Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive451

Potential problem user?

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk · contribs)

Despite the fact that Milhouse will never be a meme, this user's contribs concern me. Forced meme and anti-Scientology are two major red flags. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when was being associated with Anonymous not tolerated on Wikipedia?--Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Trolling. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Milhouse will never be a meme, is a meme. Sorry. Beam 17:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tinfoil hat-type at DTV transition

Some person from multiple IPs in the 76.192.0.0/10 range has been inserting "Big Brother"-type ranting into DTV transition: [1] [2] [3]. I'd rather it not be handled with semi-protection; we've had decent contributions to the article from other IPs.--Father Goose (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will a couple of weeks semiprotection help? Guy (Help!) 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  user specifically requests the page not to be semi-protected given the good natured edits by other IPs. The only thing that can be done is WP:RBI, or a range block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• The good faith anons can comment on Tlak ad their suggesitons will be acted on. But feel free to remove semi if you want. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruption and personal attacks from Kurt.

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

Do we really need another WR thread? There's nothing admins can do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

---

[4]

I know it's off-wiki, but the fact he messaged me on IRC pushes it into harassment. We give him way enough leeway for disrupting RFA and AFD (there's a difference between having an opinion and using it to troll). Calling established users vandals is simply not on. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is ridiculous. WR is not a troll site when we are dealing with attacks against SV, FM, JZG, etc, but it is a troll site when we are dealing with attacks on you? Let's eliminate the double standard here. I'm a little sick of all the damn drama caused by some of the prima donnas over there, but it's not going to go away, they are not going to STFU, and we're going to have to live with them, because there are too many people on Wikipedia, some of them decent people, who participate over there. Horologium (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the topic. This is about Kurt, not the media he used. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia admin action are you after Sceptre? Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Tan ǀ 39 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2) I'm not changing the topic. You are complaining about off-wiki harassment from WR. Horologium (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas, templating isn't going to help. Sceptre, you're off base here. If he's messaging you on IRC, /ignore KurtMWeber fixes that problem. If he's going at you on WR, ignoring people works there as well. Many of us (both here, there and everywhere) have dealt with Kurt, and his peccadilloes and his attitude, but we shouldn't be treating WR like it's an extension of WP.. Just ignore him and move on. SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't template anything. I just cut and pasted the first line of the instructions for use of this page, in case Sceptre missed it. Tan ǀ 39 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the part of my sentence that said he used IRC? If it was WR alone, I would let it slide. Tanthalas, stop being condescending; I know what ANI is for. Pedro, I need someone to get through to Kurt that his behaviour is unacceptable, whether through ban, block, or just a warning. And SirFozzie: given he's known for a poisonous attitude, why is he still contributing? Especially seeing as he gets on everyone's nerves? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the WR post and thought it was dripping with sarcasm - if he really is serious, ok, maybe something should be done, but are you sure he isn't joking? I was thinking about replying with a sarcastic comment like "I view defecating on your neighbor as prima facie evidence of power hunger."--B (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as he votes speedy keep on AFDs simply because things exist, I doubt he's joking. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is actionable only if Kurt posts a link to it on Wikipedia, unfortunately. It does not reflect well on Kurt, though. If WR wants to e taken seriously as a source of critique then they really need to get their house in order and clamp down on egregious trolling like this. But maybe they don't, maybe they like being dismissed as a nest of vipers. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  Not from lack of trying. Some people have been trying to at least lower the noise in the signal. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have just notified User:Kmweber, as he was not notified of this discussion, even though it is about him. Horologium (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, IRC, one of the many grey areas in WP: Jimbo has said that misconduct on IRC falls under ArbCom perview, but there's no guidelines to how it should be handled (I hear there was an ArbCom case about it, and they've promised to bring forth guidelines "Real Soon Now". As for your question to me, I would say that is because he is also a content contributor, and folks have just basically tuned out his Arbitrary Commitee, and prima facie evidence of power hunger rants due to overuse staleness. Trust me, I'm no fan of the guy after he tried to recall me, but I ignore him, he ignores me, we all win. SirFozzie (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

SirFozzie is correct. Sceptre just ignore Kurt. He's just trying to draw you out. This thread is giving him satisfaction. He knows that he's the biggest prick on this planet and he loves the role. He feeds off of the attention people give him. Essentially he's a bully. As you know, in English lower schools we get told to ignore them. Simple as, Will. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kinda reminds me of Mrs Trunchbull from Matilda: "Never do anything by halves if you want to get away with it. Be outrageous. Go the whole hog. Make sure everything you do is so completely crazy it's unbelievable." Sceptre ^(talk) 22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well now, Freenode has its own terms of service and IRCops, etc, starting with the ignore button; and WR, despite its many many faults, also has a hierarchy and rules of posting; afaik, none of these three systems overlap. The Wikback, a similar forum, run by an arb iirc, was created so people could have discussions that would not be permissible on WP. So maybe people with disputes at these other forums should first escalate there. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Couple of bits of info;

• The IRC group contacts apparently didn't concur with Jimbo's statement re:arb com authority (per Kirill)"..the IRC group contacts do not acknowledge that any formal authority over their actions rests with the Committee.."
• 'NotTheWikipedia Weekly' (which in this context means me!) recently held a discussion about matters relating to specifically the admins IRC channel here which may be of interest.
• Wikback unfortunately is no longer operational. (I think WR is now the only functioning online forum?)
• Fozzie's advice seems sound to me - I've never really met Kurt, but if he bugs you, maybe ignore him?

this prolly isn't an AN/I thing really - but thought this info might help... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The mailing lists are the right venue for comment not suited to WP. WR is a troll's nest and shows no sign of even aspiring to be anything else. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful. I mentioned this on Wikipedia to an apparent WR user and was immediately threatened with their "power and processes." I wish I was exaggerating or lying, but I was threatened. Beam 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how editors who care, even remotely about WP, would use WR. I just don't get it. I have been attacked in the name of WR, and it's silly. Of course there are users there who aren't necessarily bad people, but that site does not further the goal of WP. It gives an outlet for which people can talk shit or degrade their fellow editors without fear of losing their privilege. I don't get why some editors don't see the damage that, even if they don't participate in the actual segregation, the site entails. Beam 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WR does not exist to further the goals of WP. Naerii 00:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But the editors of Wikipedia do. Or they should.... Editors like you though, who would use an edit summary to call me an idiot, aren't really needed to advance the project. Beam 00:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor who comes second to only Sceptre in terms of making a fool of themselves on a regular basis doesn't want me on the project - I guess that's it, I'm off to cry myself to sleep, boo hoo, etc. Naerii 00:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

List of Shuffle! albums

Longstanding consensus is that non-free cover images are not permitted in discography articles such as List of Shuffle! albums; several users have been readding them after they are removed. Most recently, User:Grk1011 asked about this policy here. He has started adding the images again, per his contention that, because this article is titled "list" instead of "discography", it gets special treatment. Perhaps an explanation by an uninvolved admin would help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A discography is a kind of list, so calling it a list instead of a discography is mere semantics. The use is definitely in violation of our NFC policy. Steven Walling (talk) ^{formerly VanTucky} 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

it wasn't merely because it didn't say discography lol. See my reply on your talk. Grk1011 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Holocaust

I pulled up the page on the Holocaust and found the template to have gone somewhat screwy. It's an edit by someone claiming to be "The Zodiac". From the text he left and a brief search of this page, I'm guessing he's got a history here. Looking over the edit and comparative histories, I can't seem to find what he put on the page, much less fix the problem

68.5.90.236 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a known template vandal. Clear out your cache, and the vandalism should be gone. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User Om-a-bear and the issue of Sinn Fein

The User Om-a-bear seems to have an issue with the inclusion of Sinn Fein as an organisation that was involved in Hindu-German Conspiracy. I have provided reference and directed him to this reference for what is written in the article. But he keeps insisting that Sinn Fein was a loyalist organisation before 1917, and hence it is wrong blah...blah... blah... Moreover, this appears to be a single purpose account. Can somebody please have a look if this guy is a sockpuppet of some known PoV pusher? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

Resolved

 – Protected; refer to Talk:Singapore Airlines. —Kurykh 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin who has a few hours available take a look at Singapore Airlines? This article is too high profile to have as many edit disputes as we are seeing again. Since I occasionally edit the article I'm not the best person to protect the article. I did it once in the past and announced that here so that anyone could override that action if I acted in bad faith. No one did, but several editors were not happy. However this resulted in a stable article for a while, even after protection was lifted. This article and a few related ones suffer from WP:OWN in my opinion. Discussion on the Mediation Cabal seems to produce a resolution that lasts for a while and when someone tries to act on the consensus and we get edit wars and probably WP:CIVIL violations all over the place. This has also been discussed on talk pages and in the WP:AIRLINES project. In my opinion, and I feel in the the opinion of others, there is consensus. However some editors continue to believe that consensus does not apply to several articles including this one. A few diffs will not help, just look at the edit history and some of the other discussions and you should be able to stop the problem.

I think it is time to protect this article again to stop the constant reverts. As I said above this article has too high of a profile for it to be receiving this kind of treatment. To any admin who decides to follow up, I'd request that you try to look through the various previous discussions and then protect the article in a state that reflects the consensus achieved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected and note posted on talk page. Discuss further on relevant talk page. —Kurykh 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

A vandal has made a improper move. I don't think I can reverse it, or even if I did, I might mess it up. HELP!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone took care of it. For future reference, how does one reverse a move like that? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any user can move a page over top of a redirect. So if they don't edit the redirect that results from the move, you can just go to the new (vandalized) page name and use the move button. If they edit the redirect, then only an admin can move it because the original page needs to be deleted first. If it is an emergency and you can't track down an admin quickly (say, 4:00 AM Eastern or something), you can move the correct title to a temp page to make room for the real page, then move the page back. --B (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Posturewriter - attack page

• Posturewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics

Could someone uninvolved have a glance at this situation? Long-term tendentious editing by SPA, situation escalating with his creation of a user page section that appears in breach of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:UP#NOT. And now the threat "would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won’t forget in a hurry" [5]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Belay that; I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thirusivaperur

Thirusivaperur (talk · contribs) is giving me a mindless edit war at History of Hinduism. That's just Wikipedia as it is, I suppose. But now he is spamming my talkpage with "final warnings" for "vandalism") -- I do not feel I am required to take that. This chap could do with a lecture on proper procedure on consensus-building (not that it will likely do any good, I'm afraid). --dab (𒁳) 08:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Troll

Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is trolling on this articles talk page and is intentionally vandalising the corresponding article with ridiculous statements.--Otterathome (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I warned him. If he does it again, report it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rastronomer (subtle vandalism, racist slogan in mainspace)

Since yesterday, User:Rastronomer edits the page Roma minority in Romania, adding "references" to the text (see his contributions). Have a look at the diff (his version, which he already pushed twice into the article): one of his "references" ("Romanian press about Roma people's ID.") is his google search; the second "reference" does not verify the text (as any Romanian speaker will be able to tell you). For the latter, see the text before Rastronomer's intervention: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates . However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes." Here is his contribution: "It is a common Romanian perception that Roma have disproportionately high crime rates <ref>[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/ro/features/setimes/articles/2006/11/20/reportage-01. However, there is a lack of official statistics on ethnic criteria to support such stereotypes. "Roma people" are criminals!]</ref>" [my emphasis, and no, obviously not found in the source, if "quoting" is indeed what Rastronomer pretends s/he is doing]. This is obviously a racist message, which, in addition to his "subtle" vandalism, should warrant a block.

Also, given the surprisingly short time Rastronomer took to familiarize himself with wikipedia, the history of such incidents among my fellow Romanian editors, and the need for "adoption" he states on his front page, it would not surprise me if this guy were a sockpuppet of a known Romanian vandal/troll. Dahn (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not an romanian. If would live in Romania, you would say that i'm right. How can I prove that romanian people think that Roma people are bad, ugly, stincky, they don't learn, they steal (even Romania's identity)? You're a gypsy that knows english...One at a milion...About sockpuppetry, I don't know who really is an...you or me?--Rastronomer (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All I will say is that I would also like admins to take into consideration the above comment when assessing the measures needed. Dahn (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Indef blocked for racism. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass wants to be unblocked

Indefinitely blocked User:Fclass is asking to be unblocked. Since he had earlier broken his promise to me, that he would not make personal attacks and I can see no hint of a shift in his thinking, I'm asking for a review here. Perhaps another editor would like to speak with him about this and see where he's at. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

His attitude of "What do you want from me?" as opposed to "I'm willing to do anything asked of me, willing to follow any restriction imposed on me. I want to contribute to this project, and think I can in a civil and calm manner" leads me to lean towards another 30 days, at least. 30 days can't hurt him, and definitely doesn't hurt the project. You were right Gwen to not unblock him. Beam 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He was community banned so any unblock would need to be discussed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with an unblock at the moment, given this comment and this. Fclass should know what is expected and what is wanted, and we shouldn't have to feed the user policies and guidelines whenever a situation arises. 30 days for another review, per Beam, is what I am suggesting. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. His language in the request shows that he'll likely just continue where he left off if unblocked. Wizardman 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Eh. not sure. On the one hand there doesn't seem to be much promise of reform here. On the other hand, Fclass did seem to be a somewhat productive editor and how contrite he is might not be so relevant as long as he does actually not include any further personal attacks. JoshuaZ (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• 30 days seems a reasonable time frame. Oppose unblock for now, and review later as per above. Rudget (logs) 11:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimancer (talk · contribs)

Wikimancer and I are in a dispute about possible violation of WP:BLP on Samantha Ronson, so I posted an RfC: Talk:Samantha Ronson#Are statements about Lindsay Lohan a violation of WP:BLP?. Rather than confining his comments to the WP:BLP issue, Wikimancer has decided to use the RfC as a vehicle to make false accusations about me in his edit here. I have tried to explain to him on his talk page that comments on the RfC should be restricted to the issues rather than making personal attacks on the editor who posted the RfC, but his only response has been to argue with me. I don't think I should revert his irrelevant (and personalized) comments about me on the RfC, but I hope someone will discuss with him what is and is not appropriate content for an RfC. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing anything there that is a personal attack, he's rather dryly reporting the differences that you've both had over the content and sharing his concerns that you may be misinterpreting the policies. While it would have been nice if he could have made his points without mentioning another contributor, there's no requirement that he do so, as long as he remains civil. Instead of worrying about his comments, try responding to his points by detailing your concerns about the sources, for example, he says that the blog in question is written by LA Times writers and has editorial oversight - that's something you may want to respond to, if you feel the blog does not meet the standards of reliable sources. In the meantime, let the RfC do its work - having some fresh viewpoints on the issue from uninvolved editors may help you sort out your concerns about the content. Shell ^babelfish 06:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the suggestions. Ward3001 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) is at it again

He's editing as Bestrace (talk · contribs)...just see the edit histories. --Ave Caesar (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a sock of banned user DavidYork71. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by Mattinbgn.[6] Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And User:Coontrack, already blocked by me but someone else has tagged it as a davidYork71 sock. 09:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Might need to run another checkuser, we flushed three out in addition to these ones in the past two days. Orderinchaos 10:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He's now editing again as JudischeEndlosuch (talk · contribs)--Ave Caesar (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - added. Orderinchaos 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Something is seriously wrong with Mobile, Alabama

I go to the page and I see an evil zodiac box blur it. I have no idea what is going on -- it wasn't there before I edited the page, and it was there after, but I didn't add it. Someone the Person (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism, already fixed. Algebraist 14:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How come I couldn't see the edits? Someone the Person (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the vandalism was to a transcluded template. I don't know which one. Algebraist 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Because the article didn't get edited. One of the templates used on the article was edited; those edits don't show up on the articles in which they are used. Horologium (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, {{web cite}} was vandalized by user:24.120.228.12. Protection and block please. Algebraist 14:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That was sneaky; he vandalized a redirect. I have fully protected the redirect, and blocked the IP for a month. There is no contribution history from that IP prior to today, so it's not like we're losing a valuable editor as collateral damage. Horologium (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidaway civility sanction: actionrequired

Stale

 – Last edit was 18 July; marked stale. --slakr^\ talk / 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[7] is a new edit. Maybe move back to unresolved? ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tony_Sidaway.

