Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive337

Second opinion?

I wouldn't mind a second opinion on a speedy I did, though it's not a review. I deleted Chris Hunter (author) as nn-bio, now I've since had User:Lynseydalladay leave a message on my talk page here saying she is this authors publisher, and having pointed her to WP:NOTABLE and WP:COI which she claims isn't an issue I've now seen she now created another author, I presume in her stable Sheridan Simove. Is it COI, Spam, nn do I delete the new one (which has now been speedy tagged), warn or am I not AGF here?. Cheers ^Khukri 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I note his sole "published work" is not yet released (release date 11 Feb 2008). I would AFD, as notability is asserted so it's not a viable A7 speedy. Neil ☎ 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done put it up for AFD. Now what about the user, as a publisher in my opinion it comes under COI for them to be creating an article for every author they have. Thgouhts? ^Khukri 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does violate COI, and the ed. has been warned. But they cannot be deleted on the basis of COI alone-- but that's good reason to be suspicious about claims to notability. DGG (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous IP inserting copyright violation into Quanell X

Hi,

I spotted an anonymous IP inserting a copyright violation into Quanell X. Their edit [1] directly pastes in the content of a Houston Chronicle article [2]. The article's been seeing a lot of anonymous IP activity too. Can someone help me with the right template to put on the IP page to warn them about violating copyright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be {{nothanks}}. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The directory of warnings is at WP:UTM, for future reference. Natalie (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

64.247.224.24

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

Earlier I filed a conflict of interest report on this user. Subsequently, he has gotten increasingly belligerent to the point of absurdity. I have already reported him for 3RR, but he may need a more stern blocking since he is now basically threatening complete disruption of the cold fusion page and seems to have taken a personal interest in personally attacking myself and Michaelbusch. I have never seen someone so convinced of his martyrdom status and so convinced on his need to go on a crusade. It's actually scary.

Some relevant diffs:

• I will ask others to revert it, and I will revert it again tomorrow. I will not allow bullies like you to censor my friends, especially dead friends.
• I will not put up with your insolence, ignorance and insults. I can't abide bullies and know-it-alls. I will NEVER let people like you push me around, rhetorically or any other way. You people have been trying to censor and destroy cold fusion since 1989. You will not succeed as long as I am alive.
• Ban me if you can. Go ahead. I will reinstate these books for as long as I am able. You can flood the article with your "skeptical" anti-science garbage, but I will not allow you to censor out the truth.
• I was able to revert it again. I will do that as many times as I feel like, unless you find a way to stop me.

Please do something, and quickly before this mess gets any worse. I recommend a community ban.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block for Disruptive editing. Anyone see's fit to modify the block longer or shorter please advise. Those edits are quite disturbing--Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab and played a part in the original experiments. Even he does not believe in cold fusion, at least not in the terms these kooks promote. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In 24 hours, if he resumes, we can just block again. Let's watchlist the page and be patient. Do we have any idea who this is? - Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On his Talk page, this IP editor identifies himself as "Jed Rothwell Librarian, LENR-CANR.org". It is not clear if lenr-canr.org is more than his personal web site. Since he has used such strong language in his comments, and he seems insistent on including inappropriate references in Cold fusion, the admin response seems appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the public whois info, it looks like his personal site. Perhaps we can explain to him what Wikipedia is for. Lots of forks have a misperception. Ideally this should come from an uninvolved party. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As Ed says, yes, we know exactly who he is. I believe he formerly edited as JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If lots of forks have a misperception of WP, do sporks see the project for what it is? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stopping in to voice support for JzG's serious solution to the problems, let's hope it holds. ThuranX (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion spree by Angr

Angr has long been of the opinion that the Wikipedia is too loose with regard to fair use images. A quick look at his user page shows that this issue is quite important to him. He has taken off after what seems to be a somewhat gray issue. The standard fair use templates all include phrases like "the copyright is believed to belong to the artist or the record company." Not good enough to satisfy Angr. Today, he has disputed fair use on a large number of images, including:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carry-On-Constable.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carry-On-Regardless.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dr_Evil.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Joe90DVD1.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ashanti_-_Ashanti%27s_Christmas.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Beattorture9.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pint_Size_Andy_Gregory_Cover.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Butterfly_Effect_-_Poster.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Underworldalbum.jpg

The list goes on. While some of his requests are quite valid (missing source info, no article names, etc), these seem to be listed simply because the template is, by his standards, incomplete. He may even be right, but enforcing it by going through the deletion process instead of trying to get the template to include the copyright holder seems to be a particularly disruptive way to go.Kww (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While the relative usefulness of tagging an image rather than fixing it is debatable, these all are legitimate disputations of fair use rationales. It says that we need to have the "copyright holder." Not who we think might be the copyright holder, or who is the most likely copyright holder, we need to specify the exact holder of the copyright. These taggings are back by policy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I realise that by the end of March next year this debate will become largely jejune. However, if we have, for the time being, acceptance of Fair Use images with appropriate rationales (and I accept "is believed to be" is a weak rationale and could be replaced by <insert name of film studio/record company> etc, this seems a little extreme. I wouldn't want to see this encyclopedia become a cold, dark place because it lacks pictures, simply because people are turned off by pages full of text and nothing else and will vote with their feet; result- death of Wikipedia. RIP. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As a casual editor, I was certainly suprised to find out that Wikipedia's boilerplate fair-use templates are apparantly not in keeping with standard policy. The first I learned about this discrepancy was when Angr disputed the template's phrase of "copyright for it is most likely owned by..." as a rationale for deleting an album cover I uploaded. I get the feeling that my contributions are colateral damage from an arcane admin dispute. -- rynne (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

95% vandalism/nuisance edits

85.189.184.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looks like 95% vandalism/nuisance edits. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see some edits, but it isn't a vandal only account and hasn't edited since being warned.Balloonman (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to reveal purported personal information about a user

Resolved

 – Oversighted Guy (Help!) 02:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See this. I've been involved in the discussion in the past, so request an uninvolved admin to review and delete the edit, if appropriate. -- Donald Albury 22:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That clearly calls for Oversight - it's patently libelous information. FCYTravis (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oversight, definitely. Durova^Charge! 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)::Agreed, Dalbury, the relevant policy is at WP:OVERSIGHT and requests for oversight need to be via email - the address and list of information you need to supply, basically the diff you posted above, is at WP:RFO. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Working on that. My first e-mail bounced, I guess I typed the address in wrong. -- Donald Albury 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The diff is no longer accessible. Has anyone else already notified oversight? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks that way. Donald, for your future information, just go to WP:RFO and click on the Link in great big red letters at the end of the page. No need to type in any addresses. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the two remaining edits and e-mailed oversight. WODUP 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I also e-mailed oversight about those two, so I think we're covered. -- Donald Albury 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on an e-mail link in my browser opens up Outlook Express, which I don't use. I guess I need to take the time to set things up right. -- Donald Albury 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure why I'm laughing, as I've done things like that as well, but this is funny. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, I'm talking about Donald's e-mail story, not the main point of the thread.

Anonimu

I have unblocked Anonimu so that he can participate in his arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu. He is restricted to editing case pages only. Paul August ☎ 23:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that (at least in the past) the technical capacity existed in Mediawiki for someone (I dunno in whom the power was vested) to restrict a given account to a subset of namespaces (with the particular intention of allowing someone, such as the otherwise blocked subject to edit their arb case but not the encyclopedia). Does this capacity still exist (heck, did it ever)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Here, all we can do if we see Anonimu editing outside of the case is to warn, then reblock. Thatcher131 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baruch Lanner

User:IZAK recently posted some comments on this article including sources. I removed part of the comments because I believe that per WP:LIBEL they are potentially defamatory and the sources involved are not reliable for these types of claims. Since I am involved in the article and interact with this editor, would appreciate it if another admin could double-check and either restore the edits or OK permanently deleting. Thanks, Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the Oprah video, and the woman he was talking about did actually claim to have killed babies as part of devil worship. She also claims to have mutliple personality disorder and to have "not recovered all of [her] memories." The rest of what you deleted was completely unsupported by his links, as far as I could see, and the links were not reliable in any event. So while much of that was a BLP violation, it was not entirely without merit. As to the Oprah video itself, I don't see a problem with. It's just a primary source, straight from her own mouth. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The person is identified on the Oprah video as "Rachel". The edit cites certain other sources who claim that "Rachel" is actually another person in real life. The question is whether these other sources are sufficiently reliable to support a claim about "Rachel"'s identity. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, oops? I looked at the title of the video, and it never really clicked. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Shirahadasha's action. I'm an involved party as I created the article and have participated in the thread. There is no need to repeat poorly sourced derogatory information about living people, even when it is in the context of disparaging them as reliable or noteworthy commentators. While critical analysis of sources is sometimes necessary we should try to avoid making it personal, gossipy, or hurtful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the deletion. they were used for impeaching a source, but it seems to be agreed on the talk page that the source is not really needed or appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IZAK has protested and posted a detailed reply on Talk:Baruch Lanner that repeats his claims and sources. I have deleted most of User:IZAK's reply, believing I am required to do so by WP:LIBEL, and explained my reasoning on User talk:IZAK#Talk:Baruch Lanner. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: This New York Times article refers only to "a guest using the pseudonym Rachel". The reliable sources who covered the Oprah Winfrey Show episode, which did receive press coverage, were very careful not to make a claim about who Rachel was. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Subgen (talk · contribs)

I need some help with him. He's continuing to make personal attacks and fails to assume good faith over at Talk:Universal Life Church. GJ (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I came here to report subgen (talk · contribs) WP:SPA for the sole purpose of making is employer look good [[3]] JDBlues (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we get some help please? I feel like this problem is being ignored. GJ (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What have we done to be ignored? GJ (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have noticed a lot of traffic on this page. Sometimes things get overlooked. Please don't take it personally. You might want to proceed through other steps in the Dispute Resolution process. Powers ^T 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying, but this is a really neglected area that desperately could use some intervention. GJ (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Persistently disruptive editor

This is a somewhat unusual case. User:Marxus (talk, contributions) has a history of disruptive edits. In the past he has created hoax articles (by his own admission on his talk page), and has been blocked for this. He has also created at least 12 articles that have been deleted, not for totally spurious content, but because the subjects clearly fail to meet the requirements of notability. According to other comments on his talk page he has on several occasions made edits to existing articles that were factually incorrect. He apparently never uses edit summary comments. In light of this history, and because some of his edits to an article I watch seemed questionable I recently undid these edits of his. I left a note on his talk page insisting that he provide comments and references for future edits; see here. He persisted, simply replacing edits I had removed, still without comments or references, and without responding to me on his talk page. I repeated my warning to him, again with no response.

It seems to me that this editor is still deliberately being disruptive, though now he's doing his best to stay within the letter of the law; making edits that don't break any rules, but which he hopes will cause annoyance and wasted time.

RedSpruce (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the policy that states that edit summaries are absolutely required? Surely if they were absolutely required the software would make it impossible to make edits without a summary (which I am 99% sure is possible). None of his edits since your second warning appear to have been disruptive (with the exception of violating Wikipedia:You must use an edit summary). I don't think all of your edits fully abide by Wikipedia rules either. [4] FunPika 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Better clarify why that linked diff is wrong...fast. WP:RPA states "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.". And the "f***tard" in that summary could be interpreted as a PA. FunPika 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FunPika, you didn't read what I wrote, with the result that your first response is irrelevant. Your second response is off-topic. "Fucktard" is most assuredly a personal attack (duh), but it was directed at a different user, not a part of this discussion. RedSpruce (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean it is irrelevant that part of the reason you are reporting him appears to be a violation of a non-existent rule (at least no rule I have seen) involving edit summary comments? FunPika 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant that you didn't read (and still haven't read) what I wrote, with the result that your responses are irrelevant. Clue: Pay particular attention to (i.e., read) the last paragraph of my original entry. RedSpruce (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the neophyte for chiming in here, but how are "duh" and suggesting that others get a "clue" helping your case that some OTHER user is being a git? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.246.52 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no Pauli exclusion principle for git-itude.  :-) RedSpruce (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message for Marxus. DS (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Topdoolin is repeatedly adding spam.

A look this user's contributions ([[5]]) indicates his only interest in Wikipedia is to use it for purposes of advertising a theatre group with which he is involved. He has been warned about his addition of spam, but apparently did not take the warning seriously. I would argue that he is deserving of a block, if not a ban. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Such editing is better reported at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The admins and editors there are more experienced at diplomatically handling this sort of contributor (the important first step is to get a dialogue going). — Satori Son 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Topdoolin isn't on very often - his edits tend to come on one day, all in chunks. He'd miss the COI report. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But when you file a COI report, other editors will likely use his or her talk page to start a discussion. My main point is that we need to engage these new editors to find out if they are intentionally being disruptive, or they simply don't yet understand our policies. Blocking is a last resort after dialogue has proved futile. — Satori Son 15:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS

EncycloPetey has accused me of violating the WP:CIVIL policy and has warned me against violating the WP:HARASS policy. EncycloPetey is an administrator, and given the fact that his role is to enforce policy I would like the opinion of this board on whether I have, in fact, enroached on violating either policy. See the bottom of his talk page here and our interaction at an Rfa here. He has asked me not to use his talk page, and I view his warning as an effort to prevent me from commenting any further - even to defend myself against his accusations regarding policy violations. Avruch^Talk 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguing about this further is pointless and will only lead to bad feeling. This dispute would be easily solved by both involved stepping away from the keyboard and going to have a cup of tea. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tea is sometimes taken with milk.

I appreciate the sentiment of walking away from a conflict -- I'm not arguing with him any further directly. I am concerned, however, about the warning of having violated a policy from an administrator. Either I violated it, in which case I'd like to have that confirmed, or I didn't - in which case invoking it just serves to stifle criticism. Which would you say it is, in this case? Avruch^Talk 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

On a whim, I checked your talk page - and noticed EncycloPetey had asked you for assistance because I "will not desist." Avruch^Talk 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I will post only this short response to clear up two errors above. (1) The RfA in question is here, and not at the link posted above. (2) The quote on TimVickers talk page says: "I may need help dealing with this case: User_talk:EncycloPetey#Transhumanist_RfA_.26_Uncivility if the individual will not desist." (emphasis added). That is all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate:

1) Avruch, you are being accused of incivility because of edits like these.[6][7][8][9][10] Specifically, this kind of edit can be viewed as a direct statement towards another user, which can possibly evern be viewed as a personal attack. Always ensure that the tone of a comment you make is calm and focused on the contribution, not on the contributor.

