Hosta

User:Malamockq has been deleting comments from myself and other users on the the talk page for XM8. Please note the following: [1], [2], [3]. He has also been adding inappropriate content in the form of original research: [4], [5], [6], and this one where he deletes somebody elses comment (maybe his own sock puppet) and adds his comment: [7]. He is warned here: [8], and here: [9], [10], and [11], but refused to heed the warnings. I'd like him to stop removing others comments and I'd like the Talk page reverted so his original research and forum-style discussions are gone IAW WP:forum. --Asams10 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Malamockq for 31 hours for incivility (review welcome). I saw no point in warning or commenting on their disruptive editing, given the attitude/responses previously. As regards the talkpages, I suggest finding consensus over what should and shouldn't remain and edit accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this block. I don't see any evidence of incivility from M; I could point you at several clear examples from Asams10. A complains about M removing comments but somehow omits to mention that he too has been removing comments. The complaints about OR, in that they refers to talk not articles, appear unmerited. M should be unblocked. Both M and A should be admonished for petulance over the talk page deletions. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, since the edit that cut it for me was the one posted to your talkpage, particularly the last sentence. I thought that that post was typical of most of the exchanges by this editor, no discussion regarding replacing a question that appears to have been answered previously, speculation, and a lack of civility. For the record I have also requested the views of User:Stephan Schulz, who Malamockq mentions as being familiar with the situation. If his view coincides with that expressed by you then I am content for the block to be undone - unless you feel it appropriate to undo now (proceeding as if it were a regular unblock request). As for Asams10's possible edit warring, if someone wants to post a few diffs then an admin may review them and comment/action as appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, In that case I'm going to unblock M, since it looks like S is out at the moment William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC). Too late. Its expired. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fucking ridiculous. I've complained about this again and again: will anyone listen? Just as Satanic ritual abuse is finally starting to make some progress, single-purpose account Abuse truth jumps in with more tendentious reverts and talkpage disruption to waste the time of the users who are actually fixing the page. Methinks a page-ban is needed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a gentle warning on the user's talk page at User talk:Abuse truth. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll need a bit more than that. This has been up at FTN twice, AN once - every time the contributions of Abuse truth are highlighted, every time we all agree there's a problem - and yet nothing happens. Now something finally has happened: the SRA article has been massively improved by recent contributions and yet Abuse truth continues to try to derail the process. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a variety of editors who might be interested in this entry, but I'm wary of ganging up on AT and the strong POV of the skeptical disputants may over-ride the good that AT can do on the very limited number of pages they edit. AT does have a very strong POV and only edits towards that POV, but is always within the letter of civility, if not the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. I'll admit the strong desire to indulge in a little incivility, and I have stepped beyond what I consider politeness. However, AT's polite ignoring of other editor's substantive comments and posting of over-long, sometimes irrelevant replies is sandpaper to my delicate sensibilities. Broader input from the community would probably be a good thing. One thing AT does bring to the project is a knowledge of the more...credulous literature and contributors and there is serious discussion of SRA in reliable sources that would not be included in the page were it not for AT and a minority of other editors. WLU (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a 1RR/day or 1RR/week limitation? Then Abuse Truth would need to engage and obtain consensus for his/her proposed edits. If the disruption is limited to the talk page, then options would include a complete talk page ban (the most drastic), versus limiting him to 1 talk page post per day (as was done with GordonWatts (talk · contribs)) or assiduously removing any posts which violate the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option? That's a good option. AT does not disrupt talk pages by the way, AT is very, very polite. They're just long posts that don't really address the reasons why people are reverting. Often it comes down to a simple 'I disagree' and a page revert. I will admit that some of AT's comments deserve answering (or used to, they're mostly spurious in my mind these days) and I make an effort to try to address them when brought up (if I think they have merit). But I find the reverts never actually have a good reasoning behind them and AT does not (in my memory) revert more than once per day. Engagement with the community is usually very limited - no postings on any of the AN or DR pages that could a) help if AT has a point or b) conclusively state that AT is wrong in conclusions or interpretation of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WLU (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree that the SRA page is currently making progress. Certain recent edits have been made without consensus, including the deletions of large amounts of data on the page. At times, I have restored the data deleted w/o consensus. IMO, the real reason I am being attacked here is because of my POV. It is not a skeptical one. Certain editors find this problematic and have decided to try to limit my ability to edit. Normally I do not leave more than one talk page comment per page per day anyway. I also disagree that I have ignored the reasons people revert on the talk pages. I have tried to respond to all comments and have explained my edits throughly on the talk pages. Other editors simply revert my changes and do not even explain themselves. But they are editors coming from a skeptical position, so IMO they are not held accountable. IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics. This shows in the way reliable sources are treated. Those with a skeptical view are accepted rather quickly, regardless of quality. Those that may back the existence of SRA, etc. are subject to harsh criticism and often deleted w.o consensus.

This is also shows up in the way certain editors such as myself are treated. Abuse truth (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreschi, I completely agree. Fucking ridiculous. I have blocked this querulous warrior for WP:TRUTH, you are free to set an expiry time if you like but I don't see much chance of change. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Moreschi and Guy, and I fail to see what all the fuss is about - the username alone rings several alarm bells. Will ^(talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT, we have tolerated your POV for MONTHS. None of the involved editors or admins have blocked, or suggested a block. It was all independent. You are not being crucified, perhaps consider taking some of the reams of advice handed out to you over the past months and weeks. The accusation of bias is laughable, insulting and reeks of the abuse of good faith.

New discussion - can anyone with the word 'truth' in their name be automatically blocked, unless it's meant to be ironic? Seems like it would save time. I'm sure WP:V applies somewhere : ) WLU (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics." —AT

I have explained to you, AT, and the other pov pusher in SRA talk page that child abuse is my specialty. However, it is unwise to swallow extreme claims such as the "Satanic" abuse of children.

• "This shows in the way reliable sources are treated." —AT

It has been pointed out to you that no sociology or criminology peer-reviewed journal endorses SRA claims. If the criterion of limiting the article exclusively to peer-reviewed literature were used in this article, it would become far more skeptical than its present incarnation.

Finally, AT, I also hold a most strong "pov" and "truth" stance, as anyone who take a look at my user page can see. But presently I refrain myself from using WP to push my pov in the way you do. Listen to WLU: verifiability, not truth; and change you user name and your behavior.

—Cesar Tort 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The user seems completely unable to understand the problem (which is, of course, largely why the problem exists). He's now asking to be unblocked so he can change his username, because he thinks the username is the problem, rather than simply being the kind of username that problem editors so often choose. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT's been very good at civilly acknowledging that a point has been written, while totally missing the substance of the point. Months of patient comments, pointing to policy and advice has led absolutely nowhere. I have seen no progress towards behavior that is in line with the community at large or overall purpose of the project, just a relentless trudge along the same POV-pushing path. WLU (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request review of indef block

• For reference: Abuse truth (talk · contribs) per discussion above.

I request the indef block of this user be reviewed and reversed. The block is unfair, was done without warning, without a series of shorter blocks, and does not follow process-based community action in Wikipedia.

This is nothing like the extreme disruption that justified the recent blocks of multiple pro-pedohile activist editors without warnings. With the pedophile activists, there was a huge disruption by a group of people that went on for months before several of them eventually were blocked. Even in that situation, there was controversy about the blocks, and it became a matter for ArbCom.

This is a totally different situation. User:Abuse truth does not deserve an indef block and I request that the block be reversed.

Yes, he/she edits only a certain range of articles, and yes, the user's name implies a certain POV. However, the editor is more civil than most, and brings many references. Sometimes, too many sources perhaps, but that's better than not enough, and in particular his/her editing does not consist of simply re-writing sections without references, and s/he does participate in talk page discussions about the content.

Also, and importantly, those articles involved bring out strong POV editing in many editors, and not only among editors, but even in the scientific research and published papers and books there are POV battles including scientists and activists. This is not just about Satanic ritual abuse, but a range of articles relating to Child sexual abuse, including Repressed memory, Recovered memory therapy and others.

It's a difficult ongoing process to find ways of getting to NPOV on those topics, when the literature and editors have polarized viewpoints. To let the process work, we need people from both sides of the debate to work on the articles. The fact that some editors may be getting frustrated with the work does not mean that the process is not working OK.

I concur with User:WLU, at 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) that more input on the articles from a wider base of editors would be helpful. These are content disputes, perhaps WP:RFC would be a good idea.[reply]

This block should be lifted. The user was not even warned at all. If someone has a problem with a user, there are processes for that, such as WP:RFC/U that were not followed here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I said this, the only real advantage to having AT on any page is the addition of a blatant single side of an argument, at the expense of having to triage sources, review and dig up counter sources. Sure, the page improves, but at the expense of tremendous aggravation. The pages would benefit from knowledgeable editors willing to add both sides of the debate. AT does not do this. WLU (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with block of at least one week, although I think "indef" may be too long, and an indef article-space ban until he provides evidence of reform. On the contrary (to Jack), he was warned many times that some specific actions of his were inappropriate and violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. He wasn't warned specifically for WP:TRUTH violations, but many of his clear violations involving misquoting sources, using self-published sources by self-proclaimed experts, inserting extensive quotes from sources which didn't support his article text, adding references to Elizabeth Loftus which are (claimed to) discredit her theories, etc., which all fall under WP:TRUTH violations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for concurring that indefinite is too long. About the warnings, I meant only that no warning was placed on his/her page indicating that if s/he did not stop, there would be a block and especially, nothing about the possibility of an indef block - at least, not that I saw.

I did see that there were improvements in the user's behavior over time. For example, instead of repeated reverting, AT has brought sections and references to the talk pages in recent weeks. I did not see blatant mis-quoting of sources, though it might have happened. If so, that needs to be addressed of course, but there are procedures for that, like RFC for consensus, or RFC/U; to allow other editors to offer feedback for the user to learn and change.

Regarding the content issues such as reliability of sources, those are complex. Elizabeth Loftus for example is a controversial researcher and there are many who have, as you wrote, "(claimed to) discredit her theories". Some of those who have done so are WP:RS. Maybe the way this user went about including that information was not quite on track, but criticism of Loftus are appropriate, with proper sources, because that criticism and controversy is WP:Verifiable and goes to NPOV. I'm just using Loftus as an example, of course.

My point is that there is a content dispute happening in these articles that extends beyond this one editor. If we lose this editor, we lose part of the process of finding NPOV through consensus. For the content dispute, the path to resolution is RFC, and I don't think that's been tried yet. If there were enough editors chiming in to create a real consensus, then it would be more obvious if one person were trying to go against consensus. Those articles need that kind of attention anyway. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I want to clarify that i don't know this user other than by seeing the editing and talk page comments. I'm advocating for a review and unblock because I believe from what I've seen that the user is a good-faith editor and is willing to learn and improve. This is shown by the user's clear statement of intent to change and learn in his/her unblock request. That is a very different response than many blocked users who become angry; here we have someone who wants to cooperate and learn, that is exactly the right response to this kind of challenge.

I hope that an administrator will accept the user's promise and execute an unbolock. It will be a loss for Wikipedia if this hard-working editor is lost, and, it will have been done outside of established procedures, without formal process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an unblock with an indefinite article-space ban, with AT agreeing to the ban explicitly on his talk page before the unblock. He's misinterpreted too many statements which seem clear to me, for anything less than a "signed" statement to convince me he's willing to follow the rules. It should be pointed out that, as I've interacted with him, it would be inappropriate for me to unblock. I'd also ask for comments from the blocking admin as to whether this would seem appropriate to him.

As for Loftus, my concern is that, as her theories have separate pages, references discrediting those theories should only appear on the pages for those theories. That's another failing AT has exhibited; placing his reference on any pages loosely related, while it's clear to me that they should only appear on the articles which are most relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion above, I'd accept an indefinite 0RR in article-space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to accept a reduction of the user's block. But those conditions are too strong. This is not an ArbCom case where long-term user sanctions are decided, or even an RFC/U with evidence from both sides and comments from a wide range of editors. This was a single, overly speedy, overly punitive action by one administrator, without a fair hearing.

The block is unfair and should be reversed. The editor is now on notice, as a result of this situation, so there is nothing to be lost by unblocking. If the editor does not learn and change as s/he has promised to do, then further procedures or blocks can follow.

Strong santions should not be applied unilaterally to any user without a fair and transparent hearing process. That's what dispute resolution and arbitration is for. If those steps are skipped when something is not an emergency, that is a degradation of community and is bad for everyone who edits Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I just wrote in AT's talk page, perhaps a compromise solution between Jack-A-Roe and other editors and admins is viable? I am still very, very skeptical that AT has understood the issues that led to his block (though I might be wrong of curse). —Cesar Tort 02:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the debate there is that he simply doesn't understand what he's doing wrong. Blocks are preventive, I blocked to prevent further disruption, and an unblock can be considered once the chance of disruption is known to be reduced. Step one along that path is for the user to understand the problem, but we haven't reached step one yet. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since AT is blocked and cannot respond here, please see the user's new post on the talk page discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user's new post on the talk page discussion is typical. He still doesn't get it that (1) placing long lists on a main article, and in this case of dubious cases in which the "Satanic" element was purportedly present, is against policy; (2) he still believes that Noblitt's (who seems to believe in the lunacy in Michelle Remembers) self-published text is a RS; (3) he does not regret his endless reverts on the previous point but continues to justify this behavior; (4) he is still not embarrassed for pushing the extreme fringe pov of the issues that Michelle Remembers rises, and (5) he still continues to regard his previous edit wars as "heroic for standing up for our [his and Rubin's] beliefs". —Cesar Tort 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This amounts to "please unblock me because I can state my fringe POV at incredible length without being rude at all". We appreciate that, but it doesn't exactly help. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination) is a second time AFD nomination that is getting an extremely high amount of meatpuppetry. I would not mention now, except that I can't keep up with tagging the spa's every time one comes along. I also cannot find the site on the internet where this might be advertised. In any case, he may be notable, but it would be nice of a) an administrator could lock down the page to new accounts, or b) an administrator could evaluate the notability, and close the AFD. It's probably worth noting that the google search seems to be malfunctioning and not coming up with enough hits for him (can't figure out why). The Evil Spartan (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not MEATpuppetry, look at the writing style, it's SOCKpuppetry. I'd wager it's the subject of the article, in fact, given the accolades heaped upon the subject in each keep vote. Should a Checkuser and block be done? ThuranX (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article, and then its talk page, was recreated in various forms throughout today, and has now been salted. Black Kite 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego — Scientizzle 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You will now be pleased to note that it has gone to deletion review, and the circus has come back to town. --Haemo (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the link. Some of them have been arguing with me on my talk page about it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{

Resolved

 – Simple mistake, easily explained, apology offered.

