create puppets after I have started to delete his POV versions [41] [42]. --Rjecina (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not writen about 1 small thing. In discussion with you Thatcher Pax has not spoken truth... Claim that he has not edited from Belgrade University (or has edited small number of times) is false. We are having many older Pax statement that he is editing from university in question. When he has first time "lost" his account Pax words has been "The IP adress that I use (174...) is not only used by me but by the entire Internet Computer Center of the Electro-technic University as well" (user page of user:HRE). Now he is saying I am rarely using university IP ? Are we on wiki so naive that we will believe his today words and not his earlier words ??--Rjecina (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what IPs he uses. The doubt arises because most of his recent edits (recent at the time of his last block) are from a particular residential ISP that is different from the residential ISP that is responsible for most of the harassment accounts. Clearly "PaxPaxicus" and PaxEquilibrium have access to the same University; that alone is not proof of anything as all edits to Wikipedia from that University come from two IPs. I feel that the use of different residential ISPs raises some doubt. It would be as if someone in New York City used both Time Warner Cable and Verizon DSL. It is not impossible, but it raises doubts. Thatcher 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PopSinger623 again

Resolved

 – Talk page blanked, and fully protected. The Helpful One 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Efforts to reform this user have reached a dead end: his last valid talk page looked like this, with Kanonkas and I trying to explain what being unblocked would entail. His response has been to use his talk page to host albums he plans on making[, and he recreates them after removal. Time to take away his ability to edit his user pages, methinks.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. The Helpful One 13:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think that this user actually is not doing anything wrong here, and admin told him to do something like this per: this edit Therefore, I am going to allow this user to edit their talk page again as it seems they were following an admin's instructions. The Helpful One 14:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood the situation. He created his bogus page over and over. He was blocked. I dealt with him yesterday trying to get him to understand what he was expected to do, see here. He blanked that entire discussion, and is now using his talk page to create album articles about albums that he himself plans on home-recording some day in the future. There is no need to allow this to continue.—Kww(talk) 15:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand now,  Done. The Helpful One 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Florentino Floro sockpuppet.

Resolved

 – unless I've missed anything ... Black Kite 18:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Florentino Floro is now editing under the name Village_Idiot_Sabant. For reference, this is at least his sixth sockpuppet, and he has previously claimed that he has had at least a dozen. His previous ones were Juanatoledo, Judgefloro, LUIS_Armand_and_Angel, and most recently, Laa_Careon and Lux_Lord (which he used to spam Jimbo's talk page). He's also edited anonymously several times to circumvent his block. It's patently obvious that this new one is him, as every article he's reverted so far is something which we previously removed his contributions from due to notability issues. His username is also an obvious alias--it's taken from a blog Floro has linked to several times before he was warned to stop. --Migs (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into the contributions and I'm convinced by the evidence that it's Floro. Plus there's the troubling added issue of him attempting to impersonate someone else. I've blocked the account. TheCoffee (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've rolled back every change that was spurious to the relevant article. Some looked OK - others may wish to examine those. Black Kite 16:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

There has been a long, ongoing dispute regarding Dungeons & Dragons articles between User:Gavin.collins and the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject (prominent members who have been involved in the dispute recently include User:BOZ, User:Drilnoth, User:Shadzar, and User:Webwarlock) for approximately the past 14 months.

Problems: The issue started because of Gavin.collins's tagging. He often tags articles with templates such as {{notability}}, {{context}}, {{in-universe}}, {{plot}}, {{nofootnotes}}, {{Primarysources}}, {{Original research}}, and {{unreferenced}}, typically adding multiple tags at once. Examples include (although there are many more, as seen in his contributions): [43], [44]. Some members of the project have come to believe that he also does not read the articles he tags. For example, he made the following edits within a 1 minute period: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] Gavin has stated that he reads articles and then tags them all at once[55]. Some users have found this difficult to believe because he often applies almost identical tags to all articles (in the ten samples above, he added four tags to each, three of which were identical on all the articles) and because a quick look through his contributions shows that the tags are typically added at a fairly constant rate of one every few minutes any time that he is actively tagged, with only some larger clumps of successive edits like those listd).

