Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Routesteep (talk | contribs) at 13:37, 17 June 2007 (→Panairjdde is harassing me again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    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)


    homophobia and vandalism

    unresolved He's back (16 June 2007)

    (hi user DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) has been making derogatory remarks on the michael jackson edit discussion page towards michael jackson himself and other editors. He refered to michael jackson as a Gay pedophile, he has called people you edit the page freaks and loners for supporting Jackson and resently called me Fagboy. Unforfunately I reacted in an in appropriate manner calling him a smart ass and crap face but have improved my manner and no longer retaliate. I left a message on his user page saying that if he just altered the way he spoke about issues he would be a useful assest to wikipedia. To this he called me a Fagboy. I have also studied his edit history on other articles and the topic of homosexuality seems to come up consistantly and other users have warned him. I hope you will take action on this and would again like tp apologies for my past mistakes. Get back to me on my user page thanxRealist2 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left a request for the user to civilly discuse issues of articles. If the user continues such POV pushing, please bring it up here and remove the resolved tag. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some folks may remember this guy from last year when he used AOL IPs User:195.93.21.74 and user:195.93.21.69. He was dubbed the "John Wayne vandal", and blocked several times. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a good chance he also goes by Chunda18 (talk · contribs), as the topics and approach to submissions is identical, and Chunda18 stopped "contributing" at almost the same time that DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) started. It's always similar: certain major stars (primarily John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart) are right-wing Republicans and therefore any positive thing about them should be removed or so qualified as to eliminate the positive aspect, or they are homosexuals and should be exposed to the world. This morning someone on his talk space politely suggested some help for him if he needed it on the matter of proper citing. DaveyJones1968 replied "Fuck you." Doesn't seem resolved to me.
    I've blocked DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) for now. From the looks of it he has devolved from just adding unsourced additions into articles and now is engaged in trolling. I don't see much reason to unblock unless he commits to following WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP.--Isotope23 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DaveyJones1968 (talk · contribs) responded to his being blocked by taking on a new identity and immediately reinstating -- verbatim -- the POV material I had reverted from the John Wayne article yesterday. His new name is InLikeErrol (talk · contribs).

    I endorse the block of DJ and have blocked the new account. This guy is clearly trolling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's back again, a day later, as BreckColeman (talk · contribs). He put back all his trash again. Monkeyzpop 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-Jewish rant

    User:Alex mond, who appeared in Wikipedia on June 5, seems to be an essentially one-purpose account pushing extremely nationalist fringe views on Armenia and Armenian language. User:Dbachmann is the only editor who had the stamina to argue with him, to revert his most impertinent edits, and to help him with kind advices. After he understood that the case is hopeless and desisted from time-consuming arguments, User:Alex mond started pestering Dbachmann on his talk page:

    How long will this last? I request someone to investigate the situation. Why should Wikipedia tolerate such editors? I believe anti-Semitic rants and personal attacks only drive serious wikipedians away from the project. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He was warned by Alison at 17:14 on the 11th, and all of those diffs are from before then - unless there's been more comments since then, the warning may have done its job. Neil ╦ 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reply is disappointing. Could you refer me to a useful edit from this account? How much time you suppose people should spend arguing with him on talk pages and reverting his eyebrow-raising edits in mainspace? Thanks, Ghirla-трёп- 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has he made any incivil comments or personal attacks since being warned? If not, then there is no administrative action required at present. Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. If he has stopped, then there is nothing to prevent. Neil ╦ 12:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be great if you and Nick added Armenia and Armenian language to your watchlist and, next time Alex mond attempts to edit them, discussed with him the harmfulness of fringecruft, especially that motivated by nationalist mythology. Thanks, Ghirla-трёп- 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Neil. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Nicholas, I don't give a hoot whether the account is blocked or not. I'm well aware that some people, especially those who don't have to deal with extremist editors on a day-to-day basis, are willing to assume good faith ad infinitum and keep the project full of "potentially reformable bad guys", as long as they don't have to reason with them themselves. My request was to investigate whether the guy has really been helpful. I have yet to see a non-disruptive edit from this one-purpose account. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps start a Sockpuppetry case and back it up with evidence? Or contact a checkuser? :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it's User:Artaxiad again? It does not appear to be plausible. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can investigate this on your own - contribution logs are public. At this time no Admin will do the investigation for you because it isn't an interesting question. If someone's been warned and then continues to be disruptive, blocks may be in order to get their attention, or force them to knock it off. If they've stopped being disruptive, then there's nothing left to see.
    I'm afraid we have different ideas of "disruption". --Ghirla-трёп- 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with Ghirla here. I've been watching this user's contributions on Armenian topics over the past few days and he is clearly an extremist crank (and an anti-Semite to boot) with no scholarly knowledge of the subject at hand who is causing disruption with his editing. He contributes nothing to this project. I'm amazed there is no mechanism for the speedy removal of editors like this who cause far more disruption than drive-by vandals and who waste large amounts of bona fide users' time. This is exactly the kind of POV pusher who is wrecking large areas of Wikipedia and ruining its reputation in the wider world. --Folantin 17:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only taken a cursory look at this, but what I've seen makes me agree with Ghirla and Folantin. This guy is an obvious crank, and unlikely to contribute anything valuable to the encyclopedia. It's really a shame we can't show such users the door immediately, because even when they are civil and limit themselves to the talk pages, they still chew up an enormous amount of time and patience. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an indef-block for serious WP:NPA violations and bigotry is in order.Bakaman 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bakasuprman. We can't have racism destroy Wikipeida.--Epeefleche 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Ghirla. However, Neil brings up a valid restraining point, in that the warning from Alison was after the racism. If it happens again, I will block the user.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon further investigation, blocking for 24 hours for this personal attack here and this one here, after the warning from Alison. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    from my nigh three-year experience with this sort of situation, it is very, very unlikely that we'll ever get anything useful out of this editor that would even remotely make the bother of putting up with him worthwhile. But I am really agnostic about permabanning him, since, well, he'll just be back under another account anyway. Btw, I am neither Jewish nor German, but I do not consider it a "personal attack" to be called either. If you're going to permaban this account, let it be in some way on grounds that this user seems to consider 'Jewish type' a withering insult, not on grounds of him actually attacking me (I have been known to take much worse trolling without any rise in blood pressure). dab (𒁳) 08:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Twenty four hours? That's it? El_C 08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting to observe who here seems to be tolerating the hate speech with disgraceful word lawyering. El_C 08:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Not worth it. El_C 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Twenty-four hours really doesn't seem nearly long enough. I'd argue for a perma-ban. This user's anti-Semitic rants are part of a far wider problem than incivility (though we shouldn't be tolerating racial harrassment like this at all). These comments show he is a crackpot and his contributions are cut from the same cloth: he is simply adding lunatic fringe content to Wikipedia. This is a major problem for us as an encylopaedia as far as our credibility goes. Plus, I don't see why bona fide editors with knowledge of the subject should have to waste endless time on article talk pages arguing with tendentious ignoramuses. Wikipedia should have more robust and swifter methods for dealing with such cranks. We now have the opportunity to get rid of one of them, let's take it.--Folantin 11:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that instead of being immediately blocked for his anti-Semitic attacks, he was warned, and he seems to have stopped. We can all see he's a crackpot, but for some reason obvious crackpottery isn't grounds for a block, even though it's a more serious threat to the quality of the encyclopedia than personal attacks. Now we have to follow the tedious processes outlined in WP:DE and WP:TE, or argue for a community ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A week ago, I proposed on WP:VPR to set up a project or a noticeboard that would deal with the most glaring cases of fringecruft-pushing. There has been no feedback so far. IRC chatting is much more interesting than actually making some cleanup in mainspace. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it, this is possibly the biggest problem with Wikipedia. We're not talking about good faith editors making honest mistakes by adding bad content and we're not talking about overheated but valid intellectual controversies, we're talking about out-and-out crankery. Yet there seems to be no efficient way of removing such editors and their "contributions". It appears we'd have to go through some long drawn out process involving plenty of Wikilawyering to deal with this problem. In the mean time, this kind of thing drives away plenty of knowledgeable editors who can't be bothered with the hassle. Admonitions to show "Wikilove" to the trolls and extremists really don't cut it. I know several potentially brilliant contributors who wouldn't go near WP because of this kind of thing. Ultimately, we get judged by our mainspace content, not how lovey-dovey we are behind the scenes. --Folantin 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Folantin, I can't agree with you more. Unfortunately, people who run the project seem to be inclined to treat it as a sort of surrogate Friendster. Long-standing admins have developed adminitis; new admins normally get their instructions from IRC; ArbCom claims that content arbitration is not in their purview. Since we still don't have a procedure of content arbitration, he that has more time to spend arguing on talk pages and a bigger mouth for shouting, usually wins a content dispute, even if his point is utterly devoid of merit. An added benefit is one's ability to ask his friends to register a wikipedia account and to support him whenever possible. It is assumed that, once a person is interested in mainspace, he should be arguing over some point ad nauseum. This is fallacious, since I know scores of pages which contain patent lies, but I'm too busy to even discuss it with people who "own" them. It is easier for me to walk away. This is the case of Alex mond. I don't care about Armenia and I don't want to spend my time on arguing with a person whose point is apriori false and whose opinion will not be changed a bit by all my efforts. This is a problem that the community needs to address if it wants to keep Wikipedia more or less creditable. Unfortunately nobody seems to be interested, except you and me. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Community sanction notice board to suggest a community ban instead of a block? Personally, I'm glad that people with admin bits are slow to give long blocks to people not currently engaged in disruptive behaviour. Dan Beale 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of those blocks should have been indef, but never mind. If he continues pushing his nutcasery, I'll block for out-and-out disruption. We just don't need talkpage warriors like this who do nothing but shove their original research in our direction. When this fellow goes back to his main account, he'd better be on his best behaviour and actually provide some references. C'mon people, we have an encyclopedia to maintain. Moreschi Talk 10:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note User:Alex mond's recent edits to Armenian hypothesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for a week. If he does it again, escalate further. Adam Cuerden talk 02:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with block. The next one is indef. Ghirla and Folantin are saying something very valuable here; we cannot allow cranks to win simply by shouting most, and this fellow is definite POV/OR-pushing crank. Moreschi Talk 10:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I vonH removing sockpuppet proof, etc