Ban proposal of Tasc0

Resolved

 – User indefblocked by Angusmclellan following overwhelming agreement. No administrator is willing to unblock and thus the user is considered banned. --B (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I would like to propose a community ban of Tasc0 (talk · contribs). He repeatedly makes flagrant personal attacks. He was indefinitely blocked in February for this horrific threat. Fred Bauder, after talking with him, was willing to give him a second chance. Anetode (talk · contribs) blocked him for incivility on June 10, but after Tasc0 promised to stop making derogatory comments, Anetode unblocked him. Following this edit summary, Anetode reinstated the block and Tasc0 replied with yet another personal attack. His threat to Ronnotel is about the most horrific I had ever seen on Wikipedia and he probably should have been banned indefinitely after that. I think he has sufficiently demonstrated no willingness to change and it is now time to reinstate the indefinite block and consider him to be community banned. --B (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - It was very generous of Anetode to allow this person a second chance after the horrific derogatory marks he made initially, and it appears he has not learned. JBsupreme (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why was this person ever, ever unblocked after that first comment? Wow. Endorse ban Tony Fox (arf!) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I would like to know what he said to Fred Bauder. And what he has said to get himself unblocked other times. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's my recollection of events. Initially, Ronnotel had protected Tasc0's talk page. I unprotected it to facilitate communication. At the time, I knew Tasc0 to be a good faith user and thought (although I now believe I was in error) that this comment was way out of character for him. I encouraged him to apologize for his threat and said that if he would do so, it would open the door to reconsidering the indefinite block at some point in the very distant future (something well over a month). Tasc0 was only interested in lawyering over the block (saying that Ronnotel shouldn't have blocked him) and not at all interested in apologizing. He demonstrated to me no recognition that he alone was responsible for his conduct and the consequences. You can see his talk page at that point in time here. I had decided that there wasn't anything to pursue since he was more interested in going after Ronnotel than he was in apologizing. Where I left it off was informing him that he obviously wasn't getting it - neither I nor anyone else was interested in arguing over who should block him. He made a horrible threat and that was the only issue. I left off by informing him of his avenue for appeal to the arbitration committee. A few days later, Fred Bauder reduced the block to a month, so I assume he contacted the arbs directly. --B (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. I see he's now blocked for 3 months -- that should be extended to indefinite. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Wikipedia does not need users with that bad of an attitude. —Travis^talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse indefinite ban. Looking at his talk page history and block log, he's been given too many chances to improve his behavior, none of which he's taken us up on. His conduct before, during, and after each block is atrocious, and whatever he said to get his indefinite block reduced, I highly doubt it's going to work again. We don't need editors who can't work with others politely. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that there are other ways we can deal with these kinds of personal attacks. Instead of banning, you first give a warning and then when the personal attacks continue you simply tag the user page and the talk page of the user with a text that says that this user cannot control himself and may engage in personal attacks and give the links to all the personal attacks. The user page must then be protected, of course.

What matters is that editors on wikipedia know what to expect. Just like in real life, a child needs to learn that not all creatures are the same: people are different from dogs and cats and they in turn are different from lions, crockodiles and snakes. That doesn't mean that we cannot engage with these animals or that we have to kill them all. It just means that you need to be prepared.

For the tagged users, it means that they will have to live with the nameing and shaming. The only way for them to get rehabilitated is by showing that they can abstain from personal attacks for a long period. Count Iblis (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you reminded me of this template, which was created for another user. I agree that that is sometimes the best course of action, but in the case of personal attacks, no, the user has to be stopped - especially with severe threats that not only cross the line, but blow it to smithereens like the diff you cited. Personal attacks aren't limited only to the user namespace, and this user has had more than enough chances to stop. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Ronnotel (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

3 Months is more than enough for saying "stalking ass." Yes that analrape retarded kids bit was very incivil and jerkish, but if he wasn't indef banned for that, you can't go back and punish him for it now. 3 months is ok, 6 months is good, any more than that is punitive imho. Beam 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a ban for saying "stalking ass". It's a ban for the cumulative conduct of this user. Think about Marcus Vick. Prior to his dismissal from Tech, he stomped on the leg of an opposing player. The school had decided to suspend him for two games and Frank Beamer was on his way to deliver that message. Then, it came out, because some people on a UVA message board with nothing better to do were searching police reports, that he had gotten a speeding ticket while driving with a license that had been suspended on a technicality. The school decided instead to simply dismiss him from the football team. So was Marcus Vick dismissed from Virginia Tech for a speeding ticket? No. He was dismissed for the his cumulative conduct over his time there - the speeding ticket was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Similarly, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. We have given this user repeated "second chances" and with this comment, he continues to demonstrate a lack of awareness that the consequences of his actions are HIS OWN FAULT, not the fault of the admin that blocks him. There just isn't much to work with here. --B (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• It seems this user is already blocked, has there been any attempt to stop his bad behavior before or after the block? –BuickCenturyDriver 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read my summary above. He was blocked in February for a terrible threat to Ronnotel's family - something worse than I have ever seen on Wikipedia. He was unblocked to give him a second chance after that. Last month, he was blocked for 2 months by Anetode following additional incivility, but Anetode unblocked him after Tasc0 agreed to reform. Once Tasc0 continued making rude comments, Anetode blocked him again for three months and Tasc0 responded with name calling. There have been a gracious plenty attempts to reform his bad behavior and there are more than enough straws to break this poor camel's back. --B (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban That first comment should have ensured a permanent, irrevocable ban. It's unspeakable. Horologium (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hindsight is always 20/20. I had had a brief exchange with him a few weeks beforehand when I protected an article following a request on AN3 [8]. His conduct was fine, even though my own left something to be desired. (I had handled a bunch of AN3 requests that day and had him confused with someone else, leading to a misunderstanding that was entirely my fault.) I still had his talk page on my watchlist when he was blocked a few weeks later and was stunned by his comment - the incivility was out of whack with my previous interaction with him. At the time, we didn't have six months of additional evidence to go on. --B (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. Editors should not have to tolerate that type of crap here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Judging from what actual productive editors get blocked for, why bother bending over backwards again for this editor? Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Tasc0 seems to have a mindset which will mean that there is the likelihood that they will again make highly inappropriate comments, which means another block and consequent discussion. On the basis that there seems no other way to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, banning is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse otherwise it'll only get worse. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban We cannot tolerate personal attacks and harassment. The block should be extended to indefinite. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - I see some ethos reactions to a very uncivil comment above; but what does it for me is the wikilawyering to refuse to even apologize, and continuing to do so. I have been at this website for a while, and I guarantee this user will not ever abide by community policies. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban Oh lord! Enough is enough. For God's sake why do we even wait this long??? This person never should have been unblocked after hoping that "retarded kids get anally raped". Whoever unblocked after that has to do some more thinking before unblocking. Chillum 06:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse ban My least favorite administrative responsibility on Wikipedia is having to block established contributors. I respect that people have different tolerances for conduct and politesse and I hate resorting to blocks for behavioral modification. It never works. Tasc0's attitude is clearly summarized on his userpage: "I'm like a Christmas tree, I just stand there and let my balls hang." I don't think he cares and I don't see the point in putting any further effort in policing an editor who has shown no sense of personal responsibility or maturity. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By my reading of the discussion, Tasc0 is subject to a community ban. I have changed the block to indefinite and advised the editor of this, and also that appeals should be made only to the arbitration committee. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The Committee will generally not overturn community bans - an appeal may be made to the community at any time, however. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Please block a Davkal sock

The IP belongs to a hosting company, so it is almost assuredly being used as an anonymizing proxy. IP contributions give the impression that the only intent is to harass a user and disrupt the wiki. Fairly open and shut: IP is anon-blocked for three months. Vassyana (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Could someone please block User talk:64.86.17.112 - a Davkal sock who keeps wikistalking me? I filed a WP:SSP notice, but the usual people who handle Davkal problems are not around to do this. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You should probably post this at WP:SSP or request a checkuser first. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

I did. I need some immediate intervention. SSP takes too long and the harassment is happening right now. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I apologise. I've been having a great deal of trouble viewing Wikipedia recently (still trying to figure out why), and I thought we were at the help desk, and didn't see the first half of your comments until after I submitted my response. Cheers, and thanks for understanding! —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

See also subsection below, which I'm moving here since it's the same topic. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

possible wikistalking by User talk:64.86.17.112

I was asked to intervene on behalf of User:ScienceApologist. An anon editor using IP User talk:64.86.17.112 has been giving him difficulty. He has been warned before to stop harassing SA. Today, this editor appears to have left more snide comments in response to discussion that SA is involved in.

I am fully aware that SA is to many a controversial editor, and I will not be an apologist for anything that he has done wrong. However, I think an admin should look into this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that this troublemaker has been duly banished. After all, pointing out that new amendments to the core policies that govern the edits of every single wiki user are meaningless is not the kind of behavior that should be tolerated. Far better to block such users so that the meaningless amendments are allowed to stand unchecked. By doing this the following excellent precedent can also be set: users who have shown themselves quite unable to abide by core policies should feel free to treat those core policies as their plaything and doctor them in any way they see fit if they think it might help them win an argument or two on articles they are struggling with.

Just to let any administrator who is interested know: the policy in question is the "tone" section of NPOV. The main changes involve removing all uses of the word "fair", and turning the majority of the section into a brief restatement of the UNDUE WEIGHT section which precedes it. So, again for anyone who is interested, you now have a section of core policy that consists of a non sequitur, followed by a jumbled mess of a sentence, followed by a paragraph that has nothing to do with the section it forms the majority of. And all of this written for the sole purpose (see talk) of strengthening the hand of an editor who contributes nothing but mayhem to the wiki. Hey ho. 207.210.78.194 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So now Davkal has jumped to this new account. Please block that open proxy too. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is now a new account User:Codstreuth that is up to similar behavior. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done: Indef'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 15:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request AfD closure

Can someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Davis for Freedom campaign? I can't myself as I've expressed an opinion in the debate. It's quite long, so be warned, it takes some reading. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done NonvocalScream (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

This article is currently fully protected and, according to its talk page header, subject to ArbCom's probation. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding adding some information to the article related to its IMED listing. An RfC was started on July 17 and, as I understand it, is still open. However, about 11 hours ago, an admin who had no previous participation in the talk page discussion, User:DragonflySixtyseven, made a sequence of 4 edits to the article[9][10][11][12].The substance of these edits was to add the disputed info and exactly in a way against which most of the talk page discussion participants had objected (except for User:Bstone). The edits were explained by DS in the edit summary for the first of the 4 edits[13] thus:"okay, I've had some extensive conversations over IRC with BStone and JzG, and I *think* this is satisfactory to both parties". Very quickly several editors objected to these changes and the fact that they were made based on off-wiki discussions with only some of the participants. DS explained that he was trying to help and to be expedicious; it also became clear that DS apparently had not been aware that considerably more than 2 editors had been involved in the dispute. To his credit, DS also then posted a portion of the IRC exchange (the one with Bstone, but not with JzG), at User talk:Shell Kinney#Mar Diop. However, even when it was made clear to him that several users had objections to his changes and that these changes did not reflect have consensus of the dispute participants, DS refused to revert the changes he made. At User talk:Shell Kinney he stated that: "I decline to be the one to revert. However, I would have no problem with someone else doing". And then later, at the same talk page:"D) I'm not touching this mess again, not even to revert." [14]. Now, I appreciate the fact that DS was trying to help, but he went about doing it the wrong way and the current end result is unacceptable. The current version manifestly does not reflect (in fact, in my opinion goes against) the consensus at the talk page of the article. Since the article is fully protected, I cannot revert DS's edits myself and some of the other previously involved admins, such as Shell Kinney, do not want to be the ones to revert either. I therefore request that a previously uninvolved admin take a look at the matter and revert DS's edits, until some real and demonstrable consensus on the changes is achieved at the article's talk page. Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not unhappy about this, apart from one sentence which is still hotly disputed so (mea culpa) I removed it for continued discussion on Talk - the fact that it is licensed in Senegal is a preferred edit of the banned users and sockpuppets who inhabit the article, but is of extremely dubious relevance to a school which is located in England and is explicitly not licensed in England, to the point that the GMC changed its policy and expelled one doctor. I know stone is really keen to be fair to the place, which is fine, but until we have a reliable independent source which makes the claim the St. Chris puppeteers make then we really ought not to be making it ourselves. IMED is a perfectly acceptable reference for the locatioon of its licensing but as far as I can see "the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate" is WP:OR since the IMED listing does not actually say that, I have checked most carefully and the words legal and charter are simply not in that reference. WP:NPOV and fairness is good, the article looks a bit nicer now D67 has tweaked it, and there is debate on Talk. Thanks to Nsk92 for the concern, I greatly appreciate more eyes on this long-standing troublespot. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The legal charter thing was exactly what I found objectionable. I am perfectly happy with your last edit and I think the current immediate situation should be considered resolved, where the discussion can now resume at the article's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Yasis is (still) using IPs to evade his block.

User:Yasis is using yet another IP, this time Special:Contributions/218.186.67.37, to evade a block and stalk, revert or gainsay my recent edits. Previous examples of his behavior are to be found here:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours)

This all seems to have started when his addition of sources and external links was called into question. Tiring of inserting propaganda, conspiracy theory, and links to people's homepages (coupled with a block for 3rr). He is now just following me around the encyclopedia, randomly reverting my edits and chiming in to gainsay my talk page and AfD comments. I have no desire to tangle with this user and would really appreciate his input if he is willing to contribute constructively but he has to do so. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 20

Could an admin take a look, thanks. Chafford (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are ones that have been nominated today and haven't went through the 5 day period to discuss them. There's no backlog there. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 14 and others, however...) Wizardman 16:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Portal:Current events/2008 July 18

I've gotten into an edit war on this page with an anonymous user who has continuously removed a story I added about human rights abuses taking place at the largest county jail in the United States, the Cook County Jail. The anonymous user argues that the story is not internationally noteworthy. I disagree but I've run up against the three revert rule. A third opinion would help.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't especially an admin matter. If you want a third opinion use the Wikipedia:Third opinion process. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected bot

Wikisebseb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created massive amounts of articles in a very very short period of time. Thought I should bring it up. Dengero (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't think its on a script. The articles are very short and you or I could post many of them in a short space of time. Rudget (logs) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Worse than that, they're basically just copy/paste of each other. All unsourced. We have zillions of these unsourced sub-stub non-content town articles - esp. from France. But no one is willing to delete them (except me) so you're going to see bot-like creations like this. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any incidences where some of these towns don't exist? Rudget (logs) 11:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's...quite hard to tell. The symbols don't even come up when i copy+paste them onto google. And may I ask what EXACTLY ar the chances a user will search that name with all those symbols?Dengero (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The few I have checked with Google (no problems copy-pasting for me) all look legitimate. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello ! Hum, i'm new on wikipédia, and french so i apologie for all the faults i'll do (and i did) :) Indeed i don't use a bot (really dont know how to make a bot...) but I have developed a technique to quickly create articles that are similar, with a copy / paste and some tabs on firefox. But even like that it's boring to do so if somebody knows how to make a bot for this job I'm completely in ! Bye

wikisebseb (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The user is actually performing a useful function by starting articles on the communes of Romania. Communes are notable; villages usually not. As long as he sticks to communes (and isn't a bot, which doesn't seem to be the case), let's not interfere. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus seems to be that all real official locations are notable, so villages would be kept if sent to AfD- something I personally support. However, in response to Rudget, off hand, I can think of two AfDs I was involved in discussing villages that turned out not to exist- one in Romania, one in the Netherlands. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck am I supposed to do?

I have an editor clearly edit warring against consensus and in violation of WP policies (i.e., removing sourced data and inserting original research). If I try to bring it up on the ANI boards, I'm told it's an edit war, and an RFC/U would be useless, ArbCom would ignore. So what the fuck am I supposed to do? Or is this website completely useless; is it pointless to even try? The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Who, what, and where? I'll see if I can help you. Prodego ^talk 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rividian states it below. Unfortunately, I have now reacted badly enough that I've lost any sort of high ground on the issue. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution is not instantaneous. Relax. Beam 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not instantaneous? This has been going on for an entire year! The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And you haven't started mediation or a formal dispute resolution process in all of that time? Beam 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as I said above, there was an RFC on the page. I was too frustrated to participate, but there was consensus that what I am saying is correct. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this refers to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vexorg_in_continual_removal_of_sourced_data. --Rividian (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats on BLP Fr. John Corapi‎

Can an admin please look into the legal threats made against Wiki by Josepheaglefeather (talk · contribs)? The article is Fr. John Corapi, and sample posts are: Wikipedia should be held accountable for assisting this group in attempting to destroy a good man's reputation with lies and deceit and This will also be reported to the Missouri Attorney General's office. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Account indef blocked. I interpret those as legal threats, and therefore invoked the blocking provision of WP:NLT. —Kurykh 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Block or no block, you should really take a look at the "controversy" section of that article, and the sources used therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Evolution was hit by a repeat of vandalism substituting Genesis for the article.[15] On the basis that this appeared to be another sock, I blocked the vandal, and finding the action repeated made the error of blocking an editor who had repeated the vandalism, evidently while meaning to undo it.[16] I've undone the block, but it still seems to be causing problems;[17] please assist. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have been sorted. The vandal U mene is apparently a sock puppet of Tile join. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalization.