Disagreements have revolved around which tags are appropriate, whether sources are reliable secondary sources, and whether uncited content is original research or simply unsourced. The primary focus of his edits over the span of the dispute seems to revolve around placing tags on D&D articles rather than attempting to help resolve the issues (with a secondary focus on discussion on Wikipedia policy and guideline talk pages relating to the same concerns he has on the articles he tags); as there are only a few active members of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, the sheer volume of this tagging places an excessive burden on these few editors.

At this point, unfortunately, the high volume of tagging for a small group of editors to handle is only part of the problem. Gavin seems to be quick to accuse others of vandalism[56], Conflict of Interest[57], and of "hiding something"[58], with little or no evidence. There have been large amounts of edit warring (visible on most D&D articles, including [59], [60]) and unproductive discussion, which oftentimes gets rather heated on both sides (evident by the following: [61], [62], and most of the archives at WT:D&D, most notably [63], [64], [65], and [66]). Attempts at reasonable discussion between Gavin and WikiProject members often result in no conclusion, compromise, or consensus, as Gavin seems to be resistant to any view but his own (example: [67]). He has also admitted that he knows little of RPGs, but that is probably due to the "poor quality" of the articles he's been looking at.[68] An attempt at mediation seemed to pause the conflict rather than end it.

He also rarely, if ever, answers direct questions that he can't answer by citing a Wikipedia policy or guideline.[69], [70].

Gavin's arguments have also spread beyond Dungeons & Dragons articles and to areas related to what he is arguing for, such as at WT:FICT (for examples, see the entire discussions that took place around the following edits: [71], [72], [73]) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Drilnoth, if two people have tried (and failed) to resolve this with him (which I suspect may be the case), then WP:RFC is the place to log a request for comment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the only problem being that one has already been done. Granted, however, that discussion was before the RfM and his slight change of tactics. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is the wrong place for this sort of thing, then we can basically copy the complaint into a new RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How long to block an IP?

I'm a bit rusty on this so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. I originally blocked Ad.sell for placing fake block notices (using {{test5}}) on other users' pages, something I discovered quite by accident; I told him he had to stop or be blocked, and he chose the latter. Since then, he's been vandalizing other pages via his IP address, 99.155.212.135, which I've now blocked for the third time, this one for a full week. I've asked Rlevse to do a checkuser to make sure I'm not catching anyone else in the net, but assuming that's not the case, how long would be appropriate for the block on the IP address? His vandalism is mostly limited now to users' talk pages, although the fake block notices could certainly scare off a relatively new user. Thanks. If anyone needs me today, I'll be in the drawing room with Elizabeth. Mr. Darcy talk 15:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if the IP address is static or not, but if any legitimate editors get caught up in the block, we can unblock their specific account with a blockexempt action. A week seems about right. Just increase it if he returns. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The IP has been static for five days, so a block of a week seems about right. You don't need a checkuser to tell you the collateral for an anon-only block, as you can see it for yourself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • IP's are kind of a judgment call. I've seen school IP's blocked for many months due to persistent vandalism. A static IP, a week seems good; then progressively longer if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • My instinct said it was static, since the same user showed up there after 24-hour and 48-hour blocks, but I figured it was better to be safe than to risk blocking a legitimate user down the road. I'll continue with one-week blocks if Ad.sell returns. I must say I find it very thoughtful of him to edit anonymously and sign his comments with his blocked username. Mr. Darcy talk 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat by Bakutrix

Bakutrix (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly engaged in nonproductive edits on the article Bakugan Battle Brawlers including removing several {{fact}} tags for information that he is in a dispute with involving another editor. Several warnings have been issued to him which he keeps removing from his talk page. This morning, he posted this threat[74] if I continue to interfere with his edits to Bakugan Battle Brawlers. --Farix (Talk) 15:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I executed an indef block based on that one threat, and noted so when advising the editor, when I saw this on AIV. If they retract that comment in an unblock request then they may have the tariff varied or lifted. If they do come back it might be useful if they would expand their areas of editing, so they may not so quickly get into policy violations over their editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if indef is called for at this point, but he still keep blanking his talk page. My impression is that he is a teenage fan who doesn't know about Wikipedia's policies and treats it as MySpace. However, it is also clear that he doesn't want to take the time to understand Wikipedia's policies either even after he has been referred to them repeatedly. --Farix (Talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I also thought the account was of an immature editor, but I was unwilling to block for a stated length as I considered they would quickly resume the same behaviour as before. If they show some evidence of consideration by apologising for the comments then we have some material to work with. If they don't then the project is better of without them - until they grow up, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate attack page in user space

