Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive447

Notification: Rangeblock on 72.76.0.0/16

The IP range 72.76.0.0/16 has been soft-blocked (AO, account creation allowed) for a month due to ongoing activity related to harrassment of David Shankbone and vandalism to porn and adult themed articles. This rangeblock may need to be expanded if the stalker moves outside that IP range and will be extended in time if the harrasser returns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to whois, the full range is 72.64.0.0/11, but I haven't yet seen this one operating outside of 72.76.x.x, so a /16 seems the obvious place to start. Had figured this might come to a rangeblock if the abuse continued. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there were some back channel discussions on the /11, but as nearly all the abuse happened from that /16 I'm starting there. If they step outside that range please let me know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki can only block /16s. Blocking 32 different /16s (2 million addresses) to stop one vandal would be a really bad idea. Thatcher 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undone George's block, since it is not the correct IP range for this particular miscreant. The three that are (71.127.224.0/20, 72.68.0.0/17, and 72.76.0.0/17 for future reference) are all blocked now. east.718 at 10:15, July 12, 2008

Apparent legal threat

A number of editors have been dealing with a group of editors (or a single editor with many sockpuppets, since they all have the same grammatical style) on the article Sloan Bella (and the miscapitalized sister article Sloan bella). Now we're all apparently receiving threats that we should personally identify ourselves or we will be blocking freedom of speech, committing unethical acts, committing discrimination, and this: "All You deleting who are absuing the editoral pocess, please identify yourself, if you wont identify yourselfs, outside of screen names and identify yourself with substance and validy, except to have the IPS address traced and it will become a legal issue, because what you are doing is illegal and cowardly, not to mention discrminatory and Wikipedia and the editors need to be more unifrom."[1] I think we need some help from the ANI here.

The group of editors are: 76.169.216.222, Flygirl14, Kristysixt, Margaret wendt, and Sloanbella. The legal statement came from new user Flygirl14.

Brilliant Pebble (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Just needs explanation on how the editorial process works on wikipedia, not a serious threat IMO. Though that could all be one person. Viridae^Talk 22:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page to the proper location. I agree, should be contacted first, and then if persists in threats should be blocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is all the same person, then we have been trying for the better part of a week to explain how the editing process works, including a couple of attempts to explain WP:RS, WP:COI, and the methods for undeleting an article that was deleted by consensus. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this isn't the first time we've been told to identify ourselves or be made "accountable" per Bella: "Perhpas you two editors need to identify yourselfs directly, so you can be held accountable for what you imply."[2] Brilliant Pebble (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First, a list of users mentioned above, for helpful links:

• 76.169.216.222 (talk · contribs)
• Flygirl14 (talk · contribs)
• Kristysixt (talk · contribs)
• Margaret wendt (talk · contribs)
• Sloanbella (talk · contribs)

For now, I've left a note with Flygirl14. Will watch for a bit. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I note that I've tagged the page for G4 yet again. There is a caveat that the newer version has different links/sources than the prior. I don't think it reaches the point of mattering, but wanted another set of administrative eyes on that decision. If it is not G4 deleted, the prior history is needed for GFDL reasons. GRBerry 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "Absuing the editoral pocess?" Them's fightin' words. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Fightin' woirds?" WP:AGF, Baseblal bugs?? Smith Jones (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • • Yeh, them's fightin' words. (Just quoting Yosemite Sam here.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Hm i drefcongize the Yosmeite Sam post I m just saiyng that you should not asume that this user intends ot start a fconflifcft. Smith Jones (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
            • You're so right, "what you are doing is illegal and cowardly" could so easily be an invitation to a friendly chat... – iridescent 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Any statement can be used as an invitation for a friendly chat, if one was so inclined. Beam 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                • iridescent, pleae be reasonable. It could easil ybe a statement of fact and not an invitation for a childish flamewar. Thiws thread waas created in the hope of getting administrative assitance and not for snide remarks and wp:abfing. Smith Jones (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                  • Gentlemen, enough of this! How about taking up the tax?! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
                    • LOL! Youre a real wise guy Bugs! Totally made Smith Jones (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock farm targetting Cloverfield related articles

Resolved

 – Accounts confirmed via CU. Tiptoety ^talk 03:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins, please note that a confirmed, but not yet all blocked sock farm (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thedayicametowhiskershouse) has been targetted the following Cloverfield related articles for vandalism edits: Cloverfield‎, List of characters in the Cloverfield universe‎, and Clover (creature)‎, as well as some other pages. I believe that I and others have reverted their vandalism edits, but please note that only one of the four accounts has been blocked as of this posting. It may be worth keeping an eye on these articles should the same user create additional accounts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

They should all be blocked now. Cheers, Sarah 02:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on those articles for similar attacks. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Thaigear

Resolved

This account hadn't edited since 11 July 2007. It's history up to that time had no problems . 11 July 2008 it returns to vandalize fast food articles that it never edited before and harass another user.[3] . I blocked it for twenty four hours. It smells compromised. Seeking other opinion. — Ѕandahl 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at that account myself after responding to the report at AIV and came to the same conclusion myself. Has someone checked if the account has email enabled? If so, maybe we should drop the owner of the account a note... Tiptoety ^talk 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Email sent... Tiptoety ^talk 03:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the last edit was literally a year ago, do you really think it matters? HalfShadow 03:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a not a vandal and yes I think it matters.— Ѕandahl 03:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have blocked indef until the person at least claimed that the account was not compromised. Evidence of compromise is too strong. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and extended the block to indef and will await a reply from the user via email. Tiptoety ^talk 03:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. They can always request unblock.— Ѕandahl 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In cases like this, there's nothing wrong with an indef. Just make sure to include a note in the block reason like, "Possibly a compromised account?" —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost word for word! ;) Tiptoety ^talk 03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was a general suggestion for whoever cared. I didn't check what you had done. Great minds... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho

I believe that the user GreenEcho (a.k.a. 63.216.113.124, a.k.a. 77.42.187.118) is in violation of Wikipedia's behavioral guideline on disruptive editting. Additionally, GreenEcho seems to be pushing very specific views, showing bias in edits involving the Druze religion, leaders, and political groups. The Druze are a minority group in Lebanon. Furthermore, their interactions with other users appear far from civil in most cases.

I've outlined the details of the violation, as well as a series or quotations from the user and diffs here. ← George ^[talk] 05:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope the Administrators will interfere concerning the issue since GreenEcho is twisting reference to force his POV and then reporting anyone who disagrees with him to the Administrators rather than using the talkpages and he simply sends vandalism warnings to those who disagree with him, he actually engaged in edit warring on my own talk page as in here,here and here eventhough he was notified by the administrators that I have the right to remove his warnings from my talk page

actually he is smart enough that he forced his POV on the Druze page saying that they are pagans with virtually no reference, and now I have to get his consent to remove this Libelous information since he ordered the page to be protected. I hope that the issue would be dealt with seriously, my best regards Hiram111 (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a reference concerning the pagan part. GreenEcho (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This would have been a good source had you chosen to cite it in the article, or in the discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring over the point until the page got protected. Now, please consider addressing some of the points outlined here, involving your behavior as an editor in addition to the lack of sources in your edits, as well. ← George ^[talk] 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All my edits are sufficiently sourced, thank you. Every edit I made, whether in Druze, Walid Jumblatt or Saad Hariri, was accompanied by more than reliable sources. I chose not to waste my time by adding the source I provided above because it was most likely going to be contested by the user who considers John Esposito and Mordechai Nisan "unreliable" and "unscholarly". GreenEcho (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

well thats a good example of twisting references your referencesays :Their religion was an eclectic mixture of Islamic, Christian, Greek and Pagan beliefs. while you only chose to place the Pagan part.

And No I don't consider John Esposito and Mordechai Nisan "unreliable" and "unscholarly" but I used the Druze Talk page to say that the scholars you cited don't say what you wrote and that you twisted the references and that your references don't say what your edits say, as i did here but you refused to go into the dispute resolution processes.

But anyway the issue is not about content dispute but its about disruptive editting. Hiram111 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the important thing here, and what we should be discussing, is GreenEcho's disruptive behavior as an editor, not any particular content disputes. It's not so important that he violates policies on content, repeatedly. The key problem is that he seldom discusses his edits, refuses to work towards consensus via the dispute resolution process, often mischaracterizes sources or fails to cite them, and continues to edit war for his preferred versions, ad nauseum. ← George ^[talk] 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned editor Prester John is back, reverting madly

An editor called Madingogo (talk · contribs) is on a delete rampage, going through my history list and reverting/deleting sections of articles I've edited. All Madingogo's edits are following my contribution list. I believe he is very likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned editor Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), however, because of the rate of deletion, urgent action is required (hence reporting it here). --Lester 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of the edits but then stopped because I don't know enough about the situation to be sure they're improper. Please don't block me - I'm happy to self-revert if anyone thinks I shouldn't have done it.  :) Wikidemo (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikidemo. User:Madingogo (Prester John) set up this account for no other purpose than harrassment. He has taken the userboxes from my userpage and put them on his. Then he has just gone through my contributions list to revert things. Every single one of Madingogo's edits are on articles I have edited, editing out contributions I'd previously edited. --Lester 05:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that there's a second recently created account, Scrublett (talk · contribs) that has also contributed nothing else but to revert my contributions on a variety of different article subjects. This is exactly the same activity that user:Prester John was banned twice for.--Lester 05:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no question what the two new users' intent are - on talk pages the Scrublett account is removing all comments by Lester going right back into June. It should be noted Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on two occasions for stalking Lester. The matter appears to be resolved as both accounts have been blocked and their edits reverted, but it might not hurt to add these ones to the checkuser. Orderinchaos 12:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Madingogo was only blocked for 15 minutes and Scrublett was only blocked for three hours so I've reblocked both indefinitely. Sarah 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked Pricklyshark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (thanks Bidgee). Sarah 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And Sharif Abdul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I Wake Up Screaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Matamoros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sarah 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --Lester 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He now seems to be back as 166.190.20.66 e.g.[4], [5], [6] Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And as 166.191.206.160, 166.190.241.149, 166.190.32.161 etc. etc. Quite a spree today Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are more in that IP range. Simply reverting editors he doesn't like, myself include, with little regard to the article or content reverted. (by the way, I think Prester John is indef blocked. I didn't know he was banned). --Merbabu (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. There is also a long list of IPs in this same range and another close one that Bidgee compiled and posted on my talk page. We've implemented two range blocks that should cover these IPs but it's only a short term measure at this stage. Cheers, Sarah 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes again

This is essentially a continuation of this ANI thread [7] which ended with no resolution. The user continues to try to impose his will on certain TV station articles, particularly his continued insistence that The CW does not have the right to call themselves The CW. It's not just original research and POV-pushing on his part, it's also disruptive behavior, since he refuses to discuss the points made to him. His answer is "I'm right and you're wrong". There are now at least a couple of pages protected to keep him from his antics. Are we going to have to protect the pages one by one? Or can something else be done? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

From reading the previous ANI thread, it seems that he is continuing his pattern of disruptive editing. Regardless if it is grammatically correct or not, the fact that the company name is The CW trumps the grammar rules when it comes to editing. If the editor continues to make these edits against consensus, and article need to be protected to PREVENT the user from doing so, a block may be in order. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two articles today have been protected for just this purpose. Please note the attitude in the user's edit summaries: [8] [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have recently warned this editor regarding edit warring over a related matter. I suggest the bluntest of the clue sticks need applying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The second of the two incidents I listed [10] came after your warning, and used the same "I'm right and you're wrong" language that the first one did. It's plain to see that he isn't really interested in what anyone else thinks about it. When an ANI thread comes along, he waits until the heat is off, and then starts up again. Something needs to be done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Between Among the two threads, I've seen various admins say that "something" should be done, but so far no one has acted upon that "should be". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There was one more edit by the editor after the one linked above, and the article concerned was then protected. Let us see what the editor does when they resume. I will execute a short block if there is any revert warring in the next 24 hours from this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back and doing it again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the CW and WB stuff, he's also making needless reverts like this one [11] to change "Ultra high frequency" to "ultra high frequency". What's up with this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He's telling selected users that he's "taking a break", presumably another tactic to take the heat off. [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let him take a break. If he doesn't take a break, than maybe action should be taken to prevent further disruption/incivility. Beam 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that his user page says his break is "to let the tension die down". Well, the tension is of his own doing, and if he doesn't change his approach, the "tension" will resume immediately upon his return. FYI, I intend to roll back his nonsensical UHF / VHF changes. The articles start with upper case U and V, so his changes to the links to lower case were pointless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also please note what amounts to an "enemies list" he has compiled on his talk page, as reasons for why he's "taking a break". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am correct on this -- and I will prove it all to you when I return. - so he's not going to change. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)From what I can see it look like he is trying to game the system here. He makes these edits, it's brought to AN/I, pages are protected, and after a day or so the editor "takes a break". Come back a few days later and it's the same thing all over again. It's disruptive, at least to me and some action needs to be taken regarding this, especially if article have to be repeatedly locked down due to his actions. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I love how he paints himself as the defender of what is right, and throws around thinly veiled insults ("an oversensitive editor", POV puushers, "IP abuser", "vultures") at those who do not share his views. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Response

First, despite what Baseball Bugs says, I have discussed my opinion on this issue ad nauseum. (See Talk:WGN-TV#Here we go again..., Talk:WGN-TV#Before anyone loses their carrots... User talk:TV9, and my own talk page.) This is not "my will" or "POV-pushing" -- THIS IS CORRECT, PROPER USE OF GRAMMAR. You should ignore what you see and read the various writing style manuals I have cited (Penguin Handbook for Writers, the Chicago Manual of Style, MLA Style Manual, etc.).

Second, this has gone way beyond bizzare. Baseball Bugs has appointed himself as my own personal watchdog? Nitpicking over every single edit I make? Who made him a private dick, or a Wikipedia administrator? And why is his name all over this place? To me he's nothing more than a bully.