2) Everyone really needs to cool down. Try taking a break for a half an hour or so, and come back after you're relaxed. Everyone needs some time to relax once in a while. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 08:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of a page

I don't normally patrol pages but I happened to be doing so via recent changes and spotted a vandal on Yuuri_Chinen. Here's the relevant diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuuri_Chinen&diff=prev&oldid=176325876

I warned them (using the level 1 vandalism template). I'm just reporting this to be sure I did the right thing. Moonsword (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - well done. Manning (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't normally warn people - the vast majority of the times I spot vandalism, I just quietly fix it, mark it as vandalism in the edit summary, and move on. This time, the vandal appeared to be brand new, so I warned them, but wasn't quite sure of the situation due to inexperience (while I've been around WP for a while, as I said, I don't normally warn people). Moonsword (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Swarm Internationale

I believe this one is a sock of some sort. The contributions make it fairly obvious that it's not a new user, and the userpage (and contributions) show it's a POV pusher, not too unlikely that s/he's been blocked before. I'm thinking this one, but I don't know enough to be sure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no obvious evidence in the contribution history to indicate a connection between this account and User:His_excellency (who had a history of being involved in Islamic-related topics). A cursory glance didn't find anything objectionable or "POV Pushing" in this user's edits, however if you can provide diff links they will be reviewed. Manning (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensium issue

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 was (also) wondering about a consensium-issue.

If consensium is reached.

And and agreement is being made about POV flags being removed from a section.

And then another user immideatly adds new POV flags, when there haven't been any changes made sine consensium was reached.

How should one go forward with this issue?

Thanks very much for the help in advance!

Johncons (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep discussion in one place (in this case, two threads up). The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2007 (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.

User:Businessplan - spam account?

Resolved

 – user warned - Jehochman ^Talk 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This user created an account that has added blatant advertising information to Business plan and Private placement. The account has made no other contributions beyond the spam. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He's only made a few edits. Please read Don't bite the newcomers. In a situation like this, you want to go to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and pick an appropriate warning template. I've given him a {{welcomespam}}. See also wp:delicious. Thanks and happy editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this diplomatically and pointing me to some links to handle this in the future. 11:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs)

Vexatious reports to noticeboards

I bring this here with great reluctance, but I'm afraid that I can't see any other way forward.

I seem to have become bogged down in a dispute with User:Johncons, which began when I reverted him and warned him for adding unsourced material/vandalism on Grandiosa

The content that the user was adding was WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE, and the user subsequently admitted that he has an agenda, namely that they are "putting dead people in the food" [11]

I stand by my reverts and warnings, as being appropriate in the circumstances. I attempted to engage with the user, and explain our policies to him. This attempt was an unmitigated failure (I attach no blame to User:Johncons for this, clearly I'm not explaining well).

Subsequently, User:Johncons has made no fewer than four reports to admin noticeboards;

1. Report to WP:WQA claiming that I was uncivil - a claim which hasn't been met with any agreement there
2. Report here claiming that he is being stalked - archived earlier today as inactive with no positive resolution
3. Report here complaining that I refused to participate further at WP:WQA - correct, I have refused to continue the engagement, as it isn't going anywhere
4. Report here (closed with a request not to add multiple threads), asking a leading question about consensus (given that consensus was never reached on the article, this is just a straw man)

I have reached a point where I can only describe this continuing pattern of sending reports as a vexatious attempt to warn me off, in the hope that if I'm out of the picture, he can get on with pushing his fringe theory.

It would be appreciated if an uninvolved admin would review the matter.

Mayalld (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Soylent Pepperoni? --WebHamster 12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please edit your above remarks to add more diffs and links as evidence of improper editing. If there is sufficient evidence, and administrator might block the account or issue a final warning. Helpful information is available to the right. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, you only have to peruse this board to see the notices and links to others. There are two here,and a link to the wikietiquette board. It seems Mayalid will have no time for editing if he has to respond each time Johncons makes another report. Jeffpw (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The reports may slip into the archive before this discussion closes, so permanent link to the sections would be ideal. Beyond that, Mayalld has alleged Johncons violated WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE. I'd like to see diffs to back up that remark. If there is solid evidence, we can take some sort of action. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Johncons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account whose single purpose is to insert poorly sourced negative material into an article. A quick review of his contributions indicates to me a pressing need to prevent him making further edits to that article. The sources he uses are not even close to reliable. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the content of the WQA (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mayalld) and the dialogue on the Talk:Grandiosa page. While Johncons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not been guilty of WP:NPA and has maintained the appearance of civility, there is certainly reason to believe there have been bad faith attempts to subvert WQA, and AN/I.

I concur with JzG's assessment above that the sources are completely unacceptable. This diff shows a huge section of some rambling consipracy theory quoted from an islamic forum in Norway that the company is secretly using pig gelatin but claiming it is soy protein. The majority of the reverts throughout the history seem related to this "pig gelatin" issue. Mayallid has been remarkably patient in repeatedly explaining WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE.

The edit history of the article indicates at least two further examples of complete reverts of consensual versions of the article to this unsubstantiated claim.

I have blocked the user for 24 hours for (a) instigation of administrative actions in bad faith, (b) deliberate refusal to comply with the policies outlined above despite repeated explanations from some remarkably patient editors, and (c) for unjustified reverts against consensus on at least three occasions.

I have left this discussion open for the moment, in case there is need for any further discussion, but feel free to close and archive. Manning (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a longer block is in order. If you look at the history of Grandiosa, you will see this user repeating the same FRINGE push many times, [12] [13] [14] [15] [16][17] and he has received many warnings. Note that Johncons (talk · contribs) appears to have edited as 86.140.49.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before creating an account. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but opted for the 24 hour as it's a first block - WP:AGF and all that. I suspect a longer block isn't far away once the current block ends, but we shall see.Manning (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

When an article goes through an AfD and the result is delete the article, is it usual to delete the talk page also? Or are there cases when the article is deleted but the talk page kept? BCST2001 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If an article is deleted there is no reason to retain the talk page. If anyone needs to see the contents it can be un-deleted. It doesn't matter if the article is deleted via AfD, CSD etc. You might find for future that you can ask questions like this at either WP:HELPDESK or WP:AN unless there is an urgent incident you need looking at? Pedro :  Chat  12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I am looking at Talk:Archimedes Plutonium. This talk page should be deleted, then. BCST2001 (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Eeek. I think that might actually need a history merge on (very brief) review. Pedro :  Chat  12:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear what that means. Shouldn't the page simply be deleted? BCST2001 (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe not. I think it may be deleteable / redirect to new article actually. I'm digging but I'd appreciate more input. Pedro :  Chat  12:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear about what you are saying. Why would a talk page for a deleted article redirect to another article? BCST2001 (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a valid redirect from an old article title to a new one then the talk page of the old article should redirect to the talk page of the new article. Looking at this the original Archimedes Plutonium, it was redirected to Notable Usenet personalities but the talk page was not. Now, Archimedes Plutonium is just an entry on that page. As far as I can see this looks like it should just be turned into a re-direct for the talk page as well. As that won't have any GFDL issues I'll do that, and someone can soon revert if I'm wrong. Pedro :  Chat  12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD #8 is probably what you need. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't see why. CSD G8 is for orphaned talk pages, where the article is missing. In this case the article exists, but as a redirect. I'm more than willing to be wrong though :) Pedro :  Chat  13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And, on a related but not relevant-to-the-case-at-hand note, a general reminder to people that G8 is best not used on talk pages where discussions of the deletion have taken place. We get people frequently jumping up to have them deleted ("why didn't the closing admin nuke this?????") or going on spring cleaning exercises tagging any they can find, but any deletion discussion should usually stay. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I feel compelled to point out that, although the talk page now redirects, the history of that talk page is still available, and contains many probable violations of WP:BLP, one of the reasons for the deletion of the article. When an article is deleted for WP:BLP reasons, the history is, of course, deleted at the same time, and the same ought to apply to the talk page. As mentioned, there is a strong argument to be made that these revisions violate WP:BLP: they should be deleted too. BCST2001 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason given shouldn't be "G8". Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen. I think we're a little too fast on the draw on G8 deletions... the talk page for a recently deleted article can be a good way for people to provide evidence of notability so that an article can be undeleted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When an article is deleted by AfD, surely the ruling applies equally to the article and to the talk page. Both should receive the same treatment, especially where there are clear WP:BLP issues involved. Otherwise, those violations will be perpetuated on the talk page or in the talk page history. Is this not clear? BCST2001 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this particular instance, I'm talking about in general. Whether the talk page should be deleted or not varies from AfD to AfD, and I don't think a blanket ruling is needed. BLP is a totally different issue and trumps everything else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I've gone through the talk page prior to my re-direct and I can't see any major BLP issues. And on the general note, I agree with EVula that G8 can be used too hastily at times. Pedro :  Chat  16:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So can we agree that the talk page history for the case in question should be deleted? BCST2001 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment above, can you provide these BLP violations you reference within that talk page? Pedro :  Chat  16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this: "That assertion states only that Giaccone did not seriously believe Plutonium was associated with the murders. It doesn't state that "he was never seriously suspected of any wrongdoing", or even "he was never seriously suspected of being associated with the murders."" This comment leaves hanging the false implication that this person may have been suspected of involvement in a murder. Remember that this person is essentially non-notable: they do not deserve to have this implication left hanging in Wikispace. It would seem to me that unless there is some good reason why this talk page history is kept, it is clear it should be treated in the same way as the article itself, that is, the history should be deleted. BCST2001 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this to someone else, as I'm about to go off line. However that is a fair comment, and I'm sure another admin will review as well and make a decision on what's best. Pedro :  Chat  16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Floyd Davidson

Resolved

 – User has been reported to 3RR Noticeboard. (User:Jeffpw) Jeffpw (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

This User has *way* violated 3RR on Barrow, Alaska. Four different editors have inserted material into this article that it is the setting for the graphic novels 30 Days of Night as well as the film starring Josh Hartnett. User:Floyd Davidson does not want this mentioned on the Barrow page. In the last few days, three editors have inserted the material, and Floyd continues to remove it, or put it down at the very bottom of the page (past the Alaska navigation box) with a "trivia" tag. He has reverted five times in the last 24 hours. --David Shankbone 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have given the editor a 3RR warning, and have reverted the article, since his last reversion removed sourced material. Jeffpw (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He was warned several times. --David Shankbone 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Request ban

Resolved

 – Tagged. Deal with him as before.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to propose we ban PWeeHurman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has used over 40 sock puppets (1, 2) to vandalize and harass users. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a list of his contribs here, and there's a long term abuse report here. -Goodshoped 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the ban policy. If no admin is considering to unblock them considered on their behavior...then they are considered banned. IMHO, I think time is better spent writing than proposing to ban people. Miranda 05:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And if one has time on their hands and sees a trouble-making user to be dealt with? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He's considered banned anyway. Why codify it? Banning is not a process. —Kurykh 05:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that's having him come back are his repeated IP recycling. How do we stop that? Also we don't know his ISP, because if we did, that would be really helpful. -Goodshoped 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU Mr.Z-man 05:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) And apparently, he's thinking of attacking Jimbo Wales' talk. [18] and been there, done that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s (talk • contribs) 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a username violation? Durova^Charge! 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this case is that the user is indef blocked. His sockpuppets are indefinitely blocked on sight because they are being used to evade the block. How much more can we do? (For example, we don't know his ISP, so we can't ask them to cancel his account, & there's a good chance they'll blow off that request anyway.) As pointed out above, the only difference between his current state & being banned is that no one has said he's banned. If it makes anyone happy & we can move on, I'll say it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with designating someone as banned after an indef and 40 sockpuppets. I'd have no problem with a long term vandalism report either.Durova^Charge! 22:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that we're presently treating this user as a banned user. It's like the comment in the UNIX man pages about zombie processes: they can't be killed because they have already exited. He may not know it, but this guy's been punted far & away from Wikipedia's door, & his chances of getting back in are halved with each new sock he creates. -- llywrch (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'm just curious. I just got this message on my talk page. I wonder what does anyone think of this? -Goodshoped 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a report to LEA and a visit from the FBI might persuade him that this sort of thing is, er, inadvisable, even as a joke. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you want me to work up a sock on him? -Goodshoped 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. Refer to WMF. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he'll be as interested in pulling a web Jihad in two months anyway. If anything, he's just another Willy on wheels, without page moving. I'm ready for him, and I think all the people he has "working for him" is probably his kid brother, maybe some friend from school. This whole thing reeks of immaturity. He won't be able to cause as much damage. That being said, we should block him and all his socks ASAP. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)All have been blocked, and he keeps coming back. Check the log. And what's the contact for the WMF? -Goodshoped 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if worse comes to worse, we'll keep fighting him. BTW, how will contacting WMF help? Just curious. And maybe someone could explain an RBL. What does that mean? I've seen it in vandalism reports, but from what another user has told me, it's basically a more extreme way of blocking someone, whcih doesn't sound quite right. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There's this encyclopedia that has the answer -- although it was a bit tricky to track it down so I could link to it. -- llywrch (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time! So just clear this up for me, how does it apply to Wikipedia (and vandal fighting)? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

info@wikimedia.org Durova^Charge! 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Takenages

This user is leaving question on all RFA's currently. Almost certainly going to be a sock. 4th question is a standard but the 5th certainly goes against AGF. I'm going to remove his 5th question on all the RFA's anyone think otherwise? ^Khukri 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support removal of all. Telling is this edit [19] to WP:USELESS--Hu12 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, this one looks a lil' POINTy to me. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to block for disruption yet, but I'm toying with the idea. - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll remove all the 5th questions as un-agf and we'll see what happens. ^Khukri 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a few, linking to this discussion--Hu12 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back the rest, I'll leave a message. Thanks ^Khukri 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal; I just don't trust an account whose only other edits have been vandalism to ask good, productive questions on RFAs :-P TomTheHand (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(u)Had concerned me as well, I was procrastinating on doing the same thing, good work, Khukri! SQL^{Query me!} 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the Durova incident, I think a potential admin's views on "back channel" discussions affecting an established user's block would be highly relevant given how the incident has affected Wikipedia's reputation. Takenages (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I understand the assessment TomThehand makes, I agree thath te question of backchannel talk is relevant to the project. ThuranX (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have revert you re insertions Takenages, please refrain from adding them back--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note -- Takenages (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) responded to my comment, on my talkpage, stating that they were a long-term user, that had exercised their m:Right to vanish. SQL^{Query me!} 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps a number of the current RFA candidates would appreciate the chance to discuss one of the most contentious issues we've encountered for a long time? Devil's advocate style comment The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my opinion, although after five edit conflicts trying to add it, the questions had already been removed. But think this is a perfectly valid question, and I can't see how it fails to assume good faith anymore than the standard question about being open to recall. Those questions are, furthermore, optional, so the choice of answering them should be up to the candidates themselves. Could be a good place to demonstrate one's ability to diplomatically explain a position. Natalie (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and partially answered his questions. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't really sure what to make of this, so for now I decided to follow the herd and post brief responses at User talk:Takenages. No objection to moving them back if others think they are legitimate questions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Block for 3RR on User talk:Durova

ResolvedThe block was not contested, and will expire in a few hours. The discussion here is beginning to diverge from the original topic, and can be continued on my talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a reality check: CBM states "the block was not contested", but actually Ian requested an unblock, and he was denied. Also, an admin closing an incident about himself is really poor form. --Nehwyn (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

As one final note (I know it's closed, it was veering off on a tangent, but this is a bit more germane to the original topic anyway) - until I edited it two minutes ago, the box at the top of Durova's talk page strongly implied that "here" (i.e. her talkpage) was where comments should ultimately be directed after reading the village pump thread, and this may have contributed to some of the confusion. —Random832 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:124.191.92.25

This is logged for information purposes only, although other admins are welcome to review and comment on my decision.