Nishidani (talk · contribs) was recently warned by an administrator about personal attacks aimed at User:Jaakobou. After he complained about the warning, three additional uninvolved editors, including 2 administrators, stepped in, and voiced concern over Nishandi's behavior in this matter. ([75], [76],[77], [78]). Apparently displeased with this outcome, Nishandi has taken to using his personal space to write a critique of his critics, in what appears to be an attack page. Though presented in the form of a "ballad", his critique nevertheless continues to accuse User:Jaakobou of off-wiki canvassing, gaming the system and administrator shopping. I believe this is inappropriate use of user space, and have asked Nishandi to remove it but he's refused. NoCal100 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that has left me slack-jawed. It might be grossly inappropriate etc etc etc but this has got to be the most impressive attack page I ever saw. Truly speechless. – iridescent 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who ever saw a ballad made up of sonnets? The guy ought to be trout-slapped for playing fast and loose with our literary genres, surely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially as his iambic pentameter is all over the place. I mean, honestly. Black Kite 18:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• NoCal100, what is the interest of scrutinizing Nishidani's userspace that closely? You should see some of the crap I have in mine. Nishidani's "attack" is part of an archived usertalk page! If it had been a separate page called User:Nishidani/Ballad about bad people you might have had a point; but hidden away in an archive? Who would even have seen it, to be offended by it, if you hadn't brought it to this noticeboard? I'm not saying people can have whatever they want in their userspace, there certainly are limits; but please try to cultivate a higher degree of tolerance for things like a sarcastic sonnet cycle in a discreet corner. It seems Nishidani feels stalked by you.[79] Please walk away. (Incidentally, have you told him you've put the issue on ANI, as courtesy requires?) Bishonen | talk 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

The interest is in keeping Wikipedia a place where editing is done in a collegial manner, vs. one where an editor may abuse user space to baselessly attack another editor, after being warned by 3 administrators about just such behaviour. I would have thought it obvious. NoCal100 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Somebody once said insults in rhyming couplet should be cherished forever. I agree, you should at least try to cultivate a sense of humor. — CharlotteWebb 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Geogre said that. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Just so that I'm clear on this - it is ok to accuse another editor, without evidence, of off-wiki canvassing and forum shopping, so long as it is done with rhymes? NoCal100 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Read Bish's reply. If having potentially abusive messages in your talk archive were a blocking offence, pretty much every user on this site would be blocked. If it weren't for your coming here, no-one would even have read it. – iridescent 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree- frankly, I'd be proud to know someone had gone through the trouble to write a ballad to complain about me. Walk it off. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you still haven't informed Nishidani, NoCal100. Never mind, I've done it for you. Bishonen | talk 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Wow - I wonder how many hours it took him to write that fine piece of attack literature. It ought to be preserved if only for the sake of art. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I wished to stay neutral in this, but it appears that there is a gross misconception here which should be cleared up—this "ballad" is indeed archived, but it's from yesterday, so it's kind of fresh. I think Nishidani should just strike it out and the case should be closed. But somehow I have a feeling that this is now what will happen (*sigh*). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's fresh. If it had been a month old, NoCal100 would presumably have taken it to ANI a month ago. Did anybody here suggest it wasn't fresh? It's still in a discreet corner of the userspace, that's the point. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

So, It is ok to have an attack page, as long as it is under an Archivenn page in user space? NoCal100 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I hope to someday piss off another editor to the point that they spend that amoung of time writing poetic odes to my rottenness. Awesome.GJC 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done

I have to say, it seems a shame

That every misguided new-article creator

When warned for incorrect capitalization of proper names

Will cite Gladys j cortez, Wikipedia administrator – iridescent 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than editors commenting about how they, personally, would be honored by such a tribute, I would like an administrator to answer my question, while specifically addressing WP:UP#NOT #9 and #10. Those guidleines seem fairly clear, and have no exceptions for rhyming content, or content filed under an Archivenn page, as far as I can see. NoCal100 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All right then, I'll bite.