    I vonH (talk · contribs), along with a number of IP addresses, is proven to be a sockpuppet of Tfoxworth (talk · contribs) and is blanking all of the pages and removing the links proving it to be so. He is also claiming that he is his own wife, that is, I vonH is saying that Tfoxworth is "her" husband. If that is true, they are engaging in disrupting Wikipedia.

    The above statement is offensive.I vonH

    Here are the IP addresses and user names that are populating Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tfoxworth unless I vonH has gone and blanked the IP pages again:

    Please note the category page and note that the above five users are supposed to be listed in it. I vonH has blanked a number of the pages and I and at least one other person so far have reverted them. Therefore I have provided a version link to the category page, which itself contains version links to examples of vandalism, versions of the IP pages to preserve them, etc. I vonH/Tfoxworth has also engaged in starting frivolous mediation requests, etc.

    Hardly frivolous all things considered. One needs only to look at the page history to see why it was requested.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can probably post more if needed. Charles 23:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above statement is offensive.I vonH

    Hardly frivolous all things considered. One needs only to look at the page history to see why it was requested.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said Charles- Tfoxworth is my husband. You are just angry I reported you for 3RR. I vonH 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have? That's news to me. I am not angry about any 3RR write-up, I am concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia when we have sockpuppets removing warranted notifications on the pages of IP addresses where the connections have been established. If I was touchy, I would consider you calling me angry for something I didn't know about a personal attack, but I will blame it on the established pattern of behaviour. Charles 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny that- all this came about after I reported you. You should be worried about the lack of integrity you have shown thus far.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if you're his wife, then you're a meatpuppet, and shouldn't be removing notices in such a manner. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. --Haemo 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the IP addresses there are entries that are not ours. We have two computers, not five. However, since you are not in the least way involved in this issue your interest is...? Perhaps you are a meatpuppet for Charles.I vonH 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sure that his interest is in maintaining Wikipedia. Any responsible editor can see the evidence and has the right to comment on the matter at hand. Sockpuppets and meatpuppets are not members of the Wikipedia community. If you are accusing me of having a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, I invite you to prove it. It is not true. It is, however, true for "you and your husband" and it is in Wikipedia's best interest that a consistent vandal who engages in harassment be dealt with. Charles 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a meatpuppet. Anyone can see that. --Haemo 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of this public noticeboard is to solicit the advice or help of uninvolved administrators, and the advice and help of other editors who also post here. That you would accuse someone providing that exact thing of being a meatpuppet is preposterous. Natalie 08:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, is there anything that can be done about this person to prevent the constant disruption, harassment, etc? Charles 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Any further blanking of said pages by involved persons will be met by reversion & protection of the pages, and a block on the person doing it. - Nunh-huh 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tfoxworth has returned to editing, adding the same citations to Russian imperial related articles. Charles 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block needed

    User: Diluvien has been severely eluding his ban on the recent range of 87.122.x.x. Please see the histories [1] [2], [3], and [4]. He's used IP's: 87.122.38.6, 87.122.58.60, 87.122.44.84, 87.122.54.178, 87.122.56.113, 87.122.28.40, and 87.122.21.58 (still unblocked and edit warring at AN/3RR) over the past few days. The Evil Spartan 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The addresses you quote span a 15 bit space, so the rangeblock you suggest would cover 32768 addresses. That's a pretty big chunk - it would be one thing to briefly block that if we were being attacked by a vandalbot or a determined tubgirl-type vandal, but neither the rate nor the severity of this guy's vandalism seems to call for such an extensive block, particularly for a multi-day duration. As Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Range blocks notes, rangeblocks "should be reserved as an absolute last resort." -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I've seen range blocks per into place for much smaller occurrences. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. Have you ever used a range block before? It doesn't appear much else is coming from that address, and we can always do AO or let someone appeal the block. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, after repeatedly undoing other administrator's edits, he managed to get Isotope23 blocked for 24 hours. Thanks a lot, guys, way to be on the eight ball. The Evil Spartan 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be a dick, please. HalfShadow 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the fuck did that comment come from? The Evil Spartan 00:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I reiterate... HalfShadow 01:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [From the article:] "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones."

    What is being said is that your request, which is tantamount to blocking most of the IP addresses for a medium-sized city, would not be a reasonable penalty to inflict on other legitimate editors who just happen to live in the same region and use the same ISP as this particluar object of annoyance. --Dynaflow babble 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I was more referring to him slagging off the admins for blocking someone who never had been, but that's an equally valid point. HalfShadow 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eastside High School (Gainesville, FL)

    The following is from the Mediation Cabal case page of Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida): —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.227.16.179 (talk • contribs).

    Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Eastside High School (Gainesville, Florida)

    Who are the involved parties?

    Thereisaplace, Catbag, TheRaven, Fram, DaDrought3 (writer of "Fram" section on discussion page).

    What is the involved article(s)?

    Vandalism, false accusation of 'meatpuppetry' by administrator (Fram), unnecessary locking by administrator (Fram).

    What's going on?

    People such as the administrator who have no knowledge of the article topic are attempting subversion to destroy the integrity of the article. These actions include locking the page from editing, editing the content itself to display incorrect information or to remove factual information, and general vandalism. This behavior was also present in the editing of the Gotem article, in which Fram attempted (and failed) to subvert another article by direct deletion and manipulation instead of going through the appropriate dispute channels. When the article's creators (as is the case with this article) went through the proper channels, overwhelming evidence and wikipedia public opinion supported the creators and NOT Fram.

    Upon researching the history of these characters and related articles, it is evident that Fram has engaged in a personal vendetta against certain users associated with this article, after having intervened in the past (these administrative interventions were overruled by other administrators as well as a large contingent of other Wikipedians... for a rather silly but factual history of these events, see this page.

    What would you like to change about that?

    The main issue here is the abuse of power, and it has been suggested that Fram be subject to discipline such as removal of his administrative powers.

    Of course, unlocking the page for proper editing is also needed.

