Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Troplock (talk | contribs)
109 edits
Troplock (talk | contribs)
109 edits
→‎Notice: new section
Line 823: Line 823:


::Ice cream. [[User:Troplock|Troplock]] ([[User talk:Troplock|talk]]) 11:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
::Ice cream. [[User:Troplock|Troplock]] ([[User talk:Troplock|talk]]) 11:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

== Notice ==

If you noticed this notice then you will have noticed that this notice was not worth noticing. [[User:Troplock|You suck at life, do the world a favor - commit suicide.]] ([[User talk:Troplock|talk]]) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:38, 12 May 2008

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Cult free world

    User:Cult free world just came off of a two day block here for personal attacks and immediately launched into disruptive and tendentious editing again here.

    No less than seven other editors have been working carefully to follow Wiki policies and build consensus and Cult free world continues to change the article without discussion, without consensus, to mirror the version that appears on his blog. This user has exhibited that he is incapable of (a) working with other editors to build consensus, (b) following Wikipedia policies, and/or (c) editing in a manner that does not promote his POV. (Please note this article is now in mainspace, not his userspace anymore, so is subject to all of the normal Wiki policies now, which he was able to bypass when it was in his userspace.)

    There have been numerous complaints by many different editors on this user, he persists in disruptive, tendentious editing without any semblance of trying to work with other editors in a meaningful way, and he has failed to contribute meaningful to Wikipedia. Please, can it end? Renee (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was tempted to hit the "indef" button, but have blocked CFW for one month - I will reduce the length of the block if he pledges to edit in a constructive and collaborative manner. Neıl ☎ 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block, though I consider such a pledge from this user unlikely - but possible. Any objections to a resolved tag? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PLease can you provide diffs, if what Renee says is so I would think it would be a 3RR issue or something. CFW's entitled to his opinion of what the article should look like to be at his best, but he shouldn't be revert or edit warring, perhaps. However there are problems with some other editors on those articles perhaps being members of the group involved or similar ones, and having a WP:COI. If CFW was really that prone to this he wouldn't have survived this long on wiki.Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) diffs please Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merkins, the diff listed above is a pretty good indication of what CFW was doing. I'm a bit surprised CFW hasn't been blocked indef for making edits like that right after a block for the same reason. I'm trying to be fair here, but I believe the same edits will occur in a month given CFW's track record. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I'd like to see it discussed a tiny bit more before marked as resolved, because if CFW was that bad he wouldn't have survived this long. On articles about New Religious Movements it's sometimes hard to make sure they aren't owned by the groups involved. Are there any editors on the anti-cult side of the article who are also finding CFW's approach unwise or wrong? Merkin's mum 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, my thoughts on a resolved tag were quite premature - I thought it was more cut-and-dry than it apparently is. I still think a block is in order, and concur with the block issued in this instance. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry-there were lots of edit conflicts there lol. The link was to the revision history. All it shows is another editor saying CFW's version is not "sane". That doesn't sound much like people trying to get on, to me. Merkin's mum 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've edited this article off and on. It is very sensitive terrain, and CFW has consistently exhibited all the tact of a bull in a china shop here, as can be seen with this latest set of edits. I concur with Renee that building consensus is impossible with this user. Several editors have tried and been accused of either being brainwashed or on the payroll of this group. As an aside - This behavior is suspiciously identical to that of User:Shashwat_Pandey who used to frequent the same sets of articles and was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some difs from this page started May 1, [1], [2], [3], [4]. If you review the talk page here you'll see seven editors trying to work together, and then CFW posting original research, his interpretation of things, and ignoring other editors' attempts to get him to work together. He had been building this page on his user page and many of us (mistakenly) tried to work on that, only to find out that the rules for userpages were different (because he posted previously deleted content, I filed an MFD per admin advice here, and an admin reviewing a sanitized version kept it despite a 12 delete/7 keep vote (because it was userspace), and then CFW promptly reverted it to his OR, primary sourced version here. He posted an RFC for his userpage version of the article here and then ignored almost every editors responses. Every single editor who has worked on the previously deleted Sahaj Marg pages believe he is User:Shashwat pandey and User:Rushmi (see sock report here). The reason he looks "okay" in the beginning is because he had been booted off in two previous identities and he was attempting to come into the article via this third identity (again, review the sock evidence please).
    I have made many mistakes with respect to this user because I mistakenly believed that userspace was held to the same Wiki policies as mainspace. When I learned that it wasn't I began to ignore the user and his space until the article was posted in mainspace, where I began to work on it. I am a good faith contributer to Wiki and have worked on dozens of articles, including creating several myself. I don't think this user will change and urge an indefinite ban. Despite having multiple POVs on the Sahaj Marg talk page, we were making progress and it was relatively peaceful. User:Cult free world has demonstrated time and again, across three identities, that he is only on Wikipedia to promote original research and a POV. Please indefinitely ban him. Renee (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. The term I was looking for was sleeper sockpuppet (in answer to the question of how did he last so long). i.e., when a previously disgraced/blocked editor goes away and comes back working on other somewhat related articles, and then magically, out of the blue, decides to "create" an identical article out of 5x previously deleted material (and this one talked about it on his blog). If he goes away again I think we have to be very careful and watch for another sleep sockRenee (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it too much to ask for secondary neutral sources as a Wiki Editor? My observation is that this user just ignores other editors. I also observed that this user incorrectly draws hasty conclusions on sub-judice matters. This user also tends to get personal with allegations which are unwarranted for in the Wiki world. With so much negativity, perhaps its wise not to have this user as well the article on the Wikipedia and bring an end to everything!! -- Mayawi (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ← A good block, and one well deserved. He has been the issue of many threads at AN/ANI, and his unwillingness to cooperate and work with others in a constructive manner is determental to the project. His disruptions and trolling actions only leads me to believe that the user will not reform until faced with such sanctions that will severely limit his abilities to edit -- and an indef. block is certainly not out of the question if the behavior does not make a turnaround. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 for blocking, long as you like. This user is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, he's here to remodel it to support his external agenda. Consider my limited patience well and truly exhausted. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • endorse the block. This editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively or to improve the encyclopedia in any way, beyond pushing his point of view and berating those that don't agree with him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider this a non-admin endorsement of this block. CFW has shown that the previous block did not change his editing habits, and the project is better off not having an editor who choose to use his personal agenda as a NPOV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was lenient; an indefinite block would appear well and truly warranted here. MastCell Talk 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • :I was of the view everyone should get one last chance - previously he'd only had a 48 hour block for this sort of thing and a jump to indefinite would, perhaps, have been over-harsh. If he reverts to type when the block expires, then I'll be the first to press the indef button. Neıl ☎ 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get me wrong; I'm sure this block is preventing disruption. I just can't help but feel that there was a good contributor in there that we failed to reach. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SheffieldSteel - It's never a happy moment when a volunteer editor gets booted out. I agree that CFW is diligent in his work. The issue wasn't his ability as a contributor - I would be the first to point to his intelligence and tenacity. The issue was, is, and I'm very sure will continue to be his attitude. This isn't editing - This is raw rage at work. What kind of person comes off a 2-day ban only to immediately repeat the offense? I've worked with this user for a while now (across 3 socks), and the sheer levels of toxicity he injects into the articles he touched has to be experienced to be believed. If you haven't seen it, good for you! I have, and I stopped editing in disgust a little while back. Took me very little time to dig up a few pearls to help you see what I'm talking about - [here], [here], [here], [here] or [here]. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - Thought about this and Utraexatzz and wildthing are right - He'll be back in a month and he'll go back to where he left off. He's been at it too long to change within a month and nothing he's said or done indicates he realizes he's doing anything wrong. Also, it's very odd that a page that had never been vandalized (even in all of its previous versions) is suddenly vandalized by an open proxy just yesterday...(see here). Coincidence? I don't think so! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. Topic ban, rigidly enforced. If CFW violates the ban (which I have complete confidence he will), then he hasn't a leg to stand on. He'll still call us a bunch of cultist censors, though. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. Though I'm not sure if it will make a difference. Here is the user's response to his ban -- he doesn't understand there's a problem. Renee (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse This user had been a suspected sock of previous users (now perm blocked) who have repeatedly tried to publish strong POV info against this topic - Sahaj Marg, Shri Ram Chandra Mission, SRCM. Because of lack of firm evidence (old users) this sock report got closed just short of confirming this. Despite all that, I tried to work very patiently with CFW [5], here, here, only to still not get his cooperation. In light of the fact that since last sept. there have been several attempts to post such information which ended up in deletes after a long discussion [6], [7], [8] I would vote for a topic ban. Can someone tell how broad would the ban be? (New Religious Movements" and "Cults" or just Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission/SRCM). Duty2love (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indef ban. I have tried to work with him now as two of the three different socks, and looked over his actions of the other sock. Nothing has changed, despite having wikipedia policies explained literally a hundred times to him, he just pushes on with his agenda.His behavior is the same each time... except this time those who disagree with im are "members of cult groups trying to suppress information" as opposed to "brain-washed zombies," which I suppose is a kind of progess? I don't see any change happening anytime soon. And of course, like the governor of California, he'll be back. And most importantly, over these three socks, has he contributed anything? of value? Sethie (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • endorse-ish + comment- there is a place for people with what could be seen as an anti-"cult" sentiment on wiki, to counteract those who are here to create hagiographies of their guru or puff pieces about their group, despite serious concerns perhaps having been voiced about whatever group is concerned. I miss User:Smee...on the other hand, it does sound like CFW is this other bloke who is already indef blocked. You could try a topic ban, but he might well be back in several more different guises until he gives up. I just wish a compromise could be reached, with the help of editors not in the group concerned. If people have said things about a group which are in newspapers etc, these should be mentioned. But if someone won't listen to reason and compromise a tiny bit, no-one can work with them.Merkin's mum 00:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with a topic ban is that he'll just come back as a sock, as he has done twice before. Sethie (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And each time he came back it was under more devious means. The first time he came back he pretended to be a new user and was adopted by Sarcasticidealist (see this). As User:Cult free world he came back as a "sleeper sock," working on other pages for a while before starting a "new" Sahaj Marg page that coincidentally contained previously deleted content. He did make a few slips -- on his first two days of editing in this identity he removed "Sahaj Marg" here (Jan 1); it was reverted, he removed it again here (Jan 3). Then, on Feb 16 he "happens" to mention Sahaj Marg here and here. When a brand new user posted a "new" Sahaj Marg page and it was immediately deleted under G4, CFW harassed the deleting admin about it here and then went here and referenced the original AFD. How would a naive editor "know" that a new page had been published? know about the previous AFD? know who worked on the article before? This sort of deviousness demonstrates he's here to push an agenda and not contribute to Wikipedia. Renee (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-Warring/Repeatedly deleting text with deliberately misleading edit summaries