I was looking through some of the sports cars on wiki and came across vandalization on the Koenigsegg CCR page and the SSC Aero page that I reverted. It was a template breaking vandalization that did not appear on edit, but was able to be removed on undo. Overlaid text sported a swastika and claimed "Page vandalized by Hitler." However, despite being fixed by undos, it seems that the previous entries were valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phirephly (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to Template:Convert/N.m, which has since been protected. I don't think the undos had any effect (except maybe to clear the page cache), they just happened to coincide with the vandalized template itself being reverted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald

Hello,

I am having an issue with the Ronald McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. There has been an ongoing editing cold war with this article over who created the stupid clown. I have been keeping it neutral but my current problem is on the talk page. There has been POV pushing using sock puppets to establish a consensus for one side or creating general disruption of the page. These socks have editing histories that only deal with this page and only last a couple of days. I do not know how to go about resolving this and require assistance.

The users that I have questions about are:

• Mcdonaldsfreak82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mcmasterofwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Max33well44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Randyga7755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rm1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NM76UU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ihjmwt2petwbgwh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ufoundme2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.49.8.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These are regular users that have been involved in the waring that I suspect could be involved in the sock puppeting:

• hankzimer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• knimper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• plyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

How can I go about investigating this and stopping the warring once and for all? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, request a check user, would be my advice. Beam 00:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you do that? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkuser. Let me look at the page... seicer | talk | contribs 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did initiate a check user request here. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheepnacidadegrande - request for uninvolved admin block

Resolved

 – indef blocked. There's clueless, and there's this guy --Rodhullandemu 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheepnacidadegrande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears destined for an indefinite block but I wanted to bring here because I've already blocked him (her?) twice and thought someone might want to work with him. He has racked up fair use image violations since March 2008, for which I blocked him twice in June. He at least slowed down uploading images but also makes all sorts of unhelpful edits like:

1. Removing AFD tag.
2. Removing CSD tag.
3. Removing a lot of content.
4. Blanking a redirect.
5. Blanking a prodded page.
6. Blanking an established page
7. Re-creating an AFD'ed article.
8. Removing Persondata for no apparent reason.
9. Removing Persondata again for no apparent reason.

User needs an education, sure. Only he is 100% uncommunicative with zero edits to Talk, User talk, or Wikipedia namespaces and zero edit summaries that I can find. Good editors are getting quite tired of this and there is little change in disruptive behavior. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. 108 talk page comments, and 95% are article or image issues. seicer | talk | contribs 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This block is a wikidream coming true. Thanks! Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cayman Islands

Continuing deliberate efforts to misrepresent legal status of homosexuals in the Cayman Islands [18], [19], [20], [21], in conflict with information provided by cited sources [22], [23]. No attempts made by other parties to engage in discussion or provide refs for point of view. Administrative aid is requested, so as to avoid edit war. 99.11.4.201 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit warring there resulted in unclosed REF tags. I fixed the REF tags, but many of the references are to bare URLs, so they need proper citations. Added cleanup tag. The content dispute I leave to others. --John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be a need for a sock check there too, looks like JSjnDenver and 24.9.40.52 are the same, the two defend their preferred version in fairly close concert. ThuranX (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Derby Leagues : POV Revisions and Vandalism

Situation: There are two users in particular who are attempting to make edits of a POV-nature.

• Gcrg2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elektraviolette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They are moving the entry for "Green Country Roller Girls" FROM Broken Arrow TO Tulsa. The leagues own website states that their home rink is in Broken Arrow. I have spoken with the ONLY rink in Tulsa and they do not have a sponsored Derby League of any sort, but for $150 per practice, they would be willing. Besides editing their own entry, they are removing and vandalising the entry for T-Town Derby Girls. A former rival league. I have notified each user to avoid POV entries and stick to the facts, I copied some posts left me by a mod on my first few entries (which just so happened to be HIGHLY POV, my bad, I learned and don't do that anymore) and there were additional changes made to the page anyways afterwards.

Randomblink (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously sanctioned revert-warrior going at it again

Sanction applied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Revert-warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taiwan&action=history

Have fun. --slashem (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note this. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --slashem (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to edit and difficulty in resolving the problem

I've been asked to help someone who suspects that his home computer's IP was blocked, not for any editing or dispute he was involved in, but perhaps by accident, or through the blocking of a range of IP addresses.

He no longer remembers his password and has been unable to get to his home page to request an unblock.

I told him I'd see if I could find an admin that would provide some guidance. What should he do first and is there any information that you, as an admin, need from him to help? Please contact me on my user page. Thanks --Steve (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you know his username, you may be able to do a send new password request on his behalf by going to the login page while not logged in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog

1. After all what we have been through here here.
2. Papa November (talk · contribs) and admin states on the disputed article's talk page: Major changes (addition/removal of sections) must be proposed here first as a courtesy to other editors. My enquiry into the changes leads to this suggestion: highlight which specific statements you consider to be POV by adding {{POV-statement}} tags. Which I do.
3. The Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs) comes along with one go REVERTS Papa November's insistance on keeping the article on the stable version without an entry into the talk page.
4. After I re-install the tags, and point him to the to PN's comments, the user again removes the tags. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract is stalking again

Abtract unblocked under agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Once again, Abtract (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is stalking and harassing Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) and myself. See the RfC/U for the full history (which expired with no action).

For the highlights, Abtract began his stalking campaign in mid-late May. In an AN/I on June 2nd he was warned to leave us alone, he ignored it. On June 2nd, another AN/I resulted in a 48 hour block. He came back and continued his stalking and harassment, stalking which he full admits to doing[24]. June 5th, another AN/I, he was blocked for a week. After that block, he took a two week wikibreak. He returned on the 12th[25], self closed his RFC/U on the 13th (though it had already been archived anyway)[26], and began his stalking again, reverting various random edits we've done to "disagree" with u.[27][28][29][30] as well as continuing his insults of other editors[31]. He's also continued to retain an attack piece against Sesshomaru in his userspace since May.[32]

He obviously is learning nothing from the blocks and intends to continue this inappropriate and disturbing behavior anytime he returns, thumbing his nose at the administrators who have blocked him, and the numerous editors who have attempted to talk to him (to which he always replies as if he is listening, then does what he wants anyway). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked

Please review. I would comment that I am imposing the block until such time as Abtract promises to moderate his interactions with (the edits of) certain accounts, and anyone who thinks sufficient clue has been applied may lift the block without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...would it also be possible, at this point, to delete the attack page? It was made May 4th giving the appearance it was prep for an RfC/U, but Abtract never touched it again and has just left it there for more than two months. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Following a discussion on a similar subject, I would be against unilaterally removing the content; Abtract needs warning from another (uninvolved) editor that it should be removed, giving the various WP policies. If they do not remove it after an appropriate period it can then be deleted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The now-archived request for comment may be of interest - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. There are enough unaddressed points on both sides of the dispute to cause concern. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a long block, but I'm certainly not comfortable with an indefinite block. Blocks escalate in duration, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month etc. We don't keep them blocked and make it a mandatory requirement for them to apologize or to accept responsibility or to make assurances. That's only needed for an unblock request. We still give them the opportunity to fix their conduct by themselves, without the wurble. I therefore think the appropriate definite period needs to be given prior to any formal unblock request being made by him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the block log? My experience of this editor is that they will say all the right things, agree to all the conditions, patiently wait out the blocks, and then continue doing whatever they please. However, if you think the block is inappropriate then by all means vary it - it is up for review after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think he's on his way to a community ban if he keeps it up, though given he's had 4 short blocks, doing an indefinite block already isn't going to necessarily help. I think giving him 1 long block of a month as a last chance might be better prior to going to indefinite stage. But as my suggestion is a month, when it's reset isn't urgent I suppose. I want to see some more views on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this would have been better if it had been an uninvolved admin doing the blocking. As Ncmvocalist has pointed out, normal procedure is a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community runs out of patience. If it wasn't this way, half the IP editors would be indef banned by now. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the previous 5 blocks including the last one for a week was a sequence of blocks leading to an indef when the community ran out of patience. Also, we try not to block IP editors indef at all. Chillum 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unwilling to learn from past experience; unable to take advice; deliberately wasting the time and disrupting the work of good editors; more than adequately warned... no argument with indefblock here. EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably nobody here is reading the RFC, which was as critical of Collectionion and Sessh as it was of Abtract, and clearly shows that it was Abtract who had done most to resolve these issues amicably. Likewise the diffs Collectionion presents above, which seem to be good edits by Abtract. Note in passing that redirecting a page on the day of its creation with an {{underconstruction}} tag placed on it by its creator is rather gauche,and the revision history of Dragon Ball Z shows that Sessh and Collectionion seem to be "stalking" and "harassing" each other... When can an editor not review contribs and make edits they deem good ones? When can Sessh do that? When can Collectionion do that? When can Abtract do that?

Agree that Abtract could simply make this go away by not interacting with these users, but he has repeatedly offered to do so if they do the same. Please read the RFC and see Collectonion's and Sessh's rejections of the mediations offered there by various users. The pig-headedness is decidedly not all on one side here. I am disappointed that an editor can simply forum-shop until they get the result they want. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to immediately remove the block on Abtract, for the reasons noted by 86.44.20.40. Abtract expressed agreement to several solutions proposed that would also apply similar strictures to Sesshomaru and Collectonian (who have also stalked and edit warred along with Abtract), but with no buy in. The histories of the articles linked in the complaint show that this is not a case of one editor harassing innocent victims. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make such an accusation, then please provide clear, valid evidence for the claim that I have stalked Abtract or anyone else. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The edit histories of the pages whose diffs you linked here and in the RFC will show the edit warring. I apologize for saying that you stalked Abtract. I have only seen Sesshomaru trailing his edits, and formed my statement too hastily. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is relative when he deliberately stalked my edits and reverted just to disagree with me (and the stalking is a fact, admitted to by Abstract himself). It directly violates the warnings given him in his last block. There is a difference and, note he also violated his own "I'll only revert them once" resulting in what should have been a very standard, commonplace unnotable album redirect into an AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is rationalizable, but not relative. I can rationalize it when I do it, you can rationalize it when you do it, Abtract when he does it, and Sesshomaru when he does it. Because all four of us have done it. That's why I made the proposals I made in the RFC, and I think it's unfortunate that you and Sesshomaru wouldn't agree to them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no need for me, you and Col to adhere to that. It should only apply for Abtract, who seemingly enjoys edit warring. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many reasons for all of us to adhere to that. Seeking to address the multi-sided problem with a single-sided solution was not as good as addressing it with a multi-sided solution. From your perspective, Abtract seems to enjoy edit warring, since he does it when clearly you are in the right. From his perspective, I hazard that you seem to enjoy edit warring, since you do it when clearly he is in the right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

J I suggest you compare mine and Abtract's talk page histories and notice who has the most warnings. That's all I'm saying. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes J, if you are going to make such allegations I would like to see evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, you keep saying "self-admitted" and such, when Abtract is clearly saying he is taking his lead from Sessh, as in Sessh here [33] You know this of course. It's all in the RFC. Remember the RFC? And how dispute resolution is supposed to work? I don't like how you keep going to venues, carefully revising your framing of your case each time, so that more accumulates, and less people click through. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And you do realize that we all know that you are Abtract, evading his block, right? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The other, less absurd option is that I am the same IP that stumbled upon the RFC and gave a reasonable and uninvolved view there. Please don't do that "we" business, speak for yourself. 86.44.20.40 (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I thought this was wrapped up, but if there's any doubt, I support the block. Abtract has promised on several occasions to stop crossing paths with these two editors, and appears incapable of living up to his promises. He appears now to be IP socking to protest the latest block. Support. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Abtract is still arguing that the block is biased - in that Sesshomaru and Collectonian remain unsanctioned - and too severe. I should be extremely grateful if another admin review the matter and address Abtracts concerns. I have responded on Abtracts talkpage regarding having the block reviewed, so commenting there - where Abtract can respond - would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looking at it as a third party now.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I’m not quite convinced by the complaint by the filing party here to begin with. [34] [35] [36] [37] did not warrant edit-warring, and did not constitute harassment. Differences should have been settled on the article talk pages with discussion rather than repeated edit-warring by both parties. If the first revert seemed unreasonable, it should've been discussed per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Was there consensus for the re-revert by the filing parties? If there was, it certainly was not cited. Being "stalked" is insufficient reasoning for re-reverting here - they were not unreasonable reverts. I think if a block was to be imposed, it would need to be on both parties for edit-warring, potentially a bit longer on Abtract because he did make a personal attack/assumption of bad faith here against an anon, but that’s a separate matter and would probably not warrant a block of this length. I'm beginning to think JHunterJ's view as a sysop to lift the block needs to be considered. If I've missed something (diffs of any other incidents or where he voluntarily proclaimed he will not touch edits by the filing party or where arbcom made it binding on him), please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a history between the parties, which I am aware of and referred to at the top of this section - there is no good faith between users Abtract, and Sesshomaru and Collectionan following claim and counter claim of stalking, revert warring, and unfriendly talkpage interaction. Previously, prior to the RfC, I took the part of trying to argue Abtract's case as he was in dispute with quite a few other editors but my view is that Abtract inserts himself into disputes between S (whose style of editing results in a fair few disputes), C and other partiess. In this matter of the Alexis Korner record article, the dispute was between a third party and C which Abtract quickly involved himself - thus the claim of stalking. To me, there was clear evidence of a bad faith action on the part of Abtract - even though the action itself appeared legitimate. I see much the same interactions in Abtract's relationships with Sesshomaru and Collectionan for some time, many instances of legitimate disputes but with an unusual degree of overlap. I do not feel that this is simply coincidence.
      • Nevertheless, there is sufficient doubt over the validity of the indef block that I feel it cannot stand. I am going to substitute it for a fortnight block. This should allow any persons with a concern that Abtract is involved in a campaign of harassment to develop a case, and to indicate to Abtract the communities determination that these concerns be addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay. I think that's best. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Block overturned

Abtract's block, which was earlier reduced to two weeks, has been overturned by User Talk:JHunterJ [38], under an agreement to stop stalking placed there by Ncmvocalist [39]. Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering JHunterJ's involvement, I strongly disagree with his overturning the block (which also goes against the wording of the very agreement Abtract says he will follow, making it null and void). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be based on Abtract agreeing to the same kind of editing restrictions he's agreed to before and ignored. I've been trying to talk to him on his talk page, and all he ever seems interested in is getting restrictions on Collectonian and Sesshomaru, while completely ignoring his own behavior that's led to him being blocked six times. Dayewalker (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. While neither Sesshomaru and Collectonian are obligated to agree to the agreement, they are obligated not to edit-war - it's much-more blatantly unacceptable and disruptive conduct. If they're edit-warring in the manner in which they did during this incident, blocks will not be out of the question, like so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what blocks are there for, but when an editor is blocked for the same thing for a sixth time and this block isn't even as long as the previous ones, I don't see it as being preventive. I hope this agreement changes things, but warnings haven't meant much in the past. Dayewalker (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there's at least an admin, as well as myself who'll be taking a look often enough; or we're certainly open to being contacted in the event of problems. Any necessary measures will be imposed. The issue has our attention now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The proposal is for your own good if you do not want to be blocked"? "The issue has attention now"? No offense Ncm, but you seem to be having delusions of adminhood here. You're threatening the victim, and offering her the same reassurance that didn't work the last few times, and didn't even result in much of a block. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. I'm not at all surprised if yourself, C or S are still unhappy, when you have that attitude in approaching a dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist has basically decided that because I refuse to accept the agreement as written, I shouldn't bother asking for help dealing with Abtract. To quote "there's no point complaining in the future - there'll be little to no help" and he has advocated that I be blocked for edit warring in the future if I basically don't agree to allow Abtract free reign to be disruptive on articles I edit and to not revert any vandalistic and harassing action he takes.[40][41]. As he is not an administrator, I'm curious as to whether his seeming threats of "you will agree to what I say or you'll be punished for being stalked" will actually be enforced by an administrator. Has Wikipedia really become a place where the people who are stalked get blocked, while the one harassing them is alloewd to do whatever he wants? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is unacceptable (with the exception of BLP concerns), and continuing to do so will lead to blocks, period. You refuse to take responsibility for your actions, or assume good faith. In fact, you've stated that you're intent on assuming bad faith - if you expect the system to work in your favour with a tendentious argument like that, then yes, if you make a complaint like above, there will be little to no help. There is inconclusive evidence to support your claims. If he's vandalizing or edit-warring an article, he'll be blocked likewise. You or any other user has no authority to impose an agreement that resembles a restraining order - that's not the way we work here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're lecturing the person who was edit warred against and stalked on the evils of edit warring. Collectonian, as well as anyone else who's followed Abtract's history of stalking or read his talk page, has no reason to treat this situation with good faith. We're bending over backwards to let someone who's been blocked six different times by six different admins come back without even serving a reasonable sixth block, and not even bothering to ask the people most familiar with his conduct if they think he has the slightest chance of keeping his word this time.

Honestly, I'm afraid at some point, this will result in Abtract reverting to form and taking someone else down with him by pure frustration. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. An editor's misconduct does not legitimize another's, when it is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia. We have a rule; Bold, Revert, Discuss. If all users cannot follow this rule and choose to go with Bold, Revert, Revert, etc. then they're all under scrutiny.