Finally, as far as me taking a break, I will not discuss that other than what is written on my talk page. If you feel that it's "to take the heat off", believe that if you want to. I'm done. Have a good summer. Rollosmokes (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor continues to ignore the issues raised, specifically that it is not his place to tell The CW what they can call themselves. Their trademarked name trumps so-called "grammer rules". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your "correct, proper use if grammar" is a misinterpretation of the style guides. Others, including myself, have given you other links to show you that your interpretation is incorrect, and that other style guides show that for some uses ("The CW" being one of them), the capitalization of "the" is correct and proper. This should no longer be an issue, if you would just admit that you made a mistake - we all do from time to time - it happens! TheRealFennShysa (talk)

A far more pressing question is that when we reply to the user who made the above comment, is it grammatically correct to say, "I agree with TheRealFennShysa," or is it more appropriate to say, "I agree with theRealFennShysa"??? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Based on Rollosmoke's "going-away" posts, he'd just call me "the Vulture". :) TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a single editor edit warring with multiple other editors over a long period of time. If he continues to ignore consensus (which he cannot claim not to be aware of at this stage) - he should be blocked for progressively longer periods of time. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost pointless disruption. Surely there's something more pressing here for him to be doing. How about address the countless uncited assertions and unreferenced articles that we have? Amazing how many people spend all their time on stupid stuff when we have important matters to deal with. File this thread under WP:LAME and let it die. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the editor is wikibreaking and if they return with a will to edit collaboratively per consensus then there is no need to end/force the break with a block. I am certain that this matter will be raised again if the editor returns and resumes, and I think we can then respond a little more quickly. In the meantime, I'm off to mediate a grammarian dispute at Spud U Like Spud You Like Baked and Filled Potato's One Is Partial To... er, KFC? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The user has virtually "promised" to be disruptive if and when he returns. He'll be watched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and fair use violation

He's not taking any kind of break. He's just focusing on using his talk page to build personal attacks against at least 7 specific users who disagree with him. The latest, equating his arguments to the 1968 Olympics protests, is offensive in the extreme. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as a mundane point, he's using that fair use photo of John Carlos and Tommie Smith on his talk page, which is against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I couldn't care less what he calls me. But some of the other 6 editors might not like being called "vultures". As Neil pointed out to me last week, a personal attack still needs to be sanctioned, even if the target of the personal attack doesn't care about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not on break, he's monitoring. And calling everyone who disagrees with him a "vulture". [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if he makes one more edit that is disruptive, I support blocking him for 100 years (ok fine, 48 hours), to prevent further disruption. Perhaps someone should warn him? Beam 12:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone should - someone who's not on his list of The Seven Vultures. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not assuming good faith here, but why hasn't this user already been blocked for disruptive editing? He's made it clear he intends on making the same edits, and is now attacking other users. It seems that the reaction has been "wait and see", yet this editor continues his same actions. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec - Wildthing61476, I was just saying...)*...and indefinitely blocked, for disruption. I should be glad of some uninvolved third party review of this block. I would comment that I would be happy for the block to be lifted or the tariff varied upon Rollosmokes undertaking to edit more in keeping with the principles and practices of Wikipedia, so any such action need not be referred to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Was an indefinite block truly necessary? The user was going on Wikibreak anyway, so the amount of disruption to the encyclopedia should have been minimal. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean infinite. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware. I'm also aware that indefinite blocks are used to prevent significant disruption to the encyclopedia. Removing a note on his own talk page with an incivil edit summary is hardly grounds for an indefinite block. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was merely the next-to-last straw. He then resumed editing articles, with the same "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. So it was clear that he was not going on break and that his disruption would continue. Hence the block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And why on earth are you reverting his edits edit-war style, Bugs? That seems like disruption to me. The material you've added back in looks pretty dubious, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that his changes (while allegedly on break) included some of his self-styled "grammar" fixes, so I reverted the lot. Feel free to fix anything in that article that actually needs fixing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe you reverted a perfectly good edit because you were angry with him. In that edit, you've removed manual of style formatting and re-added material of a dubious nature. Please do not damage articles like that. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not angry with him. And you are free to make any legitimate corrections to the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"You should be ashamed of yourself."? Yeah, sure, you're not mad at him. I still cannot believe you would damage an encyclopedia article by reverting good content corrections just because you were angry with him. Awful. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He had equated his little battle with John Carlos and Tommie Smith, and that was shameful and offensive. And I saw no merit to his edits today. If you disagree, feel free to install any that you think are valid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He put up the sign and then carried on editing - I can only assume it was a tactic. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. He wasn't going on break, he was just temporarily scaling back. And in fairness to the admins, they tend to focus on extreme cases, such as some seen elsewhere on this page. With an offender whose activities aren't as widespread, they may tend to wait until "enough is enough". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you assume it was a tactic? Firsfron of Ronchester 13:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of how it went the last time he was posted here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the block. seicer | talk | contribs 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, please consider changing the indefinite block to something more reasonable. Yes, indefinite does not mean infinite, but it is still overly harsh and may further aggravate Rollosmokes - when we are trying to work with Rollosmokes. Kingturtle (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear how long of a "wikibreak" the user will need. When he declared he was going on break, he pledged to behave the same way as before, once he got back. I have seen nothing to indicate that he plans any revision to that approach. So I recommend it remain indefinite, with the ever-present option of his requesting reinstatement whenever he feels he's ready to collaberate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think anything less than an indef block is just inviting him to come back and raise hell. He's stated continuously that he'll continue editing the same way. I'd watch out for socks. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 18:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His latest remarks [14] indicate that his stance and intentions remain unchanged. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His appeal [15] contains misleading information. "For some time"? Less than 2 days, in fact. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agreee with Firsfron and Kingturtle. One must consider that until today, he hadn't been blocked since December. Were his actions blockable? Certainly. But indef? Some proportion here, please ... Blueboy96 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading back into this, and my question to Firsfron, Kingturtle and Blueboy96 is how long should the block be to ensure the cessation of disruptive behaviour? If you can qualify a period, then please perform (or request) a unblock/reblock for the appropriate tariff. Indef blocks are not severe (unless it is done with the intent of there not being an unblocking), since they need last for only as long as they need be; it can be less than hours or longer than months depending on the situation, they are flexible. Like I said, my permission is not required for the block to be varied - once it is determined what will be sufficient for the return of consensual collaborative editing, then that should be the sanction duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think 72 hours is sufficient ... I would be inclined to drop the block altogether if it hadn't been for the fair use violation in his talk page. Blueboy96 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. He has shown no indication that he plans to make any changes to his disruptive editing, in fact he has said he will continue as he always has. Therefore, there is no justification for lifting the block. He has also taken a content issue and turned it into a personal issue. He should do as he said he would, take a wikibreak and decide how badly he wants to edit wikipedia. In short, he himself should determine the length of his block, based on when he demonstrates a willingness to collaborate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, as soon as he's unblocked, he'll start in again on his bogus "grammar" corrections, about The CW and other such stuff, and we'll be right back here again, this time with three ANI threads on the same topic. What would be the point of doing that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for it being lifted ... I simply suggest cutting it down. The behavior issues, to my mind, only merit a 12-hour block, but taken with the fact that a user who has a good deal of experience with fair-use images (a necessary part of TV station articles) chose to violate the fair-use policy, a longer block is certainly merited. But an indefinite block for a user who hasn't been blocked since December? Overwrought. 72 hours is appropriate to my mind. Blueboy96 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked for disruption. What evidence is there that any finite time will make any difference to his plan to continue disruption? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

His unblock request was denied due to his off-topic rants and complaints. As I said, he needs to take a real wikibreak and decide his priorities. When and if he decides he wants to collaborate, then he'll be in position to make a proper request for unblock. He decides. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

← I have to agree with Bugs here. Smokes has shown no indication he understands what he did wrong, and has indicated he intends to continue his disruptive behavior. Any shortening of the block at the moment simply means he'll go back to his behavior as soon as the block expires. Until he is willing to reign in his disruptive behavior, there is no need to change his block time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollo had not been blocked for over six months. He was not making threats, disclosing personal information or violating copyrights. This was an edit war. He received no warning on his talk page that he was going to be blocked temporarily or blocked indefinitely. Therefore this indefinite block is over the top. His previous block (which was also for an edit war in Dec 2007) was for 48 hours. In this case, a week would suffice along with a warning that the next time would be an indefinite block and would have to involve some sort of arbitration. Kingturtle (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously warned here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair cop. Mind you, it was four days prior, and a warning that said you may be blocked from editing. No mention of indefinite. Kingturtle (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's really no reason to mention "indef" in a warning. The warnings generally don't specify a block time limit, as that can be altered after the block is put in place. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One among many. This is his fifth WP:ANI incident, various pages ranging from WP:RFPP to WPIX to {{Infobox Broadcast}} (plus one other The CW station article, at least) have been edit-protected by admins due to his WP:3RR issues - WPIX repeatedly, an attempt by User:SilkTork to mediate a dispute he was starting and restarting against User:Lantana11 regarding KCBS and other LA stations met with refusal to co-operate and there have been other warnings issued, including some asking that he stop reposting attacks to other users talk pages after the affected users had removed them. He has also occasionally been reverted on WP:AIV for invalidly naming opponents in content disputes as "vandals". You will need to go through the entire edit history to find all the warnings and complaints he's removed from his own talk page, but there have been plenty of incidents which somehow were falling just short of being taken seriously enough to add another ban to the three he'd received for various revert wars in 2007. So yes, he should be more than aware of the issues at this point; claiming no warning is a wee bit of a stretch. Odds are that he would be capable of making a legitimate contribution to the project were it not for the ongoing WP:3RR WP:OWN WP:NPA WP:GAME issues, but the problems have been ongoing for months if not years. And no, I doubt he is on a voluntary "wiki break" if I must go back to May 26 to find one day that passed without his editing Wikipedia. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Para and Crum375 for edit warring on Brown Dog affair

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

Unblocked by Quadell; now turning into a WR-related philosophical debate. Discuss Viridae's WR comments on his talk page. Discuss MONGO's Viridae comments on his talk page. —Giggy 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Users unblocked by Quadell. Beam 05:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Para (talk · contribs)
• Crum375 (talk · contribs)
• Brown Dog affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Para has been edit warring over the inclusion of links in that article for several days. His block is 48 hours. Crum has been edit warring over the same link (in opposition to Para and several others) for close to a month. His block is one week, due to the length of time he has been edit warring over the same link, while referring to the talk page where consensus has not been reached either way. Several other people have been involved in that edit war, on either side, but not as recently as these two, and not for the length of time that Crum has. Both users have previous blocks for edit warring. I originally protected the page, but removing other peoples ability to constructively edit the page is overkill when there are currently two main protagonists. Any further edit warring by anyone else over this issue should also result in a block. If either of these users agreed to stop the edit warring and conduct the argument solely on the talk page, I would of course support an unblock. Viridae^Talk 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where a report was filed regarding Crum375 edit warring, such as 3RR or similar that would lead you to block him? In fact, your block has come a good deal after he last edited that article and I see no 3RR violation...are you familiar with 3RR? 3 reverts in 24 hours...why not just protect the page...and where was the page protection request? Considering your long standing dispute with Crum375 shouldn't this have been a block performed by a neutral party? Why not post the evidence here about the edit warring you claim and have someone else do the blocks/protection, whatever?--MONGO 01:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1. No long standing dispute with Crumm375 exists. 2. I didnt block for 3RR. 3. A report doesn't need to be filed for a block to be made. 4. I already covered why blocks are a better idea in this case. Viridae^Talk 01:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of folks that are reported for trolling and disruption to AIV etc....so how come you don't do much blocking of them? If you expect me to believe based on your comments here and offsite that you don't have an axe to grind with Crum375 as well as SlimVirgin, then that would be news.--MONGO 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MONGO I may as weel ask why you don't write more articles on Economics... Viridae^Talk 01:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That answers my query then..you blocked Crum375 since you do have interest in him and his situation.--MONGO 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on, MONGO, that's a plainly ludicrous line of thinking an unsubstantiated line of argumentation. If you have evidence that Viridae wikistalks Crum or otherwise displays inordinate interest Crum's activities, provide it. Until you do, though, I'm chalking the blocker-blockee combination here as being up to the vagaries of chance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Viridae's logs, [16]...I don't see a lot of admin actions overall...aside from a flurry fo schoolblocks imposed on some IP's in June...no evidence this guy actively follows AIV or other noticeboards looking to help out with blocking trolls and vandals. In fact..looking at Crum375's edits, I see that he made three edits to the article in question over a period of three days, two more a couple days before that and only two more since mid June.[17] Crum375 has also been active on the talkpage of that article as well...so it's not like Crum375 was just doing blind reverts without discussion. I see no rational for any block based on the reasons Viridae has given...edit warring need not be immediate of course, but this is definitely a low level edit war if I ever saw one. Furthermore, Crum hadn't edited the page in over 10 hours! So...explain why the urgency with a week long block.--MONGO 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, there are often only two main protagonists in cases in which full protection is granted. I think it probably would have been better to stick with your first instinct here. I also think that given that both parties were well away from 3RR, a warning would have been good before the blocks. Finally, one week seems very long for Crum, though hopefully this will be resolved with an agreement to stop edit-warring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a week because he has been edit warring over the same material for close to a month. Both have been blocked for edit warring before. Viridae^Talk 01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, low-speed edit wars can sneak up on even experienced users. I still think a warning would have been good, and I still think page protection may have been preferable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I weighed up all possibilities, but here is no way either of them missed that they were edit warring - in paticular crum reverting that many times while using edit summaries that were variations of "per talk" would be really hard to miss. Viridae^Talk 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I first mistook this for another April Fools Day joke. — CharlotteWebb 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• (e/c) I have to agree with Mongo here; Viridae should not have blocked Crum375. I am not actively following the C68/SV/JzG arbitration, and have no editorial interaction with the editors involved in the case, but even I recognize that Viridae and Crum375 have a long-standing disagreement, and that alone should have been grounds for Viridae to punt to another admin, one who is not involved in the case or with either of the editors involved in the dispute. As to the blocks themselves, I do not disagree with them, although I disagree with the asymmetric nature of the block lengths. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What long standing disagreement? I am only involved in that case because arbcom was silly enough to merge the FM/SV case with the unrelated JzG case. Viridae^Talk 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have to agree with MONGO as well. I'm not comfortable with this block and I'm not comfortable with Viridae being the one the implement it. You may feel you have no dispute with Crum but there is a perception that you do and perception matters as much as the actuality. I also agree with Sarcasticidealist's comments about protection, warnings etc. Please consider unblocking.Sarah 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry but the long standing disagreement card is something MONGO plays every time I do something he doesn't like. Repeateing it endlessly doesn't make it true. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I think in this case he is right but aside from that I think it's a bad block and I think page protection and a reminder to the users about edit warring would have been a more effective and a less drama-full way of dealing with it. Sarah 01:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If Viridae had some beef with Crum, he would have just blocked Crum, not both users. Also, don't play the "he has a beef with the participants" card and look at the block besides any given disagreement he has with any of the parties if such disagreement exists. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kwsn. As far as I can tell (though I remain open to being convinced otherwise), the argument that Viridae was biased here boils down to

• he posts on WR
• WR contains attempts at violating SlimVirgin's privacy
• SlimVirgin is often identified as being close to Crum
• he has poor relations with JzG, who is also the target of some amount of scorn on WR