    Mediator response

    I'm not the mediator, but I'm still making a comment here. I highly suggest that this issue be forwarded to WP:ANI this doesn't seem like the appropriate place. Also, have you tried talking to Fram? No discussion, no MedCab. I also think that you're over-reacting, there's not going to be any administrative dismissal here. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this situation hard to sort out. All I can say regarding the article is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. One cannot win an argument for inclusion here using their own experiences alone. That's WP:OR and unacceptable.
    While I'm here, I'd like to quote an earlier statement of yours:[5]
    "If you continue with your Belgian crusade of ruining the articles of other countries I will do whatever is in my means to have you permenantly banned from this site. Consider this a warning."
    Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You will be indefinitely blocked long before Fram if you attempt to do so. Consider that a warning. :) –Gunslinger47 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram has disrupted Wikipedia by stalking users and locking down their activity. While some of these attacks might not necessarily be baseless, the attacks against this article, including regressive and destructive reverts as well as locking to prevent any legitimate activity, only serve to demonstrate Fram's totalitarian and counter-productive attitude. By the way, when have I ever suggested "disrupting Wikipedia"? As I have said before I will go through the proper channels and protocol for resolving this issue - get your facts straight son. --DaDrought3 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of facts, you've yet to present evidence of any significant misconduct by Fram. At face value, the protection seems to have been put in place to prevent repeated addition of unsourced and dubious information. If you want the protection lifted, you'll need to resolve the ongoing dispute first. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for some assistance with that. When you've reached a consensus on the article's talk page, request unprotection at WP:RPP. –Gunslinger47 05:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually read everything in the discussion page, I have already taken steps to resolve the dispute which eventually led to a request for mediation cabal, except that they referred me to this joke of a page and basically ignored the dispute as you and ThuranX are doing now. And what do you mean by "significant misconduct"... what Fram has done over time is significantly disruptive, but evidently the effects are too spread out over time for you to comprehend the significance. --DaDrought3 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we are ignoring the details of your dispute. Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of this page? Please read the details at the top. A single protection of a page is not a significant abuse of administative power, and this is not the place to review page protection. If his alleged misconduct goes beyond just a single protection of a turbulent page, then please provide diffs as the top of the page asks. –Gunslinger47 18:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin locks a page that is subject to incessant, if not persistent, vandalism, and little else, and there's a complaint? No surprise, but also, nothing to see here. Go play more four-square. ThuranX 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that I don't play four square, and as soon as the lock expires Fram will lock it again preventing the article from ever advancing. Go bother someone else. --DaDrought3 04:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, it's simple. The kis at that school are vandalizing the page. Fram is stopping it. What's the PROBLEM? ThuranX 06:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then why doesn't he just block these kids instead locking the whole damn article... That's the PROBLEM. --DaDrought3 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NO, that's the SOLUTION. Multiple editors vandalizing one page over and over, and using IPs to do so, are handled by locking up the page in question. Everythign was handled properly. ThuranX 17:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I refused mediation concerning these ridiculous complaints. A bunch of sock- and meatpuppets is only out to cause trouble and isn't worth wasting our time. The page in question, by the way, was and is only semi-protected, which so far did its job perfectly. Fram 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosalindfranklin

    I have blocked Rosalindfranklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while we clean up the mess of WP:COI edits she has made. I would appreciate a debate on whether this shoud remain indefinite or whether it should be lifted after the cleanup is done. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with your blocking her and don't quite understand your reasoning and its relationship to COI. Is this a community policy, blocking people who create articles with which they have COIs? Did you try communicating with her? I see the comments on her talk page, but don't really understand the status of the AfD on the Jessie Penn-Lewis article, either. Oh, I see, it's a speedy. I'll just remove the tag.
    There is another editor who is writing equally dreadful, well, that would be hard, but rather extremely bad articles, who chased away offers of help to own and control the crap he's posting--but he wasn't blocked (User:Ken Birman, the guy who created the dreadful article on Virtual synchrony, which he also created, but hopefully it isn't as bad as the Wikipedia crap).
    Still, I'd just like to know what the issue is behind blocking her, simply the multiple COI articles? I don't think they were written in bad faith, and I didn't think that COI was cause for deletion (as the policy explicitly states it is not). KP Botany 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The block was instituted to stop her creating more spam links and articles copied and pasted from her own company's book blurbs, while we clean up. Spamming is a problem, we have pretty solid consensus that spammers can be shown the door. The question here is whether it's a clueless newbie or a spammer. I don't really know. Her defence of the article on her own firm was pretty vigorous. As to Birman, "virtual synchrony" (in quotes) gets 50k google hits, so there's a reasonable prospect of independent sources. Or you could AfD it. Up to you, really. Either way it's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, plenty of other crap. So the issue is spamming, not COI, then? I would appreciate if you clear that up on her talk page, and here, then, that the issue is whether or not she's spamming (she is, but sadly ineffectively because of her poor writing skills), not whether there is a COI. I would like her to be unblocked and given one more chance--with some understanding to prevent future spamming. I suspect she will not honor the agreement, but then you've clarified that spamming is the issue to her and to Wikipedia editors, and the subsequent block as a spammer will be pretty straight-forward.
    I only raise the issue with Birman, because it seems to me that unlike the Franklin case where the issue is spamming, not COI, the issue in the Birman case is most definately COI--both with ultimately one sad result for Wikipedia: crappy articles due to the COI. In Birman's case the articles do belong, but not in his shitty writing style, refusal to write for a general audience, and ownership of the articles--he actually edited back in my edits which he pissed all over, because the edits clarified the topic for a general audience. But he's made it clear he owns his articles. In Franklin's case some of the articles belong, maybe most don't, but I can't tell because the subject matter is obscure enough that there is not much on the Internet, and it doesn't appeal to me much.
    So, please consider giving Franklin a straight-forward spamming warning and one more chance after the articles are dealt with--I'm not overly invested in this, but I would appreciate it being done this way. KP Botany 20:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Killer Poet indef block

    I have to take issue with JzG's recent indefinite block of Killer Poet for having "single-purpose disruptive account." Poet had registered back in last December and made a few minor tweaks, then returned this July, when he restored spoiler warnings to a couple of dozen articles. He was promptly blocked. I believe that there are several factors that, if they do not justify his behavior, at least go toward explaining it. This is proof of edit warring, not of inability to act constructively.

    There's been a continuous debate about the use of spoiler warnings on Wikipedia for nigh on a month now, and the topic is the poster child of inciting edit wars. A total of maybe half a dozen anti-spoiler editors have declared the matter closed and removed all 45'000 spoiler warnings on the encyclopedia, most using semi-automated editing tools that would be impossible to match even if efforts to the contrary weren't promptly also removed. There's no small amount of resentment about this in an already inflamed topic, especially since this started before the now rewritten relevant guideline (currently locked down in m:The Wrong Version) sanctioned it and used tools that are forbidden to be used for "controversial edits." He was not the first, second or third editor that this goaded into trying to fix things the way removers do, and those who were, myself included, were punished lightly.

    Moreover, Tony Sidaway, anti-spoiler hardliner and the most visible member of that position has stated repeatedly that he considers the lack of reversions proof of the removals' validity; that anything less than a large-scale revolt constitutes the implicit agreement of the quiet majority. A member of this majority could feel that he'd have to act in order to show his dissent.

    Poet had no warning from an admin, only one from his opposing number in that edit war. We don't ban vandals for long periods that easily, or if we do, please tell me so that I can join in.

    Also note that this was done during a time when the guideline used as the reason for the tags' removal was under heavy dispute.

    In the name of full disclosure I'm very definitely an involved party. I've been arguing against denying our users an option which polls definitely say they use ever since this whole mess started. I do not know Killer Poet, and have had no contact with him beyond leaving a message where I offered a new userbox and asked for constructive suggestions.

    The block wasn't exactly by an uninvolved party, either. Killer Poet's user page, along with perhaps eight other ones, displays said recently created (by me, yes) userbox:

    This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

    This inspired JzG to create his own:

    This user believes that spoiler tags are a waste of space, a waste of the community's time and the foundation's server resources, and that their use generally varies between the redundant and the absurd.

    ("Server resources", minimalistic blocks of at most eight words, presently five? Never mind.)