Generally I avoid using admin powers in a case I am editing (Ed_O'Loughlin), but in this case I feel my actions were justified.

User:124.191.92.25 received a block of 72 hours. I exceeded the normal 24 hour first block for a number of reasons.

1. User has received two seperate 3RR warnings.
2. User has received three seperate NPA warnings, and has described another editor as "a caterpillar", a "Goebbels apologist" and a "Roman Catholic inquistor".
3. User demonstrates a consistent pattern of harassment of any dissenting editors. (See here)
4. Once a formal RfC was initiated on Talk:Ed_O'Loughlin, User deleted/altered/relocated RfC comments of other editors (including myself) as evidenced here and here.

Manning (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you acted inappropriately, and if the user were to contest the block I would probably consider shortening it. The user did deserve to be blocked, but you should (IMHO) never do the block when you are personally involved. You should have come here, posted your reasons. What you would like to have done, and then indicated that you would have added the block yourself, but were involved.Balloonman (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged and agreed. I shall remove the block and allow others to take action as they see fit. Manning (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Update - block now removed. Manning (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Since removing the block, the user has now vandalised my User page see diff. Review is requested Manning (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

KnowledgeOfSelf gave him a warning for that. I agree that you should not block in relation to an editing dispute. However, I think it would be appropriate to block him if he continues to vandalize your userpage after having been warned.--Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This user isn't making a positive contribution to the encyclopaedia and is harassing and insulting other editors. I have reinstated the 72 h block and would consider lengthening it dramatically if there are further problems once the block has expired. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna block him... you beat me to it!Balloonman (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention, gentlemen (and ladies, if any were involved). Manning (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

Block was warranted, of course, but I should clarify that he did not quite call me a Goebbels apologist or a Catholic inquisitor. He said that I would probably remove negative information from Goebbels' bio because neo-Nazis think he told the truth, and that I "would have Galileo wrong because he was not sanctioned by the Pope". I think that his disruptive conduct was more than enough to justify a block, but I don't want to give him the opportunity to scream about a smear job. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the insults were a little exaggerated in the report, but the long-term pattern of a problematic editor combined with the vindictive vandalism of Manning Bartlett's userpage were what convinced me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I exaggerated - he wrote so much stuff that I when I saw what appeared to be an personal attack I possibly failed to AGF. Manning (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Grant Chuggle

This user continues to evade his ban by editing anonymously. All the accounts that have been identified as related to him (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grant Chuggle) come from the range User:41.241.0.0/16. I was thinking about a long-duration soft rangeblock. Does this seem reasonable? Is there a smaller range we could block that I'm not seeing? Mangojuice^talk 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok; no input so I blocked the range for 1 month. If someone sees a way to improve the rangeblock, feel free to modify it. Mangojuice^talk 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig

May I have some uninvolved feedback here? Please reply/talk on the user talk page, I want to centralize discussion. Thank you in advance, Mercury 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved. Is that correct, Mercury? If so, good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Overstock.com

Due to edit warring probably resulting from the latest Register article about Wikipedia, I have protected Overstock.com. Any admin who believes this step was taken in error is free to lift the protection. Any admin who believes the article was protected appropriately but is willing to heavily monitor the page to prevent further edit warring is also welcome to unprotect. Last time I checked, I wasn't part of the secret Wikipedia ruling cabal so this is not part of some great conspiracy. Though you are free to speculate (though not here). --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I wasn't part of the secret Wikipedia ruling cabal

Only someone in the cabal would say that. Thatcher131 19:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the protection. I'm sorry, but only members of the secret Wikipedia ruling cabal are allowed to protect articles. I'll make sure to send you a memo about our next meeting; don't forget to bring the sacrificial goat. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you publicly acknowledge the existence of the cabal proves that you aren't part of it :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is full protection necessary? I won't change anything already done but I think semi-protection would suffice.↔NMajdan•talk 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the warring is being done by some established accounts, so semi-protection would do very little. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Deft diplomat needed urgently

I just stumbled across something that looks like it may get very ugly, very fast:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell

I think there's some history between these two established, normally productive editors. I think a desirable outcome would be to calm things down without either party losing too much face. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vitriol subsequently moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A. B., I think you're doing a good job with the diplomacy so far.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Pronoun Vandalism?

Resolved

 – IP has been warned. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this a lot recently but here's a good example: [27].

I'm REALLY confused as to how to handle someone who does this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Warn and revert. If they persist, take the IP to WP:AIV. I have warned him for the diff. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing unfounded suspected sockpuppet accusations

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_7#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TTN. What is the policy/precedent in these cases? Corvus cornix_talk 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this, but the DRV seems to be ongoing so probably should let it take its course. El_C 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Death threat from anon

FYI, here. I reverted it, probably needs admin action. Lawrence Cohen 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked

Acroterion _(talk) 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He's spamming his his talk page with insults and unblock templates now. Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and protected. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 23:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

80.41.166.31

Sorry to bother you. 80.41.166.31 (talk · contribs) seems to have an issue with population statistics from the 2001 census details that were previously shown in these boxes. S/he has changed all the statistics. There is no previous history of vandalism. Just these uncommented changes. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

First thing to do is... try speaking to this individual. El_C 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom sanctioned User:The Dragon of Bosnia on a spree

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions admins may wish to review

The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removing AfD and prod tags from his article Serb propaganda ([28], [29])

• Removing maintenance tags from articles skewed heavily towards Bosniak POV ([30])
• Removing negative information about Bosnian Mujahideen ([31])
  • Or just removing all Wikilinks to, and use of, the term "Bosnian mujahideen" from articles ([32], [33], [34]), etc.

He may feel justified because of the acceptance of a WP:MEDCAB request on Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen. <eleland/talkedits> 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

This is completely wrong and false accusation. As you can see I contributed much to Wikipedia. And I source all facts I include in articles just with relaible sources per WP:RS. Regarding Serb propaganda article I improved it with five different International court verdicts (ICTY) as you can see which is very valuable information. Regarding 7th Muslim Brigade, the tag was placed in wrong article. The discussion/mediation is taking place in Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen not in the 7th Muslim Brigade. That is the reasion I removed a link to Bosnian Mujahideen article included in Bosnian war by the above user who reverted it by default without the knowledge about the subject. First, we have to wait the outcome of the mediation, not to include something which might be deleted. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to remove AfDs, regardless of anything; and please, use edit summaries for major edits. El_C 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hakka Troubles

Could I have an administrator more familiar with the dispute (I haven't had time to keep track of it) please look at Talk:Cantonese people? There appears to be a person on a rotating IP making POV edits to the article and then complaining on the talk page when his edits get reverted. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Troll

Special:Contributions/ChakkaDev, refers to me as a "motherfucker" here. Probably from a pattern IP vandalizing my userpage, so an IP block would be nice.Bakaman 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that and he not only vandalized your page, but he also harassed you. He has a Vandal-only account or he is just a jerk that vandalizes pages when upset. I think if he is a vandal-only, I think he should get blocked forever.--Stco23 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response.Bakaman 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, we aim to please. El_C 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Metsguy234

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.

Initial issues seem to be resolved for now. Only discussion left going is off-topic so I split it off into its own section, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Handling new editors (follow-up to Metsguy234 section), to allow this section to be archived. Date of adding these tags was 9 December 2007 at about 11:30. Hopefully that won't trigger the timestamp for the archiving bot... Carcharoth (talk)

---

Metsguy234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing" [35], as IP 99.225.28.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did [36] earlier. --Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons = blocked indef. Neil ☎ 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"16:23, 27 November 2006 Metsguy234 (Talk | contribs | block) New user account" However, the contributions don't look like much; some clear vandalism is present, especially in the deleted contributions. All in all, looks like the primary reason for existing is vandalism. If the blocking admin believes he has no good contributions, why weren't his "top" contributions reverted? GRBerry 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Putting Glasscobra's "resolved" comment down here, for the record.Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Resolved|User blocked and contribs reverted.GlassCobra 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Only just noticed this. The latest is that several editors have concerns that this was one of several good-faith, if mostly misguided, responses to the story in The Register about the Durova incident. In this case by an account that was created over a year ago by someone arriving from another wiki and not really doing much here. I presume, as GRBerry points out, that Neil misread the date of the first edit as November 2007, when it was in fact November 2006. Since the story in The Register broke, there has been a steady stream of trolls, socks and good-faith editors turning up on Durov'a talk page. She's effectively been slashdotted. A more diplomatic solution than the "revert, protect, block" method has now been implemented, with a notice at the top of the talk page directing people to a village pump thread. Could I ask those admins who can be, ahem, more hasty with the banhammer, to think in future how actions like that look to outsiders?

See also here and here and here and here and here. Reposting lower down for increased visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, and for wider review, the three comments I feel best sum this up are:

"is this really the sign of an account created solely to hassle other users? What I see there is an account created by someone who edits mainly at another wiki (see here), who didn't do much for a year after registering the account here, but recently started editing. Still has a lot to learn, but obviously read about the Durova incident, got upset, posted a few things, and got hit with a banhammer. Indefinitely." - Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and

"It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring." — Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and

"Guys, sorry for any trouble I caused. I just started using my Wikipedia account recently. When I read about the secret mailing list fiasco- I wanted to know the truth- so, not knowing that it was decided (for whatever reason) to stop pestering Durova with questions- I asked a simple question- which I did not intend to be a personal attack. Sorry if it was taken that way." - Metsguy234 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully that clears up a few misunderstandings. Metsguy did post a few other comments as well, but those seem to have been made in anger, and in light of the above apology, he seems to have calmed down. Friendly advice regarding his other comments should probably be made on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes need acknowledging

No, I'm sorry, the more I look at it, the more the mistakes here need open acknowledgment and apologies. Look at the initial comments here: "Doesn't seem to be the typical account. Perhaps this is a blocked account of another user? seems to be pushing the "wikipedia_secret_mailing"" (Hu12) and "Account created solely to hassle Durova and call people morons" (Neil). I can accept that Neil misread the date as 2007 instead of 2006, but really, that is a basic error that shouldn't have happened. More concerning is the willingness to jump to conclusions about anyone posting a link to that story in The Register. This reeks of BADSITES culture (zomg! it's an attack story! ban the links!) and a culture of looking for socks around every corner (ironically typified by the very incident the newspaper story covered, how ever inaccurately). Come on guys. Try and think of other ways to handle things before reaching for that banhammer. Take a moment or two to dig a little deeper and check the dates and the clues in the contributions, and remember what it was like to be new around here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dug a little deeper, Clear vandalism is present. More edits to his userspace than wikipedia. Well, except for creating such works as...My Potty and I←Created page with 'I LOVE POTTES I DU' and The Berenstain Bears Cook-It!: Breakfast for Mama!←Created page with 'ME EAT ME'. and [37]"The END!!!!" [38]"Maybe you shouldn't put pro-wikipedia stuff in the anti-wikipedia article! Morons..." [39]"I am looking into your identity, so don't think you can fly under the radar."... Asks Durova, "Are the allegations in this article true? "[40], then blasts another editor who removed the comment .."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[41]. Obvious harassment/trolling.....New accounts don't behave like this.--Hu12 (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I dug a little deeper as well, and I saw all those deleted contributions. What part of "From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions" is it difficult to understand. What part of his apology is it difficult to understand? He's obviously not a new account - because he's learnt his wikimarkup at another wiki and has been lurking here. The Durova story prompted him to de-lurk to express his anger, and we confirm his misunderstandings by hitting him with a banhammer instead of trying to calm him down, educate him and correct his misunderstandings. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is capable of positive contributions. Every troll, every vandal, every sockpuppeteer, is capable of contributing positively. But they choose not to. If Metsguy234 is capable of contributing in a positive manner, perhaps he should have done so here on Wikipedia instead of sticking to a blend of vandalism, incivility, personal attacks, and trolling. However, if you wish to be his enabler, Carcharoth, feel free to unblock him, but you can take the responsibility for his actions. Neil ☎ 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What Apology??...He says on his talk page, " I wanted to know the truth.. I asked a simple question"[42]... but Metsguy234 must have forgotten he previously wrote.."Stop trying to cover up the truth about Wikipedia...I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were."[43]. ...this part of his apology is not difficult to understand. What he does on wikihow.com has nothing to do with what he's done here. Endorse Neil's block--Hu12 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked him, as waiting for someone else to do it when I don't mind is a bit pointless. If he goes back to trolling he can be blocked again, and if he doesn't, fine. Neil ☎ 09:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I don't appreciate being called an enabler. Please retract that. I saw an obvious mistake that you made when you said in the block log "account created solely to hassle other users", and I saw someone with experience at another wiki who had the potential to become a productive user here. At the least, a second chance was warranted. An immediate indefinite block as the first block was way too excessive. If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? I may have been overly forceful about this, and I apologise for that, but I was hoping you and Hu would apologise and we could move on, rather than have you both go on the defensive like this and start clutching at straws and continuing to engage in biting behaviour. Hu, the apology was quoted in the section above. Here is a link. Neil, I wish you had waited for me to unblock if you felt you could only leave a terse unblock log reading "On Carcharoth and Wknight94's requests". I waited to give you the chance to do better than that. As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log. And finally, the idea that if you unblock someone you are responsible for their subsequent edits is false. They are still responsible for their own edits and they can still be blocked later if they misbehave. Giving someone a second chance, or unblocking and apologising for a mistake, is not "enabling" and is not taking responsibility for their subsequent edits. You may disagree about the potential there, but please have the courtesy not to call those who disagree with you enablers. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't retract describing you as his enabler - this is becoming a prevalent issue on Wikipedia; too many users who have contributed nothing of merit to Wikipedia are almost encouraged to continue to do so by admins willing to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence it will be repaid, over and over and over. That is the definition of enabler - a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it. End result: Wikipedia is overrun by trolls and users (I cannot call them editors) who are here solely to cause trouble, driving good editors away, and they are permitted to carry on by well-meaning admins. I still believe the block was correct, but am happy to respect the consensus opinion, and for Metsguy to be unblocked. I am unsure what else you are looking for here, the matter does seem to be resolved. Neil ☎ 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This works both ways, Neil. I can equally say that "a person who innocently and unwittingly helps the problem by denying it" could be applied to you, and I mean that in all seriousness. The problem in this case being the driving away of new editors who, with a bit of encouragement, could become productive editors. His first few edits are clearly experiments. The later deleted edits involved an abortive foray into images. He's explained the "IP outing threat". He's experimented in the sandbox. He imported his user page from another wiki. Made a mixture of minor edits and some questionable removals, and got upset over the Durova incident, but nothing (in my opinion) warranting more than a warning and guidance. I'm currently trying to engage him in dialogue to see if he can be more productive. Why can't you respect that? And no, the matter is not resolved because you have failed to respond to two of the major points I made above:

"If you did make a genuine mistake and misread 2006 as 2007, then please be big enough to admit that. If you insist that he did create the account in November 2006 to hassle someone a year later, please explain why he would say he was from another wiki and continue to edit that wiki, while waiting for the chance to hassle someone here? [...] As things now stand, your previous statements are unretracted on the earlier block log: "No good contributions, account created solely to hassle other users". These statements are demonstrably false, but you don't seem to feel any need to apologise for them or retract them in his block log."

Since when did we indefinitely block an account with 7 mainspace edits and clear potential because there are "no good contributions"? As long as you continue to leave these questions about your administrative conduct unanswered, no, the matter is not resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Point one - the account may have been created in 2006 but it only really became in use a week or so ago (one edit Nov 06, one in Feb 07, the next was Nov 25 this year). I did not misread the log, I just didn't attach any relevance to it. My one error was using "created" in the block summary - it should have said "being used". I apologise for that. Point two - by all means, show me these good contributions. Not ones that might happen in the future. Now, the account was unblocked hours ago, Metsguy234 is free to begin editing positively if he chooses, and this hand-wringing is pointless. You are invited to file an RFC if you have concerns about my conduct. Neil ☎ 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the creation date goes, I interpret that as someone who is mainly active on another wiki deciding to create an account here but not being very active. My Commons account looks a lot like that. That, along with lurking, accounts, in my eyes, for the "jumping straight in" behaviour. If I jumped straight into a controversial debate at Commons and started getting emotional and asking questions, would I be labelled as an account created "solely to harass other users"? I would hope not. I would hope someone would ask me first where I'd come from and why I seemed so familiar with the issues. You might say "but your contributions are good ones", but that is tantamount to treating established users with a contribution history differently from those with a short and patchy contribution history. ie. Blocking indefinitely because they haven't contributed much. To put that another way, if I, or someone else with a long contribution history, had made the same edits that Metsguy234 did, would you have blocked me or them indefinitely? If not, why did Metsguy234 get blocked indefinitely? It looks like double standards to me. Those with a contribution history too short to reliably judge are blocked indefinitely and not given any chance to prove they can contribute meaningfully, while those with a long contribution history are given more slack as they have "proven" themselves. In other words, a user's first contributions are intensely scrutinised. If they don't meet your standards and they slip up once, it's in the indefinite bin for them. And let's just ignore WP:BITE. I won't file an RFC unless I see a pattern of such blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(the section below was in reply to a section up above before the outdenting)

I'm fine with it, Neil - your frustration is understandable. But what we all need to learn from the Durova case is that far more damage is done by blocking a good editor (User:!!) than by unblocking a bad one. Unblocking not only gives the editor a chance to prove him/herself but gives us a second chance to see if the block was warranted or not. If it was warranted and the editor is truly a troll, we'll simply revert and re-block. No harm done except someone has to click a couple rollback buttons. I'll even check from time to time to see if I should re-block him myself. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a chasm of difference between Special:Contributions/!! and Special:Contributions/Metsguy234, but I agree with your point on "we can always re-block" (I said as much myself just above). Neil ☎ 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't mean to compare !! and Metsguy234 specifically. My point is that it's always safer to unblock because Metsguy234 could turn out to be !! in the future. And if he doesn't, who cares? It's safer to leave 20 trolls temporarily unblocked than to leave one positive contributor permanently blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Will there be so much of a chasm a year from now, though? You can't say what his contributions list will look like in the future, unless you have a crystal ball; and a user who has wiki experience from another site has a very blindingly obvious legitimate reason to be upset about the Durova thing - more reason, even, than most of those of us who have wasted many more bytes on it. And as for the "I actually didnt need to even ask if they were true- its obvious that they were" comment - to a lot of the people who really DO have fears caused by this issue, some of the actions that have been taken in the aftermath have done nothing less than prove them right; and that comment is clearly stating that. If you express a fear of retaliation and ask about coverups, and the reaction is to (in effect) retaliate and cover things up, what would _you_ think?—Random832 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is misreading the timeline. Metsguy made a post, I removed it. There was no retaliation and no coverup at that point. Metsguy could have just asked me "why did you remove my post?" and I could have explained that it had already been on the page earlier in the day. Metsguy made the choice to post what he did and made it seem as though he had arrived with some pre-formed opinions. Neil evaluated the situation and saw a negative trend-line in the existing contributions and made a decision in the context of Durova's page getting repeatedly hit by less-than-positive contributions all day. Indef doesn't mean forever, Neil never said he would see to it that Metsguy is kept away for life and Metsguy soon enough figured out how to request an unblock. No-one was doing any covering up or retaliating, it was just a normal days work. And if Metsguy is experienced with wiki's, he's not going to be scared away forever. Franamax (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which all sounds fine, until you realise that the initial unblock was declined, and that the unblock log doesn't give a proper reason for unblocking. ie. the admin unblocking chose to stay silent on the propriety of the original block. It really should be mandatory for unblock logs to directly address what was said in the initial block log. As far as removing the links go, it turns out that this was the wrong strategy, and the link at the top of Durova's page to somewhere else, has been a much better strategy. Though I now see the page is semi-protected. Carcharoth (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe Neil is addressing the original block reason, indirectly saying he's not convinced he's wrong but isn't standing in the way. (Sorry to Neil if this is wrong). And he has said above that he was wrong to use "created to hassle" instead of "used to hassle". If Metsguy goes on to be a productive editor, then any future review of the block log will result in the conclusion "oh well, he made a mistake at the very start, so what". Also, couldn't you always do a 1-second block and say whatever you want about the previous block? Maybe that's silly though, I dunno.

The link on Durova's page is good, but it took awhile to realise that was the better strategy. And yeah, the page is protected again - you can ask for the discussion to go elsewhere but people can just ignore that and keep on posting away (which seems to be evidence they're not really interested in a discussion anyway). Franamax (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (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.

My recent block of Goodshoped35110s

I recently blocked Goodshoped35110s for a span of 48 hours. He's become increasingly disruptive, but the nail in this particular coffin was his tagging of an established editor's userpage as a sock of disruptive editor[44] without any evidence whatsoever. I've blocked him to prevent further disruption of the project. Further evidence of his antics can be found on his talk page or, indeed, pretty much any of his contribs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. This user has received many second chances and warnings from admins and other established editors to improve his behavior, yet constantly maintains an extremely hostile and standoffish manner, especially with new users(ex. [45]). It's high time he got a time out to think about his future here. GlassCobra 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wholeheartedly endorse this block. He has been causing disruption, and enough is enough. I personally would endorse an even longer block; this user needs time to become familiar with how the English Wikipedia community works, and if he heads the way he is going, I can see an indef block not too far off. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. The sock template was just unacceptable. Jmlk17 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC x 3) I endorse this block as well. Some evidence of his behavior is listed here and here. Lara❤Love 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do like Goodshoped35110s, but I must say his accusation against U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. was quite outrageous, and I believe he has been too aggressive on many occasions. I support this block. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. - Philippe | Talk 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also endorse block. - Manning (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really seen anything positive concerning Goodshoped35110s. He seems to spend more time here than anything, asking for bans, etc. I think he really needs to see what this site is for and not what the metaprocesses are.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He actually spends more time on his userspace, although a WP:TROUTesque reminder a few days ago did lead to improvement...sort of. Of course, his actions here were beyond the pale. —Kurykh 05:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For those that are curious, here's the trout-smack.[46] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse a temporary block because his recent conduct has been disruptive. Ironic, because he welcomed me to Wikipedia initially. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully endorse, long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. He's received extensive advice and criticism for hasty, flippant judgment, and seems to be primarily concerned with enforcing his own interpretation of the rules - which does not exempt him from compliance. Acroterion _(talk) 12:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. After the block I would suggest adoption to familiarize him with policy and hopefully, help him become a better editor. Marlith ^T/C 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

...and now he's retired.[47] EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Colbert style vandalism on Dane Cook

We appear to have a situation with a commedian asking publically to have weird information added to their page. Dane Cook has apparently asked to have a strange sexual Neoglism added to the project, and specifically credited to him as having created it (assuming that the edits to his article are telling the truth, which I really have no reason to doubt it). Anyway, any additional eyes on the situation would be appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Diff please? All I see is FabyMcschooler OWNing the page, removing anything bad about Cook, and continually puffing the guy up.ThuranX (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

One of those annoyingly circular discussions has started there, to the point of a full page protection:

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Well, yes, but they never claimed to be. Do you have any reliable source in a notable publication mentioning that?"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"Without a source, that's original research and a violation of WP:SYNTH"

"Quackwatch is NOT scientifically peer-reviewed! We MUST say that!"

"ARRRGH!"

Please help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was common for such web sites to be scientifically peer reviewed, they might have a point. But it isn't. So they don't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tried to find a source, came up empty. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• The only thing I can offer is that nearly every editor who regularly contributes to that article should get a trout in their stocking. The silliness exhibited by several of them over a range of articles is nearly mind-boggling.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Isotope mostly. I would take out the work nearly in the last sentence. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I fear I must concur. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jjk82 (talk · contribs)

Right after relieved from the recent blocking on South Korea article, Jjk82 began to commit the exactly same disruptive revisions on the article. As one of the administrator, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim, has already agreed, most Jjk82's revisions on various articles-related to South Korea are very like to be POV (Please check my talk to see his comments). Regardless of series of warnings issued previously, Jjk82 continues his own journey in Wikipedia. Please remember that the main reason of blocking South Korea artcle was due to violation of 3RR, caused by irresponsible reversion to the previous diputable status by Sennen goroshi , which has lead to inevitable reversion that resulted in 3RR violation. I still do believe self-purification system in Wikipedia works well. Regardless of uneven numbers of administrators in terms of their fatherlands, I hope that doesn't makes biased decisions when disputes occur. It looks that mere continuous warnings is in vain and ineffective to Jjk82.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you wish for us to do about this matter, specifically? You seem to expect familiarity with it, which you probably shouldn't. El_C 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can admins review the past case which was mixed up with other report and got no comment from admins? I paste it here. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#Vandalism and incivility. I also strongly believe the users, Keyngez (talk · contribs) and Fightingforever (talk · contribs) are sock puppets of User:Jjk82 per his/her obsession with Korean environment and dog meats, education and so forth.--Appletrees (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [48], [49], [50] and his activities on Japanese environment [51]

Vandalized articles and notable comments by Jjk82

User:Jjk82 added many false information and irrelevant information to eight Korean related articles in a row. He claimed that Korea is very dirty place and not good for English teachers working there, so he inserted seemingly formal citations into the articles. However, everything turned out that the external links and references are duplicated bogus links. As I was following citation links, it went to another wiki pages repeatedly. It was like a labyrinth. In addition, the list of the English private institutes at South Korea, hagwon he added for his allegation, can be a serious legal problem for his sake. Therefore, I restored some of the 8 articles from his vandalism to the last revision and removed the possible legal problems. He put redundant texts regarding Korean eating dog meat to Korea and South Korea articles. 1. Korea: [52] South Korea can be a downright dirty place. South Korea was classified as a “developing country” and with that, wasn’t required to reduce cardon dioxide emissions. Many Koreans view people of darker skin (such as South-East Asians) as inferior. Note: He added a very long popular cuisine subcat. as listing all kinds of dogmeat from two existing articles. Korean cuisine, Dog meat 2. South Korea: [53] Korean environment as same as the above. This was partly due to the destruction of much of the country's infrastructure during the Korean War; however, the primary cause was that it didn't open up to the world and embrace new ideas and technology until the 1950's. Because of this, Korea has been called "The Hermit Kingdom At present, the Korean workforce is terribly inefficient. Koreans work more hours than any other country, but Koreans are far from the wealthiest - they are a disappointing 28th. Korea is not an egalitarian society; one is either of a higher or a lower status than other people. How do foreigners fit into this scheme? Because of the lack of higher level education, studying abroad has become the norm. For every foreign student who comes to Korea for university The Republic of Korea is ranked the 12th in military strength. 3. Tourism in South Korea: [54] Despite these attractions, Korean tourism has a long way to go. Korea’s “travel account deficit” amounted to $8.49 billion. Simply put, the Korean tourist industry is not very competitive. /and deleted passages with citations. 4. T-50 Golden Eagle 5. LG Electronics:[55] , 6. Samsung Electronics Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, were given poor marks (both 4 out of 10) from Greenpeace because of their total lack of environmental responsibility. More specifically, the companies lack a comprehensive product take back program, 7. Teaching English as a foreign language: [56] South Korea, However, there are many dodgy schools, so do be careful. 8. Hagwon: [57] black list: Schools you should avoid working for. Teaching English in Korea is really a minefield of potential disasters. Read the warning from the U.S. Department of State regarding teaching English in Korea: "Note" listed actual names of the hagwon. If people to whom concern find out this, he can get in legal trouble.