• Have any of the editors being "attacked" complained about this?
• Has anyone other than yourself shown any sign of being upset by this?
• If it weren't for you reading the last post in a talk archive would anyone even know about this?
• Has a single person among all the people posting above, other than yourself, got any problem with this?
• Is this really the most incivil thing you've ever seen in userspace?
• Do you really think continuing to waste the time of the multiple administrators who don't see a problem here by continuing to flog what is obviously a dead horse is starting to cross the line from "raising a legitimate concern" to "refusing to take no for an answer"?

Seriously, let it go. – iridescent 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote, I would like an answer that specifically addresses WP:UP#NOT #9 and #10, which is a wikipedia content guideline. Whether or not this is the worst example of attack pages is irrelevant, and to answer your other rather pointless question, yes,Ynhockey has indicated that he thinks the offending remarks should be stricken. I am trying to get a straight answer to a content question - is it appropriate to have attack pages in user space, if they are in filed under an Archive? NoCal100 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The section of the userpage guideline WP:UP#NOT is titled "What may I not have on my user page?" (emphasis mine). An archived talk page is not the user's userpage. —Travis^talk 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, even if you do want to argue that WP:UP applies to user talk archives, see at the top of WP:UP where it says "guideline, not policy"? See where it says "with the occasional exception"? Aside from yourself, every single person here has agreed that this is one of those occasional exceptions. If this is so offensive to those editors he has named, I'd like to think they're perfectly capable of complaining about it themselves. Incidentally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't even a guideline, but a personal essay by (now indefblocked, incidentally) User:VigilancePrime representing his own personal opinions. – iridescent 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect - I have already pointed out another editor who thinks the comments should be stricken. Be that as it may, I have taken this to Wikipedia talk:User page, to see if indeed, as you seem to think, WP:UP does not apply to archived pages. NoCal100 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Take a look at the very first line of WP:ATTACK. It matters not whether anyone complains; they may not have seen it. It still creates a poisonous atmosphere wehich I suggest we could well do without. Throwing one's toys out of the pram is bad enough, but doing it loudly should not be tolerated. --Rodhullandemu 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I boringly agree with Rod, resist.
Destroy my wikienemies in rhyme?
Those whose offences make me wish to mock
Or to create exposes of their sins
I leave them to the fates they weave themselves
The bored frustration bringing Wiki sin
Appalling poetry a case in point
To every man comes, like the need for pie.

(i.e WP:NPA policy exists.) Sticky Parkin 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While speech is somewhat free, it seems,
That does not liberate thy dreams
of insults and of criticisms
couched in whatever witticisms.

Here we live with one and another,
fighting vandals as did "your mother",
and although it may seem prosaic
we are still parts of one mosaic.

Cooperation is our avowéd aim,
but dissent isn't quite the same;
Whether you're interesting, or bland,
you must fit in, or be banned.
--Rodhullandemu 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assist with 81.155.47.47

New IP user refuses to go to talk page to discuss his POV edits and violation of 3RR. Several editors have issued warnings, especially for continued POV & 3RR edits at Polygamy. In my opinion, the user is unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules and, from his comments (and who he is, based on who he claims to be - I googled the name he stated), believes he is editing an academic or professional journal. He's now reached the maximum good faith we can allow and a gentle block would be in order, since he does not react to requests to take discussion to the talk page. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:79.176.111.104's edits to Hank Paulson and personal attacks

IP User:79.176.111.104 was blocked for six hours because he used controversial material in the Hank Paulson article. The user also threatened to shut down editors' activity. After he was blocked, the IP user called the blocking admin a "bully." In my view, the IP user should be blocked longer. Your thoughts? Willking1979 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that six hours is not long enough? Perhaps you could take the time to reply to the IP user's questions and get them contributing constructively, instead of pushing for a longer block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ireland page moves