    In the circumstances, I believe that an indefinite block is much too harsh and should be changed to one of a few days, at most, with credit for time already served. He should be clearly cautioned on unblocking to avoid future undoing sprees. If he ignores that, then consider longer-term measures. --Kizor 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. This whole Spoiler mess is boiling faster and faster. The whole 'no one reverts so we must be right' gets enforced by blocking those who revert, so that the 'no one reverts' meme can expand? Come on. That's like 1984 logic. Intimidation moves like these have been implied in this mess since the anti-spoiler side started their mass removals, and it's part of why there are so few reversions. If you revert, you will be punished, because there's consensus and the policies we edited to say so now say so, so no reverts. A bad block. ThuranX 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A dormant account which reactivates solely to participate in a battle which had pretty much ended? And we need that in what way, precisely? I woudl say that we need spoiler tag warriors about as much as we need spoiler tags in A Clockwork Orange - i.e. not at all. The point is not the sppoiler tags, it's what looks like a sleeper account reactivated solely to restart the war. And I only creatd the humorous userbox after the block and seeing the foolish "we lost the debate but we still think we are right" userbox on the user's page. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on guy, a little bit of good faith and some proof of your assertions would be good before you indefblocked someone for something as menial as disagreeing with you. This is hardly an indef blockable offence without checkuser evidence that this account is a sockpuppet being used by someone involved in the debate. Just because someone doesn't edit for a few months doesn't mean they haven't noticed the changes and disagree with them, compelling them to revert a few. (nothing near the scale of potential disruption that the mass removal caused). Unless your provide good evidence that this is actually a sock account and not just conjecture, I am inclined to shorten the block to 24 hours from time imposed (if that hasn't already been reached). In doing so I am waiting for the Wikipedia version of Godwin's Law to be called upon, with the winner being the first person to accuse me of wheel warring. ViridaeTalk 11:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't block them for disagreeing, I blocked them for pitching in and restarting a battle which was over, something which was clearly disruptive. I don't care if they are unblocked as long as they don't resume the disruption, the block was to stop the disruption. I storngly suspect that this is someone's alternate account anyway. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFCU. ViridaeTalk 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to start restoring spoiler tags, would I get blocked as well? If so, why is the 'there's a consensus because hardly anyone is restoring them' argument being used?--Nydas(Talk) 11:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd had no edits since December then suddenly piled into reinserting spoiler tags a couple of weeks after the brief battle had died down, as this person did, then yes. Like I said, the account had been dormant for some time and then resurfaced solely to make contentious edits in a war that had otherwise pretty much died out. They did not discuss any of these reversions, merely piled in and reverted the removals using the Undo tool, which suggests a degree of familiarity with Wikipedia not entirely consistent with a user with so very few edits. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But anyone that tries to restore spoiler warnings gets threatened or banned, regardless of their edit history.--Nydas(Talk) 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps because all the examples thus far have been blind reversions based on philosophical objection to the pretty solid consensus that most of the spoilers we had were either redundant or downright absurd; has anybody been threatened with a block after giving a sound rationale on the talk page and achieving consensus for inserting a spoiler tag in a specific article? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus you are talking about does not exist in any way, shape or form. We've been over this repeatedly with Tony. All your arguments revolve around you insisting that a consensus exists by using phrases of the form 'there wasn't any substantial/significant/meaningful opposition'. I have given an example where one of you overruled about twenty different people in just eighteen hours. From that, we can infer that hundreds, if not thousands, of individual editors have attempted to replace spoiler tags, only to be reverted unthinkingly. The 'debate' was totally irregular, with the TfD and MfD closed for arbitary reasons at arbitary times, straw polls starting and stopping at random, the mass removals and guideline rewrites two days into the debate, and the threats and bannings that followed.--Nydas(Talk) 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And since the onus is on the editor seeking to include content, to justify it and if disputed to seek consensus, the spoiler tags stay out. But actually I think you may be missing something: the deafening silence from the wider community may well be interpreted as consensus. It took some bold actions to remove the thousands of often ludicrous spoiler tags (nursery rhymes, ffs!) but in the end there is very very little opposition to their removal. A tiny number of holdouts still arguing long after the argument ended, whatever floats your boat really. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, these are just rehashes of the beliefs expressed earlier by Tony. You view the consensus as self-evident, despite the improper debate, the threats and the mass overriding of ordinary editors. The 'tiny number of holdouts' greatly outnumber the miniscule number of admins who implemented this policy and continue to argue that it was justified.--Nydas(Talk) 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Nydas, you would. When the removals started, there were some reverts. I can recall seeing (but not where, or by who) Re-reverts by the removing editors declaring wide consensus had been reached, and that going against consensus was to go against policy. Going against policy, of course, means getting blocked. It's why I never reverted. It was clear to me that the anti-spoiler folks, who include a number of admins, were enforcing their cabal consensus at the end of Teddy Roosevelt's big stick. You would've been blocked. that's why there's no widespread reversions going on. ThuranX 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And any further debate will result in a block, right guy? ThuranX 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course, and reversions woul have been seen as edit warring, and blocked. game, set, match. Reverting to demonstrate lack of consensus would've been called edit warring, and blocked for. Thus, no opposition can be voiced. ThuranX 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    White Dragon move page vandal/sock etc.

    There's a bit of a mess going on with White Dragon (England) that could use someone with some admin tools to sort out. It looks like earlier that it got locked with the statement "Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it." I see a User:White43 and User:White46 in the history objecting to content and being removed by other editors. Earlier today User:White46 moved the page to White43 (yes, a new article under the name of a previous editor) and then tried to create a whole new fork article at the old location. As I was trying to file a move request back, it looks like someone undid that (perhaps flipped the two articles? Because the page history that used to be on White Dragon (England) had been on White43 but is now back and the White43 article looks totally new), but now User:White46 is trying to modify the contents of the real page and is removing the speedy delete notice off the new Fork page. I suspect he's the guy the page lock was supposed to prevent from making changes, and his page move shows he was up to no good. Between not knowing how to sort it out and not having admin tools to deal with it once it is sorted out, I am handing it off to someone here. DreamGuy 23:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I sorted it out. White46 created an article called White Dragon (England), with some sort of invisible character at the end, moved that to White43, recreated the article with the invisible character at the end and vandalized the main article with an aged account to get around the semi-protection. The main article is move protected and wasn't moved. Grandmasterka 00:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good god, and he moved my speedy delete notice off the fork article to the main article... glad to see you sorted that part out. DreamGuy 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't figure out how he created that duplicate article; copying and pasting it here points to the original article. See my deletion log. Grandmasterka 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the same editor created some sort of script thing at User:White46/monobook.js that has a warning up top that says (automatically added by software once it detected it?) it could be used to try to steal accounts... This looks like some sort of hardcore nogoodnik, and any IPs he's getting in through should probably be salted. DreamGuy 00:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted that monobook. Also, this is an attempt to get the wrong account blocked. Grandmasterka 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And that magical fork article was recreated again just now. I blocked the sockpuppet and deleted the page. Any other, more technically-savvy admins than me wanna tell us what's different in the title of that article? (Again, look at my deletion log, and copying-and-pasting it doesn't work.) I can't list it at protected titles in this state. Grandmasterka 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting vandalism. Looks like the editor inserted a unicode nonbreaking space  :
    %C2%A0
    at the end of the article title. I was able to reproduce it by editing the main article, then inserting the unicode before the edit. Put
    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_Dragon_%28England%29%C2%A0
    into your browser and you should get the deleted page. Don't know what to do with this info though. — ERcheck (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added it to the protected titles page. — ERcheck (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's probably related that User:80.43.6.87 showed up after the above user was blocked to try to redirect pages that used to go to White Dragon (England) to the same name but with an extra space at the end. There have been link changes to the space version on various pages in the past... in fact it was seeing one on the Dragon (disambiguation) that got me curious about that the article in question even was and saw the shenanigans. DreamGuy 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarismn and a Rogue Editor

    For some time myself and others have been trying to deal with User: Entre-Nos and his/her unconstructive edits and repeated vandalism. He (let's assume he is a male to reduce the use of pronouns) has been extremely uncooperative with others who manage the article List of Puerto Ricans. By adding many non-notable names, changing the names of articles (for example, changing the article name for David Zayas to Dean Zayas (an unknown) and also adding the name of a West Virginian actress called Dagmar who has nothing to do with Puerto Rico, he has not stopped vandalizing the list and taking the time of many contributors who have to delete his entries or revert the article. He has broken the 3RR several times and he has been extremely angry with me since I caught him plagiarizing articles from the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture website [6]. I literally compared his original articles on unknowns Awilda Carbia and Marta Romero and noticed that word by word, they were the exact same biographies found on the website, only translated in Spanish.

    Please take a look at the discussion page of the article for more details [7].

    Here is a list of his unconstructive edits to illustrate my case:

    [8],

    Furthermore, he has created multiple sock puppet accounts User:Aquipr, User:66.82.9.92, User:69.89.38.116 to make numerous unconstructive edits and change the names of articles.