    User User:TharkunColl repeatedly deleted text from the British Isles article, each time very loudly insisting that the text was not supported by the reference cited and that he was defending the truth in a rearguard action against POV pushers. The text was in fact verbatim supported in the references cited. User User:TharkunColl reverted two other editors who replaced the text, each time using CAPITAL LETTERS in the edit summary to state that the text was not supported by reference. The diffs are [9], [10], [11].
    The accompanying talk page comments include [12], [13], where TharkunColl repeats the assertion that the deleted text was not in the reference. The page was then partially protected, resulting in the following comments [14], and [15], with User:TharkunColl accusing the original editor of lying, and the reverting editors of being POV, a politicised minority, etc. The deleted text, which can be very easily seen in the diffs from the article, appears in the reference given, i.e. the words "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism" appear in the article from the Canadian Journal of history at [[16] (look on page 2).
    I pointed out on the talk page that the references did exist and that I believed the repeated deletions and misleading edit summaries qualified as vandalism. It has been pointed out that vandalism is generally considered to refer to more dramatic actions and that I should come to the general incidents board if I wanted to raise this issue. Once challenged with the detail from the reference, User:TharkunColl began defending his actions by claiming instead that he felt that the text he had deleted wasn't immediately relevant to the article and later by saying that he hadn't actually read the reference at all. I belive this is a post-hoc defense.
    Given the LONG term issues around the British Isles article, I feel that such repeated deletion of supported text, such misleading edit summaries and the (incorrect) accusations of lying and POV are serious and that behaviour like this represents a major problem on a page with the problems of that one. Note, I don't have strong feelings about the content deleted. I think it probably belongs, but it hasn't been discussed and I don't believe it's the point. (I also feel - perhaps incorrectly - that two admins who frequent the page, John and Deacon of Pndapetzim, have strong views on the article content and perhaps ought to recuse themselves from any discussion on this incident.) Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot to mention that part of my edit included rephrasing the bit that said that British trade in the North Atlantic dated to Saxon times. If that appears in the article then I certainly never saw it - and even if it does say it, it's demonstrably wrong. Incidentally, I have since added the whole quote, not just the half that was originally there. In any case, it is referring to the British Empire, not the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikistalking case, was moved back to Tharky's page (at Bardcom's choosing). But, so far that discussion hasn't continued there. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any possible sanctions against those who repeatedly make malicious and/or frivolous complaints? TharkunColl (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a separate complaint that has nothing to do with the wikistalking incident. And yes, the wikistalking conversation has not continued on any Talk page that I am aware of. Interesting that Merkinsmum interprets the previous incident as "no admin action required".....is that an assumption.... ??? --Bardcom (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a fact that that is pretty much how the last thread here ended- it was to be continued on Thark's talk, i.e. not on the administrators noticeboard. As far as I know, everyone who commented in the previous thread you started the day before this one saw it as a content dispute, and some referred to the RfC about Bardcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom (which, in my opinion, is pretty much a content dispute, but that's by the by.) Please reread my words above- I'm not assuming anything about this thread if people really consider it a separate matter, I was commenting on the previous thread, hence my use of the past tense. However- as it is so soon-about a day after the last thread, people might wonder if it is actually the same matter, as LessHeardvanU did above, and as I am yet to be convinced that it's not.:) Merkin's mum 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merkin, there is no conspiracy theory. This is a separate thread, and a separate complain. I steered well clear of the British Isles Talk page when this row broke out. The last thread ended because the admins weren't going to actually do anything about Tharky's behaviour (which appears true - nothing has yet been done). The admins have blessed Tharky's behaviour as justified, because they have interpreted it as a content dispute. Same thing appears to be happening here, only more so, as you are now attempting to connect (while trying to make it appear that you are merely wondering) two separate issues into a single issue and then absolving Tharky's behaviour, again, under "Content Dispute".

    Question Does Content Dispute grant editors a special license under which they can evade warnings (still nothing on Tharky's Talk page), blindly revert edits without justification (then or since) or discussion(my separate complaint), and continually remove references (this complaint, different editor, although similar themes (Tharky, British Isles))??? One of the hallmarks of good adminship is an even-handed approach, low tolerence of ad hominen attacks, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF at all times. Equally, when editors deliberately breach these fundamental policies, a warning must be issued pointing out the problems. After warnings come blocks, etc. This incident, and the one before involving my complaint, appears to teach editors how to edit war, how to breach policies on civility and assuming good faith, all without warnings or sanctions. Many editors will learn these lessons. --Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins can use common sense when dealing with edit wars, block are a last resort. If it can be resolved without them it should. No editor of this article is deliberately trying to disrupt the article. --neonwhite user page talk 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Howabout we let Watapalaver continue his complaints againt Tharky. Let's not get his report & Bardcom's (archived) report interwined. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on, aren't any edits related to "The Troubles" under Arbcom thingies? I'd urge all editors to step back and go through dispute resolution. Also, that huge chunk of text: tl;dr. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for arbitration - The Troubles - this absolutely is a "related article" and I'm suprised, and disappointed, to see admins brushing it off as a content dispute. It is a content dispute, but the editors involved clearly need stern advice about dispute resolution, and to be reminded of the sanctions available against any disruptive editor on those articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's stretching it to link "The Troubles" with this complaint. If I squint up my eyes and peer through my eyelashes with my hands over my eyes and my head moving back and forth really quickly ... then yes! I see the link! Otherwise no. --Bardcom (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I said anything about a "conspiracy theory"? It just seems like the same subject matter. I do agree something perhaps should be done about it, but I don't know what except maybe a ban on these behaviors from one or either side. I'm not an expert but don't think that would be dealt with on AN/I, it's a matter for mediation (has there been one?) or if ArbCom want to spend the time on it, eventually ArbCom. But it would be depressing to see it come to that, IMHO. Merkin's mum 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with the Troubles, nor with Bardcom's earlier complaint. It is also (again) highly misleading of TharkunColl to suggest that his deletion of the text was somehow because of subtleties about phrasing about trading in Saxon times. (it's all in the cited documents). This is about behaviour, not about content. This is about deleting supported text while simultaneously accusing the original inserting editor 18 months ago of putting in "lies", accusing the reverting editors of being POV, political, claiming to be "defending the truth", loudly claiming in all the edit summaries that the text was not supported by reference, WHILE IT WAS COMPLETELY SUPPORTED BY THE REFERENCED DOCUMENT. If it is legitimate to do what TharkunColl did then Wikipedia policies have a great big hole in them. Read the diffs and the referenced document, or just search for the key deleted words on google, that'll bring you right to the referenced document. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't shout. (joke).:) One part of this is a content dispute in so much as the part where people would have to read the sources to know who's right or wrong. Have you said to Thark that you object to his edit summaries, before you posted here? AN/I is sort of the last resort, first you're supposed to talk to the editor themselves. No, I see you personally haven't mentioned anything in the last fortnight, at least on Thark's talk page, before you informed him you'd made a thread on AN/I. Before that, around the 20th April, you wrote to his page a section with the title "erroneous" User_talk:TharkunColl#Erroneous which probably wasn't the best start. You need to be systematic about following WP:DR- if you object to for instance an edit summary, leave a message for the editor concerned. New ones. If it was a fortnight ago you could try asking them again before taking it to AN/I. In the case of an edit summary, that does not involve the article itself but the editor, so could be on his rather than the article's talk page. I know you have discussed the content recently on the article's talk, I still suggest an editor's talk page as the next step if you feel you have an issue with a specific editor's behaviour (as opposed to content of edit) in future. Ask them for the change you wish to see. Just My Humble Opinion.:) Merkin's mum 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a content dispute at all. The issue is edit warring while deleting text that is supported, all the time loudly claiming it's not supported by reference and claiming other editors are lying, pushing POV, etc. It's about deleting text while giving deliberately misleading edit summaries that totally misrepresent the reason for the edit, and then getting away with it. You might have a content dispute about whether or not the deleted text ought to be there or not, that´s entirely beside the point. The issue is edit warring with deliberately misleading edit summaries, claiming that the text was not supported by reference, when it clearly is. That's not a content dispute, it's a behaviour dispute. If - as it seems - admins allow worse behaviour on controversial articles then editors will quickly learn this, or have apparently already learned this. Since this isn't a content issue it doesn't seem that dispute resolution is actually appropriate. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused as to why this is here. The edit summaries seem clearly explained to me (though i'm recommend avoiding the caps lock) they don't seem to be hiding an edit. Calling them 'deliberately misleading' is not assuming good faith. The behaviour of User:Wotapalaver and User:TharkunColl fails to impress in terms of civility and edit waring. The proper way to discuss sources is on the talk page not by reverting edits. --neonwhite user page talk 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summaries are clear. They say that the text deleted was not supported by the reference. The edit summaries actually said that several times. It's just that it's blatantly not true.
    The complaint isn't about content, and good faith is hard to assume when an editor repeatedly deletes text saying that it's not supported by reference, accuses the reverting editors (I was not one, so I was not involved in the edit war) of POV, political editing, etc., when the text the editor deleted is verbatim from a highly reputable reference. So, 100% clear and 100% untrue edit summaries. They're not hiding the edit, they're describing the edit in a way that is 100% untrue. Does that count as misleading? It would seem so. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chrisjnelson

    This user has repeatedly been uncivil and rude and I am sick and tired of it. I ask that his pattern of behavior be reviewed. He's been blocked at least a half-dozen tiems before and still there is no improvement. Diagreements can be worked out if people are reasonable, but when they are not, what to do? nelson has ised profanity directed to me and has also insulted my good-faith edits. Both of those are specific, clear-cut rule violations. I know I am not a registered user, I chose that because of privicy concerns. I still hope that my views on this will be takne seriously. Clearly the past punishment of Nelson has no affect on his behavior, in some ways it is worse than before.

    72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know what you mean, but you should provide specific diffs here to highlight uncivil comments that were made. Grsztalk 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if there is already mediation going on, shouldn't we wait until it is completed before acting? Either way, notifying Chris and the mediator in case this just belongs there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncivil comments have been made, but I'd wait on this. Right now, the mediation (at medcab) is rather behavioral, and I'm trying to switch that over to content. This is a predicated affair, at the moment. Or should be, I think :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem waiting, I just started this because the other mediation was only going to look at the use of "originally". Therefore, I was advised tha this is the incident place. I can make the case anytime, whenever it is deemed appropriate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    FYI: Chrisjnelson has been the subject of a (recently expired) arbitration ruling. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. DurovaCharge! 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Drafted or Originally Drafted contains more examples of his incivil tone and attempts to bully a conversation. This looks exactly like the kind of behavior that led to the prior ArbCom ruling. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately it appears Chrisjnelsen won't participate in the mediation, as a result the mediator is closing the case. You can't mediate if one side refuses to participate. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, is that the rule? So by not participating (even though he made plenty of comments) he can keep doing things his way, in the face of what others desire? What about Wiki:Consensus? Kind of like running out the clock, nelson can now claim there is no consensus or mediation ruling he has to follow? Hmm.72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought exactly when I saw this. Does this mean someone can get a mediation case closed simply by boycotting it? Be very careful about opening that can of worms. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mediation is supposed to be a voluntary way of resolving differences so that ArbCom doesn't need to become involved; walking out should be an option that all parties have. If behavior is still a problem then an involuntary ruling can be made, but not as a result of mediation or lack thereof. I haven't checked the mediation link to see why he chose to leave, but I would hope that this choice isn't used against him.
    FWIW, I've had both good and bad editing experiences with the user in question. He seems to work hard at trying to improve the coverage of sports on the encyclopedia, but when he doesn't get his way or finds opposition, he is quick to resort to personal attacks (which I've generally just reverted on my talk page). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone delete this junk?

    Blocked/banned user:W.GUGLINSKI (or a meatpuppet) is back as user:Dankal.naveen, posting the same crap again, now under Heisenberg's Scientific Method. I don't really think we need another AfD on this, but an admin (User:Tikiwont) declined a speedy and the author removed his prod tag. Previously this was dealt with by indef-blocking his accounts.

    See User talk:Tikiwont for the most recent discussion. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just sent it to AfD ... only other course open, as speedy was declined and the prod was contested. Blueboy96 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    e/c. makes some of the below moot. oh well.
    After reading this article, and the several now-deleted articles by User:W.GUGLINSKI, I am quite sure this is the same person; subject matter and writing style and talk page behavior matches up exactly. So, I think there are two issues:
    1. Since this probably doesn't match any speedy criteria exactly, is an AFD really needed, or should an IAR speedy be done. I definitely think the latter, but would like to hear from Tikiwont first (I notified him of this thread).
    2. Is it time to formalize this guy's level of unwelcomness here? Especially if we have to go thru an AfD every time he puts a new piece of OR up under a different account?
    --barneca (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked user:Dankal.naveen as an obvious sockpuppet of user:W.GUGLINSKI. The AfD can play out however it will. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Will restore article for Afd if the SSP case turns up as "not a sock" . Clsoing afd in a sec....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Afd closed already by User:TenPoundHammer. Marking resolvedKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thnaks for the note, just coming back from the weekend: As already said to The way, the truth, and the light, i closed one (the first?) Afd related to User:W.GUGLINSKI, so i had some idea regarding his theories and demeanor. As far as i understood, the user was not banned, but blocked indef. If he has used any sockpuppets previously, why is no SSP case mentioned here? Moreover, I had noticed that the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory mentions some person named Dankal.naveen, who may simply have found his way here as one of the few who agree with Guglienski. I explicitly mentioned that on my talkpage to "The way, the truth, and the light" as well as that I assume the two accounts are not the same. I had thus declined deletion per CSD G5 and prodded the article and tried to reason. While I could not convince Dankal.naveen to let the article go (and would thus have brought it to AfD myself), reading trough the now twice denied polite unblock requests and once more through the AfD I see beyond just AGF both in writing and arguing two different persons so would stick to my original assessment and consider this block not valid (and thus us also not the deletion). I really think we need more evidence than common beliefs in such cases. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring at Handlebars (song)