1. More than a week ago, several different polls were opened on Ireland (disambiguation), Ireland and Republic of Ireland, and another at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force. A veritable mess. The issue is a recurring one. Proponents wanted Republic of Ireland to be at Ireland (state) or a variation . Some of the proponents exhibit an Irish republican POV, which holds that Ireland being qualified by "Republic of" undermines its credibility as the only legitimate government in Ireland. Though support for the move was broader than this, it could therefore be taken into the orbit of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles.
2. Today, these polls were closed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [congratulations for his bravery!] .
3. Later today, Srnec (talk · contribs) reverted the move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) (Ireland (island), which was salted by the new dab page Ireland )
4. Even later today, Matt Lewis (talk · contribs) copy-pasted Republic of Ireland into Ireland (state) (a redirect at that occasion), and vice-versa [80][81]
5. Polaron (talk · contribs) reverted the copy and paste move[82]

This could well be a big drama fest, but no heads have to roll just yet and no passions need be inflamed. To put it mildly, it is probably unlikely that review of this move close will lead to agreement that the moves had consensus, but in fairness the poll at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force is more strongly in favour of the move than the article pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is currently working on this. Please lets wait for him to comment before adding yet more voices to the cacophony. Rockpocket 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that there's a separate thread open at AN. This needs exactly one cook to prevent broth spoilage. Oh, and "could well be a big drama fest" passed a long time ago. Essentially anything related to the word "Ireland" needs to be handled with care. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to be the brave person to decide whether AN or ANI is the right place for this and so unify discussion? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Done it already. AN/I is really the appropriate place anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My response is User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response. No further comment at this point. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unable to comment at User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response as the page is locked for IP's, but it strikes me that Tariqabjotu decision to keep his move is based on his opinion on the matter rather than consensus or the mountains of discussion that has taken place on the matter (much of which cited alternative reasons based on policy for keeping things as they were). --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I will also add that it has a ring of making a faulty decision in good faith then justifying it retrospectively. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's based on the consensus that you all clearly can't decide. Hence, disambiguation. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to move Ireland -> Ireland (island), so you moved Ireland -> Ireland (island)? You are clearly operating on a wholly different level, Tariqabjotu. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed with admin revert warring each other over a page move and then using protection powers to make their version stick. Whatever happened to Bold Revert Discuss? The admin closed and was bold in applying local consensus elsewhere onto a page, and was reverted. Shouldn't he then have engaged in discussion at the local where the dispute was? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Administrator Tariqabjotu's conduct is in good faith. He's done no wrong. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and when I say "then justifying it retrospectively" - I mean only that that kind of decision-making is fault prone. I don't meant any implication of bad faith on the part of Tariqabjotu, just one mistaken decision followed by a fault-prone one. Wheel warring is not pretty though. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And in good faith I criticise the process he decided to use. I think applying local consensus to other locals is most definatly wrong GD. Even RM points you towards the talk page of an article for moves rather than gaining the consensus on the RM page. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (ec)

My move wasn't part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. It was based on an analysis of a move request discussion. Even with the evidence I missed initially, I am staying with my position, for reasons I explained in my response. The editor reverted the result of a move discussion – that's out of process. If (s)he disagrees with the discussion, this type of forum is the appropriate place to go. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for that move discussion at Talk:Ireland (state)... Srnec (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed as recently as September. The decision was to NOT MOVE the page. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no move discussion as I would view it, there was a small clique discussing this in a remote location. Can WP:F1 now conduct move requests on its talk page? Certainly consensus can be developed on those pages, but it must always go back to the talk page of the article in question to achieve consensus among all editors. By taking this behind doors, so to speak, we disenfranchise casual editors and IP editors who are unlikely to delve that many layers beyond the article talk page. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a clique like a cabal, but with disparate people in it? I would be happy with that. It has taken a stern will to battle at times. I set up the WP:IDTF taskforce on Ireland (being WP:bold), and boy the diffs I could show of the same-face aggressive opposition to it! But sense survived the AfD, and sense will service this. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and you simply cannot stop progress forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to stop progress, Matt. However, I do not view the method you used to be progress. I know it was an attempt to avoid the fight that have dogged the pages for years, but I don't think that small groups deciding consensus away from the pages is the answer. Especially when such a well thought out solution had been reached. You skipped a step that validates the decision you reached. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, would you be willing to expand a little on what you meant when you wrote, "Now, I'm done... you are welcome to open a WP:AN or WP:ANI post, but I'm sticking with this position regardless." Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste? Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do you think that such a statement could be interpreted as meaning that you are unwilling to discuss mistakes you may have made in haste?" Yes, it might be interpreted as that. Either way, in my response, I addressed the mistake many people pointed out. I explained why I think, despite that, this is still the best solution. You all are trying to drag me into this debate; I'm not falling for it. This is your debate; I am just here to look at the evidence and decide whether a move is warranted. I did that, so my job is done. You are free to launch an appeal. You are free to continue to bicker about this -- but without me. I have stated my position -- and that's it. Me repeating my reasoning interminably is unproductive. You repeating yours interminably is unproductive.