    Examples include:

    Change the article name for Millie Corretjer (singer; wife of boxer Oscar de la Hoya) to Millie Corretjer de la Hoya which is incorrect as she has always used her maiden name as her stage name. Other editors found this sexist (please see section titled "Unconstructive Edits" on article discussion page). Many editors including ad admin tried in vain to tell him to stop and cooperate to no success. He has worn my patience thin and me and the others are going this route per the suggestion of the admin. This person has made baseless claims that I am racist and rants babble on the discussion page which is getting so long other editors are complaining. I really need help here. Again the case against User:Entre-Nos is simple:

    (1) Violation of 3RR (User:Jbmurray blocked him for 48 hours)
    (2) Plagiarism of articles found on other websites (please see discussion page)
    (3) Creation of multiple sock puppet accounts (User:Entre-Nos, User:Aquipr, User:66.82.9.92, User:69.89.38.116.
    (4) Refusal to cooperate with others in determining notability of his weak articles (Many of them are tagged for deletion).
    (5) E-mailing me harassing emails that attack me. (I can forward these to you).

    Thank you for your assistance with this important request. --XLR8TION 02:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, and though I agree with much of the gist of what XLR8TION states in that it has indeed been tough to get Entre-Nos to cooperate and he has often tried my patience, I reported Entre-Nos for 3RR, rather than blocking him, plus in fact the outcome of that report was a warning rather than a block. I'm therefore striking that aspect of XLR8TION's account, above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption

    There is a little bit of what appears to be disruption over at WP:CN regarding a preferred style of indention versus bullets. Regards, Navou 02:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused by your comment, did you have a question? Navou 03:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, is there something you'd like done by an administrator? I'm assuming there's a reason you posted to AN/I... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the issue has died down. Had it continued, perhaps. But with it no longer an issue, no. Your response in the way it appeared, came across as if I were wasting your time. Regards, Navou 22:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:!Darkfire!6'28'14 Block

    These are the messages, the offensive messages were made by !Darkfire!6'28'14

    He3- 0e

    He3- 0e 5 c35c2ed 6n the Ha36 3 web c605c and 0y C60-4ter's ty-5ng 5s 0essed he3-Marioman12 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    What exctly are you trying to tell us here?

    that the Ha]0 3 web s5te's c0n/c has 0essed 4- ny c0n-4ter /'n s0rry ab04t the s-e335ng /'n d05ng the best / can Marioman12 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

    Stop with the 1337 sh17 s0 w c4n t311 wh47 ur fµ**¡ng saying you /d/07.= Stop with leet s**t so we can tell what ur fu**ing saying you idiot.

    Hey don't yell at me and thats a personal attack by the way, I was asking for help because when I clicked on the Halo 3 Webcomic half of spelling turned into numbers that was messed up and you can be a little civil from now on and Cite your name. Marioman12 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


    Marioman12 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the diff of the offending comment.[9]
    Note, incivility is not necessarily a personal attack. This is an isolated incident, and I don't see any need for action against Dark. You might want to talk to him about it on his talk page, however.
    On a related note, I've removed the entire thread from the talk page. Please refer to WP:TALK. Besides your completely illegible text (even for people familiar with Leet), I see no way that this will help improve the Halo 3 article. Uninteresting trivia on an auxiliary product. –Gunslinger47 03:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I clicked on the Halo 3 web Comic and somehow it turned my numlock on I was asking for help to fix the problemMarioman12 15:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned, please read WP:TALK. Article talk pages are to be exclusively to help improve the article. Personal queries should not be placed there. Instead, you should take your question to another site, or visit the Wikipedia:Reference desk if appropriate. –Gunslinger47 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Savage

    Resolved
     – Sock blocked

    Please see [10]. User:Vintagekits, currently under investigation for sockpuppetry, and User:One Night In Hackney have inserted/maintained (respectively) massive POV and vanity on this page relating to a member of the Irish Republican Army. Violation of IRA member vs. IRA volunteer compromise. User:One Night In Hackney engaged in vigilantism and revert warring. Remember WP:IAR.216.194.3.81 10:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Jay the Jet Plane: two pornographic vandalisms

    Jay Jay the Jet Plane has until recently been thankfully clear of vandalism.

    • At 21:29, 15 June 2007 User:Oscarchrist vandalized it by inserting a self-drawn image showing two of the story's characters in a pornographic pose.
    • At 02:31, 16 June 2007 User:66.151.22.168 vandalized it by adding a sexual remark to a description of one of the characters.

    Are these two users the same IP address? Are they sockpuppets of anyone?

    Their contribution list addresses are:-

    Anthony Appleyard 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't determine the IP, you want WP:RFCU. ViridaeTalk 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems IRC Admins still rule Wikipedia after all

    It appears that ordinary editors are not allowed to add true facts to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins - is there a reason for this. I merely improved and de POVd it a little and have been threatened with a block. Seems IRC Admins still rule Wikipedia after all. Giano 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, no Giano, you did nothing but add mega assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, insults hurled at everyone you dislike, and such gems as "As a result the channel is regarded by some editors as the Lubyanka of Wikipedia" and "However, on occasions the presence of certain admins is felt to be undesirable, on these occasions generally David Gerard will make this clear to them by terse comments or telling them directly to leave. This has happened on a number of occasions when an admin has argues a counter point to that of David Gerard or one of his friends in the channel. David Gerard controls the Arbcom mailing list, and is accordingly in close contact with members of the Arbcom. He also has checkuser access on wikipedia and is thus able to wield considerable power. Many new and inexperience admins find it useful to be friendly to him as he is a source of wise advice" in addition to the equally priceless "Interestingly, Kelly Martin is not an admin, having given up her adminship voluntarily "under a cloud", when she wished to resume it, her request was denied by the Arbcom. Her continuing presence on the Admin channel has been a source of much speculation and comment" and "The IRC fairies spends most of their time chatting on IRC making infrequent appearances on Wikipedia only when rallied by other IRC admins to add their voices to a chorus of support".
    Knock it off. Moreschi Talk 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if people take the time to read those phrases within the context in which they were written they will see there is a certain truth and wisdom to them. I'm also concerned that some of those editing that page are not observing Wikipedia's Conflict of interest code. Giano 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* I tried. If you guys all want to insist on another giant clusterfuck wheel war extravaganza, go for it. Personally, I think this is, and has been, the longest-lasting, most unproductive series of fights I've yet seen on this project. There are so many people, all of whom I consider valuable members of this outstanding community, and all of whom have better, far more important things to be doing, getting incredibly angry at each other. And what's been accomplished? Anything? Has anything changed? Is anything going to? How many people have to leave over this before we realize this fight is causing far more problems than it's solving? – Luna Santin (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The way to deal with trolling is not to revert-war. Simply ignore the troll and the thread he started.