    User:Rau J is continually making reverts to the article, well above and beyond the "Three Revert Rule." Just in the last 24 hours I believe he has made 5 or 6 reverts to the article (plz. check the edit history for confirmation). This editor is substituting his own interpretation of the song and claiming it is the "right" one, based on a cite to the "song itself." How subjective, uncivil, and improper. JeanLatore (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm. It looks like he's removing original research, not adding it. Could you double check that this is the right person? Maybe you have him confused with another user. Could you elaborate on the problem? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they mean me. The person who has reported me is the one adding OR, check the edit history. They have also accused me of being uncivil, please read our discussion on our respective talk pages and the articles talk page. I feel that will shed some light on this incident. Rau's Speak Page 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I have now protected the article. Sort it out on the talk page. It is unreasonable to continuously revert the article over and over, even if you believe you are right. Of course you believe you are right. That's not the point. And this applies to BOTH of you. Sort it out on the talk page. You could both be blocked for 3RR at this point. Lets not go that far. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that's reasonable. Thanks for not blocking us. Rau's Speak Page 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please reconsider the page protection. This should be a last ditch effort, it freezes all contributions to the article, not just those of the parties involved in the reverting of one section. This is going to stultify the article, as there have been many people contributing to the growth of the article, and not just the "meaning" section. Important other facts cannot be added to the article at all now. JeanLatore (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page protection will prevent us from being blocked, be grateful we are not right now. And all of the edits have involved the meaning and the "structure" section, which repeated stuff from the meaning section, contained OR, and had nothing to do with the actual structure of the song. Rau's Speak Page 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use the article's talk page to discuss changes for the time being. Additions can be proposed and worked on there. Given the amount of back-and-forth reverting that has gone on, this seems the best course of action. There article's talk page has not been protected, so discussions of changes can happen there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I am in favor of the block. Although previous attempts at a discussion there have proved futile. Rau's Speak Page 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are only in favour of the "block" (protection) since it is YOUR version that is protected! And your snide attitude has made it futile. In any case, I propose that we add a "platypus" section to the article. Any seconds? JeanLatore (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be in favor of it either way. And it is futile because you eventually stop responding. And propositions for the article do not belong here, they belong on the actual articles talk page. Rau's Speak Page 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are always protected in The Wrong Version(TM). This does not indicate an endorsement of that version by the protecting admin. Rather, it means that you seriously need to engage in some civil Talk page discussion regarding what the right version actually is. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued personal attacks from FScalano (talk)

    Resolved. Blocked for 48 hours. — Wenli (reply here) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user FScalano (talk) has been edit-warring on Roy Eugene Davis [17], and posted a blatant personal attack in an edit summary here [18] and when warned, did it again. [19] --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48 hours for 3RR ... I know this is harsher than normal for 3RR cases, but the abusive edit summaries led me to throw out a longer block. Blueboy96 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment by User:John celona

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

    Can someone help me deal with this: [20], [21], [22], [23]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously. I have given this editor 24 hours to file a request, absent which I reserve the right to block for harassment. --Rodhullandemu 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to Rodhullandemu, I note that you and John celona were involved in discussion over this matter several months ago, and if Rod had not intervened I was considering issuing a warning of harassment regarding those claims. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH, if you think that this renewed aggravation is worthy of a block right now, I wouldn't be critical. --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your suggestion of either filing a SSP or dropping the matter is the most appropriate in this instance. Further similar accusations without merit might be a blockable offense, now that there is a warning in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had some concerns about John for a few days now, especially after looking over this which is most probably him by his style. We need to have a look through his contributions and make sure there isn't a serious pattern of harassment and canvassing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that link is painful. In the case in point, we are talking about the early 1970s, when rock stars screwing 14-year olds while maybe wasn't the norm, certainly didn't attract accusations of pedophilia as it would now. It's all very easy to apply morality retrospectively, isn't it? </irony> The problem here is that these people want to rewrite history in their own terms, and that should be resisted at all costs. --Rodhullandemu 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a look at the contrib and block history of this editor... not great reading. Perhaps a more general community discussion of the benefits of allowing this editor to continue is required? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course the only reason you are "looking into" a year plus old blog post by a third party is because you were "canvassed" by David in DC/Jpk212 [[24]] who have continually harassed and stalked me for months and REPEATEDLY made false and disproven claims of sockpuppuetry against me, even though the alleged sockpuppets have never posted on the same page as me. I think this [[25]] quote by a neutral observer regarding the harassment these user/s begins to describe their actions-":::: This behavior coming from David and Jkp212 is reprehensible. Those 2 have been harassing John since he first dared disagree with them. They have been trying to get John blocked for months now. I for one find their behavior to be as appalling as Johns attitude toward Yarrow. I think that this matter needs to resolved in arbitration." : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)" If one looks at the edit pages of these allegedly seperate users they repeatedly post on the same pages in support of the same positions, often with very similar language. Where one goes in a dispute, another is sure to follow-hundreds of times over. John celona (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that in this case the disruption and harrassment is a 3 way street. The only reason I am defending John is because he has been being harassed by so many for so long. I deplore his politics and his attitude toward Peter Yarrow but I defend his right to speak his mind in a discussion space. I do not think that Peter Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort but I do know that he was convicted of a sexual offense and that He was granted clemency by President Carter. I still back Johns right to speak his mind about this in a discussion space. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, get it right -- NO ONE has questioned any editor's right to speak their mind. It is Celona's harassment, and near delusional edits that have caused disruption here. There is no reason to defend that, and it is NOT harassment to demand for it to stop. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come off of it man the diffs are there to prove that both you and David have been harassing John from the onset of his refusal to respect an Rfc that you 2 found to be a consensus. John did not take part in that original Rfc . Your and Davids subsequent fight with John has continued on to other articles. I am not saying that John is in the right but I am saying that all 3 of you are guilty of making wikipedia a battlefield. The arbitration committee will read all of the diffs in the order that they took place and realize that what I am saying is factual. All John needs to do now is wait until he is blocked indefinitely and appeal that block to arb com. I hope to hell this happens soon so you and David will be told in no uncertain terms that your behavior is unacceptable. I do not care about John. I care about wikipedia and the rare opportunity it attempts to afford people from all walks of life regardless of their political beliefs. You and David need to own up to your own bad behavior instead of denying it. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you say something is true does not make it true. Show EVIDENCE or your accusations are tantamount to your own harassment. By the way, if you "don't believe that Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort" as you say above, then why don't you share that opinion in the discussions... It is ok to share your opinion , rather than repeatedly saying "i don't care... but be nice.." --Jkp212 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would characterise John Celona's edits as spiteful, ans this is something we certainly don't need on WP:BLP articles. He is taking a very absolutist stance in cases where a more nuanced approach is clearly appropriate. Some kind of restriction is clearly not far away unless he moderates his behaviour very considerably. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As to sock puppetry, I think a look at this exchange might suggest to an objective reader that we are not the same editor. Period. [26]David in DC (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another [27]. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had multiple false sockpuppet claims filed against me by Jpk212/David in DC on alleged sockpuppets which never posted on a single page I have. These 2 user accounts have filed literally hundreds of posts on the same pages, invariably on the same side of any dispute. All I am asking for is an IP check of these accounts posts. The IP check will have its own impartial tale to tell. John celona (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What Celona is referring to is that another user, and several admins, have suspected him of being a sock of ratishka: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=195596873&oldid=135135655 -- while the evidence was compelling, the checkuser was unable to prove it conclusively because the IP had timed out...--Jkp212 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For more on my answer to JC's false allegation of my making false sockpuppet allegations, please see this diff: [28]. David in DC (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This week's sn333ky infiltrators!

    AIDS cranks. (You may care to save a copy of that thread in case it suddenly disappears.) Now, going into full-blown overreaction would be bad. However, a whole bunch of good Wikipedians watchlisting and keeping a very close eye on said articles would be just the thing - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor playing administrator, needs to be stopped

    I will admit, this is not that important in the grand scheme of life. But then most of Wikipedia is not. If you have a cyclone rip through your country or have a car smash into your home, WP is the last thing on your mind and nothing qualifies for ANI.

    User:WilliamH has violated guidelines with speedy keep of a porn star that has no notability other than posing naked. It doesn't matter if she is in a list of other naked models. September 11th victims don't have articles (or they get deleted) even though they are among a list.

    Appropriate closures Non-admin closures of XfD's should be limited to the following types of closures:

    Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period, absent any contentious debate among participants. speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.

    from [29]

    Naughty, naughty, WilliamH. An administrator should either block WilliamH for 24 hours OR redo that AFD and tell WilliamH.

    If WilliamH's actions are OK, please state so here and I will do the same to other AFDs. State so here ______________ Thank you. JerryVanF (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Might help to link a diff to the afd closure.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he was talking about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ‎[reply]
    Just look at User:WilliamH's contribs. It's full of them. I agree this user is playing administrator and needs a good talkin' to (not a block yet though as that would be punitive at this point). I've undone one closure already, looking at some of the others now. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, that wasn't meant to be critical just advice, I just have seen that complaints with clear diffs get handled quicker then if you make the admins search for the incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem in principle with a non-admin closure, but one that is closed after less than 3 HOURS! No one even had a chance to comment on that one. Even if an admin had closed it that quickly, I'd have something to say... Indeed, he should stop closing AFDs if his judgement is that poor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ← I looked at a few of the other closings. I'm not going to revert them because I agree with William that they had no chance of succeeding. However, in the future, this user does still need to refrain from performing closures so frequently and so speedily. Closures are generally supposed to wait 5 days and be handled by administrators. Non-admin closures are for extenuating circumstances and aren't supposed to occur often. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimberly_Evenson then happy that someone would take the effort to close it. Just reading the article gives it's notability 'Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month'. SunCreator (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted that closure too. The article doesn't actually establish notability. There isn't a single valid ref. I'm not sure that being a playboy playmate establishes notability for a person in and of itself. Let's wait and see what the AfD determines. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)*3 The AfD discussion has been open for less than 24 hours. Give it some time - if the subject is truly notable, the AfD will fail anyway. —Travistalk 03:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... let's please stop with the non-admin closures, especially of this particular AfD. Quite a few people here, including admins, seem to feel the discussion should stay open for now. There's no emergency here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I tend to agree with this. Some editors including some admins get uptight if you even put a notability tag on an article without any WP:RS and less notable(to me at least) then the article in the link above. SunCreator (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought anyone could do a clear "keep" close, with due caution. (It better be clear!) Has someone policy-crept the closure guidelines to say otherwise? - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is in a keep close for an unsourced WP:BLP more than anything else. Anybody with sufficient experience and Clue can perform a keep close as long as the article clearly meets policy, but that cannot be said of unsourced BLPs so I am uneasy seeing such things closed by people who do not demonstrably have long edit histories with evidence of sound knowledge of policy. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the real test is whether the closure is seen as non-controversial. The issue is also compounded because it's not only non-admin but also speedy (very speedy, in some of this user's cases), and combined, that makes for very shakey closures. These should only be done if no one has a problem with it, aside from the nominator perhaps. And they should probably never be done after just one day. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at a few of this editor's closures. I agree that the speedy ones seem to be against the written policy about non-admin closures, but I can't muster up much indignation about any one of these. Can anyone find an example AfD where they believe an experienced admin closer would have taken the opposite result? I see that his closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson was undone, and that reversal seems well-justified since the closure was too fast. I don't see any obvious errors about the results. (This guy seems to have some judgment). I could support a policy where any non-admins who speedy close in under 8 hours could be threatened with blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O RLY? — CharlotteWebb 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: at Talk:Sněžka-Śnieżka, back in January though, I had a strange experience when the article name and a possible move was discussed without it being actually listed at WP:RM. People just started voting, a kind of instant democracy. Then, User:Hexagon1 CLOSED the "poll", I objected, only to be reclosed, and then after my removal, again (please do not push move that nobody wants, disruptive only) after which I [30] excluded at least my talk from the greenish box with the "vote". To no avail (rv, your talk is as much a part of the vote process as mine or the others'), and again (rv. sigh. per Talk:Caron/Archive2 and every other talk page vote ever held. your comments are part of the vote discussion, and as such get archived. Start a new section to talk if you want.)-- Matthead  Discuß   19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from WilliamH: Firstly, I am glad to know that my ability to determine opinion is not really the point of contention. However, in terms of allowing opinion to form, I realise I ostensibly prevented it from occurring to the extent that is preferred. Please understand that elsewhere, this is not the case, and please understand that I highly value consensus, and it is something which I would never intentionally impair or disrupt. It is ultimately my belief that a man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package, hence its importance.