"Do you think that this is a constructive statement to make on an issue that you know to be contentious?" Yes. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You say this is "our debate" and that we are trying to "drag you into it" but that you won't "fall for it" - yet your final decision was based on your opinion, not ours. Can you reconcile this contradiction?

(Incidentally, while not asking you for your opinion on it or on the issue itself, here was my contribution to this round of polling on the requested move, simply as an FYI. I think that there is more to policy on articles moves to consider than you give credit for in your response. Many of these were discussed in the pages and archives that you ignored.) --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to acknowledge there are differing cases for each of the moves on your talk page. I'd suggest the solution is, at the very least, reverting Ireland (State) to Republic of Ireland and engaging for a local discussion on that page. Though as some people suggest this likely needs mediation or arbitration, I do think out of process move procedures do need to be reversed before such things can occur so as not to present a fait accompli. Though, I do hope that if a move procedure is begun on the talk page that a convincing consensus is reached. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As a noninvolved party, I applaud Tariqabjotu for taking on an contentious issue and making a decision. No matter the decision, someone was going to be unhappy. Moving to a disambiguation, given the confusion that clearly exists, was only proper (if in doubt, disambiguate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That was only half the move though. As Tariq himself says, there was no need to disambiguate RoI. There are also the issues to do with the process which wa pretty obviously a bit unorthodox. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Appeal it and let it go to Arbcom, its bound to end up there anyway and the two factions will never reach agreement. It needs some objectivity. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube Poop guy, again...

Resolved

So, briefly... Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) is the indef blocked user. He figured out that that you can edit anonymously, and returned as Special:Contributions/76.167.244.204, who has been repeatedly blocked for abuse of editing while indef-blocked. Apparently his DHCP has renewed, and he is back as Special:Contributions/76.83.246.11. I hope it is not suggested that WP:SSP is in order, because WP:DUCK. Same edits to the same types of articles, same grammar and writing style. Same ISP for that. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked 48hr. Not sure how long his DHCP lease is. WP:DUCK applies here. Protonk (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. If his last IP lease is any indication, the lease is at least a month (Oct 12 - Nov 28) Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if at the end of 48hrs he keeps this up we can move to something longer. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• He's pretty persistent, if you check out the other talk pages (Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), as well as the original IP). I was actually getting ready to fill out the SSP and CU forms; do you think I should continue do that? In the past, with this person, it was mentioned that those kind of documentations are useful to maintain a clear history, even tho almost everyone agreed with the duck assessment. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that is necessary. I would say that a checkuser is not necessary--his habits seem pretty clear and we don't need technical evidence to figure out who he is. The SSP might be in order, though you are more likely to see that sit a while without action (WP:SSP is often backlogged). In my opinion it is sufficient to drop by here with a link to this discussion (or AIV if the vandalism is obvious) when he makes a sock/changes his IP. Unfortunately it seems like he's given a pretty wide range of IP addresses, so a rangeblock is likely out of the question. That means that most of the methods of dealing with this guy will be labor intensive. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, he answered the question himself, so I guess the point is moot right now. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's clear he wants attention. WP:RBI should apply. I'll look into protecting his talk pages on the indef accounts. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• He ultimately just wants his video-remix group (the youtube poop) to have an entry here in Wikipedia. Without dragging things out interminably, this is the edit which earned him an indef block. Thanks again for your speedy help on this one. I guess you can mark this resolved. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. The main ones are protected (already). I would ignore anything he puts on his talk page, revert his article contributions and ask for his socks/IP's to be blocked and their talk pages protected should this continue. As for the "main goal", that usually changes for spammers etc. once they get restricted to user talk space. Then in morphs in to whining to all and sundry. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Simulation12