    I'll go first. --Ideogram 12:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be one of your better ideas Ideo. Nice to see you back. Giano 12:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole IRC issue can be solved very easily by one of three means;
    1)Publish the logs so editors know nothing dodgy is going on.
    1. The IRC logs cannot be published. This is not a Wikipedia rule, it's a rule of the IRC provider. Corvus cornix 23:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So? If this is true (i believe there is dispute on that) change to another IRC provider, problem solved. Hypnosadist 09:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2)OR don't use the place to talk about editors behind their backs.
    3)OR don't get pissed at editors that believe something dodgy is going on in this private conversation because secracy erodes trust and good faith very quickly.
    Any of the above will solve this long standing problem. Hypnosadist 12:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Luna. Let it be. For the record, I had to remove the KGB reference... that's more than slightly inappropriate, IMO. I'm pretty neutral regarding the rest of it; not very subtle perhaps, but there's a certain truth to it. Riana ⁂ 12:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why what is wrong with the metaphor, both IRCadmins and the Lubyanka are place known for the cooking up of secret ways of contrlling others - or are you saying that has never happened on IRC adminsGiano 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as far as I've seen. Most of the times I've been here, the discussions have been fairly mundane, even boring. Then again, I've only been using it for the past 3-4 weeks. Maybe the "exciting" stuff happens when I'm not there. Riana ⁂ 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3 or 4 weeks you are still a newbie to the channel - you obviously have no idea what goes on there. Giano 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Compared to 0 weeks, you must be an expert. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure yout that the logs which I have seen and where my name was mentioned, were uniformly puke-provoking. I see that an increasing number of administrators view Wikipedia as a surrogate Friendster. This is regrettable, but we can do nothing about it, unless David Gerard's behaviour is investigated and the logs are made arbitrable, which appears highly unlikely, even in the long term. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have the logs - hundreds of them. Giano 12:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That may be true, Giano! However, my comment above was poorly phrased. The times I've been in there, the discussions have all been productive - productive to the point of being boring. There are a few bad apples in every basket, let us not forget that... Riana ⁂ 12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really Bad apples, well don't say that on the page concerned that has to be whiter than white. I won't be commenting for an hour now, as I expect one of the IRCAdmins is already cooking up the famous " IRC cool off block" to shut me up. What a shower. Giano 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, nobody's said anything in there for about an hour and a half. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By golly, I have a lot of logs, too. In any case, we should probably be responding to the productive posts in this thread -- specifically, Hypnosadist brought up some possible reforms. I personally think that the paranoia regarding public logging is excessive -- I can sympathize with those who worry about snippets being taken out of context, modified, or even falsified, but an authoritative log seems to resolve that well enough. Even if it's only accessible to administrators (IRC or non). There are occasional discussions which do have some legitimate need for privacy. I agree that there should be some limitation on topics of discussion, and also that the channel should not hold water in the face of on-wiki discussion or controversy -- I've seen some progress, in this regard, and I hope more will follow. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you made a bunch of bad faith accusations and you got reverted, everything seems in order here. I see a block was also threatened, yup everything seems in order. (H) 12:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet again I have been misguidedly blocked for telling the truth concerning the IRCadmin channel - but fear not I'm free again the truth will always out. Giano
    The block was absolutely inappropriate, but Moreschi also has a point. Giano, editing that holy page is like fighting a tsunami. You can't do it alone, can you? As long as mainspace editors don't have a place to hang around all day long the way non-mainspace-editors do, you will always be reverted. Even if they did have such a place for instant messaging, they would not be mainspace editors any more. Better leave it at their mercy, I think. Last year I made it clear on my user page that IRC is poison. It's the best I can do to express my opinion on the issue... as long as its discussion on the arbitrators' mailing list is bombed by the former arbitrators, that is. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that you don't refer to snide remarks that have been made on IRC about myself. Anyway, I am told that every essential issue is discussed on IRC these days, so posting on this page is pretty pointless. Whatever you say in Wikipedia does not matter as long as IRC does not approve it. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never seen any such, so no. The closest I've seen to snide remarks on irc is the occasional /me waves to matthew and DON'T BLOCK GIANO!!! running jokes. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hardly use IRC (three or four times in two years now, when I needed to ask something important on the dl), but Giano, you know exactly what you're doing, and what you're doing is deliberately causing trouble, and you know exactly what will end up happening, which makes me wonder is because you're bored - it's been at least a week since the last fuss you were involved in, or maybe you're going on holiday so it won't matter if you get blocked. Who can say. Neil ╦ 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And someone other than Luna Santin could bother to respond to my ways to stop this constant good faith draining poison on wikipedia (or more precisely OFF wikipedia) rather than just bitching about who is the most uncivil/disruptive/troll delete as appropriate. Hypnosadist 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrespective, I have protected the article for 24 hours to calm things down. Please discuss changes on the article's talk page, like everyone else has to when an edit war sparks off. I really do hope my fellow admins will show they can be grown ups and not have to edit it to get the last word in just because they can. Neil ╦ 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh look thats already happened. Hypnosadist 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the nasty little page has been protected to save it from the truth [11] Wiki-admins just cannot bear the scrutiny. How sad is that. I will see that page reflect the truth or be perma-banned so someone had better start writing the truth and fast. Giano 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And where are all the powerful gods of IRC while the minons are edit warring I wonder? Giano 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Be nice. If not for me, do it for the children. Neil ╦ 20:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a big huge conspiracy. Sean William @ 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No because conspiracy's have meetings of unkown people, behind closed doors where everything thats said is secret, hold on!20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    Picaroon was n't edit warring, Neil. Check the diffs carefully and unblock him please. Majorly (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes he was (and he accepted that on his talk page), so no, and his block expires in about 30 minutes anyway. Neil ╦ 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Warring involves repeat back and forth edits. He made one such edit, which was probably done before you protected anyway; the second was a format fix. I don't see an edit war, or any reason to block. He should be unblocked so his block log shows it was a bad block. Majorly (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the block was longer, I'd have unblocked him myself. The first edit he apparently began working on before the page was protected and saved after you had protected (and no, an edit conflict message wouldn't have popped up, I checked) and the second one was a simple |} to close the table so the page's formatting isn't screwed up, hardly a blockable offence. I assume he didn't wanna argue anymore, which is why he accepted the block. Yonatan talk 21:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (deindent) Note I did unblock him, and given the charming way he accepted it, I rather wish I had done it sooner. Neil ╦ 21:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now is David Gerard going to get a ban for editing the protected page to how he likes it? Hypnosadist 09:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well at least i know where wikipedia is now run from! Hypnosadist 08:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Giano that the logs should be open to scrutiny. If there is real-world sensitive information, it can be redacted (and probably shouldn't have been discussed on IRC anyhow, try e-mail.)Proabivouac 09:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano, I think the problem is that you wish to talk about things you have problems with related to Wikipedia's on-goings and running of the site, but have no where to vent these frustrations. As a user of the channel, I have seen times where users might have been assailed left and right (I most likely took part in these myself, so I am just as guilty as the admin to my left and right.) However, comparing the channel like KGB headquarters (Lubyanka) and to make some of the edits you did, it would be best to email them to the people who run the channel or to place them on an outside blog (like what other users have done). Just a friendly suggestion. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The latest venom from the IRCadmin channel

    Just in case anyone is wondering what the latest venom being cooked up on IRC is - here it is [12] straight from the lips of Ms Martin herself. As always completely groundless lies and proving as ever I am completely correct in my suspicion of what goes on there. Poor old Jayjg looks like the reptile pit is about to turn on him next. No doubt even as I post this "He who must be obeyed" is sounding the trumpet calling the drones away from their chatter to comment and pronounce further rubbish against me. When are people going to see what is going on there and do something about it? Giano 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh so this is how WP:CANVASS is violated, thats another piece in the puzzle.Hypnosadist 12:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They are just planning something unpleasant for Jayjg now, I expect there has been some minor squabble on the arbcom mailing list, and the knoves are out for him now - she is not supposed to see the list - but well draw your own conclusions. Giano 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, Giano. Spin it this way: You're a great editor. Your edits were amusing. And, you are one of wikipedia's better editors. Clearly from that text/blog, you weren't held as incivil or personally attacking. Thus support was just given for unblocking you.
    Now, on the other hand, discussing a non-article space block on you, on IRC, where nobody else has a chance to participate... well.. THAT speaks volumes about this problem.
    I'm also concerned that Kelly Martin is contributing in an admin channel, about blocking a user, off-wiki, where other non-admins do not have a voice. This does appear to be a serious problem. Lsi john 13:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone is welcome to talk about anything they want in any form of venue private or otherwise. The fact is that if it is not justified on wiki then it is not a valid decision. You are going to be just fine. If people talk about blocking you, it may be due to your behavior, but I assure you that any block that is given without good reason, or contrary to consensus will simply be reversed. People talk, they talk in private, nothing to do about that. (H) 13:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides that post was to a public blog for all to see and was the opinion of one person, no conspiracy there. (H) 13:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late, I don't beleive you, IRC is snake pit and we all know what goes on there, this latest assault on Jayjg is just the tip of the iceberg and to link me to it is plain pathetic, now run off back to #admins and tell it to them not is. Giano 13:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF is going on here

    Resolved
     – Closed ref tag

    See this edit section: [13] and now see the actual talk page User talk:Tigeroo. The sections at the bottom are just not appearing, despite a forced reload of the page. I reverted to that version because the user had replaced other peoples sig with their own and was about to deny the unblock request, but it just isn't visible and the sigs haven't transcluded (possibly indicating that the user didnt intentionally take over other peoples sigs, but actually managed to transclude them, essentially claiming them as his own). ViridaeTalk 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why this required admin attention but I've closed the open ref tag that caused this problem. --ElKevbo 13:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, only needed admin attention because I wanted a quick response and I was delaing with an unblokc. ViridaeTalk 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm being harassed by a Panairjdde sock

    Resolved
     – blocked. ViridaeTalk 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterday, I was trolled by two socks of community-banned user Panairjdde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Now I'm getting bugged by another one, Roadwould (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If someone would be so kind as to whack this troll, it would be appreciated.--Blueboy96 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. ViridaeTalk 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another vandal incident