Frankly, that combination of facts does not a conflict-of-interest make. I'm no great fan of the block, but I am a great fan of WP:AGF. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, was any attempt made to resolve the issue short of blocking? And a week-long block of an admin for a slow edit war? There's no preventative reason to issue a block here and no need for a drama-causing block without going to ANI or getting a second opinion first. And for the record, I post at Wikipedia Review, which has nothing to do with anything here. --B (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Common sense and Newton's third law should be applied when investigating an edit war. This one seems to have been going on for a while, a month as you say. Would you agree that both users have made roughly the same number of reverts in roughly the same amount of time? — CharlotteWebb 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Crum has made far more and has been engaged in the edit war for far longer. Other users (SEWilco, SlimVirgin , Sfan00 IMG, Yamakiri ) have made at least one revert None of those have been active in that edit war in the past 4-5 days. Viridae^Talk 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually SEWilco and SlimVirgin both reverted 4 days ago. Viridae^Talk 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Were there any warnings given? Beam 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec x???) Folks, look at the history of the page. Remember that 3RR is not an entitlement, it is an electric fence, and edit warring is sanctionable even without 3RR being reached. Additionally, the edit war is over the most utterly trivial of things - what extrenal links to use for geolocating the thing-a-ma-bob. This does feel like a bad April Fools joke, particularly that these editors would have been doing this; they should know better. But the edit history shows that the conflict is real. This has been nothing but edit warring for a month, something needs to be done. (This is a matter on which we have a style guideline...) Frankly, if someone really thinks the block is appropriate but that Viridae isn't the one to have made it (a position I don't adopt) they should go unblock "to put an uninvolved admin's name on the block" and reblock for the same duration. That is an excellent way of solving the problem if that is the real concern. If that isn't the issue, lets stop talking about it and get to the real issue. GRBerry 01:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that something should have been done. I just think that "something" should have taken the form of warnings/gentle reminders to the users, followed by a period of protection. I don't think the block was the right instrument here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Drop a warning, and educate the users in edit warring. And if/when they continued than block them. I also don't like this block if there is even a perception of an involved admin doing the blocking. Beam 01:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Despite MONGO's claims I am not involved as already demonstrated. Really By MONGOs criteria the whole admin corps is involved with every semi active user. As to education - both have been blocked for edit warring before, and both quite clearly knew what they were doing. Viridae^Talk 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately re-attributing of the block, without changing the duration or any other practical effect, could be considered process wonkery, or a meaningless gesture, or more generally, block-log pollution. — CharlotteWebb 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I point out that blocks don't have to last the prescribed time. If either fo them pledges to stop the silliness then they should be unblocked. If they refuse to stop the silliness, having the block in place is the best course of action anyway. Viridae^Talk 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I said above that hopefully this will be quickly resolved with agreements to stop edit-warring. I just think it's preferable to give them the opportunity to agree to that before blocking them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wth Grberry, except for hte part re: block and reblock. It seems like a sill way to fix the problem. If Viridae has a conflict of interest but his block wias valid, whats the point of unblocking and then reblocking? The blocked editor remains blocked and Smith Jones (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) also, i think that warnings should come before blocking, alhtough I can see why a block would be acceptable int his zenario since these users are clearly tendentious. Smith Jones (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to move on from this, would anyone have any objection to asking both blocked editors to agree (1) to stop reverting and (2) talk it out on the talk page, possibly using dispute resolution, and, upon their agreement to the same, unblock them (essentially, formalizing Viridae's proposal)? --B (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be best I think.--MONGO 02:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as they're aware that A) Any new editwarring by anyone will be harshly dealt with, and B) They're aware this quite possibly should go on WP:LAME as a featured edit war, that unblocking would be best, after getting their agreement. SirFozzie (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As already stated. No I have no objection. Viridae^Talk 02:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message to that effect linking to this thread on the talk pages of both users. --B (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review editors should be careful about blocking anyone that has been a target at that website. Especially if they themselves have participated in this targetting...just saying.--MONGO 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Crum375 being targeted by anything other than the infamous April Fools Day thread, though I could be wrong. — CharlotteWebb 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia editors should be careful about ascribing ill motives to anyone who posts at this website. Especially if they themselves have participated in this ascribing ill motives where there are none. Also Just saying. SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem...if I decicde to call you a "wolf" least I'll have the courage to do it here rather than offsite as you did to me recently...where nothing of course will happen except you'll get further accolades from many a banned editor and other miscreants.--MONGO 02:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I love the word miscreants. Thought I'd throw that out there. Beam 02:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If the problem with the block is about Viridae doing it, rather than the block itself, then this discussion is pointless. Wizardman 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

break 1

Guys, can I suggest that instead of getting sucked into a tangent about Wikipedia Review, we focus 100% on the merits of this block. I think a WR tangent will be of no benefit to anyone and just result in a very long and very drama-fueled thread that achieves nothing but bad feelings all round. Just a thought. Sarah 02:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably best...then reposting from above...Looking at Viridae's logs, [18]...I don't see a lot of admin actions overall...aside from a flurry fo schoolblocks imposed on some IP's in June...no evidence this guy actively follows AIV or other noticeboards looking to help out with blocking trolls and vandals. In fact..looking at Crum375's edits, I see that he made three edits to the article in question over a period of three days, two more a couple days before that and only two three more since mid June.[19] Crum375 has also been active on the talkpage of that article as well...so it's not like Crum375 was just doing blind reverts without discussion. I see no rational for any block based on the reasons Viridae has given...edit warring need not be immediate of course, but this is definitely a low level edit war if I ever saw one. Furthermore, Crum hadn't edited the page in over 10 hours! So...explain why the urgency with a week long block? No forewarnings were issued...--MONGO 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, remember, Blocks are supposed to be punishment and revenge for past actions. Beam 02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You should've just said that in the first place MONGO ;). That being said, I actually agree with you. Looking through the log of Brown Dog affair and the user's contribs, a week long block just doesn't make sense. a 24 hour one would've been questionable. I'll read up on Viridae's side, but it's hard to see him in the right. Right now I would support an unblock on both of them. Wizardman 02:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PLease note the length of time Crum was involved in that edit war, against 4 different people, all the time citing a talk page consensus that didn't exist. He knew what he was doing. If he was going to stop on his own accord he would have done so weeks ago. Viridae^Talk 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that they were discussing it on the talk page during this (slow-moving) edit war. If they weren't then that would be a different story, but they were. How can they reach a consensus on th talk page if they're blocked? Wizardman 02:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Para was discussing it, Crum hardly. Continuallt reverting and citing a talk page consensus that did not exist is not discussion. Viridae^Talk 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, will you revert your blocks now? Mediation, more discussion, dispute resolution, a warning, any of those would have been a better action to pursue. Your block was the wrong action. I'm asking that you revert it. Beam 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Both users have been given a suitable out of their blocks. Until there is assurances that ridiculous ewdit war won't continue I see no reason to remove the blocks. Viridae^Talk 03:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Scarcasm aside, blocks are to prevent an immediate damage being done to Wikipedia. The last edit was 10 hours ago. There are editors there who are aware of the consensus on the article. Having worked at Kosovo, I know the greatest thing about wp:consensus is that it's not up to one editor to revert it. I feel that can be extended that a block isn't necessary for a slow "edit war." If the user was reverting/editing against consensus rapidly, he would have came close to 3RR violation. He didn't. IMHO the block was unwarranted. Beam 03:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And even if they have a "suitable out" that doesn't mean the block was right, it wasn't. Beam 03:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It is not one I share - and I am hardly alone in this discussion. Viridae^Talk 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You first protected the article..then blocked Para and then Crum[20]...why not just stop at page protection?--MONGO 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Eyes, MONGO, use them please. Viridae^Talk 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I did...the protection was first...neither was editing at the time...so why THEN block them as well...why not just leave it protected?--MONGO 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

...that question has been answered. Once again, eyes MONGO, use them. Viridae^Talk 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) protection would've been useless anyway, seeing as how Crum's an admin but Para isn't. Wizardman 03:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I thin it's fair to assume that Crum wouldn't have bypassed protection to ensure their version of the pages persisted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, back to the topic at hand. Viridae, you state that you're hardly alone in your opinion (inferring from your text), but reading this over again consensus seems to be against you rather clearly. Am I misreading? Wizardman 03:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, pelase read WP:BLOCK. Blocks are NOT punitive and they are nivedintieyl not punitive. However, i do find it somewhat creepy and WP:ABF that the user:Mango has chosen to analyize Viridaes past contribs in an attempt to concoct an argumetn atht his user sbehaved editting negatively without evidence. At the very least, you could say that User:Virdiae should have left the block to sanother admin but there is nor eason th tink that this was another front ina content dispute. Smith Jones (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that Beam is being sarcastic. — CharlotteWebb 03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay SJ, you've tied one on me. What word was "nivedintieyl" supposed to be? I think I agree with you and your OUIJA board, but I want to make sure. Dayewalker (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with these blocks. They can promise to stop the edit warring at any time, and if they won't do so, then naturally they should remain blocked. I also agree that Crum's misbehavior seems more serious than Para's, warranting the longer block. Everyking (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) needs to stop following around users that he has disputes with looking for a reason to harass them. He has done this before. If he wants to help and fight edit wars and vandals, there are forums that track those problems and need the help. But trolling his opponents talk pages and articles looking for an excuse to use the tools is more problematic than problem solving. --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the uninitaited DHeyward believes that I protected United States intervention in Chile because I am looking for a reason to annoy him. Despite it being pointed out that there was an edit war taking place. When it was poineded out to him that I was not following him around, and had infact reversed a block given to him by WMC, he accused me of still following him around but wanting to wheel war with WMC more - in the process also following him around. Relevant discussion: [21] [22]. Viridae^Talk 03:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the ununitiated, I've disputed your admin actions before and you took it to my talk page. I have simply asked that you stop wathcing my talk page and stop following me around. You became interested when ad editor apparently thought 3 edits in two weeks was a 3RR violation and the warning attracted you like flies to ____. You protected Joe Scarborough when there wasn't an edit war and you protected United States intervention in Chile when it is clear that the only "edit warring" was an IP that had made a total of 3 edits to wikipedia, all just reverts of me. Instead of helping deal with harassment, you chose to protect the article after they made their last revert. All that I ask is that you stop watching my talk page and you stop involving yourself in articles and incidents in which you have no prior history and which involve me. It's a simple request and you must realize that your use of the tools in these situations will not resolve anything but, instead, will only lead to more drama and strife. I don't particular care if you are looking for a reason to annoy editors or whether it's purely random. Please just stop it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

IT is clier that this thread hs develoved into the generic Bash Viridae Section and it has been labelled as such. Smith Jones (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason for that. Viridae's history of stalking JzG and undoing his admin actions appears to be the reason he is currently in front of the arbcomm. It's also pretty clear that the Wikipedia Review crowd consider Crum and extension of Slim Virgin (you just need to read the arbcomm Workshop page). So basically Viridae, while in front of the arbcomm for just this sort of behaviour, is engaging in blocks against someone solidly on "the other side" of that arbcomm case. He is clearly an involved editor here and under no circumstances should he be issuing a block here. It's all the worse that it smells like a bad block. Guettarda (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour in that affair is of course lilly white Guettarda... Viridae^Talk 04:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any of the parties involved, and I have no interest in the old resentments apparently on display, but I have to say that a week-long block for one party seems really disproportionate. Crum375 has been involved in the article for longer, yes, (helping to make it featured in the process), and there's no doubt that a slow and unhelpful edit war has been taking place. But a week-long block, compared to a 48 hour block, seem pretty effective in the punitive department while ineffective in the preventative department. I have shortened Crum375's block to 48 hours. (If the edit-warring continues, further action may of course be warranted.) – Quadell ^(talk) 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, I don't carry any water for Crum375, Viridae, etc and I'm not particularly interested in an archaelogical expedition to sort out what on- and off-site grudges might or might not be at work. These look like two otherwise sensible good-faith contributors (Crum375 and Para) who got caught up in what is undeniably an incredibly lame dispute. Blocking for a slow edit war is certainly allowable, but with two generally decent users involved, a simple, shaming reminder to stop would probably have been useful as a first step, before week-long blocks. What's done is done; if Crum375 and Para are as reasonable as I think, they're not going to re-start edit-warring over this, so why not just unblock them both, word to the wise to let it go on both sides, and move on? If you do that and it starts up again, I think people might be more generally supportive of the blocks here. MastCell ^Talk 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be a better idea. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Virade, thank you for bringing this to ani. I wouldn't have blocked. I'd have left the page protection on. But, as you noted in your opening remark, if these editors agree to stop edit warring they will be unblocked immediately. Sounds pretty straight forward. --Duk 04:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell. Let's unblock them and let it go. If there are no objections I move to unblock and warn. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No I do object. Para had just come off a 24 hour block from the same article, following a warning given by none other than Crum. They both definitely knew what they were doing - until I see a definite answer from them agreeing not to continue the edit war, I will not be happy with either being unblocked. Viridae^Talk 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems petty. It now appears you did have a personal issue with one if not both, from your attitude. I'm not saying it's true, but your unwillingness to see the consensus here at this ANi section.... well that's odd. Beam 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agree with unblocking both users. A block is too much for this kind of low grade editing back and forth. . .long as there is talk page discussion. R. Baley (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again Para has just come off a 3RR block from the same article! The 3RR was reported by Crum! Crum cannot help but know he was edit warring and instead o fstopping he reported his "foe" for breaking 3RR. THere is no indication whatsoever that either will stop - crum edit warred over that same link for a month against 4 different users and used 3RR as a weapon against Para and Para just came off that block and went back to edit warring. Viridae^Talk 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe they get it now, I don't know. But I do know that this is a lame edit war. Most people reading the article (who don't edit, and probably even most editors) wouldn't even notice the change in content. I also know (because of my watchlisted pages that I saw this a while back and didn't think it worth the bother, but maybe that's me. Personally I wouldn't block anyone in this type of situation unless they did cross the bright red line. R. Baley (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No blocks were warranted. No immediate threat to Wikipedia was present, and that's the bottom line. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Or at least they shouldn't be. Dispute resolution, some form of mediation, more discussion, simply reverting the edits, more and detailed warnings, any of that would have been better. And Vir is right that this is only my opinion, but the opinion is based on the facts of the situation, and policy. Beam 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My .02: People make mistakes in judgement. Since Viridae posted this message on the ANI board obviously requesting that other people review it I do not see why there is so much "hatin". Sure the block may have been too long. But that's what the community is for: to help others make the right decisions and choices. Can't we all just come together to give a final recommendation and review of Viridae's actions and be done with it? Viridae will learn something, we'll learn something, everyone will be happy. At least I would be. --mboverload@ 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Viridae came here in good faith looking for feedback, and he got it: next time, warn first. Live and learn. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the feedback and consensus, from reading the thread, is that the blocks weren't warranted and he should revert them. But I'm starting to think he didn't want feedback, he wanted a pat on the back. Beam 04:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember, please: AGF, or rather WYCAGFALKITY. (When You Can't Assume Good Faith, At Least Keep It To Yourself.) – Quadell ^(talk) 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm removing both blocks. And I'm going to feel rather dumb if the lame edit wars continue unabated. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If it doesAs of now you, the unblocking admin, should suggest mediation/dispute resolution, instead of blocking. Beam 05:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well ... no, if it resumes THEN blocking would be appropriate. The whole problem here is that neither user was asked to stop before blocking them. There was no emergency need to block and no reason that Viridae (or anyone else) couldn't have just left a message on their talk pages reminding them that just because an edit war is slow doesn't make it ok. Now that they have such a warning, if they continue to edit war, a block would be appropriate. I seriously doubt it's going to come to that, though. --B (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's almost 2am, I misspoke. Those things should be suggested now, and i've struck my statement accordingly. Good night! Beam 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MONGO

As this thread deomnstrates MONGO continually criticises my actions on the basis of 1. my being a member of WR and 2. on imaginary long term disputes he thinks I have. He has also made repeated threats amounting to "someone should desysop you". Despite repeatedly being asked for evidence of the long term disputes, he continually fails to provide it. Despite being continually pointed to DR with regard to the the "desysop" threats he also failed to follow through on that (until the recent Jzg/FM/SV/C68 arb case - which I am partially responsible for opening), instead content with repeating the threats periodically. I am asking for community input with respect to MONGO continually posioning the well without providing any evidence. Broadly I would like MONGO to cease to comment or make threats about me or my admin actions unless he comes with evidence to back it up. His behaviour is in my opinion highly disruptive. Viridae^Talk 06:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When asked to stop commenting his response was this: "I will review your actions anytime and anywhere I want to.--MONGO 06:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)" Viridae^Talk 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This may also be of interest: [23] Viridae^Talk 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm not thrilled with MONGO's allegations, given how thinly they've so far been substantiated, but I can't help but to notice that most of your fighting seems to be taking place on his talk page. This is a sincere question: have you ever considered not posting there anymore? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I find MONGO considerably easier to deal with than Viridae, mostly because while MONGO may be angry on occasion, he's never snippy, sarcastic, or petty. Viridae is all three of these things on MONGO's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have I been any of those to you? You try and deal with continulally unsported allegations time and time again and see how you react? Viridae^Talk 06:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have. MONGO usually seeks me out (as he did here). The most recent bit started on MONGO's talk page because DHeyward objected to the article he was edit warring on being protected. Viridae^Talk 06:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't ask me to do anything...you threatened me. I have posted further evidence at the arbcom case regarding you over your goading, threats and other harassment completely unbecoming an administrator. I posted plenty of comments above that discussed your block of Users Para and Crum375...the community that has had time to examine your actions do not agree that you did the best thing and your blocks have been overturned. You have no authorization to demand I never comment about your posted requests for review of your admin actions..as you did on my talkpage...your comments such as "When posting things for review, I never ever want your input unless I specifically ask for it. Is that quite clear MONGO?" and "Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims." are absolutely over the top. Furthermore telling me that you are aruing on my talkpage because you (hopefully sarcastically) trying"To annoy the living shit out of you of course MONGO - I stalk you too, didnt you know?" is completely unacceptable behavior...surely. Your argument on my talkpage with DHeyward was over an article I have never edited and I was offline for two days and only noticed it upon my return...all DHeyward was asking me was what to do about YOU...well, it seems pretty obvious what to do about you now. Hopefully arbcom will do something before you continue to abuse more people.--MONGO 06:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