    "Playing administrator, needs to be stopped" disregards my ethic, and comes across as though my non-admin administrative actions were not for good purposes, but that I was acting, i.e. masquerading as an administrator whose actions needed to be stopped because I intended to subvert the project, which is blatantly not the case. Please consider the effect such words have, as what has been misconstrued comes across as rather ad hominem. No one wants their words to have the potential to imply such a thing, and I would be lying if I said I wasn't extremely disappointed to learn that contributions I have made in good faith have prompted a user to suggest my blocking. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that such misunderstandings could result in sound contributors departing Wikipedia, a wholly undesireable scenario.

    To sum up, I understand I have exerted a bit too much boldness. I also appreciate the BLP concerns and would like to make it clear that this is something I take seriously. I agree with the comment on my user page that no matter how sound my judgement may be, I realise I may have applied it too early and will act accordingly. Regards and apology for any inconvenience, WilliamH (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vintagekits proposed unblocking

    Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an editor who has proved to be quite a challenge for our project. He demonstrated, time and again, in certain circumstances he has behavioural issues which are incompatible with civil editing, yet at the same time he is a useful and prolific content provider in a niche area. Vk is currently indefinitely blocked for using sock puppet accounts in a manner that violate policy. Giano (talk · contribs), who will be familiar to most of you, has long suggested that Vk be permitted to edit in the subject area where he excels (sports, particularly boxing), while restricted in a way to stop him getting into situations where his behavioural issues come to the fore (The Troubles and Baronets). In this way, the reasoning goes, we get value out of Vk but with none of the problems.

    There has been some discussion at ANI over this suggestion in the last few weeks, some editors have supported it on principle but expressed reservations based on the exact conditions the unblocking would involve. Others have indicated that they oppose at this time, because the issue that precipitated the current block has not been adequately addressed. Others, still, believe Vk has had more than his fair share of last chances and he should remain blocked for the foreseeable future. The discussion raged, VK was boldly unblocked, without any conditions being formalized and then promptly reblocked again. At that point I proposed that the best way to settle this was to establish a formal set of conditions that many believed would keep Vk out of trouble, while maximizing his good contributions. That done, I believe the community opinion on this proposal can now be sought in an informed manner. At this juncture, I intend to present the two other options expressed also, and I hope that together we can come to some sort of consensus on how to settle this.

    The most popular options are as follows:

    1. That Vintagekits be unblocked presently under the tight conditions described at: User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. The restrictions are idiosyncratic, tailored by those familiar with Vk's history. The philosophy is one of management: rather than banish Vk (and thus also lose his good contributions) if we can manage his participation then everyone can gain. This requires complete co-operation from Vk, which he has indicated he will give, and it is hoped that it might provide a new way of dealing with a certain type of problem editor. It should also be noted that this really will be the very last chance for Vk, a violation of these conditions will result in a permanent ban, to which Vk has acceded.
    2. That Vintagekits be unblocked after three months of observing his current block in a sock-free manner. At that time he be unblocked and be allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles [clarification: this includes Baronets] (as per option #1), which will remain in place for one year. The reasoning behind this delayed unblocking is that Vk has not adequately addressed the reason for his current block, sock puppetry. Since he was blocked, Vk has continually created a number of sock puppets, mainly to edit boxing articles (though it should be noted that, almost exclusively, these socks created good content). It has been proposed that Vk should remain blocked until he can demonstrate that his sock-puppeting days are behind him.
    3. The final option is that Vk remain blocked, ostensibly because the community has tired of giving him additional chances.

    I ask that anyone with an opinion on this please express a preference below. I appreciate editors may have additional ideas, which are welcome, but it would make everything a lot easier if editors could express an preference for those proposed above. It would also be extremely helpful if editors could restrict themselves to a preference plus any comment, query or justification. Meta-discussion, or the tit-for-tat sniping that tends to accompanying this subject is most unwelcome, please keep it focused. I realize ANI is not the optimal place for this, but wish to get maximum participation, rather than the usual suspects that populate these discussions. After a day or so It may be reasonable to move this to a sub-page.

    Finally, if this is the first you have heard of Vintagekits and would like to learn more before commenting, I would like to provide more comprehensive links, but it is difficult to know where to start, so:

    Over to the community... Rockpocket 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm well familiar with the Vk case and the proposals. I'm also the checkuser who finally caught him socking which led to his last indef block. I'd certainly support Option 1 as it stands - Alison ❤ 05:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having clashed with VK (briefly) in the past, I think despite him being a pain to deal with at times, he obviously has the potential to make a positive contribution to wikipedia, I worry a little that he would be tempted to use a sockpuppet to get around these restrictions, however if he remains blocked from editing, he is still capable of making a sockpuppet, so nothing is to be lost by allowing him to edit. Better the devil you know.
    One other minor detail, according to the terms he is not allowed to use offensive language, which I don't consider to be productive, use of offensive language that is not directed towards another user in an insulting manner is harmless. I for one use the word "fucking" and the phrase "What the fuck?" on talk pages and edit summaries, they are merely descriptive terms and should be allowed. This is not a 11yr old kid we are talking about, show a little trust and wikipedia is likely to be rewarded with the return of a decent editor. Option One Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we all know when bad language is used as an attack, and when used as a general harmless adjective. However, he is instructed not to use bad language, and for three months he would be very wise to avoid it in any context. Then the problem won't occur. Giano (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd now support option 1 due to the good work that has gone into this and my confidence that this time the community has in place restrictions and safeguards that will ensure proper compliance. I do see the strength in option 2 also, as it seems unfair in a way that Vk has not really "served his time" demonstrated that the behavior for which he was blocked is no longer a concern. Either one would be fine. --John (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an admin, but from what I've seen of the VK discussion, I would support option 1. Further, (probably because I have not had to deal with him) I would be willing to remove the "absolutely last chance" crieterion. I'm certainly not going to insist on that point, but I throw it out inasmuch as VK obviously has the will and ability to create socks to continue editing; I'd rather see him editing under a known username.
    It would be really nice if the software could do article or category blocks per user, which would probably solve the major problem here neatly. I've seen that mentioned before, but don't know if any effort has ever been made to see if it would be feasible. I would urge (completely unrelated to the VK discussion) that some people open a bug to request the necessary tools for admins. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without giving too much away there appears to be a way to, uh, find and nullify Vk's ability to use socks henceforth. Rockpocket 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an information note only:John refers above to Option 2 being in some way tied to a feeling that Vk has not yet "served his time". As one of the principal supporters of this option throughout the past week or so, I can say that there was nothing in my mind about punishment or about time served in itself. The only concern was that Vk has not yet proven that the sole reason for the current block (the creation of abusive sock puppets) is not still a concern. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breaking wikibreak to oppose, how many times must we go through the block-unblock cycles with obviously disruptive users? His block log shows edit warring, serious personal attacks, harassment, and socking in a pattern of disruptive behavior going back to Jan '07. It appears from the 9 August 2007 unblock that an agreement of this nature was made before and was (inevitably) violated. I honestly don't understand these perpetual proposals to unblan rightly banned users. One unban I could see, two, yeah, but these thirds/fourths/etc are really taking AGF way too far. I think it's fair to stop assuming when a year and four months of blocks every month or every other month show otherwise. Terms #6 and #9 are just laughable, we're getting him to agree to what we already expect from users who manage to not get blocked every 40 days or so? Our rules are applicable from the day you start editing, you don't get to break them an infinite number of times before you decide to start playing along. naerii - talk 08:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Option 2. Would not support the "very last chance" criterion removal, as suggested, and would have liked to have seen some genuine regret from Vk. Also would have liked to have seen the restraint on editing Baronetcy articles extended to one year expressed in option 2 (although personally would have preferred indefinite topic bans on the Troubles and Baronetcy areas). -Bill Reid | Talk 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, Option 2's definition of "The Troubles" would also include Baronets (I have also now clarified that in the proposal). The hope is that Vk would appreciate a self enforced indefinite avoidance of those topics would be best for him after the year expires. I think the idea was to find the right combination of carrots and sticks to cajole Vk into better managing his own contributions in time. No idea if this is the right combination, though. Rockpocket 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very much support option 1. He has expressed a strong wish to edit responsibly, and has firmly declared his intention to renounce his old ways. This seems the perfect opportunity to give him the chance to prove himself and benefit the project. I know his work well, and for the most part it is of a high factual standard, reffed and excellent. He is more than aware of the penalty of breaking these conditions, that he wishes still to edit under these conditions in itself shows great commitment, no small amount of humility and contriteness. Therefore prolonging his block would I think be punitive and serve no useful purpose. Option 1 can only benefit the project whatever the outcome. Giano (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. With the Olympics, and the high visibility of that it gives to boxing, there will be a need for the production of good quality articles by someone knowledgeable - and VK has the qualifications. It will also likely provide VK with a definite reason to keep away from issues that have lead to their removal from the encyclopedia - while not condoning the socking, it is obvious that the person has a desire to contribute usefully. If we allow VK to operate within those confines then I suggest an all round benefit to the community, the encyclopedia and to VK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 2. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Much better addressed as an RfC. We're going to start allowing 'notices' to come down to 'options?' I take option #4, where this is built into a concise RfC, as ANI is about an incident - meaning singular. Collective action and consensus should take place elsewhere. ANI is not for summary judgment. the_undertow talk 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideally, I agree. However, there have been extensive discussions here and elsewhere on this subject, and there will continue to be incidents unless we can find a solution that (amost) everyone can agree had community support. This is part of the wider discussion process. Its unconventional, I know, and it may be taking liberties with the purpose of these pages to generate wider interest. But I hope you can appreciate that a successful end would justify the means. Rockpocket 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support option 1 per comments elsewhere. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support not voting on rigidly defined options and instead exploring the options through community discussion as per the_undertow. ViridaeTalk 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support option 1.5, which doesn't exist, but is a compromise between options 1 and 2 (I'll explain below). Despite great reservations about Vintagekits's ability to sustain good conduct, I believe that it is very important for the community to try a conditional unblock, because whatever the outcome it will lay to rest a matter which for nearly a year has polarised a chunk of the community into large camps of defenders and critics. Vintagekits himself, as well as both many of his strongest supporters and his strongest opponents have all agreed that these conditions are his last chance; if Vk makes this work, we can all celebrate the rehabilitation of a prolific contributor, and if he screw it up then there can be no argument that he was not given another chance. Either way, the issue is settled, and whatever anyone thinks of Vk, the community needs to move on from this standoff.
      However, because of the recent and prolific sockpuppetry I share the concern about an immediate unblock. Given all the good faith on all sides, the three months proposed in option 2 is far too long to wait, because the consensus and good faith generated in recent discussions could evaporate, and that would damage the community. So my ideal option would be an "option 1.5": the conditional unblock is agreed now, but delayed for one or two weeks, just to stress the principle that block-evasion sockpuppetry should not be rewarded with an unblock. If there is no consensus for that option, I much prefer option 1 to option 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1 and, if this does get a consensus as the way to deal with this sort of situation, I'd support making it a general protocol for banned users who want to return to work non-disruptively in one specific area (Taxwoman being the most obvious example). — iridescent 14:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading over the multiple threads over the past few days, and I believe that option 1 is the most reasonable. Hopefully within that frame Vk can be re-admitted into the community whilst his contributions that are apparently good can continue. Rudget (Help?) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1 but only as the very very last chance--Cailil talk 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Option 1 --Domer48 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Option 1.5 per BrownHairedGirl sounds like a sensible compromise, it also means there is some deal of gap between the unblock decision and VK being 'released into the wild'. Gives things a chance to settle down. Narson (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Undertow's comments notwithstanding (we have no Community Sanction Noticeboard to discuss this on any more) I think there are enough people discussing this that it will be clear that the outcome is not just a thing put in place by one or two rouge admins, but really IS the will of the community. Several ArbCom members are participating constructively in the discussion in the role of editors/admins just like the rest of us, so if this were a matter that should have been remanded to ArbCom they would have said so, I am sure.
      • That said, I support Option 1. It's well thought out and has made allowances for a lot of contingencies and gives VK one final last chance. No one can be unclear that if he blows this, that is it.
      • I see BHG's point about driving the point home that he's not off the hook.. and if the community decides they like 1.5, I'd be OK with it as well, and you can (if you are counting noses) count me as supporting that too. But I'm not AS keen on it because blocks are preventative not punitive and leaving the block on to make the point does seem a bit punitive to me.
      • If the community decides on option 2, I'd reluctantly support it as well, but it is far from my preferred outcome (maybe count half a nose?? :) )
      • Option 3 I oppose strongly, because I'm a big softie who believes in second chances, with verification, so do not count me there :). I am hopeful VK gets it and will reform. I am sure VK knows that Alison is not the only CU that will be checking him periodically, I myself just ran a check recently to establish a baseline. "Trust but Verify" and all that. whew! Even by my standards that was long winded. But FT hasn't spoken yet, so I'm sure it won't be the VERY longest one (grin, run, hide). ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • question Giano's suggestions for option 1 say:- "He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages"- I assume this means he can -if he were to want to- edit any topic except the Troubles or baronets and so on. For instance, VK could chip in on the Tony Robbins article with me if he wanted? Merkin's mum 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1. While in principle, VK should acknowledge that his abuse of sockpuppetry was wrong, we're already preventing him from socking again in Option 1 (rule 9) and I'm not sure what a further block without sockpuppetry would achieve beyond preventing the Olympic pages VK will likely edit peacefully anyway. I have a couple of points to raise:
      • My understanding is that "the Troubles" here does include articles related to the Falklands and Gibraltar, and other British sovereignty disputes - this is implied by "Irish/British geo-political dispute" in the footnote, but I just want to double-check that this is right.
      • Would there be a page where any infraction could be reported, or would it be here? I hope it doesn't happen, but just in case. Pfainuk talk 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any breach of the rules should be reported here, because VK's next block will block will be permanent and very serious, so it is imperative that the blocking admin fully understands what he is doing before the block is imposed. Giano (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly endorse Giano's point. We are remarkably close to a consensus on a previously divisive issue, and a block outside consensus could reopen the whole can of worms; in fact it's such an important point that I would suggest adding it as bolded notice at the conditions displayed on Vk's user page so that any admin considering a block is aware of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I mentioned that on the proposal page as something I thought was important. We need to mention it in the final draft of the proposal. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was perhaps negligent not add that to the conditions. If there is a consensus to unblock, we should probably do just that. Rockpocket 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oi! No sackcloth! Your redraft was reviewed by lots of people, and none of the rest of us spotted that issue then, so if there was a failure it was a collective failure :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1. I haven't reviewed the case carefully, but if Vk is agreeing to follow the rules and accepts the consequences if he fails to follow the rules, I see no benefit in keeping him blocked any longer. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum re the point raised by Merkinsmum; if option 1 is preferred I should also support VK editing at the invitation of another responsible editor (who will also ensure that VK complies with the terms of the parole) any article not related to The Troubles (as broadly defined above) while the other editor is online - and that the invitation (and limitations) is registered at whatever venue is proposed for the regulation of any parole. Any invitation may be challenged and a consensus then required to allow VK to participate in that article. I see this as another method by which VK can be permitted to slowly rejoin the community by editing usefully in areas where there is less likelihood of conflict. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice idea, but impossible to enforce. The conditions outlined will be a good indication of VK's commitment for three months. Giano (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why, if he's going to be unblocked, he needs to be blocked from any areas other than the problematic areas? If I've missed something, someone feel free to msg me about it. Merkin's mum 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean as a whole, not with LessH's caveats, even. Why are we objecting to this editor's being on other subject areas, if he hasn't been a problem there? Unless part of these terms is punitive rather than preventative? I mean, people seem to value his contribs on sport articles, but there's no reason why when he felt like it, his contribs might not be helpful in other areas too, even with a small edit to an article's grammar etc he could be a valuable contributor to many articles if he felt like editing them- we all can, if we're not really thick or a vandal:) Maybe I'm just going by my own editing urges, if I was limited to one area it would hamper what little I can do for the project. On anything except the Troubles, baronets or related articles there's no reason why he wouldn't be harmless, is there?Merkin's mum 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vk has expressed numerous times that he only wishes to edit sports pages (and perhaps railways). By starting off with tight restrictions and incrementally relinquishing the enforcement over time, hopefully to be replaced with Vk's self-discipline in avoiding those situations anyway, we hope to help Vk avoid problems. Its not that it will not work, but simply the there was no real desire from Vk to work outside the sports area. In a few months he may wish to expand his horizons, and in a few months he would be free to do so. Rockpocket 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, per Rockpocket. To help VK re-establish within the community he needs to be closely monitored - which is best done by agreeing beforehand where he will be editing (rather than reviewing his contrib history to see where he has been). It also gives those persons who have clashed with VK in the past an indication where he might be expected to be editing, and thus diminish the chances of accidental collisions (and allows little excuse if somebody is out to cause trouble by running into VK - although of course this is extemely unlikely...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaah ok I understand :) option 1.5 then- I still think like Brownie that he shouldn't be rewarded/should be shown socking to avoid a block is not really ok. Merkin's mum 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refer to ArbCom or, in the alternative, Option 2.