Prodego released my private email address during a heated discussion for no apparent reason. This email was privy to the aforementioned mailing list members, but was made public, for no apparent reason. I am asking for administrative review because this email was privately disclosed to the aforementioned list. My email is private; but no longer. It uses my first name, and the domain I own. It is enough information to get my home address, phone number, and any other registrant information. Regardless of my feelings about the 'private' list, I see this as the worst type of personal attack. Why was my personal email, entrusted with this list, posted publicly? Is this a retaliation for publicly admonishing this list? the_undertow ^talk 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS? John Reaves 12:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this complaint is because the_undertow is upset because there were complaints coming from an email recieved at unblock-en-l because a user was upset at being blocked with the summary "vandalism: teh sucks" (we're not here to have a laugh at the expense of users we block) - If there's a real issue here, why publicise it on a high traffic page? Ryan Postlethwaite 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sidetrack this. I want to know if there was justification for posting my email address. (PS. The user was NEVER upset about the edit summary - that was an outright lie), and admissions are here, Ryan. This is a real issue, and I would appreciate if you would do your research instead of assume and throw this off topic. Your omnipresence here is appreciated only predicated on the fact that you actually do read your cursory reviews in their entirety. the_undertow ^talk 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing has gotten surreal. The concerns on the list were raised and the decision was made to contact you with the intent of voicing those minor concerns and has just spiraled completely out of control. The unblock list isn't a secret cabal nor are we sitting around complaining about you. And seriously, if you felt the email address was a major issue, you'd have deleted the edit, not come wave it around ANI. -M^ask? 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I delete the edits? The issue is not my privacy, it's the posting of my address. If I deleted the edits, it would be only available to the admins, who posted my address in the first place. This isn't surreal. It's quite real. Please make it clear that you are from the list as well, as that would help to clarify certain motives. the_undertow ^talk 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This complaint is without merit. It is perfectly plain from the context that Prodego was simply attempting to confirm that he'd sent the message to the right address, this is absolutely not a case of outing or abuse. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how confirmation works? Should I post your home address to confirm that you received the Valentine's card I sent? The answer is no. Any person with any tact, or an IQ of at least 85 would ask, 'did you get the email I sent?' the_undertow ^talk 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guy, it is pretty obvious, that Prodego indeed revealed The_undertow's private email address to the public. @AKMask Yes, the unblock list is indeed secret as there is a selected readership and no public archive. --Raphael1 14:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's private because we deal with sensitive subjects, people have a right not to have their IP, name, and email all linked together for anyone to see. Private != secret cabal. We aren't hiding up in the tree fort dangling a rope ladder just out of reach, we're just helping out users. -M^ask? 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven's you just insinuated in your previous post, that publishing the email address isn't "a major issue"? What is it now? Do people have a right not to have their username and email linked together for anyone to see, or not? --Raphael1 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing of the sort, I said linking ip, email, names, and other information that frequently flows in is not something that should be available to every random person. You'd be surprised at the amount of phone numbers people provide for contact, for example. It's not any one piece of information, like an email address, but the totallity of whats provided. That said, I don't disagree that posting his email was a mistake, it was. But it was an honest one, i dont see any malicious intent, and this could have been handled quickly and quietly if the user in question wanted it to have been. -M^ask? 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Raphael1 is just upset that he wasn't allowed subscription. John Reaves 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that your comment may constitute a personal attack or at the very least be incivil, and that it would be best to apologize and bring down the temperature of the discussion, no? M1rth (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you found ANI on your 7th day here and are already imparting your sage wisdom...John Reaves 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this right below my request for assistance creating a request for comment, above. Please remain WP:CIVIL. Thanks. M1rth (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think posting the e-mail address was a dumb mistake, not an attack, and the edit should be oversighted and Prodego should apologize. I also don't see why an admin in good standing should be denied subscription to unblock-en-l. What is the rationale there? If there is a problem with the way he does things, raise it on-wiki so it can be addressed. Blocking him from the list doesn't change his ability to unblock with "vandalism = teh sucks" edit summaries. If the purpose of restricting access is to protect private information, isn't it ironic that in the course of restricting access private information was divulged? Admins are trusted members, and we have already seen what happens when closed mailing lists with restrictive access requirements above and beyond being a trusted member of the community engage in activity that results in a dispute. Avruch ^T 16:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a mistake. A simple one and probably not even obvious until pointed out. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the point is that there was a "consensus" reached on this list that a block summary which read "vandalism: Really teh suck" was inappropriate. It was taken to the_undertow's talk page where he was told of this consensus. He acknowledged his mistake and said he wouldn't do it again, while also voicing his objection to these mailing lists. One-by-one the members of the mailing list started flowing in. Prodego knowingly lied about the situation, stating the user was offended when, in fact, the user probably didn't even notice. The_undertow then attempted to join the list to read the thread and Prodego declined his request. It is at that point that Prodego posts the_undertow's email on his talk page. First, the email didn't bounce back to him, so it's good. Second, he could have simply stated that he sent the emails to the address used to register for the list. There was no reason to post his email. There's a reason our wikipedia email doesn't disclose our email addresses and a reason we have to use special formatting to post them. It was inappropriate and pointy. After the last bit of mailing list drama the_undertow dealt with, it's no wonder he fails to appreciate such consensuses... and it didn't help that they trickled in one after another, making false claims (not just Prodego, but SWATjester as well), which could be taken as personal attacks. That's the point. There should be apologies for the lies that were said and for the careless public posting of private information. How ironic that a list which serves to protect the privacy of blocked users releases the private information of our sites most trusted users. Lara❤Love 19:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly did not knowingly lie, please read my response here, which begins "In response to the assertion...". I only became involved to help the undertow, who then wanted join a mailing list he said "sucks" and "is still bullshit". That is why the decision was made that he should not be subscribed, he clearly wasn't going to be helping at all. Read my response to the email issue below. Yes, it was a mistake to mention it, I was merely trying to make sure he got the email he requested I send him. Deleting it (leaving it visible to admins) makes it just as private as being a member of unblock-en-l would. Prodego ^talk 18:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I'm somewhat perplexed here. Nobody should be using an e-mail address on the unblock-en-l mailing list that they are unwilling to have posted all over Wikipedia and the rest of the internet. You're making your e-mail address (and potentially other information, such as IP address and any other information that can be determined from your e-mail address) available to people who have been blocked for editing. Nick (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you respond directly by e-mail to those requesting unblock. That isn't what happened here. Avruch ^T 20:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. He only joined to read the thread. Lara❤Love 07:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he joined the unblock-en-l mailing list but with an e-mail address that would never actually be used to deal with unblock requests ? Why not ask someone with access to forward the thread instead. I'd say, by signing up to the list, it's a fair assumption to make that you're going to use the e-mail address you signed up with to respond to unblock queries and consequently, there's no concern about that e-mail address being spread far and wide. Nick (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is off track so let me be succinct. I was told the list is private and remains private because IP addresses are a concern. Why was my email posted? Why was it necessary? What was the point of posting my private information? Regardless of all assumptions made, the question remains, was there a good and justified reason that someone other than myself felt it necessary to post my personal information? the_undertow ^talk 11:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Hanlon's Razor. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize for revealing your email address, I just wanted to make sure you didn't have a seperate mailing list email, as many people do. I did this to make sure that when I sent the email you requested I forward to you, you would receive it. Since I was forwarding, Special:Emailuser would not have been convenient. I hadn't given a thought to that you may want to keep the email address private, note that by subscribing to a mailing list, your email will be visible to all list members, and all the users you reply to. Since unblock-en-l is (mostly) admin only, simply deleting this edit, which I have no objection to if you feel it is necessary, would provide the same level of anonymity as being a list member. If you have a problem, you could simply have done that, or requested oversight, rather then coming here. Prodego ^talk 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the User:Froth's account may have been compromised. This user had an elaborate user page until it was blanked on January 24th. This user appears to have been a contributer on the Reference Desk/Science for quite some time [12], but now his contributions are largely hoaxes. He also complained about deletion of a request for medical advice, claiming to be "a 54-year-old grandmother". It is my opinion that for a user who had a history of mature and beneficial edits who then suddenly blanked his user page and began adding nonsense, is most likely the result of a compromised account. He does have a committed identity hash which predates the alleged compromise of his account. I would like to request this user be blocked indefinitely until he can prove ownership of his account. (EhJJ)^TALK 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Seems a little far-fetched. I doubt a compromised account would work for just under a month by the same intruder. Most probably just Froth himself. Rudget. 14:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's me. See my comments back at WP:RD/S :D\=< (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I was hoping that someone hijacked your account rather than that you have changed your ways. Well, in that case, I drop my request that you be blocked under the circumstance outlined above. I don't have a problem with you acting bold, as long as it's civil, and I'm not accusing you of the latter. Happy wikiediting! (EhJJ)^TALK 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's editing for his own personal amusement rather than for the betterment of the project now. He's giving ridiculously stupid answers at the ref desk, apparently on purpose. This is a problem. Friday (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's explicitly stated that he's on "the light-current's fate train", which is a worrying comment. (For those not familiar with Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he was a once-moderately-productive editor at the Ref Desks whose sense of humour and conduct started to grow more and more erratic back in late 2006. Light current was eventually banned after he started to engage in personal attacks, vandalism, and block-evading sockpuppetry; his sleeper socks have been popping up ever since.)

A block warranted then? Rudget. 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts whether it would help. And right now, this situation is not an emergency, so we can move slowly and carefully. If he does something particularly egregious, a short block may be warranted to make clear the message of "Yes, we really do expect people to behave." The best thing would be someone talking him back into contributing constructively. Obviously this is easier said than done. Friday (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go. Rudget. 17:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after double ec and hopefully not too late) A block isn't warranted. Froth has been very helpful at the reference desks. I too edit for my personal amusement. I don't think the comparison with Light current is legit (even if made by froth himself). Froth thinks he's a pirate, and is showing an anarchic DGAF attitude, but he rarely calls people names, doesn't play faux-naïve, doesn't abuse user pages, doesn't fill talk pages with time-wasting silliness for the lulz. Some guidance, yes, but a block will have the opposite effect. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edit for my own amusement (and hopefully others'. Nothing wrong with that. Hopefully he will satisfy the bloke posting this to ANI more in future. It's all a matter of personal taste, to some extent, and what we feel like doing. Of course, if he turns truly evil, block. But I think the likelihood of that has been increased rather than lessened by this thread. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his conduct so far warrants a block; I just thought that the comment was worrying, and that offering him some guidance now rather than later might be a good idea. I'd rather not get into a Light current-type situation where a sometimes-good editor goes off the rails/off his meds/off the deep end. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe LC and Froth are sharing the account? David D. (Talk) 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my assumption, I went through histories looking for shared tics but didn't see anything too blaring right off the bat, but I have them open and am parsing them, I noticed they both created their accounts in July of 2005, and though many many other people did as well, seems odd for the reference now. Dureo (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that is a coincidence, I meant sharing in the literal sense that LC could edit without suspicion if Froth gave him the password for his account. We have to remember that while LC has a bad side, there is a good side too, problem is that the former can never resist contributing. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light current has a 'signature' style that Froth (or the edits from Froth's account) doesn't seem to exhibit. As far as I can tell, Froth is just letting off steam; with time and guidance I hope and expect he'll back away from the edge. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not assume the account is not compromised, I have had Froth's name (which is in his emails) for a while now. Prodego ^talk 18:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Issues with Betacommand Avruch ^T 01:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to link to the right section when you do moves like this. I've corrected the link. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: When dealing with an ArbCom imposed ban, article restriction, or other sanction that is for a specific duration, i.e. 1 year, 6 months, whatever, does that duration reset with each violation of the remedy? For instance, if an editor is banned from an article for 1 year, but continues to edit it through obvious sockpuppets, after 1 year from the ban enactment does that ban lift, or is the ban extended to 1 year from the date of last infraction? It seems folly to basically say "no matter how bad you are, how much you violate the arbcom decisions during your ban period, after this magic date, you're allowed to come back."

Example: User X is banned from article foo for 6 months on January 1st. He violates the ban on February 1st, march 1st, april 1st, May 1st, June 1st, and June 15th. On July 1st is he allowed to return to the article? Or do his violations reset the start of the 6 month ban i.e., his ban would not expire until 6 months from June 15th? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (and I've recently seen an example), each infraction may reset the ban, although this could depend on the ArbCom ruling. So the six months could have been restarted in your example on 1st Jan, 1st Feb, etc. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The general practice is definitely to reset the sanction. Relata refero (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I've seen, extending an ArbCom remedy based on violation happens only if there is an allowance for it in the remedy or if the Committee makes a further ruling. Avruch ^T 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Brad is probably going to come and answer this properly, but the reason we have enforcement in ArbCom remedies is so when a ban is violated, a block is issued. If it's just an article ban, then generally speaking, we don't restart the ban on a user and keep on blocking until they reach the end of the enforcement meaning the block length is extended to a longer period (e.g. 1 month, 1 year....). It's different if they're site banned, then we generally restart the ban every time they break it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so for an article ban, where the remedy does not specify that it resets on each violation, the general rule is that it does not reset? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just go ahead and block for the duration that the enforcement section states - and it can't hurt to strongly caution him not to do it again. For what its worth, given the user has been banned from the page, all his edits to the page should be reverted on sight. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have bothered to reset article or topic bans, since violations there are met with escalating blocks. In Swatjester's example, User X would have earned himself about 2 months cumulative block time for all those violations. I suppose we could reset the timer on page bans, as we do on general bans, but it has not previously been common to do so. Thatcher 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is sockpuppeting and wholesale ignoring the ArbCom restrictions then go back to ArbCom. "You know what, we tried to give this user a chance to reform under editing sanctions and they just don't get it. Can we ban them please?" Or if they are continually disruptive without useful edits, just get some admins and community ban them. ArbCom sanctions are not meant be protection from community sanctions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm specifically referring to Derek Smart from the Derek Smart arbitration case. The remedies state that: Supreme Cmdr (Derek Smart) is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV.