Btw, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)You've made the same statement at User talk:Collectonian, and I responded there [42]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You can make yourself plain, but you're just covering yourself. All editors are always under scrutiny, that's not what I was talking about. You've taken the up defense of a six-time blocked editor and are saying the two editors he's harassed are under the same amount of scrutiny he's under. An editor blocked six times in a year for stalking and edit warring should logically be under more scrutiny than others, wouldn't you say?

As for the diffs, his promises are on his talk page as everyone who's followed his history can tell you. I'll have to go back to his previous blocks later to find specific ones. Since you got defensive and didn't provide diffs of the edit warring you've accused Sess and Coll of (which should have been just a few days ago, and much easier to find), I'm going to go out on a limb and assume your characterization of them both as edit warring and deserving of blocks was just a gross overstatement. Dayewalker (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Collectonian

No doubt, he is under more scrutiny for the reasons you've stated, and now because he's under an editing restriction.

That doesn't change the fact that this was a personally motivated bad-faith revert. No efforts to discuss the initial revert by Abtract were made. Abtract did revert again here making his conduct fall into question. Contrastingly, Abtract reverted Sesshomaru's revert, and then Sesshomaru again reverted Abtract's revert. This is not helpful conduct at all. This is compounded by the unwillingness to agree to not to revert at all, any of each other's reverts - under this scheme, if Abtract reverts, he'll be blocked - if C or S revert Abtract, then C or S will be blocked respectively, while if it's vandalism, someone else will revert it. So this problematic edit-warring has put all 3 editors under scrutiny; (it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Abtract is under more scrutiny, apparently except to Collectonian and possibly Sesshomaru and yourself who think otherwise) but this does not change the fact that S and C need to take care in their editing in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also C's (and possibly S's) unwillingness to agree to only one term pertaining to them (not to revert A's edits), in stark contrast to A agreeing to the multiple terms including not to revert S and C's edits, is very convincing that edit-warring is an issue here. It's not about a 'defense' or 'prosecution' or 'attack', it's just how this is to someone else looking at it. The agreement isn't unreasonable, given it does not preclude any other agreements or remedies in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained very plainly on my talk page why I refuse to agree to that "one item" but for those playing along I'll repeat it here: I appreciate you attempting to help, but in truth you are not an admin, and can't do anything to enforce the agreement. Abtract has violated such agreements before, and he will break this one, then claim it wasn't official or find some other excuse. I also will never agree to such terms that still gives him fair game to harass and stalk us on other articles (reverting isn't all he does, and his favorite target among articles I work on are the Meerkat Manor articles, which isn't anime nor manga. The only way I'd make any agreement at all is if his 2 week block remains in place until its done and he is banned from interacting with us at all, including not touching any article nor the talk page of articles that either of us is an editor on. I can just seem him using the loopholes to do things like tag articles for issues, attempt to get GAs or FAs we've done delisted, etc. There are lots of ways to harass us without having to revert when he's left with the options. Basically, it would have to be a virtual restraining order before I'd even consider it, and it must be backed up by an admin who isn't Abtract's defender. One willing to keep an eye on him or agree to be the one to report to if he violates.

As long as he can continue to harass in ANY way, you're damn right I'm not going to agree not to revert it when he does. All your agreement does is deal with part of the issue, the reverting and the user talk page. It doesn't stop him from harassing on the talk pages and injecting himself into discussion we are a part of for the pure purposes of disagreeing with us, following our contribs and leaving notes on OTHER people's talk pages against us (such as people we've left warnings for our people we're in a disagreement with), and not making harassing edits (such as reverting a very valid redirect of an unnotable music album containing only a tracklist to its artist, as prescribed in WP:MUSIC, or falsely filling a featured article's lead with {{fact}} tags then feigning ignorance over why it was reverted, etc etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty extreme to prevent an editor from touching ANY article you or the other have touched in any way. Beam 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Have someone stalk you for two months and see if you'd want other wise. The only time he has ever touched any article I've worked on is purely to be harassing and a direct result of his self-admitted stalking. I think that's the saddest part of this all, he has fully admitted to doing it, and its still "our fault" for not letting him wreck articles because he gets off on harassing people. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're overreacting. And I don't get stalked, I do the stalking!!! I stalk like 15 people. But not maliciously, it's friendly stalking. ;) Beam 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really...he stalks, he reverts and edits to deliberately harass, and it seems like he gets away with it and his victims are instead the ones being told they will be blocked for not bending over and take it. Indeed, his actions have now pretty much been sanctioned by his block being lifted early by a non-neutral admin, and believe me he will use it as an excuse when he starts up again. Gotta love Wiki sometimes *sigh*-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed. This is not a complaints department. Restrictions are preventive, not punitive, and the block has been lifted under the agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well your restriction isn't preventing anything, nor is your closing a discussion in which you are personally involved and when one of the people, Sess, hasn't even had a chance to say a damn thing because he isn't online on weekends. There is also active discussion going on. How you think this is appropriate and why you, a total non-admin, is being allowed to make such actions is beyond me.. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I disagree with the closing of this discussion, especially by a non-admin who is heavily involved in the discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed this with both parties, and both sysops, during this ANI report only - I am uninvolved in the dispute, so I think I'm more than qualified to notice when this discussion has outlived its usefulness - no further admin action will be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've undid his closing and archived it myself now. There is no further action warranted. He was unblocked and made an agreement, I highly doubt any admin would reblock without further provocation. However, if he does break this agreement, bring it back here. Beam 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW We edited at the same exact time, with no edit conflict! THAT'S AWESOME! Beam 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that's freaky. It wasn't just a comment you made, you'd also rearchived the whole long discussion - and it showed straight after I hit save page without a problem too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, Beam, for somebody who isn't an admin (and I'm not one either), you sure make a lot of admin-sounding pronouncements. Corvus cornix_talk 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Slander of me on the talk page of hAl

Unresolved

User HAl hs engaged in slander of my good name on his talk page. It is my belief that he has used a ip to start the slander and then reply to himself. I have requested that he remove the slander and he has not. He replied to the request. User hAl regularly removes things from his talk page, leaving this slander in place is clearly a personal attack. I request it be removed and that hAl be warned about replacing the slander. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Slander" is a bit over the top for him simply agreeing with someone else that you may be a sock. And then you turned around here and accuse him of socking. That said, calling you a "git" is way out of line. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only person who pointed out that leaving the slander in place was not a good idea. I have requested it be removed. User hAl regularly deletes the contents of his talk page. The fact that he is leaving the section in place speaks for itself. Is it sop to allow people to discuss other people and bring unfounded accusations against them? AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick: slander is verbal, libel is written. Neither of which really apply here.

Second, considering someone a potential sock puppet is not assuming good faith, but it's not strictly against the rules either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that interpitation of the events is the fact that the account that started the section in question is a single edit account. This is not 2 editors discussing the possibility of someone being a sockpuppet. This is a case of someone posting lies about another editor. It is not a discussion of why they think I am someone else.

Are you saying that any editor can state unfounded accusations about another editor? That they can write whatever they want to, and there is nothing that can be done? AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing the exact same thing you accuse HAl of doing, by assuming the IP is him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In my first post that may the the case, but I posted it on the administrators notice board. This is the correct place to discuss if someone is doing something against the rules. Even if the ip is not him, the section in question is not a discussion of the possibility of another editor being a sockpuppet. That would require proof of some sort. Like pointing out single edit accounts quoting rules. If you think that one instance excuses another , then please remove both. I would like for another admin to post on this subject please. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to Wikiquette alerts for help in dealing with this situation. One important fact that has come to light there is that the person who I am listed as being a sockpuppet of has not edited Wikipedia in 2 months. As I said above, the libel is not a discussion of a sockpuppet case. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg in continual removal of sourced data

Resolved

 – Vexorg blocked for 3RR by EdJohnston. No further admin action necessary. EyeSerene^talk 14:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely hate bringing up what may be a content dispute to the administrators' attention, so this is probably the 2nd or 3rd time I've ever done it (in multiple thousands of edits). But here I must. User:Vexorg, despite an RFC where he was universally told he was wrong (see Talk:Christianity_by_country/Archive_1#Eurobarometer_RfC and the rest of the talk page), continues to assert that CIA Factbook is not a reliable source for data, and to insert his own data into Christianity by country from a source which doesn't even mention Christianity. I don't know where else to go at this point; I'm not sure anyone else would sign an RFC/U anyway, so I'm bringing this to administrator attention. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a great thing about having consensus. He makes an edit against it, you revert him. He reverts you, another editor who agrees with consensus reverts him. He reverts that editor, a 3rd editor reverts him following consensus. He reverts that 3rd editor... you goto the 3RR noticeboard and the editor is blocked. See how easy that is? That's what is so great about consensus, it's not solely one person's problem. Beam 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted the WP:3RR and edit warring rules can apply to editors that are collaborating as well. --neon white talk 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaborating with consensus? Beam 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam this is a serious issue that we've been dealing with for months. It is not resolved; I wish nonadmins would quit marking my posts resolved when thye're not. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on Vexorg's talk suggesting some ideas on how to resolve the issue, but unless he's edit warring or being disruptive, there's not really anything administrator intervention will do. You might want to consider trying some informal mediation or something else in the dispute resolution process if you're still not able to work things out. Shell ^babelfish 06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you seem to think I'm joking. I'm not. This is a content dispute. When I got my first 3rr break (and only i believe) that's what was told to me by an admin or two that I respect. I pass that advice to you. Beam 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Vexorg here. I would like it to be officially noted of the offensive remarks made by The Evil Spartan where he accuses me .... "despite how much you've decided you hate America" in Talk:Christianity_by_country. This not only contravening Assume good faith., is very offensive and I don't expect this from supposedly mature Wikipedia editors.

Now the figures in question from the CIA factbook have no source. For example it says for Norway that 90% of the population are Christians. this is clearly way of mark and there is no source for the figure. No link to or reference to a census or poll. Nothing.

I am certainly NOT being disruptive, I am trying to improve the article.Vexorg (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a further note, that The Evil Spartan seems to be starting an edit war. He has now reverted my edits twice. Could an administrator intervene here please. thanks Vexorg (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems The Evil Spartan is continuing the personal attacks towards me at Talk:Christianity_by_country#CIA_is_NOT_a_reliable_source In response to my noting of his previous comments being a personal attack against me , he remarks Coming from a stated atheist who dislikes organized religion, I believe this would be a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black --- In view of these continued attacks I am not going to communicate with this editor anymore. I am not here to be the subject of personal attacks. I am here to improve wikipedia articles. Vexorg (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Black Waves as suspected sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Rollosmokes

Resolved

 – Indefblocked as admitted sock/meatpuppet. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit pattern is the same as recently indef-blocked user; entire history under this new ID consists of reinstating edits related to US TV stations WVUE and WNAC which were made before Rollosmokes was indef-blocked for ongoing revert wars on US digital TV broadcasters such as The CW. Here we go again, I think this is the seventh WP:ANI incident for this user, although I've lost count ages ago. Block log is:

• 03:31, 18 July 2008 Ohnoitsjamie (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: "The CW" --> "CW" again after a block)
• 08:01, 15 July 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Per email discussion and third party representations)
• 12:53, 10 July 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: Editor appears unconcerned with the collaborative & consensual aspect of contributing)
• 22:18, 28 December 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: and violation of WP:3RR on Queens)
• 21:28, 9 March 2007 Sandstein (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (editwarring on Metromedia again)
• 15:32, 27 February 2007 Firsfron (Talk | contribs) blocked "Rollosmokes (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (edit warring, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metromedia&action=history) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Waves (talk · contribs) has made only three edits so far, and none of them has been reverted. Not clear yet if there are any bad edits. I have posted at User talk:66.102.80.212 asking the submitter of this report for more data. So far I don't see enough information for a sockpuppet case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'd watch this closely. Black Waves found the {{fact}} tag awfully quickly. It's Rollosmokes. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm continually amazed by the number of Wiki0editors who find it so fun, or so terribly important, that they must keep editing against allt he rules after a banning. The psychological implications of such deep rooted need to be right... amazing. Rollo's not the only one, there are a couple other such reports up here now, and there are a few every day, it seems.ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not Rollosmokes -- I'm his cousin! Which of course explains why our interests and agenda are identical, and why we are using the same IP address." Oh dear, oh dear. You're right, ThuranX, disturbing to the extreme. --Jaysweet (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cousins! Identical cousins! They walk alike, they talk alike..." ThuranX (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. I indefblocked the admitted meatpuppet and will revert all edits. Keep eyes open for more. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:CrashTestSmartie's recent categorization efforts

I find User:CrashTestSmartie's recent categorization efforts somewhat disturbing, and cannot see how they advance Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia was WP:NOT meant to be a vehicle for this sort of activity. Please can other admins take a look at this? -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just been WP:BOLD and reverted / deleted the lot. This looks suspiciously like trolling to me. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support your action, Anome. the category was not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. I've left a note on the user's talk page. Best, Gwernol 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert...but something seems seriously wrong with today's AFD page

Would somebody take a look? I can't see anything in the last few edits so I'm assuming the problem is on one of the transcluded pages. Thanks = ) --Cameron* 12:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by [43]. Somebody accidentally transcluded the wrong page by writing | instead of / PrimeHunter (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Contest

I was cleaning up after a spam-vandal, Cheapb2b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and came to this page that he created which I'm assuming is a copy of WP:CBB. So far his is the only edit to the page yet when I look at the associated "what links here" page, I see a gazillion links. I'm reluctant to delete this page since I don't understand the possible implications.

Can someone explain this? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Those links seem to all come from {{WPAVIATION Navigation}}, which includes redlinks to talkpages. Nothing to worry about that I can see. Algebraist 12:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was a redlink on that template and he decided to try and create it. Presumably the WikiProject hasn't gotten around to making the contest page yet. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The project page has been created but the talk page had not been prior to this. I'll go ahead and delete -- thanks for the help. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I got Project: and Project_talk: mixed up! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Play party

I removed unreferenced, challenged content from the article Play party. I have been asking for references for months and and prior to that an unreferenced tag had been up for years. Within minutes the unreferenced content was re-added with the explanation "References could be months, years, like all other articles". Well it already has been years... so he's basically arguing that content can never be removed due to lack of accuracy/references. This runs flatly against WP:V which puts the burden on people restoring content to find sources. I don't want to edit war over this... but surely after years and no references, we can't sanely keep in this content which I have looked for sources for repeatedly and found none. --Rividian (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• About time. Well done that Rividian. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to ever help? Am I the only person bothered by the fact that we're providing indefinite hosting to a how-to guide just because there's a {{fact}} tag slapped onto the end of the paragraph? Is it really impossible to remove unencyclopedic content so long as someone will edit war to keep it in? This is very frustrating. --Rividian (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a few other users have stepped in now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't plan on edit warring. I object to someone coming into an article that is in progress and removing anything uncited that they disagree with. The common policy is for editors to ask for citations on material they are concerned by, and give time for citations to be found. Usually information that is well known or likely to be true is left alone. I understand the need for good citations. I ask for citations from people on many articles. When an editor, such as is the case with Rividian, walks in and removed information that is well known to be true only because there is no citation yet, I have to object. It does not improve the article, it disrupts the process of gathering good information on the topic, and is generally disruptive within wikipedia. We probably have hundreds of thousands of articles with true, encyclopedic content that do not have citations yet.

Additionally some topics are not popular topics for sociologic research, and although the facts are well known by people within a subculture or community, journal papers, magazine articles and books are sparse. Such is the case with this particular topic, play party.

Although I understand the well meaning intentions of editor Revidian, and indeed, hope that some editor will seek out good citations for the material they put in the article, as an third party observer, I think that removing material that is obviously true is not beneficial to the article. Atom (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been given years to find sources... to say that's not enough time is just absurd. --Rividian (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not originate the article, sorry. From the time you added a fact tag (April 2008) on some of the material until now has only been a few months. I noticed and responded, in July of 2008, this month. It looks like a variety of other editors objected to your approach in the interim, including Simonxag, Prosfilaes , and Mdwh. So, although it does sometimes take years for an article to become well cited, you have hardly given years in this particular case. Atom (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The unreferenced tag had been on the article for 2 years when I got started... still, even 3 months is more than a reasonable amount of time to provide. My "approach" is just applying what a core policy, WP:V says... honestly, if people object so strongly to what is supposed to be one of our founding policies, this might not be such a good project for them. --Rividian (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mcanmoocanu

Mcanmoocanu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Yesterday, we decided to ban Tasc0 (talk · contribs). Late last night, Mcanmoocanu left this incivil message on Tasc0's talk page, which he (Mcanmoocanu) immediately reverted. He also left this message on his own talk page. Believing that this account had possibly been compromised by Tasc0 (the comment on his own talk page seemed to be talking to himself) I indefinitely blocked the account pending a checkuser. The checkuser has come back unrelated so I want to bring it here for a determination from the community about what to do. Looking at his user talk contributions, he and Tasc0 seemed to trade incivil barbs on a pretty regular basis. I have no particular opinion about whether to leave this user indefinitely blocked, unblock immediately with a stern warning, or reduce the block to a finite time. Obviously, he did immediately revert his own comment to Tasc0, but it is so extreme that it's hard to uncork the bottle. So I'm open to suggestions here. Thanks. --B (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the negative checkuser, except for the messages in question he's done nothing blockable, and seems to have made a number of minor but useful edits. The language in those messages though is such that a short block seems appropriate, such as time served. DGG (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm inclined to offer him the same deal Tasc0 previously got - agree to not make personal attacks and understand that further personal attacks will result in an extended block ... and if he agrees, any admin can unblock him. --B (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, time served for the appalling comment... plus 3 hours for the spelling mistakes? Nevermind, it is 4 hours past the last comment so I will unblock if it hasn't already happened. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Unblocked just over three hours after B's comments by User:Sandstein. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain what the heck happened to this page??