Obvious (?) sockpuppet

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged

I could be wrong, but User:Obediun would seem to be a trivially obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked role account User:Obedium. Aside from the similarities in name, Obediun is editing the same article using the same approach as Obedium. In a way I admire the chutzpah of not even attempting to hide the sockpuppetry, but my understanding is that some admins disapprove of indef blocked users from editing as sockpuppets. Please act or not, as you see fit. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The master account is User:Scibaby. New user Obediun is blocked and tagged. Please file sock cases at WP:SSP in the future, I patrol it daily. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK six hours late

I've just finished the update so it's ready to go. Can someone post it please? Gatoclass (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been done now, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's due in an hour. Time keeps moving. Archtransit (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Keepscases

For one reason or another, I was directed to the activities of Keepscases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:RFA, which is described in some detail at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 110#Keepscases disrupting with nonsense questions. I then I saw User talk:Keepscases#RfA question?, where a particularly inappropriate question was raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heidianddick. I reviewed Keepscases edits and found other inappropriate questions, and I stated on his talk page that "If you continue to disrupt RFAs by asking inane questions, you will be blocked from Wikipedia."

Then this question was brought up to my talk page. And another inquiry into his edits brought up this. For the continued disruption of RFA as well as the extremely inappropriate comment to Sarah, I have indefinitely blocked Keepscases. It has also been suggested that this block be commuted to 48 hours long, but that is why I am bringing this here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: Consensus both at RFA talk and at Keepscases' talk page was that his behavior at RFA is not disruptive. —Random832 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand how asking someone if they "Edit in the nude", or if they like looking at pictures of men, or asking completely inane questions, is considered "not disruptive". Regardless, I saw that edit to Sarah, and that is unacceptable, in my small opinion. Ariel♥Gold 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I favor reducing the block to 48 hours. We cannot judge on the basis of his comments whether this fellow is a troll or has merely had a lapse in judgment. If he continues to be a pest, certainly he should be blocked again and for longer. — Dan | talk 02:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought his comment on my page was quite trollish but I wasn't offended and his RfA questions seem trollish, too, but I think indefinite might be too much for a first block. I agree with Dan and would reduce it to 48 hours and then escalate the blocks if he continues. Sarah 02:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request denied. We do not condone acts of immaturity. —Kurykh 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do -- or, rather, if an act is merely one of immaturity, we give a second chance. What we do not condone are acts of trolling. Again, it is not clear yet which this is. — Dan | talk 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page were quite unacceptable. They constitute sexual harassment in most jurisdictions. Whether Sarah was offended is beside the point - if we tolerate this type of thing, we will drive away female editors. I'm happy with a reduced block, but only if understood as a final warning before a ban. Zero tolerance here.--Doc^g 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree entirely, Doc. Sarah 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a block length reduction; A lot of his recent questions are bizarre, but I don't think there was sufficient feedback to tell him to stop making them more inappropriate before he was blocked. My inclination is to reduce to 48 hrs and give him a strict laying down of the law on harrassment versus sillyness. Further "questions" and comments like the last few including Sarah's talk page after warning would warrant further longer blocks. But not indef, now. The size of the hammer is disproportionate to the actions or how they've been percieved by those he directed them at. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Doc and George above. Reduce the block to a week but make it clear that it is a final warning before a total ban. Dreadstar † 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: reduce the block to 48/72/120 hours, give an only/final warning that any more comments like the ones to Sarah will result in an indefinite block and community ban, and politely ask him to engage in discussion at WT:RFA about whether his questions are acceptable or not. Daniel 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this user may be a sock of a banned user. He first appeared making those comments on Dereks1x sockpuppet's RFA. Miranda 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's reason to think this is not his first account, yes, but how do you make the jump from "sock" to "sock of banned user"? Picaroon (t) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...might ask a checkuser? I am not a person who has access to any sekrit list. He appeared on a banned user's RFA. Miranda 05:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the block to 48h. When it expires I will keep an eye on his contributions for a while. — Dan | talk 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that should he either date another lesbian or leave the toilet seat up then the block should be extended to indefinite? ;) --WebHamster 03:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the wink-smiley is meant to suggest that's humor, but I don't think the joke is particularly funny. Please refactor. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So don't laugh. One can't please all the people all the time.--WebHamster 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Sarah's page, asking if one edits in the nude or looking at images of men is sexual harassment. It doesn't belong here and it's unfair to ask any editor male or female editor to tolerate it. This isn't exactly a long time editor having only approximately 165 edits but in fairness , would support shortening block to one week , one final warning before indef block and ban.--Sandahl 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the block 1-week, final-warning, then indefinate ban idea.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Keepscases. This fellow is adamant that there was absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with his comments, going so far as to say "shame on anyone who was offended." I'm tempted to take this as prima facie evidence that the user is ineducable, but will defer to the consensus that he be given one last chance. That's one last chance, not several last last last last last last last chances as is so often the case here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to draw attention to my post at his talk page, before his block. His question at The Transhumanist's RfA was IMHO inappropriately personal... and (what I didn't say at the talk page) inappropriately trolly, as it seemed to me to be baiting. The Transhumanist did well not to rise to the bait. I think this is a newbie who's not got the hang of what is and isn't appropriate here - this is quite an unusual site for anyone used to, say, BBs, and our tolerance for humour is bounded. However, if he continually ignores warnings and worse, argues the case that he was in the right, there's no hope for him. Therefore, I support a block lift, but on condition he understands that at the next similar offense, I would propose a community ban. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous block. Keepscases is actually, IMO, a positive influence on RfA; being given an unpredictable and apparently random question, rather than the formulaic "what is your interpretation of BLP/IAR?", is actually a good basis on which to judge a candidate's character, as they are forced to come up with a genuinely individual response. Plus, if a candidate believes one of his questions to be "inappropriately personal" then they have every right to refuse to answer it, and it's unlikely that they'd lose support for doing so. The comments to Sarah could be interpreted vaguely as sexual harassment, but if Sarah herself has not complained, then they should be interpreted (as they were no doubt intended) as a joke; at most, they merit a warning to be more careful with comments in future. This block is yet another example of why sysops should not be trigger-happy with indef blocks, and I only hope that Ryulong hasn't driven another user away through overzealous blocking (it wouldn't be the first time). Walton^One 13:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller above. Looking at the edits in question, they are borderline -- unlike the recent incident involving Thespian. (The comment about editting in the nude reminded me of the line from "Airplane!".) Assume good faith, & the usual gudieline about biting newbies would direct us to assume a mistake in judgement, rather than intent to harass -- the guy's just trying to inject a little humor. A stern warning here is entirely appropriate, & perhaps a block to make the point; an indef block at this point is overkill. (A second such incident, however, & I give permission to anyone -- especially a female Admin -- to throw the book at him.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some of his questions that I missed were inappropriate but I enjoyed the ones I saw. I was disappointed and felt slighted when he didn't show up for my RfA asking about bunions or offering me a shrubbery. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some what late, but I am in agreement with Walton's comments above. I do not feel that block should have occurred here and in general do not feel that this case is being approached with the user being considered in good faith. I also do not think that the user had significant warning before his ban, as pointed out I believe consensus was leaning towards him being able to do so. His comments to Sarah were not appropriate, I do agree, but not deserving of ban. I also agree with Walton on why his questions are worthwhile and feel that he should be allowed to continue to make them. SorryGuy 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note #Keepscases_speaks—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible remedy for this

I have drafted a possible solution that would allow this user to be unblocked, and I would like to see what the community thinks about this. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User Stco23

User:Stco23 has been temp blocked twice for being uncivil with other editors, but he does not seem to have learned anything from either block. He continues to harrass and make rude remarks to any editor that either edits an image he has uploaded or removes images he's added to articles. I have had the unfortunate luck to have to deal with him twice now over images in the Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers and Garfield and Friends articles. He had uploaded individual images of all of the DVD sets and wanted every last one in the article, which is inappropriate and excessive. While his exchanges haven't degraded to the level they were at the time of his last block, I'm certain it is only a matter of time. Our "discussion" of the Chip N Dale issue included User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Chip_N_Dale_Rescue_Rangers, User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Stco23 and User_talk:Collectonian/Archive_2#Stco23_2. Borderline, but livable. However, he also did this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collectonian (though apparently he didn't quite do it right or something). As a side note, I deleted nothing (not an admin, of course), the individual DVD releases were deleted as part of an AfD along with the season pages. He also went to other users complaining [58] (dif includes my response warning him about borderline meat puppetry), [59] (in an unrelated CfD), and [60] (another user). Some responded as seen at [61], again trying to correct and education. When one of the images was CSDed for non-fair use, he reverted[62] as "not being legal" then when another editor corrected his inappropriate removal, he told the editor to stay out of it [63].

I let that one go, trying to be somewhat patient and understanding and hoping he might learn. Alas, no. I started cleaning up the Garfield and Friends article to bring it inline with the TV MOS. The DVD section had three images, I removed all but one (leaving one that one in an attempt at early compromise because I suspected what was coming). First, he undid. I reverted and explained. He then began the barrage of messages to my talk page. He later removed them but I put them back for easier viewing[64]. During one of his messages, he left the lovely edit summary of "I hate you" [65]. When he realized he wouldn't get his way, again, he removed all of the Garfields images and CSDed them, along with the Chip 'n Dale images. He has since "changed his mind."

I nominated the Garfield and Friends template for deletion (unnecessary) and he requested it be kept to protect his images [66]. He's done the same for other template and category deletions, and use the protection of "his" images as rationale for edit warring and harrassing other editors. He's also given the same reason in a suggested (and needed) merge [67].

This editor seems to have some WP:OWNership issues over images and throws a nasty temper tantrum if they are not kept in articles, no matter how many times he's referred to the image policies and guidelines. While he's behaving marginally better since his last block, it is extremely frustrating for other editors trying to clean up TV articles. Having to deal with his ugly/nice back and forth on image issues and his constant barrage of complaints and attempts to get his way so he can keep his images has likely chased off other editors before.

Honestly not sure what should be done, but after round two with him, I'd like to avoid another round. Its likely, though, since I am in the TV project and actively cleaning up articles where I can. So some assistance would be welcome.AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for many of the thing I said. I did do some edits but then I changed my mind about them. I decided to put the two images into one, and I thought it would be a good idea. I did get out of hand, but I calmed down and thought it over. I know that sometimes I get out of hand, but then I think it over. By the way I was only blocked once even though it showes I was blocked twice. I don't deserve to be blocked even though I do have problems with my temper and I need to control it. Collectionian I'm sorry. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That thing I did not want to be deleted was not because of her, It was because I thought it would be better to keep it because I thought that if it stayed, it would keep those articles at bay. It was the Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers template and not Garfield and Friends.--Stco23 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am getting rid of two of the images that I uploaded a long time ago since I put both of them together to make one image. I own what I took, but the fox compies own the rights to them. I put them together, and resize them to fit the rules. I should have a long time ago, put the Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers images together. I know the rules and I am going to stick by them at all cost. I will not haress anyone again and I will talk to people reasonable and respectful. I might be different from other people and might not know how to do some stuff on this site, but I will follow the rules.--Stco23 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite your apologies here and on my talk page, I noticed you are still going around to other editors and complaining [68], where among other things you claimed that you "tried to be nice" but that I ruined it? I also see you are now trying to use your autism as an excuse for your behavior? I have a hard time finding your profuse apologies to be sincere when you are doing such things. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash

I am nearing the end of my rope with V-Dash (talk · contribs), who appears to simply be here to start drama. His talk page, for the past few days, has just been he and I going back and forth, and all I am seeing from him is a MPOV and tendentious editing, deliberately ignoring anything everyone says to him. He also posted a link to an attack blog he ran (since removed) and proceeded to process-wonk about it after I removed it as an attack site.

I first got involved with him when I blocked him for edit-warring on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, and that was when I realized he had a fan club of sorts who were making impostor accounts. Although I blocked all the imp accounts, he returned, after his block ended, to starting the same argument that had been soundly defeated on D&P's talk page. After I engaged him on another subject on the talk page, I moved the majority of that section to his talk page, where he and I have been debating for the past few days.

Just now, an anon who has been recent on his talk page, calling himself the "Wandering hero", posted links to a couple GameFAQs forums as "PROOF" that V-Dash isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Looking at the links, I'm starting to agree with him, and have come here today requesting advice on the matter. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Objection. Way to go against your word Jeske. I thought GameFAQs links to the msg boards weren't considered proof? You said so yourself. Anyhow, you did remove the link, but I never reposted it again. You are the one who started the debate on my user page. So don't even object to it.V-Dash (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He called it proof, I am quoting him. I'm asking for advice because I'm starting to see very bad signs coming from you that generally gets users indef-blocks. And the forums he linked to, assuming that your username there is what I think it is, paint a picture akin to the Mona Lisa. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And another thing? Don't claim admin abuse until you actually know what admin abuse is. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, because I don't remember myself editing any articles lately other than 2 where one had someone vandalize it and the other had false info on it. Besides, you said unofficial links do not count as proof. And yes, I do know what admin abuse is.V-Dash (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why are you misapplying the label? I have not - and will not - block(ed) you. If anything, I have been biased towards you. And this is precisely what I stated on the talk page: You completely disregarded the majority of my last statement and cherry-picked the issue you want to address. And this is not about your article editing; this is about your behavior en generale. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, this is her idea, not mine...