    Hi guys, this shared IP address vandalised the page Assistant, 62.253.227.225/Talk. Looks like it's happened a few other times as well :) - ChrisWar666 14:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, in future you can report vandals that have received a final warning (one that mentions the possobility of being blocked if they continue to vandalise) to WP:AIV or if they haven't received a final warning, you can warn them yourself using one of the templates at WP:UTM. ViridaeTalk 14:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurdistan Workers Party

    A user, Qwl (talk · contribs), is repetitively removing sourced material despite being told not to. In the process he is also engaging in personal attacks. -- Cat chi? 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    I have dropped a 3RR warning template on the editors talkpage. Any other infractions, please come back. If you want the personal attacks reviewed, please provide diffs. LessHeard vanU 16:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I already have. "re u terrorist? this is a propanda. wikipedia refuse it" and "yes u r!! that news are not approved! and thats a propagada. not belong here" are directed at me/my reverts he disagrees with. Although I do not care much about personal attacks, I feel they should be discouraged on every opportunity. -- Cat chi? 16:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    I apologise, I had not realised that those edit summaries were personal attacks. I thought they referred to the disputed content only. If this editor recommences reverting again (although technically outside the 24hours) he may be blocked if he uses a similar edit summary as a WP:NPA violation anyway. LessHeard vanU 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WFAA-TV- suspicious accounts

    At the article: WFAA-TV, This edit has been a theme from multiple SPA's.

    I started watching the article when it came up on AN3RR.

    The following users have been involved in the reverting: User talk:Puttputtdude, Texastechfan, and User talk:Bobknight880

    I'm not sure what the correct course of action is, but these accounts do seem to be connected.

    (I'm also not familar with the policies for TV station articles.)

    Could someone look into this? Thanks. Lsi john 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone check those accounts/IPs for socks? Or tell me the correct place to post this problem? Thanks. Lsi john 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tuskjet

    It seems that Tuskjet (previously 166.121.37.12 and perhaps others too) can't wait for his block to finish, and so has reinvented himself as Fortress of the universe. I haven't prolonged the block on Tuskjet (which he used to plonk a lengthy copyvio on his own user page and to redirect his user talk page to Jesus), but I permabanned Fortress. Tuskjet's block will soon end, and I will soon go to bed. Experience suggests that while I'm asleep Tuskjet will have more "fun". (Or do I here fail to "AGF"?) Any time you see User:Dismas being redirected to Satan, or overwritten with some very <big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big> text, you're probably seeing this person at work. -- Hoary 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-blocked Tuskjet for a week. Grandmasterka 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Permablocked "Pocket tissue paper". -- Hoary 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clay Aiken

    In the article for singer Clay Aiken I have entered (and cited) information regarding several controversies he was indirectly involved with. One topic was Rosie O'Donnell's tirade against Kelly Ripa when Clay tried to cover her mouth. Ripa as everyone knows remove his hand and O' Donnell labeled this homophobic (in reference to the lingering question on his unpublicized sexuality). [14] There are several other controversies that are not listed in this article, and it is apparent that his die-hard fans called Claymates are deleting this information, which is censorship. User:Triage stated his/her reasons for deletion as having to deal with " "rv to version agreed on due to Bio of Living Persons concerns," but this information has been well publicized and should be included in this article. I see it as a Conflict of Interest that his fans are committing acts on censorship to protect him, and to me that is simply wrong. The information I've entered does not slander nor reveal personal information that can be used by someone to harm him. Simply it should be included in the article as the article already contains citations mentioning the incident, but simply no text relating to the incident. Is there anyway someone can help here? --XLR8TION 15:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't a discussion on the "Talk" page of the article a good first step when there is a disagreement among editors? Instead you go straight for ANI? I see you have left a notice on the BLP noticeboard as well. If you look at the history of the article, you will see that the controversies you think should be there were not deleted by the so-called Claymate (barf) editors, but by other Wikipedia editors who have rarely or never edited the entry before or since, following an AfD. See [15], [16], [17], [18], and especially [19]. See this comment on Ken Arromdee's page by me following the deletions: [20]. -Jmh123
    yeah, total over-reaction. Discuss first. It looks like there was a lengthy debate about this very topic months ago, when it occurred. Although the section might need a review to edit out any accidental 'recentisms' (though I saw nothing egregious at a glance), adding Rosie O'Donnell's big mouthed demands for more attention hardly seems encyclopedic. She says something about everythign in the hopes for air-time and headlines. Big deal. Move on. ThuranX 18:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Malfunctioning bot — Shadowbot3 (talk · contribs)

    Probably more a matter for the bot's keeper, but seeing as this bot does a lot of archiving of stuff on the WP namespace, it might be worthwhile adding here. >See here<

    Blocked. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Arkalsi5 creating hoax pages

    Immediately after coming off a temporary block, Arkalsi5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created the blatantly hoax article Titanic Hotel and removed the AfD notice on Saskatoon Heros, an article he also created which appears to be a hoax as well. He's also vandalized Nintendo, List of Animal Crossing characters, and Treehouse TV. He appears to be an unrepentant vandal; could he be blocked again? He's been warned before on his talk page, so I wasn't sure if I should add another warning. --Charlene 22:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    People like this need to be blocked indefinitely the first time. I've done the honors. Grandmasterka 22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbanning

    (post by banned user removed)

    Hi Light Current. Perhaps if you would promise to stop trolling all the time we might really decide to unban you. The Evil Spartan 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Emergency - rollback tool please ASAP

    See Image:Man masturbates.jpg - which has countless links here vandalism. Someone please help! The Evil Spartan 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, the vandalism was at {{Infobox Boxer}}. Maybe we could get this semi-protected? The Evil Spartan 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Er, I did the rollback as requested. Is it okay now? (I'm not seeing any difference).LessHeard vanU 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All is good now. The Evil Spartan 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did it. Sorry. Was very childish of me. Won't happen again. 87.112.87.193 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't. Thank God I didn't pull this page up like I normally do in the library. The Evil Spartan 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've issued the user a level 4 warning just in case. -N 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haelstrom

    Resolved Resolvedblocked for 24h by User:Nishkid64. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haelstrom is on something of a "ignore all Wikipedia rules" tear and being highly disruptive. He is also ignoring (and reverting) all warnings, including final warnings. User:Yamamoto Ichiro suggested I report him here, after listing him on WP:AIV. --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    JJH1992 (talk · contribs)

    Resolved Resolved

    I reported this to AIV, but was informed to bring it here.

    *JJH1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive user; continues to change infobox and section formats without discussion and against consensus. User has been blocked multiple times in the past for doing this. Other users and I have tried talking user but he refuses to discuss and ignores messages on his talk page. Acalamari 23:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    *:this is not an obvious vandal, and therefore this should be taken to WP:ANI. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now I know that AN/I is not for content disputes, but this isn't a content dispute; it's about disruption. If you see his most of his recent contributions, he has continually been changing infobox and section formats without consensus. I, and other users, have tried to talk to this user but he ignores us. From his block log, he has been blocked five times. What should be done about him? Even administrators, including ShadowHalo and Mel Etitis, have tried to talk to this user but he continues to disrupt. Should he be blocked again? As I said, I've tried talking, and I've given him links to follow, but nothing works. Acalamari 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked for 48 hours, the user has had plenty of warnings and 4 previous blocks for exactly the same thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't edited since this report, so I don't see an imminent need to block. Maybe you can pursue dispute resolution of some sort? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it's been going on for days, coupled with blocks for exactly the same reason previously, hence the block this time. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block came while I was writing my comment, and I have no objection to it. It was a toss up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've repeatedly warned this user about this, so I'm going to up the block to a month - he has a bad habit of coming back from a block, and immediately edit-warring on infoboxes again, on the exact same pages. I would have caught him this time if I hadn't made the mistake of thinking he had stopped and so had removed the pages from my watchlist. If he does this once more, I move for permanent ban. Adam Cuerden talk 02:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SadMinge