MONGO you have time and time again over a time span of several months been asked to provide evidence when you make an accusation. You have continually failed to do so. I have asked you to go away. I have told you to go away. Now for the love of god would you try and do that? (by the way MONGO, that last link is sarcasm...) Viridae^Talk 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me to go away...yet you have the right to use my talkpage to argue with another editor over a matter that doesn't involve me in any way fashion or form...now that is rich. I have provided plenty of evidence, as has Felonious Monk, on the arbitration case which you are named in. To continually state that I provide no evidence is false. I had almost the same evidence assembled that Felonious did and seeing no reason to repeat it, posted only what I had that was different than his. We have been over this before.--MONGO 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, my request is simply for Viridae to stop patrolling my talk page and looking for opportunities to abuse the tools. No reasonable person would conclud from the 1) editors engaged in reverting my edits (i.e. trolls) and 2) 3 reverts in two weeks amounted to an edit war. It's the second time in a month that Viridae protecte a page that I was editing apparently after following my edits. This is entirely inappropriate behavior and I have simply asked him to stop. If Viridae wants to stop edit wars, he can patroll the 3RR noticeboard and if he sees my name, he is more than welcome to protect the page. But the wikistalking has to stop. --DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant discussion and request on Viridae's talk page. This was after the second questionable article protection and it's clear from his comments that he was looking to block me for 3RR (but 3 vandalism reverts over 2 weeks isn't a 3RR violation yet) but to Viridae it is apparently an edit war requiring protection instead of simple harassment reverts that need semi-protection oe even a warning. When it happened to the Joe Scarborough article, I figured it was a good faith attempt, even though that article wasn't an edit war either and was part of the now perma-banned Giovanni33's attempt at disruption (it was his first and last edit to that article and was a revert he made it without an summary). Giovanni33 was supporting an editor that posted material in the edit summaries and on my talk page about me that needed to be oversighted. Viridae showed up shortly after Giovanni33 to protect the page indefinitely rather than dealing with the obvious trolls and harassment. All I ask is Viridae to simply avoid me. Stop watchlisting my talk page and stop following my edits. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hopefully unrelated, but the question is, regarding Viridae's block of Crum375...has he wanted to do this for some time? This posting is baffling. Neither block actually took place...but it helped spread the mythology. Oh...am I poisoning the well...is this inadmissible...am I not authorized to bring it up...shall I be now sent to a gulag?--MONGO 07:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the conspiracy theories, MONGO. The harassment and stalking are tired. Time to let it go and archive this. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? That was an April fools joke, playing on the supposed "meatpuppetry" between the two. --NE2 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO:

Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored.

MONGO is of course correct to raise the issue of an administrator's involvement in Wikipedia Review. Viridae in particular has apparently posted on an attack subforum on that site that specifically targets MONGO. Although comments there by forum user Viridae (who I will for the moment accept as those of Wikipedia's User:Viridae) on that particular subforum of the site do not seem particularly problematic, his involvement and condoning of such attacks naturally brings his good faith involvement in Wikipedia into question. --Jenny 11:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

User: Kalindoscopy

Resolved

 – blocked by east. *sigh* --slakr^\ talk / 12:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In the past few days, this user has gone on a rampage of 3RR violation (at the bottom) , personal attacks[24][25], threats of violence[26][27], religious intolerance[28][29] and vandalism[30]. He is making editing miserable for a large number of users. He has already received a plethora of warnings from users and administrators, most of which he has deleted from his talk page, and all of which have gone unheeded. I feel that only a significant block (something not unknown to this user, who has already received blocks of up to two weeks[31]) will make him appreciate the severity of his misdeeds.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Get off your high-horse Yolgnu. You're bitter that none of your edits made it to any of the Malta-related pages.. understandably. The reason is, they were generally malicious and didn't really contribute much! So far as all the other things you've said.. User_talk:Slakr#User:Kalindoscopy might shed some light on that. If I'm making 'editing miserable' for you (speak for yourself rather than a 'large number' of fictitious editors) I suggest you stop trailing my edits. Anybody who'd like to take a look at my older talkpage entries has only to look at my archive/history. 'Threats of violence': humbug. I never threatened you and I certainly didn't threaten Tourskin. Your misuse of wikipolicies/the English language is, in a word, staggering. 'Religious intolerance': you obviously scanned the text for words that would fit your agenda; read it again and you'll realise there was no intolerance from my end. 'Vandalism': Maltese women deserve some wiki-limelight too! You seem very comfortable sitting high in judgement, lording it over other editors. I suppose that's your style.. and you do it so well. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Kalindoscopy blocked 1 month by east.718.  Sandstein  12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reviewing Kalindoscopy's contribs, as well as the links given, and feel that a block was appropriate. If K is reading this, I would really suggest that the next unblock request acknowledges your unfortunate tendency to respond inappropriately to perceived stalking and has an undertaking not to continue to do so - then you can get back to content creation (which you are quite good at). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A request

Resolved

 – Troll blocked by someone else.  Sandstein  12:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please semi-protect my user space (talk page) or block the troll currently playing there? Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Close AfD that has been withdrawn

Could one of you please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. K. Sukumaran asap as the nominator has withdrawn it.

I would ask that the nominator's attention is redirected towards WP:POINT and especially to WP:IDHT. Despite the advice he received from another editor, he went ahead with a pointless AfD even though the article clearly indicated the subject's notability and quoted a verifiable and widely-used source. His subsequent behaviour on the AfD page and on the article's talk page seems to me to be in breach of a policy I think I have seen somewhere about actions focussed on a single article.

Thanks. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, for the record. —Giggy 11:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record, one need not be an administrator to close withdrawn AfD's in which nobody !voted to delete. See WP:NAC. Skomorokh 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've noted WP:NAC because we get a few of these cases affecting WP:CRIC. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I know we don't fish, but...

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by East718 for abusing multiple accounts --Jaysweet (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Uppermile (talk · contribs · count)

It's never good when an account's very first edit is to slander a long-retired former admin. Third edit was to accuse an IP of socking, and only mainspace edit, while not destructive, is somewhat pointless (wikifying %? Um, okay...). Sorry to assume bad faith here, but I gotta guess that mainspace edit is only to get that contrib count above 10 so this can bust out as a sleeper sock four days from now.

I have not notified the account of this thread yet, because if nobody else sees a problem I'd rather not stir things up, y'know? But this just does not bode well. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Notify the account anyway, please. Beam 14:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? If it's obviously a trolling account, block it. If it's not obviously a trolling account, let it edit. If it does something stupid, block it. There's no need to notify it and no real need to discuss it (unless you consider it an obvious troll... I'm leaning towards that but don't really care). —Giggy 14:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Giggy: I'm trying to get a second opinion on the obviousness of the trolling -- and failing that, someone should have an eye out when this account becomes enable to edit semi-protected pages.

@Beam: I stand by my decision not to notify the account at this time. If everybody else says "So what?", then there is no need to drag the account over here to explain him/herself. If you want to notify the account, that's your prerogative, but I think it would do more harm than good at this point. Heh, it's not like I can take the account's contribs out of context -- there are only six of them! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, an admin already blocked indef. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another banning request

Resolved

 – Fiumina (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In last few days I have become very popular. Until now 3 accounts are created with only intention to revert my edits. 2 of this account are banned, so can we make 3 out of 3. Banned accounts are:user Fiumena and user PravdaRuss. Account Fiumina is not not banned and in my thinking this need to be changed [32]. Thanks--Rjecina (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Multiple-IP trolling from 190.51.0.0/16

There's multiple-IP trolling from the 190.51.0.0/16 range, with the usual tricks of trying to sow confusion: pretend anti-vandalism, user-page trolling, calling for and/or protesting blocks of their other IPs, etc. See User talk:190.51.149.229 for a sample of the IPs active at this. I've softblocked the whole range for 15 minutes. -- The Anome (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And more of the same from the same range on the expiry of that block (see for example recent edits to this page). Range-block extended. -- The Anome (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Weirdness:[33] NJGW (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And more weirdness from the 190.51. range here. I'm assuming the editor involved might be the same one. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Have some more 190.51.154.4[34][35] and 190.51.153.116[36] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS at it again

Dear WIKI-administrators,

With deep sorrow, i communicate that user PARARUBBAS, after having being blocked due to disruptive edits for 24 hours, returned and proceeded to do the same: Removing paragraphs, brackets, links and refs!

Fully convinced he IS PORTUGUESE, i left him a message on his talk page (and BanRay also left him one in English), urging him to stop with his "help". Previously, i had reverted his JOÃO ALVES (portuguese footballer) edit, and his response to my message was entering ALVES' page (entering it for the second time, something he does VERY VERY RARELY) and clicking "undo", reinstating his "marvels", as shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Alves&diff=225265681&oldid=225261170

I notice one thing about his work: in FOOTBALLERS' articles (100% of what he does), he does tend do add sometimes infoboxes with stats (from which he removes pcupdate and ntupdates as well), and i told him, IN PORTUGUESE, we appreciate those inputs, but that is still no reason to remove others' work. I reckon he does not agree with this approach, as evident with what he has done since returning from "suspension". Also, his English is (no insult, no comparison, just a fact) APPALLING, he does seem do "un-add" more than he does add.

Hoping to hear news from the board, respectfully, VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool it, both of you. I don't know who's following who around, but it's better to stop. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're unaware of what's going on, then why bother responding? In addition to being unhelpful, your response is plain rude and ignorant.

Pararubbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently blocked for 24 hours after this WP:AN/I report, is back, removing templates, ext links, notes, refs, nt- and pcupdate information. I think a 48 hour block could be appropriate here, cheers. BanRay 23:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS - Blocking candidate

To the attention of former admin SCEPTRE:

You suggested that we should both COOL IT, when all i ever wanted to do was stop a VANDAL (that is what he is, regardless of what language he speaks better or worse, just check his EDIT HISTORY) in his/her tracks, bringing it up to the people who had the "power" to block him/her? Ok then...

After 1 year and 9 months (approximately) of ALWAYS TRYING TO HELP AND IMPROVE, without an account (anonymous yes, nothing to hide), i am officially leaving WP (at least as editor), tired of being told to "Cool it", "Your edits constitute vandalism", "Please stop adding defamatory info" (having done NOTHING OF THE SORT), one guy even told me to "Fuck off" if i disagreed with him. VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk)

Hello VASCO, this is user 202.75.80.182,

According to your reference, I like to apologize about my edits as you referred. But I just want to know. What is the meaning of adding 22 goals on Spanish cup? I only stated that he scored 1 goal for the league, but 0 for CUP. Are you trying to VANDALISE the article before saying I'm trying to add silly edits? If you say YES, I will forgive you, because you only put 22 goals on CUP section. If you say NO, FUCK off. Anyway, I stated that he scored 1 goal, because I think that goal is a good goal. You are welcome to give me any comments on my talk section, but don't give me any nonsense, such as it's just an own goal, or OWN goals are BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD. Thank You.

From China, a nice week, MARCO- --202.75.80.182 (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC))...Oh well...

PARARUBBAS (and other vandals), vandalize away, no more worries with me from now on, i will "cool it"...Permanently.

Happy life/wiki-work to the good, the VANDALS you know what i think of you...

Sorry, to all concerned, forgot to sign previous message,

Sorry for any incovenience,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I have re-blocked Pararubbas (talk · contribs) again for the exact same pattern of disruptive editing. — Satori Son 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

55-gallon drum

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.

---

Resolved

 – I've restored the original redirect (pre-mini-edit war) and protected it. Resume discussion at the talk page and/or WP:RM. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Greg L has repeatedly created an article at 55-gallon drum, which is materially identical to the established article at 44-gallon drum except that it uses U.S. rather than Commonwealth style. The article was first duplicated, via copy-paste, on June 26, and as I believe is normal practice I redirected the duplicate to the established page. Greg however rejects this, believing that maintaining two articles on the topic resolves the naming dispute going on at Talk:44-gallon drum. It would be useful to get more eyes on this issue to prevent this from becoming a stale edit war. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard this item called anything but "55-gallon drum." Badagnani (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed Badagnani. A majority of users know it by that name. The two different units of measure are just that: two different units of measure because they are comprised of different units of measure. There is no reason we can’t have two articles rather than have one article try to satisfy readers in two countries. Greg L (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was created by an IP [37]. The problem is that such a copy/paste violates GFDL requirements. I requested speedy [38] but it was removed. Please delete the article to get rid of the GFDL violations and people can build on a clean slate if they finally decide to make a split there. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose renaming the existing article if there is consensus to do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like 55-gallon is the more common name; one option is to move it there. Another possibility is merge to drum (container), as the content and subject overlaps between the two articles. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• All the above from Christopher Parham is entirely non-factual. The article substantially took its current form here by an I.P. user 65.12.189.230 on 02:44, 26 June 2008. Today, I made some edits to make the article more different from 44-gallon drum ∆ here.

  The reason for my improving on this article was to help solve a long-standing source of friction. Ever since the 44-gallon drum article was first created, Americans have been making a case that the article should be titled “55-gallon drum”. The proposal has never been adopted based on the principal that he “spelling” of the first major contributor should be retained.