Anyhow, Jeske, how am I cherrypicking on something? This is all about my idea of DnD. Sure, I called it a board game, but did I alter the article? I did not. This is why I never get involved with fans of popular media...except wrestling.V-Dash (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am male, thank you very much, and this is less about your idea of D&D than it is about your behavior on D&P's talk before my one-week block of you for editwarring and subsequently afterwards on same and on your TP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And V-Dash, creating a thread here is by no means admin abuse. At first, your edits could have simply been reverted as forum posts aren't reliable sources. However it seems your editing has become disruptive, which could result in a block. And BTW Jeske, you said you did already block him, though for a different reason. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him last month for a 3RR violation on Diamond and Pearl (I also blocked Placebo Effect for the same edit-war). At that time I did not know whom he was. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Checking his block log, I assume we're referring to the most recent one. Also, you don't seem to be the only one expressing concern; of the three other admins who blocked him, Stephen also noticed harassment. So V-Dash, please refrain from disruptive editing. If you don't, you get blocked. Simple. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:MelicansMatkin has also had concerns with V-Dash, AFAIK. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but I honestly don't see what Jeske is going on about. Anyhow, I haven't even touched the D/P page since you blocked me. Heck, I barely go there now.V-Dash (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This thread is not on your behavior there; it is on your behavior towards other users. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're admitting that you're a sockpuppet account? You did say users and users = more than one person.V-Dash (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can guarantee you CheckUser on me, Melicans Matkin, and the Placebo Effect will come back "Unrelated". -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

When he says users, I believe he means that you have been rude to more than one person. Nothing Jeske said could be taken as proof that he's a sock. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, when did I ever mention does two? Guilty conscience?V-Dash (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Users with whom User:V-Dash has had a negative conduct towards, whether on an article's talk page, or his own talk page: Jéské, User:The Placebo Effect, User:Urutapu, User:MelicansMatkin. I feel it necessary to mention that at this point in time, the user seems to starting arguments simply for the purpose of causing disruption. The user also appears to ignore Consensus, and refuses to accept explanations from no less than four different editors on the same topic.

V-Dash, accusing a member of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet with no proof whatsoever is a very serious allegation. Jéské never mentioned anything that could construe his being a sockpuppet. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm getting the feeling of disruption and harassment here. I'd endorse a block. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't do the deed (I'm in dispute with him); another admin will have to give the permanent vacation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are you going to call the cops for Jeske calling me a sockpuppet? Besides, this was not my idea. He posted the link on my talk page. As for the other users, I haven't even seen them recently.V-Dash (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I never called you a sockpuppet, but you have just accused me of Wikistalking. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. So the next thing you'll accuse me of is WikiPwning?V-Dash (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't make the accusation I did above lightly. What little good faith I had in you vanished the moment you made that statement. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict): otherwise, you wouldn't be following me throughout Wikipedia - sounds like a Wikistalking accusation to me. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you be quiet - at this point, your behavior is only sending you further beyond the point of no return. I am going to contact another admin to look at this thread and the ones on your userpage. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE) I have contacted Alison about this thread and the ones on V-Dash's page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were an admin yourself? Or would it look like a bad blimish on your account if you blocked me for the arguments you started? Btw, this is your thread that you linked on MY talk page.V-Dash (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You initially started the exchange at Talk:Pokémon Diamond and Pearl - Nice try. And because I'm the one debating you on that topic and others, I couldn't block anyhow. Nor could the Placebo Effect (she's editwarred with you). Alison, however, can, and I invited her to simply look at this thread and all the threads on your talk page - nothing more. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you powers were taken away? Is this why you've started those debates with me? Btw, I did not do anythingf to the D/P page.V-Dash (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean besides going against consensus, arguing for the sake of arguing, and causing pointless diruption because every other editor on the page disagreed with you? MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have my administrator powers, V-Dash, and it was your post that was simply added there to fan the flames (diff) that prompted that debate. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The last time I saw V-Dash's name, I believe it involved The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. It had gotten to the point where he was calling people 'cocksuckers', if I remember correctly. In fact, I think I was the one who reported him. I don't know what he's done this time, but he has a history of extreme and often outright vulgar rudeness if he doesn't get his way. HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Diruption? You mean disruption? So you want someone else to block me to keep me from accusing you of admin abuse?V-Dash (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep going the way you're going and you will be blocked without fanfare. And HalfShadow, he's been trolling on his userpage and here, and has accused me of being a sockpuppeteer and of wikistalking. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Half, that's a big offense. Jeske, how am I trolling my userpage? I haven't even edited in over a month and a half. Besides, what can you block me for? For replying to you? V-Dash (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[69], [70], [71] HalfShadow (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior on your user talk page is tantamount (the same as) trolling, as is your behavior here, and making baseless accusations of stalking and sockpuppetry is a form of trolling and a blockable offense. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And you have just accused me of trolling you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can they both be blocked?Mantlefish (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC) — Mantlefish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You're baiting me to respond to you Jeske.V-Dash (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish is an SPA, and I am not baiting you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's ok for you to accuse others of being SPA, yet no one else can't?V-Dash (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish *is* an SPA; he's only edited here and on your talkpage. I have filed a checkuser request to see if this is another one of PolluxFrost/Dash Jr's socks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we know he's not your account?V-Dash (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Read my contribs (the Kacheek emoticon in my sig is a direct link) and compare them with Mantlefish's. Note that they overlap. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mantlefish

Checkuser confirms that V-Dash is Mantlefish. Enough is enough. I am now asking for a ban. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeske, I, for one, would have no problem with you sacking this guy. It is now a clear cut case of sockpuppetry, not just a dispute involving you as before. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Menudo (band)

I believe that User:Christopher R is attempting to remove what he claims to be libelous information. It is sourced, however. He has hit 3rr, as has another contributor who is reverting his removals, and been informed numerous times by way of his (Chris's) User talk that this is incorrect. I believe this to be CoI (see history). --Izno (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up at WP:COI/N, please. This is the wrong place. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be discussed here, since he has now issued a legal threat - [72]. Corvus cornix_talk 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I just blocked him until he retracts his legal threat. The article does seem to contain a lot of unsourced material; he's got a point, even if he's being a bully about it. I left him a note telling him to retract his threat, read our policy, and go to the talk page (I'll unblock him if he retracts his threat, and I encourage anyone else to do so if you see it happen before I do). Antandrus (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is http://menudo.biz really a reliable source? It appears to be a personal website. Should allegations of crime made by the complainant, but with no evidence of charges being laid or prosecutions obtained really be in an article? Particularly for living people, NPOV is more than just a recitation of sourced facts; it also entails a balanced article. Do minor drug seizures (with no evidence of subsequent legal action), particularly where one person was a minor, constitute an appropriately balanced addition? Where are the sources that support the last paragraph, which speaks of "numerous lawsuits"? Where are the sources supporting the claims against Edgardo Díaz? What sources support the claims of massive media coverage ("every major news cast") in the first paragraph? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just unblocked him; see the discussion on his talk page. The article does contain a lot of um, stuff, that really needs good sources if it is to stay. Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While he was blocked, 69.157.5.186 continued the same edits. IrishGuy ^talk 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The section claims reports from Entertainment Tonight, CNN, etc. I cannot find any online corroboration for this. As such, I am removing it for now. A fan site isn't a reliable source and that is all there is for now. If new sourced can be found, it can be reinstated. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The only source working is a 17-year old article from The New York Times, all others from menudo.biz... hardly reliable. That piece is also written like a tabbloid piece itself (my guess is by the webmaster or menudo.biz himself), trying very hard to include the phrase "gay sex scandal" as many times as possible. It should really be removed. I talked before looking. — Edokter • Talk • 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Danger, danger, Will Robinson ... we've now got someone campaigning to restore this godawful paragraph about Menudo's alleged "gay sex and orgies". Blue5864, if "CNN broke the story" would you please provide a reliable source for that? I'm terribly sorry, but we have a WP:BLP policy which prohibits poorly-sourced material of this nature. And are you seriously going to call Jimbo for help getting it put back? Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be well-meaning, just a little misguided. I gave him a friendly notice regarding civility, as he has referred to the edits removing BLP violations as "vandalism". --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is not a single thing in the article that has a source. Is this normal for BLP? Bielle (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman and Ladies I can send you in a private email any document you want original judgments, news stories etc this is not fiction while Menudo has in the English market escaped the sex and drug scandal it is not so in latin america. The News Clips are fact not fiction. The menudo..biz site is owned by Mr. McGillis and more details on him and menudo can be found at www.mcgillismusic.com . There is so much more information all sourced in the mega scandal financial, gay sex (newsreports not me) and abuse of minors that is told in actual news reports. In fact if you go to youtube and type Menudo sex scandal you get Edgardo in his own words defending the international scandal. How can you get more souced than the Cover of the New York Daily News? Any document you want give me a email and its yours. HONESTLY did anyone read the letter signed by the menudo boys and there parents that was sent to the Justice Department and the Press release from the Justice Department. Both are in that one paragraph. Yes its a scandal and it was huge and its history that is sourced. Let that guy scream and holler all he wants because in any Court of the United States the defense to libel or slander is the truth. I did not write the articles the newspapers did. I did not write to the department of justice the children of Menudo and there parents signed that letter. C'mon do not let a bully push you around. This is America not Russia.--Blue5864 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

read this Menudo Parents write the department of justice regards gay sex and drugs read the letter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue5864 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Such material fails WP:SOURCE and is not usable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons demands strict sourcing. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Than Mr. McGillis will sue for libel--Blue5864 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Constant reversions against the consensus here [73] [74] [75] [76] and legal threats (minor and blatant)... --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've listed him on WP:AIAV. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And it's been removed, saying it should be discussed here. So, legal threats? ∞rr? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure he was making legal threats here, just an explanation of what he believes will happen. I don't think Blue5864 is presenting himself as representing anyone involved in the legal case. But yes, action should definitely be taken on the nRR vios, and the fact that he removed part of this section. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Any blocks relating to users warring over Menudo should be made at the relevant thread, which is here. AIV isn't the only place administrators watch, and from my observations, they tend to pay more attention to this page. Spebi 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just filed it at AN3 here: WP:AN3#User:Blue5864 reported by User:Seicer (Result: ) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this can be retracted then. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I already removed this. Unless one here is an admin familiar with the dispute, please let me handle this. TIA. El_C 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I filed this independently after reviewing Recent Changes, and noted there was a case at ANI, which is on my watchlist. No one has to be involved to clearly see gross abuse of 3RR. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not on AIV, that's for simple reports and this is complex. I blocked Blue, indefinitely, for legal threats. I also removed the entire Sex section and fully protected the page for 24 hours, just to be on the safe side (what's 24 hours, right?). I'll let an admin familiar with this dispute follow this up in case I don't get the chance to study this matter further. El_C 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to follow what it is that happening here, with this Blue5864‎ account? El_C 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It appears to be a role account, with Darrin McGillis at menudo.biz as at least one of the contributors (he claims it is used by his company -- see the "My company has maintained a Wiki account of Blue5864" line on his talk page). He persistently tries to re-insert a clearly libelous and poorly-sourced paragraph (sourced to tabloids, but actually just documents on his own personal website) into the article. I think he/they should stay blocked and we need to keep an eye on the article for attempts to bypass the block. Christopher R -- the user I originally blocked for legal threats -- I think was in the right here; he just wasn't going about it correctly at first. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it truly is a role account run by Darrin McGillis then it is a returning blocked user. See Mcgillismusic. IrishGuy ^talk 15:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could this be regarded as an unfounded personal attack? "Walrus just because you are supporter as stated on your site for gays". I have genuinely no idea what he could mean by that. I don't have a website, and if he's talking about my userpage, there's nothing of the sort on there. I've asked him for clarification. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering Blue5864's strong reaction when confronted about the reliability of the website above I would assume that he is actually the webmaster of this page, am I right? (if I am then this edit war appears to violate COI) regardless of that seeing that legal threats and a rather explosive edit war have resulted directly from this website's inclusion in the article the easiest way to avoid any more edit warring is to have the website blacklisted. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He either is the webmaster, or, if we are to believe his claims, he is working on behalf of the webmaster. Regardless, he was blocked for legal threats, then unblocked when he retracted them, blocked again for more legal threats, then was probably on the way to being unblocked again when he claimed to have made no legal threats, or if he did, they have been retracted, and that he has "never had any intentions to file any legal action". And now, 50 minutes after that, he's clearly changed his mind. I can't see this guy getting unblocked now. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for username requesting unblock for name change

User:The Epopt blocked User:Duke o Puke due to his username. Duke is asking to be unblocked in order to change his name, but The Epopt seems to be away. Can someone review this? Please see Duke and The Epopt's talk pages for more details. Thanks Ripberger (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I'll look into it. The block log isn't saying usernameblock, however, though it appears User:The Epopt subsequently stated on the talk page that it was a block for that reason. Furthermore, the editor in question was never told why they were blocked in the first place - Alison ^❤ 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That name is hardly warranting of a block, in my opinion. If you find something like that offensive, then the internet really isn't the place for you. --For Queen and Country (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not "away." User:Ripberger seems to be unaware of the posts I have left on Puke's talk page. I note that Puke had very little trouble creating a yet another account — User:Duck of Luke. ➥the Epopt (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Queen on that one. That is mild. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
(full disclosure: This editor is not an admin, only voicing an opinion.)