Audi A8 Enok^talk 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow you can't see it anymore with the most recent edit, but it was this stuff about someone calling themselves "the Zodiac" having an administrator's password and threatening to "post their logo on the main page". I don't know why it's not showing up in the History. Enok^talk 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We have had a rash of IP spammers changing templates that include this Zodiac stuff. It wasn't changing the text of the Audi page, but a transcluded template, which has likely been reverted back, but that's why you can't see it in the article history. If you see such types of problems, report them here but we're pretty quick on reverting such changes. --MASEM 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism was at {{Infobox Automobile generation}}. Spencer^T♦C 15:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any reason all templates shouldn't be semi-protected by default? I think that anyone, including me when I started, should not be touching templates. --mboverload@ 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You want WP:VPR#Proposal: Semiprotect the entire Template: namespace. Algebraist 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lynch1000s

Lynch1000s (talk · contribs) is systematically going through articles and changing bold text to bold and italics, and sometimes incorrectly so that random apostrophes show around words. As the convention seems to be that the first instance of the article's title is bolded, this seems to be against convention. The user has already been blocked for vandalism in the past. Is there an admin tool for reverting everything this editor did today? NJGW (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one of those clever contrib history jokes?

• 20:13, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Malignant narcissism‎ (you can't psychollogically penetrate other people) (top) [rollback]
• 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) The Devil's Advocate (film)‎ (→Plot summary) (top) [rollback]
• 20:11, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) People‎ (top) [rollback]
• 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Other‎ (top) [rollback]
• 20:10, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Penetration‎ (top) [rollback]
• 20:09, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Psychology
• 20:08, 21 July 2008 (hist) (diff) You

Avruch ^T 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through his contribs before coming back here and noticing Avruch's post...I was about to say, individually, his edits aren't uniformly bad...Someguy1221 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of these edits are incorrect and unconstructive. User is likely up to no good. --- RockMFR 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Note I also put a notice on the "usernames for administrator attention" NB because this person's name is "lynch thousands", but as soon as they got blocked for the unconstructive edits, a bot removed the name from that list. Can somebody here look into this? NJGW (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New editor and copyright problems

Keith Jeffords, MD (talk · contribs) created two articles last night; Norman Mackenzie (Conductor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the latter was originally a redirect to Atlanta Symphony Orchestra) The text of the two articles was copied from http://www.atlantasymphony.org/abouttheaso/meetthemusicians/conductors/normanmackenzie.aspx and http://www.asochorus.org/ with a few minor changes. So I removed the copied material, welcomed him on his talk page and pointed him towards our policies on copyright and NPOV (as the text is just the choir's own promotional material in any event). But he doesn't seem to have taken the hint, and several reverts and unanswered messages on his talk page later he's still reinstating the copied material, claiming in his edit summaries that it is not copyrighted. His claim is rather undermined by the fact that the page in question says "© 2008 Atlanta Symphony Orchestra". But I'm up to three reverts, so I'm done for the moment. Could someone uninvolved please review the situation? Thanks Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does 3RR cover a situation like this where User:Keith Jeffords, MD is clearly acting outside policy and guidance? In any event, I reverted his most recent change to Norman Mackenzie (Conductor). – ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. You're good to go. I sincerely hope none of our admins is clueless enough to block someone for removing a copyright violation. See this section which specifically mentions this case. Antandrus (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise 3RR doesn't apply to blatant copyright infringements, of course, but I didn't want to keep reverting ad nauseam without some sort of reality check anyway. I was also hoping that someone less close to the end of his patience than me might be able to offer some constructive advice to the editor as well - so thanks for doing that Antandrus. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The events surrounding my block discussed above

With regard to this, my own opinion is that the discussion centred a little more than I would have liked on the justification or otherwise of my block, even though that was a question I asked. That said, there seemed to be a reasonable level of agreement with some of my more general concerns. My own thoughts on the discussion:

1. Dunc is concerned that I was "synthesising at least two points from the show together to present a point not really present in the narrative". Would I have to stick to the original narrative in the source? Why is creating a new narrative from a source while sticking to the original context and intent wrong? If it is then wikipeida can create no unique narrative and is simply intended to be a quote farm. That is news to me.
2. ThuranX appears to me to be saying that I haven't done much wrong in this case, but that I should get probation for it. I don't quite understand this.
3. I agree with much of what Angus said, subject to 2.
4. I am yet to see an adequate explanation from Dunc or anyone esle for the contention that I was guilty of synthesis.
5. Dunc @ 21:58. I reverted because I was sure about what the source said (I added them to the article while watching the documentary in May), but needed to wait for the time reference. And I was right. The cites were valid, and their attempts to say they weren't were clearly disingenuous, perhaps malicious.
6. The dispute on Young Unionists Dunc has unearthed. Yes I probably didn't handle that properly. But one must consider that that dispute was with an editor who has subsequently been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. revealing my identity and harassing me.

It seems to me that the best way forward from this situation is that BigDunc and Domer be treated as one user for the purposes of 3RR, either that or they be limited to 1R each, but the former seems to me to treat the specific problem highlighted. Many thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Chillum 00:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

How are you confused? I said you'd done wrong, but were provoked, and while you shouldn't be blocked, you should be warned and put on notice. That's confusing? Really? ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. What do you think of the rest?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to point 1 above is contained in WP:SYN. Orderinchaos 22:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tagging by TheWatcherREME

User:TheWatcherREME appears to be impersonating an admin (by blocking user pages/accounts in an apparent attempt at a new form of edit warring, tagging user pages with sockpuppet tags, etc., for all users which with he disagrees.) The block log shows the editors are not really blocked, unlike for actual blocks. The edits by this user look suspicious. TheWatcherREME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Yaf (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he incorrectly applied the {{indefblocked}} and ((sockpuppet|blocked)) templates to User:Nukes4Tots and User_talk:Nukes4Tots. Refactored the section heading accordingly. Avruch ^T 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat bizarrely, he's also created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots and added himself to it. --Rodhullandemu 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He also appears to have tagged his own userpage with the same templates ([44]) and populated a "suspected sockpuppets of Nukes4Tots" category, although there doesn't appear to be a checkuser in his history to back up the claim. Avruch ^T 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And also to: User talk:195.18.164.66‎, User talk:24.224.153.255, User talk:24.229.253.142,User:Jedediah42, and User:Variablebinary. Looks like more activity that is impersonating an admin to me. ‎Yaf (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All the accounts edit primarily gun-related articles - perhaps he's tagging the accounts and IP addresses that belong to him? Doesn't explain the talkpage edits by Nukes4Tots to WatcherREME's page, though. Avruch ^T 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

??Well, I'm not sure why my single edit on his talk page means anything. He copied an article directly to the text in his new article. That's copyvio, plain and simple, and I tagged his talk page and the article as should be done. As I said earlier (below) this is the standard MO for JetWaveDave if you look at his edit history. He's trying to trash me like he did to Parsecboy. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he just has a personality disorder. Beam 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet account for Jetwave Dave. Yes, there is some sort of mental disorder going on. He creates wildly obscure articles through CopyVio and then personally attack those who try to enforce standards on his articles, links, and pictures. Same MO if you look at Jetwave Dave's history. Needs a perm block just like his previous persona, User:WatcherREME.--Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I just noticed a ton of seemingly random IP's replacing articles with this diff [45] So far the following IP's have made similar edits:

• 76.252.168.122
• 83.233.183.104
• 79.185.244.114
• 96.232.181.247
• 209.216.179.12
• 69.205.185.242 NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus User:Poohea and some others apparently. Probably some 4chan gangup or something similar. Suva Чего? 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I didn't open that diff at work. Looks to be sort of the same vandalism that's been hitting some of the templates recently. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pedophile pirates aren't allowed at work? Beam 21:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's usually something frowned upon...Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this too.... I've never seen vandalism like this before. -- RyRy (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A functionality could be implemented to disable IP edits involving large numbers of <br>s. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Harris Coalition

Resolved

 – Article deleted

Hmmmm. Someone w experience & tact might want to glance at this page. Does the organization really exist? Is is wiki notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC) That bot is fast. Blocked me as I tried to go back and sign.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this is not the best place for questions on articles' notability, I agree with you that this is either a hoax or a very non-notable organization. As such, you might want to AfD it. If you need help with that, just let me know on my talk page. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Although AfD'd, this ought to be G3 Speedied. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

It's me again bringing up User:RRaunak again! This user User:ElementR did the EXACT same things as RRaunak again. Look at the contribs, the signatures. They both match... I am feeling that a checkuser might be needed. I should bring up the WP:SOCKrule as a meatpuppet. Is there any possible administrative action? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can submit an WP:RFCU. I recommend starting there; if a match is made, the researching admin can, and probably will, block as needed. ThuranX (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good you traced my signature.but i did not steal it.I took it by asking.see User_talk:tinucherian.User_talk:rraunakI also grabbed it by asking about the church in medak.But how am i related..
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I.E Same edits, same mistakes, lots of edits and copyedits on userpage/talk page design mostly copied from others users. --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!^Talk 06:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that their the same users. What cream brought up, same userspages, signatures, ect. -- RyRy (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, close usernames also. RRaunak has "R" on the front, and ElementR has an "R" at the end. -- RyRy (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My name is Rahul.and not rraunak understand ? I copied bits (not all) from his userpage.but see cream.he has also taken the border from rraunak
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain the same edits to your user pages? Both of you edit your user page quite often, not to mention the same related topics. -- RyRy (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it myself for a better design but u RyRy is a designer i see !
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 06:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the sock allegations but there's nothing wrong with stealing code for userpage design or signatures. Lots of people do it. In fact, I was just looking at another admin's userpage and it had a note saying he had stolen the code from someone else who stole it from someone else again. This is Wikipedia, you don't own anything. Sarah 11:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that you have a sock here, open a suspected sock case or as ThuranX said, file a request for checkuser. There's really nothing admin's can do here. Shell ^babelfish 07:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok now tell me can i keep up my present userpage and signature or modify it ?
[+]►▪ Σ╙ΣMEΩ╦ Я ▪ (♪ ╥a|k ¿ ) ▪ 07:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can keep it if you want to. Sarah 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• It would be better off filing an RFCU, but, ahem, I'v never done one before... I suppose this is a good day to start. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell! I came here to check on the RRaunak thread and also to report on ElementR. Well its seems I dont have to. Isnt it so obvious that ElementR is a sock of RaunakRoy. Enven Infraud was probably a sock of Raunakroy. ElementR clearly fails the ducktest. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you all are doing here. So what if it is an alternate account? Let's assume that the two accounts belong to one person, what's he doing wrong? Someone might want to post diffs showing what the problem is because so far the only complaint I'm seeing is that they copied some code for their userpage and signature and that they make lots of edits. Neither account is blocked or banned and I'm just not seeing the problem or the reason for an ANI report. If you want to post some diffs showing that they've violated WP:SOCK by using an alternate account then I am willing to look into it but at this stage this looks like another waste of time. Sarah 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RRaunak made some rather disruptive edits and repeated them even after multiple warnings. Thjis time he is denying that ElementR is his sock. I don't think it is a good idea to wait until he repeats his disruptive patterns. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone needs to present some evidence showing that he is doing something blockable under policy, otherwise this may as well just be archived because no one is going to block him on the basis of what has been said here so far. Sarah 05:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I need a bureaucrat to email me

Resolved

 – no admin attention required

I have a matter that I need a bureaucrat to resolve, that involves personal information. Could a bureaucrat please email me? Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC) (Note: I'm aware of WP:BN)

Better off at WP:BN, IMO. Enigma ^message 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, if it involves personal information an email is probably better. Nwwaew, you could just email any bureaucrat of your choice rather than waiting for a 'crat to happen along. Sarah 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On this day...

Can someone please tell me where I can edit the entries in this list, because I want to pull one of the stories out to make them line up with the Did You Know entries on the other side of the front page. Or can someone do it for me please? Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 22 Moondyne 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I figured it out, what I really needed was some advice on whether I should pull a story from that section, as that would leave the section with only three stories and I'm not sure if that would be considered an insufficient number. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review invited: mrg3105

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

---

Resolved

 – Block endorsed, additional editing restriction enacted per consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Review invited of my four-day block of User:mrg3105. This editor is already subject to the Digwuren restriction and has already been blocked twice under it. The grounds for the current block are serial incivility and personal attacks which include but are not limited to the following diffs: [46] [47] [48] [49] The question is whether four days is an appropriate tariff.

On a further note, this user has a long history of disruption as he is unable to recognise consensus and has little notion of when enough is enough. As part of a spin-off campaign arising out of the article renaming he has sought sanctions against Raul654 ([50], [51] [52]) and tried to unseat Nick Dowling as a Milhist coordinator ([53]). Perhaps the time has now come to consider either a lengthy block, or mentoring, or a community ban.

As mrg3105 is currently blocked, he is unable to respond to this, though he has been notified. (I don't know the usual procedure for transcluding this so he can respond and can't find an example to follow.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the block, the editor has some serious behavioural issues and hasn't been able to be resolved prior to this, and they seem to be causing quite a bit of disruption, hopefully this block will give them some time to reflect. On the topic of straw polls, I see their objection, though Wikipedia doesn't explicitly prohibit them, it does caution their use, but I've used them before, and I think it's use is more than likely appropriate on the article talk page that you linked to. Steve Crossin (contact) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am actually pretty concerned that you are citing complaints about individuals acting in "official roles" as a reason to block anyone within the project. mrg3105 is making his complaints based on Raul's and Nick's actions within their "official" roles within Wikipedia; in each complaint, he has been soundly rebuffed by other Wikipedians, and that should be the end of the story. Would we block every editor who complained about a person in such a role? I think those points are outside of the scope of the Digwuren decision. Of the remainder, I see borderline comments that are pretty mild compared to a lot of typical discourse on EE article talk pages. I also see no discussion on the talk page of the editor, no attempt to de-escalate the situation on the talk page of the article, and the fact that you, Roger, are the lead co-ordinator in the WP:MILHIST wikiproject, and the dispute centers on a disagreement about how that wikiproject is addressing naming conventions (more generally) for large scale battles. Instead of blocking yourself, perhaps it would have been better to bring this to WP:AE for discussion amongst uninvolved admins and others. Risker (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Despite my huge respect for Roger, I think if a block is to be imposed, it should be no longer in duration than that already imposed, and Certainly not up to a ban yet but mentoring isn't out of the question, but I do share some of Risker's concerns here. I think the block might have a chilling effect due to this user's history of having perceived problems with users in certain positions, such as the one Roger is in. This does not mean Roger is involved directly; just that more care can be taken in who imposes the block (if necessary) here. Straw polls are acceptable, but are never to be used or cited as 'consensus' for any edit as it would be incorrect, and invalid. Per what I'd suggested on the RfArbitration talk page, I think the blocked user thinks that straw poll is going to be used in that manner. I also think that this is outside of the scope of the Diguwaren decision to quite an extent, leaving question marks over the duration of the block. But I wouldn't encourage the block to be modified in any way. It enables discussion with the user itself, if anyone is willing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion. I thought I had put enough clear blue water between the two issues, but apparently I didn't. The block specifically deals with incivility (calling User:Buckshot06 the "epitome of a yes man"; accusing Biruitorul of "extreme bias" etc; and is covered in the first paragraph.