  This isn’t a “colour v.s. color” issue. These barrels are as different as U.S. gallon and Imperial gallon. Just because the barrels are the same size, doesn’t make them the same (nor the articles). They have different names because there capacities are based on different units of measurement Further, there is no harm in having two articles and there is much good. Americans now get an entire article that reads in units they are familiar with and Australians get one that is written entirely in units they are familiar with. For the last month, there has been no reason for friction. And there is no reason to let the two articles grow their separate ways. Again, I did not create the 55-gallon drum article, nor did I even substantially add to it. Nor did I make it more like 44-gallon drum. I made it more different and more suitable for the American reader. Greg L (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

55 Gallon Drum (hyphen if you want) should have its own article. Now. This is vital to Wikipedia, and the internet in general. Beam 00:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What? How could that possibly be "vital to Wikipedia, and the internet in general"? Anyway, all I've done is stop the edit war going on at 55-gallon drum. A proper discussion needs to be had at Talk:44-gallon drum and preferably a WP:RM. Any admin is free to unprotect once it's clear no edit war will break out at 55-gallon drum. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of joking but we need an article on 55-Gallon Drum. It has nothing to do with a 44-Gallon drum other than they're both drums. The term "55-Gallon Drum" is a common one in America and it's a common barrel type. There's no need to talk about it at 44-Gallon Drum. And to the admin that "resolved" this with a redirect to 44-gallon drum, well, you're wrong and you should have done some more investigating. Beam 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• How can it be vital to not let 55-gallon drum be its own article? I know you were just trying to protect an edit war, but your reversion and block had the effect of siding with another editor who started deleting an article which had existed for a month. There was another editor in this dispute who was editwarring—not just me. Just because he came here first to complain shouldn’t give him an automatic presumption that his claims were meritorious in some way. His editwarring had the effect of deleting an article from Wikipedia that had existed for a month and was better suited to Americans. And why did he do so? Because he felt all English-speaking people should have to deal with “45-gallon drum” even though it is totally unknown in those terms and by that name by Americans. Simply having another article for the unit of measure known as “55-gallon drum” solved all that and avoided endless arguments over the naming of the other article. In light of these facts, does locking the article down its its redirected (gutted) form remotely pass the “grin test” with you? Why let another admin undo this? You’re already up to speed on this. You can just decide that you changed your mind and do what you think is best. Greg L (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We need more separate articles about objects that are identical but have different names. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the content dispute about the proper name on the talk page of the relevant article or in WP:RM. If you have complaints about admin conduct, then do it just below here, out of the archive box. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Please look

At Patricia Bragg, some one from the IP 65.54.97.xxx continually adds information about the divorce of the parents of the subject of the article. The information is totally irrelevant to context of the article, so I have removed it, but can't do more edits because of 3RR. So, what happens now? Will an admin take action, or will a vandal yet again win the day in Wikipedia? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I left him a {{uw-blp1}}, explaining that his edit adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. I will continue to monitor the situation and will talk with IP user if need be. --mboverload@ 02:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AlmeidaManga

Resolved

 – House of Scandal is to avoid Collectonian whenever possible. Even non-controversial action may be uncomfortable for Colletonian, and this project is large enough that it is not unreasonable for two editors to avoid each other. Any future conflict between these two editors resulting from actions on the part of HoS will result in a block for a length of time to be determined by the blocking admin. LaraLove|Talk 04:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone created this account for the sole purpose of making a personal attack against me on my talk page. They admit this is a sock of their real account in their second message to me (before they were indef blocked for obvious abuse of editing privileges). Is it at all possible to track/trace which editor this was so they can be dealt with (presuming they would be at least warned for it, if nothing else) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Locate a checkuser. I'll see if I can find one on IRC, or make others aware. — _Maggot^Syn 20:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a response yet. But I'd recommend you proceed with a request for checkuser. If you need help let me know, I'm willing. — _Maggot^Syn 20:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Request submitted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you will get far with the request without some evidence on who the coward account is, and naming them on the request (which may be more trouble if your suspicion is wrong), as CU is "not for fishing". However, if another sock pops up and there appears to be a concerted campaign of harassment then you might get a result. It isn't nice, but it appears to be the practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

True, it might be a bit hasty. Worse case scenario is that its delisted. It can be reslisted upon further evidence. Collectonian: I transclulded it and signed for you. Feel free to remove the unsigned template, and remove the case as you see fit. — _Maggot^Syn 21:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know of at least one case where an account advertising itself as a sockpuppet got checkusered without knowledge of who the sockmaster was... that may have been a coincidence, as I believe it was a CU who happened to stumble upon the sock (as opposed to via RFCU), but like I say, it did happen at least once.. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit was the CU in the previous case I alluded to. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...hopefully maybe they will be able to do a little something. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored this one from the archive. The check user confirmed that this sock belongs to User:HouseOfScandal, an editor I had a recent disagreement with (and ironically enough, "lectured" me on civility). What should be done now? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a courtesy note on his talk page so he's knows he's being discussed on ANI - Alison ^❤ 07:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I got distracted *doh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond. Simply stated, I'm unequivocally not the AlmediaManger user and edits were being made from a shared computer at the workplace. However…maybe the matter is not a total coincidence as I was indeed venting angrily offline about Collectonian's editorial style to a young co-worker and he may have he taken it upon himself to "speak up for me". I don’t know how this fits in with AlmediaManger's claims to have a long-standing beef with Collectonian. Maybe it was a red herring, or maybe these two had tangled in the past. The later seems especially possible because Collectonian has fiery disputes going on with multiple parties at any given time. Her talk page is a daily battleground. I myself had only made her acquaintance about a day previously. I did respond to the nastiness when I saw it as I had Collectonian’s page on watchlist as she had mine. I’ll state anecdotally that for a moment I was just going to warn AlmediaManger about incivility in hopes of engendering at least a slightly less nasty attitude from Collectonian, but soon changed my mind and did indeed take the opportunity to express my displeasure with Collectonian by telling AlmediaManger “Two wrongs don't make a right!” -- an unabashed criticism of Collectian's manner. Alison, Thanks for noting me as a good editor. I try hard. I’m especially fond of birthing new articles and have a DYK on the front page and several more in queue at the moment as I am striving now for the 100 DYK mark. Until crossing paths with Collectonian, I went perhaps a year and a half without any significant disagreement with any editors other than the blatant vandals I report. I hope to refrain from contesting this issue further. Arguing with people online makes me uncomfortable. It’s undignified and silly. If my account is blocked or whatever I will be a bit offended given the hundreds of hours I’ve spent improving the project, but I’ll deal with that by going to the beach and sipping beer in a lounge chair. Like many, I’m somewhat vexed by the amount of time I spend here anyways. Thanks and best wishes. - House of Scandal (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Further commentary on my talk page here - Alison ^❤ 08:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I don't believe HouseOfScandal's excuse for it. Seems extremely convenient to me that his coworker would just happen to decide to have a beef with me and would leave a personal attack tailored to HouseOfScandal's beef with me. In either case, my question is what action, if any, is going to be taken to deal with this? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As the provider of the technical evidence, that's not my call - Alison ^❤ 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob, I meant it to be sort of a general questions for admins in general. Should have unindented :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do not find House of Scandal's story that a fellow coworker, to whom he "vented" about Collectonian (presumably about this discussion), did the following only a few hours after HoS's interaction with Collectonian: knew how to create an account, knew to bluelink both his user and user talk page, knew how to spell "Collectionian" and find her talk page, leave two signed (albeit not dated) messages with edit summaries that used lots of Wikipedia jargon (such as vandals, sockpuppets, blocking, edit sumamry), and knew the shortcut way to link to said sockpuppet policy (he also used a [[W:]] prefix, instead of a much more commonly used [[WP:]] prefix, which HoS has used before, to list a few instances) to be anywhere near credible. Thatcher says here that the vast majority (96%) of the edits from that IP are from HoS. I doubt that the other 4% of editing time (which could just as easily be HoS under the other account name, or editing as the IP) has given another editor enough experience in the inner workings of WP to do the things I listed above. Even without the above, I find it odd that an editor would comment to his co-worker about an editor on Wikipedia in any manner that would result in said co-worker behaving in such a manner. Sorry, but I find absolutely no reason to believe HoS's story, and all the more to believe AM is indeed his abuse sockpuppet. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't find the story at all credible either. Looks like obvious, basically admitted, and checkuser validated sockpuppetry as an attempted bad-hand account. However, the main account is a high productivity editor that has been around a long time, and has a reasonable but imperfect block log, not too much in the way of user page warnings (well except for image issues). (But man, they do some odd things, e.g. these edit summaries.) I think a short block is in order, lest they be encouraged to repeat the behavior. GRBerry 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Erm, so that would be a punitive block then would it? As the bad-hand account is now blocked and is now two days old? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  Pretty obvious you didn't read to the end of my statement: "lest they be encouraged to repeat the behavior". GRBerry 17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Abusive use of multiple accounts results in blocks. Happens all the time. No reason he should be exempt, particularly when he seems to have absolutely no regret over doing it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do not believe HoS should be able to get off scot-free, especially considering the vitriol in the comments, and use of a blatant sockpuppet to do so. I am minded to agree with Casliber that such a block would probably be punitive, but I do not agree with doing nothing more. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two questions here, to be addressed separately:

1. Is HoS telling the truth? I'm defauling to "no." It's incredibly common for caught vandals and socks to say, "My younger brother did it!", and "A younger co-worker did it!" just appears to be the grown-up version of the same lie. Others may have more good faith than me, but I don't buy it.
2. If HoS was indeed using a bad hand account, should he be blocked? Well, did he promise never to do it again? If so, I might consider saying we should let this go. But he's not even admitting he did it. Doesn't exactly bode well. Also, this was not like he just created a bad hand to do some trolling, etc., he created a sock with the specific intention of hurling abuse at a user that he had a recent disagreement with. None of this exactly point us towards leniency.

Lastly I would look at HoS's contribs. This is where it gets murky. The vast majority of his contribs appear to be helpful and uncontroversial. I'd hate to see a productive editor like this get indef blocked because of one instance of highly abusive sockpuppetry (although there is precedent for this).

I really can't come to a decision on this, personally. However, if he were to escape a block, I would think the minimum conditions would be 1) whether it was him or a "younger co-worker" (cough) he needs to guarantee us that nothing like this will ever happen again, and 2) he should be restricted from interacting with Collectonian, since it is likely HoS was highly abusive towards C.

Those are my two cents on those two questions (so does that make four cents???) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems he has no intention of doing anything. He is still continuing the hypocrisy by chastising other editors on my talk page for being uncivil [39]. If he isn't blocked at least temporarily, then I at least hope some binding version of condition 2 is enforced, and he is required to stop watching my talk page and leaving little notes on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I left HoS a note on his talk page advising him that commenting on your talk page, whether it is with good intentions or not, is probably a really bad idea right now.

Heh, I just noticed he has Kanji and Hiragana on his talk page. But you know, HoS wouldn't know the first thing about Manga... hehehe... That was his "younger co-worker!" <eye roll> --Jaysweet (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick response: a look at my user page will reveal a broad range of topics in which I am involved. I have edited on many Japanese subjects but never, to my recollection, on Manga or even on animation in general. PS - I have Greek (Νέα μηνύματα), Russian (Новые сообщения) and several other languages at the top of my talk page too. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I stopped watching this discussion because I assumed the matter would have been dropped by now. Blocking me would certainly delight Collectonian, an editor who seems overly anxious to flay anyone, good faith editor or not, who disagrees with her (insert dozens of links here). Following some good advice, I've agreed [40] to ignore Collectonian talk page (I recently reverted vandalism there and warned an editor about propriety -- two actions which would have raised no eyebrows if not for this discussion). Would it be helpful if I pleaded "no contest" and assured the community that there's a nil chance of such a thing happening in the future? Thanks for considering the situation and my comments. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Post resolved phase

A non-admin marked this as "resolved" with the note that HouseOfScandal agreed to avoid me and my talk page and that no admin action was being taken. However, I would like to hear from such a thing from an admin. Additionally, HouseOfScandal apparently agreed to avoid me, yet after stating that, he joined in in an AfD discussion I started[41] with offers to help save the article for its sole defender[42].-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I closed the discussion with the hopes that HoS would stop making comments, and let this thread die. He had previously, as shown above, agreed to ignore Collectonian and her talk page. Yet he has admitted to me on his talk page, that he is still watching it. I think at this time, he is just not understanding how lucky he is for not getting blocked, and I would also like an admin to further look into this. — _Maggot^Syn 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Gawd. Let it drop. I crossed paths with Collectonian by accident. To say that I want no more interaction with her would be the understatement of the summer. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. And could you explain how it is an accident that you just happened to be participating in an AfD she nominated? — _Maggot^Syn 04:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Enough, seriously. Nothing happened of note. Look at my history for the day. It's been an AfD day for me. We crossed paths by accident and my involvment with that debate was not adversarial with Collectonian. First I (semi?)-supported the AfD with an opinion of "Merge". At one point I briefly suggested I might try to save the article before wiping my hands and walking away. I agreed to avoid Collectonian's talk page which I did. Avoiding Collectonian entirely is something I did not agree to because I wasn't asked to do so, so please don't accuse me of going back on my word. Please see my last remark above for my future intentions. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing. After being mentioned on Collectonian's page by SynergeticMaggot, I left this message on SynergeticMaggot's talk page:

I'm not having any more involvement with Pygmy Kitabu or the accompanying AfD. While I probably could have saved the article, its chief supporter is a loose cannon with whom I have no wish to appear allied. Indeed, given the chance that me working to defend this article might give the appearance that I was cultivating a rivalry with Collectonian, it was a mistake for me to even consider doing so. Neither the article nor the debate are even on my watchlist now. Please edit either as you wish without thought of me; I am not a factor. Best wishes. - House of Scandal (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that sound like I am looking for trouble? Geeze. - House of Scandal (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't wish to get involved in the first place, but this is starting to spiral out of control. What you did (and you did do it) was naughty, dishonest, mean-spirited, cowardly, etc. But it's not the end of the world, and I don't think it warrants a block at this time. Collectionian is quite clearly in retribution mode here, and wants a little of your blood. I think there's been enough visibility on this matter now, and you're not going to try socking again in your otherwise-pristine career here on WP. Both yourself and Collectonian need to take a step back from this and basically undertake to keep well away from each other. It's just personal at this stage. Collectonian - it's clear that no admin is likely to block the guy at this point; per WP:BLOCK, it's largely unwarranted and is mitigated by his otherwise excellent record. He's been caught - we've all seen it, and recognized the fact. Time for all to get back to editing the encyclopedia - Alison ^❤ 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the admin marked resolved above. While I appreciate SM's trying to resolve it, I wanted it clear that his leaving me alone isn't just a "suggestion" but something he must do, and that blocking will happen if he does such a thing in the future or continues to bother me. I'm fine with him not being blocked, but I would like the sock appropriately marked per the check user and this discussion as belonging to him so it is clearly on record. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Block Exemption concern.