    This is a difficult one. The best starting point is probably the conclusion of 'the Troubles' ArbCom case at the end of October last year; a line had been drawn in the sand, and the opposing parties were warned to keep away from each other. The indefinite block in place on Vintagekits was withdrawn, with Penwhale (the ArbCom clerk) posting on Vintagekits' Talk page "Due to the decisions, you are now no longer community banned. Make this chance count". Fred Bauder chipped in with: "Without getting into specific disputes. it was intended that Vintagekits be on probation. If he doesn't turn himself around, he's out of here". Since then, there have been 3 limited blocks and one indefinite block.

    However, the most worrying aspect is the off-Wiki harassment of Rockpocket. Part of the ArbCom provisions had been a civility parole, which Rockpocket insisted on upholding and earned Vintagekits' annoyance as a result. There then appears to have been an off-Wiki campaign of anonymous harassment of Rockpocket, which Vintagekits denied being a part of on his Talk page (since oversighted), but stated on Wikipedia Review that he would 'abuse' Rockpocket 'all day long' [31].

    The proximate cause of the last indefinite block, however, was the use of sock-puppets to cast multiple votes (in favour of Giano) in last year's ArbCom elections.

    Since receiving his 16 th. block [32] on February 20 th., (which was the third 'indefinite' one) Vintagekits has simply created sock-puppets to continue his editing, so far with 16 confirmed [33] and 3 suspected [34]; the first, Stick Negative (talk · contribs · logs), appearing two days after the 'indefinite block' was imposed. The 'indefinite blocking', then, has simply been ignored. Reverting to type, one of these socks has resorted to cheap abuse [35].

    At the moment, therefore, we have a situation of simply gaming the system; the indefinite block has been ignored; despite being imposed it seems to be considered too difficult to enforce. What is being offered by Option 1 is, therefore, simply a 'get out of jail free' card. Nor is Option 2 particularly desirable; since the ArbCom made its judgment, a combination of vociferous special pleading on Vintagekits' behalf and lack of support on behalf of the Admins charged with enforcing the ArbCom judgment has resulted in Vintagekits' User page being restored (despite a lack of consensus) [36], [37], and now the proposal to allow him to return to editing.

    The root cause of the problem here is a lack of support from ArbCom for the Admins who are tasked with enforcing its judgments. There are issues here around how to rehabilitate a disruptive editor; but they are issues best resolved by those who issued their judgment and then ignored its implementation; or, in other words, those who allowed the present situation to develop in the first place. --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I must confess; I too have been wondering why Arbcom isn't enforcing its ruling. I'll leave that to the Administrators, to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonkers, there is no 'get out of jail free' card. The conditions set would be better described as a release on licence, with exceptionally strict parole conditions and a guaranteed throw-away-the-key if conditions are breached. Even if you are right about what led us to this point, we are where are, which is not necessarily where anyone would like to be, but we can't start from somewhere else. I am disappointed that you haven't seen the merits in the widespread agreement, even amongst VK's most vocal supporters, that this really should be his last chance. Rather than continuing to argue about who was right in the past, isn't it much better to seize this opportunity for a lasting solution to this long-running dispute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that you are right to a certain extent BHG; whilst the post should be made by someone, the tone is negative and hostile. It's a possibility that Gold heart or some other aggrieved inadequate might be behind the harassment. Will refactor and post further on your Talk page. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfair Accusation

    Resolved

    I would like to start off by apologizing if I am in the wrong place, but I googled admin help wikipedia and it sent me here, so sorry if I am not in the right location. Okay, so here goes...I've been unfairly accussed of sock-puppetry. I removed the tags from my main page and talk page. I've been signed up on wikipedia for several months now, so I have engaged in a few discussions, but my talk page doesn't have much. On it, there was a brief hello made to 'Keetoowah' I really didn't think anything of it, just thought some one goofed up and didn't realize their mistake. Or perhaps they thought that I was a Laser Quest player that goes by that code name. (When we play we have code names we go by, so I thought some one may have saw my edits to the Laser Quest page and thought that they were seeing the work of a player that they knew. In any case, I just didn't think much of it. Until today/tonight. I logged in to possibly take a wikipedia test that was suggested to me by another user as a result of discussion in an article. I found that my page had been tagged as a possible sockpuppet account and I about popped a gasget. I removed the tags (which I am not sure if is allowed or not, but I was really insulted so I acted in what may have been in haste). I looked through pages to find what they may have had as any basis to accuse me of being a sock-puppet and I found two things which may have caused their confusion. First, that seemingly innoucus 'hello' on my talk page; and then a minor edit that I did to the Mark Levine (conservative radio personality). I admit that I was a bit blunt on this persons talk page that I did not appreciate the unwarned of accusation, but it was rather fustrating to find that I have to spend my time doing this rather than participating in a test/quiz that might better hone my editing abilities and give me more credibility as an editor. I am doubly fustrated because the user appears to be a new user who has done nothing but accussed people of sock puppetry since he joined. Here is a link to his recent edits http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Artisanalle and here is his talk page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Artisanalle I hope that you guys can help in this matter, and I thank you for your time. Rocdahut (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am quite sure that the sockpuppetry accussation is coming from a possible sock itself, Artisanalle is obviously not a newbie and the "communicated trough backchannels" argument doesn't seem particulary relevant to the fact that the user is completely aware of this project's policies, perhaps we are seeing a "good hand/ bad hand" case? - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have waded through the contributions of the various editors in this - ignore it. If it were a proper, non-trolling accusation then Artisanalle should have listed it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, rather than just slapping tags on your user page and talk page. Had he listed it there, it would have been rejected without action - there's nothing substantive linking you with another account. GBT/C 07:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks much for the feedback/help. Just one more question, what do you mean by "good hand, bad hand?" Is this a wiki-rule or part of a saying that I am unfamiliar with? Rocdahut (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look here - put simply, it means operating two accounts...one for good edits, one for bad edits. GBT/C 07:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again, you guys are uber-quick. Much appreciated for the info and help. I got a bit panicky/aggrivated when I saw the accusal, and was relieved when I saw your guys' response. Thanks. Rocdahut (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It a sockpuppetry practice where the puppeter will create two accounts, one for disruption and another one to redeem himself, from what I have seen this is mostly used to create confusion, for example the puppeter (via his "good account") may appear to be in confict with the "bad account" when in reality they are both under control of the same user, this is most likely done to extend the "good" sock's life. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have rolled back all of the edits that Artinsanalle made accusing other users of being sockpuppets. If someone independent wants to review those accusations and adjust accordingly, please do so. Corvus cornixtalk 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Gary King (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried removing the animation from the lead of this article, but was reverted twice. The user reverted my removal on the basis that the image was "inspiring" [38]. I'm now trying to discuss the issue on the other editor's talk page, but I'm having a tough time getting through to him. As you can see, the animation has absolutely nothing to do with the article, except for the fact that it has something to do with science. I could really use some help in talking to this person. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user, User:Peterlewis, just removed the discussion below. Not sure why. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved, for now. Thanks to User:Gwen Gale for the assistance. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:RIPundertaker

    Resolved

    He has vandalized many articles like Kane, Mike Adamle, kofi kingston and rat. Adster95 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported to WP:AIV. In the future, blatant vandals should be reported there. They'll be taken care of more quickly that way. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked -Thanks for reporting him. Mitch32contribs 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    hamletpride

    Persistently in the last few days (since May 5th) has made unconstructive edits to pages relating to villages in Kent, UK. Examples include: St. Nicholas-at-Wade, Monkton, Kent, Minster-in-Thanet. This user has invented a term to describe villages in the local district "west thanet settlements" which does not exist (it also gives no results when searched for in Google). A lot of other users have reverted this user's edits and some pages have been given protection. Can we block this user please as reverting all these pages is becoming very time-consuming! Stnickvillager (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Edited and added signature! Stnickvillager (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried discussing this with him? I don't see anything on his talk page about that term. If you could provide a link to some relevant discussion that would be helpful. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenna Bush

    Resolved
     – User:Ave Caesar fixed Henry Chase Hager as a redirect

    I've noticed the Henry Hager article has been recreated at Henry Chase Hager twice despite the deletion/merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Hager. Not quite sure if something should be done in order to prevent this from happening again. I'm sure it likely will since as interest in the Bush wedding is at its peak. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed this says "resolved" but the redirect has been undone once. Shouldn't it be protected for a short time? --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The AFD is nearly a year old and now Henry Hager may have new notability, at least as much as Jenna Bush. Both are notable primarily because of presidential connection. One is the President's daughter, the other is the President's son-in-law.