The stuff regarding Raul and Nick is part of a bigger pattern, for which I invited comments and possible remedies, in the second paragraph, as I am well aware of the ambivalence of my position there. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. The only thing that might be suitable to address the problem is probation (supervised editing) or a civility restriction for this user. Mentorship is the alternative. It's still too early to consider a ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've had a long chat with mrg3105 tonight and don't think a ban is needed. I'm not mentoring him and not officially speaking on his behalf, but I'd like to relay the general impression that he's reacting in ways that are usually consistent with ban not needed. Durova^Charge! 10:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree about an all-out ban but think the editing restriction proposed below would be an excellent way of bringing out the best in him while making him think twice about florid behaviour. Do you agree with this? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I also endorse this block, but would certainly oppose a ban. This is a user who, in my experience, generally contributes very good content to military-history related topics, but can easily get upset and extremely stubborn when he doesn't get his way, often with respect to some minor editorial issues such as naming practices. He then has an unfortunate tendency of climbing glass domes dressed in not-so-flattering skintight unitards. The solution in such cases is just to make him let go of that particular conflict ? that can be done with short blocks if absolutely necessary, but longterm bans would be counterproductive. Fut.Perf. ? 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would like a solution that encourages him to contribute positively while putting a brake in the negative stuff. Do you think the editing restriction proposed below will do this? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• As Roger notes, this has been a long-ongoing problem. Mrg's attack on Raul654, Buckshot and myself and his other disruptive edits over this particular article is but the latest incident in a very long pattern of disruptive behaviour. For the last few months Mrg has been blatantly ignoring consensus and any guidelines he disagrees in repeated attempts impose his views on article names and content. In particular, he has been seeking to impose Soviet military names on battles involving the USSR in World War II and Soviet military concepts in these and other battles. This has lead to dozens of arguments over article names between Mrg on one side and literally dozens of editors on the other. When challenged he routinely resorts to abusive comments. The following some examples of the kind of disruptive behaviour Mrg frequently engages in. It is important to stress that these four examples are by no means isolated, but are simply some incidents I'm familar with. Several other examples and the the way Mrg typically responds to warnings are available from reviewing User talk:Mrg3105.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War_II task force/Category restructuring - Mrg arbitarily, and radically, changed the category structure for World War II articles against numerous editors' opposition (which he dismissed as not being significant: [54])
• [55] - Mrg re-wrote the introduction to the Battle of Kursk article so that it declared the near-universal English-language name for this battle incorrect as it isn't the name used by Russians.
• Talk:Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)#Another attempt at a new introduction - another example of an attempt to dispute a well known name of an article. This sparked a complaint by the editor who's user space Mrg was using and was rejected, but Mrg dropped the most contentious point into the article anyway several weeks later [56]
• On the most recent dispute over the name of the 'Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation' article Mrg, instead of trying to engage in the discussion on the talk page, removed the straw poll [57], lodged a complaint here at WP:AN/I after I reverted this [58] was told that dispute resolution is needed [59] but declared this to be unessessary as he is correct about the article's name and everyone else is wrong [60]. Following this rebuff Mrg posted the complaints against Raul654 and I which Rodger linked to above. Despite the clear opposition to the use of the term 'strategic offensive operation' on the Manchurian article's talk page, Mrg went ahead and renamed the Vistula-Oder Offensive the 'Vistula-Oder Strategic Offensive Operation' a couple of days ago [61].

• In light of this consistant pattern of disruptive behaviour and rejection of consensus decisions, I believe that a editing restriction is now necessary. Mrg has been warned about his behaviour multiple times, and been blocked twice, but has not ceased his disruptive behaviour or moderated his approach in any noticeable way - I would argue that it is actually getting worse. Mrg is a long-established editor who has made thousands of edits and is aware of guidelines and policies, so there is simply no excuse for his behaviour. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's just four days and he doesn't request unblock there is no need for him to do anything, but if his poor editing continues then the case needs to be taken to Arbcom. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, ArbCom is not going to accept it so prematurely. Let's try something as a community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I posted notices on the Administrators Noticeboard and in the Bureaucrats Noticeboard to the other pages used to complain and to this page so no one gets confused or lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just posted a notice about this on the Milhist talk page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing Restriction

I propose he be subject to probation (supervised editing) for 6 months. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages for up to 1 month. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. After 2 bans on the same page or set of pages, the duration of the ban on that page or set of pages may be increased to 1 year. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering Mrg's past, but also his ability to be very productive, I think this is a good move. It gives boundries. Narson (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support; I think this is a good compromise. He also needs to be made very aware that the line between being an asset and a detriment to Wikipedia is one that editors - particularly those with stubborn, argumentative natures - can easily cross without realising it... EyeSerene^talk 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, a last chance with an editing restriction. Seems reasonable to me. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I apologise if commenting here is not allowed following the close of discussion, but I also support this proposal. Interested readers should refer to [62] for comments following Mrg3105´s earlier block. Buckshot06(prof) 06:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:JimBobUSA

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold: [63] [64]
• Japanese war crimes: [65]

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[69]]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached Wikiquette in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why its being discussed here again. Moondyne 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Moondyne.

You made mention of the “numerous warnings given” and then referred to my talk page. I would like to point out that all of those warnings are from the same person, Grant65 (starter of this complaint).

I would also like to point out, that the material I removed, and was warned for numerous times by Grant65 is still vacant from the article. Reason being is that novels (fiction) and books that do not contain reference to the article at all make for poor references. Yes, you read that correctly. The frivolous warnings were for removing false references. Hence, that is why I titled them “frivolous warnings” on my user talk page.

This is also noteworthy on the opening of this complaint, where Grant65 states: “This user has been warned before…”. What Grant65 fails to mention, is that he is the one who has done all of the warnings. Dubious in anyone’s book.

In closing, the creditable/reliable reference given for the Japanese war crimes article (the reason for this complaint) notes this about the source being used, the Seagraves novel (I will copy/paste my text from that talk page):

I would also like to point out, that the reference cited for the Looting sub-section makes note that the Seagraves (the sole source for the Looting sub-section) states that the Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate, are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese.

Chalmers Johnston’s book review (reference given) also points out that the book is full of errors and one of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity. Johnston goes on to point out that, the Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have taken the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book. Buy the book, and then buy the documentation afterwards? Jim (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make a brief exception to my rule about dealing directly with User:JimBobUSA to make three key points: (1) I believe that he is wrong about the CDs supporting Gold Warriors. My information is that they were never sold separately and were an "extra" with a limited number of copies of the book. (2) He misrepresents Johnson's view of the Seagraves, by citing the only passages of Johnson's very long article that are critical of the Seagraves. Johnson is not generally critical of Gold Warriors — far from it. (3) For the benefit of JimBobUSA and others who may be under similar misapprehensions, the main "incident" in question here is his attempt to delete citation of Johnson's article from Japanese war crimes, with edit summaries describing it as a "novel"(!) It plainly is not. Neither is the book it is reviewing. User:JimBobUSA either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (i) novels, (ii) scholarly books and (iii) book reviews. Grant | Talk 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, User:BalkanFever

For once more, impoliteness, incivility and difficult communications with User:BalkanFever, same language repeated twice here (..."learn the name of the country or gtfo") and here (..."and you definitely should gtfo"). The guy obviously has a serious behavioural problem, his has been reported many times before for similar behaviour, for example here, here and here, and has also been blocked several times. Will someone actually do something? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You aren't being reasonable with your dealings with BalkanFever. Perhaps you should try to work with others in disagreement. Beam 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I've notified him of this on his talk page, which you should have done. I did just see your notification on the talk page of the article in question, I'd prefer it on his talk page. But I guess that's just a fine point and not important.Beam 15:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the context of these comments at Talk:Macedonia_naming_dispute I see no action necessary and would warn you not to edit war or pov push. Beam 15:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, are you an admin? Or his lawyer perhaps?? Or just his good friend? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm his sworn enemy. Also, anyone else will probably make similar statements if they read that talk page. And Fut.Per is an admin, and I'm pretty sure he agrees with me. Beam 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that BalkanFever was blocked repeatedly for incivility or similar problems is wrong. He has only one block in his log (I should now, because I was the blocker), and it was for a revert-warring spree he succumbed to half a year ago when he was rather new. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, FPS you were the second blocker, see here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Only one block. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Prior to "BalkanFever" he was User:202.10.89.28. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there was something in his early IP days, and he was honest enough to include the IP talk page in his later archive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that, only he hasn't changed his overall behaviour. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I've had a couple of issues with the user as well. The most recent of those was this "probably cause you suck" to an annon and the response I got from BF I'm pretty sure he does suck. I don't have the time to get to the links right now, but I'd appreciate it if he didn't call Philipp Kirkorov gay and so on. It just looks like a habit of his to use such words, but it's not nice reading them, really. I don't think it's something worth a block, but a formal warning or something? --Laveol ^T 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it's because I myself am sometimes guilty of such statements (once at least), but I really don't think that "I'm pretty sure he does suck." is blockable. I haveto admit when I read that I chuckled. No, I'm not an uncivil jerk, but it suprised me. Plus BalkanFever is a good user. If ever does slip on civilitty, similar to me, it's only because he's fighting the good fight for NPOV, Consensus, and RS. The lightest of uncivil comments should not be put ahead of the Encyclopedia. Beam 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there won't be a third block even if those comments were uncivil. Beam 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I said it was not worth a block. --Laveol ^T 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

really? And why is that? Corvus cornix_talk 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were uncivil, which they weren't, blocks aren't punitive. You should try, and this may seem strange, speaking with the user whom you disagree with. Beam 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But you make it sound as if you have the final say in the matter. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BalkanFever occasionally over-eggs the pudding with some of his comments but usually he's quite rational and sensible. I wish I could say the same for some his adversaries in this thread. We don't need to lynch him on ANI for a few misplaced words, thank you very much. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me please make it clear that I am not taking any side in this discussion, my only concern is the authoritarianism and finality with which Beam makes his pronouncements. Corvus cornix_talk 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for concern. Beam 22:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good people, lets get back to the point: someone has to do something with BF's repeated comments of such "quality". The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for review of block/protection of User:Ebfilms

I would like to request some comment on my indefinite block of Ebfilms (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) and the subsequent month-long protection of his/her talk page based on WP:NPA. The initial block was for 48 hours, and this user has a block history. After abuse of the unblock template and further disruptive edits on the talk page, I indefinitely blocked until the user could show understanding of applicable Wikipedia policy. The personal attacks, directed at me, are obvious at the bottom of the talk page. I subsequently fully protected the page for a month. Tan ǀ 39 17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. Look for an ip or what not to try to recreate "his" articles. Seems the type to not let go. Beam 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the block and the talk page protection were more than called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. Editor's got some issues with working collaboratively, from the looks of it, and the personal attacks were uncalled for. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Looks fine to me as well. The username could've probably been blocked long before the incivility as a USERNAME vio as a blatant spam username. Combine that with the obvious SPA/COI intentions of the account, and the belligerence/attitude when Wikipedia actually follows through on its intentions to keep spam out, and what you have here is a perfectly legitimate (and welcome) indef block + protection. Nice work, on to the next! Bye bye, ebfilms, come back when you're notable. Better yet, let someone else write about you when you're notable. Keeper ǀ 76 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block per Keeper76 EyeSerene^talk 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Another vanity spammer bites the dust. Good riddance. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, spamming isn't the way to be FILLED with vanity on Wikipedia, you just have to get 25 FA. Beam 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block Tan. Synergy 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Good block per the reasons above. Yet another spammer, this should really have been caught at UAA though. Rudget (logs) 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious page vandalism

Resolved

 – Template vandalism now removed. Rudget (logs) 09:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if this is quite the right place to bring this up, but I noticed the page for the computer game Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War has been the target of serious vandalism which I don't think can be reverted without the help of an administrator. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheres the vandalism? As far as I can tell, June (30th?) was the last edit. Synergy 09:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no June 20th. In any event, if any article is subject to massive amounts of vandalism by multiples users/ips, it goes to WP:RPP. If not, report a user or ip to WP:AIV (this is because blocking one editor is preferred over protecting the article in question). Synergy 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Grawp transclusion vandalism, someone has reverted the template so it's gone now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No wonder I couldn't see it... Synergy 09:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI does not show on mly watchlist anymore

Since the flurry of protections, WP:ANI does not show on my watchlist anymore? Is it just me, or are others having the same problem? If it,s just me, what can be done?--Ramdrake (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the problem spontaneously went away the moment I posted something on the page. Blame it on gremlins. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably related to the recent protection. For some reason, when a page is protected, it vanishes from a watchlist until the next time an actual edit is made. --Elonka 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is. I reported this as a bug; it was closed as "not a bug". --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, now someone tell me why I nearly checked to see if I was suffering the same problem, even though I was alterted to this thread by my watchlist...Someguy1221 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the system counts protection changes as an edit, and since watchlists only count the most recent edit to page, you are only seeing the many protection changes? At least that's what's happening to me. L'Aqùatique[review] 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I observed the same phenomenon as originally reported. It's a quirk in the system. Similar to, though not maybe the same cause, as when you upload a photo and it doesn't show in your watch list until you edit it once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've been talking with another user for some time about articles disappearing from watchlists. 2/3 of Perth suburbs (which I'd meticulously watchlisted as soon as the "raw watchlist" feature became available) disappeared from mine and in his case, many Australian politicians disappeared. Orderinchaos 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

System shows protection changes by administrators (not the automated unprotection) in the revision history and when you upload a photo, its page is a redlink and its revision history doesn't exist. I'm not talking about the changes to the image itself, but to changes of the description text. These revision quirks are the reason why does this happen to watchlists. And, BTW, you will find the protected page if you look for an entry named "(Protection log)" on your watchlist. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day vandalism/harassment active again

Now that User:Allemandtando has been identified and blocked as a sock of User:Fredrick day, IP harassment or vandalism from characteristic Fredrick day IP has started up again. I just noticed that edits of mine to three different, totally unrelated articles were just reverted by Special:Contributions/88.105.58.91. Not sure anything can be done about it, he'll just pick up another router, but thought I'd report it anyway. No problem, I reverted one of these and other editors caught the others, quickly. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that, as Allemandtando, he did very positive work and found him easy to deal with. Why does he feel the need to be a socking dick the rest of the time? I just don't get it... :( --Jaysweet (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he killerofcruft? If so, then good riddance. The last thing we need is more WP:POINTy deletionists. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. He was Killerofcruft, first. Fredrick day, if you look back, was essentially an SPA devoted to article deletion. I'd say Fd was a bad hand account taking on this work, and he's claimed he has other accounts that he keeps clean. He may be telling the truth.

I have a theory. People who get heavily involved in cleanup, including vandalism and article deletion, can start to get a very cynical attitude about people. I think we got it wrong, early on. The encyclopedic project shouldn't be about inclusion/deletion, it should be about categorization, and what we currently delete falls into a number of different categories that we should be treating differently. I've discussed this elsewhere, but my opinion is that the status quo isn't sustainable. There are broad solutions that will need to be considered, but to look at it in a more narrow way, when an editor adds some non-notable, self-promoting, unverifiable text to an article, we don't scrub it from the database, we don't delete the revision so that only admins can read it. We just wiki-delete it, it's an ordinary editorial decision. There have been proposals for this, see WP:PWD, and it's the original wiki concept. It's also possible to have new spaces, where present deletion would be replaced by a normal editorial move to an appropriate space, such as "Non-Notable but of possible interest" (NN?) and "Junkyard." (A junkyard is a place where stuff that may not be currently usable is put for possibly recycling, spare parts, etc.) AfD is a horribly inefficient system, and it burns people out. I'm not proposing that nothing be deleted, for the obvious reasons. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to include such stuff on your own "junkpedia" wiki or something.:) I miss Crufty, I thought what he was doing with his editing and proposed changes to articles was excellent. I think he knew his life span would not be as long as other's. Sorry if you are getting hastle from IPs, Abd, and hope it gets sorted. While I like Crufty's work I don't know all the history and if it's him doing the harassment I of course don't condone it. It's not that deletionism makes people lose the plot, but if someone gets blocked, sometimes they blame someone for that block and lose it a bit. This has nothing to do with deletionism and can happen regardless of why someone got blocked. Sticky Parkin 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in starting a new project. I like this one. And I'm trying to keep it from crashing, and it will if the situation I've been pointing to isn't faced. Might take a couple of years, but damage is being done and accumulating. Yes, it's him. Nobody who knows the history is likely to doubt it. By the way, one way of implementing the solution I'm suggesting is indeed a separate wiki, with interwiki transfer made easier than it is. Essentially, I'm trying to set it up so that, in effect, deletionists get their encyclopedia, inclusionists get their encyclopedia, each benefits from the other, and users choose what they want to see. And it's efficient. Got a problem with that? --Abd (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Crufty/Fred has just posted here User_talk:Sticky_Parkin#ip_vandalism. He says the IP vandalism isn't him. Is he posting from the same IP range as them? Abd says Fred has a history of changing his IP, the IPs were said to be unrelated to Crufty/Fred in a checkuser. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Fredrick_day. Of course, we can't even prove the bloke posting to my page is Fred.:/ Sticky Parkin 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