In the past several days, Derek Smart/Supreme Cmdr's socks have been editing the page, violating both Supreme Cmdr's 1 year ban, which expires next month, and violating the rule against editing the page. Supreme Cmdr/Smart's ban expires in 1 month, but he's obviously shown no contrition and continues to disrupt the page with various sockpuppets. So, my question was, despite all those violations, his ban just up and ends next month? Granted, the other remedy (against him using the article page) would continue indefinitely, but that does not address his sockpuppets, as well as his edits to user's talk pages who edit that page. The best solution here is to have his ban reset on violations. Can this be requested somewhere? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above its said that sitebans typically reset if violated, so it looks like this is a candidate for that outcome. Is this extension the sort that is worked out at WP:AE? Seems like it ought to be, with the outcome logged at the RfAR enforcement log. You could do it yourself, assuming you are otherwise uninvolved. Avruch ^T 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on this thread but others have anticipated me. There is no general practice of resetting pagebans or editing restrictions after a violation, because they are usually enforced with escalating blocks instead, but I don't see any reason that an uninvolved administrator couldn't order a reset in an appropriate case, at least for serious or repeat violations. If you think this should become a more common practice, that should probably be raised on an enforcement talkpage or somewhere. In general, as most readers here probably already know, requests for attention to violation of arbitration remedies go to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement (WP:AE) in the first instance, and then can be brought to WP:RfAr if a change to the decision itself (e.g. strengthening a remedy) is needed. Incidentally, this is as good a place as any for a reminder that there is a chronic need for more admins to get involved at WP:AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I made the request at WP:AE, since my involvement in the case nominally makes me unable to do an extension myself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several users (User:Getoar, User:Rinigjon, User:Pjetër Bogdani) have teamed up to make massive and highly POV edits to the History section of Kosovo. This has been going one since the protection was lifted, and but has spiralled out of control because of the current weekend. They have ignored all attempts at discussion, and one of them in particular, Getoar, has a highly combative attitude. When I tried to reach out to him he just ignored me both here [[13]] as well as here [[14]]. He has also tried to frame me for vandalism here [[15]] when in fact that edit was performed by another user [[16]]. I request urgent action to be taken to protect the article and prevent it from becoming a battleground. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of problems on that talk page, including rampant incivility from User:Bosniak, who, it seems, can't reply without using "Duh!" to respond to the comments of everyone else, a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. Further, the three above do seem to be supporting each other's edits in the article space, but I'm not sure they're actively pushign a POV or such, and think diffs to that effect are needed. ThuranX (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Getoar (established user)
• User:Dardan Prishtina
• User talk:Sintonak.X
• User talk:Rinigjon

... They appear to be coordinated off-wiki and they revert towards some WP:SNOW recension involving the "Serbian peril" and similar. No sign of willingness for collaboration on talk. how will we deal with these? Intervene at user level or lock down the article again? dab (𒁳) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us also remember that this article is on ArbCom probation, meaning any of these users can be blocked right now. I am going to leave notifications to all of them that they have listed on AN/I, for now. SorryGuy  Talk  22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getoar's conduct is particularly troubling. I went to the article from here, and found a particularly bad bit of grammar. It took a while to fix it, but once I did, Getoar came right to my page congratulating me for having the right viewpoint, and trying to recruit me to be on his side, and push his POV. This, in turn, led to an outbreak of the damn war on my talk page, which I put down in the most absolute form. That editors now feel they can pick who is on their side like a pick up baseball game is a problem, one guaranteed to escalate the tensions and the warring on Wikipedia. As such, I recommend that Getoar be blocked 'toot sweet', so his recruitment drive does not continue. (This in no way endorses the other side.) ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally honest, I think you are over reacting and not exactly using language conducive to the calming of the situation. At any rate, Getoar, for what it is worth, has been very open to communication with me. He agreed to stop reverting changes and instead bring his proposed changes to the talk page, which he has done. He did say "I can wait for a while and see what they say. But even if my version is not accepted I will challenge the current one (by tags and minor acceptable edits). It has practically no sources at least up to its later subsections." which gives me some pause, but I feel as though the situation, at least in regards t him, has been partially defused. SorryGuy  Talk  00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My language only got blunt AFTER their actions ,to make things incredibly clear to them. before that, I was clear and concise about the problems I was addressing, it's not my fault that they want to see POV everywhere. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are now teaming up on Talk:Kosovo to try to ram these changes through. Massive canvassing evidenced on the these users' talk pages. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know so little about the subject I can't comment on the validity of the proposal, but when they all obvious share similar beliefs I would sort of expect them to agree. Just give it time, if those neutral to the subject feel the proposal is a bad idea, I am sure consensus will develop towards not making them. SorryGuy  Talk  00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goals are to improve the article on Kosovo and at no point aggravate it. I don’t exactly understand what you mean by “teaming up,” but I am just asking people who are interested in the issue to give their opinion. I don’t personally know any of these editors, so I can’t presume their reaction. As to now, three people have preferred myy proposed changes to the history section as opposed to one objecting them (see Talk:Kosovo#PROPOSAL_FOR_THE_HISTORY_SECTION).--Getoar (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this fall under WP:CANVAS? BalkanFever 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive canvassing evidenced [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]], [[25]], [[26]]. I don't speak Albanian, but it seems pretty clear to me that "diskutimin për historinë e Kosovës" refers to the discussion of the history of Kosovo. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the idea here is to appropriate that Kosovo was always Albanian, through whatever possible continuity between Albanians and ancient peoples, and never Serbian, simply by leaving all the information out. BalkanFever 07:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Revanchism at its worst. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an article under probation, with multiple complaints about him, why hasn't this user been blocked? This level of CANVAS (10 Users listed above) on an article with this much contentious editing, and there's no block? ThuranX (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I am looking. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getoar has been blocked for 96 hours and warned of the general sanctions. If they resume trouble making, I recommend a lengthy topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good block ,Jehochman. I'm inclined to support the topic ban now, but I think that would only escalate things, as the 'other side' would take it as a victory, and 'this side' would seek to escalate to get 'revenge' by getting one of 'that side' banned as well.ThuranX (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problems on Dardania related articles

Adding a subsection here. I've noticed that the Dardania related articles are also getting a POV pushing. As far as I can work it out, the POV goes as follows: IF the geographic land is Dardanian in heritage, then the Albanian people have to shut up, if the land is Albanian, the Dardanians have to move. TO that end, I note that prior to the Kosovo declaration, and the lead up to it, This was the explanation for the Dardanians: [27]. Now that it's been moved, the borders shrank. This push one way or the other is ridiculous, and it's the first time I've felt that I'm really watching Wikiality en masse, in the sense that Colbert intended. This POV pushing has to stop, and I really think that article locking for Kosovo related articles is the only way to handle it, and ask that The recent POV pushign edits by DBachmann be reverted and the articles locked by an admin. I'm on neither side on this entire fight, but only got involved through the AN/I reports recently, which have had me sticking my nose in. But I'm not an admin, and I've already seen how fast the POV warriors tag you as friend or enemy, and since I have no buttons, being lit up again isn't my interest. ThuranX (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Dbachmann's edits POV-pushing (he seems pretty neutral), but strongly agree to protecting both Dardania and Kosovo. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would. He seems to be on the Kosovo=Dardania side, not the Kosovo=Albania or Kosovo=Serbia side. ThuranX (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, that's ridiculous. I'd be highly surprised if Dbachmann was pushing a POV. Much more likely he hasn't had occasion to look at these articles before, seen that they're already unbalanced, and has tried to repair them with a few reliable sources. If you're unfamiliar with an editor's history, do spend a couple of minutes looking through their contributions before making that sort of accusation. Relata refero (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann's notified of this thread. Relata refero (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all how it looks to me; Specifically, his edits to shrink the borders to custom fit Kosovo look suspicious, as per the diffs I provided. Seems like a deliberate intent to support the Dardani=Kosovo POV pushing. He changed all of it without good sources or citation, and hid some of that movement behind the cover of merging and moving articles. I note that as part of that ,he had to remove the article about the geographic location (Dardania) into the article on the people, which certainly fits with the Kosovo = Dardania POV pushing. Otherwise, he would've left an article on the place, and one on the people. ThuranX (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm spot on neutral with no personal interest whatsoever, which, as always, means I'm being bashed by both sides. I have just done abominable pro-Albanian edits at Kosovo (UNMIK), just as I've perpetrated abominable anti-Albanian edits at Dardani. The whole idea that the proto-historic tribe of the Dardani bears any relevance whatsoever to Kosovar nationhood is patent nationalist fringecruft with no footing in sane reality. I am, as always, on the side of protecting our articles on ancient history from the attempts of our less reasonable customers. Dardania: 400 BC. Republic of Kosovo: 2008 AD. Connection: none. dab (𒁳) 15:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an administrator to assist me with a situation regarding User:Docu? I came across the article for Lake of Gruyère while cleaning up a list of lakes. Back in April 2007, User:SomeHuman moved the article from Lac de la Gruyère (the French spelling) to Lake of Gruyère (the proper English spelling), correctly citing and explaining that English-language Wikipedia requires article name in English: the lake is by numerous sources called 'Lake of Gruyère' (though sometimes without accent grave). User Docu since reverted this move and is now in an edit war with me insisting to keep the French reference to the name rather than the properly translated English name. With that logic, User Docu could switch all the Lake articles to French names. Or the Spanish articles to "Lago de"... or the German articles to "See"...etc. With that logic, we could change all of the lakes of the United States in various language wikis from Lago or See or Lac to "Lake", correct? I hope someone can help me inform User Docu that his/her actions are incorrect (first by reverting the initial move months ago) and that, here on English wiki, we use the proper translated name of "Lake" not "Lac". Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki guideline on naming conventions clearly explains why the usage of "Lake" over "Lac" is correct. Rarelibra (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of the name of an article is a content dispute, which is a subject for dispute resolution, not for admins. But it appears you've been doing cut and paste moves, which violates the GFDL. And I don't see any evidence of you trying to resolve your dispute amicably on Docu's or the article's talk page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My move was to correct the original revert that Docu did when SomeHuman correctly moved the page. If you see User Docu's talk page, I have addressed it with him/her.

By such logic, that means we can change the names of US lakes to "Lake" in all of the language wikis, correct? Wiki guideline states to use English. It isn't content dispute - it is following wiki guideline. Rarelibra (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your move violated the GFDL, violating the copyrights of the contributors of the article. I don't care if you move the article using the move button, but if you persist in cut and paste moves you'll be blocked from editing. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my apologies. After painstakingly combing through the list of lakes - I changed/moved many of the titles from incorrect names in Spanish, Italian, French, German, and even Dutch into the proper name in English. This was the only article that a user had already incorrectly reverted and redirected (even after a proper move was done back in April last year) - which was never addressed. Threaten me all you want - my actions were incorrect but the outcome should be correct, as it is backed up by wiki guidelines and naming conventions. Otherwise, let's go through and change all the names to "Lago de", "Lac du", "See", etc. Sorry, just calling it like I see it. Rarelibra (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Docu seems to have been the first to copy/paste move it from Lake to Lac. I've restored the proper history, and moved it back to Lake over the recent copy/paste war. Perhaps some of the deleted revisions in Lake should be restored, but there doesn't seem to be much there other than the war. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help - I will keep an eye on the other languages that I helped move and attend to the proper help if needed rather than risk being blocked from editing for pointing out an obvious incorrect action that occurred months ago by attempting to correct it back (which, I believe, is allowed in wiki when making a correction from an incorrect revert and redirect). Rarelibra (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, it appears I was wrong. Rarelibra performed an improper copy/paste move, which Docu properly reverted, even though the article should have been moved to "Lake" and the reversion made the move require administrative action. I think I've got everything in order, now. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur - you were not wrong. SomeHuman moved the article back in April. Docu then reverted - which was incorrect, given that he was provided with the proof. On the talk page, Docu tried to justify French usage in English. Wiki guidelines are quite clear. And BTW, it was the ONLY French lake article moved that was 'owned' and continually reverted. If his theory was correct about usage, all the other "lakes" should be changed to "lac". Funny thing, though - I work in GIS (even worked for Rand McNally) - and the only usage I know of by a French name is Lac du Flambeau in Wisconsin and Lac des Allemands in Louisiana. All the rest seem to be called "Lake" for some reason. ;) Rarelibra (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely minor considering everything, but the Spanish word for lake is "lago", not "lado". Lado is "side". ^_^ JuJube (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohhh ... typo. Rarelibra (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before doing any moves, may we follow Wikipedia:Requested moves? Just copy-and-pasting content to machine translated titles doesn't help [28]. Oddly, Rarelibra even accuses me of the doing them [29]. -- User:Docu

You should be aware of the following:

• THIS OFFICIAL WEBSITE is from Gruyère, translated to English, and uses "Lake of Gruyère"
• this page uses "lake"
• THIS Swiss tourism site uses "lake"
• this is another swiss website translated to English as "lake"
• this is yet another swiss website translated to "lake"
• this is yet another swiss website translated to "lake"
• a quick search of Google Scholar shows 373 hits for "lake" (looking for "lac de la" in scholar brings up many french sites - not english)

this is compelling evidence that the name is "Lake" when properly translated into English. Rarelibra (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt the article lake should be at the English word for lake. The question here is just how you are doing page moves. If you like to discuss renaming the article "Lac de la Gruyère", please use its talk page. -- User:Docu