    Possible proposal: Joint Article (Jenna Bush and Henry Hager) Possible proposal: new article on Henry Hager Possible proposal: redirect Jenna Bush to Henry Hager (probable opposition in the US, probable support in some countries)

    Let's re-write Henry Hager and then after a few days of editing (but not before) an AFD is appropriate for those who don't like Mr. Hager. BVande (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An AfD is never appropriate just because somebody doesn't "like" a subject. Corvus cornixtalk 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd, no?

    Resolved
     – See above Thatcher 16:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasnt sure where to put this one as there is the potential that multiple things are occuring. This is an Odd way to start wikipedia dont you think? I have suspitions "Artisanalle" is an ip adress who was in dispute with "Ynot4tony" a few days ago. In an edit summary the ip adress accused Ynot4tony of being a sock puppet of "Keetoowah". Maybe the ip adress decided to make an account. The fact that he can use sock templates, can link to other pages and uses indents suggests hes catching on very quickly for a newbie lol.

    Here was the ip adresses edit summary here. I left a warning on his page at the time asking for him to be civil.

    Adding to that confusion the ip adress above was himself accused of sock puppetry by another ip adress. here. How confusing.

    Not sure what you guys thing, even if Ynot4tony was blocked for his incivility towards me, i dont think its nice to go around slapping sock puppet tags unless you have evidence. I have my suspictions that this editer who keeps socking people has another account or was that ip adress i warned.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I now realise that "Artisanalle" has himself been accused of socking. What a mess. What should be done?Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers, thanx for dealing with it. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user page with symbols and sympathies with organization considered terrorist on the US

    Resolved
     – MfD will take care of itself —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AniChai#User:AniChai. My comment has some details of how the organization mentioned on this user page is considered terrorist on the US [39] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not necessary to post here, I don't think, the MfD should take care of itself. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent Meatpuppetry on Bryan Pisano

    This thread was archived without us receiving any admin assistance. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, given the creeping admissions of guilt (from 'not at all' to 'maybe' to 'well we do know each other, except for that guy', to 'oh wait, that guy i said i don't know is my brother'. It's a MeatPuppet parade, and Admins are needed. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would either of you care to open up a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and put all the necessary diffs in? Since there seems to have been collusion in both a DRV and an AfD, that increases the case for taking some action. If you then want to file a checkuser request, you greatly increase the chances that an admin will act on the case. Don't worry too much that the closer of the AfD will overlook the socking; other editors have pointed it out several times. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually already did here last Tuesday. But so far it's just been the accused and the AfD participants. I didn't put any diffs in, but I did include the three discussions that were most pertinent... --SmashvilleBONK! 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for filing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender. The case is not quite dire enough to justify a checkuser, since code 'D' of checkuser requires that the socks have affected the result of a closed vote, like an AfD or a DRV. So far the two AfDs and the DRV have both closed *against* the wishes of the possible meats, so they haven't done much more than waste people's time so far. Any admin who wants to take action on the data already gathered is welcome to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bulgarian (I think) uploads

    Dimovskifilip (talk · contribs) seems to be bulk-uploading foreign language articles (I think Bulgarian). Does anyone know what the protocol is in this situation? If it were just one article I'd poke it in the direction of WP:Translation, but I doubt they'd appreciate a whole pile of them. Any thoughts? — iridescent 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got some language-recognition software which says they're Macedonian. Hut 8.5 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These can be tagged with {{notenglish}}, and the editor warned or pointed to the appropriate project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both have been done as of now. — Wenli (reply here) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox doing the Wikipedia Review's bidding

    User:SqueakBox is going to the Wikipedia Review, the same site that fosters the outing of Wikipedia editors (and their extortion negotiations), and is coming here to do their bidding. The most recent case: I was trolled for three months from an IP range who lodged defamatory accusations and threats of physical violence against me on the English, Italian, German, Dutch, Spanish, French et. al. Wikipedias, and Wikinews and Commons. A brief, non-extensive documentation of that trolling is here. Trolls at the Wikipedia Review are now [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17989&hl=Shankbone taking the harassment and trolling of that IP range on the Polish Wikipedia and using it to assert] I have a COI, namely when the troll went around writing that I lived with Michael Lucas. SqueakBox goes to the WR, reads the trolling comments, and then acts accordingly on Wikipedia. In addition to participating in a defamatory and off-site trolling threads, he is lodging accusations against me on Talk pages and in edit-summaries to remove content. --David Shankbone 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Without commenting on this case (of which I know nothing), taking a cue from WR isn't always wrong, as they can be quite good at spotting copyvios, spam etc - I did this edit for example specifically after seeing it mentioned at WR. — iridescent 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The role they have played in both propagating that Erik Moeller is a supporter of child abuse--including attributing to him in quotations comments that he did not make--and the extortion negotiations with Newyorkbrad has left them highly problematic. Now they are propagating false information that I live with pornographer Michael Lucas and that I am helping him to promote his new film (this is the same site that began discussing whether I had sold my Wikipedia account to the Rubnenstein Public Relations firms). So, supporting the WR on Wikipedia is problematic these days. --David Shankbone 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like the most baseless accusation I have come across in a loong time. For the record I never do anything at the behest of any other editor and this bad faith accusation should be closed down right now. Shankbone is understandably annoyed that I removed his inappropriate image but its an editorial judgement and appears to be him promoting himself on wikipedia. The only link to WR is that I was informed of the page when I was readint hwere this morning., so iw ent and took a look, read the talk page, looked at the talk history and made my own independent decision. I am pretty narked that Shankbone makes this bad faith accusation against me. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, he's repeating a personal attack against - the old "promoting myself" on Wikipedia - I guess by going out there and getting hard to get photographs. I ask for a block for repeated personal attacks, content removal and edit-warring. --David Shankbone 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide the diff that I before ever accused you of promoting yourself on wikipedia or withdraw the comment, I completely deny this accusation. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tits" an editorial judgment? Now who's provoking a COI? (Joking, it's a typo.) Seriously, though. DS went through a ton of unsubstantiated shit over the Lucas thing months ago. I remember reading stacks of it here and, frankly, all over the site. While WR might be, and in fact, has at times, pointed out needed changes, as Iridescent noted, using them to source COI and such is playing into their attacks on WP editors. When they talk about actual policy, or real factual problems with articles, they're worth considering; when they go after editors with baseless shit like 'he's a fag, let's get him', they aren't. Common sense should've told Squeakbox that. ThuranX (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David, you call WR them but you edit post there extensivley,m you link to there from here and then you violate BLP with your accusations re an individual connected to WMF. Take a look at my contribs and you wills ee I do things a little differently. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not said anything about Lucas and have no interest in that subject nor was my edit remotely connected to that. please can we keep some good faith here. Here is what I said ont eh talk before removing what I felt was an inappropriate pic at pornographic film and which Shankbone was already edit warring over rather than, at the time, commenting on the talk page. I strongly object to Shankbones ridiculous claim that my editorial judgement on this has anuything to do with Lucas or wikipedia review. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And if Shankbone is going to give this treatment to anyone opposing him putting his own hard gay porn pics into wherever he chooses on this site than I believe the problem would reveal itself as being Shankbone himself, please can we not see a repeat of this kind of behaviour. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, more accusations that are not true. You repeated in your post at the Wikipedia Review the false accusations about my living with Michael Lucas, and then responded to them. You repeat the false and inaccurate charge I have a COI--what is the COI?--by the very act that I photograph for Wikipedia. I wasn't edit-warring - IP accounts removed content. You said there was consensus against use of the photo, but nobody said to remove the photo, simply a preference for 'non-gay' porn - and they did so by claiming I have an agenda, which in itself is a personal attack. You repeated that accusation here, and on the Wikipedia Review. I'm asking for a block. Lastly, I find your comments homophobic. You are advocating for photos that are not-gay (when in the photograph you can't tell the gender of of one of the people, and indeed can't see any private body parts) but not actually supplying any. --David Shankbone 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me get this straight: this is a content dispute over whether there should be a gay pic on the front of Pornography? Or is there something esle going on here? As best I can tell, David stuck that image on there, for what reasons I don't know, and then SqueakBox removed it because it was gay, and then all hell broke loose here with accusations about bad faith zombies acting at the behest of some other web site.

    So: is this just a content dispute, or can someone indicate why it isn't? Loren.wilton (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not a content dispute, I've pointed out the policy and guideline violations (please read): personal attacks, content removal, participating in off-site trolling and then repeating allegations here. Additionally, you are incorrect about the article (please actually review the diffs that are provided) - the article is Pornographic film. --David Shankbone 18:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mis-spoke the name of the article involved, apologies. Yes, Pornographic film.
    I'm not about to go off and read accusations on WR or on other non-english wikipedias, I don't see how they relate to the current situation physically present here. I see one diff in the above text, which is to a talk page where SqueakBox gives his justification for removing the picture. From that I went and looked at the actual editing in the article.
    What I see in the editing is David adding the picture and Squeakbox removing it, repeatedly. That looks like a content dispute to me. I don't see any shadowy people lurking behind curtains anywhere except in the original accusations by David at the front of this section here.
    In a porn store the gay vids are often in a separate section labeled 'gay" so that people not so inclined can avoid them. WP isn't censored, but it does exist within the bounds of society, and I can see why someone might think a gay image, even if appropriate for the article, might not be appropriate at the top of the article, without the "gay" section notice. I'd personally be inclined to move it down the article farther, and to include "gay" in the caption. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a content dispute about the appropriateness of some of Shankbone's placement of his pics. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These charges made by Shankbonme are false and made in bad faith. This is not how to conduct a content dispute and this editor needs to calm down. I have made no personal attacks, content removal is not a policy violation, and nor have I part5icipated in off-site trolling on a site which you linked to here and in which you have recently participated far more than me. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the charges stick, and the WR thread I provided more than shows you repeat the false accusations, quoting them, then come back here and repeat false allegations that I have a COI and that I have an agenda. Those are personal attacks. Content removal violates guidelines. I have defended Wikipedia at the Wikipedia Review, which is why they attack me and why I have a thread thanking me from long-time users and admins, including User:Alison. --David Shankbone 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David, may I make a suggestion? How about not using your name in photo/interview captions? A quick google finds "David Shankbone" in a pretty good number of articles. Unless you, personally, are significant to the article, your name shouldn't be there. --B (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting point, perhaps an ifd for allt eh images would be in order, assuming they do not meet speedy criteria (such as if Shankbone speedied them all), and they could easily be re-uploaded. And yes his name in the pics certainly is part of why I see these are Shankbone promoting himself on wikipedia in a way that I am not comfortable with. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a point of clarification, I wasn't even referring to image filenames, which, though I disagree with it and would rather see filenames that give more description of the subject, isn't that big of a deal. I was referring to his name in articles themselves. --B (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never included my name in the articles themselves for photograph captions (I have for interviews, because I am included so it only makes sense), and you won't find an article where I have done that - go look. Regarding my name in file names, if you spend the time, effort and money I spend in obtaining the highest quality, difficult-to-obtain images that I do, then you can name them what you please. But this issue has been addressed multiple times and consensus--strong consensus--is the photographer can name them what he or she wants. We're trying to encourage contributions, not discourage. So, now here I am defending myself again against old charges that are false, have been addressed, when I have only worked to improve the project. It gets really tiresome. --David Shankbone 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I already spend plenty of time, effort and money on making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. i certainly don not need you to tell me what to do while I am a volunteer here. The difference is, of course, that i do not then consider the considerable investment I have made as an excuse to promote myself or my real life work on wikiepdia. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I'm talking about here. Instead of captioning it "John Reed and David Shankbone discuss politics after 9/11 and Reed's take on Orwell's neoconservativism", you could have said "John Reed discusses politics after 9/11 and Reed's take on Orwell's neoconservativism." --B (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are 480 examples of Shankbone in our text. That is one helluva lot,a nd I wonder how many of them are appropriate, and also how many of them were added by Shankbone himself. Those this si really an issue for the COI noticeboard. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only places I have added my User name are with interviews, since I am a participant - this is a standard with interviews. I have never added my name to photography captions. More personal attacks that SqueakBox is too lazy to look into, so he just lodges them. Doing more of the WIkipedia Review's bidding, I see. --David Shankbone 19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not accuse me of being lazy and then claim it is me who makes personal attacks against you. Your logic is quite frighteneiong, especially from someone on the receiving end of your wrath. So you are spamming your user name into many articles, are you? Oh well. i suggest you just leave me in peace and stop being so horrible. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are clearly lazy since you make base-less accusations and continually repeat them. More personal attacks. If you are going to make an accusation, provide evidence of Spamming. Again, request a block for repeated personal attacks and off-wiki harassment. --David Shankbone 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done for defending wikipedia at WR, that is why i sometimes post there. none of your charges stick, if you want an example of a bad faith personal attack it was your posting this thread and claiming all sorts of malign motives in me for daring to remove one of your gay porn pics from a no-gay porn page. This and your unrepentant attitude are very disturbing, can you please not take any anger you may have at charges that I have mentioned elsewhere. You are acting like you own the encyclopedia and making completely baseless accusations. Is this how you handle all your content disputes or just those involving your pics. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have to say, as a regular reader and occasional poster at Wikipedia Review, that the allegation of Squeak acting on the behest of WR is one of the funniest things I have recently read - I am uncertain who of the two parties should be the more outraged at the suggestion... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, am I the only one who thinks that Pornographic film is currently an unsourced mess of original research ("It is probably reasonable to assume" indeed!), and all this sound-and-fury could probably be better directed towards cleaning it up? — iridescent 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes - except reputable sources regarding pornography generally (and films especially?) are, "it is probably reasonable to assume", somewhat difficult to obtain - as opposed to the wealth of material available for the criticism of the making and viewing of pornography. Against this is the fact that it exists, has existed since antiquity, that some of the earliest motion pictures depicted it, and is a widely consumed media and major industry. That is should have a WP article is beyond dispute, but providing good sources is likely to be a perennial problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox continually reinserting personal attack into talk page