I know i'm not an admin, but here me out. You probally remember Simulation12, the so-called "kindergartner" who's recently been blocked for indefinitley. Ever since then, i've been keeping a close eye on PBS Kids aricles in case Riley tries something sneaky, like using a sock-puppet account. I noticed someone named "Marcellusb" who also edited children's articles. Most of his edits are unconstructive and/or vandalism. I know that it's a long shot, but i think he may be Riley. He keeps creating useless articles and creating pages that are just copied from pre-exsisting articles. I have no clue what to do, i've already contacted Gladys, so i'm hoping that someone may come up with a solution (AKA Block him).(Elbutler (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Marcellusb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the lazy. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
• Can you post some diffs of Simulation12 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log)'s edits that match this editors? Likewise, can you post some diffs of this user that are clear and obvious vandalism or deliberate errors (I'm looking through the contribs now). Protonk (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... i can't find anything similar (beside creating non-imporatant articles for Martha Speaks), i was so sure. But the edits are still disruptive. Elbutler (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait! this edit by Marcellubs, is similar to this edit by Simulation12. Elbutler (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as a pretty tenuous comparison. I'd AGF for now (Trust but verify, of course), it isn't outside the realm of possibility that there are two users who create disruptive/test pages on PBS entries. If you think of some more obviously disruptive edits then bring them here. If I'm missing something obvious (like a string of obvious vandalism), then feel free to say so. :) Protonk (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just remembered a cool tool. Only one article has shared edits between the two users. May not be a sock. Or if it is, it may be a sock designed specifically to get around a ban, not edit identical articles. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Gladys has been asleep all day (I'm on vacation, I can do that!:) and just now logged on to edit. I'm not 100% sure this is Sim12; in fact, I'm not even 50% sure. There are some similarities, but more dissimilarities, IMHO. I'm definitely not dismissing ElB's concern, though; I say we watch and wait. (Though it does strain credulity that two separate editors would be creating trivial articles about "Martha Speaks"--if only because it's easily one of the crappiest PBS Kids' shows I've ever seen, nearly as crappy as "It's a Big Big World". Seriously, PBS has kinda lost the plot.)GJC 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another sock of banned user User:PoliticianTexas

IP editor 98.23.200.247 (talk · contribs) has the same modus operandi as banned user PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs), to wit:

• fascination with New Mexico Activities Association, New Mexico politics, New Mexico high schools, New Mexico population figures (see long series of edits at New Mexico
• many edits required to get it right
• no edit summaries
• use of copyvio images e.g. Diane Denish
• deleting maintenance tags without actually making improvements: example

How about a block on this IP? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some reasonable overlap between this IP and the known socks of this user. I leave it up to an admin more familiar w/ this user to block this IP, but I'll nose around a little more. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. I'm very familiar with this user. Tan | 39 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight repeatedly editing Glamour (disambiguation)

Resolved

 – not ANI issue Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm having a problem with the Glamour (charm) article. The article in question is about a glamour which is an object or item that gives the wearer or owner the appearance of style or glamour, for example sunglasses or a Ferrari. It's an admittedly slightly archaic meaning of the word, but I have found a reliable source for that particular usage, which is quoted in the article; and there was no other article in the wikipedia that covered glamour in that sort of sense at all. Even so, the article is still very much only a stub.

Unfortunately, User:ChildofMidnight basically doesn't like that particular definition, and keeps rewriting the disambiguation page description so that it doesn't match the definition given in the article, essentially so it misrepresents the article, as well as making it overlapping with other definitions which are already linked from the disambiguation page and are covered in different articles.

I really don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't see how his edits are benefiting the wikipedia, and he just keeps making what I can only consider to be weird edits.

I could sort of understand it better if he was actually editing the article or even discussing it on the talk page there or whatever, but just repeatedly modifying the disamb page like this to misrepresent the article is kinda weirding me out.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should try discussing this on Talk:Glamour (disambiguation) and User talk:ChildofMidnight before making such a big deal out of it. I've gone ahead and notified ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) of this discussion - something you should have done yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

this is what is caled a content dispte and not reall y what WP:ANI is here for. Smith Jones (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oversight needed

These two edits probably need to be oversighted, not just deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, just remembered there's a separate noticecboard for that. Parsecboy (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)