Resolved

 – Blocked Rudget. 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see 70.11.244.78 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, he's already been blocked. Sorry. Corvus cornix_talk 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination), Philip Baird Shearer insists on putting a new post at the top of the AfD.[30][31][32] This is contrary to established practice, and distorts all of the talk below it, none of which has taken this posting into account. I have moved it twice to the bottom of the talk and pointed out the incorrectness of his placing of it to no avail. Tyrenius (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its unusual, but I'm not sure I'd call it disruptive. If anything, I'd say Sarah777's comments have been significantly more disruptive than anything Philip has done, even if the AfD nom was somewhat ill-advised. AfD isn't a hammer to enforce a position in a content dispute. Avruch ^T 03:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip is not even the nom. He wants the article deleted and is bizarrely placing his post at the top. The reason for new posts to go at the bottom of the AfD is that it is a debate, where subsequent posts comment on previous ones. If people start posting at the top, it breaks the whole ethos of that. It needs to be moved to its right place after the comments which it is a reaction to. What do we do when someone else thinks their new post is sufficiently important to go above his? Tyrenius (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the nominator in this case, but he has been in two previous related noms - and there was no nom statement, and opposes on that basis, so he provided one. Have you asked him not to post further changes to the top of the page? Avruch ^T 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no nom statement. That was how the AfD started and revisionism can't change that. There then follows a debate. There is still no nom statement. There is a statement from one of the participants placed in the wrong place and messing up that proper debate. If you look 3 posts up, you will read, "I have moved it twice to the bottom of the talk and pointed out the incorrectness of his placing of it to no avail." Tyrenius (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like arguing over a technicality. If the AfD is invalid because the original nominator didn't place their own statement at the top then I suggest a speedy close followed by immediate renomination by Philip (or whoever) with the relevant arguments from editors in the current debate transferred to the new AfD. What admins can't do is let the current AfD run for five days then close it as "keep" because it was an invalid nomination. So either speedy close this now on procedural grounds or let it run its course as a valid AfD for the full period, then get the original nominator to place their statement at the top of the page where it should be or - failing that- allow Philip's statement to stand in for the nom. --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally if the "reasons" stay at the top I see no need to close it but I have already suggested on the AFD talk page to Tyrenius that "If you do not want them there Then I suggest we close this AFD now and re-open it with the reasons at the top. I am more than happy to do that if that is what you want."(See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination)) But for some reason rather than answer on the talk page of the AFD he chose to post here. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those who said Keep on the technical grounds that no reasons to delete were provided. It's too late to fix that so restarting is best. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two disinterested editors have commented on my retrofitting reasons to the top of this nomination have suggested closing and re-opening the nomination. As closing it and reopening it means extra work for a number of editors, I will post a message to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) asking if anyone else has an opinion on this. If no objections forthcoming in 24 hours we close it and reopen it. If a disinterested admin wishes to close it before the 24 hour period is up, please post a message to my talk page and I'll resubmit it with all the steps done. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The sooner this issue is clarified, the better, because the AfD debate is getting longer and longer and attracting more and more commenters. If it has to be aborted on a minor technicality a lot of people are going to be annoyed. If it is technically invalid as alleged then I'm surprised an admin hasn't speedily closed it already. --Folantin (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hold my hands up, my fault. Close and reopen seems to best way to proceed at this point. Ledenierhomme (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point - it'll just end up as a no consensus, just like the current debate. Lugnuts (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin stepping in here... Rather then closing and reopening the entire debate, I suggest Philip moves his argument to the proper place, because they are just that: your arguments. Putting your arguments on top of the debate and calling them "reasons" is a mirepresentation of your arguments, since you are not the nominator. Having to close the debate, only to have you re-open it with your arguments at the top again is not an option; I view that as gaming the system. So if this AfD is to be closed, Philip may not restart it, as it basically does not change the situation. — Edokter • Talk • 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's no point closing it and re-opening. That would be a waste of everyone's time. The relevant points have been discussed in depth. PBS is worried because two keeps were on the basis of no nom statement. The closing admin is obviously going to see there are plenty of arguments for delete without a nom statement, so those keeps are not greatly convincing in themselves. PBS has chosen to post at the top of the AfD as a revisionist nom statement, which is entirely unnecessary. It means anyone responding to him will also post at the top, and it will become impossible to follow the thread of the debate. I posted here because PBS has placed his statement in the wrong place three times and has not discussed before doing so. Again I ask him to put it where it belongs in the logical sequence of the discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing it and reopening it on a technicality indeed sounds like a waste of time. If there was no nom statement, but there is a rationale for deletion that can be provided and has been, then why stop the AfD if it has vigorous participation? Opposes based on the lack of a nomination should be disregarded by the closing admin if they aren't revised during the discussion period. Philip should leave the nom section alone now that it has been populated with a rationale, and make further comments in the body of the AfD. Respondents can respond in the body of the discussion like they would to any other nominating statement, and everyone can move on knowing that while it may not be a technically perfect AfD the object is still being observed and technically perfect isn't what we here to accomplish. Avruch ^T 15:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Let's keep this as a valid AfD with maybe a note to the closing admin at the top explaining as much. I'm not sure it matters where Philip puts his comments but if people object to his substitute nomination rationale then he can move it down the page to where it would have been chronologically. --Folantin (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK now there is no consensus on what to do, So I have posted a message to User talk:Ledenierhomme#AfD nomination of List of massacres

Ledenierhomme If you confirm that you agree with my reasons and would like them placed at the top I will do so. But only if you confirm in unequivocal terms that you want them placed there.

That should satisfy everyone. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it confirmed. -- Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your decision. You have nom'd but you don't control the ensuing debate. There is an established procedure for AfDs and this suggestion is completely counter to it. Statements are made and then responded to. If this goes at the top, responses to it will go under it. Then we have a new debate started at the top of the page, which is preceded by the debate lower down the page. Some people will continue to post at the bottom; some will post under the new debate at the top to answer those points. Some people will look at the bottom of the debate to see new posts and will miss it altogether. This is chaotic and makes the development of argument impossible to follow. It is a disruptive move and should not be done. Tyrenius (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me [User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] that you are making it up as you go along. Several editors have complained that there are no reasons at the top of the AfD. I put in a solution, you have objected to it because I was not the nominator. Now you are objecting to the nominator confirming the reasons for the AfD. Would you object to Ledenierhomme completing the AfD by placing reasons at the top. If so I would ask you to take a step back and consider who you think is being disruptive. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – blocked indef as block evading socks

• Melbrooksfan101 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Broadwayfan91 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Soapfan101 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Soapfan91 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

Melbrooksfan101 (talk · contribs) has created several articles about a non-notable podcasted soap opera and its characters. I have listed all of them for deletion for lack of notability. In retaliation, Melbrooksfan101 decided to place an AfD tag on Passions. I removed the AfD tag and warned Melbrooksfan101 about WP:POINT, he responded by telling me that he has a responsibility to nominate articles for deletion if he has never heard of them. He's trying to claim that that's the reason I've nominated his articles, which, of course, is not true. Could an admin have a word with what I believe to be a young editor? Corvus cornix_talk 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: This is not true what is being said about me. I am fifty-two years old and have been with this site since 2002. This is an insult to all of Wikipedia. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not acording to your edits you havent't... HalfShadow (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but your tagging of Passions was clearly retaliiatory. It's definitely a notable series. See note on your page. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, how can an experienced wiki-editor believe it fit to nominate a moderately referenced article for WP:AFD? Clearly this is WP:POINT and WP:TROLL. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So either he's lying about how long he's been here, or he's admitting he's a reincarnation of another user. Also he claims on my talk page that he didn't afd Passions, that his account (actually he says "site") was hacked, so we have an admission of a compromised account on top of the rest. Hmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This tells all. Corvus cornix_talk 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(multipl,e ec) See this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've under a couple different user names. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is evident - and it also looks like a few of them have a history of malicious behavior. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should just stop posting now, Mel...Every time you do, you seem to make your hole a bit deeper... HalfShadow (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know you people do not understand everything I added because you don't know pop culture. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The early history of his talk page is instructive. Apparently a sock of a blocked (expired) user, with some strange playing around with unblock templates on 30 December that led to the talkpage being protected... Avruch ^T 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some contribs under his previous account Broadwayfan91 (Also Soapfan91, and Soapfan101, both blocked for vandalism):

• 23:34, 3 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead‎ (←Replaced page with 'i haven't heard of this play so it must be made up......that's the way you guys act.')
• 23:32, 3 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead‎ (←Replaced page with 'go suck a cock')

Avruch ^T 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness. This one's gonna leave a stain... HalfShadow (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, how is this user able to more or less announce to the community about his past sockpuppetry and escape the ramifications? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if lossing your password is a sin. Melbrooksfan101 talk 08:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've moved way beyond your claim of a lost password at this point. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that the article he's fighting so strongly for was already deleted under a slightly different name. It was also written by one of his previous accounts. AniMate 11:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Broadwayfan91 "23:32, December 3, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead‎ (←Replaced page with 'go suck a cock')" — Rlevse • Talk • 12:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's tag removals, such as this one by Melbrooksfan. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is an obvious sock and even admits it as seen in two of the entries above, one by himself and one provided by Ed Fitzgerald. Couple that with the fact that the oldest account, Soapfan91, was blocked indef, that makes him a block evading sock and the fact that all four accounts have disruption and behavior issues, multiple warnings etc, similar edit histories too, make it clear he's not here to be constructive. I'm blocking all indef and tagging Soapfan91 as the master (oldest account). — Rlevse • Talk • 12:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BQZip01 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

I don't know what the origin of the problem between these two users is - an article about a stadium at Texas A&M, perhaps? Either way, there have been a number of noticeboard threads, an epic RfA argument, an MfD, a RfC/U here by BQ against Cumulus Cloud and finally a RFCU here which has devolved into edit warring and a continuation of the dispute. I'd like to propose that the checkuser case be completed immediately or withdrawn, and that these two editors be formally barred from communicating with eachother or editing pages that are a source of conflict between them - either indefinitely, or for a period at least 6 months. Thoughts? Avruch ^T 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support this on two conditions: 1. The 3 week old RFC also be immediately closed and 2. the ban be shortened to somewhere between 60 and 90 days. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose for a number of reasons:

1. I never did anything wrong here. I only tried to follow policy. All I ever tried to do on this page was to put comments where comments should be. Instead of discussing it, CC immediately reverted it and accused accused me of censorship. We could have discussed it and things would likely have been fine, but instead, he insists (once again) of unilaterally deleting my edits. Then Avruch decides to just bring such a discussion here. Bizarre.
2. A disagreement between myself and CC does not need to be brought here every time we disagree. We have worked most things out between us. Quite frankly, I was going to request the RfC be closed if this didn't turn out to be CC, though that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with any of his actions since he left articles on which I was involved.
3. There is an instigator here that has been completely missed: user:Lawrence Cohen. Everything was fine until he decided to inform CC (showing an additional user who is now stalking my every edit) and is the source of this problem. An RFCU was filed to verify who is making disruptive edits to Wikipedia. The number of noticeboard threads have not been filed by either CC or I, but Lawrence Cohen, who has a personal ax to grind against me: [33] [34]. IMHO, this is meatpuppetry and CC is being used to fuel a personal agenda against me. CC and I parted ways and the RfC seems to be going nowhere since no one is willing to read what I wrote. He claims to be staying away from the page (if so, then the RFCU will, worst case, concur with that).
4. As for the checkuser being "completed immediately or withdrawn", that makes no sense. Only certain users have checkuser rights. They will get to it when they get to it. Deleting a valid checkuser request because one of the parties doesn't like it is insane, IMHO.
5. A simple misunderstanding doesn't require a probation for either of us.
6. Seriously, this solves nothing. CC or I could make some asinine comment on a page in which the other person has edited as an IP and then the other party could do anything about it? That is insane. If CC is doing as he says he is, then the RFCU will come out clean and there shouldn't be any more problems.
7. This is another example about people in Wikipedia not knowing or understanding the processes within Wikipedia and taking great offense at them when someone uses such a process. An RFCU is inherently only "dangerous" to people who are causing problems.
8. I'm not interested in "nailing" CC for his actions, only correcting the problems caused by the creator of the IP posts. My past with CC is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original proposal. Sorry, BQ & CC. Also, I recommend they both take an enforced timeout from their conflict articles, especially BQ. Enough wikilawyering. If not, this will end up as a messy RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 06:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdrew from editing that page 5 days ago. I will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cumulus Clouds filed by BQZip01, with extra helpings of personal attacks against me for some reason. Lawrence § t/e 06:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C/U case has now been  Declined for a number of reasons - Alison ^❤ 06:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Completed or withdrawn" because the result you see above my comment was inevitable, and the existence of the uncompleted request was causing more problems than it could solve. BQ, again this is not a place to continue to argue about the underlying problem. The point of this discussion is not to rehash specific errors, or assign blame - you and Cumulus have been unable to resolve your problems. This inability has been disruptive across multiple project pages and articles, but neither of you appear to be causing disruption outside of this dispute. It seems logical, then, to separate you from eachother when you can't do it yourselves. Avruch ^T 15:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A series of anons have made personal attacks following the deletion of a claim of satanic imagery subliminally planted in the film, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. The anons seem to be the very same user who has new IP addresses created by dynamic IP generation: 76.244.160.121, 76.212.146.249, 76.248.229.104, 76.244.162.118, 76.248.229.104, 75.55.39.225, 76.244.162.118, 76.248.229.104 and 76.212.146.139. The first mention of satanic images was placed into a popular culture section: " * The use of the satanic symbol "666" in movies like The Omen could have begun with "Mr. Deeds." Although never mentioned, "666" can be seen in the "doodles" of the court psychiatrist." First mention which was supported by a reference that was a YouTube video: "* Youtube's Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, symbol seen at 2:20" The XLinkBot reverted the submission and it was later re-inserted but again the link was first reverted by Beetstra and later the pop culture note was deleted by myself, Bzuk. What followed was a talk page submission: "You deleted 666! Ha ha, that's funny! You deleted perhaps one of the most important discoveries ever made in Hollywood cinema! Wikipedia is a joke! Wikipedia has nothing of value here, it has no knowledge contained in its pages at all. If Wikipedia were a brick and mortar library in any country, it would have been demolished by now. There is nothing here but disinformation (remember that word? You should!). You're a joke and your administrators are fools. Remember, this site never represents anyone, you speak for no one. You are liars. And people can still find the link and reference in the history section. You cretins, you never speak for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.139 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)" and immediately followed up by a series of attacks on my home page, some archived by myself and BillCJ. I then attempted to explain the reasoning for the deletion to the anon that requested further information. Basically, my concern was that it was OR, based on a faulty interpretation of a single image and was unattributed to any refrence source. I advised the anon to go back to the article's "talk" page with a request for discussion which was done. The continued attacks on me were placed on Beetstra's page and showed evidence of wikistalking as well as continuing personal attacks. I then requested a number of admins to review the article and although only two admins had a chance to do that with one suggesting "not to feed the trolls." Good advice but the continuing personal remarks have not abated. Please consider this situation as one that requires administration action.[reply]

I support User:Bzuk's take on this. I've asked the IP to provide a citation. The IP seems either not to understand WP:OR and WP:V or perhaps thinks the proposed edit is so earth-shaking as to transcend all Wikipedia policy. The IP's lack of civility and taunting are also very unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I'm trying to discuss this with the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bizarre. I wonder what Scattergood Baines would have made of it? Guy (Help!) 08:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the talk page and I see that this has been silly and tiresome. However, a quick look at the article's history suggests that it hasn't been degraded in this way for at least six days. I may have missed something, but I think the IP has recently been tiresome and irritating on its talk page; semi-protecting that seems a bit extreme. Somebody could s-protect your talk page if you wish. (Not me, or anyway not in the short term, as I'm about to leave the net for a few hours.) Since the anon is using a succession of IPs, it's hard to think of other countermeasures -- at least until I take off my admin hat, put on my editor hat, and add to the chorus telling him not to waste everyone's time with such silliness. (Incidentally, I think you and others there have been admirably patient so far.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this inspired me to look up the author of the short story on which Mr. Deeds was based, Clarence Budington Kelland, who write Scattergood Baines, a book that my father referred to endlessly and we eventually managed to find in an antiquarian bookshop a few years back. What a fascinating man! I will try to get more sources and expand the stub I just created, but have a look at the picture on this site - don't you think he's an older J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? Guy (Help!) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the issue is no longer the tenditious editing that is evident on the talk pages, it remains the unwarranted claims that are personal attacks. See:where he claims that I initiated the claim of "666", the demonic images, a statement about denying Truth, Justice and the American way, where he asks for an apology, claim of misrepresentation and claims of being a liar, censor, charlatan, evil. These attacks continued to come even after reasoned discourse was attempted. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have requested a review of the block, and I have also requested that Mr. Bzuk be restrained from harassing me any longer. I never claimed the 666 symbol was satanic, I attempted to draw an analogy between its use here and other successful entertainment industry ventures. Its Mr. Bzuk who inserted his own belief into the matter. And all of this took place on the movie's Discussion page, not on the article page. And it wasn't continued on Mr. Bzuk's page, rather on other editor's pages and really didn't have much to do with Mr. Bzuk at all. Mr. Bzuk has shown his position to be irrational and extreme, and when the truth is shown to him, he cries harassment and stalking. Neither are true. Thank you very much.