    Twice now[40][41], and probably by the time I type this, a third time, SqueakBox has inserted a personal attack completely unrelated to the discussion at Talk:Pornographic film. Once again, asking for a block for repeated personal attacks, content removal, edit-warring, participating in off-wiki harassment. --David Shankbone 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's phrased a bit rudely I agree, but hardly warrants a block - it's hardly bad faith of him to say that you're trying to get him blocked, when you're here - er - trying to get him blocked. — iridescent 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You call him lazy above and say "it's pointless to continually respond to SqueakBoxes allegations" in your edit summary. That's not exactly a good way to have harmonious editing. --B (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David seems to think different rules apply to him. And I did not appreciate the lazy jibe one bit, check my contribs to see that I work hard for this project. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think both users need to take a break from each other. If they do not do so on their own volition, a one week unsolicited wikibreak may give them pause. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I ahve already removed pronio film from mywatchlist and absolutely agree, this sisue s should be closed as resolved right now. I have other fish to fry. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "User:SqueakBox is going to the Wikipedia Review, the same site that fosters the outing of Wikipedia editors (and their extortion negotiations), and is coming here to do their bidding." Are you suggesting that wikipedia should monitor and regulate what sites editors visit? LZ (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Rjecina - playing checkuser and administrator - shall be stopped

    Resolved
     – Blocked the IP for 3RR violation. Suggest that Rjecina report this IP as a Velebit sock at WP:SSP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is engaged in regular removals of my contributions to the Srbosjek article and the talk page - removal of references and pointless insertion of the [dubious – discuss] tag after each existing and not removed reference. See [42], [43], [44] He was warned already three times by other user and by me - [45], [46], [47]

    Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper waning is given. [48], [49]

    You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([50]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

    --71.252.101.67 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that Rjecina is removing the material (actually reverting to a previous version) with the edit summary "revert of banned user user:Velebit, aka user:Stagalj aka user:Standshown aka User:Pederkovic Ante". Removing material from banned users is allowed. Of course, if this is NOT one of the listed banned users, there might be a problem. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For evidence see User talk:71.252.83.230 and User talk:71.252.101.51 (I am not even asking to see history of Velebit, Standshown and Stagalj). This puppet is using similar multiple IP for editing. From my knowledge his blocking is not possible (because of multiple IP:71.252.102.204, 71.252.101.67, 71.252.52.88, 72.75.18.147). Similar style of editing (writing about Ustaše) is answer if he is puppet or not (see WP:DUCK). This argument has been used by Future Perfect last time.--Rjecina (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For evidence - I never used the IP adresses listed above. Also, Rjecina attempt to block me was already rejected twice [51], [52]

    --71.252.101.67 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Your last argument is 1 of reasons why we can't let user Velebit edit wikipedia ! You are writing again and again false statements. Nobody has asked for your blocking and this is clearly writen in demand for semi-protection.--Rjecina (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note. In the header I added the name of the article under dispute as well as the user links (for the person complained about) to make this report less puzzling. The comment from Future Perfect is quoted by the IP from somewhere else, since it's dated April 22nd. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 71.252.101.67 (talk · contribs) 72 hours for 3RR on Srbosjek (knife). Rjecina may or may not be justified in assuming this is a sock, so his reverts may or may not be right, but there is no justification at all for the IP's reverts. Rjecina if he wishes may add the IP address to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Purger. The IP does fit the address pattern 71.252.* of at least one previous Velebit sock and he has the same interests. The IP's recounting of Rjecina's previous history (above) is quite unbalanced, as you'll see if you click through to the various sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I am the Authority . com

    Resolved

    This user, who has just been blocked 32 hours, edit's all seem to be the adding of blocked templates to new users. Revert them all right?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes please. Sorry - I blocked him and am being called away for a while - so can't offer. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    thought so. Best to add real welcome templates to all, could someone work their way down from the top please, while i go up. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I zapped as many as possible for recreation afterwards, to try to minimise the harm. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the phony block temps have either been deleted or replaced with welcome messages :)...damage reverted.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    great work. thanks for your help--Jac16888 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All the deleted ones recreated with real templates. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone want to take a shot at User:The Authority is me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who has started doing the same thing? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:16, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

    Another one bites the dust.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ::and another one please User:I am the Law . com--Jac16888 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    scratch that, already blocked--Jac16888 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great work here people, keep it up. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Jeandell

    Resolved

    I request that an admin take a look at this AfD and do a speedy close per WP:SNOW. The self-identified subject of the article (who also created it), User:Jjeandell now wants it deleted and stated so in the AfD. It is clear that he is very upset about the AfD. There were already some disruptions related to the AfD, such as removal of recorded votes of others[53] as well as attempted blanking of the main page Jason Jeandell. It is clear from the discussion in the AfD that the eventual result will be a delete, and it is better to close it now to avoid further drama and embarrassment for the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MacedonianBoy

    Hmm... Take a look at his user page: "Wikipedia is not neutral! This is a great propaganda against the Macedonian people and their history! Don't believe anything on Wikipedia, pseudo-historians are extinguishing the truth, be aware of it!!!" The Cat and the Owl (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aren't people allowed to post even the most asinine (well, up to a degree) comments on their user pages? 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, no, not really. See Wikipedia:User page. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything that qualifies as inappropriate content. I really doubt the Project is going to be brought into dispute by one disgruntled user. (The header on my talk page is no kinder to Wikipedia and nobody's yet complained.) — iridescent 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't this bit of soapboxing is really that disruptive, but I wonder if we should allow such content in the page of someone who has been blocked twice for posting personal attacks related to his agenda. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You got a point.The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Though almost all of his contributions relate to Macedonia, most of his recent contributions have been helpful. But contributions such as [54] project a POV that I'm uncomfortable with given the blocks and the user page. I'm not sure he's entirely here to help the project as much as push a POV. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that diff you highlight is possibly a language-barrier thing - I read it as "although living in M they consider themselves B". Maybe I'm AGFing too much, though. — iridescent 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address 72.44.38.243 is removing useful links, en masse!

    Resolved
     – Account is already blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone from 72.44.38.243 is removing all links to pinouts.ru. And the information at pinouts.ru is very useful and straightforward in regards to pinouts. Other useful links has also been removed by this user on some pages. There's lot's of edits, so someone with script-fu needs to take action. IP addresses tend to have the most bad edits to good edits ratio. I have reverted some edits. But I dealing with 100s of edits is worse.

    Could someone take care of this ..? Electron9 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't it be better to have one link to the main page of the site, rather than the 20 or so links throughout the article (referring to Mini-DIN connector)? Kevin (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, no. There are so many different pinouts, some with very similar names, that if someone has done the dirty work to link the right things together that work shouldn't be thrown away. pinouts.ru is an encyclopedia of sorts itself, and just telling people "the information you want is here -- someplace! Go find it!" isn't all that polite if you already know where they can find it. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a suggestion - sorry if you found it impolite. Kevin (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my tone came off much harsher than I had intended it. Apologies. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz has already blocked this IP for using an open proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just want to say thanks for putting an end to the wreckless "edits". However someone suggested I can look at the contributions log for the IP to undo, but there's lots of changes!, so some script-magic is still appropiate. Electron9 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All the edits have now been reverted. For Electron9, WP:TWINKLE can be useful for reverts like this Kevin (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alihasnain vandalism and intent to vandalize

    Resolved

    User:Alihasnain has stated the they "now [lead] a group of internet users who would vandalise wikipedia until their demands are met." (fromuser_talk:alihasnain

    The rest of their user talk page is reproduce here:

    snipped, Nakon 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ---End of text---

    I recently reverted one case of vandalism (on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

    A block or ban is justified by this user's free admission of their intent to vandalize in the future Mattman00000 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone else think this actually funny? Moment any of them starts vandalising they'll be blocked. Do they really think a few cases of vandalism from this "group of internet users" is going to bring out changes that basically go against every single thing wikipedia stands for? Some people take these things (and themselves) far too seriously. Recommend an indef block for Alihasnain for starters --Jac16888 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinitely blocked. Nothing more to see here. Sandstein (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also blanked his talk page per WP:DENY. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The small discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views

    The small discussion on Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views

    There is an on-going systematic effort by User:Nihil_novi and few other extreme nationalist characters to archive the content of the discussion page Talk:Stefan_Banach.

    The discussion on this page contains many arguments and references on Ukrainian roots of Stefan Banach and on his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

    Polish chauvinists attempted to initiate the discussion of the censorship purge of the article on Banach. To create a semblance of a "vote" supporting their censorship, User:Nihil_novi attempt to hide into the archive the discussions of the Banach Ukrainian roots and his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

    The section Stefan Banach#Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important and non-redundant facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of Stefan_Banach.

    The on-going attempts of Polish extreme nationalist characters to impede the establishment of NPOV on Banach must be stopped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    98.210.14.5 is trying to harass Nihil novi and pushing his POV. Admins should ignore his comments. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look into the change logs ("history" tab) of Talk:Stefan_Banach . Apparently, censorship of the discussion by archiving or erasing the previously stated opinions was done by User:Nihil_novi and User:Kotniski. Your intervention on behalf of Wikipedia will be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and then notice that this is nationalistic pro-Ukrainian, anti-Polish edit warring by a bunch of IPs and ignore this complaint. --Haemo (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and is Wikipedia really anti-Ukrainian and pro-Polish? The discussions that User:Nihil_novi and User:Kotniski attempt to censor contain both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Polish views. Discussions help to reach NPOV. People who censor and impede the discussions undermine Wikipedia.

    Improper page moves of Gibraltar events

    Number 57 has unilaterally decided to rename Gibraltar events Gibraltarian despite having been requested by three Gibraltar editors not to do so on his user page, because that is not the correct name.

    Plus was asked to look at this renaming:

    john 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The name of the event is on:

    I consider he is misusing his position as an administrator. As there was already article with the wrong name, only an admin could have deleted it to be able to move the article. Efforts to discuss this only result in being told the editor is 'an English teacher'. [55]

    He willing not look at references or the opinion of others, so a complaint is appropriate. I have delayed in the hope of progress but none. If another process is more appropriate, please advise. --Gibnews (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

    Would it be possible for an uninvolved and impartial admin(s) to close this centralized discussion?