Resolved

 – Steve Crossin (contact) 22:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistrygeek (talk · contribs) was granted IP block exemption by Pedro on June 25, claiming that they were getting caught in an IP block on their college IP. However, the IP is softblocked. I'm bringing this to ANI as on another wiki, not a Wikmedia wiki, but a wiki, he has been found to use open proxies abusively, and had wiped the database twice. This was also discussed among us checkusers there, Alison included, and the evidence was very clear, server logs showed a clear connection, and the user agent was the same. Anyway, I'm bringing this to ANI, as seeing their pattern of editing on that wiki, I do think it's quite possible that the exemption may be used in the wrong way, and should be revoked. Thoughts? Steve Crossin (contact) 09:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

^ What he said + The fact that the college IP he requested the exempt for has never been hard blocked I would love to know how he considers himself inconvenienced. It appears that the IP block exempt is not required and should not have been granted in the first place.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Pedro about this thread --Chris 09:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the IP address history does suggest that there are regularly users who get blocked from that IP address and Chemistrygeek would be caught in the autoblock. Having looked at CheckUser, I don't see any reason to think the flag is being abused. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• That may be the case, but given their recent conduct on a different wiki, I thought that the issue should be raised. Steve Crossin (contact) 09:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And what would you have us do? The person who is in a position to determine if there has been abuse (Sam Korn) has indicated that there is none; with the relative paucity of remaining evidence to go on, how exactly do you propose we move forward? It might be helpful to have Alison weigh in here regarding the cross-wiki issue. east.718 at 09:58, July 12, 2008

Regardless, there is precedent (erm, me) for users to use Tor via ipblock-exempt. It gained unblock-en-l consensus in my case; if others deem it necessary Chemistrygeek might want to contact the list with a similar request. But best for Alison to speak first, I think. —Giggy 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Alison has been emailed. She wont be up to responding for awhile though because it is currently 4am in the US :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, just to clarify one thing, it may have been unclear. Chemistrygeek was checkusered on AnarchyWiki, due to concerns that he had created sock accounts, which he alleged were sock puppets of mine (he named them as usernames like Steve Crossin Sock), then blocked them and me. Checkuser showed that the user agent of Chemistrygeek matched the user agent of the sock account that was created using an open proxy, but of course, just a user agent alone generally isn't sufficient evidence to mark it as confirmed. We discussed the issue some more, and decided to check the server logs. After doing so, we found irrefutable evidence that Chemistrygeek was using an open proxy, where his IP address accessed recent changes, and 2 seconds later, the open proxy accessed the same page. I know Prom3th3an can make clear exactly what I mean here in regards to the server logs, and I don't mean to cause drama, but I do think that such conduct should be addressed, and I brought it to ANI so it could be looked into. Alison can provide the local checkusers with any info that they need, though as aformentioned, she is still asleep. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me preface this by stating that I'm exceptionally inactive at the moment. Thank you, Chris G, for the courtesy in advising me of this thread. This user has a history of Sockpuppeting and other issues - this shoule be made clear. However I and two other admins (User:Keeper76 and User:Nancy) have been working to keep this guy on the straight and narrow here on WP. As noted by Sam above, the request by the user was legitimate, and my granting was a good faith response to the request. Having said that, I'm not that fussed about anyone removing the right whatsoever. If that's deemed the best thing just do it, as I'm very unlikely to be active in the near future for any discussion. Pedro :  Chat  14:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. As this involved checkuser and other privacy-related information, I shall try to say as little as possible here. I have seen irrefutable evidence that Chemistrygeek has been involved in vandalism, impersonation and disruption on another non-WMF wiki. I have permission of the server owner to share this information with enwiki checkusers only, if needs be. I'm not a big fan of transgressions on another wiki (esp. a non-WMF one) having an influence on this wiki, but in this instance I think it would be prudent that IPBlockExemption be revoked from this editor. It is true that he also edits from a shared IP which has been particularly troublesome in the past but this is, and has been, softblocked so it should not have affected him. I'd also like to point out that there is no evidence that Chemistrygeek has been involved in any shenanigans whatsoever here on Wikipedia. To summarise; I don't see any technical reason why he should have this controversial flag granted on enwiki at this time - Alison ^❤ 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not to start a smear campaign, but I think that this legal threat on the wiki is relevant. He's also been creating more sockpuppets there too. Steve Crossin (contact) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have evidence off-wiki and via checkuser that he may well be involved in a team of abusive sock-puppeteers but want to hear an explanation from him, first, before taking action. I am removing IPBlockExemption right now - Alison ^❤ 18:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistrygeek was just blocked as a sock of User:Chris19910. As a staff member of BionicTest Wiki(Anarchy's sister wiki) I was investigating this myself.A tool called special:lookupuser info shows preferences for users but also shows the email if provided.I checked multiple users. Chris19910 exists on BionicTest too. I looked him up. Same email as Chemistry. They're the same person. All of Chem's socks on BionicTest are blocked indef.I have contacted him over email.He refuses to admit it.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So he was blocked for abusing accounts on another wiki? I mean a CU here stated that he was in fact not abusing more than one account. Chemgeek has requested a unblock on his talk page, further conversation should be taken there. Tiptoety ^talk 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• No, he was blocked for being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, and Alison also had more details, though I think that's stuff only checkusers are privy to. I mentioned this to Sam Korn on IRC, and he indicated that Alison probably knew something that he didn't. He has also made legal threats on IRC. Might be best to contact the blocking admin. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

He also made legal threats against me over email as well. Chemistrygeek exist both here and at BionicTest.As does Chris19910.As of the moment, both accounts remain blocked indefinitely at both wikis.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 21:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I did not know the full story. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 02:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a speedy close

Resolved

 – Speedy-closed by Lifebaka. Brought to you by Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 05:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product branding needs a speedy close. I can't do it because I'm dealing with the editor who started it at WP:COI/N. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 04:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs deletion. Its a malformed AfD. — _Maggot^Syn 05:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the current redirect. --mboverload@ 05:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The version up for deletion was this one, not the redirect version (which I reverted back to after I saw this AfD in filer's contributions). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 05:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never been involved in a similar situation before - didn't know we did that kind of thing. I'll get out of your way =D --mboverload@ 05:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed it. Also don't see anything wrong with the redirect itself. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 05:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I meant the AfD needed to be deleted, not the redirect. It would have saved time imo. — _Maggot^Syn 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Baggini and Stangroom: The problem of 'living persons'

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here, just rampant speculation on admin's motives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think after several years of watching this 'from the sidelines' as it were, I can’t stand it any longer! Merzel has swung into action on behalf of a user called Chris who reads books for a living’. They may or may not know what they are doing. If not, I spell it out below.

There are important issues surrounding this apparently unimportant page. It involves numerous fake accounts, users creating misinfmatonon exisiting pages (to create edits) and creating junk pages to become admin figures to further their non-encyclopedic interests. Its a long story, and I certainly have only a sense of a tiny part of it. But, in sum, it is about the use of WIkipedia pages by individuals and organisations for advertising (at minimum) and propaganda (and most) purposes.

Allow me to go through some of it.

The page was started in 04:13, 1 August 2005 by SlimVirgin who at the same time started one for Jeremy Stangroom (05:02, 1 August 2005 ).

Julian and Jeremy are joint founders and editors of the Philosopher’s Magazine. This magazine they describe on Amazon [43] as “one of the pre-eminent philosophy publications in the world “. This is a nonsense claim. (incidentally, such material on Amazon is usually added (In my own experience, as an author, such material is added not by the publishers but by the authors direct to the website though I can’t of course say what happened in this case.)

The pictures of both Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom are described as being created by ‘Chris who reads books for a living’. This user, wanted to be called User:Continuum Photos ) but was obliged to change name for breaching WIkiguidelines on using Wikipedia for crude advertising efforts.

A glance at this user’s contributions [[44]] indicates that he is a particular interest in the publications of both Stangroom and Baggini, along with an interest in the neoconservative Adam Smith Institute in the UK.

It is this user who has just reversed an entirely proper contribution to the Baggini page Why do that? But the page. like Stangroom's, like Butterflies and Wheels the two ‘philosophers’ website’ like individual promotional pages on the style of The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense: A Guide for Edgy People are not intended as public information, but as publicity, promotional pages. To this end they are assisted by gullible editors.

That is why, on the 8 July 2008, the page contains the information that there is a website for for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining. That is why Stangroom’s page contains an image for the cover of his latest book, Identity Crisis: Against Multiculturalism by Jeremy Stangroom, an image Chris etc. says ‘created entirely by himself’.

This fine Wikipedian is backed by SlimVirgin and Merzul, amongst others. Let’s see some of his edits. Under an earlier ID (he has used many devious routes to hide his tracks, including ‘adopting’ disused IDs) we can see a not entirely creditable interest in the ‘Great Philosophers’.

At 09:45, 18 June 2008 Anonymous Dissident made two small edits to the highly prominent Wikipedia Article on Aristotle. One was to change:

"Aristotle (together with Socrates and Plato ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is correct, to:

"Aristotle (together with Plato , his teacher, and Socrates , Plato's teacher ) is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. "

which is not, as the term 'teacher' is quite inappropriate in this context.

The other change, at the end of the first paragraph, was to add a reference, which seems unnecessary in the context. It is to a book called 'The Great Philosophers' by Jeremy Stangroom.

ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy; James Garvey (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X./ref

These edits are here: [[45]]

At 10:16, 18 June 2008, Anonymous Dissident added this source to another prominent article, this time in the second paragraph,

The sentence previously ran:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince) on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

After revising, it runs:

"He is best known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince , which he considered his Magnum Opus ) ref name="stangroom">Stangroom, Jeremy; James Garvey (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X.ref> on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other. "

There is no known record of Machiavelli saying or thinking this. Indeed, the Discourses is the earlier and more substantial work so it seems unlikely.

Similar edits show up for Marcus Aurelius (09:57, 18 June 2008 , no content added), Thomas Aquinas (Revision as of 09:57, 18 June 2008 (edit ) ( undo ) no content added) , Socrates (Revision as of 09:41, 18 June 2008, in which a gross error is introduced: the sentence "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy." becomes "His work continues to form an important part of the study of philosophy , even though he did not leave behind a great deal of textual material ref>Stangroom, Jeremy; James Garvey (2005). The Great Philosophers. Arcturus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 184193299X./ref)

), Nietzsche (Revision as of 07:15, 16 June 2008 ) etc. etc...

It is quite legitimate, indeed very helpful, for authors to share their expertise on matters. But this is a long way from that. No new information is being added, indeed some misinformation is. It looks just like crude advertising.

It is a reasonable assumption looking at the various pages that there is a sort of conspiracy here, with many users with far more usernames several of and them now administrators. It is not possible for me to unpick it all - I wonder if there ANY honest Wikipedians left to worry about this. (It’s tragic to see all the honest users futile efforts to use Wiki procedures to hold back the tide, eg at [[46]]

Certainly SlimVirgin, apparently (to judge by all the ‘brown nosing’ by other editors that goes on the Bagging discussion page) a key figure in WIkipedia is deeply involved in all this. User:Nick_Mallory, again curiously intimate with Stangroom and Baggini’s publications, seems to have created vast numbers of ‘mock’ pages in an attempt it seems to become an administrator. [[47]]

Few enough of these editors attacking myself and others for ‘vandalism’ of the page has shown any concern for the blatant advertising under the picture of Bagging, only removed last week: ‘Courtesy of Continuum”, or the information about a website‘ for Baggini 's forthcoming book , on the philosophy of complaining’, surely so clearly contrary to Wikipedia’s purpose.

I offer a few possible conclusions:

1. I urge some independent administrators (if there are any left) to pick up the leads that follow from this page and the one’s mentioned, via all the different usernames and IDs and to take, as they say, ‘appropriate action’.

2. SlimVirgin in particular needs to be desysopped. Whatever their intentions, they have clearly become a kind of negative role model for other users in the abuse of admin status.

3. Far from ‘protecting’ BLP and pages linking to living persons (which are the vast majority of course) editing BLP etc. needs to be made more democratic, as for sure powerful interests are there in these pages which otherwise will triumph.

Of course, given the ‘wikirot’ I wonder whether this contribution will even be allowed to be seen. Docmartincohen (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I just wanted to point out that I laughed out loud at the way you spelled misinformation: "misinfmatonon." Beam 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think I don't get it. What particular action do you think is 'admin abuse' that should be evaluated? I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, but the long explaination you've given isn't very clear as to the specific problem you have with these editors and what your conclusions are. you've given some recomendations for action, but I'm not seeing how they follow from your discussion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Could you summarize your point in a few sentences? --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to typing those 5 letters, Carnildo. Maybe I shouldn't have first actually tried to read this, & figure out what Slim Virgin did that deserves to be "desysopped" for. (I think this editor means she be denied root access to the servers.) In any case, her chief crimes here are: (1) starting two articles on philosophy topics, & (2) having a lot of people "kiss-up" to her. I have to agree with this poster -- shame on everyone for starting articles! Stop that immediately! (And everyone who starts articles on Wikipedia ought to be denied root access to the servers immediately -- including me!) And as soon as I figure out what Docmartincohen thinks Anonymous Dissident did wrong here, I'll agree with that. And he should be denied root access to the servers, too! -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried reading that, but I'd appreciate a TL;DR please. Also, I have seen on the intarwebz (no not just ED) some pretty shady stuff involving SlimVirgin, with diffs and other proof. so I wouldn't say that this person's allegations are so outrageous. Of course I don't think SlimVirgin is really evil, but from all the things I've read it doesn't seem, as Ralph Wiggum would say, unpossible. Of course it's also not unpossible that it's all bullshit. But if I get Caballed out of no where, than it's even more valid. ***looks over shoulder*** Beam 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a known fact that SlimVirgin is one of the major malign influences of the 21st century. UN resolutions have been passed calling for her desysoping, but all to no avail. Her reign of evil continues, and as the above ramblings conclusively prove, the 'Pedia is but a handy tool she's using to bring about her self confessed aim of world domination. RMHED (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone becomes sarcastic and mocking when it's brought up, it's either obviously not true, or very true. Meh. Beam 02:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me drop the sarcasm for a minute, Beam, and explain the problem here. First, long, rambling posts complaining about another user get ignored. Second, any dispute that could possibly involve content gets a brief "Take the matter elsewhere" response & the matter is either closed or ignored. Third, accusations of a "cabal" get ignored -- unless there are a bunch of malingering Wikipedians reading WP:AN/I at the moment, who then engage in some sarcasm &/or mocking. Lastly, complaints about certain people (like Slim Virgin here, but others are Giano, Betacommand, Giovanni33, & a few others whose names I have forgotten) come up so often that people stop reading the first time their name appears & move on. (Not to say those 4 are always unfairly treated or above the rules, but a lot of Wikipedians are tired of reading rants about them. Any complaints about BetaCommand, for example, will get moved to a special WP:AN/I page.) The OP managed to hit a Grand Slam here, & scored all four runs.

So what if you honestly believe that you have a case that involves one of these tired topics? Simple: be short, get to the point, & furnish plenty of diffs & relevant details to prove your point. Punctuation, spelling & grammar also help. Definitely use the conflict resolution process first. But know some people would rather handle a nationalistic edit war, which is part of an off-wiki war that involves bullets & bombs, than read a post with one or more of the above. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, at least part of this has to do with new editor User:Wikigiraffes finding the page Julian Baggini and attempting to edit it. He added a non-profane, highly literate put-down of Baggini sourced to the well-known reliable source, Mr. Some-Guy-On-A-Blog. He added something about Baggini writing sympathetically about British National Party voters, citing a The Guardian piece by Baggini which was indeed sympathetic of certain BNP voters on its face, that was its raison d'etre, though clearly it's pretty controversial/WP:SYNTHy to say so in an article. He added something about a Guardian review of a book of Baggini's, which mentioned that it was similar in concept and structure to another. This was fine. He added something about an extended discussion between Baggini and the author of this other book, on these similarities, which was sourced to an article on some kind of philosophy website connected to the other author, and which reprinted parts of emails the two authors exchanged. Probably not cool, as you can imagine.

Baggini complained, basically of WP:UNDUE, Slim protected the article, Tim Vickers supported and renewed the protection, numerous editors directed the new editor to our policies. The new editor, like many smarter-than-average people, read some policy pages and immediately assumed he had grasped everything and was armed to fight a case, which he did at several venues at some length, and in such a manner as to get himself blocked, after which he resorted to socks.

He had a point in that short WP:BLP articles here are often bland C.V.-like entries, but obviously he could not find a way to edit in accordance with our policies in this area, and he was, I think fairly, described at one point as "a POV-pusher with a grudge". 86.44.27.87 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So, how do I gain access to the cabal to do my bidding on articles? Seriously. Beam 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The alchemy by which User:Slim Virgin and User:Tim Vickers can be made to act in concord is indeed mysterious, little one. 86.44.27.87 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure it is just a stunning coincidence that Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs) and Docmartincohen (talk · contribs) are on the same ISP and IP range and share other technical similarities. No direct IP match but it's an ISP that assigns a new IP every day. Thatcher 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for almost 6 years now, & I'm still trying to figure that one out. And I have a specific, pressing need: forget winning edit wars, I want free child care! Someone to look after my daughter while I try to create content. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You have children? I doubt, then, that you are taking Wikipedia seriously enough... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I took Wikipedia as seriously as some folks you & I could mention, I wouldn't have lasted here as long as I have. -- llywrch (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Executive Summary

Sure, there’s a need to summarise things. But that’s difficult! Wikipedia has 10 zillion pages, the information needs summarising - don’t blame me for that.