on the general matter of people developing a bias for acting in a certain way, I find that after a longish while of new page patrol I tend to over-delete enough to get some complaints. I've seen the same same thing tend to happen with others there, and also at afds, in both directions,and in spam fighting. I usually advise people to diversify. As for a separate wiki, the easy way is to set up one that will screen out articles from an inclusive one. Veropedia is something of that idea. If anyone wants to set up a non-pop culture version, and can think of an algorithm, the rest is easy enough. The difficulty, of course, is the extent to which the Wikipedia brand is known, which will make whatever is called by our current name the major resource. DGG (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in e-mail correspondence with Fredrick day/Allemandto. He admits that those accounts are related, and also provided me with the identity of a long-inactive account that he doesn't want to reveal publicly for real life identity reasons (if the account starts up again I will block it, but I see no reason to expect that it will, and inactive is as good as blocked for our purposes). He denies that most of the I.P. activity attributed to him is him, and also denies having access to the range of I.P.s that Abd claims he has (I express no opinion about the veracity of these claims). He denies being an SPA dedicated to deletion, and, with all due respect to Abd (which is a fair bit), this seems to contradict his impression that that's what Fd was. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, SI. I'm glad you added the disclaimer about veracity, but I'd have assumed the same without it, you simply told us what he told you. As to SPA dedicated to deletion, the more important part would be "bad hand account." But I'm not pushing that claim at this point, it's unnecessary; however the activity analysis that SI pointed to would not tell us, for example, how many AfDs he filed or voted in. Perhaps I'll compile that, I have the data. I see in the analysis cited, nevertheless, an extremely high involvement with AN/I. And to prove "bad hand" would require ID of the master account. But Fd has acknowledged having other accounts, with a strong implication they were still active. None of these have been found. One was possibly ID'd, but checkuser was inconclusive. (Good hand account! And I dropped it because, by definition, that account was not doing damage. And if it was merely a coincidence, well, sad and tragic for a user to be harassed for mere IP range coincidence -- though this was specific IP, it was shared IP.) The old account he points to would probably not be that major good-hand account, it would be an account he abandoned, as he states; I'm skeptical he would reveal his real identity to SI, but it's not impossible. Given that he has lied over and over, and was continuing to lie or argue deceptively elsewhere as he communicated with SI, nothing he says can be trusted without verification. And as to his use of IP ranges, it is possible that some IDs on the SSP Talk page I've referenced are not him; however, the ones specifically given here were clearly him, and the IP range used yesterday was one such Range he has used before, and not in any uncertain way. To AGF, I'll presume that he forgot he's used that range, and didn't check my references to verify. The very first edit made by him when he was identified as the "Section 31" harassing IP editor, admitting it, before there had been any notice of it by anyone except me, was from the 88.105 range [70]. If this ID was an error, it's been mentioned many times, and he could have protested long ago. But for a long time he was "nyah, nyah, can't catch me" and didn't care about identification. Has he changed? I don't know. I just know that he lies and harasses and provokes and the rest. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As to the post to SP's Talk, that is Fd most common IP range, no reason at all to doubt that this was him. (Checkuser won't say, but I think it reasonably likely that this range was used for Allemandtando.) Sure, it could be someone else from his narrow range pretending to be him. How likely is that? Maybe it's me, maybe I flew to London, set up a Windows 2000 Server with his ISP, for remote access from the comfort of my office, and, heh, heh, can now do whatever I want and he'll get blamed for it. Until he complains to the ISP, and I'd presume he'd be savvy enough to do that if I were so insane as to do such a thing. As to what he says, though, remember that just a few days ago he was lying to all of you, and his modus operandi would suggest that he'd do anything to make it seem that those who notice him are idiots. There is a reason I consider it reasonably proven that the IP edits yesterday -- they weren't exactly vandalism, they were harassment -- were Fredrick day. The IP range is one that he has shown he can use, see Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, and, in particular, Special:Contributions/88.105.40.220 (explicitly Fd and shows what we are up against) and Special:Contributions/88.105.96.11, which is actually what he edited from when he acknowledged it was over for Fredrick day, and which also implies that Fd was merely one account of his.

Now, just looking at each of these edits, there wouldn't be any reason to think they were Fd, and, in fact, I didn't see it at first. I reverted one of them, thinking it was simply one more editor trying to impeach Robert C. Atkins, common. But then I happened to check the contributions for another IP which reverted in another article I watch, and, bingo! Three edits to articles I recently edited, nothing else. It's conclusive that this is an editor harassing me, and that is very, very characteristic of Fredrick day. Practically nobody else has done it. Now, another editor harassing me, from one of Fd's known access options? No that's it, million to one it isn't Fredrick day. Someday, somebody may decide to imitate Fd, and then Fd will get blamed for what they do. That's the breaks, that's what you get when you establish that you are capable of behaving as Fd behaved.

Now, deletionist editors, listen up! I'm not against you. You do valuable work, necessary work. But it is essential that major article and unsourced text deletion be done with serious respect and caution and helpful civility. I understand, it is very, very easy to become frustrated with all the POV pushers and the "fancruft" seems to breed in the dark, there is more in the morning than there was last night. But in your zeal to rid the encyclopedia of all this messy stuff, if you needlessly offend people, Wikipedia suffers. That must stop, and quickly. Delete someone's article and they call you every name in the book? Understand that the reaction is normal; with a minute's work, you destroyed -- he thinks -- his hours of work. Wouldn't you be pissed off? So cut him some slack, tell him how he can get a copy of his article you speedied, suggest other wikis, express regret for any inconvenience you caused, etc. You can still be firm about Wikipedia policy, but, please, when you interact with clueless fans, and the like, you represent Wikipedia, they will think you own the place. Don't trash our reputation! So when someone like Allemandtando shows up, blowing the bugle Charge! Kill cruft!, do not encourage him, and do not let it be inclusionist editors who are forced to restrain him. I'm an inclusionist, but I do not go after deletionists. Those are polarities, and wisdom is always, in comparison, a synthesis.

I was a prison chaplain, and I had some experience with prison gangs and how they function. Basic rule for functional gangs: do not allow your own members to abuse members of other gangs, it will cause a gang war. Instead, discipline them yourselves. A member of the Aryan Brotherhood knifed a white inmate saying he was "hanging out with the niggas." It was pure ignorance, not that other forms of racism aren't, but the knifed inmate was a Muslim. (Most Muslim inmates at San Quentin State Prison, where I was working, are Black, and some are Black Muslims, but maybe a percent or more are not.) The victim wouldn't tell the prison authorities who his assailant was. But it was known to the Muslims. And what did they do? Very simple. One of them worked in the offices, and could find out where the inmate would be sent. And a message would be passed to the Muslims at that institution. Would they attack this inmate? No, that would start a riot. They would have a chat with the Aryan Brotherhood leader there. "Take care of this guy so we don't have to." And that is, I'm sure, exactly what would happen, the assailant would be disciplined by his own people, probably knifed, because Lex talonis is easily understood and accepted as fair. Because there are so many inmates and so few staff, the prison population must, essentially, police itself, and it usually works. Like Wikipedia. But when it breaks down, then intervention is needed, and we get the stuff that makes news. (And don't believe everything you read about prison gangs, I don't trust some stuff in our article on the Aryan Brotherhood, even if it's "reliably sourced." Let me put it this way: the info in that article is based on a lurid newspaper report describing alleged behavior over thirty years ago as if it were current. My Muslim informant, supposedly an enemy, had a far more constructive view of the Aryan Brotherhood than did the newspaper writer). --Abd (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion to incidents requiring admin intervention. Debate over content in specific articles should be relegated to the Talk Pages of those articles. --Richard (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. By the way, was there any such "debate" here? I did mention Aryan Brotherhood but as an example relating to how article deletion and the like in general should proceed, with specific reference to editor behavior, which is generally the issue here. Sorry if it was too long. I recommend blinking and Page Down if vision is still unfocused.. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day (talk · contribs) has now requested an unblock at his talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he has, actually... Avruch ^T 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He did, I commented, pointing out that without some kind of agreement governing future behavior unblock would be problematic. He removed my comment and his unblock request, noting that if I was going to continue to follow him, it was useless. I reverted his deletions, trying, actually, to persuade him to continue the confession he had started and to negotiate that agreement, but he deleted it all again. He's apparently unable to tolerate observation of his behavior and criticism, and that's fatal to the possibility of his return, I'd say. Too bad.... It seems that he acknowledges that he was the IP harasser that started this report, but it's hard for me to say for sure if he is seriously admitting it or being facetious. Definitely, he admits, through the whole thing, that he was Allemandtando and that his problem was that he behaved like an asshole. But I don't think he really gets the depth of the problem and the damage his behavior caused. Good work, yes, but at very high human cost.--Abd (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodgechris

User:Dodgechris was indefinitely blocked yesterday for using multiple sockpuppet accounts abusively (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dodgechris). He's now actively editing again using his sister's account PAWSFORSPORT2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While none of his edits with this account have been necessarily 'bad' thusfar, user contribs clearly follow his usual editing patterns. Is this grounds for this account also to be blocked? Frickative 17:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for dealing with that. Could someone tell me - what is the best way to report block evasion? He's now moved on to using Chesseman,ganster rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so is obviously going through accounts at quite a pace. Should I be opening new sockpuppet cases, or is it better to report it here? Frickative 19:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion for sockpuppetry, providing it is obvious and current, can be reported to AIV or here (AIV is faster but may be denied as not being obvious enough) and obvious but not currently editing should be reported here. Not obvious should be returned to SSP for a more expert opinion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Chesseman,ganster rabbit blocked indef as sockpuppet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - so just to be certain, it's definitely okay to report to AIV, even if the edits he's currently making with the new account don't actually constitute vandalism? As of this morning, he's moved onto using King Sausauges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Frickative 13:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is critical that it is obvious; so after the sockpuppet account give the sockmaster account and another blocked sockpuppet account so the article contribs can be compared. AIV admins do not want to do the investigation work, they want to protect the encyclopedia from vandals who are operating "now" - so provide them with the proof. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

King Sausauges now indef'd as a sock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL by User:Fowler&fowler

Please see this edit diff edit-diff . Please see that the edit summary is an indirect legal threat. As it is quite serious, I request immediate action.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you take an oath of any sort? If not, then you can't perjure yourself in the legal sense. —Kurykh 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note the word i had used "indirect" . User:fowler is clearly threatening here, why else he should make a remark like don't perjure yourself.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a breach of WP:NLT. On the other hand, anyone looking at this should probably be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bharatveer... --Akhilleus (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:akhileus, Did you mean to say that I had made similar legal threats before???? This is as per Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats & Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator. from WP:NLT.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I realize it's late at night, but I'm not seeing it. Where is the alleged "legal threat" in Fowler's posting? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See edit summary.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in riddles tonight. Please state explicitly what you're getting at. Quote the guy's alleged "threat". I'm not seeing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"No Legal Threats", not "no legal terms". Honestly, now. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone posted this to my talk page. If anyone can find a "threat" in there anyplace, please point it out to me in plain, straightforward English:

Regarding Bharatveer's allegations against Fowler&fowler

These are the diffs I (will get an account soon) found "threatful"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=226880350 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala_school_of_astronomy_and_mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=226878753 Was just trying to solve the riddle... anyways keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.60.172 (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a threat anywhere in there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Paroles

Resolved

Please see this edit [71]. Territorial expansionism. Inflammatory messages.
These kind of messages are not enhancing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum nor a graffiti wall. Kubura (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning left for user. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day unblock proposal

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

---

I don't see that this discussion is going to have any chance of an unblock. I probably have had an error of judgment here, but please don't throw the book at me, for perhaps assuming too much good faith. Best, Steve Crossin (contact) 14:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See related thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fredrick_day_vandalism.2Fharassment_active_again

I think most of us know who Frederick Day is. He was blocked in late march for harassment, among other things. Most users here are familiar with Frederick's previous activity. He recently returned as Allemandtando (talk · contribs), where he made constructive contributions, though was blocked as a sock puppet. Fredrick had requested an unblock here, noting that there would be conditions to an unblock, and I'm one to think that we should extend second chances to users. I realise that Fredrick has had major issues in the past, but I think that we should extend second chances when a good faith request is made. I propose that Fredrick Day is unblocked, though placed on some sort of civility parole, and placed under mentorship. He would of course, be limited to one account, and any other suggestions that can be considered. I know that he has a poor history, but I think that we should extend second chances where possible. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (contact) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also include a 1RR limit if he does get unblocked. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally support SteveCrossin's proposal, The editor was doing no harm and was bein constructive.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need a second active thread on this page about this blocked editor? Avruch ^T 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock Has caused so much trouble and continues to cause it, saying one doesn't want to sock anymore as a reason for unblock is not convincing. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. I don't have anything against him personally, I'm sure he's capable of being a very positive contributor - but I don't think using sockpuppets and hanging around on IRC to make friends is the way to get unblocked. I suggested he contribute to other projects for awhile, and build up a reputation of constructive participation in a WMF community. That was only yesterday. After he's demonstrated he can consistently adhere to behavioral policies I'd support an unblock - but he hasn't yet. Avruch ^T 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

comment I'm mad for Koc and I hope he comes back, but it's a bit soon to propose this only a few days after it was discovered that he was a sock of a banned user. Whenever we propose an unblock of someone who's been socking, they should at least face a short block before that's allowed, to let them know socking is not ok. This bloke lied about his past, I can understand why but it's still cheeky. We can have a week or a few weeks to work out the details of the unblock, and to deter socking by him or others. Sticky Parkin 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you unblock this guy, you may as well just throw all the rules out the window. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I must oppose. The separate reversions dealt with in the first of the two AN/I threads are concerning. Originally, I thought it might not be the same person -- there is the occasional stalker -- but the IP addresses (User:88.105.116.147: Fredrick Day) and the reverter above (User:88.105.58.91) are too similar for it to be a coincidence. I applaud Steve for assuming good faith with these actions, but I'm not convinced this behaviour has stopped. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Proposed conditional unban of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

No consensus to unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

---

This request may come as a surprise to those who have followed my admin actions over the last few months (such as in this log), but I'd like to propose a conditional unban of RMS. He first came on my radar a few months back as a banned editor who was routinely editing the encyclopedia. I truly believe that a ban is a ban and took it upon myself to enforce it to the best of my ability: blocking his socks, deleting articles he created while banned under CSD G5, and undoing virtually all of his edits. In fact, I think I have been even harsher in enforcing the ban than my fellow admins User:SirFozzie and User:Alison, whose long history with him predates my arrival on the scene.
Let me be clear in my request that he get a second chance that I do firmly believe that RMS has behaved quite badly in the past, see here and here for evidence of a deserved block and ban. However, I believe enough time has passed, and that he has made enough solid, encyclopedic contributions in the interim to warrant a strictly supervised conditional unban.
While I have been the number 1 RMS hunter around here in recent months (he referred to me as his 'nemesis' via email!), I'm happy to transition this role into the number 1 RMS supervisor. I've made myself incredibly clear that I have no qualms about strictly enforcing a ban around here, and have strongly impressed upon RMS that this is a one-strike, you're out deal. I will also be tracking him in my usual thorough manner to ensure compliance with the terms of his unbanning, and I will swiftly and firmly act in case of non-compliance. He has assured me that he will follow the guidelines laid out for him, as he has no desire to further see his hard work systematically wiped away from the encyclopedia by yours truly. He has been very cooperative and disclosed all of his unblocked accounts. He has agreed to all the terms of his conditional unban. I hope you'll consider this proposal to be of low potential cost and high potential gain.

Proposed terms

I have laid out the proposed terms of the unban here for your perusal, inspired by and borrowed from similar unbannings for User:Rootology and User:Vintagekits and incorporating the Arbcom ruling on The Troubles. These terms were a collaboration between User:Alison and myself.

Examples of his contributions

Articles created: Colin Woodroffe (geographer), Maude Storey, Stephen Fullarton, Nydia Westman, Dora Gordine, Robert McMordie, Kindred McLeary, Mari Fitzduff, Berta Scharrer, Sanford Palay, Ruth apRoberts, JuJu Chang, Colin Rankin, Patricia Bergquist, Felicity Peake, Tamsyn Imison, Jonancy, Kentucky, Tonieville, Kentucky, Aideen O'Kelly, Nicholas Candy, Florin Krasniqi
Deleted created articles (admins only): William Bulfin, Gordon MacWhinney, David Thornley (Irish politician), Arthur 'Robbie' Burns, Robin Livingstone, Mary Barbara Bailey, Shara L. Aranoff, Anita Brenner
Recent edits to the encyclopedia: 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Thanks for your consideration. I will block all of his recently disclosed accounts and restore his articles created under his ban should this be acceptable to the community. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Alison

Hi all. I'm User:Alison and I've been dealing with Robert Sieger (aka RMS) on and off for something like three years now. I've endorsed no less than two community bans of this character and have probably blocked more socks than anybody else on WP; it's literally been hundreds and hundreds and I've just given up even tagging them at this stage, there have been just sooo many. RMS has written quite disparagingly about me on Daniel Brandt's site amongst others. He had a reputation for being an extreme Unionist and anti-Catholic, anti-Irish POV-pusher and no Troubles article was safe from his interference and bigotry.