This continuing claim that I am irrational and extreme flies in the face of every edit made during this back-and-forth. FWIW, I have no abiding interest in the "666" claims, it is the virulent commentary that has been engendered that is the issue. Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Bzuk, your best bet is probably just to ignore the anon's attacks. He'll get bored and go away eventually. Natalie (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this ANI thread, but indeed, the anon has been quite persistent in commenting on my talkpage. I have requested that he backs up his claims from an independent source, not only with his own interpretation. Though I must say I was a bit annoyed by his continued posts, I have also decided that I am just going to ignore any further posts from him/her. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is it just me, or have the bots' edits on WP:UAA stopped showing up in the history? The last user report was around 5.55 this morning, but since then all bot reports aren't shown in the history, and I've just done a username bloc - the username's been removed from the list, presumably by a bot, but there's no corresponding history... _GB^T/C 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

You know what? I'll just shut up. They're on a sub-page aren't they. Sorry about that! _GB^T/C 08:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to put an user subpage under any article category? For example User:Roddie Digital/Guardian Unlimited is included within Category:News websites, Category:British websites and Category:The Guardian. If it is possible, then I will like to put some of my usersubpages in some categories. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages are not supposed to be categorized; it is likely that the editor pulled a copy of the article into his userspace to edit, but failed to remove the categories from the "working copy". Horologium (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, user subpages shouldn't be in article categories; the categories should be commented out, like what I did here. I have commented out the categories and left Roddie a note. Daniel (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, Fredrick day beat me to it :) Daniel (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that was going on, I left a note on his talk page asking him to remove the categories, but it appears to be moot now since it was dealt with by an admin. Horologium (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:CAT#User namespace. Horologium (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roddie Digital/Guardian Unlimited appears to be a preffered version of guardian.co.uk. per Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages--Hu12 (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68.55.219.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made three posts, one a vote to preserve an image relating to Matt Sanchex, one homophobic attack and one personal attack. All three edits Matt Sanchez related. Would an admin someone please take some action? I'd issue a warning or two, but am not sure which one(s) are appropriate and don't fancy receiving a rant. Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No warning(s) needed for this type of situation, just a block. R. Baley (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be BM (new diff!) evading his ban [35]. R. Baley (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you might want to log that block under the others for his socks at ArbCom. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not an admin, I was just adding info. Still waiting for an admin to happen by. . .R. Baley (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry - thanks for the info. By the more recent posts, Matt's still trying to influence content on the Matt Sanchez article. Hopefully an admin will happen by and block this sock soon. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Rudget. 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended it to one month per comments on my talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think he'll keep it that long? (I didn't check whois or anything) R. Baley (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta "sex-up" the subheading, maybe go with something like, "Ban-Evading Vandal attacks Wikipedian!!!" :-) kidding, R. Baley (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would predicate that this sort of thing is somehow unusual. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know. . . a lot of times it's hard to get motivated to report anywhere, getting around a block is fairly easy. R. Baley (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin WJBscribe has used a photo of a document alleged to be the birth certificate of Michael Lucas (porn star) (seen here: [36]) as a source to verify Lucas's birth name [37]. Editor Hux has used the same photo to source Lucas's birthdate and birth location, [38]. The photo itself fails WP:V as there is no way to verify its provenance or accuracy. Using the photo as a source to substantiate claims made in the text violates WP:PSTS as such use makes an interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claim about what is in the photo. To allow these would be a violation of WP:NOR. --71.127.238.135 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign never ends. Aside from being a recent topic on this board, the forum shopping continued at the help desk (link) a couple of days ago. R. Baley (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather disturbing... passports and birth certificates should not be used as sources in articles. What's next, editors going through celebrity's tax returns to source information on the person's wealth? This kind of stuff is journalism, not encyclopedia writing. --Rividian (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh don't be absurd. If a fact is not disputed by the subject, then using the subject's own birth certificate, with the subject's co-operation, as a source for the fact, is hardly problematic. It's not as if the birth name is that big a deal anyway; if his birth name was Darth Vader it would make no real difference to his notability or the name by whihc he is currently or most widely known. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still journalism... we're producing unpublished information no non-user-edited sources apparently care about. We're letting subjects provide original documents to determine what's in their encyclopedia articles? Are we an encyclopedia or a press release service? --Rividian (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This was at WP:RS/N as well. I can think of a few more noticeboards to shop it to, anyone interested?

Seriously, though, as I said at RS/N, yes, sure, its a primary source and should be used with caution, but if we can't ignore those rules in this instance we might as well toss WP:IAR out the window. Relata refero (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are rules; WP:IAR doesn't apply here as there are many sources available to substantiate Lucas's birthname, which is a contentious issue in this bio. Remember that these are not the actual documents, but photos of those documents -- there's no way they can be verified. We can't allow the subject of a bio to provide photos of document she asserts to be official or accurate, when their provenance or acuracy cannot be verified. Anybody can create an offical-looking document and take a photo of it, or anybody can take a photo of a document and then use the various editing software to doctor it, then claim that it's offical. Those possiblities preclude the use of photos of documents as sources.

--72.76.9.10 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72, why is this such a huge deal for you? You seem to be really invested in adding Lucas' father's last name to his birth name, based on a single source (and derivative works), when it's not disputed that a) it was his father's name, and b) it's not his name any longer, as he legally changed it to Michael Lucas. I cannot understand what Lucas would gain from stating that it was not his name. Horologium (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two very long-standing Wikipedia principles which indicate that we should accept the subject's word here: WP:IAR and m:DICK. To insist on a passing bit of poor research by an entertainment magazine against some pretty comprenehsive attempts by the subject to prove the truth, would be dickish in the extreme, and would also be an absurd piece of rules-lawyering. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V trumps both WP:IAR and m:DICK. The photo cannot be used because there is no way to verify its provenance or accuracy. There are reliable sources that say Lucas's name was Andrei Treivas Bregman. There are sources that say otherwise. Are we to ignore some reliable sources and not other sources? Is the subject of a bio to direct which should be utilized and which should not?--72.76.2.52 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating Horologium's question, why is this such a huge deal for you? What is your interest in this matter? Such single-minded pursuit comes from somewhere, and it has nothing to do with an accurate encyclopedia, so what is it? R. Baley (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to apply Occam's Razor here, there are only two possible sources for the collection of images of passports and related documents: the subject, or an elaborate forgery. So either we have an elaborate campaign to fraudulently change information of no obvious significance, or we have a simple mistake by a tabloid and an increasingly exasperated subject trying to fix it. Whcih do you think is more likely? Guy (Help!) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) My interest here is: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:PSTS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The subject of the bio is obviously trying to fix something, but in pursuit of executing repairs he is employing workmen using faulty tools. A photo of a document, genuine or forgery, cannot be used as a source because its provenance or accuracy cannot be verified. There are reliable sources that say Lucas's name was Andrei Treivas Bregman, and there are sources that say otherwise. --72.76.96.89 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone entirely uninvolved in this, it seems to be that your "interest here" is to disrupt the encyclopedia by rule lawyering around an insignificant detail in a BLP. Whether that is because you have a bone to pick with the article's subject or for some other reason, stop it. — Coren ^(talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding BLP content Jimmy Wales said, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed..." Please re-read the first paragraph of this thread. Look at the diff's. It's all there, nothing is made up. Can you contribute resolution to the issues raised there? If you're really interested, go over the revision history at Michael Lucas (porn star) and see the direction of the edits from about two years ago. You will see a once relatively balanced bio transformed into an effective PR piece for Michael Lucas. There's more than simple policy violation at work here. The real disruption to the encyclopedia is the compromise of its integrity.--71.127.239.175 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheFEARgod has a userbox telling "This user knows that Kosovo and Metohija is a part of Serbia and that it's declaration of independence is criminal." This userbox may be controversial. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my view on a political act is legitimate. I didn't point that Kosovo by itself or its citizens are criminal or criminals. Thank you, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, user Otolemur crassicaudatus took the initiative to edit my page without my consent (not waiting my replies on his initial messages) and he removed the whole userbox, not only the contoversial word criminal. [39] The userbox stood there for a long time and I added criminal at a later stage.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm of the opinion that the personal userpages are truly that: personal. In other words it is a place where you can (perhaps we shouldn't but we still can do it) present some of your personal opinions. The userbox is not inside any article of Wikipedia and it also isn't a 'common userbox' (which you can easily copy from certain Wikipages). This is NOT an incident of vandalism, harassment, or whatever. So please leave The FEARgod's userpage alone. I don't share The FEARgod's opinion in the Kosovo matter but I think he should be allowed to show his opinion in his personal userpager, Nuff said. Flamarande (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What may I not have on my user page? ... polemical statements Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I would agree with you, completely, except for that unfortunate word "criminal". Criminal acts do not commit themselves, fully formed out of the ether; unavoidably, they are committed by someone - hence, he's saying that someone (presumably, one or more Kosovars) has committed a criminal act by formally seceding. That's certainly a violation of our civility guidelines, given that we have Kosovar editors here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the statement "Knows" implies fact. This is a polemic userbox. Removed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox is certainly disruptive userbox and violation of WP:USER. Because I removed this trollbox from his userpage, he accused me that I "vandalised" his userpage[40]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes that's the best description of what you did. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Otolemur crassicaudatus. WP:USER says "Note: "Your" in this context means associated with you, not belonging to you." and "What may I not have on my user page? ... polemical statements" and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself." --Coppertwig (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like a good call by Otolemur crassicaudatus. The userbox as described would indeed be polemical soapboxing, and inappropriate for userpages here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the right move to me as well. Just more of The Plague. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In association football I added tag after explained action in talk page but two editors removed this regular tag. I claim this abuse and request restore it.--PIO (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned that the link you were referring to was a personal website, ad in no way a reliable source for the information you were including. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there was no abuse at all. The whole issue that PIO brought up and led to their inserting the tag has been discussed back in mid-January in great depth both on the articles talk page, on PIO's talk page, and both directly and indirectly on numerous other articles talk pages and then today out of the blue the tag was added.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shame!!!! You don't consider policy!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? Adding tags to a page based off of original research from unreliable sources? Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I discovered that a Miss America page, Susan Powell has grown last month, and the new text was finished, with subheads. Plus the text made claims which were out of date. So I clicked on the Miss America website, and lo: the text was copied directly from that page. When I looked at the ip contributor's history, I noticed this has been going on a grand scale, So I reverted the change, warned the ip's talk page, and now I can't find the correct page for this sort of methodical vio. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COPYVIO. -- The Anome (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that wasn't a helpful response. My fault for not linking that page myself. I'd already looked there, and the problems subpage requires report of each and every incident. This sort of methodical application indicates a possible need for automation. Isn't there a system for reporting copyright violators, instead of individual edits? BusterD (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just did :) Wikidemo (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The only other place I can think of is WP:AN instead of AN/I but the report is here now. I'm not familiar with the best procedure myself. It's not all that common that someone can add copyright violations to 60-70 articles in a several day period without getting stopped. Fortunately those old Miss America articles have fairly low edit traffic. I think it's safe to say that every single edit from this editor that looks like a copyvio is one. I've spot checked about eight of them and without fail they are - they're either lifted from the Miss America pages (which are not indexed by google, incidentally) or somewhere else. The give-away is that they're written in formal language full of puffery, with the wrong verb tenses ("will" or "is" often), sometimes use first names instead of last, use stilted expressions like "was awarded the crown", and so on. The two options I see are: (1) revert them en masse, which would take someone ten minutes to half an hour, or (2) find each source, cite it if reliable (I think the Miss America site is reliable for simple biographical details, less so for things like people's career success, talents, personality, and other things on which they're self-interested), and rewrite to avoid copyright infringement and unencyclopedic material. The latter approach is better because it improves the articles, but someone would have to want to take the time...that's probably 10 minutes per article so it would take someone all day who actually wants to deal with former Miss America winners, probably the reason nobody caught this earlier. Thanks for finding it. Wikidemo (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can put it on my to do list, but this looks like something a bot could do, doesn't it? BusterD (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bot probably could, but it would have to be programmed and it might just be easier in the long run to have an admin or user with rollback revert the edits that are problematic. I looked at a few of them and some don't appear to be copyright violations, so have a bot just revert everything is probably a bad idea. I can perhaps look at these later today and revert the copyvios. Natalie (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_the_Vend%C3%A9e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive_5

Several editors are reverting the edits I have been in contravention of Wikipedia:Consensus.