Ah. Didn't know you weren't away, sorry. I just checked the datestamps on the talk page. If you like, I'll followup to my comment on their talk page and defer to you on this one - Alison ^❤ 01:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I was aware of your (The Epopt) messages, but he needed to be unblocked to use the new username. Autoblocked, I guess. I just felt that you should have given him the option to change his name. Anyway, my apologies for any bad faith on my part. Thanks, Alison for looking into this. Ripberger (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I know this is possibly controversial given the article they created, etc, etc. However as they've done nothing wrong, as the username is arguably offensive, and as the blocking admin appears to be away, I've reviewed this and agreed to unblock solely to allow them to file a request at WP:CHU and have their name changed to something else. This seems to be the most reasonable approach here - Alison ^❤ 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that user:The Epopt is continually referring to user:Duke of Puke simply as Puke in an attempt to create some sort of shock factor, trying to fool people into thinking that Puke is infact the entire username. Abuse of power at hand here. --For Queen and Country (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to assume bad faith here. The block has been reviewed and hopefully the Duke will be editing with a new account in no time. I probably should have waited for The Epopt to respond before coming here, but here we are. I'll try to be more patient next time. Ripberger (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it slightly suspicious that the block appeared to have been set with anti-account creation and the autoblocker on. Last I check soft blocks were used for username blocks. FunPika 01:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, he's agreed to my suggestion on his talk page. To The Epopt, can we agree to unblock this guy now to address the problem? I'd rather not leave him blocked for any longer than needs be, but I did agree to defer to you, now that you're back here - Alison ^❤ 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not wheel-war over this; if you feel he should be unblocked, I won't object. I do suggest that User:For Queen and Country get his telepathy tuned up, as his intuition of my intentions is ... somewhat flawed. ➥the Epopt (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both points here. Unblocking, so. And yes, a little AGF required here from User:For Queen and Country regarding your intents :) Thanks for the followup - Alison ^❤ 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone try to clear this guy's autoblock? I've tried and can't lift it - Alison ^❤ 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be cleared now. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all who helped, and please consider what it makes your organization look like to have The Epopt representing it as an administrator. I would have been more than happy to have changed my name if asked, but he chose to summarily block me. Even now, all he says is that he will not "wheel war". Everything I've read about your username policy indicates that the way he handled this was completely wrong. He also voted to destroy an article that I created, while I was unable to speak for it because I was banned, because of him. If you're going to have written policies, might I humbly suggest that administrators as well as regular users should be forced to obey them? Duck of Luke (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Ripberger (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kevin Murray

The other day, Kevin Murray made responded to a post, in what I consider a rude manner. The Wikiproject Poker had been debated some notability guidelines for poker players, and his response was, Can you help me with setting up our guideline, I represent WikiProject Overweight plumbers. I called him on this as uncivil behavior. To which he responded, "Lighten up... The plumber joke is an old standby .." To which I responded by stating, "I don't care if it is an old "standby" it is still rude." He then responded with, Go cry some where else. Immediately after making this exchange, Kevin Murray, took it upon himself to close the discussion. Now, the discussion might needed to have been closed---I won't argue that--- but I think his doing so immediately after our little exchange was tit-for-tat and immature. Would he have marked the discussion if I hadn't just called him on his incivility? All I wanted was an aplogy stating, "I didn't mean to be offensive." Instead, he got defensive and ruder and then acted in what I consider bad faith.Balloonman (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I have notified him on both his and my talk pages.Balloonman (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He made a joke about a policy which had consensus to reject, which you undid twice. You're pushing for something the community said no to, and having lost, you're NOW going after a 2 day old comment,which had a point, from a loud voice on the other side. Nothing to see here. ThuranX (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I undid it once, when it was closed shortly after it was opened. This page was started at 11:25 on December 6. United Statesian closed it at 18:10 baded upon a discussion going on here. The participants of the main page and part of the poker project were not even aware of the parrallel discussion until after our proposal closed. I reopened it because I didn't think it was appropriate for somebody to close it based on a discussion that occurred without those interested being notified. What I am going after is the comments Kevin made TODAY. I challenged him on his comment when he first made them---notice the time stamp and my response in on the notability page ---and he responded today. Rather than apologize, saying "I didn't mean to be offensive, it was a joke." He got ruder and acted in an inappropriate manner. I just noticed this little gem, BM, I find your balloon a bit inflated. I am not challenging that the discussion should be closed. It probably should be. But would HE have closed if I hadn't told him that his response was rude? Is telling somebody to go cry somewhere else appropriate? Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: While I am not contesting the closure, I do believe it was closed prematurely based upon the most recent discussion going on, others who opposed the initial proposal recognized a hole in BIO and we were trying to come up with a way to respond. I do not believe he would have closed it if it wasn't for our exchange.Balloonman (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Kevin Murray, rightly or wrongly, has chosen not to apologize, exactly what do you want to happen? Keepscases (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• At the same time that I added my plumber joke, I also made an offer to help the proponents find an alternate resolution (see [77]. I've been gone for two days and found BM's comments at my talk page. My first response was to explain my position (see [78], which solicited more rhetoric at my talk page. My next response was bitey and in retrospect I wish that I had been more compassionate. I apologize to BM and the community for my failure in etiquette. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• In all honesty, that is all I wanted---I did find your first response (starting with "lighten up") to be on the rude side. It doesn't matter if it is a joke or not, when somebody finds a comment to be rude, the appropriate response is to apologize--humor is a fine line. NOTE: While I can't necessarily argue against the closure of the discussion, I still believe you should have reclused yourself from doing so---especially so shortly after our encounter. (I told another admin in a similar situation the same thing and did so myself when I was personallu involved with a situation. As far as I am concerned, this is a dead issue.Balloonman (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Funny4life

Resolved

 – Messages left for editor. Kralizec! (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please have a look at Funny4life (talk · contribs). Warned several times, keeps on vandalising, even user pages. -- Matthead  DisOuß   23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, his edits to Nicolaus Copernicus do not seem like vandalism to me. His edits to userpages seems to be because he is new and didn't know to use the talk page. However, it is approaching 3RR on the Copernicus article, I'd take it up on the talk page and discuss it there. Useight (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Useight on this issue. User page edits like [79], [80] are classic confused new user. Likewise, the editor might not be aware that their edits to Nicolaus Copernicus‎ are verging on a WP:3RR violation. I went ahead and left messages for Funny4life on both of these issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the editor received multiple messages on the issues in question. Hopefully that will resolve the trouble.

81.145.240.18

Resolved

 – IP already blockedKralizec! (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

81.145.240.18 Talk
Streak of vandalism covering 3 months after his last temporary block. Take a look if you wish. --Illnab1024 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like OwenX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) already blocked [81] the address for 24 hours. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

81.98.226.146‎

Resolved

 – Inactive vandal, AIV is the place to go if he continues.

81.98.226.146‎ (talk · contribs) continues to vandalize pages, even though several users have warned him to stop multiple times. Some of today's most recent edits were [82] and [83] and [84]. Please, take a look. Grey Maiden ^talk 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These edits were made about an hour or so ago, and it appears that the user is inactive. If he does make disruptive edits again, see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and make a report there, rather than here. Spebi 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Merbabu pointless repeat vandaling disruption of Mumia Abu-Jamal Featured Article Candidacy discussion

Resolved

 – complaint opened by banned user, IP blocked, The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[85] and [86]. Editor has never made any constructive contributions to development of the article and made solely negating contributions in the past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs)

This IP address, User:74.200.75.5, appears to be here for disruptive purposes. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor is reverting an IP - any truth to his assertion that the IP is that of a banned user? If so, then nothing to see here. ThuranX (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The page he's talking about was created by User:PhiladelphiaBreeze, one of many disruptive sockpuppets. I suspect they're linked. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's another User:DavidYork71 sock which been attacking the Mumia Abu-Jamal page. I can spot him a mile away. There's plague. lol As for the FAC page - I'd suggest seeking the opinion of Dr Kiernan (main recent contributor to Mumia Abu-Jamal). Not sure what else I need to say at this stage, but happy to answer any other questions. --Merbabu (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)It's User:DavidYork71. He'a avoiding a community ban and Merbabu, the editor he is complaining about, is his old adversary and one of the editors who spots his various socks. I consider this report some sort bizarre revenge. Sarah 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by Dmcdevit as an open proxy. Sarah 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cody Finke has returned

Resolved

 – Blocked and labeled as a sock of MascotGuy

Acroterion _(talk) 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This guy is like a cockroach.

Codyfinke2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Banned sock puppet has returned from the hinterlands of banishment seeking further exile...

• codyfinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• codyfinke6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• codyfinke2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are others, but i can't remember them. He has been linked to MascotGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

Next time he's blocked, could he be account creation blocked, please? Corvus cornix_talk 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He was this time: standard practice for sockpuppets. Autoblock isn't totally effective, and there are ways around ACB. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Taric25

Taric25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in some content disputes, and not getting his way. As a result he filed the vexations and frivolous Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, which I deleted. He took it to deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.2FTTN. In this debate Eusebeus said: Endorse deletion I have posted a warning to the user's talk page over his adolescent use of a sockpuppet allegation when he didn't get his way in a content dispute. I also suggest that the user be issued a block as censure for this kind of behaviour. It is completely unacceptable. Needless to say, Taric25 immediately filed Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Eusebeus.

How long do we put up with this querulousness? I believe Tarc25 needs to stop spitting in the soup as a matter of some urgency. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of like this seems to stem from your irregular and upsetting deletion of the sockpuppet page, which is being overturned at DRV. Taric25 might be being a pest with the Wikiquette alert (I was surprised that page even exists) but it's not as clear cut as Guy is painting it. The deletion of a report apparently made in good faith would irritate anyone. --W.marsh 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that if you look into it the creation of the sockpuppet page was itself another example of the self-same querulousness. The user seems absolutely determined to escalate every possible point of conflict. This goes back well before the creation of the sockpuppet page; deletion of a vexatious sockpuppet page is only upsetting if you're determined to be upset. Let's say I were to create a sockpuppet page on you and some randomly selected editor who agrees with you - should that be left lying around forever? I'd say not, in the same way we delete uncertified RfCs. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam

Resolved

 – Ban endorsed. Davnel03 13:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That user is making a plea to lift the ban under which he is. I am not willing or able to mentor him, but I thought he might find someone willing to take him under his wing here. I am not making a judgment about how sincere his act of contrition might be, simply forwarding the request. — Coren ^(talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's had a ton of chances. We can give him one more chance, but if that fails, how many more are we willing to give? Maser ^(Talk!) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WHy is it always 'Just one more' for some editors? let him find a new hobby. ThuranX (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his blocklog, the user should stay banned. If you unblock him, he'll just be a nuisance and go on the rampage again. Just keep him block. He never changed when he was unblocked before - I sincerely doubt he'll change now. Keep banned. Davnel03 18:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. He's been a long problem editor. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the BL, I see no reason why he'd be interested in being a model editor. Endorse ban. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Most of my blocks are because I was reverting vandalism but it was seen as edit warring and I got blocked for it. Either that or, I was pointing out sockpuppets of user: NisarKand and the admins saw that as harrassment and banned me for it. Even though I turned out to be right, I am very interested in being a model editor. My edits are on Afghanistan related articles and I am committed to improving them. I am committed to be a model editor but I everyone makes mistakes. If unbanned, I will avoid doing too many reverst even if I feel it is vandlism I'm reverting, I will not point out socks of other users incase it's harrasment, and finally (this is what I was banned for) I will not listen to advice or directions from users that have been banned (proxying). The last violation I wasn't even aware there was such violation. So I think I should be given a chance to prove that I have learned from my mistakes. What I'm being banned for is just 1 violation that I can easily not repeat again. And the rest, I've stated what I will do to avoid them. Trust me, I am interested in being a model editor and contributing to what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: 3 of my recent blocks were mistaken and appologized for by the admins later on. Just ask User_talk:Rlevse about it. Two of my blocks are from him and he ended up being wrong about them in the end and apologized for them. So when considering my block log, please ignore 3 of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doublechecking

Resolved

 – Yep, looks good.

Davnel03 09:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I just became an administrator and blocked an editor for the first time. I blocked User:DozClayStaues indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I just wanted some confirmation that I did it correctly. Thanks for any feedback. Useight (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but don't forget to sign your name when leaving "You're Blocked!" messages. Sean William @ 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks OK. Can't see any major problems, apart from the comment above. Davnel03 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I added my sig. Useight (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Well done! Just on the sig thing; with certain block templates, such as that one, you can simply add a ''|sig=~~~~'' into the template and it will appear nicely within the frame :) - Alison ^❤ 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, it does look better that way. Useight (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to activate the auto-signing feature in any of the {{uw-block}} series, the parser is looking for "|sig=<any text>" at the end of the template. I suspect that most admins use "|sig=y" or something similar. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are dummy pages and users for you to practise on if you like at Wikipedia:New admin school. Splash - tk 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

New Admin School is a great idea. I wish that had existed when I needed practice. Natalie (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangina2

Resolved

 – Blocked indef; username violates Wiki policy. Davnel03 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The user Orangina2 has disrupted the Wikipedia football project over a long period of time. The very minor nature of his edits (he generally only edits infoboxes) is probably the only reason he hasn't been blocked already. The Wikipedia Football Project Player Manual of Style is the agreed Wikiproject Football standard for football player infoboxes, yet this user continues to actively apply his own style (here for example), despite numerous warnings on his talk page, most of which he has failed to respond to. If the user disagrees with the standard, that is fine, he is welcome to discuss it, but he has failed to do so. However given the user's disruptive edits and his lack of response, I don't know what other choice I have other than to request a block. He doesn't seem to be a vandal as such, just someone who wants to "do his own thing" and not communicate, collaborate or adhere to any kind of consensus. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(1 edit conflict) He should be blocked indefinitely. Despite the amount of warnings on his talkpage (probably over 50), he seems to not be corresponding with any of WP:FOOTBALL's policy's. In my view he should be blocked indefinitely as he seems to be doing what he wants with the templates, when he wants. Davnel03 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He now seems to be communicating on his talk page, but I'm not sure if this is because he fears a block? Not sure whether he should be given a further grace period. --Jameboy (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef because of the above and because the username violates Wiki policy. Davnel03 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:RaulTheFool -- Personal attack and general trolling

Resolved

If he continues to be a troll, report back here. Davnel03 09:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:RaulTheFool (contributions) is an account with only 3 contributions to date, all comments at Talk:Ann Coulter and all made in the past couple days. The problems of with those posts, of general trollery and of personal attack, are self-evident from them; "RaulTheFool" seems to be a trolling-only account (perhaps another round from "Big Daddy"). Besides fitting action against the account, I suggest the deletion of the talk-page section, whereas it holds much flame-bait but nothing useful toward the editing of the article.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please act soon on that section-deletion; incivility carries on, on both sides. I'm tempted to do it myself, but I think it had better be done by an admin, else it will only feed the flames. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't play his game. The best way to get people to stop trolling and act civil is to simply ask them to suggest a new version of the content they object to. --Haemo (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't feed. The contrib's to this point do not rise to the level of block; it's someone on a soapbox, but there is no clear disruption. I wouldn't even ask for a suggested version. Ignore it and let the thread die. If the editor moves to article space disruptively, post here again or contact an admin directly. Marskell (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the user, and agree not blockable yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week by other admin

Can an admin block this indefinitely as a sockpuppet of either:

• Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or;
• Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's evident that this user is a sock of someone, given the user's relative expertise. It's either Mike, who he seems to be defending, or Encyclopedist, who embarked on a stalking campaign of Phaedriel several months ago (and has edited both Phaedriel and Kyoko's talkpages). At any rate, the user just seems to be stirring up the pot. Will ^(talk) 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked a week already by another admin, would support longer if it continues. Can you narrow down which user is the puppetmaster? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew about the one week block already. I'm not sure who the puppetmaster is, but it's evident it is a banned user. Will ^(talk) 23:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Johnny the Vandal, doing his usual. One glance at the edit history is enough. Blocked indef, as well as his other socks - Alison ^❤ 08:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody close my account.