Back two years ago, RMS was a huge liability to the Wikipedia community and many hours were wasted by many folks in cleaning up and dealing with him. But along the way, something changed. He was always a wikignome, always interested in biographical articles and early 20th century actors and actresses. His attentions started moving away from Troubles-related articles to his favourite topics where he actually did a lot of really good work; adding facts, tidying articles and finding references, etc. The fact of the matter is that Robert is helplessly wiki-addicted (and self-confessed, to boot :) ) and just loves contributing to the project. As time passed, as I discovered RMS socks, I'd block them procedurally - half-heartedly - and apologize in the block log! I hadn't the heart to rollback his edits, and as time went by it just got sillier and sillier. RMS would ditch the account and immediately move on to another. It's All About The Editing, and he just loves contributing.

I'd like to endorse Eliz81's proposal to unban Robert, though under some clearly defined conditions, similiar to those proposed in Vintagekits' case;

• Robert will edit from one account and one account only.
• He will initially be placed under a three-month topic ban regarding all Troubles-related articles.
• When that expires, he will be subject to another three month's restrictions under the Troubles Arbcom probation conditions.
• A mentor will be appointed from the WP community, similar to the Sarah777 case. This mentor should be chosen by the community. If the community wishes, I'll gladly assist.

I expect there to be a number of voices of dissent here - especially from the Nationalist side of the Troubles dealings, but I sincerely believe that Robert has reformed and put all that behind him. I've been in extensive email contact over the space of two years and can see the change in him. Without going into too many personal details, he had a number of issues some years back which contributed to his problems on-wiki, but these have been long-since resolved. In closing, though I've campaigned strongly in the past for his ban, I've also gone full-circle and am now sticking my neck out and calling for his unban.

It high time that Robert came in from the cold - Alison ^❤ 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I'd like to point out that if RMS decides to renege on his word here, I'll be very happy to banninate his ass from WP and block his future socks with impunity. He's definitely in the Last Chance Saloon - Alison ^❤ 07:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Tom Mix would give this the nod, so I will too ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be more willing to support an unblock if he had gone several more months without any socks, but I trust Eliz and Alison's judgement on this (and the ease to reblock should he slip up in any way), I'll weak support this SirFozzie (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This all seems very sensible and gracious. I'm with SirFozzie on this. Synergy 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, no, not under any circumstances ever. This mainspace edit alone where he pipes to my userpage describing me as a "Irish fifth columnists and republican supporters" and makes various other disgraceful accusations should mean this editor should never be unbanned. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree here. Regardless of his positive contributions, if he upsets just 1 other user what are we gaining? his hatred has probably upset more than one user and non-contributors as well if any of them saw his behaviour. We have all kinds of wikignomes that are here, have been here, and will come in the future. There is no reason to extend further chances to a bigot.--Crossmr (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I admire the fact that both Alison and Eliz81 have contributed extensively to this and particularly in the terms of probation that 'he will be banned if there is a violation of the conditions' laid out there. However, with comments like those linked by One Night in Hackney, I have serious doubts as to whether this effort is in vain. Its relatively recent and if we lose one good editor for the sake of giving another chance to someone who is already banned, the former wins again and again. Rudget (logs) 10:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break - Responses to above statements etc (RMS125a)

I support this action and similar actions 100%. Past civility infractions should not come before future potential gain. To the people who are too personally involved to see the good that could come of this, I'm sorry, get over it. Beam 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Question: I know zero zilch nada about this case, so consider this either a useless uninformed view, or a valuable fresh outside view, your choice. But based only on what I read above, why is the topic ban so short? If the problem is massive past misbehavior on the topic, and his latest contribs have been wikignoming on other topics, why not a 1 year topic ban, and a similar 1 year ban on interacting with people he's fought with in the past? If he plans to get back into Troubles-related editing after 3 months, I'd say it isn't worth the risk; if not, then a longer topic ban shouldn't be a problem, and I'd welcome his help in all other areas. --barneca (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  Rephrasing: I oppose this unless the topic ban and interaction ban are extended to one year, or until someone gives me a good reason why doing so is a bad idea. If they are extended, I support. I understand and have weighed Durova's points below, but think they aren't a deal-breaker. I wish I could explain why now, but I have to go; assuming this hasn't been resolved before I return, I may comment on Durova's reasonable position later. --barneca (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  I have no personal stake in this, perhaps you should read WP:AGF before you slam other editors opinion. This is the first I've read of it and I find it disgusting that anyone is remotely considering giving this person another chance given what they did.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  You either placed this comment in the wrong place, or misread what I wrote. I'm not slamming anyone's opinion. --barneca (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  However, I now strongly oppose this; I thought the diff provided by ONIH was a over a year old, but it was only 3 months ago. The characterization that he is now wikignoming on unrelated subjects doesn't appear to be correct. --barneca (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose on principle. Under the best of conditions it is difficult to persuade sitebanned editors to refrain from socking; it is an exceedingly bad idea to propose rewards for that behavior. Higher up on this very page we have just concluded a community ban on a prolific editor whose plagiarism, copyright violation, and misuse of sources are so pervasive that every edit she has made may need to be reverted. She has started to sock, she is threatening to sock more, it is likely she is reading that thread, and may be reading this one. That person does not benefit from a mixed message. Others like her do not benefit from a mixed message. We are not so badly in need of one more wikignome. Tell RMS125a to sit on the sidelines. If he or she does that without socking for six months I'll open the unban proposal myself. Not this way, though. Absolutely not this way. Durova^Charge! 10:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What? But this editor apparently contributes good stuff, not copyvio garbage, self referencing bullshit. The only thing being rewarded here is good editing, good contributions, and honesty about past infractions. Beam 10:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bullshit. I can cope with incivility towards me on talk pages, user talk pages, wiki pages, but I object to in in the strongest possible terms when I am attacked in article space. If that is what you call "good editing, good contributions", then your opinion is worthless. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I meant by "personally involved." The editor in questions, according to two well respected administrators (both who were attacked mind you), say that he is such a positive to the project they are willing to overlook it. Whereas you, instead of being so gracious, attacked me because I even suggested getting over your personal issues. Nice. Beam 11:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hackney, I agree with your argument; it would be more persuasive without the distracting epithet. Beam, the point of my argument is that this proposal turns WP:SOCK on its ear, and sends precisely the wrong message to an entire population of banned users. This conversation does not take place in a vest pocket universe in which RMS125a's ban status is of no interest to anybody else. Banned editors read our noticeboards, banned editors use Google, banned editors network with other banned editors. And perhaps you think we can reward one person's ban-evading sockpuppeteering without that influencing any other banned editor, but I don't. Even those who propose this unblock are dubious it would succeed; I think in the larger picture it's a bad idea to try at all. Some other way, certainly. I hope to have the pleasure of giving RMS125a the resilient barnstar someday, but I refuse to validate this socking. Durova^Charge! 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam: There's very personal issues between ONiH and RMS. I was there for a while with him, blocking RMS's socks. I had to think long and hard about even the weakest support involved here. I understand where Hack's anger is coming from. I do understand Durova's point about that how are we to believe that he'll follow his rules when he's been breaking them left and right. My thoughts are.. what harm does it get to unblock, if he screws up, he's gone again permanently, and if he has improved, then the encyclopedia benefits. That, the ease of any action that needs to be taken, and my faith in Alison and Eliz's judgement is the reason why I did support. SirFozzie (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. At most they suffer one more attack, and then that's it for atleast a while. Can they not take that risk for the good of the 'pedia? Beam 11:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone's been attacked as much as ONiH has (you've seen the edit above where RMS sneaks an attack on ONIH into article space, right?), and done as much work to keep RMS off WP, I think we should give ONIH a little extra wiggle room. I know he's upset, he's made it clear to me how upset he is, and there's part of me that doesn't blame him at all. Jumping down his throat doesn't help discussion, really. SirFozzie (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I firmly believe the interests of Wikipedia are better served by retaining the ban at this time. At most we gain a wikignome. We have plenty of those already, and none carry the downsides this one would. Durova^Charge! 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe personal feelings are getting in the way of judgment. Per Alison and Eliz, who both are offering to watch and monitor the situation, I see no reason not to let him give it a go, a one strike you're out type deal. But, of course, I wasn't insulted by this person.Beam 11:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What a strange supposition; I have zero history in this conflict and I have a consistent record of opposing similar unblock proposals for the identical reasons. Durova^Charge! 12:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you had a personal problem, I was referring to someone else, but the logic behind my post, positive contributions, stand to you as well. Beam 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not superhuman beings, they are human like everyone else and make mistakes. On this occasion I believe they are making a huge mistake, and believe me I've made plenty myself including one I regret very much. However ArbCom recommended this editor should be "banned by acclamation", and that was well before his subsequent community ban. You've got an editor who's banned for prolific sockpuppetry (considering they stopped being tagged ages ago an exact number isn't known, probably around a thousand socks now), POV editing and attacks on other editors. The prolific sockpuppetry has never stopped, and my one diff shows he's prepared to make gross POV edits to an encyclopedia article that attack the CRE, Irish people and another editor all with one edit. Regardless of who he attacks, anyone prepared to do that should not be permitted to edit this encyclopedia, and I'd argue that even if he hadn't attacked me with the edit in question, and I can find you plenty more diffs where he attacks other people too. Couple that with the fact he did it while he was already banned, and it's a no brainer - this person should not be unbanned under any circumstances. Everything he was banned for he's still been doing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Everyone makes mistakes. Beam 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people drop a spoon by mistake. This person is a proven bigot who harassed entire nations of people. Sorry, but given the choice between the two users, I don't want that person on this encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesing that you support banning someone who watermarks images indefinitely [72], and yet someone who harasses and abuses other editor and had multiple prior chances should be allowed back in? That certainly seems rather polar...--Crossmr (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• I endorse the unblock. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• If we keep him on a short leash, then fine. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Willing to trust Alison and Eliz81 on this one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Mistakes". 300+ recorded sockpuppets; I'm sure even more that were blocked and not tagged as his socks. "He has been very cooperative and disclosed all of his unblocked accounts". How are we to know this? I certainly won't oppose it if the community wishes to take this risk, but all the email I've received from rms125a (and there's been plenty; he's been begging for reinstatement for a long time) has been devoid of understanding of what he actually did to betray our trust (as opposed to our civility standards.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. The link provided above by Hackney is more than enough proof of the attitude of hatred still evinced by RMS. Durova's point is well taken that getting RMS back and, at the same time, losing Hackney is no gain for the project whatever, and is, in fact, a net loss. Beam's argument that those who have been insulted and defamed by RMS in the past should "get over it" is decidedly ignorant. Helpful contributors should never be asked to suck it up and get over it because we want to give a serial vandalizer and edit-warrior "one more chance." No, no, and never! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No sir, not ignorance. I won't fill this space with much more of my opinion but you are more than welcome to come to my talk page for further details. Beam 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• We're seriously considering an unban of someone who's used literally hundreds of recorded socks, has been incivil to other users, and has shown no indication that he actually gets what he was blocked those couple hundred times for? *checks outside* Did I step into Bizarro World or something? Strong oppose, as per Jpgordon, ONIH and RepublicanJacobite. We really need to consider the message we're sending by unblocking obvious problem editors. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Jacobite put it well. Using an article to make a cheap shot at someone is right out of line and is not an isolated incident. I also agree that Beamathan asking the insulted to "get over it" is in very poor taste, this sort of dismissive attitude to behavior that drives off good editors is really counter to our goals. Chillum 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My taste is quite rich. :) If the editors haven't been driven off now, than what's one last chance? Beam 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• That is just the thing, I don't want to risk good editors so we can allow abusive ones yet another chance. I would rather keep the civil users, and let the ones that cannot play well with others go elsewhere. Also, for all you know editors have been driven off by this user. Chillum 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the appalling history. I greatly admire the resilience and goodwill of the editors who are willing to unblock, but I can't see any benefit to Wikipedia from having this person on the site in any shape or form. EyeSerene^talk 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'll stick my neck out here and support this for two reasons: first, he seems to have demonstrated a willingness to stay away form the articles where he caused trouble, and a genuine willingness to help elsewhere; second, Alison is watching him and will presumably step in if he moves outside the boundaries indicated. Let's see what happens, but apply a zero-tolerance approach. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Having had to deal with their trolling, motivated only, as they were by a desire to be disruptive I find it difficult to understand why we are even having this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If he wants to come back, he can show respect for community rules by not socking for a few months. If he doesn't have enough self-control to do this, then he doesn't have enough self-control to be a productive editor. - Merzbow (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest ways possible. This guy evaded a ban, sockpuppeted, and made an extremely personal attack in article space three months ago. What would we be rewarding here? For the last few days, ANI seems full of proposals to bring back blocked and banned editors who've made personal attacks and harassed, all without considering the feelings of their victims. I'm a bit worried that in bending over backwards to reform the trouble-makers, we're losing responsible editors because we're not bothering to protect them. Dayewalker (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Guy. The ban will be much easier to reinstate than it is to overturn, and I see no reason to believe that Alison or Eliz81 would be reluctant to reinstate the block. The conditions are appropriate, and fairly easily enforced. Risk worth taking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  Bigotry against other users is never a risk worth taking.--Crossmr (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Per jpgordon and Durova, this seems like a depressingly bad idea. Socking isn't the way to regain our trust and if, based on jpgordon's comment, this user in private correspondence hasn't recognized his own failings, that's a deal killer. --B (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison and Eliz say different, deal fixed? Beam 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, presumably Alison wasn't cc'd on emails that jpgordon received. The statements by Alison and jpgordon are not mutually exclusive. I trust and respect Alison's judgment, but on this, I disagree with her. --B (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to unblock

I think it is becoming clear that a consensus to unblock this user has not, and is not likely to form. Chillum 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well ... what Chillum says, really. There's a pretty clear consensus here that unblocking at this time, even with restrictive conditions, is not a Good Thing. What I'm getting out of this, however, is that Robert has to demonstrate to the community his sincerity and his desire for reform by not socking on WP from here onwards. If he can do that, and he will be closely monitored (trust me!), then we can consider bringing it back up here in a few - no less than three, IMO - months time. If he indulges in socking or disruption/attacks of any sort in the meantime, he can go look to someone else for his unblock request.

In short; the community demands more and, while I disagree with the concept of 'serving time', it's what people want and I'm obliged to uphold that view, as indeed I will.

As an aside, I personally feel that the Unionist representation on WP has been largely decimated over the last few months. From a Troubles ArbCom perspective, that has left the encyclopedia rather skewed as Nationalist editors far outweigh and outnumber the others. Robert, of course, is a staunch Unionist. As is Astrotrain. And Counter-revolutionary. And Mark Thomas. And David Lauder and his merry band of sock-puppets. All gone now. Something I've not mentioned before here is that my own family background is split around Nationalist/Unionist lines and this lends a certain perspective.

Either way, I think we can all agree that the community has spoken here and that Robert is not to be unblocked at this time. Thanks for your patience and consideration, and apologies to those above who feel hurt that it was ever brought up in the first place - Alison ^❤ 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• My problem with this whole thing is that I keep going back and looking at the email conversation I had with him in the last week. Essentially, he says to the arbitration committee that all those sockpuppets were because he no choice, and the vote stacking was because he had no choice. This strikes me as a lack of restraint and judgment, and a disclaimer of personal responsibility. If you can educate him, his promises to behave will seem much less hollow; as it stands, a promise to behave without an understanding of what constitutes misbehavior isn't credible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • True indeed, Josh, and I'm taking that point away from this, too. His emails to myself and Eliz speak somewhat differently but being forced to votestack, whatever about socking - nope. I'll see what I can do ... - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Please review my actions at Overspending

Can someone please review my actions at Overspending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in particular in relation to this thread on the talk page: Talk:Overspending#Primary_source_is_outdated. I plan to disengage, so as to ensure I don't violate 3RR, but would like other admin's opinions as to whether I've already crossed (the spirit of) that line. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Colonel Warden that this discussion is taking place, and suggested he wait for a consensus on the article Talk before removing the {{Out of date}} tag again. Your willingness to disengage from editing the article for a while will be helpful here. The quality of this article seems disappointing, and it would be hard to argue with a WP:DRV nomination to review the closure of the recent AfD. (It was a speedy Keep, closed in less than 8 hours by a non-admin, without meeting the criteria for speedy keep in my opinion). Nothing wrong with you proposing the DRV since you were the AfD nominator, if you choose that option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:ZimZalaBim has added no content to the article in question and seems to be causing this disruption out of pique relating to another AFD. Since his behaviour seems to be stalking, it is well that he should withdraw. As for the article, I shall continue to work upon it as the fancy takes me since no-one else is doing so. Removing tags is quite proper in the course of such work since that is their purpose: to provoke edits which address the issue. In my most recent edit, I:

• added a source which was more recent than the disputed source
• provided some historical context to show that overspending is not a new phenonemon and so does not require an exclusively contemporary treatment.

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, Colonel, please WP:AGF. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)