In the relevant section of the Genocides In History article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#France), this "issue" was debated over for several weeks, at length, with many editors involvement. The resulting section is still FAR from perfect, (placing the sophistry of polemicists - in most cases self-published in all but name - on an equal footing with established authorities who are specialists/experts on the subjects and have been published in peer-reviewed journals) but it is far and away more objective and dispassionate than the argumentative, unbalanced, diatribe that some editors have allowed this article to become. This includes at least two editors who were involved in the discussion on the Genocides In History talk page who are trying to get their skewed political/national/religious/ethnic POINTs enshrined in this article, because it has drawn much less attention.

C.J. Griffin then launched into personal abuse by accusing myself of having a "nefarious agenda".

-- Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that this user is a problem, but also that you seem to be inciting him or her rather than trying to keep things civil. "Vandalism" is a strong accusation that clearly doesn't apply, yet you've made it more than once. I'll let the administrators decide whether the behavior is bad enough to warrant administrative action at this early stage before any specific behavioral warnings are given, or whether this is a simple content dispute that you have to work out in the articles. But as a pointer, if you do want to build a case against a disruptive editor it's most efficient if you can collect specific examples of edits with links to the edit difference, and explain why they are a problem - here you've just pointed to talk pages.Wikidemo (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice taken. I'm thoroughly novice with regards to Wikipedia and will try and "up my ante" in the future. I'm glad that you can see that the user's reverts are counter-productive and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Understandably, since Secher's 1986 publication, this subset of the French Revolution has generated a lot of controversy, and it seems to be a full-time job to try and keep any semblance of balance and academic credibility in the articles that discuss the conflict. Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various options listed at Wikipedia: Dispute resolution that you might find helpful. You also may wish to get the input of members of a relevant WikiProject - sometimes just getting more people involved can be useful. Natalie (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried and failed i'm afraid. Unfortunately, it seems this footnote on the French Revolution is uninteresting to members, except zealots with no knowledge of the subject or its context, with a political/religious/racist point to prove. Ledenierhomme (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Sockies and IP now blocked - Alison ^❤ 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the anti-Scientology vandal and sockpuppeteer User:EPIC MASTER is back again, creating multiple accounts with names like ALPHA-MYTH, ALPHA-GHOST, GAMMA-YELLOW, GAMMA-GREEN, GAMMA-BLUE and GAMMA-RED. I've hardblocked the lot. -- The Anome (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked - block these, too:

1. L.E.E.T-128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. B0t-phant0m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. V&-Anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked all 3 as socks of EPIC MASTER, per Alison's instructions --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised - they said here that he was going to create the "The L.E.E.T group". Hut 8.5 19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has attracted another determined conspiracy theorist intent on propagating his/her personal beliefs and providing minority theories (diplomatically speaking!) with undue coverage, violating innumerable policies in the process. Articles targeted have thankfully been few in number: Carl Bildt, Armenian National Committee of America‎, and David Mayer de Rothschild. The user has attributed their additions to an inherently unreliable website and disregarded multiple warnings deposited on the talk pages of Screwed-n-chopped (talk · contribs), 85.229.25.77 (talk · contribs), 85.229.25.221 (talk · contribs). She/He has been repeatedly directed by others to familiarise themselves with policy and guideline which has evidently been unheeded. The additions seem unsalvageable: aggressively entrenched in the POV it was created from - just conspiratorial vitriol. Is this user determined enough to be deterred by protection? I was tempted to protect to discourage the user from ignoring warnings and pursuing such a blatant agenda, but that would be rougely unilateral (;-) and might only convince the user to redirect their focus. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my suggestions. If the user inserts the material once, just revert it, explaining to the user the reason for the revert and mentioning the relevant policies. If the user inserts the same material multiple times, explain to the user about the edit warring, 3RR and consensus policies. If the user still continues to insert the same material, see if you can make a clear case that the user is violating the 3RR rule and report it to WP:AN/3RR, or if you can make a good case that the user is violating the edit warring policy, and make that case on this noticeboard. If the user inserts different material, the user may be trying to reach a compromise; see if you can negotiate. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy protected the relevant pages and gave him a stern final warning. I think this is entirely the appropriate thing to do; There's really no reason to bend over backwards for disruptive single purpose accounts who display no interest in discussing their actions (aside from, I see, once asking who deleted some content, and once claiming that the BBC is engaged in censoring). Someguy1221 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this afternoon, Teddy Holland has been subject to heavy-duty blanking by two users, Wikiwoo288 (talk · contribs) and Wuggle1974 (talk · contribs)--both of whom first showed up today. Immediately after Wikiwoo288 was level-4 warned by SyntaxError55 (talk · contribs), Wuggle1974 immediately started in on it. Hardly a coincidence, IMHO. At the very least, I suspect that Wuggle1974 is a marionette from the same theater as Wikiwoo288 (who has since been blocked for username issues). I've already reverted it twice, and SyntaxError's already reverted three times--so some assistance would be appreciated. Blueboy96 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While some of their blankings also blank a bunch of innocent stuff like categories, they're also removing unsourced derogatory material (such as the subject being in a fight - here). Given that this is a BLP, reliable sources are necessary; for this article they appear to be largely absent. I don't condone vandalism or meatpuppetry, but equally we need to prune this article back to sourced material rather than just reverting. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my feeling as well ... while I'm a hardliner on BLP issues, it would seem a bit more credible if there wasn't the tinge of meatpuppetry, though. Blueboy96 20:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have told Wuggle to come here in my edit summary located here and on his/her talk page. It is pretty obvious meatpuppetry, however Wuggle seems to actually be making edit summaries (therefore probably can/will discuss the issue), while Wikiwoo just blanked the page. --SyntaxError55 ^talk 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Wikiwoo288 has been indef blocked.[41] -- Mark Chovain 21:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont like editing religious articles due to their heated nature. But I just removed two large copyvio sections from Ya-Seen‎. Could others look at the related articles and fix any more copyvios? Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asams10 and 72.81.226.247, who is likely to be an IP sockpuppet of Asams', have been making rude comments towards me in both talk pages and edit summaries. Shouting in all caps, and using vulgarities. Evidence as follows (please note the edit summaries as well),

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalamockq&diff=192331234&oldid=189273077 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XM8_rifle&diff=prev&oldid=193022803 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asams10&diff=prev&oldid=193022725 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malamockq&diff=prev&oldid=192331234 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asams10&diff=prev&oldid=192330859

The IP, 72.81.226.257 has also been edit warring, and removing comments from the XM8 talk page. Comments were identified as vandalism by user:BonesBrigade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=191327883&oldid=191322807 Which the IP reverted in this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=191557434&oldid=191327883 Which was then reverted by user:Alyeska in this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=191707444&oldid=191557434 To which Asams responded rudely with this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=191754023&oldid=191707444 The IP, 72.81.226.257 then made the following edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=192179017&oldid=191754023

The IP 72.81.226.257 has recently created a username User:13Tawaazun14. However both the IP and the new username are suspected to be sockpuppets of Asams10. Malamockq (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you already complain about this, a few days ago? Seems like the simplest solution is for the two of you to ignore each other to whatever extent possible. Friday (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was Asams10. I was unfairly blocked for 31 hours, despite User talk:William M. Connolley's protests. I never yelled, was rude to, or used vulgarities towards Asams10. He did those things to me. I feel he deserves to be blocked for his behavior. Malamockq (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was remembering this and got confused, sorry. Still, I urge you both to ignore each other as much as possible. If he's rude, ignore it. If it gets out of hand and becomes disruptive, it'll be dealt with. Friday (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair that I get banned for 31 hours, when I was never rude or incivil to him, but he can be rude and incivil to me, but nothing happens to him. Malamockq (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if everything were in one place; there's a request for recall of admin User:LessHeard vanU on WP:AN. Makes it difficult to get the full picture. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard was the admin who unfairly blocked me before fully investigating the situation with all parties involved. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Malamockq (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to ignore the edit summaries though, as the parties involved are both editing the same pages - and apparently have differing opinions. However, as far as the talk pages are concerned, just ignore any contact. Don't go out of your way to argue. If it gets out of hand it can be construed as WP:Harassment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest blocking of Asams10. He's a historically tendentious editor, has gross civility, ownership, and disruption problems. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his talk page history, he has a long history of civility issues with other users. Malamockq (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing it again. user:13Tawaazun14, which admits he's a sockpuppet of User:72.81.226.247 made the following comment on the XM8 talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=193753615&oldid=193286214

Basically arguing with another user saying my comments were "forumish", which he already said several times already as User:72.81.226.247

I added a warning to other users saying that he was a sockpuppet of User:72.81.226.247, and possibly a sockpuppet of user:Asams10. Given the context of the problem on that talk page, I felt it was appropriate to warn other users of this. Seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=193773628&oldid=193753615

Asams10 then removed my comment seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=193781521&oldid=193773628

Which I later undid. To which he responded with this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AXM8_rifle&diff=193786571&oldid=193785313 Malamockq (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a legal threat? The IP says that "legal actions [are] pending worldwide" against Couples for Christ (so not against Wikipedia), but he/she also says that the Wikipedia article may have "a legal ramification." Aecis^Brievenbus 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all in the sense of WP:LEGAL. Legal threats against WP / WMF et. al. are one thing, but this is simply a statement of (presumably) fact and should be dealt with per any other talk page input - through discussion. Thanks for noting it however, it is important to. Cheers! Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not WP:LEGAL, but there may be a WP:BLP violation in mentioning the church's founder. Sources should be provided. Marskell (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleging that the article has a "legal ramification" is most certainly intended to have a chilling effect and as such violates WP:NLT. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn has taken dictatorial ownership of the article Dane Rauschenberg, which began as a self-contributed autobiographical article written in violation of WP:COI. The article came to his attention during a proposal to delete it, and now to validate his "inclusionist" philosophy, he is fighting over all common sense to resist any edits to it. His disruptive revisions include: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=193592131, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=193334689, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=190331857, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=189197886, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&diff=prev&oldid=188874943, among others. I have been told that this violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA and other policies. For example, I have tried to remove the birth month and year from the lead paragraph under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays but he keeps adding it back. I add a sentence stating the date the project ended and the amount of funds raised at the date, and include a proper citation, but he keeps deleting it, in order to create the impression that the fund raising goal was more complete by its announced deadline. The subject of the article ran 71 marathons, but his reflex deletions replace that sentence (as a part of a conventional biography) with a list of 5 marathons that are selected for no apparent rhyme or reason. He displays a need to emote and engage in personal attacks rather than discuss the matter at hand -- how to develop a balanced and accurate article. I understand that this article started in a hole because for most of its first year, it was edited exclusively by its subject. But reasonable people should be able to work together to remove the junk and come up with something balanced and objective.

For example, many people do not consider Rauschenberg an "amateur" because his derives his living organizing running events and giving motivational speaches about his running experiences. Mr. Alansohn keeps reinserting that difficult-to-define characterization in the lead paragraph, while I and others believe it should be left out in light of the ambiguity and controversy on the point. I have tried to reason with him and used the article's discussion page, but he leaves personal attacks and insults, rather than objective arguments in reply.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn , this is a recurring problem. Please help. Thanks Runreston (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That RfC is likely stale, though having Burntsauce speaking up for him probably is not a good sign given subsequent events. You might want to consider a new one. I don't see action being taken on the basis of that particular RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The bigger question is why User:Runreston has not been banned as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Racepacket as was the result of The most recent sockpuppet check. Racepacket, together with his earlier sockpuppets User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket), has been joined by Runreston. I do not know what the nature of the monomaniacal obsession is, but some 90% of User:Racepacket's edit history has been dedicated to the Dane Rauschenberg article (and other directly related articles), following directly in the footsteps of Xcstar's edit history, which also topped off at about 90% of his 300 odd edits. It is extremely hard to understand why there was no follow through to ban both User:Runreston and his puppetmaster User:Racepacket, in light of the "likely" finding of the SSP request, but in light of this continued abuse of article and abuse of process, it's well past time to give the both of them the permanent heave ho. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – for now at least. Pgsylv has been banned from the Quebec article and its talk page. Any further edits to the Quebec article or its talk page by Pgsylv will lead to a 24 hour block, with each subsequent block doubling in length. nat.utoronto 23:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This administrator initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman and he just protected the page claiming "POV pushing IPs breaking BLP". The only claim to so-called POV pushing is [48]. Not only do I disagree with his characterization (I'm not the person who made said comments) but I don't believe that an administrator with an interest in the discussion should be protecting the page and I ask that it be reversed so that it may again be open to the full community. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a political bio in an election cycle. I SEMI protected it after IP rants about who had sex with McCain and the usual boring stuff about "the truth". IP and new users are normally discounted anyway, so this is fairly routine. Given that it is a BLP, and the the deletion concerns BLP, we err on the side of caution. There's no way this will affect the outcome either way, so I can't see any problem.--Doc^g 22:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if there is a BLP concern, I cannot say I'm bothered who protects it as long as they are open to their decision being reviewed by others - protection is something that can be removed in a click and I perfer that to BLP issues - others may disagree. I don't see anything here (from a quick skim of relevant posts) but Doc acting in the interests of protecting the project. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"IP and new users are normally discounted anyway..." ← No reason for this attitude if AFD isn't a vote to begin with (of course, the nature of AFD has long been a matter of dispute). — CharlotteWebb 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Doc G - WP:BITE. That comment is unbecoming of you. Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"IP and new users are normally discounted anyway..." Unbelievably frustrating. What project do you think you are on? Change your attitude and strike please. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<takes further look> Nope - still just see a hard working admin protecting the project and removing some BLP related material full of inference and entirely NOT relevant to a AFD discussion. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize it was common and accepted practice to semi-protect AfD pages where there is no vandalism or where two contested BLP issues could be easily handled by reverting.. Nor did I realize semi-protection was useful to protect from "boring stuff". And I naively thought that the admins creator, an interested party, should have requested semi-prot from another admins. I stand corrected. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you complaining that Doc protected the page and not someone else at his request or that we should wait for BLP problems to get really bad before we consider semi-protecting a non-article page? Mr.Z-man 23:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that article even at AFD? Clearly a non-notable subject. The press will forget her in a few days and I think we should do the same. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an uninvolved admins to avoid the appearance of restricting the vote by an involved party. I disagree there were BLP problems -- the WP:SPA used statements sourcable from the New York Times article. And, yes, if there are only one or two problems, then reversion strikes me as less drastic then semi-protect. But, again, I was not aware that it was common practice to semi-prot AfD without rampant problems. I have learned something. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh semi protecting an XFD is never good but there have been a handful of cases where there were a shortage of other options.Geni 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in this case? I would argue that a) it didn't rise to that level and b) determination should have been made by an uninvolved editor for the sake of appearances. The cause was one possible BLP problem. The effect was to restrict voting. ∴ Therefore | talk 01:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We generally try to avoid pointless process for the sake of appearance. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This however is neither pointless not mearly for the sake of appearence. AFD has to be open to all comers otherwise it cannont really work.Geni 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To z-man: I was under the belief via WP:ADMIN that conflict-of-interest was taken seriously. "With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Was this one of those specific exceptions? The posting of one BLP, arguably not the case? ∴ Therefore | talk 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be taken seriously. There is never an emergency for something like AfDs, where many admins watch, and there are 1400 other admins besides Doc. The applicability of BLP{ to this article is exactly what the AfD is discussing. So if he had asked me, I'd have told him I was not neutral either, as I dont think BLP applies here in the first place, and had said so. However, I see no need for semi-protection--there have been AfDs where the burden of ips is so great that it might be necessary, but this was not reasonably one of them. The need for an outside uninvolved person to give perspective is why the rule exists. I often support doc, but he made a mistake this time. I'd forgive him, but it still needs to be made clear this was a mistake. DGG (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feh. The !votes of anons are routinely disregarded anyway, and having anons adding libellous material to an AfD is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit. Doc did the right thing: let members of the Wikipedia community debate the subject without the inflammatory input of people who are here only to promote an agenda. WP:BLP is important and urgent, fixing it is more important than some vacuous notion of applying "proper process" to obvious abuse. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no attempt (nor probability) that my action would influence the result, I can't unless people are assuming bad faith, see any problem here. I really am struggling to see any issue at all, except for some legalistic process nonsense. I'd certainly do the same thing again without hesitation. This is a non-issue for me.--Doc^g 12:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – this is not the Wikipedia complaints department.