Right:

The issue is about the abuse of Wikipedia for personal ends - ranging from mere advertising to more sinister propaganda purposes. The strategies for both are very similar

1. I gave a detailed account of how one user whose interests seem to revolve around one Jeremy Stangroom, has planted misleading and plain wrong information on key philosophy pages whilst adding apparently unnecessary references to ‘Jeremy Stangroom’.

2. I also indicated how this user has been creating numerous junk pages and running through user names apparently in pursuit of editing privileges.

3.Baggini is not important in himself, but the issue of his page’s function is.

4. All pages about individuals on Wikipedia, whether alive or not quite, need to be open to editing so as to present a range of perspectives on the individual and their work, subject to academic standards of factual accuracy only.

Baggini’s page is not, and has not been open to contributions for several years. ('Established users' only can put them on, but even so, they'll be off the next day!) Already, in many ways, the Encylopedia is a ridiculous animal, click on [48] if you don’t believe me! full of pages designed to flatter egos but the process has barely started yet...

It is not coincidental that ‘Chris/Continuum Photos’ user also edited Julian Baggini’s page as ‘real life’ Baggini and Stangroom are colleagues. His edits have been allowed to stand there, indeed the page has been ‘protected’ to make it difficult to challenge them

No one has expressed any alarm at the idea that a user is floating around Wikipedia under various names adding misleading information and spurious references. Perhaps, that is because editors assume that this is what most people are doing, but in that case, we get to my general point , which is that

4. there is evidence of a network or conspiracy here which can be traced to several hundred dodgy pages.

I don’t spend ‘all’ my time looking at edit histories, not least because administrators continually falsify them. (Someone ought to check closely the voters for or against admin positions, not just the IP addresses, for example... The problem for Wikipedia is that there is an awful lot of shared ‘POV’ pushing going on, with networks of users stifling contrary views and administrators not so much editing pages as manipulating them. (Note, yes, Thatcher is right I have done a bit of POV networking in talking to friends myself, but not to stifle views only to air them.)

5. The most obvious network is that of SlimVirgin.

I have noticed how criticism of SlimVirgin is immediately drowned out by supportive comments from other users (off hand I recall particularly) Merkel’s “I think we ought to thank SlimVirgin for all her good work here”, and then there is Tim rushing to reinforce SlimVirgin’s protection of the Baggini page even as he argues that it was ‘inappropriate’ for an admin to protect pages they had started to stop others adding information from a different POV.

Point of View is of course is fundamental to Wikipedia. Take Mao for instance, there is a lot of negative comment on Mao, (I would say) much of it ill-informed and prejudiced. That reflects some editors' agendas, and in particular the views of the ‘administrators’. Similarly, the Ayn Rand page deifies this dubious bigot as ‘a philosopher’ of some importance. We can imagine why that might be. But POV is a subtle concept, in proactive the Neutral POV is the point of view of the dominant group or individual.

6. To make any sense of the NPOV concept we have to allow a range of opinions on subjects

Some of which some people agree with and some of which these people dislike. To some extent the Rand page has done this, Baggini’s page, again, provides a particularly blatant example of how that principle has not been applied.

Ok, I got too long again - hope this helps even so.

Docmartincohen (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

too long, didn't read

I posted up what I 'naively' thought was evidence of systematic abuse of Wikipedia. This was the response of several editors... tl;dr

(Here it is as short as I can make it... but to make sense of it, you would 'have to' read up not just what I wrote but lots of the pages cited too... so sorry!)

WIkipedia's structures, notably the NPOV policy and the division of Wikipedia into two groups, a secretive network of powerful adminstrators and a deliberately ineffectual mass of powerless editors, are designed not to promote the interests of truth seeking, but to promote sectarianism and propaganda.

Docmartincohen (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How does NPOV divide administrators from non-administrators? You've lost me. The stacked adjectives are fun, though. Orderinchaos 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this secret network of admins? Is there a cool t-shirt and a secret handshake? How come I haven't been invited? Is it because I'm not "powerful"? Sarah 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're not powerful? I've been living a lie! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man. I've been getting it so wrong! Ever since I became an admin, I've been being powerless and deliberately ineffectual. Damn. Is there a quick reference card I can keep by my computer so I'll know for next time? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an old IBM punch card I could send you. That should work as well as anything. It works for me, even though I'm just a powerless and ineffectual editor. :'( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I try to make up for that effeteness by being a nattering nabob of negativism. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans. --Kbdank71 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. With such a short contribution history I'm startled you were able to glean all that so fast! Has the secret decoder ring been cracked/hacked? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the sarcastic comments above to be inappropriate. If you disagree with the argument and don't want to make a counter-argument, you can just ignore it. Everyking (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's glow of systemic bias along with the lopsided and unhelpful PoVs of many high profile articles is very much acknowledged. However, it has yet to be meaningfully quantified and understood. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the short version makes me glad I didn't read the long version. Quietly filing such things in a drawer labelled "Unfounded claims of systemic abuse by administrators" doesn't seem to work. They keep coming. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If these charges were true, why wouldn't the admins have removed all traces of this discussion? Or... maybe they did? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request permission from the cabal to just wave my hands ineffectually in the air at this point and let out a heartfelt harassed wail of "but what do you want from us!!?!!?!?!!" Is there any admin action that could satisfy this user, other than mass harakiri? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Careful - don't make any promises you can't keep. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Docmartin, the problem is that you don't have any evidence. All you've done is claim that "some articles appear to have bias" is proof of some vast administrator conspiracy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange, isn't it? I put the evidence up (with a summary paragraph explaiing the reasoning) and several users asked me to summarise it. Then several more users say, 'where's the evidence?'

Look, take just a couple of the egs given. Machiavelli and Socrates. These edits are plain spam, with errors added that make Wikipedia look ridiculous too. Yet they are all being left there. Then take Chris who reads books a lot or whatever his name is - he used to call himself by his supposed company's name. This was plain spam. Before I posted he had already been obliged to change his username, but his promotions elsewhere stick. Then I pointed out linked users creating junk pages, adopting old user ids etc - no one has checked that. TimVickers and Thatcher, who like us to think of them as decent chaps doing a dirty job as they run round Wikipedia blocking users and deleting 'sockpuppets' have not shown much interest in any of that!

The bizarre 'protection' of Baggini's page is still in place, despite it only protecting 'this philosopher' from having his work quoted. In fact, the only thing that has changed is on Bagginni's talkpage - there's a mysterious new box about "a request emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation concerning addition of entries intended to misrepresent the subject". And the edit history has been oversighted to shift the latest change from 'Chris' to some previously unheard of user...

'One' connection I see is SlimVirgin, for the reasons in the tl;dr piece above - which is offered as just a starting point for investigation. My 'deduction' if you like, is that Wikipedia is as I put above, ' a secretive network of powerful adminstrators' whose function is sectarianism and propaganda. Of course I don't know what's going on. I'm just a contributor who read some lousy pages in my subject area and wondered why they were still there.

90.62.158.129 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Everyking - I kind of think there maybe a method in this suffocation of users raising concerns... anyway, if not, here's a link that describes a possible 'club' for Wknight94, TenOfAllTrades etc to try to join...

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Oversight_%28Or_Lack_Thereof%29

90.62.158.129 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, DocM, but you still haven't provided any evidence of a vast Wiki-admin conspiracy here. All you've shown is that a particular editor may have a conflict of interest, and that a couple people still think the information presented is reliable. You've given us zero evidence of "a secretive network of powerful adminstrators whose function is sectarianism and propaganda." I understand your concerns, but I think you've blown this way out of proportion. At best, this is a content dispute or a matter for the COI notice board. There's really nothing for admins to intervene on here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I've read loads and loads of 'evidence' by many users, all of which seems to be going nowhere. I really don't think there's any shortage of serious issues to address, and the list is getting longer... Its curious, isn't it, nothing is a matter of concern until the press report it and then suddenly Wikipedia sorts it out. Essjay-style...

- there are numerous pages including ones argued about on this page! that are not open to editing which should be, due to abuse of admin powers. My favorite example though is the Baggini page, guarded as it is by the internet's most famous abusive editor, SlimVirgin - there are numerous pages that have no reference merit at all, created either for advertising (I gave some examples as above) - and there are 'junk' pages created it seems for 'gaining admin status' purposes - I gave the links to follow to see a few of these. - there is regular abuse of the 'oversight' power by admins, to change edit histories. Again, I have seen this happening on the Baggini page to change responsibility for various actions, editing and administrative - and lastly, and this is what the above discussion has certainly revealed to me, there is almost no interest in correcting false information!

I pointed out a couple of examples and indicated where I believed there was a whole vein of deliberate mis-editing to be followed up. I'm not, as I stressed, an administrator, I'm attempting to add 'content' but have got definitely side-tracked! I'll go back to adding content soon... don't worry. (I'll go mad otherwise, that's for sure.. like lots of good editors before!) But those who have sought the 'authority/ power/ prestige or whatever it is, ought to be following up the leads I gave, if only to be sure they're misinformed. It 'might' all be a case of I've spent too long looking at WIkipedia and addled my braincells, yes.

Obviously there's a lot of stuff to be corrected/ watched/ patrolled or whatever - but I think the worst failing is systemic. That is why these in a way trivial cases are worth raising and why I think they 'would' have been taken up here, if the system was functioning.

I'll offer a view if you like on what is a possible solution: it's not complicated, it's a US style division of powers. All administrators should be obliged to forego any content role, they cannot create or edit pages, only adjudicate between editors over claimed breaches of policy. Any pages historically they created/ edited they are not allowed to have a role in, nor can they have others (obviously no 'sockpuppets) edit content for them which they then guard later.

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You think the Baggini page is protected incorrectly? According to its protection log, the last protection was not done by SlimVirgin. It was done by someone else in response to an WP:OTRS request. Why don't you make a WP:OTRS request to unprotect it? WP:OTRS is not something that many of us casual volunteer administrators are wont to overturn. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who is doing what anymore! One day I see SlimVirgin has protected the page, the next day that edit is oversighted and someone else 'appears' to be responsible (takes over). If you check the edit history, (http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl) you will find SlimVirgin has made 25 edits of which only 18 are left on the wikipedia history page!

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That page says she made 17 edits, 8 of which were minor. That's exactly what I see in the history now. If your concern is oversighted edits, you'll have to bring it up elsewhere - ArbCom perhaps? Administrators are not able to see oversighted edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

- yes I am referring to oversighted ones but I have not got proper records so I can't be sure...! You're right the pae doesnot show much = except that SlimVirgin has spent a lot of time on it (contrary to her comments on the BLP noticeboard)

Those off-site statistics are notoriously inaccurate. It really sounds like you're grasping at straws here. And trying to make it so admins can't edit content/create new pages is just absurd. I really don't see anything to do here, just rampant conspiracy mongering. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I give up! Too bad for anyone who thought Wikipedia had positive aspects... thanks to everyone who joined in the belittling and pooh-poohing of user concerns - they're not just mine! - raised here and everywhere on Wikipedia - anyone who wants to share positive ideas, please do so on my user page. I'm also hoping to weave some of the 'general' issues into an article, so any comments for that will be welcome. 90.17.15.184 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lajolla2009

I'm having issues with User:Lajolla2009. I disagreed with their edits to David K. Jordan and List of University of California, San Diego people regarding the inclusion of Mike Hou, and so I reverted them, explaining why on those articles' talk pages and asking for discussion. Lajolla2009 proceeded to re-revert, and then delete my comments on those articles' talk pages, as well as the comments I made on User Talk:Lajolla2009. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I'm not sure of the proper course of action. Would you please advise? Many thanks. Realitycookie (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I did not revert back the notability under UCSD's Notable People. According to WP:TALK I have the right to remove my own comments off my talk. At the same time, when an issue is resolved, the talk can be removed to prevent future complications.

Thanks.

Lajolla2009 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you did remove my comments the discussion page for List of University of California, San Diego people previous to the ones that have been left. I also don't believe that the issues were resolved, but rather that you are now unilaterally declaring them resolved, as I don't feel satisfied by your explanations. Also, WP:TALK which you cited, specifically says, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission" and I haven't given you permission to do this.

I don't dispute your right to remove comments from your talk page, but my questions have as a result gone unanswered and I believe that is relevant. Realitycookie (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First, on the "protocol" side of the dispute. Realitycookie is correct here. Lajolla2009 removed Realitycookie's comments to Talk:David K. Jordan twice:[49][50] and to Talk:List of University of California, San Diego people once [51]. This is unacceptable conduct that constitutes disruptive behaviour. Comments of other users on talk pages other than your own talk page should not be removed, but for a a few exceptional circumstances (e.g. obvious vandalism). Lajolla2009, if you disagree with another editor's comments, you should add your comments below them. This way other editors will be able to see the entire exchange and to add their comments as well. Second, on the substance of the dispute. Realitycookie is quite correct there as well. Adding the name of a person, who only received his undergraduate degree in 2008 and has no other significant accomplishments yet, to the list of notable alumni of UCSD (such as this edit here[52]) is clearly inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And now there is apparent sockpuppetry, as Lajolla2009 stopped editing but an anon IP from San Diego, 128.54.197.138, keeps adding the name of the same student to the David K. Jordan article, see here[53]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwain

I thought User:Dwain was inactive, but apparently not for as long as I thought. His userpage consists of nothing but an external link to a Geocities website as his "profile" here, which has a bunch of linkbacks to his userpages. Other than the fact that there is no reason to have an external site hold your WP profile (unless there's something in it which makes it WP-inappropriate, which there is), what specifically concerns me is his "my private website" link and the "Freemasonry" page therein, which is full of all the stuff various people would not let him put on WP for various reasons, and a list of Wikipedians who he thinks are Freemasons here. Then as now, I see this as an attack page, and while this issue was brought up a long time ago, it apparently wasn't quite resolved. Therefore, I'd like to see Dwain's userpage blanked and locked. If he can't use his userspace responsibly, and has to find ways to get around policies, he should simply not be allowed use of it. MSJapan (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be germane to this discussion to point out that you are one of the Wikipedians whom Dwain alleges to be Freemasons. Skomorokh 11:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're attempting to suggest the existence of an actual Freemason conspiracy, no, it's not germane at all. --Calton | Talk 11:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Freemason conspiracy? I thought it was Jewish... Sceptre ^(talk) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a timeshare thing, with the Freemasons on Saturday, the Jews on Sunday, the Trilateral Commission on Monday, and the Vatican on Tuesday. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Wednesday through Friday are still open. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When someone comes to ANI with a complaint about another editor's behaviour, it is somewhat less than scrupulous not to disclose their involvement in the situation. In this instance, the OP's claim that the external link is to an attack site has different weight coming from an uninvolved outsider than it does coming from someone who may see themselves as a victim of the alleged attack. Sincerely, Skomorokh 13:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if there is a notice regarding possible links to racist websites it beholds the reporter to comment on their own ethnic background? I think it is the link/content that is the issue, and not the motives of the reporter - unless it is a particularly egregious report (which, per AGF, I am certain you are not insinuating). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous strawman of course, but it is my fault for not being specific enough in my wording above. User:MSJapan is explicitly listed among a short list of Wikipedian Freemasons on the linked page. I assume good faith on the part of all concerned, but the way you read an account of a particular situation varies dramatically based on your information of the source of the account. It is often difficult to be entirely neutral when you feel personally attacked. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not a strawman argument; my point is that the decision here can only rest upon whether the link is appropriate or not, and not on who initiates the discussion. Yes, a personal reason might be involved in the reporting - but not on whether it is an appropriate link; therefore it is irrelevant on whether MSjapan has a personal stake in the matter or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, implying that I was committed to mandating racial disclosure is a strawman. No, I never commented on what the decision should rest on, nor on the appropriety of the link, and do not understand why you are bringing this up in response to my minor, obvious, and procedural point that as JASPencer's comment below shows, is quite relevant. Good day, and regards,Skomorokh 15:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest, respectfully of course, that if you don't wish to read a sysop's opinion on a matter, that you do not interact upon any of the admin noticeboards - it would certainly allow me to concentrate on helping those who might appreciate it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly there's no link on Dwain's Talk page to this discussion. This is discourteous, but I don't really expect much courtesy on this matter - all things considered. More practically it's bloody confusing. I came on here because there seemed to be some unprovoked vandalism and I suggested it go here. And what do I see? Something that makes it all clearer.