    I set up the discussion on 11 April, following a proposal (to suspend use of the image placeholder graphic on article pages) here. The debate was widely notified through WP (as a centralized discussion, RFC, on the Signpost and various projects). More than 50 editors participated in exchanges about this controversial issue. The discussion closed by agreement on 23 April. Conclusions were debated between 23 April and 11 May.

    AFAIK none of us had prior experience of managing a centralized discussion and it's been difficult for to keep the process moving forward to secure a satisfactory outcome, given the lack of general guidelines and the inevitable difficulty of applying consensus policy to such a large and polarized group of people.

    Please note I have no intention of criticizing any of my fellow editors here (or indeed of replying to any personal attacks). I just think it is time to hand over the discussion to neutral and disinterested parties for closure. Is this the right place to make that request? Thank you and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dry needling: OR and removal of sourced information

    121.216.77.150 is removing sourced information and adding unsourced original research to the Dry needling article. The user is not heeding advice or warnings. -- Fyslee / talk 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has not made any edits since your last warning. Gary King (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Let's see what happens. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility on WT:BOT

    I've having issues with Betacommand on WT:BOT being generally insulting and incivil; I'd try to discuss this with him directly, but seeing as he's been through ArbCom twice I'm more than sure he's aware that how he's behaving is just counter productive. Specifically, these two edits: "grow a brain" - "Like I said you dont know what your talking about so shut up" "stop spewing ideas that my dog even knows wont work". Help? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Betacommand was approached by three editors on his talk page before your post here. Maybe that will help and we can avoid a protracted thread here? --67.186.244.249 (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; a discussion about this issue already exists on his Talk page at User_talk:Betacommand#Warning. I suggest this discussion be taken there so that it is centralized and he can be aware of it. Gary King (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually looking for input from people outside his normal circle of talk page watchers. Besides, if two ArbCom cases and a handful of blocks later he's still making personal attacks, shouldn't we be looking for something else to try to get him to stop? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you propose happen? I've never interacted with him and would rather not get too involved in this, but if this is his personality and he does not want to take any action to change it, then there isn't much that can be done besides the many blocks he has already received. He was blocked just a few weeks ago due to personal attacks for over a week. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanctions are unlikely in this case. Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable, and does lots of underappreciated work for Wikipedia. Most of the regulars have learned to shrug off these inevitable outbursts from him. I can't speak for all, but I can only say that all are well aware of these concerns with Betacommand, and given that he has not been sanctioned for this yet, it is unlikely that one more report of him saying something like this is not likely to result in any action. I am not excusing or condoning this sort of incivility, only noting my observations of how these regular reports usually go down. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. The value of his contributions are irrelevant if he's personally attacking other editors and being incivil. No one should ever have to put up with a disruptive and insulting attitude due to the supposed "value" of the attackers contributions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point to yet more POV pushing disruptive editing where Locke attempts to force his opinion on others, when the consensus is clearly against him. so he bring the facts I point out in an attempt to force his opponents into silence. its just his standard disruptive POV pushing method of operation. Im sorry if you dont like the fact that you cannot force your obvious anti-bot mentality on others, by attempting to re-write a policy that you have no understanding of. βcommand 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Jayron's comment is, in your opinion, incorrect. Not in everyone's opinion. Some people - such as myself - actually subscribe to a different opinion: Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. --67.186.244.249 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, the community already has an opinion at this policy page. You'll note that the policy does not carve out exceptions for personal attacks by editors who are "invaluable", nor does it have any kind of point system where X number of valuable edits allows you to make Y number of personal attacks. The mistake here would be to continue to tolerate these "outbursts" and let it slide because of his value to the project: no single editor should ever be invaluable to the project (and as far as I know the community has never backed such a solution). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with everything said here, but I do agree that no one should rise above rules applied to everyone, including the fact that no one contributor is invaluable enough to the project to have their less constructive actions disregarded. With that said, again, what do you want done in this case? Gary King (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved obviously, but since 24 hour blocks don't seem to work (or are cut short for dubious reasons), perhaps escalating the length of the blocks would help enforce the idea for him that it's not okay to make personal attacks like this? And considering a community ban wouldn't be such a bad idea either. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert-warring on the administrators' noticeboard is not either of your brightest moments, and I'll block the both of you if you're silly enough to continue. east.718 at 04:30, May 12, 2008
    Indeed, there does exist such a community policy - note that I did not speak for the community when I noted the existence of Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. Also note that the editors who have commented on Betacommand's talk page are not excusing his comments - one admin wrote in no unclear terms that he would block Betacommand if Betacommand wrote a further comment similar to the ones that you cited above. Having this thread does indeed draw wider attention to your concerns - but the thread on Betacommand's talk page already seems to me to address them (if I understand your concerns correctly). --67.186.244.249 (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Betacommand has had multiple 24-hour blocks and many warnings on this issue, including a recent "final warning" from Ryan Postelthwaite. I'd suggest that the response to Betacommand's next personal attack, if it happens, should be a one-week block. Being "irreplaceable" shouldn't get you a free pass. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Going along with the "irreplaceable" idea, is there any progress on splitting BCBot's tasks up so BC is less irreplaceable (that sounds so crude, but you get my drift, and nothing ill intentioned is meant) then currently? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit hard to figure out what BetacommandBot is doing, but I think the only tasks it does that aren't duplicated by at least one bot are moving images to commons and producing linkspam reports. Neither of those is something that can't be stopped for a week or two. --Carnildo (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've found Beta to be a user very hard to work with; unapproachable, and refuses to see any fault with his/her bots when there clearly is. Rudeness is rife, and I agree that doing something vaguely (very vaguely) helpful should excuse bad behaviour. Support a 1-2 week block on the next instance of incivility. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppeteer User:Karmaisking (indefinitely blocked): moved from User:Socppt11 (blocked) to User:Socppt12

    Despite the long history, he's now just moving through numbered sockpuppets. Grateful admin action.--Gregalton (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Something curious here

    Resolved
     – Blocked indef

    I came across Yartamis (talk · contribs) who seems to be a vandalism-only account. She's only made about a dozen edits, mostly in the last day or so, even though the account is a year or so old.

    But looking on the talk page, I see lots of notifications about non-free image uploads. Except that NONE of the contributions of this user were image uploads!

    Why is it that bots or people think this user has created images, when the account history doesn't show that? Am I looking in the wrong place? Do they not show up in Contributions? Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that if the image was deleted, it will not show up in contributions list. -- Avi (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And looking at the contribs, nearly all of them are vandalism of one sort of another. I say they have overstayed their welcome. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I certainly wouldn't be upset if someone notified them of that fact, having just finished cleaning up the mess. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I don't see any image uploads; the warnings are all regarding making attack pages. There's nothing in the upload logs, but all the attack pages show in deleted contributions. And yes, they've gone on an unusually long tear without getting indefinitely blocked yet. Antandrus (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous IP talk page blanking policy?

    Is there any policy covering an anonymous IP blanking the talk page belonging to that IP? Normally when I see this, it's an attempt to conceal a record of warnings and other infractions.

    Recently I saw contributions blank User talk:99.240.27.210, so I automatically restored the page, warnings and all. The anon proceeded to re-blank the page, leaving threatening notes on my talk page to "stop harrassing".

    I know established accounts have considerable latitude in editing their own talk pages, but does that also extend to anonymous IPs? =Axlq 04:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows that the user has received the warnings. It's a good idea to look at the talk page history when leaving warnings in case of blanking/removal. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) In general I think people are permitted to blank their page if they've read a message. Typically with an active vandal I'll roll back blanking so other patrollers can see what is going on, and on the other hand, if there is obviously more than one editor active at the IP, I'd assume good faith and allow the person to blank messages they have read. If the IP is making good edits I'll always allow them to blank messages. I'll also use rollback if they replace the messages with abuse. So I don't think there's one blanket way to handle this. Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, in this case the IP is pretty clearly a fixed IP address used by a single user, and thus is to most intents and purposes a normal user. I see a number of warnings he blanked, but I also see a lot of contributions, and they seem to be in somewhat contentious areas, so warnings are not too surprising. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Learn more at WP:BLANKING Gary King (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's nice when these things resolve themselves, isn't it? – ClockworkSoul 05:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yay anons! :D --67.186.244.249 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Happyone2

    User Happyone2 (talk · contribs) writes incorrect info on various articles and does not give any sources to verify. This is especially true with Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, listing an English cast. In fact, the said title has no official English dub and there are no verifiable reports to back it up. The user has even created an article for a "live action movie" of the said title, but it is completely false was deleted. The user was reminded several times on the talk, but it seems the user doesn't respond to any of them. Some of those edits were reverted, but this doesn't stop his/her misinformation. What do you think can be done with this user? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff for reference - he has received a few warnings, but perhaps he doesn't understand what he's doing wrong...so Happyone2, if you read this, verifiability is a key Wikipedia policy that states that when adding information, you really should provide a reliable source backing it up. Not doing so makes it difficult to collaborate effectively, as editors have to try and work out where you got the information from, which can waste their time and efforts. You can learn how to cite sources at WP:CITE - hopefully this helps you. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if he'll respond to that. But I'll tell you if he has learned or not. Because I'm sure he hasn't read his talk page, hence his continued misinformation. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that if he ignores his talk page and the discussion here that you leave him a more stern warning (and also a note about edit summaries) strongly suggesting he take a look at WP:V. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blechnic

    User Blechnic (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is currently banned from Wikipedia (the ban ends in a few days time IRC) but this user has removed all the warnings and the ban template and has just started adding stuff on the talk page[56]. I've got no idea whether this is against any policy's on Wikipedia which is why I've posted this here. Bidgee (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yea, its permitted, since we take that to mean he's read them and understands them, if he's removing them. Sort of a remove them at his own peril situation, since he can't claim ignorance in the future. MBisanz talk 07:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. :) What about the other stuff they adding to the talk page? Bidgee (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that is puzzling. Some of it looks like copyvios, other parts look like edits he intends to make when unblocked, and other parts I just can't figure out. More admin eyes on this one please? MBisanz talk 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These look to me like the notes of someone getting ready to do lots of editing once they're unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they're what I would have edited, along with my articles on viruses, plants, and electron microscopy. Someone else definitely should edit this stuff--it's really really bad. Only one's been corrected so far, the embarrassing geological information of the 3-4 billion years old Pliocene epoch. Unfortunately the editor who corrected that left even worse information to sit idly for the unwary reader of the article--although rather an obscure topic. I considered posting notices on the article's talk pages, but I was banned for discussing an article on its talk page. Oh, wait, no, I was banned for putting fact tags in an article, and I've been threatened that if I question inaccurate content in an article again by tagging it I'll be banned again. Very little fact checking will reveal what's really really wrong with all of these. I have a few hundred more. But I won't put any more tags in articles or discuss the tags on talk pages, I learned my lesson there! Oh, and I promise not to edit any more inaccurate or poorly sourced information out of Wikipedia articles, and I understand that four "sorta okay sources" equals one reliable source. I can't find that anywhere under "verifiability," but, again, I learned me lesson. --Blechnic (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I won't be back to discuss this here or there. --Blechnic (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    80.249.52.136

    This user is continually vandalising pages, including my talk page. I think its a library beloning to Birmingham City Council... can someone do something about this? Temp Block? Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 09:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone is currently active on that IP, report them to WP:AIV - the helpbot there will make a note that it's a library IP, and an admin will block appropriately (ie. not for too long, I'd say). It's best to ensure they've received the full set of warnings first (see WP:WARN). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reblocked for another 6 months. MBisanz talk 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, thanks. Maybe this will encourage Birmingham City Council to do something about it... Though I seriously doubt it. Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (shout at me) 09:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After a protracted spat on Talk:Ayn Rand and much rude and uncivil behavior from a certain blocked user by the name of Edward Nilges, I deleted his posts from the page under the rationale that he was, in fact, being a troll, as well as violating WP:FAITH, WP:ATTACK, and goodness only knows what else. He has since posted a legal threat on my talk page. Nilges was indefinitely blocked due to his uncivil and disruptive behavior--see User Talk:Spinoza1111. Any help would be appreciated. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help fixing cut and paste move, please

    Cheerbo (talk · contribs) has performed cut and paste moves on all of the Australian Idol season articles. I've now gone and reverted him, but as the pages he created all have a bit of history now, a fix of the cut and paste move would be useful.

    The articles are supposed to be (and are now at);

    The pages he copied content to, which I've now redirected back to the above, are (respectively);

    Go ahead, work your magic! :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ice cream. Troplock (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice

    If you noticed this notice then you will have noticed that this notice was not worth noticing. You suck at life, do the world a favor - commit suicide. (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=211850414"