I know that he's an administrator and all, but so far as the discussion is concerned, he seems to have something hostile to say to anyone who disagrees with him. To his credit, I've seen no evidence that he's trying to "hide behind the badge", but he's made 20 or so comments on this discussion, many of them uncalled for. Perhaps we all need a trip to the woodshed. Mandsford (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of his comments seem to be uncivil, and as you said, there is no abuse of admin tools. Its also customary to bring issues up on users' talk pages before coming here. AFD is a discussion after all. Mr.Z-man 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response from accused - This is a frivolous report. By the idiom trip to the woodshed, Mandsford is asking for a reprimand or punishment to be administered. This all seems to stem from a sensitivity to the word "naive" in a remark I made in reply to Mandsford. Perhaps Mandsford and I come from different parts of the English-speaking world, and our understanding of the term "naive", and its social implications, might be different. First of all I did not say that Mandsford was naive. I said that the statement Mandsford made was naive. There is a big difference between those two phrases. In the former, I would have been making a personal remark about Mandsford and Mandsford's experience. In the latter (the one I did actually say) I was referring only to the statement that Mandsford made. Even a highly sophistocated, experienced and intelligent person can make an intentionally-naive statement for a variety of reasons. In the sense that I used it, naive means "deficient in informed judgment", and refers to the fact that Mandsford's statement appeared to neglect all of the options available to editors who wish to create an article after one has been deleted. I elucidated these options in my statement. Mandsford was referring to the deletion process as being one-sided, and implied that keep closures were temporary and delete closures were permanent. I thought that the statement Mandsford made was in that way, naive. I believe that any review of my conduct in this AfD should include a review of Mandsford's as well. In particular when I asked another editor to cease with his/her bad faith remaks, and the user did stop, Mandsford jumped in and trolled me with "(username) might be reluctant to respond to that, but I'm not. You don't seem to have a problem with ridiculing persons who disagree with you..." To which I replied with the phrase "Right on, man". This reply meant "I am not going to bother with you over that." Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having an opposing opinion in it self is not a violation of WP:CIVIL, nor does it seem there are signs of Disruptive editing that would need administrator intervention.--Hu12 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

constant reinserting of "Band Queer" for no apparent reason other than to offend. 203.68.89.122 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide us with more information, such as the page or any diffs? seicer | talk | contribs 23:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a term from a list because its vulgar or offensive is vandalism, Wikipedia is not censured. The addition of the term doesn't appear to be vandalism, especially when considering that BQZip01 who is adding the term back worked in taking that band's article to FA, if you don't want the term there then you should discuss it and gain a consenus on the list's talk page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one revert for a "vulgar" term does not deserve to be posted at ANI. Also note that Wikipedia is not censored and that at List of Texas Aggie terms#B, there is a plausible reason for the term Band Queer. seicer | talk | contribs 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you will look at the history of BQ, you will find a lot of recent vandalism by numerous IPs from around the world (TOR accounts) and a few from Deleware & Maryland...but few edits other than those to articles which I edited. This person appears to have a vendetta against me and is reverting wholesale any articles in which I contributed. Given the edit pattern, I doubt you will see this IP address ever again. Assistance requested at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TomPhan. Any additional help/advice is requested. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into this fellow removing large sections of French invasion of Russia when asked to explain things went down hill fast. Apparently he has decided that I shouldn't be allowed to edit this page and its getting personal. I've requested a few time to cease communication to me or about me and it just keeps getting worse. Its all over both of our talk pages and on the talk pages of French invasion of Russia as well. I am thinking about taking a wiki break for a few days but rather resent someone trying to get me to cease editing. --Tirronan (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, I removed a section of unreferenced text which did not have any sources, and if I may point out that Tirronan has done the exact same thing for the exact same reason here in the Battle of Borodino http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borodino&diff=190771476&oldid=190423773 as you can see he gave the reason "(Reverting uncited change, before adding information bring up the change on the talk page with your proof.{rv}IP address vandalism”Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borodino&diff=192104061&oldid=192070965 which he gave the reason “Multiple changes by IP addresses without a single citation, please do not add or change facts without citation”Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if Tirronan removes unreferenced materiel that is ok but if others do it is not allowedWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I did respond to it, but he refuses to continue any conversation. Not only did I respond to the removed section I gave a source which proved it wrong which he also ignoredWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no I have no personal grudge against anyone but I find it amusing to see that most if not all of my responses were completely ignored by him whilst I answered everyone one of his Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he has stopped adding that specific paragraph now and all of his recent edits have been mostly good and backed up by a source, possibly he has just copied this new text directly from a book without rewriting it but that is a different story Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am willing to forget this whole thing as long as he keeps the specific, unreferenced and proven wrong, paragraph out and does not use pov wordingWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I however have had enough, I had an IP address making changes to the results box and reverted it. This is done every day for the same reasons. When you reverted a paragraph you reverted much more than that and kept it up removing cited and ^{[citation needed]} tags without citation which is what I was objecting to. Further I didn't write that objectionable paragraph nor did I approve of it. Stating the weather is POV then my vericity despite citation then claiming I was a lying and furthered by multiple charges of plagerisem and other acts. I am a fairly well regarded editor and I have little tolerance for this childish behavior. I am only interested in making history articles better and have never attempted to do more than that. Unless you have something constructive to add to the article I simply do not wish any further communication from you at all. --Tirronan (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no interest in the specific paragraph then how do you explain this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_invasion_of_Russia&diff=190767120&oldid=190315816Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no interest in that paragraph, though in fact it is right and sections above it in fact give citation on whoever wrote it earlier. After reading that and other statements however I began rewriting the entire thing because in fact I agreed that it needed a more specific rewrite with citation. That you attempted to interfer in my editing is what got me upset. I repeat I didn't write it but it is in fact correct. If you read the logistics sections it even speaks directly to that section. Now understand this, anybody on wiki can and will edit your work and mine too. But it better be a good edit and ready to stand a challenge. Your behavior didn't lend itself to that and if you can't stand your edits be reverted this then make sure you have good reason to cite for it and all this would have been avoided. In history articles it isn't about what your or my opinions are, it is what is supported by fact as documented in reliable verifiable histories. I don't care one wit who won or lost but I do care that it is accurate and provable. None of this should ever be personal and my reversions are not attacks on you nor ever were intended to be. If you want to get along here be then understand what someone is trying to tell you and don't take it personally. Now let this be and I am going to continue to fix that article and get it right. --Tirronan (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong and I proved it wrong with the link but you reverted anyway, I also proved that you did reinstall it without any sources and that you did remove sections from other texts that were unreferenced (Battle of Borodino) and in fact the section is wrong which I have so clearly explained on the appropriate discussion page that it is wrong and why it is wrong and a source proving that it is wrong. And my behavior? It is you and you alone who have refused to have a discussion I have replied to ALL your comments whilst you have ignored ALL my comments so it is YOUR behavior that is wrong just as the section is wrong and this could have been avoided if you would have stopped installing unreferenced text which I proved on the discussion page was wrong with a source. As long as this unreferenced and totally bogus text is not installed and other equally bogus and unreferenced texts are not installed then I will be most happy Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so there we have it, you can't be wrong and I am not right regardless of fact. Now let me make this very clear, I am done with this argument. I don't wish further communications with you and I will edit as I see fit by how I understand the rules. That is it, no more discussion. Go pester someone else ok? Bye bye now... Tirronan (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Three IPs from different ranges blank it within 2 minutes of eachother...Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like five. I have semi-protected for an hour. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally protect-conflicted. :P Though, it helps to indef protect, else both the semi AND the move will expire at the same time, so I'll just manually bump the protection down myself, or another admin can see to it. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Admin attention not required

Hi all, I have recently run into a number of "secret" pages and wondered about this practice within wikipedia. Here are a few examples: [51],[52] and [53]. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, they're just fun little things people put in their user space to see if people know how to use Special:Prefixindex. Usually they have guestbooks or something myspace-y in them, but are usually harmless and generally serve to help people discover how to use special pages. --slakr^\ talk / 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nough. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we leave those up..because that is very unfair?Rgoodermote  00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't remove them. Posting links to secret pages is not something so extreme as to refactor someone elses' comment. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair to whom? People seeking these will not use this noticeboard to find them...but honestly, I don't care...take them down if you feel it is important. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as user subpages go. harmless.Geni 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive got one (secret link on userpage) but i goes to my sandbox. LOL. these are generaly harmless--Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG, overuse of buffalo!. Balete it! — Save_Us † 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking around, I already know if the user who owned those pages thought it a concern the links would have been long gone. Anyways I think this entire discussion is over and the issue resolved...well if there are anymore questions from the user. Rgoodermote  01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – no sysop action needed here.

This user is posting to user pages 1 diff 2 diff 3 whose pages are up for deletion to transwiki their article. I'm not sure this isn't proper, but I wasn't sure it was right either, so I thought it prudent to bring it up here. FWIW it has been brought up on the user's talk page TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheYellowCabin (talk · contribs) has 181 edits total, 151 of them to User Talk pages -- the vast majority soliciting for another website -- and none to article space. Garden-variety spammer. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that, just that he had three on my watchlist from users I'd notified of an article up for AfD TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the user that farther edits of this type will result in an indef block of the account for spamming and advertising [55]. If these edits start again, feel free to report it here. « Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who makes nonsense and made-up changes to Transformers characters is back again, now using the anonymous IP address 74.46.211.45. I reverted his work, but I thought I'd mention it for the purpose of watching him to ban him when he does more vandalism. It's the same sort of changes made from 2 or 3 other anonymous IPs that got banned over the last few months. Always making up fake episodes and characters for the Transformers TV series and toy line articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any sources for your outlandish claims? Smith Jones (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones, please be polite and don't bite people. Matt, is there a previous discussion on this guy somewhere for comparison? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for instance, this guy keeps adding an episode called "Contageous Slobber" to the Transformers: Animated page. This is the same episode added by the last two anonymous IPs he used, and it's not on the list of official episodes, and seems to be made up. He also made up a fake Transformers: Universe Megatron figure a few days ago, and added a voice actor to the Transformers Hardtop character, a character who didn't appear in the animated series (he was a toy, but didn't make it into the TV show). How do you have a voice actor for a character that wasn't in the tv series? On the Hot Shot (Transformers) page he made up a toy line called Transformers: Nebulon, something that didn't exist. This page banned the last two anonymous IPs he used a few weeks back. You can look through the archives for a Transformers vandal. For instance, he used to make edits from 74.46.211.155 got it blocked a few weeks ago Mathewignash (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "nebulon toys" returns this hit, which has information about a blue nebulon. As well ass 3695 (I'm not kidding) other toys. Please sweet Jeebus don't create a page for each one. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are toys called Nebulons in the Transformers toy line, but he's claiming there was a series called "Transformers: Nebulon", which is just his demented mind. It's like saying there was a TV series called "Star Trek: Tribbles" or something. Yes, Tribbles are in Star Trek, but they didn't have their own TV series. He just makes characters, episodes and series up willy nilly, usually using words that sound official. It's the hardest king of vandalism to spot, because unless you know the subject he's talking about, it sounds possible, but it seems he makes up things just to make Wikipedia look inaccurate Mathewignash (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I should declare that I'm a deletionist and I would allow Transformers to have about 8 kB in WP) Are you sure he's not just saying there is a range of toys in the nebulan faction? In which case "transformers: nebulan" seems sensible. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the intentions of the relevant edit are debatable, the fact that he replaces names en masse without making any alteration to the context is extremely worrisome. Combine that with his apparent nature as a multiply blocked returning user, his lack of response to talk page messages, and the extensive nature of these sorts of edits, I'd support his block at this point even without really knowing anything about the Transformers (I saw the movie...) Someguy1221 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure he's just sabotaging. He goes on kicks, doing things like making up fake voice actors for animation characters, or changing series around, or assigning alt-modes for transforming characters that are completely wrong, and simply doing it because most people who don't know the source material wouldn't know it's a line of BS. You can argue how much space on WP should be used by Transformers articles, but I don't think you can argue that the articles that do exist should be accurate and not full of intentional pranks. If I change the Mister Spock article to say he was played by William Shatner and was the communications officer on the Starship Excelsior, someone who didn't know Star Trek might not notice either. This is what he's been doing. You may also notice I wasn't the only person to make vandalization warnings to this IP today. Feel free to ask the other guy who notified him about the last edit he made. Mathewignash (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone repeatedly adds hoax information to articles, they should be blocked. As Mathewignash noted, this can be the worst kind of vandalism, since only someone familiar with the subject matter would be able to spot it. *** Crotalus *** 12:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed yesterday that several articles I started were deleted on the evening of December 19 2007.