Last time I tried to help, I was an obvious liar and a jerk who wastes time. If that's the case, fine. Someone close this account. I tried to help on this website, honestly, but if "POV Pushers" like me, even though it isn't my intention it dosent matter because then I'm WikiLawyering, be "fought off" and banned, then fine. I contribute and get nothing but why I'm a terrible editor. I should expect to be called on when I push a POV and then WikiLawyer and say "I didn't mean to".

Someone should actually enforce WP:BLOCK and disable this account. — Selmo ^(talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Walk away from the keyboard. Stop using the account. It's that easy. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If that really how you feel you may want to read meta:right to vanish, however I would hope you would think it over.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Colour me confused. I show this is the first edit Selmo has made in 93 days. Is this regarding a new issue, or is it left over angst from the dispute with Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Selmo, you can also scramble your password. If you don't have email enabled scrambling your password would be pretty permanent. Natalie (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue5864

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, talkpage protected. Davnel03 09:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This user is making legal threats after being previously blocked (diff) for legal threats Alexfusco5 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by me. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the user last night for legal threats and unblocked him today following his retraction. El_C 02:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry case has been filed against this user, so even though he has retracted his newest legal threat I am uncomfortable unblocking at this time. However, because it is often standard practice to allow those accused of sockpuppetry to provide evidence in their defense, I am submitting this for review by other administrators. I will be busy for the rest of the night so it is not necessary to contact me before unblocking if that is what seems most prudent. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep blocked. He's now invoking Jimbo in his threats. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with CBW. Keep blocked. He makes threat after threat, and then denies making them. Assuming that Blue = Darrin McGillis, as he has claimed, not only is he editing with a conflict of interest (posting tabloid charges which he keeps on his own website), but you all need to read this; read it all. Do we want this person editing here? Antandrus (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the way the editor has handled himself so far, no. I have found people with an axe to grind in the real world rarely do well as editors. Has done nothing but POV push and Wikilawyer so far. Maybe in a month or so if he gets the idea that Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, then he can come back. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked and protected his talk page to prevent further legal threats. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Appletrees

Resolved

 – Leave blocked. Davnel03 11:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Appletrees has asked that I mention his situation here. It looks like he was blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (who then immediately went offline) for "edit-warring on Liancourt Rocks". It looks to me that he reverted twice and made a few comments on the talk page. Apparently the article is subject to many editwars, as there are special rules written on top of the talk page. I don't think Appletrees should be blocked since he didn't violate 3RR. His comments on the talk page weren't the nicest, but I don't know if they're blockworthy. I've been an admin for less than 24 hours and I definitely don't want to just wheel war and unblock him. I'm mentioning this here as per Appletrees' request and to get another opinion on the matter. Useight (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Leave blocked. Appletrees is a frequent Japan/Korea edit warrior and knows full well that the slightest impropriety on his part will get him blocked. As a new admin, I commend you on having the sense to ask before acting, something I think is lacking in the sysop corps. Good judgement. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for not responding earlier, it was late last night and I missed Appletree's unblock request before I went to bed. I've responded on his talk page [87]. No objections if somebody else wants to review the block, but from my side, at this point, I'd let it stand. Note that there is a special zero-tolerance edit warring policy which I've been trying to keep enforced on the article in question (with the consent of some other admins and what I take to be silent assent by the Arbcom). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom election drama

Resolved

 – Davnel03 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Just a mistake really. Can't we just drop it? R. Baley (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Surprise! Does this happen every year, I wonder? Removing someone who makes a lot of contributions to an arbcom alection as WP:POINT seems fairly commensense, yet quite political. Yet we have a user [88] who opposed every single arbcom member with the statement Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Sounds like making a point. Wonder if it should be removed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say a better idea would be to ignore it until the vote is closed - maybe consider blocking him if he gets too disruptive, but otherwise ingonre him. Od Mishehu 06:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Users can vote for or against candidates for whatever reason they want to. I voted support for endlessdan cause he cracked me up. Does that make me disruptive? As long as this user isn't spamming the voting, which it doesn't appear he is, and I would think that he's rather harmless. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep and add a comment afterwards saying that he has commented the same way everywhere if it is unclear. On second thought, let everyone see his "arbcom is evil" comment and decide what they want. Leave it there; the last thing I'd want to do is encourage accusations of censorship and martyrdom from him. He'll probably get bored enough when nobody responds to him. Oh, and he's an admin BTW (a little odd to me). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize my expressing my opinion of the ArbCom warranted a section on the Admin notice board. I've been an active participant to this project for a long time. Much longer than anyone who has chosen to stick their noses in my votes here or on my talk page. I just did some looking at contribution histories, and I'd been an admin for years before any of these accounts had their first edits. I believe none of these contributors remember how this project operated before the ArbCom. I do. In my opinion, life before the ArbCom was MUCH better than it has become since. That is one of the reasons why I think anyone who would want to be associated with that body lacks enough judgment to serve as an arbitrator over my actions. I really don't want to discuss this anymore. I've voted. I'm not changing my votes. I have no intention of going off the cliff and deleting the main page anytime this week. And I don't think I'm above the law. I just think a better way to handle the issues that come before the committee can and should be found. Gentgeen (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Folks, this has zero effect on the outcome. Candidates who have massive support by the community will not be affected by this, and those who will be affected... well, let's say that they probably weren't going to be elected anyways. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, it does; Mr. Wales considers the lot of candidates above 50%, and makes a value judgment for them. If someone is right on the line, this could make up a difference. And please, Gentgeen, I didn't have to stick my nose out very far when your vote was hanging off every page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's thirteen candidates currently with ≥ 50% support. There's only five slots available on the ArbCom. Barring an unprecedented expansion, it really is a non-issue. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone archive/remove this thread already, using ANI to complain about votes is an inappropriate use of the board. R. Baley (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that by complaining about #Arbcom election drama, User:The Evil Spartan is creating more drama.

I have a sad piece of news to report. I just found out, User:The Evil Spartan is no longer with us, God rest his soul.T (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly not what I wanted to do... I just wanted to point out that this isn't that really that big of a deal. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmm...are you saying you are a sock of User:The Evil Spartan? " Not that there is anything wrong with that" Per rules, socks are okay sometimes. I have had User:RWV, for example. Nevermind, I think I am confused.T (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh... if he said the same thing on every nomination page, isn't the effect completely negated, making this a non-issue even further? EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, barring the ultra-hypotheticals mentioned above. Which is why no-one has given a crap until now. Grandmasterka 09:04, 9 December 2007 (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.

User:Bruce1333 edit warring

First on the Antichrist article, which is all documented in the user's RfC; recently, he's been edit warring on said RfC. I reverted him three times, but he persists in disruptive behaviour. I feel there isn't anything else I can do, as all attempts to communicate with the user have been rejected. Hence, I think administrator intervention is necessary. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does not look good, as far as civil and calm tone. El_C 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Some mass CSD taggings by User:Kill the Non-Notable Articles

Resolved

The username, itself, is very borderline, but it would seem that Kill the Non-Notable Articles (talk · contribs) is going on a slew of CSD taggings. I left a note on his/her talk page, but haven't received a response. I don't really wanna mass revert them unilaterally, so I figure I'd drop it here and see what others think. Cheers :) --slakr^\ talk / 09:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked and edits have been reverted. — Save_Us_229 09:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and all is well. Jmlk17 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

abuse report

Resolved

 – Puppet blocked, puppeteer warned Guy (Help!) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

i want to report an abusive user~--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vdx10 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As your first contribution? Could you maybe clue us in as to who it is you want to report? Shell ^babelfish 15:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Shell Kinney said, you'll need to be a lot more specific than that. If the user is vandalizing, you can report them to WP:AIV. Metros (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

yes . this person came onto my previous talk page and started an argument. his name jeskeVdx10 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean User:Jéské Couriano, yes? Can you be more specific about what kind of "abuse" is going on here? And identify who you are so we can see this "argument"? Metros (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Doubly since there are no edits to the talk page of the account you are currently using. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

C.Fred, I think what Vdx10 is saying here is that he is the reincarnation of someone else who had a previous run in with Jéské. Metros (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Looking at edit history, the reporting account, Vdx10, is a new account that User:V-Dash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has created. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

*points the above section* V-Dash = Vdx10 = Mantlefish, which = abuse of WP:SOCK. — Save_Us_229 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Vdx10, for reporting the abusive user V-Dash, who is now on a final warning for sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Angela Beesley

link to note at AN. Just a note, Mercury 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Puppy General Kitten

Resolved

Puppy General Kitten (talk · contribs) has copied my user and talk pages (and part of Abuse truth's talk page) as his user and talk pages. His other edits appear to be vandalism (which I've also reverted), but I don't think I should be the one to block. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why cant somebody copy your page? I know it is a bit odd, but its not "yours" and any text on Wikipedia is subject to licensing terms..... - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If he was copying layout features and things like that, sure. But when he's copying word for word the talk and user pages of another user and passing them off as his own, that's an issue. I think this guy needs an indefinite block, so I'll give him one. Metros (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand that. The bottom of every page here (including userspace) says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License". Again, I admit it is awfully weird, and maybe the block is justified for disruption reasons, but not just for copying the text, right? - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it does - its not about the copying, its about the attempted impersonation to make an account look reliable. Shell ^babelfish 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, it is disruptive to claim to be someone else. It's that plain and simple. To have a userbox claiming yourself as an admin is inappropriate if you're not an admin. In addition, he never attributed Arthur Rubin as the source of his user page. In order to use material from Wikipedia, our licensing requires that you attribute the source. So, in other words, he would have had to say that he copied that from Arthur Rubin's page for it to be kosher under the GFDL. Metros (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -Rjd0060 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Resolved

 – User indicated it was an accidental action and would not be repeated. Kwsn (Ni!) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Eye of the Mind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just deleted the main page. [89] I've blocked the account indef until this gets figured out. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The oddest part is that the contributions show no evidence of going rogue. The admin was doing normal admin stuff minutes before deleting the main page. Maybe someone just used the admin's computer while the admin was away. 128.227.1.239 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. 05:10, 8 December 2007 RyanGerbil10 (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Main Page" ‎ (3,957 revisions restored: undo deleteion)
2. 05:08, 8 December 2007 Eye of the Mind (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Main Page" ‎ (Because I'm Evil) (Restore)

We need to get an emergency desysop right away. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[90] Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoo Shanel moved quickly on that one! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment was "Because I'm Evil". Account compromised? No edits since October, then several today, including an indef-block[91]. Was the indef-block warranted? --Tom (talk - email) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether indefinite (i.e. undefined length of time) or a few hours, blocking just means that the user needs to unblock himself first. El_C 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Tom meant the block that Eye of the Mind did just prior to deleting the main page, not the block of his account itself. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Knowledge, I meant that Eye of Mind indef-blocked someone who was supposedly a sockpuppet today. Of course an indef block for Eye of Mind (at least for the moment) is appropriate, but was the action Eye of Mind took warranted? --Tom (talk - email) 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's remember to do this too next time it happens... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page itself is cascade protected by a number of other pages, fortunately, so that would not be a problem. Gracenotes^T § 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously The Random Editor (talk · contribs) (sysopping). Somehow, I doubt being evil was the most proximate cause of the deletion. :| Gracenotes^T § 05:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef block was justified - extreme and unusual circumstance. The block will no doubt be reviewed once we figure out what exactly happened. Manning (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, why doesn't the deletion show up here? (I'm not challenging whether it happened, as it's clear from Eye of the Mind's log; I'm just wondering if I'm somehow misusing Special:Log.) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Silly me, didn't notice that "Page" was capitalized. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this admin account was created in Oct '07 so they're obviously a previous sysop who's returned and reclaimed their bit. But who, and why did they just do what they did??? - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison, look up a bit to Gracenotes' comment. This is formerly User:The Random Editor. Metros (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I just looked at their deleted userpage history and found them. Note that a sock 'outted' them a few days back - Alison ^❤ 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"No edits since October..." If that's true, then there's no way that the session would still be active in Mediawiki. Therefore, the second he logged back in, he could have been keylogged; so, a mere minutes later, the attacker would have received notification of the password, used it, and, well, the rest is history. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have a checkuser look at this, just to be sure. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

dmcdevit confirms the account was not compromised. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I checked first thing and no, it's not compromised - Alison ^❤ 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's just a way to enforce retirement from WP:( MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... Maser ^(Talk!) 08:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Although not entirely relevant to this thread, reading through here concerns me about the number of backdoor sysoppings that appear to be occurring. Whilst I completely agree that in some extraordinary circumstances it may be appropriate, and I don't know the events surrounding this particular one, the increased frequency that this is occurring is concerning, to me at least. Wherever possible, the community should be entitled to see the RfA of any admin and their edit history. To see a brand new account suddenly turn up with a sysop flag is far from ideal and should be avoided. Will (aka Wimt) 12:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be tempted to think, with no evidence to the contrary, that someone in Eye's house (perhaps a visitor) got their hands on the keys while it was left logged in. I guess we'll know within 24 hours what happened, there's no reason not to assume good faith in this case especially given the actions taken just minutes before consistent with a reliable sysop doing their job, but the indef-block until info is forthcoming and the emergency desysopping are indeed warranted to prevent any further disruption. Orderinchaos 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I agree. TRE was a good editor. A good man. He retired about a week or so after gaining the admin bit. He created the new account a few days later. If it wasn't a friend being "funny" while TRE took a bathroom break or something, the forced retirement seems like a logical explanation. If it's the latter, I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Lara_Love 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concurr. If a user makes a fresh start under a new username, then they should make it less obvious by not getting their sysop powers back right away, and instead act as a regular user for a while. This was an account that was sysopped too quickly. Oh, by the way, has anybody asked him why he did it? Maser ^(Talk!) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I received an email from Eye of the Mind, with an explanation to what happened. I am assuming good faith, and unblocked the account. The main reason being that the account currently does not have admin privs, and any potential abuse would be minimal. [92] - [93] KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, the problem is resolved! Here's to AGF. :D Maser ^(Talk!) 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about the incident. I believe honestly though I should leave the wiki permanently. This kind of issue is too potentially destructive to the wiki. Thank you all for your time here. -Eye of the minD 17:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's not necessary. We all have a bad day. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)