Secondly the original link was a compromise between sensitivity and free speech. This seems to be the pertinent edit. I personally think that this blanking out of any content critical of Freemasonry is poor show, but even so this compromise should not be overturned on a whim.

Finally censorship may at times be necesary, but it should be carefully examined and not done on a whim.

JASpencer (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To those editors who are saying that it doesn't matter who lodges a complaint... what are you talking about? Of course it does. A simple note like "accusing editors of freemasonry, including me" would have been the right thing to do. Beam 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, JASpencer was clearly tracking my edits; there was no vandalism involved with this at all. It is a long-term incident that was supposedly dealt with and wasn't. Frankly, what it is is a guy maintaining lists of Wikipedia users outside of Wikipedia because of what he thinks. That's simply inappropriate. And why, if it didn't affect me, would I come across it or bother to bring it to anyone's attention? "Then as now" should have pretty much made my past involvement clear anyway; it's not the accusation so much as the maintenance of the list that concerns me, and the circumvention of policies that indicates. MSJapan (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, it doesn't matter what lists someone maintains off wiki of various WP editors, even if it is only based on the listers own opinions - until there is a link from the listers userpage. If an editor wants the general public to know something about themselves then they use their own userpage; they have the right for any conjection about who they are or why they edit to be removed from other accounts pages. To have a third party list "facts" about a user is not appropriate without the consent of the individual concerned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I myself have the impression (rightly or not) that the individual is free to say on wiki anything that he wishes to. However, to use that as an excuse to set up an off-wiki link, which that person uses as a wikipedia userpage, which directly links to what appears to be a form of conscious derogation (at least in the eyes of the user creating the page) seems to me to be unacceptable. It might be possible to restore the user page using the material from the off-wiki page, and not allowing the link to the apparently intentionally (if not factually) derogatory page? And I have left Dwain a notice of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The material is off-wiki because (IIRC) it was MfDed out of userspace at least once and possibly twice for precisely the same reason I've brought it up here now. This is nothing but policy circumvention and chronically arrogant behavior. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Was it the content on this page which was MfD'd, or was it the list? I personally don't see much wrong with the page above that isn't at least as bad on some other pages. I wouldn't have any objections to that being restored myself, although I would object to any links from wikipedia, direct or indirect, to the list of Freemasons which the author seems to consider to be derogation. I do note that some members of Masonic bodies prefer not being identified as such, respect that, and consider that possibly/probably sufficient grounds for removing such a list and ensuring that it is not linked to from wikipedia. But the main page above seems to be to be basically no worse than a lot of other userpages I've seen. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that originally there were objections that the user page was too strong, and a succesful attempt was made to suppress it, the author then thought that he had been censored (as obviously he had, but there may have been some justification) and so set up a mirror page off-wiki and linked to that. This was then objected to as it was still too strong, the off wiki page was then toned down and everyone was happy. Now the whole thing starts again. JASpencer (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked through Wikipedia:Userpage and noted this, which appears to allow what Dwain has done - since the problematic listing is a link from that site. I also think that the language of the ArbCom regarding Badsites permitted the link to a site that wasn't directly directed to contentious material. My opinion is that Dwaine is wikilawyering around policy to enable a campaign against an ideology he disagrees with, and is doing so succcesfully. However, if the editor is no longer active on WP and has links on the userpage that is offensive to current contributors then I can't see that there is any good served by keeping it up. When not actively contributing such information does not help in building the encyclopedia, but rather falls under WP:SOAP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more like a series of problems - content was shuffled here and there to superficially comply with policy until said content was found again, and LHvU has summed up my position and reasoning (plus some) for bringing it up here again. The simple fact is that if Dwain did what he was supposed to instead of trying to play policy games, I would never have had to bring this up again. MSJapan (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to set up a policy or guideline to deal with what sort of external links are acceptable on user pages. Unfortunately, Dwain as per here has been active once recently, reverting his user page, so I'm not sure if he can technically be called "inactive." Welcome comments from others. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Dwain was active in a controversy about whether George Washington became a deathbed Catholic. JASpencer (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ps. The answer I am not looking for is 14th December 1799! ;~)

He asked for my help at the end of May, beginning of June. I think that was when it died down but it had been going for some time. JASpencer (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It stewed for a long time, but things really broke out in February 2008 as fallout of a project to cleanup and improve the citations of List of United States Presidential religious affiliations. This led to looking at George Washington and religion, which in turn led to Leonard Neale. The issue was sourcing of the claim; I removed it from the second and third articles mentioned because of substantial doubt that the source even existed, and because it conflicted with eyewitness accounts. This went on for some time, and we eventually ended up with a compromise version. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of these periodic attacks by people with differing opinions. My account is NOT inactive! MSJapan is now taking issue with a page that I edited and where a compromise was already established by me and another freemason editor. Originally:I was attacked by several people who purported to be freemasons years ago because I had made some notes on freemasonry on one of my Wikipedia pages. I had these notes so I could possibly use them when editing an article concerning freemasonry. These notes were successfully deleted by MSJapan and others. My userpage was also attacked and I removed it onto another location. I have tried to stay clear of these people in editing and elsewhere but apparently that is not good enough. If MSJapan does not want to be listed as a freemason I suggest he remove the information box which purports that he is one and stops telling people on talkpages that he is one! My information on Wiki-masons came from the editors own userpages and assertions. I pointed them out because they were editing articles on freemasonry and because as masons they takes oaths not to reveal things about the group and they are obligated to lie. As a result, if one is a good mason they will lie when talking about certain aspects of the group. I wonder if he realizes that by making attacks, such as this, may make some people think that his beloved organization is made up of petty, ignorant, zealots. He may be doing more harm for his cause then he is helping it. My Wikipedia userpage has a warning and the link to my personal page has a warning. I have not added anymore information to these pages. This issue was settled years ago. I have worked with a purported freemason on Wikipedia and resolved an issue in an article by compromising. I just want to be left alone. If MSJapan thinks that he can remove any mention of freemasonry not sanctioned by his organization on the internet he is just plain wrong. Dwain (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"...petty, ignorant, zealots"? I think a line just got crossed here. Not to mention the blanket assertions that Freemasons must lie. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found Dwain the easiest person to work with, but frankly it seems to me that this is rather a tempest in a WP:ATTACKSITES teapot. It doesn't seem to me to be worth the fuss. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

All this fuss over bricklayers? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange New Editor

Resolved

I notied User talk:Happy vs. Sad registering a new account, then immediately posting a confirmed sockpuppet/blocked notice on User:The King of All Mascots. I reverted, since this user isn't an admin and wasn't actually blocked. When I went to HvsS's page to ask what was up, I noticed he had immediately created five more accounts [57], and hadn't posted again.

I have no history with either of these two users, so I thought I'd bring it here for admins and more experienced editors to examine. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All blocked as socks of User:MascotGuy, thank you for bringing it to our attention. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gonzo. That's what I figured, but I thought I'd just turn it over to the big guns. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, know this is all finished off now but thought those interested might be interested in possibly dealing or adding to the RFCU I opened to try and weasel out more socks. treelo _radda 11:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Cjdm1604‎

Unresolved

User creating many soccer-related articles, all of which he fails to expand. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean these? Well, you issued a warning, but there's no admin action needed right now. If the WP:CSD#A7 articles keep coming despite the warning, please report this at WP:AIV.  Sandstein  10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

River Thames frost fairs

I have removed an 'fact' not supported by the reference provided (which is available to all online). Everyone should note that User:William M. Connolley has edit warred on this page AND used his blocking powers against those who he has a content dispute with. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Diffs please, and notify William. You don't look blocked to me.  Sandstein  11:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I sourced the claim, there are many other sources available for this being an exceptionally cold winter and likely one of the coldest ever recorded. It doesn't make a lot of sense to simply keep removing it, it needs tweaking and better sources is all. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321

Resolved

Preface

[[58]]

Latest Saga

[[59]]

In short Xp54321 has been given numerous chances and has been making to many mistakes when it comes to reverting other users edits and for this reason I am pushing for his rollback access to be reconsidered on the grounds that he is being far to slapdash with rollback (via huggle). He needs to slow down and i think revoking his rollback will help do this. This is enlight of him reverting and template warning legitmate edits by an ip user, possibly putting them of from ever contributing to wikipedia again. Opinions?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The links you provide do not immediately show any indications of recent abuse of the rollback feature. Please substantiate your request and notify Xp54321 (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Also, using correct grammar and syntax would help.  Sandstein  11:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like overenthusiasm only to me - the content removal (which was entirely correct) does look like vandalism without a knowledge of the subject, and it seems he wasn't the only user to think so. Orderinchaos 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. It was just an error; he's already been warned for it. People make mistakes all the time; live and learn. HiDrNick! 16:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Xp's been warned before, but punishing him for this kind of mistake seems a bit unfair unless it's part of a current (note the emphasis) pattern. – iridescent 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet accounts

Resolved

A number of accounts and IP addresses have been found to be sockpuppets after a request for checkuser was placed.

Appropriate action should be taken against the offender.

Please note that the accounts are listed on the same page (i.e. here)

Cheers! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate actions taken; including blocking the main account for two weeks. GDonato (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Againtools

Resolved

 – Just another blocked Hagger sock... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Contributions of Againtools.

Listed above are a series of edits by a user called Againtools. This user's edits consist of moving vandalism, such as moving a page at random to some random word or comment. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a well-known sockmaster who always does the same thing. The account is already permanently blocked. Thanks for the heads-up though! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

I have been working on a page tilted Joel Widzer. It has gone through a number of edits. I just finished a major reedit to comply with policy however, editor Daniel J. Leivick seems to have unreasonable issues with it. Could someone help out? Thank you (cur) (last) 12:20, 12 July 2008 Daniel J. Leivick (Talk | contribs) (10,178 bytes) (some much needed tags, I will go through the article and fix what I can soon) (undo) --reagan (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to ask someone to look at his edits on this page for abuse of editor power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Widzer thank you--reagan (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! No sources other than the subject's own web site, and it does indeed read like an advertisement. Your editing interests also seem to be very narrowly focused. I think that Leivick's issues with the article are quite reasonable. -- Donald Albury 22:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article and added references. I agree that my edit interests are narrow—this mainly is because it seems that getting an article on Wikipedia is more difficult then getting congress to pass legislation.--reagan (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

no but i will--thanks--reagan (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reagan, did you notify Daniel Leivick of your posting here? I don't see any notice that you did so on his talk page. -- Donald Albury 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not--wasn't sure how to, thanks for doing so and bringing to my attention--reagan (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of the worst kind

Resolved

Article linked hasn't been edited in 11 days, no apparent issues. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey check it, someone f-ed up the Gran Turismo 5 article. And I don't just mean blanking. 72.218.215.149 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong, exactly? Can you provide a diff? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The article has not been edited in eleven days, and while the article is in bad shape, I don't see any obvious vandalism. -- Donald Albury 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the non-protected templates that are transcluded on that page as well, and did not see any recent changes.

Maybe they are confused because they think it should have all the content that is in Gran Turismo 5 Prologue? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a corrupt page. Maybe PS3 Browser just didn't understand it and I thought someone screwed it up. 72.218.215.149 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that this epic, critical, and worst kind of issue of someone messing up the GT5 page on your PS3 has been resolved. --mboverload@ 23:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat embedded in Noelia

76.109.234.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), claiming to be legal counsel for Noelia, has threatened legal action against "Wikipedia, memebers [sic], and collaborators" [60]. Considering his poor spelling, I doubt this is a legitimate threat, and in light of the recent court case highlighted in the Signpost, I don't think he can hold us liable. Either way, I have reported this here in accordance with what I have seen done with similar incidents. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you did the right thing,. can take it from here, Smith Jones (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this thread. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. 13 of the IP's 16 contribs are related to the subject, which seems pretty random to not have some resemblance of legitimacy. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IDK. It's just that someone who is actually a lawyer would know that their edits notifying us (Wikipedia) of his impending case would be submitted as evidence in the trial. Would a real lawyer embarrass himself (and his practice) by using such poor spelling and grammar? I counted no less than 10 spelling errors in his post, and that doesn't even touch the grammar issues. ("please beware of this actions wil be liable to Wikipedia, memebers, and collaborators") J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Any lawyer would know better than to do that, most should know to contact the WMF directly. Another thing: a internet search doesn't show any connection between Noelia and Richard Wolfe, although it's still possible. And in reply to J.delanoy, A.)A lawyer wouldn't be embedding the statement in an article, and B.)No, I think most lawyers are better spellers than that. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all changes the user made. Was that WP:BOLD or WP:MBOVERLOADISAMORON? =) --mboverload@ 01:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you make sute that all of the edits were disruptive or unlawful?? There is no real ned to remove the edit unless its against policies or designed to be tendentious. Smith Jones (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not a good enough Wikipedian to wade though those edits and remove only the threats. I have failed Jimbo. --mboverload@ 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are dealing with a lawyer.The user made many typos, left no edit summaries, didn't source the edits so reversion of all of them was probably best. I would have blocked the IP per WP:NLT but the message sent seems to have stopped them, though they have not responded yet.— Ѕandahl 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also left the IP a note. Hopefully they'll respond in some way that's a bit more open to discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:The Great Editor In Chief is editing my talkpage comments and tendentiously editing Tim Russert

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours by User:Sandstein Beam 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning on his page based on his continued removal of agreed-upon merge text at the Russert article. He then proceeded to edit my comments to make it look as if I'd insulted him. You can also view his tendentious editing at the Russert article simply by viewing the history of that article. He's stated on my talk that he will continue edit warring to remove the section, even given the consensus to merge it, developed through some hard work by a number of different editors. His "reasoning" (in his edit summaries) is that people are still "mourning." S. Dean Jameson 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Still at it. S. Dean Jameson 22:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked immediately for this edit. Trying to get other editors into trouble with such lies requires a strong response from the community. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24h as an immediate preventive measure just for these edits. You might want to go directly to WP:AIV if he keeps that up after the block expires.  Sandstein  22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Now there's another editor removing whole blocks of text from the article. I'm unwatchlisting it, at least for awhile. We worked too hard for a compromise merge, that I'm too invested in the article to be able to dispassionately edit it right now. And I won't edit war for inclusion of our merged text. S. Dean Jameson 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, put the diff here and I'll edit war for you. :D Beam 22:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Username is a violation too, IMHO. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Check his style of writing on talk page he uses tooo sweet and goody goody language, He has just created account on wiki and is trying to become a admin!! my sixth sense says in future he will creat a mess Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)