All three were deleted by the same admin. I asked that admin to tell me where the deletion of these articles was proposed and discussed. I asked that admin to restore those three articles to my user space, so I could consider whether I could address whatever concern first triggered their nomination for deletion.

Today I learned that they hadn't deleted those three articles in a single session. They had deleted eight articles in a single session.

I know we are all supposed to assume good faith. These eight articles were all related to the "war on terror" -- controversial topics. Reasonable people can disagree about these topics. Now my understanding is that the wikipedia's decision-making should be open and transparent, and aim to be based on civil, reasoned discussion and consensus-based decision-making.

I know administrators have the authority to delete certain kinds of articles, on sight. Patent nonsense for instance. But should administrators unilaterally delete articles based on reasoning on which reasonable people could disagree?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking quickly at these articles, notability was not alleged for the first seven, and the last was redirected to a different spelling. My take is that although those detained at Guantanamo may be notable as a group, individually they do not deserve their own articles without further properly-sourced detail, because they are not necessarily inherently notable. I'd just ask whether you saw that these articles had been tagged for deletion, and if so, whether you put a {{hangon}} tag on as advised? Even so, that's no guarantee against deletion, and it may be better to build the article, with sources, in a sandbox before moving it to the article space. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking quickly at these articles, notability was not alleged for the first seven, and the last was redirected to a different spelling. My take is that although those detained at Guantanamo may be notable as a group, individually they do not deserve their own articles without further properly-sourced detail, because they are not necessarily inherently notable. I'd just ask whether you saw that these articles had been tagged for deletion, and if so, whether you put a {{hangon}} tag on as advised? Even so, that's no guarantee against deletion, and it may be better to build the article, with sources, in a sandbox before moving it to the article space. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles if you would like to recover the articles for rework. Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not gotten them yet, let me know, but I think the deletion as speedy was unjustified altogether as it should have been realised that the deletions would not be uncontroversial, and the articles were sourced. But the practical course, is to get them back, strengthen them somewhat, and reintroduce them. DGG (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, deletion is uncontroversial. There was absolutely no claim of notability in the deleted content I just checked, and notability is, by common consent, not inherited or contagious. Wikipedia is no more a directory of Gitmo detainess than it is a directory of anything else. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except of French villages, of course. rudra (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Red Fox for some time, mostly around feral foxes in Australia. An anon editor has recently been adding information regarding the introduction of foxes into Tasmania. He/she appears to have a POV that the introductions did not take place, which is fine, and has been editing it to that effect, but mostly with unsourced or inappropriately sourced material. Today he did edit it with a source, I re-wrote his edit to more accurately reflect the source. Just a little while ago my place of work received a phone call from a "Dr Wickem" that if I did not stop editing his edits, he would sue me. Apparently he did this in quite a threatening manner, which upset the young girl who took his call. I realise he has no grounds to sue, and there is little that can be done about it, especially as he edits as an anon, and his server seems to change. However I thought I better bring it to your collective attention. I guess it is just a hazard of editing under your own name. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is/are the Ip addresses used by the POV adder?--Jac16888 (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two latest ones are 124.180.68.123 and 124.180.11.229 --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP's are not for any institution, which is a shame, means we can't report them to superiors/teachers/etc, and since the legal threat was off-wiki, there's little that can be done here, just ignore it, chances of actually being sued are slim to zero, and even if you are, then unless the australian legal system is really fucked up, which i'm pretty sure its not, theres little chance of them winning, if it even goes to court. If the calls continue, you could consider calling the police i.e. harrasment.--Jac16888 (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Dr Wickem" has released his edits under the GFDL so if you are contacted again you could remind him that you are free to do whatever you like to "his edits". Also point out that at the bottom of the editing page on Wikipedia it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (emphasis not mine) so he was not tricked into this. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything we can do except block him (for legal threats) if the person behind an IP address identifies as him. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the anon may be a BigPond user as 124.180.x.x (which is within the range 124.176.0.0 - 124.191.255.255) is owned by Telestra, which operates BigPond, one of the larger ISPs in Australia. If you point them to the history of Red Fox, they may be able to determine who it was and deal with them, though you should contact them quickly in case they don't keep their logs for very long. This person's actions are likely against the BigPond Terms of Use (specifically the section titled "What you must not do"). See here and here for whois info on the IPs this guy has used. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could some uninvolved admins take a look at this? I reported this as a violation at WP:UAA but it was declined by Rudget. In my opinion, the use of the username "The Community" serves to misleadingly imply an authority the user doesn't have, especially given the stated purpose of the account, which you can read about at User talk:The Community and User:The Community. Mangojuice^talk 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not admin but I suggest going to User:AbdRgoodermote  03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a role account, isn't there only 1 of those, and that one's explicitly permitted by the Foundation? I'd suggest following the example of User:Oversight and pointing it as a redirect to Wikipedia:Community Portal and resetting the email address to either none or the foundation. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account, given that no mandate is evident that this role should exist. This does not mean that the discussion isn't interesting, mind you. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support block as a role account: the user page bends over backwards to state that the account will only be operated by one person at a time, likely to avoid being labeled a role account, but it specifically exists to act on behalf of multiple individuals, which amounts to the same thing. There's also the fact that the user page states the account may change hands in the future (if 'The Community' decides it's appropriate) - I can't cite a policy, but I'm pretty sure that's also a no-no. Honestly, it looks a lot like an excuse for the editor to refer to himself in the third person as 'The Community'. -- Vary | Talk 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, at this point, it may be safely presumed that Abd's intent is entirely benign. I do think it's too early to make any such account given that no consensus exists that this is desirable or workable. (I've also annotated the user page to that effect). — Coren ^(talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an interesting concept, though I agree, it's relatively unworkable. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is unworkable if administrators act to crush it before it utters a peep. I'm a bit surprised by the extremity of the wikidrama of the last day:

• a virtual RFC on the Village Pump Policy page, rapidly closed.[56]
• an SSP report filed, sufficiently egregious that an administrator deleted it,[57]
• a totally unnecessary checkuser case confirming the obvious,
• a legitimate sock indef blocked apparently for insulting the administrator who blocked him,
• and then older, unused accounts of the same user blocked by another administrator involved in dispute with that user,
• an AfD on Delegable proxy bringing up the irrelevant wikidrama above,
• an MfD for WP:PRX, created two weeks ago, and hardly even considered, tagged Rejected without broad comment or lapse of time, and then, contrary to usual practice for rejected proposals, actually to be deleted, making it obvious that somebody -- and obviously more than one person -- really doesn't want these ideas to be considered and tested,
• and now, this ANI report, made without notice to me, (Thanks to [[User:Rgoodermote|] and a block with no sign of problem editing or misrepresentation or any kind of emergency.

Because, in due time, all this will go before dispute resolution, I'd urge all players to be careful. In spite of The Community (i.e., me, logged in as such) having committed only one edit creating the user page with tight proposed rules for that user, which should certainly be read carefully, and without any warning or process, Coren has now blocked The Community. I think when I wrote that user page, I had not researched role accounts, or I wouldn't have written about giving up the account at the request of the community, but ... because the document specified a community decision as a requirement for transfer of ownership, no policy violation was involved (and The Community, as a user, would not take a contentious action, i.e., contrary to consensus). This was not a multiple login account, the meaning of "role account." See [58]. No, I don't refer to myself as "The Community," unless I'm wearing that hat, and I'm not authorized to put it on except provisionally (i.e., in advance of authorization solely for the purpose of facilitating such), and in which case I would not be expressing my own opinions at all. I have not been blocked, The Community has been blocked. Improperly. Let's see if the actual community agrees, through WP:DR, which should have been conducted beginning with discussion of disagreements before filing ANI reports, etc. I'm not going to skip any steps; but others have been moving so quickly here that they are skipping steps. It's all for the best, I'm sure. I'll come back with diffs for claims above.--Abd (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that it is entirely unneeded to have the "The Community" moniker and the pseudo title of the 'community secretary'. My understanding is that this account is supposed to act as 'the community of Wikipedia' would. Why is that nessecary at all? To make a visual representation of 'the community', so actions will seem more justified than claiming a consensus was made somewhere and a editor making the change that was decided? Seems like nonsense and the very reason WP:BOLD exists. Editors shouldn't make contentious edits if they know they go against the general view of the community. If an action is backed with consensus, there really is no need for a single account to represent the community in making an action. Editors should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be page moving, removing content, protection, deletion, etc. and I feel a user who would be called "The Community" makes users actions become less accountable since "The Community" did it. — Save_Us † 09:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a joke? User:The Community should read WP:SEI. We have no bosses and no secretaries! Igor Berger (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note that Igorberger was asked and agreed here at WP:SEI maybe WP:MFD not to add blatant spam links to his joke page WP:SEI as a continuing stream of addition to ANI threads. A check of Igorberger's history will reveal other editor's concerns over this addition which does not help these threads at all. His addition of these spam links had stopped for some time because he went on holidays but he appears to have returned to with the view that his agreement is not important anymore?--VS ^talk 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VirtualSteve I compared User:The Community as a joke to the sarcasm of WP:SEI. Igor Berger (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bostonjj (talk · contribs) (and probable sock Bostonasia (talk · contribs)) has been requested six times [59][60][61][62][63][64] to add new talk page comments at the bottom of sections instead of at the top, and to sign his posts. He continues [65][66][67] to refuse to follow this practise. This in addition to making factually-suspect edits, like claiming that there are 108 million people of Korean descent in Northeast China [68][69] (the entire population of North + South Korea is 72 million, and of Manchu people only 10.68 million), and personally attacking [70][71] other users. He never responds when asked to provide sources for any of his claims. A block might be overkill (me and SineBot are the only ones who have complained to him so far), but I don't know what other measures can get this editor's attention as he doesn't seem to read his talk page and he can't be reached by e-mail [72][73], which is why I'm bringing this here. cab (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Anyone else had this problem? Sinebot is signing my comments even though I signed them. [74] followed by [75] ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it happen to a couple people, who have the same thing in common with your signature: [[:en:User:Casliber|Casliber]] (the :en: at the beginning). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you left a note with User:Slakr? He may not even know that its doing that and be able to fix it. Tiptoety ^talk 05:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it's the interwiki signature that it's not programmed to handle. It's already been reported and it'll be fixed. In the future, please read the bot's user page, view the bot's talk page, contact the bot's owner, and then come here if all else fails. :P --slakr^\ talk / 06:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and if it's bugging you, for now you can use {{NoAutosign}} (as is said on the bot's user page). --slakr^\ talk / 06:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Has Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive371#User Crum meat puppeting at LAYOUT been deleted or archived/ I cannot find that there thread thread anymore. Huh? Newbyguesses - Talk 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong archive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#Crum375 meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT or [76]. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This user has an external link on his talk page which does something quite unpleasant. It starts a music video which refuses to go back to Wikipedia, stop or close - I had to use Ctrl-Alt-Del on it in the end. It also jumps all over the screen. Even though this is on the users own talk page, I feel that it is not useful or Wiki related and should be removed, especially as it is the only thing on the page (or at least it was until a message turned up today). The users short contribution history contains no useful edits; it is all trolling, vandalism or otherwise unhelpful, although he has had no warnings for these (unless you count the message from his "friend" User:Penfish). SpinningSpark 07:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Removed and given a final warning for vandalism for the user's recent edits. --slakr^\ talk / 08:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit I inadvertently made to the archive. Should I pull the whole thing back here or file a new report? I'm really not sure how to proceed here but we could use some help in the midst of a sock/meat/disruptive/AGF/NPA/AfD, issue that seems to be blowing up. I don't know whether a checkuser request is the best approach. I'm hoping we can declare a standstill (and possible protection for the articles and speedy close on the AfD) for J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California while we sort out the sockpuppetry issue. Wikidemo (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this archiving by User:Black Kite acceotable? User:MickMacNee added his post at 22:21, 24 February 2008, and four minutes later Black Kite removed it with the edit summary "archived to WP:AN/B". MickMacNee then undid Black Kite's attempted archiving. However, as I've stated here and here, I think there were legitimate concerns and that there needs to be restraint shown by those who want to push everything towards that page, as quite frankly, some genuine concerns will start to get lost in the noise over there. Please note that this is not about the edit war (which Black Kite dealt with well), but about the archiving of complaints and the contribs from Betacommand through his alternate account (the diffs I highlighted). Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was concerned that MickMacNee, having already been warned in the thread above by a number of users - including myself - about creating spurious AN/I postings, had created yet another, especially when his comment could either have been added to the thread that was already on this page or to a page that had been created for such discussion. I believed his editing was starting to edge towards the tendentious, especially when he'd just been warned about participating in an edit war during which he reached 6RR. Black Kite 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page you mention, WP:AN/B, may indeed have been created for such discussions, but it is clear here that Betacommand and MickMacNee are not disengaging, and that the differences between them are beginning to obscure legitimate concerns. Too much centralising can lead to stuff being lost in the noise. I feel people are no longer following WP:AN/B and are missing issues that need to be raised here. For this reason, I am starting a new section to address that, and I'd appreciate it if links are left here, instead of sections being archived with no link left. Carcharoth (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds reasonable enough to me. Black Kite 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I specifically asked for that previous thread to NOT be archived, and got a fair bit of support for NOT archiving, but some admin archived it anyways. GG, admin, cause I saw this thinking coming, and said it at the time. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked by MBisanz

Would an admin please drop by Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thileepanmathivanan and block the confirmed socks at the bottom of the page (there are 2 of them)? Alison confirmed them yesterday but they still need blocking. No drama or sexy disputes here, just boring admin work! EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Sikol99 and Roti99? Tonywalton ^Talk 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's the two she confirmed yesterday. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done MBisanz ^talk 10:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! Flagging as resolved. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone more experienced please have a look at what this ip is doing? They are emptying lots of sock-puppet categories and nominating them for deletion I don't know if it's constructive or not, but it looks a bit strange to me. Ascidian (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could some uninvolved admins and editors have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Conflict between Betacommand and MickMacNee and give their opinon? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]