    Resolved Resolved

    According to WP:AIV SadMinge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not an obvious vandal and needs to be reported here.—eric 00:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked as a vandal only account, plus they have rather a questionable username. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His talk page was confusing though, took a while to figure it out. For a while I thought it was a compromised account. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Light current (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Look at the histories, interests, and account creation times of SadMinge (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and PotStirrer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure that was Light current based on the pages attacked, and his previous block log. KOS | talk 00:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
    Just blocked BulkEraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a light current sock. KOS | talk 00:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I need to get some uninvolved administrators looking at this quickly, please. There's been a dispute going on on Talk:Therianthropy for a couple of days now over whether an external link to the WikiFur wiki fits the criteria of the WP:EL guideline, with User:DreamGuy arguing that EL absolutely forbids it and a number of other editors arguing that it's actually fine under the existing guidelines. Serpent's Choice came in and tried to offer his view on the situation (at Talk:Therianthropy#WikiFur link and WP:EL) and in the process pointed DreamGuy to a list of other articles with WikiFur links, at [21]. DreamGuy has commenced the mass removal of these links. I really don't want to get anyone banned, but is there any way this can be stopped while the dispute's unresolved? DreamGuy doesn't appear to even admit that there is a dispute here. I fear this is going to spread flames all over the place. DreamGuy's contribution list: Special:Contributions/DreamGuy. Bryan Derksen 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has just been warned; if it continues after the warning I will block. DGG 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I forgot to mention that the discussion had just been started at Wikipedia talk:External links#Wikifur as well, but DreamGuy started removing links less than ten minutes later so there wasn't much there anyway. Bryan Derksen 00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, and then removed 1 hour later as a trial to see if similar editing resumes. DGG 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    attack on australian academics

    User:ExtraDry has placed a serious of AfDs and now speedy tags against an increasingly eminent series of Australian vice-Chancellors. [22] ,[23], and now a speedy A7 on the most eminent of them Gavin Brown [24]. with obviously major awards and honours They are all being increasingly quickly closed at AfD. this is disruptive editing, but I do not want to take action because I have been involved in defending these articles. DGG 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the new account of User:DXRAW, who made several disruptive AfD nominations in the past such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimania and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote (also included Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikijunior, Wikibooks and Wiktionary). One Night In Hackney303 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The name ExtraDry indicates he is probobly Asutralian, refering to Tooheys Extra Dry. ViridaeTalk 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is. The account was created on the same day as DXRAW was temporarily blocked back in January, yet the first contrib wasn't until 06:21, 28 May 2007 conveniently just after DXRAW left around 10:15, 27 May 2007. There's frequent contribs to Newington College, just as DXRAW used to to, and it's also been mentioned by an IP editor. One Night In Hackney303 01:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about his or her other activities, but I've had Newington College watchlisted for long enough to know DXRAW's editing pattern. And ExtraDry's editing pattern on the Newington article is identical to DXRAW's. --ElKevbo 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why am i being told that i will be blocked for disruptive editing? The 3 articles that i tagged were unsourced how do we know that the major awards and honours are true, Anybody can edit that why is why they need sources, Anyway if the purpose of this page is to attack and upset me then it has worked. I have used another account before but i am not dxraw. ExtraDry 09:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    **Comment. ExtraDry summed up the policies excellently. Under WP:PROF he doesn't meet 1) isn't an expert in any field 2) isn't regarded as important by others in his field 3) no significant works published 4) no significant body of work 5) hasn't originated a new concept, and 6) the only award received is the centenary medal. Under WP:BIO, has no independent non-trivial secondary sources. As I said above, the only independent source is an interview given by him to the ABC. Apart from those problems, I agree that this should be closed as a keep, as I reckon it would be a nice article to have in Wikipedia even though it doesn't comply with the guidelines. Assize 12:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

    This was taken from [25] ExtraDry 13:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Springbob Squirepants

    Heads up: Springbob Squirepants (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is autoblocked as a consequence of a checkuser block by dmcdevit that expires 2007-09-08T03:23:17. He started putting edit requests on his talk page because he can't edit while blocked. Of course blocked users don't have the privilege of a dedicated editing force of admins. I have protected his user talk page for two days. I do not believe an unblock or unprotection would be appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    edit-warring duo

    Resolved Resolved

    I bring to the attention of administrators, 2 edit-warring ideological trolls - Bakasuprman and Anwar saadat. For more than one month, these 2 have been revert-warring with each other (without any earnest effort at discussion or dispute resolution) and with other editors - violating WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:POINT and gaming WP:3RR by conveniently spacing out their reverting over 24 hours. As a result, they have converted the following articles into battlefields:

    I request administrators to take definitive action, as both Anwar saadat and Bakasuprman have a long history of disruptive edit-warring. The latter is an involved party in the on-going Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 with me, which is why I can't take action myself. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 01:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I already warned both of them last time this was on ANI two weeks ago (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar, for example). I admit I haven't really kept an eye on the conflict since that night, but the amount of continued warring since then is unacceptable. It's probably time for a block. Dmcdevit·t 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested page protection on a couple of the articles. Perhaps this will encourage use of the article talk page. Regards, Navou 02:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (lol) I have already protected Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham, Idolatry and Persecution of Christians. The result on the latter two has been the immediate resumption of hostilities after protection expired. No, I agree with Dmcdevit that a strong block needs to be imposed - both these editors are experienced, disruptive trolls. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 02:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I are in agreement also, however, I lack the technical ability. Navou 02:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the amount of problems, and given Dmcdevit's warning, I'm going to block both for a week. Adam Cuerden talk 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I just did. Circeus 03:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well. Still, problem resolved! Let's hope they calm down a bit on return. Adam Cuerden talk 03:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LightAudit only here to cause problems?

    I'm unsure about the presence of this user. It looks like he's only here to vandalize and mock me based on his contributions. The user page is a carbon copy of mine, still linking to my talk page and sandbox. I'm loath to just storm right in there and remove those links, but if I must, I must. DarkAudit 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indefblocked.Do you want me to delete-protect his user page?
    If you would be so kind, please and thank you. DarkAudit 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Query

    I've created the sock account User:Adam Cuerden 2 for use when not at home - I don't trust internet cafés to be all that secure, and if I get hacked, I'd rather not give them an administrator account.

    I've added a clear note saying what I'm doing to both user pages. Is there anything else I need to do? Adam Cuerden talk 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably the wrong forum to discuss this, but your sockpuppet isn't a doppelganger account (these are used to stop impersonation - I could register User:x42bn7 which would be a doppelganger account). Just saying it is a legitimate sockpuppet for security issues is good enough, in my opinion. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll lose that template and just link. Adam Cuerden talk 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What you have done seems adequate. I'm sure everyone appreciates the notice here. Accounts of that sort are explicitly acceptable per WP:SOCK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to hear! Just, while it says it's allowed, it's not very explicit about how to declare the connection, so thought I'd best check. Should throw together a template or something. Adam Cuerden talk 03:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fight the urge to templatize – a simple user page notice will be clear to anyone who gives even a shallow look. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits Talk:Ezhava an flare up cast riot India

    I am in suspicion that IP anons (219.64.151.135, 125.99.225.216, 219.64.185.7) are beginning to intrude on talk pages on users about cast rioting in India and attacking User:Ved036 as if he continues write against our community (revision showing suspicion of personal harassment to Ved036). — N96 (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would block for the death threat [54] if I was an admin. — Moe ε 06:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Salting of Joel Hayward

    Could I suggest that Joel Hayward be salted - the article has been speedied twice in the last few days? Addhoc 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFP may be better. FunPika 12:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It's been speedied thrice, by the way. Did the same user create it, however? I'd recommend blocking the user (if it's the same) for 3 days, and if he persists, indef-block him. Why I don't recommend salting is because there might be a notable Joel Hayward out there, so it might be inconvinient for another user to salt it. Evilclown93(talk) 12:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's now on deletion review. Basically, it perhaps can be rewritten - just cite your sources properly, damnit! Moreschi Talk 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    La Parka Your Car

    I have blocked La Parka Your Car (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock of JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). From an email I received today:

    The account has made over 2,000 edits so far, and there's plenty that make it pretty clear it's him. However there's two cast-iron examples.
    http://www.socaluncensored.com/board/showpost.php3?p=99228&postcount=48
    Read that forum post where he admits adding fake championships to articles, which he did with many previous throwaway socks. Now look at these edits from his current sock:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chris_Hero&diff=136450086&oldid=136277261
    They won no such title.
    Ditto for this edit.

    I believe this. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Panairjdde is harassing me again

    Now it's Routesteep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Somebody please rangeblock this troll ... I don't want to have to semi-protect my talk page, but if it's to keep this guy from trolling I may have to. Blueboy96 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just asked him to avoid writing lies about me. Is writing false statements a good thing here?--Routesteep 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=138762073"